Well, first of all, even though you didn't Top 8 (this time), congratulations on the results!  Coming off a recent Top 8 with this deck, I find them to be impressive! 

As far as your comments on the deck go, I will definitely say that I agree 100% with Balance.  Now, life has been crazy this last week and a half-two weeks with Christmas, New Years, and getting engaged I haven't had a ton of time to test, but I will definitely say that any and all results have supported Balance as one of the all stars of the deck.  In my mind, it has a Yawgmoth's Will-level power in this deck.  Like you said, Mirari, it wins games that *do* get out of control, but I have also won lots of games by just planning the entire thing around Balance.  For example, against Beats, I will find a way to find and/or play Balance and then just spend as many turns as I can afford letting them develop their board/gameplan and then cast Balance.  From there, if done right, there should be no way for them to win, since you have also had prior knowledge of Balance and were able to set up your post-Balance hand/board.  There really is no amount of praise that I could give this card that I would feel would be too much.

As far as Gorilla Shamans go, I feel that I would love 2 at times as well, but I have never been able to find a spot that I could realistically say would be worth cutting for the 2nd one.  Maybe I am just valuing some slots too high (and a lot of that is obviously very metagame dependent), but I have also been very happy with 1 Shaman configuration for now.

Great article, Steve.  It's always nice to have a concise place to look when trying to analyze thoughts and I find breaking the metagame like this does just that.  Thanks for continuing great work for us all!

Well, as for the Balance/manabase question, I can say that I've been playing with Balance in the main and just the 4 CoBs to support it and it's been completely fine.  Also, yes, Balance is really as good as we remember it.  Maybe even better than that.  To echo what MaxxMatt said, it does require a good bit of timing, but there have been plenty of games so far that I have won just from spending the early game setting up a Balance for maximum effect and going from there.

As far as how slow we should play it, well, I think that will more be a factor of what deck you're playing against.  Once you drop a Titan/Sphinx/Inkwell/Whatever it shouldn't take that long to win.  So far in testing I haven't noticed any abnormally long games.  Don't get me wrong, they are longer games than say with TPS or the average Tezz deck, but they're not that much longer than I remember some matchups with old Control Slaver decks going.  If you are in a matchup (maybe the mirror for instance) where you notice that the clock is running out too fast to have 2-3 games, then I don't see anything wrong with stretching out game 1 if you have a winning position.

Hmmm Chalice of the Void is an interesting option.  It does take a few of the Deck's cards, too (most notably Ancestral Recall, Brainstorm, and Ponder against Combo), but it might just hurt them more than us.  It is definitely worth testing.  Also, some number of Mindbreak Traps in the main and/or sideboard might be really good.  I definitely think that 1 Mindbreak Trap and 1 Ravenous Trap should be in the sideboard of any deck running Cunning Wish.  Being able to randomly win games against Combo and Dredge game 1 by casting a 2U instant is just too good to pass up.  Plus, they are actually good to sideboard in for games 2 and 3 against those decks.  I suppose the Deck could also run Mystic Remora in the sideboard and/or main.

That is quite a list, Maxx.  How has it been testing against different decks?  I'm especially interested in your matchups against Tezz and Oath.  Also, you mentioned combo being a bad matchup, so I'm interested to know what numbers you've been running against it. 

Well, while I, too, agree that Balance is incredibly powerful (duh!) and willl probably be a right call in some metagames, I can see where the inclusion of Pernicious Deed would sort of fill its role.  I also see where Balance and Sower are at odds.  Not to say that the two can't be run in the same deck, but I can say that the combination of the two (along with some of the other cards in the deck) would put forward a strong case to omit Balance for the intended metagame.  Having said that, Crucible is a great card to help abuse Balance and I will certainly keep my eye out for situations as I play/play against the Deck where Balance would have been crucial, because it's the type of card that, when it's role is needed, can't be replaced.  It can be supplemented, but not replaced.

I am certain though (from testing it in other decks and in Legacy) that Deed is amazing and does exactly what is needed.

Yeah, that sounds about right to me.  And I think you're right about that.  It's pretty much what I was trying to say before:  That in this format we can't look quite so much at MU percentages; that we should focus more on how to play tight and take the MUs that we "weren't supposed to win."

Well, I think the point that you make in the opening of your post is definitely the most important.  I have no doubt that the Tezz players who have told you that TPS is a fine matchup for them are telling the truth.  I also know that the opposite is true.  What you said about specialization and skill level is, I think, the key to understanding what is happening. 

Robert Vroman (among others) has been known to say that skill level is such a great determining factor in Vintage, that he is not even certain if there are such things are good or bad matchups.  Now, I am not saying that I'm quite convinced of something quite that profound yet, but I definitely think that Vintage is format in which the skill of the player *and* the amount to which that player has successfully prepared his deck for the metagame (both in its maindeck and in its sideboard plans) determine how a deck does against any other deck much more so than the "matchup" ever does. 

One of the reasons for this is all of the tutors the format has access to use.  Tutors are incredibly skill intensive and and also allow you to control what cards you're playing with thousands of times more than playing in a format where you have to just draw spells or where you are just relying on your draw every turn.  There are many other reasons why I think this is (for example, just the vast cardpool alone means that you *can* actually put together a deck that answers needs to be answered, gets its mana smoothly and consistently, or any other number of other things), but the important message is that I believe this is a fundamental truth about modern Vintage.  (It's also one of the reasons why I love the format so much.)

I think that MUs really become important when you have 2 players who are equally skilled and who have equal amounts of time spent specializing in their weapons of choice.  Because these situations are so rare is why I think it's so difficult to actually determine MUs.  Anyway, I think this is a really important point (and big selling point for potential new players...besides the idea of playing with really cool cards like the P9 of course!) for players to understand about the format, so I figured now would be an ideal time to extrapolate on it.

Wow!  What an awesome report, Onno!  As an aside to the reports coming from this tournament, I'm loving all of this activity I've been reading lately from over in Europe!  It is definitely making me wish that sometime in the future I can be transferred over there for work!   Onno, just like I told Marius for his report, this was awesome!  Thank you so much for the time you put into it and the effort in running everyone through your thought process for the various gamestates that came up in the tourney.  I always find that I take away something incredibly useful from reports like this one.  I especially appreciate the attention both of you paid to walking through the mirror.  And, of course, congrats on the finish!

With no disrespect to the power of the Tezzeret decks (which, quite obviously, should be given *a lot* of respect), I have also found that matchup to be quite good.  That is even with playing against Tezz players sporting Thoughtseizes/Duresses.  Now, against the ones without those cards, the matchup goes even more in TPS's favor, but that much should be clear already.  I really agree with what is being said here about TPS (and storm decks historically in Vintage at least since the time of GrimLong if not before that):  Coupled with tight technical play, it is most certainly one of the best Tier 1 decks in Vintage.  The power of the cards, speed of the deck, and strategic superiority of the deck (along with an ability to disrupt and interact when needed) make it a force with which to be reckoned.

I really think that the element that's kept so many players away from Tendrils decks is the high level of technical play required and the toll that playing a deck as complex as TPS takes on a player throughout a tournament.  The thing is, I believe, that this can be overcome with practice.  Which is why I have played Storm for so many years in testing/local events.  These decks have a way of controlling the game's speed and, therefore, a lot of times, it feels like playing a football game at home rather than away.  The psychological advantage should not be underestimated.  Opponents make lots of mistakes, throw away lots of games, and mentally give up lots of matches, because of their fear of good Storm combo decks and good Storm pilots.  And you know what?  I think they have a right to be afraid!

That was a fun article, Matt.  I won't spoil the surprise for those who haven't read it yet, but I am tempted to agree with you on your favorite new card(s) of the year.  All of those you named have had such an enormous impact already and I can't wait to see what they will continue to do in months and years to come!  Thanks for keeping up the Vintage/Legacy articles!

I can say that in testing I pretty much treated it like I did old GrimLong:  I just threw one bomb after another at Tezz until I had exhausted their counters and then won.  Now, I don't know if that was how I was "supposed" to play it or not, but I do know that it wasn't even a matchup.  It was a joke.  I won at least 80% of my games.  The first game I played with it actually I mulled to an only decent 5 card hand, suffered double Thoughtseize in the first 3 turns + countermagic and still won.  The inevitability that I felt when playing this deck against Tezz was just unreal.  I think a big reason is that, as has been stated earlier in this thread, your draw sevens essentially nullify any card advantage that Tezz has gained.  In other words, it doesn't matter how many turns they've had Dark Confidant out or how many of your spells they've countered, if you can just get one through, your catch up in card advantage and then some, because your deck is better suited to reap the benefits of a draw seven.

Ok, cool, that makes a lot of sense.  I was just thinking about the Confidants still being able to be used as a kill, but I suppose after everything is said and done that is a such an inferior clock in comparison to the other kills Tezz has that it can just be played around.  I agree though, I don't think I would bring it in for the matchup anyway. 

Marius, that's really interesting (and cool!) that you've been finding DSC superior to Sphinx even against decks with Welders.  I also find it interesting that in spite of all the basics, Stax still represents one of this decks few truly bad matchups.  Ichorid makes sense, I just completely blanked on it when I typed my first post.  Thanks very much for the insights.

As far as Sadistic Sacrament goes, if it ever became a real problem in the metagame, the first (decent) thing that comes to my mind to deal with it is the idea of boarding into 3x Dark Confidant + VaultKey.  Or, TPS could just board into more Tendrils.  Having multiple Tendrils isn't fundamentally a bad thing anyway.  Either way it would give you more win cons than Sacrament can remove.  Another option is running Misdirections in higher numbers, since the Sacrament targets a player.  That would slow down the TPS player, but maybe it could be set up to only be postboard if that were a problem.  Misdirections are good in general, too.  There is also that card from Ravnica (I think) that prevents players from searching their libraries for a turn, but that seems *way* to situational.  It also costs 2 mana (neither of them colorless), so Sadistic Sacrament could get through that particular shield.  Finally, there is the Sacrament of our own to play first (in theory).

Ultimately though, I think that reactive answers to Sacrament will have a way of slowing the deck down too much and just not being drawn when they matter.  I feel like that is the wrong way to take the deck.  I think adding in more win cons is the ideal way to play it.

So you did find this to be good against Tezzeret?  Using it against them never feels like assuming the wrong role?  Or is it that with just boarding in one against them it gives you just enough of a surprise semi-silver bullet?  Do you actually find yourself tutoring for it against them as compared to just setting up a combo turn with counter backup?  Especially with the Confidants postboard to help you build to critical mass and to slowly pick away at the Tezzeret player's life total, I would think that this would be (fairly) easily accomplished.  At least so far I've found that TPS has an incredibly good game against Tezzeret decks.  Perhaps it is just the builds I've been running against.  If you do find yourself tutoring for it against them, then what are the cards you generally nab?  Yawgmoth's Will, countermagic, countermagic?  Or YWill, Time Vault, countermagic?  I would think that if they have already used/gotten Duressed away one or 2 counterspells, then taking 1-2 more would be good, since it effectively cuts the number they have in their deck by a third (of those remaining that is).  I could see Ancestral as a card to remove, too, though if they don't already have it in hand.

Hehe well good point about the Stax/MW Aggro boarding! Lol!  As far as the Beats matchup, that's good to  hear that you're finding just sideboarding those 2 cards to be enough against those decks.  So, are the only "bad matchups" you experience the faster combo decks and the workshop matchup?  (Well, except decks, like Sadistic Suicide, that seem just geared to beat this deck, that is.)  I would think that with the amazing manabase of this deck though that you would have an awesome edge against Stax at least.  Can I assume correctly that if you expected a ton of MW decks, then you would switch to/board in Sphinx or Leviathan over DSC?  That plan in this deck (along with the ability to EOT cast mass bounce and combo) seems like it would just wreck them.

Wow! Amazing article about an amazing deck!  Like so many people the Deck was how I learned to play Vintage, so I'm thrilled to see its return!  Also, thank you so much for having another article that showcases your deckbuilding process.  I find that everytime I read over a different case of it being used I come away with a different insight.  In fact, I am all in favor of you continuing to showcase this process much more in the future, because I really think that it is one of the most important and undertaught/learned skills in Vintage.  Thanks!

Wow!  What an awesome report!  Marius, thanks so much for putting so much work and insight into it.  It is always nice to be able to read what someone with your abilities is thinking through a tournament.  Especially with a deck as complex and powerful as TPS.  Very interesting board tech, too.  Can you give anymore insight into what your various board strategies are against particular matchups?  Especially versus GW Beats, Meandeck Beats, and the WS Aggro decks if you wouldn't mind.  (Since this tech might be secretive, I completely understand if you decide to withhold for now! )

Well, I definitely agree with it being a GG for Iona Oath and the mirror, but I tend to think that against Tezzeret that if you're wasting time taking away their beatdown strategy (a.k.a. playing the control role in a matchup where I think you are certainly the beatdown), then you will ultimately give them enough time to draw into enough countermagic/Duresses/Thoughtseizes for them to be able to prevent you from winning.

Having said that, Mirari, your posts are always intelligent and well thought out and your analysis/insight has left me having a lot of respect for what you have to say, so I concede that I may just be entirely wrong in my analysis.  Still, that is how the situation strikes me at the moment against Tezzeret, so I figure it is at least worth making note of it to add to the general ideas of the community.  I will be trying this out to see how my thoughts on the situation stack up to in-game experience.  Testing, I think, is the only thing that could conclusively answer this query for us, but, for now, those are my 2 cents.

Hmm I don't know about that.  Sacrament seems like a fine card as a one of in the side board, but I'm not certain that I would ever want to play more than that.  It feels like more of a silver bullet card against certain decks rather than a game plan to transform into postboard.  Versus Tezzeret a resolved Sacrament is still not game over.  I suppose you could argue that it is enough of an advantage versus Oath and some other decks (one of which is the mirror).  I am just not certain that you need/can afford the extra sideboard space needed for 3 of them.

So, in your testing, has having 3 comes-into-play-tapped not been a significant factor?  I can definitely see your point about having 7 as the number of manlands though.  And, yes, I can also see the point about colored vs. colorless mana.  My main concern is definitely having 3 CIPT lands.

As far as playing Spell Pierce in an environment full of Dark Confidants, do you think that maybe having Fire/ice will be enough to deal with that threat?  Electrolyze is also an amazing card which is probably just too expensive to play.  It's a shame, too, since getting to deal the damage and drawing the card could be awesome.  Ultimately, though, as I said, 3 mana is probably just too much.

Well, this is how I'm seeing it as of now:

-I'm going to tackle the ESG comment first, because I feel more certain about those.  To me, maximizing your ability to play Gaddock Teeg or Null Rod (especially those two cards) on turn one is incredibly important.  Also, the ability to set up plays like turn 2 Thoughtseize/Duress + Gaddock Teeg/Null Rod/Dark Confidant/Tarmogoyf/Chalice of the Void depending on your matchup is really important as well.  Now, this is just me saying this without having tested it.  Maybe, a density of threats is better than the card disadvantage of ESG, but never forget that a topdecked ESG can be played as a beater whereas a duress cannot.  This definitely doesn't sound like a stupid suggestion at all though, despite the fact that it seems like it is *probably* suboptimal; I would certainly be interested in knowing the results if you tested that.

-As far as Teeg and Chalice go, I have not gotten to test out Chalice mainboard yet, so what I will say will be speaking strictly from theory and from that experience.  Postboard it didn't seem to matter as if you draw and play Chalice first, you can still play Gaddock Teeg; if you play Gaddock Teeg first you are probably winning anyway and because of the presence of only 3 Chalice you are less likely to draw in lots of them anyway after Teeg.  I suppose you could also just think about it like having Teeg 5-7 if you play it first.  I guess I'm thinking about it so far like I do about drawing multiple Teegs.  I am really never sad about drawing more than one, because either it allows me to definitely get one through counterspells or it makes sure that if one is dealt with the opponent only has a one turn window before another comes down.

-Finally, if you did test out taking out the ESGs, then I definitely think that you should take out the Aven Mindcensors for Chalices, since I agree that they would then likely become too expensive.  You only have a fixed number of turns to put a soft lock down before the opponent gets to a point where they are likely to win.

Hmmm well I did love Aven Mindcensor, but that is an interesting thought.  Chalice of the Void was the stone cold nuts postboard and Thoughtseize was insane which could mean that Duress would be, too.  I wonder if 3 Chalices, 1 Duress, and a 4th Diabolic could be fit as a starting place to test.  Do you think maybe:

-3 Aven Mindcensor
-2 Tarmogoyf

+ 3 Chalice of the Void
+ 1 Duress
+ 4th Diabolic Edict

to start testing? I really don't like going below 3 Tarmogoyfs, but I can't think of anything else in the deck that I would like as a starting place.  I think that 4 Gaddock Teeg, 4 Null Rod, 4 Qasali Pridemage, and 4 Thoughtseize need to stay for now.  Maybe this instead:

-3 Aven Mindcensor
-1 Tarmogoyf
-1 Dark Confidant

for the proposed additions instead.

This looks really awesome!  I love Landstill decks (the first "Eternal" deck I played was Keeper, so that style of deck will always have a special place in my heart), so this is really exciting to me to have new discussion going on about it.  I do have a few comments though.

1) First off, I agree with the sentiments being expressed about Spell Pierce:  I think that it's inclusion is probably a very important one.  Turn one is huge.  No, not as much in this format as in those of years past, but this is still Vintage and important plays still occur as early as the first turn.

2) I like the inclusion of Misdirections, but do you think that some number of those slots could/should be switched to Mindbreak Traps a la The Deck?  Mind you that I haven't played with Vintage Landstill in years, so these suggestions are, as of yet, all from strictly a theoretical point of view.

3) I agree with Maxx that you have to have some way to deal with CotV@1.  What about some number of echoing truths over Chain of Vapor?  I have always loved Echoing Truth to be honest and used to automatically include it as at least a 1-of in any Vintage deck that had blue as a catch all. 

4)  I have some concerns about the manabase.  Is 3 comes-into-play-tapped lands (Faerie Conclaves) too much?  This is where testing would be the only thing that could tell us the right answer, but at first glance it seems like it could be.  I almost think that a configuration that could let you run 2ish Mutavaults in addition to the Factories would be superior, but if that is too many colorless lands (as it very well probably is), then I would think that 1 or *maybe* 2 Faerie Conclaves would be the maximum that you would want.  Thoughts?  Also, since this deck is U/R, I think there is no question that the manabase should start out like this:

4 Volcanic Island
4 Scalding Tarn
X Island
Y Mountains

And *then* I think that you can go to the Steam Vents and the other fetchlands.  I think there should be at least one or two Mountains.  The Zendikar fetchlands give us the ability to create mana stability in the eternal formats like never before by being able to compliment virtually any 2 or 3 color deck with a significant amount of basics and unless we find ourselves in an environment where Stax and other mana denial strategies virtually disappear, then we would be wise to take advantage of it.  Mana stability will, I believe, lead to far more victories than having one or two extra utility lands.  This is especially true since most of the great tools against Stax are in Red.

That's it for now.  I'll definitely keep up with this and try to test it out some.  Thanks for bringing up such an amazing blast from the past!

Thanks for the encouraging words.  I am definitely going to keep on trucking with the deck, because I do feel like it's got the tools in its colors to be a Tier 1 threat.  I also really want this deck to get more attention and be more of played.  I think that it would be very healthy for the format to have a sizable percentage of the metagame be playing MDB.  Plus, Gaddock Teeg is just busted card advantage.  He's like a Meddling Mage that gets to name more than one card.  He is, I think, one of the best creatures ever printed.

It's been a couple of weeks since I read through it, but, yes, it was very helpful.  And chalices were insane postboard.  There was one game postboard against TPS (with me piloting TPS) that I was just completely shut out of because of chalice complimenting the rest of the decks anti-combo tools.  I haven't started on the process of re-building the decklist yet, because I wanted to get a slightly better feeling for what MDB does and tries to accomplish first and how it plays out, but now that we've gotten a couple of extra days of testing in and (I feel like) a much better understanding of how the cards all pull together, I feel ready to start on it.  As a side note, hands with any combination of Thoughtseize, Null Rod, and/or Gaddock Teeg (the MVP!) feel nearly impossible to break through except with the most broken of hands.  I also found that I love having the 3 Moxen, Black Lotus, and 3 ESGs in the deck.  Getting down Null Rod turn 1 or being able to Thoughtseize + Gaddock Teeg turn 2 or any other myriad of plays like that is just so incredibly relevant to being able to win the game.

Ok, so I've gotten a chance to test with this deck a good bit in the past 2 days, too.  Now, my testing with it I should first say has mainly been against TPS and Tezzeret.  I find that I'm echoing your thoughts a lot on this deck, Matt.  I feel like it is mainly a 50/50 deck.  Now, that is against a good pilot.  I'm sure that if I was playing someone who is not very good with a deck that MDB would have a 70/30 or even maybe an 80/20 against them, but you can't count on that past the first rounds of a tournament.  I do disagree, however, that this deck can't go "busted."  Granted, it's not the classic Vintage busted that we're used to thinking about, but MDB certainly has hands that are nearly unwinable for the opponent.  Other than that my findings have basically been reported here already in other posts.

Well, that makes a lot of sense!  Thanks for the replies so far, guys.  I guess I'll have to upload the newest version of MWS then, since that seems to be the program of choice now.

If finances are a little better in January, then hopefully I will be able to make it, too.  I would love to be able to sling power and try to eat that burger all in one day! 

No worries there, I got what you were saying.  I appreciate it, too.  I think that the next night I have to playtest (Wednesday night) I am going to attempt to use the recent tournament statistics to start trying to go through a process similar to what you have done with Tezzeret with this deck to see what I can do.  I really like that process, too, by the way.  I think it will help me with my most challenging problem when I am putting together a deck, which is that I try to cram too much into it.  If I use your process I think it will be clearer.