Gush puts lands into my hand that I can then loot away with Dack. It puts cards in my graveyard for Delve. It helps me chain draw spells together with the cantrips to find the permission I need to not die. In the end it consistently produces much more raw AND virtual card advantage than any other combination of Blue cards in Vintage, whether it be Thirst/Gifts/FoF/etc.
There's the romanticizing. Your saying that your combination of cards is better than any other combination of Blue cards in Vintage. There is no evidence to support this claim.
It's incredibly frustrating for me to spend as much time as I have collecting data with Ryan and then have someone say "there is no evidence to support this claim." Consistently Gush decks as a whole have performed better than their non-Gush counterparts - look at the tournament and metagame breakdowns that we've produced. Is that wrong? Why? Do you have conflicting evidence or is this just your opinion? In forums not frequented by right-wing nut jobs with a tenuous grasp of facts, declaring something to be propaganda does not invalidate it.
There are lots of win conditions that can be used in many different decks. But I wouldn't approach deckbuilding from the assumption that Gush core is the best because I wouldn't want that to limit what I could play.
I have never been told that I am deficient in that area...
Note, Gush can be a 3 or 4 of in these decks, based on metagame - the card itself is less good against Eldrazi or Shops. If I'm going into a heavy Blue metagame, I want 4.
So if you knew you were going to play against Eldrazi/Shops in every round, but you still wanted to play a Blue deck, would you consider 2 Gushes on the basis of just being a decent draw spell?
Yes, but Shops and Eldrazi tend to be between 15-33% of a given metagame combined making such an occurrence unlikely.
You cling to '4' because it will maximize your chances to win to have a greater chance of drawing, what you think, is the decisive card against Blue. That's fine if you think that. I don't think that. Whoever has more Gushes IS NOT who necessarily wins.
I've played 3 Gush more often than I've played 4 over the past year...You are railing against an imaginary straw man. And of course whoever draws more Gushes is not necessarily going to win. You can say the same about every card in Magic. There is a correlation between running more Gushes and winning the Blue mirror though in my experience.
It's not propaganda; where are you getting that 4 of a card is necessary for an engine?
I'm not saying that 4 of a card is necessary for an engine, I'm saying that "engine" is just part of a romanticized idea of what we think this game is in terms of strategy. I'm suggesting that thinking of the game only through that lens is leaving untapped potential on the table.
The concept of an "engine" is a way of simplifying discussion and aiding in deck classification. When I say the "Gush engine", I mean the cards that I referred to previously and most people will understand that. When Ryan and I attempt to classify Gush decks, it's by this Gush core which is a collective of cards. And of course engines can change...Decks are no longer running (in general) Fastbond and Regrowth to repeated cast Gush. Most decks don't need this as they are generating enough tempo and card advantage that they don't want the inconsistencies from such cards.
If your draw suite was the cards you mentioned, I would say you were likely wrong because your deck seems to be going in different directions - Gush synergies with cheap efficient counterspells and mana light strategies, Thirst for Knowledge with heavy artifact decks, and Fact or Fiction with Drain-Will strategies. While these aren't mutually exclusive, I can't comment further without knowing the particulars. I'm really confused by this post...
Why would you criticize me for playing more expensive spells with Gush when you just boasted about playing 4RR cards with Gush? Obviously Gush helps cast expensive spells the same as it helps to cast cheap spells, but the point here is that Gush is also just a fine "draw-2". It's existence doesn't have to reflect in the card choices throughout the rest of of the deck. All of those cards are going in a direction, specifically to draw me cards.
Criticize you? I was trying to give you my honest response which had nothing to do with the "4X engine" whatever that you mentioned. There isn't really much that can be said about 6 cards in isolation; synergy is everything in Magic. And there is a difference between resolving a finisher than resolving a draw spells. If you Gush, then cast Fact or Fiction or Thirst, you might not have enough mana to play a substantial follow-up spell and you've done nothing to effect the board. I've used Chandra to off opposing Walkers and wipe away Tokens - Dragonlord Silumgar blocks the majority of creatures being played and is almost impossible to remove. The impacts on the board are substantial but they probably aren't ideal options for the format. Still, it was testing...
I'm not trying to be confusing, I'm just presenting a case for new ideas and exploration within deckbuilding.
I think it would be more productive for you to walk us through the process of how you deckbuild. "Propaganda" is a politically charged word and is best avoided in discussions pertaining to Magic as I and others didn't understand how this fit. Comments such as "If anyone is confused or mad or whatever, you don't have participate in the discussion" are unnecessary. There reason we said we were confused is that we were asking for more information so that we could participate in the discussion. And "I'm at work right now so maybe later tonight I can write some more words if I feel it's worth my time. Obviously if no one else is capable of thinking outside the box here then there really isn't anything else to say" is rather condescending.