[Free Article] Vintage Avante Guarde - Vintage Bant at Meandeck Open

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

No one has posted a link to Brian's article this week.  It's really got some surprises in it IMO.  Find out what crazy unconventional cards he talks about here: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/23398_Vintage_AvantGarde_8th_At_Meandeck_Open_With_Bant_Midrange_Stoneblade.html

Peace,

-Troy

[dicemanx]

Always enjoy reading articles that try to break new ground! I was wondering whether we'd actually see GSZ in vintage, and whether Sylvan Library has been an overlooked card. The deck in the article is the type of deck I wouldn't mind trying out in an event.

I'm still puzzled though why that blight upon the format, Dredge in its current iteration, is permitted to persist. It reminds me of the time when we were arguing for Trinishpere's restriction; the key points made in favor of restricting Trinisphere at that time completely apply to nerfing Dredge (and I would consider Dredge to be 10 times worse in the current format than 4 Trini Shop deck were back then).

[Troy_Costisick]

Always enjoy reading articles that try to break new ground! I was wondering whether we'd actually see GSZ in vintage, and whether Sylvan Library has been an overlooked card. The deck in the article is the type of deck I wouldn't mind trying out in an event.

I have to hand Brian a lot of credit.  It is pretty cool, IMHO, that he used such unconventional cards in his deck.  Sylvan Library hasn't been used in years!  I always had a fondness for the card, but haven't played with one in years.  I understand that it's starting to see some play in Legacy decks too.

[Womba]

While I once again disagree with his thoughts about Dredge, I found this a very nice read.

[disrupting specter]

Brian DeMars needs stop abusing his SCG writer position as a tool to campaign against Dredge in general and Bazaar of Baghdad in particular. One article was too much. Two is unacceptable.

[Onslaught]

Awesome deck, but running something awful like Scavenging Ooze in the sideboard and complaining it wasn't enough to beat Dredge is weird. Surgical Extraction in combination with Snapcasters (even with just x2) is really good against Dredge, and it is useful in many non-Dredge matchups. It seems like those would be significantly better than stuff like Relic of Progenitus in this deck.

I love this deck though, it seriously feels like you can play almost anything you want in Vintage right now.

[nataz]

@Brian

I still don't understand your fascination with beating or having a significant edge on everything. GW brews have a great game against Workshop decks, and traditionally have been dogs to dredge. That's just the way it is. Then to make things worse, you have this shitty (and admittedly untested sb) against dredge.

I've seen you play before. You are very good magic player. Because of this, I have no doubt that you will continue to do well.

That said, you are l-a-z-y when it comes to vintage. You don't test, you are playing a deck you built the night before, and you continue to ignore the dredge match up. I'm so over you whining about dredge when you A) aren't willing to design around it, and B) don't playtest the match-up anyways.

I'm glad you are are writing about vintage on SCG's, but its frustrating to see someone with so much proven potential as a deck builder and as a voice for the community squander it on silly rants.

  

[Smmenen]

Brian, your skills as a column writer continue to grow, and this was a joy.  But I share the reservations about your remarks concerning Dredge.   I think your article -- sans those remarks -- is a great selling point for the format.   

[Twaun007]

Great article Brian.... I always enjoy seeing new Demarsian technology at work on the vintage battlefield.

Brian DeMars needs stop abusing his SCG writer position as a tool to campaign against Dredge in general and Bazaar of Baghdad in particular.

I rarely get to talk to Demars anymore, but he made an excellent point about Dredge and the use of Bazaar of Baghdad in the deck. When we were discussing the archetype Brian suggested that Bazaar, in dredge, basically plays as a 0cc card that has Suspend 2, win the game. I sat and pondered over his description of Bazaar of Baghdad and realized it made a lot of sense.

Think about it... No other single card provides Bazaar's ability at the investment of just a land drop in any other archetype. Even Workshops don't mulligan that aggressively to find Mishra's Workshop.

Believe me, I don't want to see Bazaar restricted.... Certain cards around it just make it uber broken in the dredge archetype.  

[Womba]

Brian DeMars needs stop abusing his SCG writer position as a tool to campaign against Dredge in general and Bazaar of Baghdad in particular.

I rarely get to talk to Demars anymore, but he made an excellent point about Dredge and the use of Bazaar of Baghdad in the deck. When we were discussing the archetype Brian suggested that Bazaar, in dredge, basically plays as a 0cc card that has Suspend 2, win the game. I sat and pondered over his description of Bazaar of Baghdad and realized it made a lot of sense.

Think about it... No other single card provides Bazaar's ability at the investment of just a land drop in any other archetype. Even Workshops don't mulligan that aggressively to find Mishra's Workshop.

Believe me, I don't want to see Bazaar restricted.... Certain cards around it just make it uber broken in the dredge archetype.  

I have to disagree here. When you are playing VERY suboptimal Dredge hate for the deck he was playing there is no reason to cry about it. He deserved to be punished because he chose poorly for Dredge hate. It seems to be he doesn't want to learn the matchup at all and rather just have the deck die. I don't get it really, if you notice the results within the NE US corridor the numbers are astonishing. Twice we have seen Dredge take four out of eight spots for a Top 8 with BOTH resulting in ZERO finals appearances for the deck. I think it’s one part ignorance and one part hatred when it comes to people’s overall thoughts on the deck. Not to mention the fact he is playing a deck that is a big underdog to Dredge already. Brian's Bant deck is good and can beat Dredge, just last night I was testing it with Ravenous Trap and Surgical Extraction, two KEY cards if you are playing as a GW/x deck and found myself able to contain Dredge.

Again it just goes back to people’s laziness and unwillingness to prepare and play the correct cards CORRECTLY against Dredge.

[nataz]

Brian suggested that Bazaar, in dredge, basically plays as a 0cc card that has Suspend 2, win the game.

that is pure unadulterated horse crap.

Both you and Brian are smarter than that.

And that's why his articles are frustrating. I'll buy not "fun", because fun is subjective, but 0cc and win the game is leagues away from reality.

[Worldslayer]

The decklist was actually a great call for the shop heavy envrionment I hear exists at these - and you're completely correct on Greyskull's dominance in workshop matchups. The thing is just a house, and stoneforge is something I wouldn't mind 4x-ing in a tournament I knew to be filled with robots.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to beat the dead horse and say that the dredge rants detract from the article more than they add. The "fish" decks are simply an underdog, due to the best card against the deck (llotv) being off-color and unsplashable. Usually leyline + misstep shuts the door on dredge entirely and how you actually win from there is sort of irrelevant. What you did here, though, was walk into a standard tournament without Timely Reinforcements, make a token effort towards the matchup with White Sun's Passage, then get mad when rdw beat you.

Rdw is actually probably the closest comparison to dredge for nonvintage decks I can envision: it theoretically only wins when it's been "hated out" and forgotten about as a contender, and people grow lax in their boarding against it. Does it suck having to dedicate 6-7 slots of your sb to dredge anytime you're not playing hypercombo? Yes. It also sucks having to dedicate 4-7 slots for sweepers and blockers and lifegain against rdw in noneternal magic. Neither deck interacts with its opponent much, and many of your md cards in both matchups are just stone cold blanks. Both decks, however, falter against any opponent that gives them the respect they deserve and has a functional gameplan post-sb. Both decks keep the rest of the format "honest" in that you can't completely inbreed your list to just fight the control/ramp/combo/tier 1 or else you'll get rolled by the tier 2 gimmicks. Blue bell results of the past indicate any amount of proper testing usually makes dredge an unfavorable position, I think: at any given one of these I usually saw ~3+ dredge and they were almost never in the "getting top 8" bracket. I could be wrong, but my impression has always been that bringing zombies to the northeast is a good way to get the door slammed on you 9 times out of 10.

Overall it was a good article, I like the decklist a lot and have been MWSing it with a few changes, but I'm sorry: dredge isn't banworthy, and I'm afraid that part of the article locked in more focus than the rest, which is unfortunate. I look forward to continue reading, and seeing if the recent trend of "put dumb blue stuff together with fishy dudes" trend continues (restricted+delver/remoragoyf, midrange bant, etc). Congratulations on the top 8!

[voltron00x]

The beginning of this article talked about two key concepts I'm pretty sure I played a key role in this year (Rune-Scarred Demon Oath and Gush/Remora with creature beats), so that was cool I guess, and then of course the expected hyperbole re: Dredge and I sort of checked out at that point.

Anyway, nice to see people playing non-standard decks in Vintage, the format is in fact quite fun right now.  Also Dredge got shut out of another top 8 last weekend in NJ, with over 60 players.  The deck has been doing so bad at our events that almost none of the usual Dredge folks were willing to use the deck.

[Twaun007]

Brian DeMars needs stop abusing his SCG writer position as a tool to campaign against Dredge in general and Bazaar of Baghdad in particular.

I rarely get to talk to Demars anymore, but he made an excellent point about Dredge and the use of Bazaar of Baghdad in the deck. When we were discussing the archetype Brian suggested that Bazaar, in dredge, basically plays as a 0cc card that has Suspend 2, win the game. I sat and pondered over his description of Bazaar of Baghdad and realized it made a lot of sense.

Think about it... No other single card provides Bazaar's ability at the investment of just a land drop in any other archetype. Even Workshops don't mulligan that aggressively to find Mishra's Workshop.

Believe me, I don't want to see Bazaar restricted.... Certain cards around it just make it uber broken in the dredge archetype.  

I have to disagree here. When you are playing VERY suboptimal Dredge hate for the deck he was playing there is no reason to cry about it. He deserved to be punished because he chose poorly for Dredge hate. It seems to be he doesn't want to learn the matchup at all and rather just have the deck die. I don't get it really, if you notice the results within the NE US corridor the numbers are astonishing. Twice we have seen Dredge take four out of eight spots for a Top 8 with BOTH resulting in ZERO finals appearances for the deck. I think it’s one part ignorance and one part hatred when it comes to people’s overall thoughts on the deck. Not to mention the fact he is playing a deck that is a big underdog to Dredge already. Brian's Bant deck is good and can beat Dredge, just last night I was testing it with Ravenous Trap and Surgical Extraction, two KEY cards if you are playing as a GW/x deck and found myself able to contain Dredge.

Again it just goes back to people’s laziness and unwillingness to prepare and play the correct cards CORRECTLY against Dredge.

I agree with you that most people do not prepare to face dredge by proper play testing, side boarding, or even playing the right hate cards. I usually, on average, pack 13 – 14 cards for dredge in my sideboard since I absolutely hate losing to Dredge, but I'm not complaining about the archetype because I frequently pilot Dredge. I'm trying to reinforce the fact that the archetype is really powerful.

I don’t want to see the archetype gone, I just think its a bit weird when a deck is favored 98% to win in game one.

Brian suggested that Bazaar, in dredge, basically plays as a 0cc card that has Suspend 2, win the game.

that is pure unadulterated horse crap.

Both you and Brian are smarter than that.

And that's why his articles are frustrating. I'll buy not "fun", because fun is subjective, but 0cc and win the game is leagues away from reality.

Bazaar of Baghdad does that in Sun Titan Dredge. I don’t understand how you cannot see that when STDredge’s average curve out to win is turn two. It’s absolutely bonkers fast.  

Once again I’m not advocating the destruction of Dredge…. I’m advocating attacking the archetype through proper play, testing, and side board cards.

We can debate this in another thread, but I believe will be beating a dead horse if we do.

We should be capitalizing on the interactions between Sword of Feast & Famine and Mystic Remora.... Batterskull and Sylvian Library.... and Stone Forge Mystic in vintage!?! I want to know when are we going to start running Squadron Hawk so we can Brainstorm them back with Jace?  

[Grand Inquisitor]

Bazaar of Baghdad does that in Sun Titan Dredge. I don’t understand how you cannot see that when STDredge’s average curve out to win is turn two. It’s absolutely bonkers fast.  

...provided no interaction from your opponent.  And decks that win turn 2 without being disrupted have long found a healthy home in this format.  Really, you and Brian are way off base here.

Re the article, which is much more interesting, I think he can buy an extra slot unless he wants batterskull both MD and SB.  As for what to do with those slots (+2 from ditching serenty), ravenous trap or wheel of sun and moon could work well.  Pithing needle is pretty strong and can do double duty against the new hexmage alt win.

Bottom line is that there's lots of tactical options and this part of his logic/writing here is surprisingly weak.

[Twaun007]

Bazaar of Baghdad does that in Sun Titan Dredge. I don’t understand how you cannot see that when STDredge’s average curve out to win is turn two. It’s absolutely bonkers fast.  

...provided no interaction from your opponent.  And decks that win turn 2 without being disrupted have long found a healthy home in this format.  Really, you and Brian are way off base here.

Way off base? Interaction from an opponent?....  Dredge's entire strategy is to negate interaction from their opponent. It doesn't even have to play a single spell to win, has one of the most broken draw engines in mtg history, and negates a basic fundamental principle of magic.... using mana to cast spells. I don't see how the example of Bazaar being a 0 cc card with suspend 2, win the game is far fetched.

Is Dredge insanely powerful? Yes. Is Dredge format warping? Sometimes. Does Dredge need to be nerfed? No. As of now Dredge is being held in check by good side boards.


    

[Grand Inquisitor]

Dredge's entire strategy is to negate interaction from their opponent

All modern decks that use a UB core follow this.

negates a basic fundamental principle of magic

This is true and is also why dredge is unique.  But all it does is force different angles of interaction; it doesn't prevent them outright.

I think all of this has been covered elsewhere.  I'm glad you agree Dredge is appropriate for the format and we should probably take anything further elsewhere.

[d0rsal]

i wouldnt too much about his bitching about dredge & bazaar in his article.  i think anyone w/ even a modicum of sense will see it for what its worth.  he mulled to 2 & lost a game of magic?!  & then goes on to say that he almost won!?  & then complains about the deck he lost to, seriously?! 
 

[dicemanx]

...provided no interaction from your opponent.  And decks that win turn 2 without being disrupted have long found a healthy home in this format.

Let's be fair here. The types of cards that can be used game 1 to interact with the Dredge deck are almost all too narrow to devote to the maindeck. The other "turn 2" kill decks in the format can be disrupted with much more flexible cards that are useful against just about every archetype.

I think those that defend Dredge are missing something - the question isn't whether Brian tested enough or used the "right" sideboard cards, or played them correctly. If I understand Brian's position, he would still rag on Dredge even if his Bant deck crushed Dredge in both games in the event.

[Grand Inquisitor]

The types of cards that can be used game 1 to interact with the Dredge deck are almost all too narrow to devote to the maindeck

I hate to get all Smenmantic here but 'narrow' is obviously relative here.  Flusterstorm probably sees more play than Nihil Spellbomb.  Why is that?

You can argue that Dredge is unfun or that the lack of interaction is bad for the format.  But you can't say that it's a difficult deck to beat.  It's not tactically challenging, it's just tactically inconvenient.  And inconvenience is something T1 players don't tolerate.

[dicemanx]

I hate to get all Smenmantic here but 'narrow' is obviously relative here.

Of course it's relative. I'm not sure if your comment was intended to challenge my point; you'll have to clarify.

It's not tactically challenging, it's just tactically inconvenient.

What exactly do you mean by "tactically inconvenient"? Is this some new vintage magic lingo that I've yet to learn about? .

[Commandant]

What exactly do you mean by "tactically inconvenient"? Is this some new vintage magic lingo that I've yet to learn about? .

When the tea sipping socialites have to stop eating crumpets and play in the mud.

[credmond]

I don't think its fair to bag on someone for their opinion on dredge. Without a question, dredge puts a lot of pressure on the format. People differ on whether they think the amount of pressure that dredge exerts on the format is fair or not.

It would be nice if people who are firm supporters of dredge make it clear at what point dredge becomes a problem.

For Brian and anti-dredge crew I imagine having to dedicate 7-8 cards to fight dredge is past the tipping point.

I am sure everyone would agree that if decks had to dedicate 12 cards to fight dredge then that would warrant throttling dredge in some way. But 12 is obviously very past the tipping point.

So, a question for those jumping on Brian for voicing his opinion on dredge, at what point does a deck like dredge warrant throttling based on the number of cards other decks have to dedicate to survive it?

[Grand Inquisitor]

What exactly do you mean by "tactically inconvenient"?

Mostly I'm talking about the ability of a given slot in your MD/SB to be effective across matchups.  What people are really complaining about is that the need to address Dredge successfully is cutting into their efficiency and effectiveness against the rest of the field.

Scavenging  Ooze, for example, was likely chosen because of it's ability to do double duty against snapcaster mage (and it's tutorable, a beater, etc).  While it has better EV for the format, it's an admittedly poor card to fight Dredge with.  Anyone who's tested the matchup also knows (and I suspect Brian does too) that crypt effects are really just a speed bump for good Dredge players unless they're backed up with something more substantive like PNeedle, Leyline, Jailer, Strip fx, spheres.

I ran the tables at an event in Philly with a list that had a great game against Tez but only ran a solo Jailer in the SB and then lost to Dredge in the finals.  This is an extreme case, but people make these concessions all the time on card choices for obvious reasons.  I'm fine with that; I'm not fine with people blaming the deck that beats them when they hedge their bets on tactical choices.

I don't think its fair to bag on someone for their opinion on dredge. Without a question, dredge puts a lot of pressure on the format. People differ on whether they think the amount of pressure that dredge exerts on the format is fair or not.

The second part is an interesting position.  My experience is that the unspoken norm of the format is that it's not unfair decks that get negative attention, so much as decks that force people to abandon their comfort zone.  Granted, we've come a long way from stubbon Keeper stalwarts.  Also, I realize it's strange to levy a complaint of orthodoxy in a thread who's subject has proven so innovative.  I just think that people have a chip on their shoulder of calling dredge unfair, when it's really a fair deck that is inconvenient.

I haven't done the research, but I'd guess that these complaints come up most often when the format is diverse and people are stretched on slots.

[dicemanx]

What people are really complaining about is that the need to address Dredge successfully is cutting into their efficiency and effectiveness against the rest of the field.

I never got the impression that this was what the "real complaints" are about.

Furthermore, too often in the past many would dismiss complaints against cards/decks and accuse those that lodge those complaints as "whiners" who simply didn't test enough or were not good enough deckbuilders or players.  Many would also posit that the whining stemmed from the fact that the complainers would lose against decks they were complaining about. We already saw this from a number of posters in this thread alone.

As far as I'm concerned, even if I were to mount a 20-0 record against Dredge with only 4 SB slots (and thus not experience the "tactical inconvenience" you refer to) I'd still have a problem with the archetype.

I'm fine with that; I'm not fine with people blaming the deck that beats them when they hedge their bets on tactical choices.

You're preaching to the choir here - anyone who holds such a position as you describe should rightfully not be taken seriously. Is this by chance what you thought Brian was doing in his article? It seems that a few posters in this thread thought so.

[Grand Inquisitor]

20-0 record against Dredge with only 4 SB slots...still have a problem with the archetype.

Then clearly there is a complex understanding of dredge that you have, that I don't appreciate.  

Is this by chance what you thought Brian was doing in his article?

We've gone pretty far down the path with this conversation with no input from Brian besides the article.  He could articulate a lot better his real feelings and I don't want to speculate.  My observation is that he has what I consider a very weak dredge matchup with his current configuration and then declares the deck problematic without much hard evidence.  My experience is that battling dredge is complicated because of its angle of attach and it's, you know, a good deck.  You need both the volume of relevant cards and your own winning strategy (and hopefully some syngery between them), and then you need to know how to execute.  I've seen no one do this well and provide a convincing case against Dredge.

[Prospero]

If we're going to discuss Dredge, let's please take that discussion to the Vintage Issues forum so that we can return to talking about the substance of Brian's article.

[forests failed you]

Thanks for the feedback and mostly thoughtful discussion of the article.

To clarify:

1.  I take offense and am annoyed with the insinuation that I was l-a-z-y or unprepared to play in this tournament.  It was very clear in this article that I spent the week doing my homework and gathering information to play in what is for me basically an inconsequential Vintage event.  I built, tested, and tuned a Gush-Remora deck, and helped Paul tune his Oath-Demon deck both of which were very solid choices to play in an event.  It was a result of the testing that I did beforehand that led to me figuring out the mid-range deck, which I stayed up basically all night the night before to tune and try and figure out.  I could have played Oath or Gush, but I didn't, not because I thought the mid-range deck had a better chance of winning the tournament, but rather because I felt there was much more to be learned and more value in trying out the Bant deck.  Going into the tournament I basically felt my deck COULD work, but also felt that I might not win a game.  On the way down, I was joking with Ari:  "possible title for Vintage article: why one shouldn't play creatures or white cards the threw together the night before?"

2.  I specifically said in the article that my sideboard plan wasn't good enough to consistently hang with Dredge.  If I would have had a chance to play my deck in a few games before the tournament it would have been painfully obvious that I needed more cards.  However, I didn't have that opportunity beforehand, and the Meandeck Open itself was basically my play-testing with the deck for the article.  Also, I didn't know before hand how GREAT my deck was against Workshops; or, that I wanted Batterskull in the maindeck.  That opens up three sideboard slots, a fact that I pointed out in the article, and explicitly stated those slots should be dedicated to beating Dredge.

I'm not 'unwilling' to play cards to beat Dredge in my decks; it just so happens that based on my time constraints building this deck that I didn't know how or what my deck needed to be doing to even start beating Dredge.  If you want to hate on me because I didn't "just know" how to make a brand new deck/archetype defeat Dredge, fine whatever.  I knew that seven cards from Vintage control beat Dredge, so I figured play seven cards in my colors and I would have a fighting chance.  Keep in mind I didn't want to CRUSH it, I just wanted to have a shot--and to be fair I did have a shot.  It just so happens that (as I also stated clearly in my article) the black cards:  Leyline, Jailer, and Spellbomb are much better than anything that Bant has at its disposal for beating Dredge. 

If I played the deck again, I am confident that the following sideboard would beat Dredge, and it is probably what I'd play:

2 Scavenging Ooze
2 Relic of Progenetis
3 Tormod's Crypt
3 Ravenous Trap

Also, Grand Inquisitor says I said that Scavenging Ooze was 'admittedly bad.'  I have no idea where this comes from, as I explicitly said that Scavenging Ooze was amazing for me against Dredge; which is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of what I said in my article.  My PLAN against dredge is to use Crypt effects to time Walk dredge long enough to get Ooze into play and untap my mana.  Once you untap with Ooze its pretty much a wrap:  he does everything you want him to, he locks out their recurring creatures, eats bridge, gains life if they try and grind, gets huge and kills them.  Grand Inquistor is wrong, in assuming that Ooze is a greedy card, or that I picked him because of his utility in non-dredge match ups;  I picked Ooze BECAUSE he is the blade against dredge and the fact he has utility (lots of it) elsewhere was a sheer windfall. G.I. also unsurprisingly misunderstands that Ooze is actually the best strategy available in my colors to actually defeating Dredge in post-sideboard games of Magic.  He IS the great green Leyline, and the fact he can be tutored up with Green Sun's Zenith makes him a viable and reliable strategy.  The key is that you have to set up the ability to untap with him--which is why the deck literally needs 8 Tormod's Crypt effects...

3.  I feel it is abundantly clear in the article, and that it is SOME readers inability to actually read, that I wasn't complaining that my sideboard SHOULD have beaten dredge; rather, I was explicitly asserting that it is ridiculous that even with having five Tormod's Crypts and Scavenging Ooze in one's deck that one can still be a distinct UNDERDOG to dredge.  If you think about it, when you are playing a deck post sideboard against another deck, there are two decks against one another and a new match up is essentially created.  It is baffling to me that a deck with five Tormod's Crypts and Ooze is a distinct underdog to an ALL graveyard deck. 

So to clarify what was already clearly stated in the article:  I'm not complaining that I felt my sideboard should have beaten Dredge, nor did I ever say that; however, I was surprised and appalled that the six anti-dredge cards I played didn't really put much of a dent in the dredge match up whatsoever.  I think that it is obnoxious that if you are a 'fair' deck and can't play black, that it is probably necessary to board 9-10 cards to beat a turn two combo deck that has a an extreme skewed game win % against most of the field.  Going in without having tested, I felt that it SHOULD be a reasonable approach to fighting dredge, but the fact that in practice I might as well have played 0 cards to beat Dredge only further reinforced my perception that 4x Bazaar of Baghdad Dredge is an unhealthy and undesirable deck in its current iteration. 

I also looked back through the article and there is a whole of two sentences (one with "--but I digress..." after it, and the other being a quirky italicized quote under and image) that are even about Dredge and not directly related to my discussion of the Bant deck. 

It is a legitimate observation to say: 

"I played a Bant deck; the biggest drawback to not playing the same old ub black deck is that the it now takes 10 cards instead of 6-7 to fight dredge; the drawback of not playing Vamp, DT, and Will was alright but the loss of superior dredge hate makes me question whether a Bant midrange deck is worth the risks; if these observations are true it is a clear example of dredge actually squelching diversity in Vintage."

If any deck not able to sustain Lelyine, Jailer, and Spellbomb gets half as many sideboard cards as the deck that can (and oh by the way also gets to play VT DT & Will) why is that desirable?

4.  The mulligan to 2 against Dredge near win is misleading without having the full story:  In game two I mulliganed to four (land, land, tormod's Crypt, Relic of Progenetis), and was eventually able to get Ooze into play and win.  I knew that the Dredge player had a transformational sideboard into Hexmage-depths/monoblack beats.  Beforehand, I had told him how bad my Dredge match up was, and then mulliganing to four, demonstrated I was committed to finding my GY hate.

Before we played game three he sideboarded in a bunch of card:  so I knew he was changing plans.  I went back and brought in my Swords to Plowshares.  We both mulliganed to six, and he had priority to decide first, but started tanking.  I KNEW he might be thinking about keeping a hand without Bazaar of Baghdad, so before he announced what he was doing I announced that I was going to mulligan (I had a no lander, so a must anyways) in hopes that it might persuade him to keep a hand without Bazaar.  He did keep a Bazaarless hand, but I couldn't find a single playable hand all the way down to the unplayable two I ended up keeping.  It was BECAUSE he kept a hand without Bazaar and tried to go Nether Shadow/Bloodghast beatdown that I was able to grind back into the game. 

The fact that my opponent changed plans was exactly what gave me a chance to win, which is my entire point:  If he had a one card hand of Bazaar of Baghdad he would have EASILY crushed any of the hands I drew: 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

5.  If playing 10 cards is what it takes, then if I played the deck again I would play ten cards.  You can't afford to chuck that match up, you just can't do it.  If this were a Waterbury or Vintage Champs, I would not have played Bant Midrange (at least not untested) and would have played a deck with Black cards and a proven sideboard against Dredge. 

6.  People need to not be so emotional about their Vintage sacred cows.  You shouldn't LIKE playing with a certain card to the point that not getting to play with four copies makes you upset.  If you LIKE a card, its probably because you win with it, if you win with it its probably over-powered, if its overpowered it is worth looking at whether or not its existence creates quality games of Magic.  I don't believe in sacred cows in Magic, they are just regular cows, but people only like them because they milk them for all their worth. 

I enjoy Magic when I am provided with a tournament format where I can play quality games of Magic.  I've been talking to Steve quite a bit and trying to understand (and viceversa) each others oppositional stance on cards like Bazaar and Gush in Vintage.  It breaks down into essentially two different schools of thought about what constitutes ideal conditions for tournament play;  to grossly oversimplify: Steve believes that diversity is king, and restrictions are only warranted in instances of metagame dominance.  If it isn't dominating the format, essentially let it be.

I believe that the B & R list should function to provide players with a high quality of play: meaning, the games are fun and interesting, and one's in game play tactical choices should matter, in addition to what cards you physically draw in a game.  It is my observation that 4x Bazaar Dredge, while creating diversity by virtue of it BEING a different deck, in many ways hinders or at least puts a lot of pressure on other forms of diversity (for instance possible midrange/non-combo/non-black strategies, while ultimately facilitating games extremely variant games that possess a low quality of play.  Low-quality, in the sense that there is little or no-interaction in game 1 and mulliganing to Bazaar/Graveyard hate in game two become defining characteristics of any game where one player is playing 4x bazaar of baghdad.

I am always in favor of formats that emphasize the importance of card selection and tactical in game play, over formats that are wildly variant depending upon linear decks and match ups.  It doesn't ACTUALLY emphasize card selection when I am forced to play with 10 cards (selecting from a crop of 6 cards) in order to beat the format's premier combo deck.  It certainly, at least in my opinion doesn't emphasize diversity when EVERY deck must make a similar sacrifice in order to interact with a deck. 

I was opposed to Flash and Trinisphere when they existed for precisely the same reasons as I am opposed to Bazaar of Baghdad--these strategies, while they might encourage interesting match ups, side-boarding plans, etc. do not actually facilitate interesting or interactive games of magic where both players get to make thoughtful, strategic decisions.  You make the decision in front of you; mainly you mulligan until you have your card...

7.  My problem is that nobody actually wants to listen to anybody, just quote blocks of text and argue.  If people actually listened to what I said instead of scoured through a 14 page article for things to argue with, none of this would even be an issue.

I get the argument's for why Dredge shouldn't be restricted:  if I played devil's advocate I could argue for not restricting Bazaar better than 99.9% of players who play Vintage. 

The DIVERSITY ARGUMENT:

The problem is none of the lines of argumentation thus presented address or satisfy my ACTUAL concerns about why Bazaar shouldn't be restricted.  Creating diversity, by virtue of a degenerate combo deck existing, is not necessarily facilitating diversity in general.  Most of the dredge lists DO the same thing, and execute the same strategy once they get Bazzar, and most decks fight Bazaar in the same way: it actually bogs down diversity with regard to the cards that are being played in Vintage.

DONT NERF ME BRO/NO DIVERSITY BECAUSE NO G.Y. DECKS argument:

Restricting Bazaar would actually create diversity, both with regard to how people prepared for graveyard decks and how people built graveyard decks. 

I don't believe for a second that the dredge mechanic wouldn't be vintage competitive without 4x bazaar.  The engine is just too powerful to ignore. 

It would create diversity because people would be able to play different iterations of Dredge, and facilitate dredging/finding bazaar in different ways.  It would also allow different cards to interact with dredge; and because you could interact with dredge on the stack everybody's sideboard wouldn't be 4x Leyline 3xjailer whatever.

THE YOU CAN BEAT IT IF YOU TRY argument:

Furthermore, the statement:  "Dredge is fine because if you want to you can beat it." Which was my thought on the subject a year ago, no longer satisfies me either.  The fact of the matter is that aside from the very upper crust of the restricted list, there is NO strategy that cannot be handled if you a player has 7-10 very narrow silver bullet cards for it in their sideboard.  Gush with Merchant Scroll and Brainstorm is very beatable if you have 10 Red Elemental Blasts.  The fact of the matter that you are REQUIRED to play 7-10 cards to reliably interact with a turn two combo deck, is in my opinion, a pretty clear example of something wrong.

8.  I don't care if you agree with me or not.

It would be great if people could reasonably interact with other people's ideas, especially by not misrepresenting what they actually say; but hey, I understand that is asking a lot of magic forum posters.

If you are the kind of person who can read a 14 page article jam-packed with tech, observations, deck lists, and analysis, and all you can focus on is two or three sentences about dredge; by all means feel free not to bother reading my article.  You know who I am, you know what I think about Bazaar, and you know what I'm going to say about it when it comes up--if you can't handle it then feel free not to read it.  Nobody is forcing your hand to click on it.  I like to imagine when I'm writing my articles that my audience are thoughtful and intelligent individuals--and that is who I write for.  So, bear in mind if you are one of the haters, trolls, or selective readers that I'm not writing with you in mind.

I don't care if you disagree with me or not; I welcome and encourage a friendly discussion of opposing views; but don't waste my time with unthoughtful stupidity.

Cheers,
Brian DeMars




 

[forests failed you]

Nick, I didn't realize you posted that MOD text here about B & R content.  I've been pecking away at this throughout the day.  If you want to move or delete the previous post I'm fine with that--but, its obviously pretty relevant to the article, since most of it is about the article.

thanks,
brian

[Prospero]

Nick, I didn't realize you posted that MOD text here about B & R content.  I've been pecking away at this throughout the day.  If you want to move or delete the previous post I'm fine with that--but, its obviously pretty relevant to the article, since most of it is about the article.

thanks,
brian

This is fine.  Let's consider this the bookend on the Dredge questions about this article.  No further discussion of Dredge in this thread will be accepted without Mod action, so, everyone, beware.  

If you have questions/concerns/comments about Dredge, Bazaar, or anything about the Restricted List, please venture over to the Vintage Issues forum and discuss your concerns there.  The high standards that we expect from players posting in the Vintage Issues forum should be noted by anyone considering posting in that forum.