Last Online


"Pitch Dredge is the worst thing to happen to Vintage this decade." - 2015 Vintage Champion Brian Kelly

Recent Posts
posted in Vintage Strategy read more

Mox Diamond? I think if you're very heavy on blue stuff Chrome Mox would be the first "fixed" Mox to go for, although when you're discarding your hand frequently IDK if you even want your disruption to be blue pitch spells as opposed to black pitch, artifacts, lands, Leylines or Chancellors

I also think you want Lion's Eye Diamond in a Fatestitcher list that's planning to discard its hand frequently

Finally, that's an awful lot of deck-slots devoted to normal Dredge stuff. High 30s to low 40s is the card count you typically see these days and you're getting towards the low 50s here. That's 2-4 whole playsets of disruption effects you're giving up for these extra speed elements, a trade-off that should leave you better positioned against Dredge "mirrors" but worse against most everything else (in my opinion). You also didn't manage to squeeze in Serum Powder so you're likely to have slightly worse consistency than you might otherwise achieve.

I'm not saying any of these are fatal issues, just where I would focus my testing energy if I was trying to get something like this to work

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

Experience has shown that 1-mana enablers like Faithless Looting, Careful Study, Cephalid Coliseum, Breakthrough (etc) are not as effective as simply finding and using Bazaar of Baghdad

Of course if you try some of these cards anyway and find them successful and consistent, we will all be quite interested at that point

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

I believe most decks that have used Pact of Negation historically have had synergy with it (Legacy Hive Mind) or have had the ability to win in their own upkeep (Flash) or have had the ability to pay for it reasonably consistently (Blue Belcher). I'm skeptical that particular card would be strong in Dredge, although obviously it is quite strong in cases where you intend to win on the same turn.

posted in Vintage Strategy read more

@meadbert said in More Cycle in Dredge?:

In Magic there are some games where you blow your opponent out and there are others where you get blown out. The trick is to win the ones in the middle where it could go either way. Cards that primarily effect that middle are most important. Other cards are "win more" or "lose less." Typically if you have Stinkweed Imp or Grave-Troll pre-board you are doing very well and very likely to win. If you have no dredger at all you are in a lot of trouble. Wasteland will just wreck you. One could argue that 0 dredgers is in the middle, but it is close to you getting blown out.

The important middle section is when you get that Thug or Shambling Shell. Basically if Shell/Thug is your only dredger, then getting 4 chances to dredge into something rather than 3 is a pretty big different and impacts the important games where things can go either way.

I don't think that's the right way to think about it, at least during deck construction. I think the right way to think about it is that you want cards that will turns losses into wins. So for example including more good dredgers is likely to turn losses (no dredgers) into wins (one Thug) without any sort of intermediate or medium state in between (because having a dredger is basically binary).

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@evouga said in [M20] Scheming Symmetry:

Apparently WotC thinks this card is Vintage-playable:

Interested to see what happens with this in Vintage. It will certainly get attention. Six-of VT is worth a build-around.

That's certainly a quaint take on the format 😉

lol good luck building around that hot mess

posted in Off-Topic read more

This makes perfect sense for color pie reasons.

From the discussion at the end, I don't think enchantments are being de-prioritized in any way, I read the shift as being within the artifact space. For example, if 18% of good cards are artifacts and they're 17% colorless 1% colored in the future it will be 1-17 instead of 17-1. I don't read the article as saying anything about artifacts being boosted ahead of enchantments.

I think there's a bit of a natural flavor differentiation between artifacts and enchantments, which Wizards should try to push further. Namely, artifacts sometimes tap and/or sacrifice to function, while enchantments very rarely do. Enchantments frequently have static abilities, while artifacts have these abilities somewhat less frequently. If I were in charge of design for Magic I would try to have firmer rules about what mechanics go onto what card type, extending the historical mix into something players can recognize intuitively.