GWS Long v2.0 - Return to Glory

[Smmenen]

Eric:

Without having re-read your 2007 primer, which I intend to do - quite carefully, in fact - there is one thing I'd like to point out.  You say that Windfall tested poorly.   I would urge you to rethink its inclusion for several reasons.  First and foremost, with Rebuild and Chains maindeck Windfall should never really be a poor late game card.   Rebuilding your opponent, replay your Moxen, and Windfall should give you at least 4-5 cards to draw even if your opponents hand was empty before that.   Secondly, I suspect that one reason Windfall may have tested poorly is because you aren't playing it aggressively on turn one and willing to dump what is otherwise a hand full of moderate gas like N. Whsiper, etc.  I also don't understand how Windfall increases the mana curve too much.  It's one of the most efficient spells like its kind.  Mox, mox, mox, land Windfall.  Bam.  Gotcha. 

Finally, one other comment, taken from your primer:

This is not a Will deck, it’s a Tendrils deck.

I think that this statement is a logical contradiction.   In Vintage, Tendrils does not exist (as we know it) without the presence of Will.   The only exception that I know of is Meandeck Tendrils, which intends to string together exactly 10 spells from its opening hand on turn one.   In an article I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I demosntrated (convincingly, I thought) that if Yawgmoth's Will were not present in Vintage, neither would Tendrils be.  The whole section in this article on Tendrils ("Understanding TEndrils) elaborated this point: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15812.html 

Understanding Tendrils

Tendrils of Agony is actually not that great a card, in the abstract. It costs one more than Syphon Soul. Tendrils of Agony for anything much less than lethal damage might as well be a Tendrils for two damage. It’s an all-or-nothing card. The importance of this fact is critical: Tendrils of Agony requires an engine.

People realize that Tendrils is good, but they fail to realize why its good. This leads a big mistake – the assumption that Tendrils is good in the abstract or that it can function just at the tail end of a long series of cantrips and just win the game. While this is technically true, it doesn’t make for strong decks, decks that have consistency, resilience, and power. It is the engine that fuels Tendrils that makes Tendrils decks powerful, consistent, and above all resilient.

Why would people make such a tremendous error in logic – one so obvious? The reason is that the engines that fuel Tendrils are so decentralized, so non-linear that they don’t appear to be engines. They are appear to be a normal part of the environment and deck design such that they no longer appear to be engines. In short, they are naturalized. Yawgmoth’s Will isn’t typically referred to as an engine; it’s perceived as just a powerful spell. Both statements are true, but one isn’t commonly recognized.

Yawgmoth’s Will is the most natural Tendrils engine that can be assembled in Vintage. Yawgmoth’s Will explicitly replays spells, so it makes complete sense to run it with Tendrils, and hence the prevalence of Tendrils in Vintage. Vintage is, after all, a Yawgmoth’s Will dominated format, even in the post-Gifts era. Another powerful Tendrils engine, Mind’s Desire, is recognized as an engine, but that’s because it has been pretty much the primary engine for Tendrils decks in every other format. Mind’s Desire is a Storm engine and flipping over a Tendrils is likely to simply end the game. This is the engine in Extended that has made Tendrils a useful card.

But there are a few other critical engines for Tendrils.

The first is Yawgmoth’s Bargain. Yawgmoth’s Bargain, of its own accord, is likely to generate the Storm sufficient to make Tendrils lethal. Another common Storm engine is Necropotence. With Necropotence, you may have to do a bit more finagling or finessing your way to victory, but if you can find Yawmgoth’s Will, your task should be relatively easy.

The other major remaining engine for Tendrils are draw7s. A turn 2 or 3 draw7, such as Timetwister, Time Spiral, or Tinker into Memory Jar will often be preceded by enough Rituals and followed by enough Rituals and Tutors that a Tendrils drawn into the draw7 hand or tutored up from within it will be lethal.

A fringe Tendrils engine is Doomsday. For how that works as an engine, I’ll refer you to my "Doomsday Scenario" article.

The final Tendrils engine is much less reliable, but nonetheless used: chaining together Rebuilds with several Moxen for a lethal Tendrils.

To support Tendrils, Dark Ritual and its cousin can almost always be found paired with the engines I’ve just enumerated.

But what’s more, all of the additional engines I mentioned actually are one part Yawgmoth’s Will. While each of the engines: Desire, Necro, Bargain, Draw7s, Doomsday, and Rebuild all can execute a lethal Tendrils of their own accord, it is as common for them to do it in tandem with Yawgmoth’s Will as not.

For instance, when you play a Draw7, your chance of being to draw into a lethal Tendrils is at least half determined by your ability to tutor/draw up Yawgmoth’s Will within that Draw7 hand. The Draw7 gains most of its strength from the fact that a number of cards have preceded in, which will make your Yawgmoth’s Will that much more explosive.

Similarly, in a Desire, sometimes the key card will be a tutor, like a Mystical Tutor or a Vampiric Tutor in combination with a Brainstorm (or sometimes just a Grim Tutor) that can find the Yawgmoth’s Will, that can then be replayed within the Will to find Tendrils. In actuality, all of the so-called Tendrils engines are interactive. A desire may find a Draw7, which is used to find the Yawg Will which is used to find the Tendrils.

Back in the pre-Storm days, I remember reading about Kai Budde’s post-Necro restriction Trix deck going 3-0 on the Vintage portion of the Magic Invitational. That deck was really cool. But what made the deck so strange to me was that it actually used Necropotence to find Yawgmoth’s Bargain! That is a very odd thing to me. It would seem to me that once you had Necro, you wouldn’t need Bargain. What it would do is use the Illusions of Grandeur to gain 20 life and then use the Bargain to draw the Donate and the Pyroblast to win the game. It could play more Illusions if it needed more life to draw more cards. In short, the Necro engine was used to fuel another engine which was used to fuel another engine. That’s sort of how Vintage engines work.

But in Vintage, when you boil it down, it’s all about Yawgmoth’s Will.

Consider Yawgmoth’s Bargain itself. You resolve Bargain, you start drawing cards. You find Demonic Tutor or Vampiric Tutor or Mystical Tutor and you only have something like 2-3 storm. What is your play? It’s obviously going to be for Yawgmoth’s Will. You’re going to draw some more cards to find Dark Rituals and hopefully Black Lotus and the like, and then you’re going to Will, replay all the Rituals, and then DT for the Tendrils.

Consider Necropotence. Your goal is to Necro into cards to find the Yawg Will to execute with Tendrils.

Consider some of the Doomsday piles – as often as not they precede Tendrils with Yawgmoth’s Will. This is the "Gush" Doomsday pile, a pile that is quite relevant today. It's the stack that you construct when you have Gush in hand:

1) Ancestral Recall
2) Black Lotus/Lion’s Eye Diamond
3) Lion's Eye Diamond/ Black Lotus
4) Yawgmoth's Will
5) Tendrils of Agony

It’s not that these engines can’t fuel Tendrils by themselves, but it’s just a more complicated and less efficient enterprise.

If you were to remove Yawgmoth’s Will from Vintage, I am not at all convinced that Tendrils would even see play in this metagame. It’s not that you couldn’t do it, it’s just that it probably wouldn’t be worth it. That’s an important distinction that would-be critics are quick to overlook.

If Yawgmoth’s Will were banned in the Pitch Long/Gifts metagame of 2006 to June 2007, I think that Tendrils would have been a highly niche card. Grim Long wouldn’t have been able to operate as is, since all Long variants relied heavily on Will. I am not even convinced that Tendrils would have seen any play at all.

On the flip side, Yawgmoth’s Will does not need Tendrils – it’s just the Tendrils is the most logical fit. It’s like the relationship between Dryad and Gush/cantrips. They just makes the most sense together. Vintage decks have long used Will as an engine without running Tendrils as well, it’s just more efficient to run Tendrils if you can support it. Meandeck Gifts ran Burning Wish for the Tendrils, eventually moving the Tendrils maindeck, but its primary kill with Yawgmoth’s Will was Tinker. Tinker could find Darksteel Colossus, and if you were in a Yawgmoth’s Will, you were going to draw a bunch of cards and probably Time Walk, so that it was sort of like a Tendrils in that you were going to win the game. Slaver did something similar, except it just built up a large board position with Welders and set up infinite Slaver lock killing with some large robot.

The point I’m making is not that Yawgmoth’s Will is a good card, as that would hardly be worth the last couple pages of text, although the preceding page may give that impression. My point is that Tendrils is good because of Yawgmoth’s Will.

The reason I go to great length to make that point is to illustrate that Tendrils of Agony is not like Ancestral Recall or Black Lotus – whose greatness is not contingent or conditioned upon what it’s paired with. Tendrils is only a good card with an engine that supports it.

The problem is that this fact is easily glossed over or overlooked due to the fact that the engines that do support it well, most notably Yawgmoth’s Will, are so ubiquitous or merely proxies for Yawgmoth’s Will. It gives Tendrils the appearance of being objectively great as opposed to contextually great. The universality of Yawgmoth’s Will has made Tendrils seem as natural in a deck as Time Walk. But it is not. Tendrils does not work without an engine.

Anusien strongly disagreed (although two weeks before I wrote that article), and this is what I pointed out to him in the forums in response to my shadowmoor article: http://forums.starcitygames.com/viewtopic.php?t=309264  In that thread I listed every single "tendrils" deck everr played in Vintage.  And each and every single one of those decks, with the exception of MD TEndrils, used Will.  Each of the other "engines" - whether it is Necro or Desire, while they can each reach Tendrisl of their own accord, they remain most efficient with Will to do it.  In that sense, if you take out Will, you take out a big part of each of the other so-called engines.  Thus, a deck cannot be a Tendrils deck and not a Will deck.   That's why Tendrils exists in Vintage: the prsence of Yawg Will.  If Will were banned, these decks would not exist, or would be highly niche decks.   

[Moxlotus]

This is not a Will deck, it’s a Tendrils deck.

I fully believe this to be true.  I estimate that I win maybe 1/3 of my games because of a resolved will.  1/3 from moxen, bounce, moxen, tendrils, and 1/3 from chaining spells together with draw 7s or Desire/necro/bargain.  I definitely believe Tendrils would be a viable kill condition even without Will.  I imagine it would follow an evolutionary path of "The Rebuild Deck" (one tendrils deck you seemed to miss in your list).  Sure it has will, but it certainly doesn't need it to function.  Maybe because I've always known about that deck I see the moxen, bounce, moxen, tendrils kill a lot more than you would and instead you follow a different path.  In fact, the last tournament I played Long in was a tournament where I went 4-0-2 in swiss and then lost in the top 8 or top 4, i forget.  But i definitely remember one stat--that I only cast Will in 2 games.

/props to Reflection for that deck.  I've always loved it.

[ErkBek]

For instance, when you play a Draw7, your chance of being to draw into a lethal Tendrils is at least half determined by your ability to tutor/draw up Yawgmoth’s Will within that Draw7 hand. The Draw7 gains most of its strength from the fact that a number of cards have preceded in, which will make your Yawgmoth’s Will that much more explosive.

Steve, I think there is a fundamental difference between the way you and I play Long.

This is not a Will deck, it’s a Tendrils deck.

I estimate that I win maybe 1/3 of my games because of a resolved will.  1/3 from moxen, bounce, moxen, tendrils, and 1/3 from chaining spells together with draw 7s or Desire/necro/bargain.  I definitely believe Tendrils would be a viable kill condition even without Will. 

When Phil and I play a draw 7, Necro, or Bargain we think:

"How can I spell 9 spells and then a Tendrils?"

rather than

"Where's my Yawg Will?"

The double Tendrils and Chain of Vapor help this plan tremendously, since you're much more likely to see one or the other (or both) on a draw 7 hand.

This is something I picked up from the Droba when I made the switch from Pitch to Grim. I feel Grim Long can afford to run 2 Tendrils because it has better card efficiency than Pitch Long. The 2nd Tendrils enables a ton of flexibility if you can get past the idea that it's dead in most openers (it took me a little while). It's more than just the Jar and Necro "situations".

[Liam-K]

I'm pretty much gong to come down with GWS on this.

First of all, saying Yawgwill is in every Tendrils deck is an inadequate premise for the conclusion that every Tendrils deck is reliant on Yawgwill.  Will is in every Slaver list but  I seem to recall Slaver placing first in that tournament where they banned Will.

Secondly, while "is there a Will solution here?" is a good first question to ask while fanning open a hand, I found the better I got with Long, the more likely I was to be happy with my cards even when the answer was "no."  I looked for Will solutions first because they were the easiest for me to count without irritating my opponent, to be completely honest.  I didn't have a problem then considering Chain of Vapor solutions... I honestly found this card to be the cheapest storm enabler in the deck and would put it on top to generate 2 mana and 4 storm more than I would to remove an obstacle.  The second Tendrils also started feeling nicer, especially when compared to other options for your last couple cards in Long, because having it saved me a whole tutor... putting less pressure on me to get Will and reuse my tutor, freeing me up to get something that made me lethal then just cast it.  I really used to subscribe to the 1 tendrils is less dead weight philosophy, but I found it just more crippling in practice than I thought.

[XxtSundaybxX]

I completely agree that this deck does not RELY on yawgwill and that there can be decks playing tendrils and not will, ,although there is no reason not to, however it is still very possible. Much like Moxlotus said, I win more than half of my games with desire,bargain, or just playing CoV and ramping storm with rituals.

I do however have a question off the topic of Yawgwill. Obviously in a CS or control based meta Grimlong would be the better deck to pilot, however in a stax meta would PitchLong not be the more appropriate deck to play? I have been testing it  and i think i would much rather have force of will on the play/draw than duress any day in a heavy stax meta.

[Smmenen]

For instance, when you play a Draw7, your chance of being to draw into a lethal Tendrils is at least half determined by your ability to tutor/draw up Yawgmoth’s Will within that Draw7 hand. The Draw7 gains most of its strength from the fact that a number of cards have preceded in, which will make your Yawgmoth’s Will that much more explosive.

Steve, I think there is a fundamental difference between the way you and I play Long.

This is not a Will deck, it’s a Tendrils deck.

I estimate that I win maybe 1/3 of my games because of a resolved will.  1/3 from moxen, bounce, moxen, tendrils, and 1/3 from chaining spells together with draw 7s or Desire/necro/bargain.  I definitely believe Tendrils would be a viable kill condition even without Will. 

When Phil and I play a draw 7, Necro, or Bargain we think:

"How can I spell 9 spells and then a Tendrils?"

Precisely. 

And although there will be MANY answers to that question, how often - what percentage of the time - is the most efficient answer to that question"Yawgmoth's Will" OR that Yawgmoth's Will will turn out to be in that line of play somewhere?   There aren't enough differences between this deck and Grim Long to make that answer different more than a few percentage points.   It may not be over 50% of the time that the answer is Yawg Will, but it is enough of a time, and perhaps most of the time.  And even if the immediate answer is something else (because, say, you are holding Necro or Bargain or can pull of a Desire), how often is Yawgmoth's WIll somewhere in that chain?

The answer may be: 
A --> B --> C --> D
Necro --> DT --> Yawg WIll --> Tendrils  (A necro hand that gives you DT and some mana and disruption)


OR

A ------->   B ----------->  C --------->  D

Desire --> Grim Tutor ---> Yawg Will --> Tendrils  (A desire that flips over GT and some mana)

My point wasn't that:

A) That you cannot Win Without Yawg Will
B) That Yawg Will is always the best path to Tendrils
C) That Yawg Will is always the most efficient path to TEndrils

My point is that this deck would not exist if Yawgmoth's Will were banned.   Yawgmoth's Will, both directly and indirectly, powers everything else in this deck and all of the Tendrils decks in the format.

The same is true of the Rebuild deck.  While you could Rebuild and Tendrils, that plan would not, by itself, be strong enough to support a deck.   

Necropotence, a card you site as perhaps your favorite bomb (obviously, I put will above it), is a card whose value is HUGELY predicated on Will.  Unlike Desire, Bargain or even Draw7s, which generate plenty of storm on their own, Necro must be paired with other bombs to execute its plan.   The most common Necros are Necros that give you mana and tutors for Will so that you generate the storm for Tendrils.

Each of the cards you use, the Draw7s, Necro, bargain, and Desire - these are all powered by Will. 

* Necro: by exchanging life for cards, you get some mana and hopefully some tutors or a bomb or two.   From here, the most efficient path to victory is often Will

* Bargain: While Bargain can support a Tendrils in its own right, simply by paying life to draw cards and play mana and then tutor for Tendrils directly, the path that saves the most amount of life and gives you maximum disruption is Yawg Will

* Desire: A desire will reveal a mix of spells and mana.   Although Desire can fuel other bombs, you often dont' want to draw7 your opponent into new spells.  If you can just tutor and Will, that's often the most effective path to victory

* Draw7s: A draw7 that reveals a tutor for Will, assuming you don't have lethal storm, is more often than not, the best route to 10 storm and Tendrils.

You see, you missed the point entirely because although you understand the mechanics for playing the deck, and you see the correct lines of play, and you know how the cards interact, your framework - your overall theory - for these decks are wrong.   You are looking at most of these cards in isolation rather than in relation to each other.   Necropotence is not a card whose value can be separated from Yawg Will, as one of the common post Necro lines of play is Will.  The same is true for Desire and Draw7s.   Without Yawg Will the value of each of these engines, including the GT engines, would drop preciptiously. 

Another, but more difficult way, to diagram or see this would be to simply diagram out every single line of play to Tendrils.

For instance:

Tutors --> Yawg Will --> Tendrils
Necro --> Tutors --> Yawg Will --> Tendrils
Necro --> Moxen + Rebuild --> Tendrils
Bargain --> Tutors -- > Yawg Will -- Tendrils
Desire --> Bargain --> Tendrils
Bargain --> Desire --> TEndrils
Bargain --> Desire --> Yawg Will -- Tutor --> Tendrils

And so on.  You could diagram out every single path to Tendrils, and you know what?  What you would discover is that most of the deck is predicated around Will, EVEN IF many or even a majority of the actual lines of play do not involve Yawg Will.   The strength (read: value) of these cards is in part determined by the presence, use, and synergy with Will.

EDIT: The same is even true of original long.dec, which was by necessity of the use of Burning Wish, even MORE Y. Will-Centric.  I mean, that deck could play Necro, Desire, Bargain, and Draw7s and just B. wish for Tendrils directly just as much as your deck.  But that didn't mean that its power didn't come from the presence of Yawg Wlll becuase it did. 

Tendrils exists EXCLUSIVELY in competitive Vintage because of Yawgmoth's WIll.    If you are playing a Tendrils deck, you are by necessity playing a Yawg WIll deck.  the deck may not need Yawg Will to win, but it would not exist without it.   Your deck would not be good enough, it's engines not powerful enough, and its consistency and robustness not high enough to be an upper tier deck. 

To say that this is a Tendrils deck, not a Will deck, is a logical contradiction.  If Yawgmoth's Will were banned, this deck, and every other Long variant would not exist.   That isn't to say that they couldn't be played, but they wouldn't be good enough to really compete at that level.  And its not simply because of the loss of Yawg Will.  It's because each of the other bombs in the deck is subtely and overtly underpowered then.    Necro, Bargain, Desire, etc, - they all get weaker.    For christ's sake, you have three Grim TUtors here.   There value plummets without Will.   

The long concept, first advanced by Krzywiki, was a recognition of the fact that Yawgmoth's Will is the most effective route to 10 storm tendrils.  It doesn't mean that it's the only route or that you have to go that route, but it is the cheapest and most powerful.   

You are confused because you are missing the interrelationships between the two questions and thus missing my point.   You assume that these are two different questions because you make this dichotomy:

When Phil and I play a draw 7, Necro, or Bargain we think:

"How can I spell 9 spells and then a Tendrils?"

rather than

"Where's my Yawg Will?"

I ask the same question that you and Phil do.   The fact that you think I'm ask myself the second question reveals a point of confusion on your part.   You are confusing the theoretical backdrop I've provided on the centrality of Will with the mechanical operations of the deck.   My primers are intended not just to give players a guide to playing the deck, but also an understanding of its hidden operations.  Anyone can play a deck, but mastering a deck requires higher order knowledge.   
 When playing Grim Long, I NEVER ask: where is my Yawgmoth's Will (or more precisely, what you meant to say, "How can I execute Will?" (the answer to the question "where is will?" is usually "in my library").   

The theoretical point I'm making about the centrality of Will does NOT mean that I am saying that every time I play Grim Long my goal is to find Will and thats it. 

The mistake your are making, the big one, is confusing the theoretical framework I have articulated with the way I play the deck.  My assertion that these are Yawg Will decks does not mean that I am saying that you have to resolve Yawg Will.   Hardly.   Read my tournament reports and see what percentage of games I win with Will.  Probably around 50%, although that's just a guess.   My point is not that you have to resolve Will, it's that Tendrils does not exist in any format without an engine, and the Long engine of powerful restricted cards and cheap tutoring is all powered by Will, directly or indirectly.   

I fully believe this to be true.  I estimate that I win maybe 1/3 of my games because of a resolved will.  1/3 from moxen, bounce, moxen, tendrils, and 1/3 from chaining spells together with draw 7s or Desire/necro/bargain.  I definitely believe Tendrils would be a viable kill condition even without Will.  I imagine it would follow an evolutionary path of "The Rebuild Deck" (one tendrils deck you seemed to miss in your list).  Sure it has will, but it certainly doesn't need it to function.  Maybe because I've always known about that deck I see the moxen, bounce, moxen, tendrils kill a lot more than you would and instead you follow a different path.  In fact, the last tournament I played Long in was a tournament where I went 4-0-2 in swiss and then lost in the top 8 or top 4, i forget.  But i definitely remember one stat--that I only cast Will in 2 games.

Again, Phil makes the same mistake.  Even assuming that his asnwer is accurate, he has divided Draw7s, Necro, Desire, and bargiain into a category that is DIFFERENT from yawg Will.   That doesn't make any sense.   A signifiant number of draw7s, Desires, and Necros precede Yawg Will.   Yawg WIll is not a hermetically sealed, separate victory condition from Necro or any given draw7.  Necropotence (and draw7s) is more powerful because of Wills existence.   

[LordHomerCat]

I think part of the Tendrils vs. Will thing may also go with your decision to only run 1 Tendrils Steve.  I definitely remember playing PitchLong years back with multiple Tendrils, and necroing for a reasonable amount of cards, then just casting some disruption and mana and a small tendrils was a common play.  Compared to your more aggressive lists, that was harder to do as it REQUIRED you to cast Will to win the game from there, while Becker's lists still had more Tendrils to search up.  That also plays to your whole philosophy as well (and I play more like you), where something like a mini-tendrils is rarely the choice you want to make.  I know a lot of combo players (like Mike Solymossy for instance) who like running multiple tendrils and just using it for like 5-7 storm to put the opponent on the back foot and give them time to draw a second.  Those kind of people tend to build Tendrils decks more than Will decks.  On the other hand, I hate the mini-tendrils thing, and see it as a waste of resources a lot of the time when you could just go for the win instead (hence why I hate confidant in combo).  I think that is much more your style Steve, which leads to your view of Long as a Will deck (since Will always goes for lethal).  You play it less like a deck trying to use tendrils and more like a deck just trying to wear out the opponent and then do whatever it wants, and I don't think you consider the card Tendrils in the same light as Becker and people of that 'school' if you will.  Some people see it as a necessary win and minimize it as much as possible (like you Steve), while others consider it to be a useful disruption card and play multiples because they like having access to them early and often (Becker, Soly, Phil).

For what its worth, I see tendrils as a necessary evil.  I also agree that Smennen's Long decks are absolutely Will decks, not tendrils decks.  However, when you start running multiple Tendrils maindeck and start expecting to cast the card for less than lethal, you do blur the line and start to build Tendrils decks instead of Will decks.

[Smmenen]

Jimmy, you are buying into the same false frame (Will v. Tendrils).   

My criticism was that Becker was asserting that his deck was NOT a Will deck, but a Tendrils deck.  My point is that they are one and the same.  But pitting them against each other, you are reverting to his frame. 

My point about Long being a Will deck is not that you need Will to win or that I'm always looking to play Will.  It's a theoretical point about the hidden operations of the deck.

Here's an analogy that may be useful.   You can teach someone how to read a watch, program a watch, and use a watch.   But teaching them how a watch works is a very different matter.  My point about Vintage Tendrils decks actually being Will decks is the latter, not the former.  Becker, you, and others are confusing the point.    My article on Playing with Fire did a good job (I thought) at explaining this, but apparently it didn't.
  It would be very simple (and true) to simply assert: if Yawgmoth's Will were banned, Tendrils would see virtually no play in Vintage just as Dryad will not with Gush restricted.   But that wouldn't be bought or understood or accepted for the reason that I explained in that article: people have "naturalized" Tendrils's presence without understanding it very well.

Why would people make such a tremendous error in logic – one so obvious? The reason is that the engines that fuel Tendrils are so decentralized, so non-linear that they don’t appear to be engines. They are appear to be a normal part of the environment and deck design such that they no longer appear to be engines. In short, they are naturalized.

My previous post in this thread was a second attempt to try and explain it.  Re-read that post, carefully.  I think you'll understand why I say that your framing the issue in the same way as Becker, and that that is a mistake.   

I think the reasons that these discussions falter is that we bring to the table a linear mindset rather than a systems view.   If we take a systems view of these decks rather than an analytical, let's-view-the-engines-in-isolation view, it is difficult to see the FULL centrality of Will, beyond the fact, that frankly, Why the Heck do these decks have Grim Tutor if not For Will? (basically).   When we fail to see these decks from a systems perspective, we are led into linear boxes and false dichotomies like the ones that Becker made. 

(since Will always goes for lethal).

No, I will use Yawg Will just to replay a land, Duress, and Brainstorm if need be.  I will play Yawg Will just to replay a tutor and a land.   

[Moxlotus]

Again, Phil makes the same mistake.  Even assuming that his asnwer is accurate, he has divided Draw7s, Necro, Desire, and bargiain into a category that is DIFFERENT from yawg Will.   That doesn't make any sense.   A signifiant number of draw7s, Desires, and Necros precede Yawg Will.   Yawg WIll is not a hermetically sealed, separate victory condition from Necro or any given draw7.  Necropotence (and draw7s) is more powerful because of Wills existence.

I separated out my kills with will from kills with d7s, desires, necros into chaining 10 spells together without will.  I figured this would be quite clear with the 3 separate categories.  They are functionally different.  The d7s/bargain/desire certainly can make will better, but my numbers remain the same.  About 1/3 of games I win are by casting will.  2/3 of the times I win I do not successfully resolve Will.  I isolated will separately from all other possible scenarios because it is just so powerful it can just win on its own.  And to see how often that Will is not the most efficient way to the kill.  Will is the 1 card that has its own group because it is that good.  The other categories are 3-4 cards (the bounce spells) or ~7 cards (necro, bargain, desire, wheel, twist, tinker, jar).

Will is the most efficient single card engine.  Nobody is arguing that point.  I am saying that this build allows you to use other engines more effectively if for some reason the Will engine is not going to work very well.  We are decreasing how much we lean on Will's power in this deck (unlike IT, which probably leaned on Will more than any other deck I've ever seen).  Your build leans heavier on Will and as such is more vulnerable to cards that might disrupt will--yet you have an advantage of being able to use will even more efficiently and therefore getting higher turn 1 kill rates.

You are looking at most of these cards in isolation rather than in relation to each other.

There are times to look at cards as a unit, and times to look at them in isolation.  When you're going to smash your opponent and basically goldfish his ass, you look at the cards in relation to each other.  When you are fighting against a deck with lots of disruption, you have to look at each card individually because you might have your first and second bomb neutralized.  You are out of gas and must be able to evaluate each topdeck as an individual card to see where it will take you.  How those first 2 bombs make other cards in your deck stronger doesn't mean anything if they were met with Mana Drain, Force of Will, or Duress.  Things go wrong, plans fail, and in the end you may need to bank on each card as an individual, rather than as part of a system.


I don't know much about sports, but I'll use a basketball team as an example.  A coach puts together a team which meshes really well together.  Each one builds on the other.  The great defensive player makes the pointguard better which makes the guy who is the league leader in rebounds better who then goes back to make the power forward better.  They all mesh great.  Problem: pointguard is out on an injury.  Power forward gets a suspension.  Now your seamless mesh of a team is in shambles.  It's up to the individual player and their individual ability to get the job done.  They don't have the great things around them to make them even better. 

At this point we've deviated so far from the actual point (what build and how to play it) that the discussion is moot.

I think there is a difference in how we see and build decks.  I believe (and I could be wrong) you build your deck to have the highest possible chance to win before something bad happens.  We have built our deck to have a lower chance to win on turn 1, but has a greater chance to win if something bad does happen.  For example you claimed your turn 1 kill is close to 20% in tournament play while we have a percentage that is closer to 12%.  But we also think we have a favorable matchup against stax, while you state in your article that it is not a deck you want to play against.  This different mindset in deck construction may be why you have always liked the 5c manabase(never lose a game to having the wrong color of mana) where as GWS has always used fetchland manabases (never lose a game to wasteland).

[punki]

My 2 cents:

I've played all the other decks and now I'll be trying this deck. So I do not have a lot of experience with this deck, but I do have an opinion  

I think Will i sessential to tendrills decks because of the hate there is against the deck. The tactic of ' bounce your artifacts, replay them and tendrills' is very difficult under chalice @ 0 or spheres and against decks where it is more important to bounce the opponent's artifacts. The will kill is quite difficult under a leyline of other graveyard hate. This is why I agree that will and tendrills go together: If your opponent disrupts one path to victory, you still have the other one.

And speaking for the less experienced combo players: If there was no 'will path' to victory, the threshold to start playing combo decks would be much higher. It's easier with will around. (although in drain tendrills I find it quite easy to go the bounce moxen route to victory because that deck is designed to play a longer game.)

[Smmenen]

Again, Phil makes the same mistake.  Even assuming that his asnwer is accurate, he has divided Draw7s, Necro, Desire, and bargiain into a category that is DIFFERENT from yawg Will.   That doesn't make any sense.   A signifiant number of draw7s, Desires, and Necros precede Yawg Will.   Yawg WIll is not a hermetically sealed, separate victory condition from Necro or any given draw7.  Necropotence (and draw7s) is more powerful because of Wills existence.

I separated out my kills with will from kills with d7s, desires, necros into chaining 10 spells together without will.  I figured this would be quite clear with the 3 separate categories.  They are functionally different.  The d7s/bargain/desire certainly can make will better,

You have it backward.  Although what you say is true, my point was not that.  it was that Will makes the d7s/bargain/Desire better

but my numbers remain the same.  About 1/3 of games I win are by casting will.  2/3 of the times I win I do not successfully resolve Will.

While I would LOVE to carefully, game by game, inspect you playing your deck and your analyze your play against various matchups, I will accept what you say as true for purposes here. 

  I isolated will separately from all other possible scenarios because it is just so powerful it can just win on its own.  And to see how often that Will is not the most efficient way to the kill.  Will is the 1 card that has its own group because it is that good.  The other categories are 3-4 cards (the bounce spells) or ~7 cards (necro, bargain, desire, wheel, twist, tinker, jar).

So, 1/3 of the time you win with Necro, Desire, Bargain, and Draw7s.

And in NONE of those instances are you counting A) Bouncing Moxen with Bounce spells NOR B) Casting Will.   As you said, those are separate.   You said that 1/3 of the time you win with Will, 1/3 of the time you win with Bargain/Desire/Necro/Draw7s, and 1/3 of the time you win with Bouncing Moxen into Tendrils.

Ok, so, WHAT exactly do you DO when you Necro, Bargain, and Draw7? 

Since you counted your bounce into tendrils and your Will as separate, that means that you aren't counting the instances in which you Necroed into bounce into Tendrils and instances in which you draw:

Mystical + Brainstorm/Ponder to find Will
DT for Will
Grim Tutor for Will
Vamp and Brainstorm/ Ponder or a draw spell for Will

You arent counting the times in which you Draw7 into a tutor for Will

You aren't counting times in which your Desire revealed bounce spells and a tutor for Tendrils.   

You aren't counting times in which your Desire revealed A tutor like DT or GT where you tutored up Will.

You aren't counting those draw7s that draw a mix of mana, diresuption and tutors and in which you find Will before Tendrilsing even though you could get close with ut Tendrils or find a way without Will. 

That means, you aren't counting times in which you Bargained and instead of just drawing into Tendrils, you decided, to create more and safer play by maxing card advantage by just tutoring up Will.

I could go on like this forever...

I mean.... If you aren't doing all of those things, one of two possibilities seems to remain: either you always draw Tendrils directly off draw7 with enough storm already to make it lethal every time OR you saw another one of these cards that WASN"T Will and that wasn't a tutor that did get you to the Tendrils.   Given the large number of tutors in the deck that seems like your numbers are off. 

How many of the times that you Willed - of the 1/3 - how many of those times included Desire, Necro, Bargain and Draw7s? 

 If you are counting a full 1/3 of the draw7s, necroing, etc as NON- Will, then what about the fact that most of the time that we Necro, Bargai, Desire, and draw7, Yawg will is involved the game in some way.   You have buitl a wall between Will and the other cards that does not reflect the real world operation of these cards. 

Will is the most efficient single card engine.  Nobody is arguing that point.  I am saying that this build allows you to use other engines more effectively if for some reason the Will engine is not going to work very well.  We are decreasing how much we lean on Will's power in this deck (unlike IT, which probably leaned on Will more than any other deck I've ever seen). 

Again, you made a huge error in assuming that I play Grim Long in thinking: I just need Will.

No, that's not how I play Grim Long.  I play it the same way you play your deck: what's the best way to a lethal Tendrils?   I appreciate that you are decreasing your reliance on yawg Will (which sounds very silly - I mean, if that were true, why so many Grim Tutors?  (Also: IT relied on Will more than original Long.dec?  Please).   

Your build leans heavier on Will and as such is more vulnerable to cards that might disrupt will--yet you have an advantage of being able to use will even more efficiently and therefore getting higher turn 1 kill rates.

No.  You are conflating two separate things.  My build is more vulnerable to 9balls: Sphres, Chalices, etc. But that isn't a function of reliance or use of Yawg Will.   

You are looking at most of these cards in isolation rather than in relation to each other.

There are times to look at cards as a unit, and times to look at them in isolation.  When you are fighting against a deck with lots of disruption, you have to look at each card individually because you might have your first and second bomb neutralized. 

 I'm not talking about when a card is neutralized or countered.  I'm talking about how the cards actually work.

Let's just take one example: Wheel of Fortune.   It does nothing by itself but put cards in your hand.   Viewing Wheel of Fortune as an isolated engine is absolutely ridiculous unless it put a Tendrils in your hand every time.  It doesn't.  Not even Bargain does that.   It often will put a tutor and mana or another bomb in your hand, but you usually have more work to do.  Since you have more work to do the vast majority of the time (by 'more work' I mean tutoring, necroing, desiring, etc) viewing Wheel by itself is wrong headed.   Extrapolate to other cards that I've already written about, say Necro.

[Moxlotus]

Since you counted your bounce into tendrils and your Will as separate, that means that you aren't counting the instances in which you Necroed into bounce into Tendrils and instances in which you draw:
Mystical + Brainstorm/Ponder to find Will
DT for Will
Grim Tutor for Will
Vamp and Brainstorm/ Ponder or a draw spell for Will

You arent counting the times in which you Draw7 into a tutor for Will

You aren't counting times in which your Desire revealed bounce spells and a tutor for Tendrils.   

You aren't counting times in which your Desire revealed A tutor like DT or GT where you tutored up Will.

Yes, yes I have Steve.  If AT ANY POINT IN THE GAME WILL WAS RESOLVED, IT WAS PUT INTO THE WILL CATEGORY.  Period.  There is no gray area there.  Completely binary system.  Was will cast?  Yes=go to will category.  No=go to another category.  I'm not sure how I can put it any other way.

  How many of the times that you Willed - of the 1/3 - how many of those times included Desire, Necro, Bargain and Draw7s?   

The purpose of my exercise was to determine how often the correct line of play was involving Will in any way, shape, or form to get the victory.  It was not to determine the effecitveness of Desire, Necro, bargain, and draw7s.  Nor was it to determine how often I won with solely bounce or a combination of bounce+draw7s/necro.  I specifically remember 2 entire matches in a row where my threats were neutralized and all 4 wins came from mox mox mox rebuild mox mox mox rit tendrils. That was probably an anomoly that that specific play happened at such a high frequency.  I do find myself tutoring for the bounce/tendrils combo in about 1/3 of the games I win though, so the stat still stands in my experience regardless of the actual method of finding the cards.  But I don't remember the exact criteria I used to separate bounce and d7s.  Therefore I cannot answer this question because I did not take play by play notes.  Maybe I should have been more clear with the objective and method of my field study. 

Again, you made a huge error in assuming that I play Grim Long in thinking: I just need Will.

No, that's not how I play Grim Long.  I play it the same way you play your deck: what's the best way to a lethal Tendrils?   I appreciate that you are decreasing your reliance on yawg Will (which sounds very silly - I mean, if that were true, why so many Grim Tutors?  (Also: IT relied on Will more than original Long.dec?  Please

I did not say that's what you think.  I said that your build comes to a lethal tendrils using Will more than my build would. 
I am not totally ignoring my reliance on Will--hence the tutors.  I am merely decreasing its use. And as I decrease its use my build gets slower.  And I do have a smaller turn 1% than yours does.
And I believe IT did rely more on Will.  IT had a very very VERY hard time winning without Will.  Original Long.dec could at least try to draw7 into the win or Burning Wish for Desire.  IT ran about 1 draw 7 and 1 desire compared to 4-5 d7s Long.dec had and 4 Wishes for Desire.

No.  You are conflating two separate things.  My build is more vulnerable to 9balls: Sphres, Chalices, etc. But that isn't a function of reliance or use of Yawg Will.   

I am using a "systems approach" to deckbuilding like you said   You have built your deck to effectively abuse Will more than this deck.  As such your deck has eschewed more copies of bounce and cards like basic land from the maindeck.  My build does not abuse Will as effectively because it has more bounce and basics--but those are the cards that allow me to have a better game against 9balls.

Let's just take one example: Wheel of Fortune.   It does nothing by itself but put cards in your hand.   Viewing Wheel of Fortune as an isolated engine is absolutely ridiculous unless it put a Tendrils in your hand every time.  It doesn't.  Not even Bargain does that.   It often will put a tutor and mana or another bomb in your hand, but you usually have more work to do.  Since you have more work to do the vast majority of the time (by 'more work' I mean tutoring, necroing, desiring, etc) viewing Wheel by itself is wrong headed.   Extrapolate to other cards that I've already written about, say Necro.

That was not the point of my observation, but I certainly know how I could isolate them.  Every time they are cast into mana and tendrils, then they would go into that category.  That was pretty close to my how it ended up working out, but there were other scenarios that ended up getting encompassed in that category I made.  Such as twisting into mana and brainstorm/recall which leads me to tendrils or a tutor for tendrils.

[Smmenen]

So, 1/3 of the time you win with Necro, Desire, Bargain, and Draw7s.

And in NONE of those instances are you counting A) Bouncing Moxen with Bounce spells NOR B) Casting Will.   As you said, those are separate.   You said that 1/3 of the time you win with Will, 1/3 of the time you win with Bargain/Desire/Necro/Draw7s, and 1/3 of the time you win with Bouncing Moxen into Tendrils

It doesn't matter what I was counting on.  The only thing that matters are the cards I get.

I'm not talking about what you are "counting on" - i'm talking about what you are *counting*.   

Since you counted your bounce into tendrils and your Will as separate, that means that you aren't counting the instances in which you Necroed into bounce into Tendrils and instances in which you draw:
Mystical + Brainstorm/Ponder to find Will
DT for Will
Grim Tutor for Will
Vamp and Brainstorm/ Ponder or a draw spell for Will

You arent counting the times in which you Draw7 into a tutor for Will

You aren't counting times in which your Desire revealed bounce spells and a tutor for Tendrils.   

You aren't counting times in which your Desire revealed A tutor like DT or GT where you tutored up Will.

Yes, yes I have Steve.  If AT ANY POINT IN THE GAME WILL WAS RESOLVED, IT WAS PUT INTO THE WILL CATEGORY.  Period.  There is no gray area there.  Completely binary system.  Was will cast?  Yes=go to will category.  No=go to another category.  I'm not sure how I can put it any other way.

Again Phil, read more carefully.   One of my examples didn't invovle Will.

You aren't counting, as I said, times in which you Desired into BOUNCE spells and Tendrils. 

So, to make it clear, your assertion is that in 1/3 (roughly) of the games you win, you win WITHOUT bounce of Yawg Will, but THROUGH a draw7, Desire, Bargain or Necro.   What I would like to do is to draw up a list of every single possible way you can reach Tendrils, like I started to do a few posts above.   Quite simply, as I said before, if you ARE resolving Bargain/Desire/Necro/Draw7, but are NOT Willing OR Bouncing, one of two possibilities seems to remain: either you always draw Tendrils directly off draw7 with enough storm already to make it lethal every time OR you saw another one of these cards that WASN"T Will and that wasn't a tutor that did get you to the Tendrils.   Given the large number of tutors in the deck that seems like your numbers are off. 

There are other reasons to suggest that your nubmers are off.  I mean 1/3 of the instances in which you count, you are counting JUST bouncing into Tendrils WITHOUT having played any of the other bombs at all. 

Hence my next question:

  How many of the times that you Willed - of the 1/3 - how many of those times included Desire, Necro, Bargain and Draw7s?   

The purpose of my exercise was to determine how often the correct line of play was involving Will in any way, shape, or form to get the victory.  It was not to determine the effecitveness of Desire, Necro, bargain, and draw7s.  Therefore I cannot answer this question because I did not take play by play notes.  Maybe I should have been more clear with the objective and method of my field study. 

My point was not to gauge the effectiveness of the other cards but to ensure and clarify that you were resolving those cards with Will.   I mean, if you can remember that you roughly resolved Will 1/3 of the time and taht the other big bombs another 1/3 and bounce into tendrils the final third, how can you not remember roughly how often you resovled those other big bombs in tandem with Will?  If you can't, I thikn that reveals perhaps a problem since those cards are almost always intertwined with Will.   In my experience, most games with Long variants involve at least two engines, not just Will.  It is rare to just be able to go tutor, WIll, Tutor, Tendrils.  There is usually something else invovled.  Since you have somehow managed to find that a third of the time you win with will and another third you win without will, but with a big bomb, that implies a clean break between the two which I'm highly skeptical of.   

Again, you made a huge error in assuming that I play Grim Long in thinking: I just need Will.

No, that's not how I play Grim Long.  I play it the same way you play your deck: what's the best way to a lethal Tendrils?   I appreciate that you are decreasing your reliance on yawg Will (which sounds very silly - I mean, if that were true, why so many Grim Tutors?  (Also: IT relied on Will more than original Long.dec?  Please

I did not say that's what you think.

You are right, but Becker did.   See his last post.

 I said that your build comes to a lethal tendrils using Will more than my build would. 
I am not totally ignoring my reliance on Will--hence the tutors.  I am merely decreasing its need.

Even assuming that you are decreasing its need, which is, I suppose, a worthy goal so long as you don't decrease Wills effectiveness, that does not mean that this dekc is not a Will deck.    Winning 1/3 of the time with Will is a sign of a Will deck because even the times you don't win with Will are with cards that are much better because of Will.    Tendrils requires an engine.   The engines you run are good and viable in very large part because of Will.  The fact that you don't need will to win does not mean that you are not a Will deck any more than the fact that GroAtog does not need Will to win means that it is not a Will deck.   

Tendrils exists in Vintage because of Will.  You take Will out, you are left with 50% of what you have.   You lose your 1/3 wins with Will and the remaining 1/3 of Desire/Draw7/Necro etc is heavily weakened.    This is a Will deck as much as anything.  Even the bounce plan is aided by Will in some ways.   

No.  You are conflating two separate things.  My build is more vulnerable to 9balls: Sphres, Chalices, etc. But that isn't a function of reliance or use of Yawg Will.   

I am using a "systems approach" to deckbuilding like you said   You have built your deck to effectively abuse Will more than this deck.  As such your deck has eschewed more copies of bounce and cards like basic land from the maindeck.  My build does not abuse Will as effectively because it has more bounce and basics--but those are the cards that allow me to have a better game against 9balls.

How does more bounce make your deck abuse Will less effectively?  That's like saying, my deck uses Will less effectively because I run a Tinker.  I don't see the connection.

Let's just take one example: Wheel of Fortune.   It does nothing by itself but put cards in your hand.   Viewing Wheel of Fortune as an isolated engine is absolutely ridiculous unless it put a Tendrils in your hand every time.  It doesn't.  Not even Bargain does that.   It often will put a tutor and mana or another bomb in your hand, but you usually have more work to do.  Since you have more work to do the vast majority of the time (by 'more work' I mean tutoring, necroing, desiring, etc) viewing Wheel by itself is wrong headed.   Extrapolate to other cards that I've already written about, say Necro.

That was not the point of my observation, but I certainly know how I could isolate them.  Every time they are cast into mana and tendrils, then they would go into that category.  That was pretty close to my how it ended up working out, but there were other scenarios that ended up getting encompassed in that category I made.  Such as twisting into mana and brainstorm/recall which leads me to tendrils or a tutor for tendrils.

Aha!  And so you just tutored for Tendrils instead of Will.   The situations in which that happens are EXCEEDINGLY narrow since WIll permits you to reuse the tutor to find Tendrils.   I find your numbers are your claims very hard to believe. 

[arctic79]

So if I inderstand all of this dicsussion correctly, Yawg can be removed entirely from the deck and it should win 66% of the time. And given the choice you would rather tutor for a D7/Necro/Bargain/Desire over a Yawg while in a situation to go off.
I think my brain just exploded.

I have to agree with Smmenen that a Tendrils deck is in one way or another a Will deck, for I can't see a long.dec variant surviving without it.

[And11]

I haven't been playing vintage in a long time because of the previous metagame which made me sick, but I've slowly resumed to active play during the last couple of weeks. Your discussion doesn't make much sense to be honest. Why waste so much space and time discussing the size of importance of YawgWill when we can all agree that Tendrils decks would never exist without YawgWill legal? Whether you call it a Tendrils or Will deck is nothing but irrelevant. Period.

[Moxlotus]

Again Phil, read more carefully.   One of my examples didn't invovle Will.

You aren't counting, as I said, times in which you Desired into BOUNCE spells and Tendrils

Again, I repeat myself, I did not keep careful track of how I won my games with bounce or the circumstances.  The sole purpose was to determine how often I resolved Will to win the game versus not using will.  I arbitrarily divided the "not using Will" into categories where I didn't specify the strict requirements because i wasn't that interested in those categories as much as I was with Will.

  either you always draw Tendrils directly off draw7 with enough storm already to make it lethal every time OR you saw another one of these cards that WASN"T Will and that wasn't a tutor that did get you to the Tendrils.   Given the large number of tutors in the deck that seems like your numbers are off

I counted tutors in there.  d7s into the win or d7s into a tutor for tendrils because I had lethal storm already.  Approximately 1/3 of games I win are flat out by playing a draw 7 into tendrils with enough storm, d7/necro into a tutor->already lethal tendrils, or d7/necro->ponder/bs/ancestral->tendrils.

There are other reasons to suggest that your nubmers are off.  I mean 1/3 of the instances in which you count, you are counting JUST bouncing into Tendrils WITHOUT having played any of the other bombs at all.   

As I said, about 1/3 of the games I win are accomplished by bouncing and tutoring for the lethal tendrils (no will involved).  Or tutoring for chain/rebuild when the tendrils is in my hand and I didn't get Will because a: my grave wasn't loaded enough or b: Hurkyl's would win too and if my spell was countered and I have to try again later, i'd rather have it be the Hurks countered instead of Will.  No reason to throw Will out there to get countered if another card would win me the game just as well that turn (with no additional risks like a d7 would bring).  If it was countered, in 3 turns of topedecking that hurkyl's might not be lethal, but that Will would be, so I'd rather have will in the deck in case something goes wrong rather than having Hurks in the deck still. 

It seems to me that you can't imagine the number of games ending that way to be so high.  Eric and I have consistent results with each other.  And, as I've stated before, this is because of the higher number of bounce spells in this build.  I can certainly see how your build would not come to that, but this build allows this phenomenon to occur and in the process allows me to rely on Will less.

Since you have somehow managed to find that a third of the time you win with will and another third you win without will, but with a big bomb, that implies a clean break between the two which I'm highly skeptical of.   

When your turn is: duress mox ritual, wheel, mox, dark rit, brainstorm, grim tutor tendrils gg, then it is a pretty clean break from Will.

My point was not to gauge the effectiveness of the other cards but to ensure and clarify that you were resolving those cards with Will.   I mean, if you can remember that you roughly resolved Will 1/3 of the time and taht the other big bombs another 1/3 and bounce into tendrils the final third, how can you not remember roughly how often you resovled those other big bombs in tandem with Will?  If you can't, I thikn that reveals perhaps a problem since those cards are almost always intertwined with Will.   In my experience, most games with Long variants involve at least two engines, not just Will

No, I was not resolving those cards with Will.  That 1/3 of games I claimed to win with d7s/necro appear in examples like the above---when Will is not resolved in the game.  During the matches I counted as winning with Will, there were probably some d7s cast--but those went into the Will category because Will was played. 

How does more bounce make your deck abuse Will less effectively?  That's like saying, my deck uses Will less effectively because I run a Tinker.  I don't see the connection

Because how the decks are built--the other cards in the deck.  I run more bounce, which leads me to run less duress effects.  Less duress effects makes me either run out unprotected wills sooner or makes me wait a turn or 2 longer for protection.  I have basic island which means that once in a while I won't be able to cast Will because my only land is that island.  But that basic island lets me run bounce more effectively.

 

Aha!  And so you just tutored for Tendrils instead of Will.   The situations in which that happens are EXCEEDINGLY narrow since WIll permits you to reuse the tutor to find Tendrils.   I find your numbers are your claims very hard to believe

Yes, and if I tutored for Tendrils then in that situation because Will was not needed or even wanted.  Like if you are at storm 6, have a bunch floating and your hand is mox mox rit tutor 3 other cards that don't matter for this example.  I'd throw out the tutor right away to get tendrils, drop my other stuff, then play the Tendrils for lethal an not care about his counter where as Will would be vulnerable to a counter in that situation.  Which was the point of my entire observation--how often is killing the opponent with will involved in some way the best course of action and how often is it not? I found that roughly 1/3 of the time, give or take a few percentage points, Will is involved.

You may not find my numbers believable, but they are consistent among my team.  Because you do not find these numbers believable is the reason why we thought you think "where is my will" during a d7 instead of "how can i cast 9 spells then tendrils."  A few bounce spells and an extra tendrils can make all the difference in the world in how a deck plays most effectively.

Yawg can be removed entirely from the deck and it should win 66% of the time

In my exprience, this is correct.  Well, not quite, as the number would be a little bit higher.  You'd start off with a different game plan from the beginning because you removed any possibility of the Will kill. 

And given the choice you would rather tutor for a D7/Necro/Bargain/Desire over a Yawg while in a situation to go off.

I did not say that and am not sure where you inferred that from.  I'd tutor for Tendrils if i have 4 black mana and a storm of lethal before I'd tutor for Will any day of the week if I knew my opponent couldn't stifle/TB it.

Whether you call it a Tendrils or Will deck is nothing but irrelevant. Period.

This.

[ErkBek]

I'd have to agree with you that Long fits into your classification of Will decks very well. In my opinion calling something a "Will deck" implies that it needs to resolve in a substantial portion of its games in order to win, not just a deck that can utilize Yawgmoth's Will in order to win games. IT is a Will deck under that definition, Control Slaver isn't. It's merely difference in how we define "Will deck."

With that statement I was trying to emphasize that my list has so many paths to victory outside of Yawgmoth's Will. The deck just feels like a pure tendrils deck as a result of all these paths. With 2 Tendrils in the deck its not that uncommon to play a Draw 7 into the Tendrils on the 7 (or Brainstorm into it), bounce a bunch of artifact mana then cast a Tendrils, Necro/Bargain into Tendrils.

Phil's example of the tournament where he only cast Yawg Will twice in the swiss is a little extreme, but it shows the versatility that I wrote extensively about in the primer. I would say I only resolve Yawgmoth's Will in around 50% of my wins. I think it's also worth noting that ramping storm without a bounce spell or Yawg Will into a lethal Tendrils is very doable. I've won countless games in situations where my opponent is at 16-18 life, I cast a draw 7 off a mox and a ritual that I played that turn, and hit something like Duress, Ritual, Mox, Mox, Tendrils, Mystical Tutor, Land. (this is even easier now days when so many decks run Thoughtseize)

In my primer I really tried to teach how to play Grim Long. Yes, I made some oversimplifications (the Hierarchy of combo) but I did so in order to teach and clearly state my thoughts. I believe in your article you made a number of oversimplifications which I can further discuss in your thread if you'd like.

Some of this feedback could have been worth discussing a year ago, but really all I see this is you attempting to distinguish your article from the one I wrote a year ago. There is so many striking similarities between the two (ie: how to play draw 7's better, the SSG argument for making the 3 color manabase work, the timing of your post in your "half dozen" thread, etc). It must be the lawyer in you switching our roles here. Now I'm on the defensive talking about the article I wrote.

[punki]

Although the discussion going on in this thread and in the thread of Mr. Menendian's last article started out very interesting and gave me a lot of insights in how people can look at grim long, I'd like to try and bring the discussion back to the deck itself and to the Sideboard.

I'll go over some observations and give my opinion in the hopes people will agree or contradict me, but in hopes of getting some discussion going. I'm new at playing combo and trying to get as much info as I can. I think my general feeling towards the deck is that I'm to concerned about running into hate, but you guys can be the judge on that.

The maindeck is the same in most builds
Differences in maindecks:
3 street wraith or none
I'm not a fan of him. I try to take a look at all the resources nescecary to win with the deck. Life is one of your important resources. I can not see myzelf paying 2 life to get a random card. (unless after topdeck tutors offcourse then it could gain tempo advantage worth the 2 life) I'd play extra protection in their spot.

merchant scroll or not
Why would I play it? There are so few targets. I'd run an extra bounce spell.

number of 'duress-effects' 4; 5 or 6
I prefer 5. 4 seems not enough because I always want to have seen at least one. If I run 6 I seem to draw to many (like D7 of desire that gives me mana and duress effects FTL)

basic swamp of island or no basics
I really like the basic swamp. I play in a non-proxy environment so there will always be 'hate' decks + the shops are very popular over here.

1 or 2 cabal ritual
I think 1 can be enough, but I play 2 because I would'nt know what to replace it with

windfall or not
Easily castable <=> unpredictable result
I think it comes down to a choice between windfall and the next card: night's whisper. I'm thinking windfall is the most potentially broken and unfair of the 2 so I should run it.

Night's wispher or not
Just like the street wraith they feel like 'filling' for the deck. I'd be inclined to run some protection or extra land.

No inferal contract?
I thought it would fit in this kind of deck. Not that easy to cast, but 4 cards is great.

things I see in sideboards:

basics
obviously. And since they come in against stax together with bounce, it's logical to chose islands and then maindeck a basic swamp because all the t1 plays against unknown opponent will mostly involve black mana (duress, rit, bomb)

Extirpate
I love it. Only I think there is a risk of boaring it in to much because it's ok against almost every deck

Planar Void
as long as it's only one. But I think it's use is marginal. Ichorid is equiped to deal with enchantments post board, you have to cast it and it doesn't remove what is already in the graveyard.

thormod's crypt
Ichorid's sollution is mostly chalice, but you can tinker for crypt end it's multifunctional against a lot of decks and ups stormcount. I like it.

Yixlid Jailer
Ichorid can deal with it, but you can keep m guessing if you are boardng it or not.

no leylines
As I said before, ichorid is counting on these g2 so i prefer crypt and extirpate. I love not having to Sb laylines with this deck.

Hurkyl’s Recall and rebuild
obv, I'd go 3 Hrecall/1 rebuild between maindeck and sb because i fear spheres more than chalice @ 2. This could change as stax adapts to the new meta

DSC
Why not run it. Especially in non proxy environment against all the elves, goblins (although they have answers to it)

extra Duress
I prefer them all maindeck

Pact of Negation
Haven't tested it

red elemental blast / pyroblast
I think an important SB slot. Painter decks running around only ups the importance.

That's it from me for now. Please comment and feel free to tell me if you think I'm completely wrong over something.

[beder]

Sorry for my English, message from france.

This is a pretty interesting discussion about Will / Tendrils, Tendrils / Will... pretty rich and deep.

Here are my observations :
Right now, you are all talking about win ratio using will or other path to the 10 storms. But in order to completely adress this case, perhaps the losses should also be considered :
In fact, in order to really understand the influence of will in a deck, not only the "pourcentage of wins thanks to will" have to be considered but also "the pourcentage of losses cause no will". What has to be really discussed is the influence of the card on the "win/loss" ratio".

Win  :
- 1/3 playing will
- 2/3 draw7s and bounces

Loss  :
- how often did you lose a game when succeeding in casting will with grim long?  (should be ~0)
- how often did you lose a game when succeeding in casting at least another bomb but no will?

This could perhaps help identifying the real impact of will on your win/loss ratio.

IMHO, the fact that the deck has other viable paths to the 10 storm doesn't mean that it would still be viable without will, if will has a really huge impact on your win/loss ratio.

And when it comes to tendrils /will, I am not so sure about Steve's assertion "Tendrils exists EXCLUSIVELY in competitive Vintage because of Yawgmoth's WIll".
Given the impact of Yawgmoth's Will, the decks that use storm as a kill (so tendrils) are designed in a way that would perhaps make them not viable if Yawgmoth was removed (for instance the 3-4 grims tutors).

But I don't know if other builds couldn't be viable. Surely they couldn't be as competitive as current ones (when directly compared) - cause loosing will - but could still be competitive :
- all other decks would also lose will, even non storm ones
- given the impact it would have on the whole metagame, impact that I can't analyse, perhaps some other tendrils build could be viable .
The metagames interactions are so complex and "Yawgmoth's will" is such a huge component of it, that I think nobody can precisely predict what would be the use of tendrils in a metagame without yawgmoth.

[zeus-online]

About night's whisper...

So far i think it's very good....Every game i've gotten a land, mox, whispers it's been a turn2 kill, obviously this does not always account for disruption aswell, since a couple of duresses and fow's can still wreck your play.

Street wraith is a love/hate relation for me, it's awesome with top-deck tutors, but without them i'd rather have something else.

I'm not so sure about the number of duress effects, the 3 suggested by kobefan seems to work fine for me, although i've thought about adding a fourth, since i'm not playing pact of negation.

/Zeus

[Purple Hat]

I'm havng life total issues when playing this version.  I'm getting into situations where I play nights whisper into street wraith, drop a fetch, cycle into necro.  now I'm sitting at 15 life and my necro isn't looking anywhere near as good.  In one game I had bargain in my opening hand with vamp, ritual, street wraith or something like that.  by the time I got the bargain on the table I was at 12 life.   now I've gotta draw down to 1 thus negating all my grims.  I was still able to win that turn, but it's a bit trickier than I'd like.

Between whispers, Wraith, tutors and fetches I think this version does too much damage to itself setting up, but it's also possible I'm not playing it quite right and that will improve with additional testing.

[Troy_Costisick]

Yeah, Long can be really hard on your life total.  When you consider Vamp Tutor, Grim Tutor, Night's Whisper, Infernal Contract, Necropotence, Fetch Lands (if you play them), and Yawgmoth's Bargan can all drain your life total down really quick, it's hard to justify putting in a bunch of extra Thoughtseize.  An R/G Beatz deck sporting Seal of Fire, Lightning Bolt, and Fireblast could be a real problem.

Peace,

-Troy

[Smmenen]

It's merely difference in how we define "Will deck."

In my article last year, Offshoots and Ladders (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13687.html ), I wrote:

Yawgmoth's Will is the dominant strategy in Vintage, and has been so for some time. Every single deck in Vintage embodies this strategy, complements it, or assaults it. Many decks do all three.

The distinguishing feature between decks that embody this strategy is implementation. Some decks use Gifts Ungiven as their Yawgmoth's Will engine, others use Grim Tutor. And until now, the difference in implementation has also meant a difference in support cards. Those decks that used Gifts Ungiven also played Mana Drain to support and fuel Gifts; while those decks that used Grim Tutor played Dark Rituals to support and fuel it.

And the difference between decks that occupied niches on either side of this implementation divide seemed to be between those decks that were more focused in their pursuit of that end and those that were more resilient and resistant to anti-Yawgmoth's Will strategies.

Here was a metagame chart I drew up April of 2006 that modeled this:



In short, there were decks that were very Will-centric, like Gifts and Grim Long, and ecks that were less Will centric, but nonetheless utilized Will greatly, like Slaver.   This decks were Will decks because they were often structured and designed to abuse Will.   

Perhaps the great example of a Will deck, an example that is readily recognizable, but one that resists your rubric, Eric, is Psychatog.

The Psychatog, Hulk Smash list, that my team at the time – Team Paragon – innovated, was completely a Will deck.   It used Intuition + AK to draw a bunch of cards so that it could tutor up Will and win.   However, it didn’t need Will to win, it just made it a lot easier.  Intuition + AK derived much of its power from its ability, much like the Scroll engine later on, to create card advantage and to see many cards which would then be used to find and protect Will.   Will, replaying the AKs really made the earlier mana investment worth while.   

Of course, it didn’t NEED Will to win any given game, any given match, or any given tournament, just as Control Slaver didn’t.  But that deck would not have been the powerhouse that it was without it.  The same is true of Control Slaver in 2005, 2006, and today.

To bring this discussion home:

I'd have to agree with you that Long fits into your classification of Will decks very well. In my opinion calling something a "Will deck" implies that it needs to resolve in a substantial portion of its games in order to win, not just a deck that can utilize Yawgmoth's Will in order to win games. IT is a Will deck under that definition, Control Slaver isn't.

Even under your narrow definition of “needing it to resolve in a substantial number of games in order to win,” a definition that is hopeless ambiguous, your deck certainly fits that bill.   If Eric is right that you use Will in 33% of games and it seems to support your decks very existence in the other 66% (I mean, draw7s lose a lot of power without Will, as does Necro), that would make your deck a Will deck.   33% + by any definition is a “substantial amount.”

But that’s not the definition of a Will deck.   You could strip Will from EVERY Will deck in history: Long.dec, Psychatog, etc and you know what, those decks could still win substantial number of games without Will.  But that doesn’t mean they would exist, or at least, exist in a form that we would readily recognize.   

Control Slaver doesn’t need Will to exist, but its still a Will deck.  It has some of the most explosive Wills in Vintage and it utilizes it as much as any Vintage deck.

GroAtog was definitely a Yawg Will deck.   In fact, that’s why GAT was so good.   It maximized abuse of Will more than anything else just about.   And yet, if you banned Will, GAT could still win games just on the back of Fastbond and Gushing, a substantial number, but it will still be a Will deck.

With that statement I was trying to emphasize that my list has so many paths to victory outside of Yawgmoth's Will.

I understand that, but that is true of every single Will deck ever.   Will decks aren’t like Flash decks where they *need* Flash to win (ok, you could win with Sliver beatdown or even Hulk beatdown, but you get my point). 

Will’s power isn’t in the fact that you have to have it to win, it’s that it lets you replay all the broken spells you’ve already played in any given game.   

The deck just feels like a pure tendrils deck as a result of all these paths. With 2 Tendrils in the deck its not that uncommon to play a Draw 7 into the Tendrils on the 7 (or Brainstorm into it), bounce a bunch of artifact mana then cast a Tendrils, Necro/Bargain into Tendrils.

I understand that – believe me, I recognize that.   But part of the point I was trying to make it that all Tendrils decks require engines.  And hence, there is really no such thing as a Tendrils deck, there is always something else lingering beneath it.   Every "tendrils" deck in Extended is a Desire deck first, or something else first.  Tendrils is just the finisher.  In Vintage, all Tendrils decks are actually Will decks.   

Tendrils does not exist in other formats unless there is a suitable engine to fuel it, i.e. Desire, etc.   The sub-engines that you just mentioned – while they certainly can be played and used to fuel Tendrils without Will, their very strength is conditioned on the presence of Will.    Thus, indirectly, they are predicated on the power of Will.   Necro and Draw7s and certain Grim Tutor, as cards, are not nearly as powerful if Will is banned.  Grim Tutor wouldn't even see play if Will were banned.  Thus, even when you are not actually *using* Will in a game to win, when you are using Necro or a Draw7 or Grim TUtor for a card other than Will, you are indirectly drawing upon the power of Y. Will

[Dante]

 Necro and Draw7s, as cards, are not nearly as powerful if Will is banned.   Thus, even when you are not actually *using* Will in a game to win, when you are using Necro or a Draw7, you are indirectly drawing upon the power of Y. Will

Wow.  Let me get this right.  Using Necro or Draw7's, without touching Y. Will, is "indirectly drawing upon the power of Will"??

The only way that makes sense to me is this

Power of Will: allows you to replay all your good cards.
Necro/Draw 7: allows you to draw more good cards and play them.

So the only way to me that Necro and Draw7's "indirect draw upon the power of YWill" when you don't cast YWill is that they let you play good cards in the first place.

That [drawing and playing good cards in the first place] doesn't sound like anything related to Yawg Will, just something that makes good sense (play good cards, not bad ones and try to play more of them) and that most successful decks will do.  Will capitalizes even more on having already "drawn and played more good cards", but just drawing more good cards and playing them isn't "indirectly drawing upon the power of Will", it's just playing good Magic.

[Smmenen]

Necro and Draw7s, as cards, are not nearly as powerful if Will is banned.   Thus, even when you are not actually *using* Will in a game to win, when you are using Necro or a Draw7, you are indirectly drawing upon the power of Y. Will

Wow.  Let me get this right.  Using Necro or Draw7's, without touching Y. Will, is "indirectly drawing upon the power of Will"??

The only way that makes sense to me is this

Power of Will: allows you to replay all your good cards.
Necro/Draw 7: allows you to draw more good cards and play them.

So the only way to me that Necro and Draw7's "indirect draw upon the power of YWill" when you don't cast YWill is that they let you play good cards in the first place.

That [drawing and playing good cards in the first place] doesn't sound like anything related to Yawg Will, just something that makes good sense (play good cards, not bad ones and try to play more of them) and that most successful decks will do.  Will capitalizes even more on having already "drawn and played more good cards", but just drawing more good cards and playing them isn't "indirectly drawing upon the power of Will", it's just playing good Magic.

Dante,

At first glance, you are right, it does appear that these cards are completely separate.   I mean, they appear to have different functions.   How does drawing cards with a Draw7 or a Necropotence have anything to do with Yawg Will?

Take a step back and look at most of the arguments I’ve been advancing in this thread.  In fact, it goes back to one of the very basic criticisms I’ve been leveling at Eric: which is his tendency to see cards in isolation or at least present his analysis in those terms.

Let’s step away from Draw7s and Necro for a second and begin with the most obvious example: Grim Tutor.   Notice I went back and edited the previous post to include Grim Tutor in the litany, so as to make the point more evident.

I think we can pretty much all agree that Grim Tutor only sees play in Vintage because of Yawgmoth’s Will.    Grim Tutor replaced Burning Wish and Death Wish in original long.dec and Death Long.   In those previous iterations, both Wishes were primarily, although not exclusively, used to find Yawg Will.   Grim Tutor is more versatile, so the range of cards it can find is greater.  Two common Grim Tutor targets include Ancestral Recall and Black Lotus.   Sometimes I even find Necro with Grim Tutor.   

The point is simple:

Without Yawg Will, you would not be playing with Grim Tutor .   With that point firmly established, it follows that every time you use Grim Tutor, even when you are not using it to find Yawg Will, you are drawing upon the power of Yawg Will in your deck.   If not for Yawg Will in your deck, you wouldn’t be using Grim Tutor.  It is a card whose value is clearly predicated on the presence of Yawg Will to power it.

That point is more(or less) obvious in some situations than others.   For instance, when you Grim Tutor for Black Lotus, that play gains power, *even if you never play or find Will* simply because of the presence of Will.   Your opponent might be pressured into Force of Willing something that could find your Will or tutoring up a Tormod’s Crypt to preemptively stop you from going for Will simply because of your now juiced GY. 

Now, do you see how playing a card that in itself doesn’t have anything to do with Will, like using Grim Tutor to find a different card, is indirectly powered by Will?

It’s very easy to extrapolate.   

Take Merchant Scroll.   Merchant Scroll for Ancestral Recall was a play that I took full advantage of in Meandeck Gifts.  The early critics were many, and the base of their criticism was: 1) What do you do after you’ve found recall?  What use is your 2-4 Scrolls then?  2) Scroll is a sorcery spell and doesn’t work well with Drain.  3) Scroll is a 3cc Ancestral.  Why not just play Thirst?  What all of those criticisms missed was the direct line to Y. Will.   Scroll gained much, if not most of its power from the presence of Will in the format.   Without Will to recoup, solidify and secure the early tempo boost, the critics would have been right.   

Necropotence is not a card that was always broken.  It was only restricted in Vintage in 2000.   Back in 1995, Necropotence was awesomely powerful, but it wasn’t too good.   Although we are past the point where even if Will wasn’t in the format, Necro would be fair – it would still absolutely need restriction, as a combo player, much of the power of a fast Necro is Will.   Will is absolutely the quickest and easiest post-Necro line to victory.   All you need from Necro is a mix of mana, a Duress, and a tutor for Will and you can win on the turn after Necroing.   Without Will in the deck, all of those tutors that become so powerful when you Necro lose some value.   It might take another turn to win, or you’d have to set up riskier wins like Draw7s or harder to execute like Desire.  Or, you might have to play jankier kills like Illusions or more Tendrils, either of which dilutes the decks, is slower, and more disruptiable.

Draw7s also gain much of their power from Y. Will for the same reason as Necro there.  If you fan open any hand of 7 from a Draw7, the quickest path to victory will be tutoring up Y. Will.   All of the acceleration you’ve used in the game so far will be available.   It requires the least amount of mana to pull off.  Other kills, like more Draw7s or setting up Desire are more vulnerable for a host of reasons, some articulated alreadys, others which I haven’t.

Now, it’s not just that Yawg Will powers individual cards, makes them better than they normally would be, it also powers decks.   The value of any given card is indirectly determined by the power of the decks in which it can be used.   For instance, if a card is utterly broken but can’t see any play because no deck in which it could see play is good enough, then that card loses value.   Without Yawg Will in the format the entire “restricted list combo” type deck would lose so much power that those cards in them would also lose value.   It’s easy to see using old Academy arguments about how if Academy were banned then other cards might not even need restriction.

I already explained the example with Accumulated Knowledge.   AK for 3 costs 5 mana.  Drawing 7 cards cost 7 with AK 4.   That engine isn’t nearly as powerful without Will to redouble all of that card draw.   Sure, Psychatog could still win matches without Will, but I doubt it would have won the 2003 Vintage Champs without Will because it would not have been as good of a deck.

So, hopefully by now I’ve completely and comprehensively answered your well put question, but yes.

When you play a deck that is only viable or a strategy that is powerful enough to win tournaments because you have Will in your deck, or win you play Grim Tutor, even when not for Yawg Will, you are drawing upon the power of Will in your deck indirectly.   Vintage board states for the last 5 years have as much been a fight over the power of a *potential* Y. Will as Will itself.   

EDIT:

Another good example is Gifts.  If Yawg Will were banned,  do you think that Gifts would need to have been restricted?  Even when Gifts doesn't find Yawg Will, or cards that find Yawg Will, it's power is increased by Wills presence. 

[Purple Hat]

I've been following this debate for a coupple days and across multiple threads....I don't really understand how it's relevant at this point.

Does it seriously matter whether this is a will deck or not or what percentage of it's wins come from will, or in the latest iteration of this argument "do draw 7's and grim tutor derrive their power primarily from their interaction with will?"

Enough already!!  I can't think of another deck with which we have this level of pointless debate of trivial perspectives.  people might debate the effectiveness of the bombs, etc. as a way to better understand the playing of the deck, and I get that, but at this point you guys have contributed pages of debate, some of it rather hostile and pointless, on the definition of a will deck and whether or not this is one.  honestly....does that categorization matter at all?  Everyone agrees that this is a deck that successfully uses yawgmoth's will and other bombs to achieve victory by tendrils.  Everyone appears to believe that while there are other means to victory in this deck a properly set up will is the most effective SINGLE play this deck has (yes I realize that someone's gonna come along and add a 3 paragraph post discussing how a properly set up will isnt' a single play...I also think that would be a waste of everyone's time).  Everyone also appears to believe that playing this deck by trying to find the best path to Will instead of the best path to victory is a mistake.  Can we move on now and actually discuss the deck?

Eric: how are you managing the life loss with this list, does it seem problematic to you?  I'm having issues with the fact that by the time necro/bargain/will resolves I'm at such a low life total that the value of my bombs is diminished.  (will is difficult to use with a low life total in this deck since your tutor options become severely limited forcing you into the draw 7 route).  Can this problem be alleviated through the use of Demonic Consultation and replacing either some of the nights whispers or some of the street wraiths with lower tier bombs like windfall as steve has done in his list? you say you've tested windfall and it pushed the curve too high, would a second cabal rit help with that?

[Webster]

I've been following this debate for a couple days and across multiple threads....I don't really understand how it's relevant at this point.

Does it seriously matter whether this is a will deck or not or what percentage of it's wins come from will, or in the latest iteration of this argument "do draw 7's and grim tutor derrive their power primarily from their interaction with will?"

I totally agree.

Eric: how are you managing the life loss with this list, does it seem problematic to you?  I'm having issues with the fact that by the time necro/bargain/will resolves I'm at such a low life total that the value of my bombs is diminished.  (will is difficult to use with a low life total in this deck since your tutor options become severely limited forcing you into the draw 7 route).  Can this problem be alleviated through the use of Demonic Consultation and replacing either some of the nights whispers or some of the street wraiths with lower tier bombs like windfall as steve has done in his list? you say you've tested windfall and it pushed the curve too high, would a second cabal rit help with that?

I loved seeing night's whisper when I played it last Sunday. It was always good.

Street wraiths were ok when I played with them. Not stellar but not terrible. I'd want to explore more options in those slots.

I agree with the life loss problem somewhat. I'd usually be able to necro for at least 8 every time down to 8 life so I could still play fetch, grim, grim on my next turn.

[ErkBek]

I've been following this debate for a couple days and across multiple threads....I don't really understand how it's relevant at this point.

Does it seriously matter whether this is a will deck or not or what percentage of it's wins come from will, or in the latest iteration of this argument "do draw 7's and grim tutor derrive their power primarily from their interaction with will?"

I totally agree.

I agree too. I never really saw the point either which is partly why I kept my replies so short.

Eric: how are you managing the life loss with this list, does it seem problematic to you?  I'm having issues with the fact that by the time necro/bargain/will resolves I'm at such a low life total that the value of my bombs is diminished.  (will is difficult to use with a low life total in this deck since your tutor options become severely limited forcing you into the draw 7 route).  Can this problem be alleviated through the use of Demonic Consultation and replacing either some of the nights whispers or some of the street wraiths with lower tier bombs like windfall as steve has done in his list? you say you've tested windfall and it pushed the curve too high, would a second cabal rit help with that?

I loved seeing night's whisper when I played it last Sunday. It was always good.

Street wraiths were ok when I played with them. Not stellar but not terrible. I'd want to explore more options in those slots.

I agree with the life loss problem somewhat. I'd usually be able to necro for at least 8 every time down to 8 life so I could still play fetch, grim, grim on my next turn.
[/quote]

Life loss is occasionally a problem, it is yet to cost me a game, but that could catch up to me at some point. Street Wraiths have almost always been better than the card they're replacing.

If I were to cut a Street Wraith, I'd probably replace 1 with a 4th Duress.

[Liam-K]

Steve:

While I understand, appreciate, and often indulge in excessive verbosity, I feel that your need to overarticulate in this thread is drawing discourse away from certain fundamental oversights in your arguement, nearly to the point of glossing them over.  I would be overjoyed to see you respond directly to this question.

Do you concede that a long list containing two copies of Tendrils Of Agony will win more games without resolving yawgmoth's will at all than a list containing a single copy?

My reasons for drawing your attention in this direction are I believe you underestimate a vital subtlety to the higher Tendrils count (which, yes, I mentioned earlier, but at this point I'm assuming you skimmed that post).  While it is obvious that drawing into tendrils directly with a mass draw effect or Mind's Desire significantly increases your chances of resolving a lethal Tendrils without first resolving another bomb, it is probably more important to note that having a tendrils in hand alongside a tutor relieves significant pressure to tutor for Yawgmoth's Will, as the advantage of reusing the tutor becomes far less attractive.  Targets such as Chain Of Vapor, Ancestral Recall, or even acceleration become much more likely to be correct, as their ability to generate cheap storm and fuel more cheap storm is not mitigated by their inability to let you start thumbing through your library.

A first and most obvious arguement here is one of opportunity cost; while I would prefer not to dissolve into a bickering match over the relative values of 60th cards, I would pose that an alternate selection within the same manabase would almost certainly not be a bomb.

A second arguement is whether doubling (approximately, math people) the percentage of hands that gain Tendrils without searching for it reduces the occurance of resolving Yawgmoth's Will, and thusly reduces the list's reliance on Yawgmoth's Will.  I don't have statistics on hand to flout, but I would find it incredulous for you to argue it is completely insignificant, as well as question both your definition of significance and how much you have actually tested such a list.




As a pure aside, I think it's a waste of bloody time to argue about whether or not Long would be competative if there was no Will because the metagame would be unrecognizeably different.

[Moxlotus]

Eric: how are you managing the life loss with this list, does it seem problematic to you?  I'm having issues with the fact that by the time necro/bargain/will resolves I'm at such a low life total that the value of my bombs is diminished.   

This is one reason we have 2 Tendrils.

I look at it this way.  Necro and Bargain already kick ass.  Even at 10 life, you've given yourself a draw 9 and your opponent doesn't have a counter (or he would have countered your necro/bargain).  Vamp and Mystical are decent.  I'd happily subtract a little of necro/bargain's brokeness to add some insane 1 mana demonic tutor action to the deck.