Updating Draw7 6.15.04

[kirdape3]

His playstyle is correct - you literally will have so many cards that they have to counter (the random silliness that is Necro/Bargain/Desire, the other draw sevens, Will, etc) that you can throw them at Tog at will to break their defenses.  They are extremely mana-limited this early in the game and probably can't cast anything but the Duress and the Force - something that will happen very rarely with most versions.

[BreathWeapon]

But, the problem with the "Wave of Threats" assumption is that it is simply better than having Disruption. That's effectively what Steve is tring to do with this list, out speed Drains. If your using acceleration as Disruption vs Control, then why not use Swarm in the first place? The acceleration is more conditional than the Swarms, and a Swarm is significantly less commital than;  Rotation, Diamond and Chrome.

[Hi-Val]

Re: Xantids

Xantids are plainly crap when drawn from a D7. It's like you mulliganed without wanting to. Lands can be dropped with Fastbond and spells can be cast. You'll notice something with this deck: every spell in it is good when seen off Jar or Wheel or whatever, and they're not conditional the way Xantids are. Maindecking them means that decks like FCG actually have a chance against you with swarms slowing you down. Opening hands against non-control decks containing Xantids are automatically sub-par, and make the mulliganing strength of the deck far weaker.

In this case, it's much better to throw waves of must-counters. Belcher, on the other hand, has basically one shot in the early game to win, and thus needs Xantids against control.

[Smmenen]

Smmenen, another thing I was thinking about with Swarms is that they are as much of a business spell as a draw 7 in that the control deck has to counter it or lose. So if they spend their Force on the Swarm with the assumption that they must play under that, if you're playing Swarm, you have the stuff you need to win next turn, your turn 2 draw 7 happens in the same way as it would have if that Swarm had been a turn 1 draw 7. They have still used one counter already on what appears a must counter or lose spell. There are major differences, though.

With Swarm you don't need to dump extra cards turn 1 to produce enough mana for a draw 7. It is much better to force the opponent to operate on as little information as possible. If you play land, Mox, Mox, draw 7 and they Force it, you've potentially got 3 seriously threats left. If you play land, Swarm and they Force it, you've potentially got 5 serious threats left. So they have to Force the Swarm and then they have to worry about possibly needing five more Forces in their hand. So that two mana difference in casting costs means a two card difference in your hand size when the opponent has to counter.

There's also the obvious fact that you want as many must counters as possible. Since all draw 7s but Returns are restricted, the next logical must counter spell to put in the deck is Swarms. You say this deck doesn't want to set up the combo turn, but playing a first turn draw 7 that you expect to be countered just so you can bait the counter and force through a second or third turn draw 7 is also a form of setting up the combo turn. You just spend more cards and mana to do it, and with less certainty than you would with Swarms.

The problem most of the points so far have missed is that for every:

Mox Mox Land, Draw7 Force of Will, there will also be a Mox, Mox, Land, Draw7, No Force.

Or for every Force there will be a turn two Draw7 with no Drain up becuase Draw7 went first.

See the difference now?  Xantid Swarm resolved - but it didn't draw you cards and win you the game.  

Your opponent will not always have Force of Will - and in fact, for Xantid to be usable, they must NOT have it.  Therefore, why not just play turn 1 draw7 when there is a possibility you can win right there.

Swarms come in after board becuase they are good in Drain or Stifle heavy decks, but in my opinion, maindecking them is a mistake.  They aren't particularly critical and too narrow and slow the deck down too much to be effective against the whole field.

Steve

[carlossb]

Carlossb, wouldn't you lose the cards you draw from Recycle with the first draw 7 you play?  You'll draw a whole bunch of cards by playing mana spells, then you'll play a draw 7 and have a hand of 7 again.

The idea is to play a draw 7 to get more mana, and then play the Recycle to win the game through it.
If you cast Recycle, it basically provides you more mana (play 0cc artifacts or ESG, draw more 0cc artifacts or lands -with Fastbond in play-, tap for mana...), and it´s not always necesary to cast a draw7, because with Recycle you´ll up your storm dramatically

[Driven]

I'm new to posting but definitely not new to the 'Drain - I've been playing combo for quite a while, and throughly read every article that tends to come out about them.  Therefore, posts by Smmenen tend to strike my attention for the infamous Draw7;)  
Regardless, I have a few questions about the build posted:

Why do you even bother putting Time Walk/Tendrils of Agony in the Sideboard if you can't Wish for it?  When would you see yourself sideboarding in a Time Walk except with perhaps the Swarms?  And in a matchup where you would want to sideboard in say, five cards, what do you often find yourself boarding out?

Do you often find yourself with Time Spiral in the first couple turns and you're just using it for FoW/Draw7 fodder?  I can see that Desiring into this card would be beyond awesomeness, but do you find yourself that often prefering Time Spiral to say, Frantic Search?

I have also found generally poor results with Swarms up here in the Northeast, where many of my matchups are packing Fire/Ice MD or SB.  Not to mention Fish builds eat them alive, and they're dead against non-control.  Draw7 needs as few "dead cards" as possible to run smoothly, and I have often found Swarms to be exactly that.  

Mock if you may, but I tend to maindeck a single Quirion Dryad.  The 2cc isn't hard at all, often resolves, and just makes a win easier.  The argument as been waged that, if Dryad doesn't hit first turn, it's not anywhere as potent (i.e. the type of "dead card" Draw7 doesn't want.)  In testing and in tourny's, I've found it to be exactly the opposite - Dryad at any point is a threat, and with the speed and rainbow colors of Draw7, she fits.  Give her a single turn and she'll usually swing for at least 4, counting that your combo didn't go off.  A single turn more than that, and you may not need Tendrils.  

If anything, it's another win condition in a deck that isn't running a Wish and is running 4DR.

Mox Diamond I often find to be a good fit too Steve - overall, I think you did a great job at the build and explaining your reasons as to why you chose the appropriate cards.  Keep it up - I eagerly watch for new ideas for combo, which sadly is often destroyed by the heavy Control atmosphere here in New England...

~ Alden ~[/i]

[Kushluk]

Mock if you may, but I tend to maindeck a single Quirion Dryad.  The 2cc isn't hard at all, often resolves, and just makes a win easier.  The argument as been waged that, if Dryad doesn't hit first turn, it's not anywhere as potent (i.e. the type of "dead card" Draw7 doesn't want.)  In testing and in tourny's, I've found it to be exactly the opposite - Dryad at any point is a threat, and with the speed and rainbow colors of Draw7, she fits.  Give her a single turn and she'll usually swing for at least 4, counting that your combo didn't go off.  A single turn more than that, and you may not need Tendrils.  

You risk turning dead cards in your opponent's hand (Swords to Plowshares, balance even) into live ones with a trick like that. I see it's usefulness in certain matches, like Tog who has no maindeck [spot] removal. Perhaps it is a better choice for game 2 than game 1.

[theorigamist]

Smmenen, okay, I'll agree on the Swarms.  Your points (plus some others I've been thinking of) make a lot of sense.

The idea is to play a draw 7 to get more mana, and then play the Recycle to win the game through it.
If you cast Recycle, it basically provides you more mana (play 0cc artifacts or ESG, draw more 0cc artifacts or lands -with Fastbond in play-, tap for mana...), and it´s not always necesary to cast a draw7, because with Recycle you´ll up your storm dramatically

Does this deck really need a 6cc (including double green) enchantment that does nothing but up the storm count when it could just keep playing 3cc draw7s?

[BreathWeapon]

Eh, I'll dump the Swarms myself and see how things go. I'm biased towards the little buggers, because I can Top Deck Swarms and Lackeys like a god.

So, on to other considerations.

Is a MD Burning Wish in the place of a Diminishing Returns worth it, and are Dryads SB tech?

[carlossb]

Does this deck really need a 6cc (including double green) enchantment that does nothing but up the storm count when it could just keep playing 3cc draw7s?

You´re right, Origamist, but you there are really:

Four 4cc draw-7 (you´re casting only 2 or 3 of them),
Four 3cc draw-7
and ONE 6cc draw7 (TimeSpiral) that is only good with Academy in play. Perhaps we could change it by Recycle?

About the {G} of Recycle:
There are 11 lands that produce (Tolarian Academy produces more), plus 5 artifacts, to be able to cast the {U}  in the Diminishing Returns.
There are 9 lands that produce , plus 5 artifacts, PLUS 4 ESG.

[Smmenen]

Why do you even bother putting Time Walk/Tendrils of Agony in the Sideboard if you can't Wish for it?  When would you see yourself sideboarding in a Time Walk except with perhaps the Swarms?  And in a matchup where you would want to sideboard in say, five cards, what do you often find yourself boarding out?~ Alden ~[/i]

I would sb in Walk against Workshop Slavery and probably other Workshop decks where giving up a turn is just so critical to avoid.

I'm not saying I'm 100% right about the Swarm thing - but I'm just saying that I can see it the way I described.  So don't take what I say as gospel, but as something to consider.   So far, that's how I see it though.  

Steve

[theorigamist]

Carlossb, but you can only really count on one or two lands being in play when you go off.  Most extra mana comes from artifacts and Dark Rituals.  Also, since it's only turn 2-ish when you go off, the most important thing is managing your mana perfectly.  The double green of Recycle is doable, but even the 4 colorless is a bitch to pay.  It's taking up other colors of mana that you need.  Consider, if you use your lands to produce even one green mana (and ESG for the second), and then you use your artifacts to produce your colorless, what are you left with to keep casting after the Recycle?  If you need to cast your artifact acceleration before it in order to play it, then you don't have the artifacts in hand anymore to cantrip by playing them again.

Now consider the same situation, but the Recycle is a draw7 instead.  You play out all your mana stuff, then the draw7, then you have your new hand.  With Recycle you need to have enough mana in hand to play it and then keep playing mana acceleration to draw cards.  With a draw7, you just need to draw cards.

[Driven]

Smmenen - I'm not disagreeing with you on the Swarms, just wondering what you would board out when you want them in.  I've never found it easy to determine.

Thanks about clearing up the Walk issue


Kushluk - Easy spot removal exists in Keeper/Germbus and Landstill (U/W) (and possibliy EBA), but what else without Wishing?  This leaves the following meta:  Tog, GAT, Slaver, MUD (few, but always there), Dragon, U/G Madness, Fish variants, Combo (Belcher/mirror), Food Chain Gobbos, Workshop/Aggro variants, and the few decks that are dying/dead (Oshawa, Mask, Survival, more Aggro.)  

Tog = Counterwall, Deed, and Tog himself.  However, a Dryad can force a Deed pop, pound in the damage you needed due to a not-full stormcount, and if needed, chump block to RFG some of your opponents cards.

GAT - Beatz vs Beatz.  I've never seen a GAT deck with spot removal, so I actually prefer the Dryad in this matchup.  Like in Tog, you can always block the 'tog and RFG some cards  

Control Slaver - Hell if they hit it, but if not, you're safe.  So what's a Dryad doing in here?  Again, this card can easily hit 4+ damage the turn after it comes into play, and since Slaver usually doesn't pack removal, she's golden.  It gives a definite clock whereas with the Draw7s they can try and hold behind a wall of counters or get out a Platinum Angel.  A single Dryad as won the matchup for me before, being more than the Slaver player can deal with at times.

MUD - I haven't had to face this deck in a while, but it seems to always pop up once or twice at tournys, though with personal twists.  Again, no removal = free smacks.  Karn can stop the Dryad for a turn or two, but in a deck with such prision, if you haven't won by the time they're setting up, it'll already be a tough ride.  Dryad does indeed help, however rare you hit this matchup.

Dragon - Let the race begin!  You often just want to face of with a 'who can combo out first?' mentality, but Dryad = clock as always.  If this turns into a later game (which happens time to time since Dragon packs Forces and Duress/Xantids), create a clock with Dryad.  That simple.

U/G Madness - I have never had the chance to face off this this deck, and couldn't find a JP decklist immediately.  But I would guess it's just as effective here in any control/aggro deck where they're not packing removal, but threats.  Dryad > Madness creatures most of the time, with the exception of Wurms or a giddy Mongrel.

Fish variants - Dryad isn't the best thing when they can easily poke it to death, but if you can ever get this up and running early, it's unbelieveable.  However, dead cards don't belong, so you'd want to SB it out for games two and three.

Combo - Race.  This is one of the matches where Dryad is usually a dead card.  Against Belcher I wouldn't even play it, but save the mana for something else.

Food Chain - You try to race this deck, and the only damage I've seen is when/if they board in blasts, in which case you race anyways.  Dryad = first card to board out.  

Workshop/Aggro - It'll always be there.  Aggro variants streamline there way to tournys one way or another, so I'm always prepared to face them.  However, like against most aggro, you just want to run over them with Tendrils.  Dryad usually doesn't even have to be cast.  

Dying/Dead - Combo out like you would usually want to.  Oshawa can get interesting with a Dryad on the board, though.

If a Keeper/Germbus/Landstill/EBA player sees a Dryad (especially one that's doing damage), they have to ponder leaving in removal.  I've played 3x Dryad's SB 1x MD before and game two stumbled into three swords.  Hence, running one MD may leave them with a dead card or two  game two...

Just my $0.02 on the issue.  I'm not saying that it has to be run, nor saying that I'm completely correct, but posting my experiences.  If I'm wrong on any accounts, please let me know - I'm always eager to make a Tendrils deck more compatible with the meta.  And since the majority of the meta I hit includes Slaver, GAT and Hulk, Dryad has almost always been golden.

~ Alden ~

Edit - Yea, I was wrong.  Don't play a MD creature.

[VGB]

@Smmenen

You never addressed my point about Time Walk in the maindeck, although I did read the article where you seem indecisive about a 2 Tendrils or 1 Tendrils/Burning Wish configuration (and you also go on to espouse Death Wish :/).

Did you just get to the point where you had to cut a card to fit in the last draw or mana accelerant slot, and Time Walk appeared the weakest?

If it wasn't clear before, in my prior post I allude that Time Walk lets you turn Necro into Bargain, draw an extra card with Memory Jar, play an Academy if you had already played a land, and attack immediately with ESG - whcih are all cards you maindeck.

One last point - I like the 1 Tendrils/1 Burning Wish plan for the added reason that if you have cast DR and still have both Tendrils and Wish in your deck, you can use the Burning Wish to act as a DT and bring back a draw seven (or Will, or whatever) you may have inadvertently scalped with DR - which has a very high probability.

By the way, Recycle is just senseless in this deck, for the exact reason theorigamist stated - Future Sight is far superior and at least pitches to FoW, and is still far down the list of possible cards to include in this deck.  Recycle is difficult to cast because you will have to hoard cards to play it, when you should only be hoarding to play Tendrils.

[Kushluk]

Kushluk - Easy spot removal exists in Keeper/Germbus and Landstill (U/W) (and possibliy EBA), but what else without Wishing?  This leaves the following meta:  Tog, GAT, Slaver, MUD (few, but always there), Dragon, U/G Madness, Fish variants, Combo (Belcher/mirror), Food Chain Gobbos, Workshop/Aggro variants, and the few decks that are dying/dead (Oshawa, Mask, Survival, more Aggro.)  

Tog = Counterwall, Deed, and Tog himself.  However, a Dryad can force a Deed pop, pound in the damage you needed due to a not-full stormcount, and if needed, chump block to RFG some of your opponents cards.

GAT - Beatz vs Beatz.  I've never seen a GAT deck with spot removal, so I actually prefer the Dryad in this matchup.  Like in Tog, you can always block the 'tog and RFG some cards  

Control Slaver - Hell if they hit it, but if not, you're safe.  So what's a Dryad doing in here?  Again, this card can easily hit 4+ damage the turn after it comes into play, and since Slaver usually doesn't pack removal, she's golden.  It gives a definite clock whereas with the Draw7s they can try and hold behind a wall of counters or get out a Platinum Angel.  A single Dryad as won the matchup for me before, being more than the Slaver player can deal with at times.

MUD - I haven't had to face this deck in a while, but it seems to always pop up once or twice at tournys, though with personal twists.  Again, no removal = free smacks.  Karn can stop the Dryad for a turn or two, but in a deck with such prision, if you haven't won by the time they're setting up, it'll already be a tough ride.  Dryad does indeed help, however rare you hit this matchup.

Dragon - Let the race begin!  You often just want to face of with a 'who can combo out first?' mentality, but Dryad = clock as always.  If this turns into a later game (which happens time to time since Dragon packs Forces and Duress/Xantids), create a clock with Dryad.  That simple.

U/G Madness - I have never had the chance to face off this this deck, and couldn't find a JP decklist immediately.  But I would guess it's just as effective here in any control/aggro deck where they're not packing removal, but threats.  Dryad > Madness creatures most of the time, with the exception of Wurms or a giddy Mongrel.

Fish variants - Dryad isn't the best thing when they can easily poke it to death, but if you can ever get this up and running early, it's unbelieveable.  However, dead cards don't belong, so you'd want to SB it out for games two and three.

Combo - Race.  This is one of the matches where Dryad is usually a dead card.  Against Belcher I wouldn't even play it, but save the mana for something else.

Food Chain - You try to race this deck, and the only damage I've seen is when/if they board in blasts, in which case you race anyways.  Dryad = first card to board out.  

Workshop/Aggro - It'll always be there.  Aggro variants streamline there way to tournys one way or another, so I'm always prepared to face them.  However, like against most aggro, you just want to run over them with Tendrils.  Dryad usually doesn't even have to be cast.  

Dying/Dead - Combo out like you would usually want to.  Oshawa can get interesting with a Dryad on the board, though.

If a Keeper/Germbus/Landstill/EBA player sees a Dryad (especially one that's doing damage), they have to ponder leaving in removal.  I've played 3x Dryad's SB 1x MD before and game two stumbled into three swords.  Hence, running one MD may leave them with a dead card or two  game two...

Just my $0.02 on the issue.  I'm not saying that it has to be run, nor saying that I'm completely correct, but posting my experiences.  If I'm wrong on any accounts, please let me know - I'm always eager to make a Tendrils deck more compatible with the meta.  And since the majority of the meta I hit includes Slaver, GAT and Hulk, Dryad has almost always been golden.

~ Alden ~

I understand some of your points regarding which decks have/haven't spot removal maindeck that dosen't have to be wished for or whatever, that is totally valid.

Slaver: I've seen Drainslavers with MD spot removal for enemy welders, Gay/r creatures or whatever. It's usually fire/ice.

DARgon: Probably just a race. Drayd seems dead here. If it actually becomes a threat he can reanimate his sliver queen or whatever fattie wincondition (that dragon who pings) and kill it.

MUD: Unfortunatley, I play a lot of MUD/prison and assorted workshop decks on the net (maybe it's when I'm up - all Euro opponents), and usually Tangle Wires or Smokestacks would make you lose anyway, right? I don't think Dryad would change that. I'm nether a MUD/Staxz/workshop player nor a combo player but it seems like the WS player has a LOT of hate on his side (including big fatties in some diffrent deck) that Dryad would ether be prey to or not be effectual against.

What's more the point that I am adressing is that isn't (1) 1 dryad a bit random? Wouldn't that slot better be somthing that aids the combo? Like a xantid swarm? They are both practically the same cost, Xantid lesser, and if ether of them are left unmolested it's a game loss for your opponent with high probability.

GErMBuS/EBA: Yeah I can see that catch 22 right away. ReBs or STPS? I'd probably unquestioningly side my rebs in, your combo is faster and more dangerous than most any creature can be. Not sure if this is the right move, but it certainly makes sence. I'd much rather get hit by your dryad and still maybe pull it out than watch you resolve your Timetwister/Tinker/somthingbroken and have an StP in my hand.

Landstill has a hard time with dryads, since they shirk burn so easy anyway. I don't think any landstll player would leave any more removal in than he has to in respone to dryads, since his chances of removing them are slim no matter the situation. Better just to look for disk and make you lose the game, if possible. Rebs will help disk resolve. so rebs in burn out?  (I.E.: I bolt you brainstorm in response add a counter to Dryad, she survives).

But of course, what works for you and wins you games is most important. If you can make 1x Dryad work, then more power to you!

[skecreatoR]

I won't blabble for ever, but I think this is a meyer'ish worth example of people just not playing a deck correctly and smemmens continued advocating of just playing the deck in a way he, the main creator, think it should be played. I'm not saying Smemmen is some sort of god that cannot be wrong about a deck, but I'm saying this based on my own experience playing D7.

The draw sevens are really the heart of this deck and what it is all about. The basic assumption underlying the concept, broadly put, is that the draw 7s are overwhelming card advantage. You dump your hand of acceleration on turn 1, play a Draw7, and suddenly you have given you opponent a hand they cannot mulligan out of, and what's more, you have just, for three or four mana, gotten an entirely new hand out of the deal. Moreover, by having such a high concentration of maindeck Draw7s, if your first one gets countered, try, try again. That is, next turn, play another!

This is from the SCG article written by Smemmen (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=6919) where he, imo, hits the nail on the spot. You get 4 to 6 cards out of this, usually dropping a D7 to the graveyard. You traded 2 for 7, which is nearly two Ancestral Recall's where the opponent probably didn't even get anything else but 7 new cards out of it. Both the problem and beauty of D7s is the fact that they give both players new hands, a sort of restart of the game each time one is played. That is the exact reason Timetwister back then was considered a Power9 card, because it gave overwhelming card advantage that could easily win you a game.

If people just try to throw everything at an opponent, they will win the game. The decks which will be able to hold back will be control decks, and they will not be able to win by turn 3. And those who aren't control deck will be overrun. Most counter based decks run 8 counters (4 FoW, 4 Mana Drain) and only 4 will be able to be cast for free, or before the second turn (3th/4th turn in the entire game). While this is absolutely logical, it is not logical that the free counters will be drawn every game. You both draw 7 cards, and you have clearly gained the advantage. Saying the opponent now counters your next D7, you just gained the 5 to 0 advantage over your opponent. You might have dropped 1-2 moxen and so forth and therefore gained tremendous card advantage, the card advantage this entire deck idea is based on.

You need to play to win, not find a way to lose (Refer to sirlin.net's articles here for more info on playing to win). When playing MD Xantids, you will need to draw one, play one of a green mana source, waiting a turn, attack with it and first then will you be able to play on.

Against Control, your plan is to play aggressively. As always, miss-assignment of Role = Game loss. You are the beatdown, so act like it. Play a turn 1 Draw7. If it's countered, play another. At the very least in countering your threats, you will have parity with the control player, who is expending all of his resources to fend you off. Once in a while you can try and set up an enormous Mind's Desire, which the Control player can do little to prevent. When this comes up, take advantage of it.

This sums it up pretty nicely why you need to play aggressive, which is to gain the cardadvantage 'till the opponent finally won't have any more countermagic, and your assembly of the golden 10spell storm count can begin uninterrupted. I would lastly like to say that I have played this deck since the day Smemmen posted the first build in T1 forum, and have tested this probably more intensive then he even had. I played everything with this deck, and where there will be periods when MD swarms is the way to go (as said in the article), this deck needs to win full-hearted, not half. Some times you lose, as you will with every deck you ever gonna play, but MD Swarms is not the way to fight your game losses, your playstyle is.

That did become rather long. :<

[Smmenen]

Well said - I agree completely.  So what is your opinoin of my new changes?  If you don't like Time Spiral, what should replace it?  Have you tried Future Sight?   I would like to see your list and SB, if you don't mind.

Steve

[skecreatoR]

I been playing Mox Diamond since probably around the fifth goldfish I did with the deck. It is simply amazing and nobody should ever, EVER play Draw7 without it. The key to Mox Diamond is that you might loose a land DROP, but you actually just lost a card in hand, which as I already stated, means nothing, because you very quickly will end up with a new hand of 7 cards. It is so into the gameplan of using each hand you will recieve (the restart part) as much as possible that it actually increase the performance of "bad" hands a lot. Simply auto-inclusive.

Future Sight is, like Recycle, not following the games plan. I think FS is better placed in a control deck that lategame totally can outbroken an opponent, but not here because it is NOT a win more card, it is simply you spending a hell-o-a-lot-o-mana to play a 1-down brainstorm. That is at least how I think it works in the deck, as Swarms, sometimes it will function as a totally different card but in most matches, this is how it will come out.

I don't think the Underground Sea is the way to go. Running 3 Gemstone, 4 CoB, 3 Glimmervoid, Tolarian Academy I rarely find a problem. But again, Gemstone / Glimmervoid is an unsolveable issue. There is no right answer, they are both good with limits.

Quite recently I played 2 Tinder Wall over Crop Rotation and Time Spiral, and 1 Tendrils to fuel the Burning Wish engine, which I finally concluded was against the game plan. You don't want to look for sideboarded cards, you want to continue to win. And that brings me onward to the adding of Time Spiral, which I think is the right way to go. It provides versatility in the control matchup, as you probably win in turn 3-5 instead of 1-2, so you quite often have access to a few lands by then. Besides, tutoring for Tolarian Academy (Yes, I actually did it a few times) is just booming. On the other hand, it is stretching the gameplan even further onwards, by having so many Draw7s availiable. I don't know which ones aren't included, but I guess its none. Time Spiral can quite often be played, especially since it recycles the entire deck and untap 1-2 lands, you often gain even more advantage out of it.

A lot of people tend to forget that Fastbond is an essential part of the deck, and of course this is beautiful synergy with the spiral, and because of that, Time Spiral is better then Vampiric Tutor or Time Walk.

My sideboard is right now:

4 Hidden Gibbons
4 Hidden Guerrillas
4 Xantid Swarm
1 Time Walk

I completely agree with the Time Walk that you actually want it against the Stax/Mud variants that are beginning to rise from the shadows again. I run 8 Hidden cards mainly because I remove Memory Jar, Tinker, Rituals and depending on matchup, two other cards, as I don't think it is viable to fight Null Rod with Recalls, I rather just try the beat down route with Gibbons and soldiers, especially because they only cost G, they sometimes doesn't even slow you down. Quite often I only side in 4 of them for the aggro-control matchup, quite like old Academy.

Xantid Swarm just deserve the SB spot, even though I practically never side them in any more.

PS: I use your list as it is now, because your changes, imho, are correct, even though I, as everybody else, been scattered on the spiral point, but it have surely lately prooved itself. You just need to learn how to play with it.

[Smmenen]

I didn't really speak about Vampiric Tutor much, but one aspect of Vamp that is increasingly weak is this:

Over half your Draw7s are Timetwisters.  That makes Vamp more and more dead.  If Chromatic Spheres were going to be added back to the deck (with my original, original build) then it could become good - but I don't think they ever will.

Second, this deck is now the easiest to play I think it has ever been.  It has fewer decision making than its ever had.  

I will continue to test Spiral - but I think it is going to be kept in for the time being.  
 
What do you bring Gibbons in against?

[skecreatoR]

Agree with that it is the easiest build to play, period. Obviously a lot of people just don't play it correctly, therefore it becomes difficult.

Gibbons is against Gay/R and Landstill, and other controlish aggro decks which doesn't run too many artifacts. They are quite worth their spot.

Vamp just doesn't make the cut anymore. You rarely want to tutor for anything, either way.

[VGB]

Time Spiral wasn't played in Long because it didn't draw enough and untap enough lands to be worth the mana invested - which is why Frantic Search was in many builds, because it was invariably free (you didn't have to spend artifact mana to cast it).  Long was even better equipped to play Spiral since it had more mana acceleration via LED, and simply didn't because expending six mana is only worth it when paying for Bargain or Desire.

I can see the synergy with Fastbond, but how is Spiral better than any other draw seven with a Fastbond in play?  You are paying six mana, a few of which may be recouped, to get the same benefit as one of the 3 or 4 cc draw sevens - and it takes a heck of a lot more card expenditure to get to 6 mana than it does to get to 3 or 4.  The only time it really shines is with Academy in play - but is that consistent enough?

So far the arguments against Time Walk have not won me over, of which the main argument is that somehow it doesn't fit into the play style of the deck, which is to maintain an offense of continuous draw.  Drawing cards doesn't win the game, however - being able to use them does.  There is no better card that represents what tempo is all about than Time Walk, as it turns a stop sign into a go.

What I think is that people are getting into the mentality that "the more draw sevens, the better", and that isn't necessarily the case.  Bad draws happen, or your opponent can draw into a god hand, or you can just fizzle out occasionally with your opponent now holding a new fistful of cards.  Unless you can somehow add several more quality draw sevens to the deck to the proportion where the deck achieves critical mass (like it did with 4 x Mind's Desire), adding 1 crappy one (in terms of the quality of the other draw) isn't going to cut it.  At this rate, how long will it be until you are eying Pursuit of Knowledge or Temporal Cascade, or stuff like Trade Secrets and Infernal Contract?

[goober]

Time Spiral wasn't played in Long because it didn't draw enough and untap enough lands to be worth the mana invested - which is why Frantic Search was in many builds, because it was invariably free (you didn't have to spend artifact mana to cast it). Long was even better equipped to play Spiral since it had more mana acceleration via LED, and simply didn't because expending six mana is only worth it when paying for Bargain or Desire.

Long didn't run it because it had 6 cards which read "you win the game" (Wishes, Bargin, and Desire), where this only has 3.  Due to this it needs to dig more to find them, hence the upped draw7 count.  Yes Desie and Bargin are better, but you don't always find them.  

I can see the synergy with Fastbond, but how is Spiral better than any other draw seven with a Fastbond in play? You are paying six mana, a few of which may be recouped, to get the same benefit as one of the 3 or 4 cc draw sevens - and it takes a heck of a lot more card expenditure to get to 6 mana than it does to get to 3 or 4. The only time it really shines is with Academy in play - but is that consistent enough?

Time Spiral is not a crappy draw7.  It costs about 4 usually, and sometimes as low as gaining you mana.  If you fizzle you didn't give them a new fistfull, you gave them a different fistfull while you have a huge board.  It costs 0 with Fastbond in play, sometimes, where the others cost 3 or 4, and the one that costs 4 can just make you lose.  It might not be better than any of the other draw7s, but it is better than whatever card would use its slot.  Redundency=good.

So far the arguments against Time Walk have not won me over, of which the main argument is that somehow it doesn't fit into the play style of the deck, which is to maintain an offense of continuous draw. Drawing cards doesn't win the game, however - being able to use them does. There is no better card that represents what tempo is all about than Time Walk, as it turns a stop sign into a go.

Time Walk makes the deck more likely to fizzle.  It turns a go (draw7s) into stop signs (not getting draw7s or Brokenness).  When you are going off churining through draw7s when you hit a Time Walk it is a dead card, and this new build cuts out all the dead cards for things which will let you keep going off.  Which is why the more draw7s the better.  It is also the reason why Xantids are bad.

What I think is that people are getting into the mentality that "the more draw sevens, the better"

It is better, it means for less fizzling.  You fizzle on hands with massive stacks of mana, and no draw7.  If you up the count of them you will fizzle less.  We will never have the 4 Will or 4 Desire decks back, but a few rungs down from the most broken deck ever legal and the deck that made it look bad, isn't too shabby.

[Smmenen]

Here is something I wrote April 12th for Meandeck:

The first thing that needs to be recognized about this deck is the plan it is attempting to execute.  The plan is actually rather simple: play 9 spells and then drop a Tendrils.  Without going into much detail, it’s worth mentioning that deck construction should be aimed at doing the least possible work to win based upon the principle that less work is generally easier to accomplish, however, it may be, because of an oddity of game plan, that playing 12-15 spells is easier to do than merely playing 9 and then Tendrils.  Long is a good example of this – the deck generally had excess storm than it needed merely from the fact that it created such ungodly card advantage with Yawgmoth’s Will that it was simply less likely that you would only have 9 spells because you would generally go out of your way to protected your Tendrils from Stifle.  

Therefore, there are two organizing principles of the deck to keep in mind:
1) Try to build the deck in such a way as to permit it to win with as few spells being cast as possible

2) but don’t limit the decks range of potential game plans in doing so.

Why do I bring this up?  It is relevant in considering the number of Tendrils the deck runs.  Running 3-4 Tendrils permits far greater chance of just randomly winning than running 2 – in which although you have dominance over the game and can do anything you want, you still have to do extra work to dig up that Tendrils.  The risk in the latter scenario is that you will reach a point at which you would win but fail to do so because you can’t find a Tendrils.  I imagine this would happen quite a bit if you only ran one Tendrils.

With that in mind, here is my analysis.

The core objective of the deck is to play Draw7s – this is obvious.  The advantage this deck has is that it runs 9 Draw Sevens.  You’ll recall that this threshold number means that there should be one draw7 every 6.6 cards in your deck.  The principle behind Draw7s is that you accrue ungodly card advantage and mana development with every draw7 spell you cast.  In other words, each draw7 should be designed to give you more mana to continue to play spells and eventually you will accumulate enough excess mana from previous Draw7s that you may just play Tendrils and win.  The only logical flaw in such a plan is that giving your opponent a new hand is likely to enable them to do something to stop you.  The counterargument is that this deck is so fast that they will generally not have enough mana to provide an outlet for their cards to stop you – and even if they do you will simply go again next turn.  Moreover, the fact that you generate so much mana often means you will be able to easily overwhelm any opposition they may be able to muster by playing another draw7 or similarly potent threat.  Not to mention that you run Force of Will to stop them, and some of your key threats: Tendrils and Mind’s Desire are very difficult to stop.

The first question then is mana cost.  4 of the Draw7s cost 3 mana, 4 cost 4, and 1 costs 5.  Ironically the 5 caster is probably as easy to cast as the 3 casters because Jar is cost on any mana requirement of which Dark Ritual is a nice boon for.  More on this later.  But what is apparent is that the deck needs at least three mana immediately to play a draw7 and ideally UU is included in there somewhere.  Generally, the hope is to get at least 3 mana on turn one and hopefully more if needed.  Because the Draw7s are so central, I will bypass analysis of the rest of the core business spells for the moment to present analysis of the mana base first.  

The first thing that needs to be recognized in connection with the mana base is the distinction between various functions in the mana base.  The first category we are going to analysis is the cards which directly assist in the casting of Draw7s on turn one.  First, the Artifact Accellerants.  5 regular Moxen, 1 Black Lotus, 1 Sol Ring, 1 Mana Crypt, 1 Lotus Petal, 1 Chrome Mox, 1 Mana Vault.  With these I will add Elvish Sprit Guides as essentially additional Green Lotus Petals.  If you total these numbers you get 15.  Notice that 15 is the number of Islands in Mono Blue and a common number of lands in many decks with good draw because it offers you a very good chance of seeing 2 in the opening draw.  The actual math is that if perfectly distributed, you will get 1 every 4 cards.  This means in your opening hand of 7 you will most likely see 2.  If we hold with this assumption, then it should be apparent that Sol Ring and Mana Vault belong in this group because if you draw any other card from this group of 15 but those two, you will be able to play them and cast any of the 3 cc draw7s and it will help enormously in casting a Returns or a Jar.  Dark Rituals are excluded from this grouping for the moment because although they are awesome, they are much less likely to be usable to cast a 3 cc draw 7 on turn one because all of your draw7s are blue with one red and one colorless.  As a result, the most likely source of the blue is from your land, which is also the most likely source of black.  The exception is if you draw Sapphire, Ruby, Jet, Chrome Mox, Black Lotus, or Lotus Petal.  If you draw any of these sans Ruby, you will be able to use the Ritual, as long as you have a land, but that is only four of 15 artifacts that enable that – with one every 12-15 cards or so (counting Ruby in the former) and not only that, you need a Ritual to take advantage of it, decreasing your chances dramatically.  

So far an average hand is basically:
2 artifact or ESG accelerants
1 Draw 7.

I’ll begin analyzing the land component before moving onto the other parts of the decks mana.  The deck has 11 lands – a leftover from Long that seemed to work well for that deck, and carried over into this deck.  Initially when I first built up draw7 I had 12-13 lands, but consistently it appeared in my limited goldfishing to be too many.  Ignoring the Glimmervoid/Underground Sea distinction for the moment, assume that I have 11 lands – 10 which produce 5 colors, and 1 which produces just blue.  One of the biggest mysteries in my mind is why this particular combination of lands.  8-9 should guarantee you at least one in your opening hand.  At 11, there is one every 5.5 cards on average.  What this means is that you can mulligan to 6 and have a very good chance of seeing one.  But is that why there are 11?  In between the two poles of 9 and 15/16 – the numbers you would want if you just wanted 1, or wanted 2, is somewhere between 1-2 lands in each opening hand.  If I wanted 1.5 lands in my opening hand, it seems to me that 12 or 13 would be the better number.  So that can’t explain it.  10 would have you at one every 6 cards, so that would be better if you only wanted to see one.  The current land ratio may not have a good basis in objective reality.  The current number of 11 may reflect the most testing and experience and simply be a compromise based upon chances of getting Wastelanded, necessity of having 2 Blue for Returns, or some other factor – but it can’t be adequately explained by reference to the opening hand – the most important element of Draw7s (or indeed most Type One decks games).  

It is probably appropriate to take up the aside now: why is the opening hand so important?  Quite simply – Type one is so fast that the opening hand plus 3 cards for Brainstorm or 1 card for the draw step could well be the only cards you see before you are shut out of the game.  There isn’t much that can really stop this given how fast Type One has the potential to be, which is why consistency, mulliganing, and analysis like this is so importantly, at least in my mind.

Whatever the reasons behind the current land configuration, you are very unlikely to be without a land, and are most likely to see one.  

Therefore the most likely hand so far is:

1 Land
1 Draw7
2 Artifact or ESG accelerants

There are a couple other accelerants that I’d like to talk about.  But first I’ll dwell on an important point that I have omitted up until now.  Perhaps one reason for the 11 lands instead of 9 is that you want that extra marginal chance of seeing a second land for Returns.  I would not say that that is very compelling because 12 would seem a better number than 11 for this reason, but perhaps that is it so I’ll leave that for now.  One important element of this deck is getting UU up in order to be able to play Returns.  The analysis of the game plan cannot ignore this fact.  Black Lotus, Lotus Petal, Mox Sapphire all help.  But there are two other cards that help this plan enormously as well:  Crop Rotation and Chrome Mox.  

So far I have separated the mana into cards that help you play turn one draw7s.  The remainder of the mana is what I call “facilitating the comboâ€? rather than helping to play a turn one draw7.  These are the cards: 4 Rituals, 1 Rotation, 1 Fastbond, 1 Lion’s Eye Diamond (Hurkyl’s and Chain of Vapor).  And even Time Walk.  Rituals are helpful when you are going off to be able to have mana floating for your Tendrils.  Fastbond is basically a card that costs 1 mana to invest in before you play a Draw7 and hopefully will reap a reward later.  Lion’s Eye Diamond is also an investment – but it is an investment costed by the fact that you take up a space in your deck.  Rotation may, however, be placed in the upper category of cards that facilitate turn one draw7 because you can translate, at the last, a green mana into a mana color of yoru choice with it, and very often, into UU.  As a facial matter, Crop Rotation seems much weaker than most of the accelerants, even Lion’s Eye Diamond.  But in terms of the analysis I just performed, it should be apparent that I was sorely mistaken in thinking that I could leave this card from the deck.  In fact, on this point, Rotation may be more important than Fastbond because it helps the UU so critical to playing Returns.  For the same reason, Chrome Mox is very important because it enables UU for Returns.  Moreover, Chrome Mox is actually most potent in this deck because it plays the highest concentration of Draw7s in the format – meaning that you are most likely to recoup the drawback of any other deck and have it feel least painful.  Recent testing has confirmed this suspicion once I realized this point and the point about Returns UU mana cost being so critical and how Chrome Mox facilitates that.  

Time Walk is a very misunderstood and difficult card to analyze in this deck just by looking at the decklist.  Time Walk is not a true accelerant as you might wish it to be in that it helps you drop lands.  The analysis of lands should make it clear that playing Time Walk gives you a regrettable chance of seeing another land and a slim chance of having another in hand.  Time Walks function is much like Fastbond and LED: it allows you to untap after you have deposited a ton of permanents I play and you are unsure whether your next draw7 will give you enough steam to continue.  Although you lose your Storm, you actually decrease your risk of fizzling because you begin again with a much stronger mana supply – and at the same time don’t give your opponent another turn.  Much in the same way, LED only functions after you’ve played a Draw 7 or a few other cards (like Bargain, Will, or Desire because you are basically playing cards from other zones so the drawback doesn’t touch you).  The fact is that Fastbond is unable to accelerate you very easily unless you play a draw7 – that is why I put it in the latter category of mana.  Therefore the latter category of acceleration has Time Walk, Fastbond, and LED which of all the mana exclusively function in the process of going off (with rare exceptions).  Rotations and Rituals mostly fit into this category, but they also overlap with the first cateogory of facilitating a turn one Draw7.  If you keep them in the “facilitating categoryâ€? you have 8 cards in that category, giving you a chance of seeing on every 7.5 cards – in other words, a good chance in your opening hand.  Keeping in mind the overlap in roles, we can put them wherever we want, but I don’t mind making it harder on the deck and keeping them in the role of being most useful after a Draw7 is cast.  Although Rotations is clearly the biggest exception.

Therefore the most likely hand is:
1 Land
2 Artifact/ESG accelerants
1 Draw7
1 Facilitating Mana sources (which are all conditional – but some are better than others – so you can split this in your mind however you want).

So far we have covered most of the deck (43 cards 71% of the deck versus 4/7 which is 57%) – so where the heck is the rest of the hand?  Recognize that there is some overlap so far and that the remaining cards are going to be overrepresented.

The first set of remaining cards are the broken spells: the spells that make for Ws: Bargain, Will, Necro, and Desire.  Add to this the Ancestral, the Vamp, and the Demonic and you have 7 cards.  Ancestral is really far more important to this deck than it was Long because it is such a good draw spell and all this deck wants is more cards to work with.  Will is somewhat conditional and Bargain and Desire cost 6 so they are also somewhat conditional.  If we lump these cards together we are going to see them every 9 cards or so.  So we have a decent chance of seeing one of these.  Enough to count them as another likely slot.  All that’s left is Brainstorms, Force of Wills, and Tendrils – 10 cards.  Brainstorms function differently in this deck than they did in Long.  In long they essentially set you up for a turn 2 win.  In this deck, they are much less useful on turn 1 and generally help dig for more business if the first is countered, or, help dig for business if your draw7 revealed nothing but mana and Brainstorms or Tendrils.  Nonetheless To make it more balanced, I’ll add the Tendrils with the Broken spells for counting purposes, and keep Brainstorm/FoW together since they function as protection if you get countered (as I explained with Brainstorm).  That makes a set of 7, 9, and 8 for the rest of our hand.

1 Land
1 Draw7
2 Artifact ESG accelerants “accelerating sources�
1 “Facilitating mana source� (half can be accelerating mana sources)
1 Brokenspell with a slight chance of seeing Tendrils
1 Brainstorm or FoW

In other words, the deck is awesome.  The most critical part of the deck is getting your turn one draw7 to resolves (or broken spell) because that is the first step to winning.  Even if you can’t do anything with it, you are in a much better position to stay in the game on the following turn because you have so many new cards (instead of a spent hand).  It is for this reason that the weakest cards analytically are the pure mana facilitators: LED, Hurkyl’s, Chain of Vapor, and Walk, and potentially lands ten and eleven.  That is why I have cut Hurkyl’s and Chain from the deck at the moment, and the experimental places in the deck currently are land number 11, Led, and the Walk spot.  However, I will not cut walk, so basically land 11, and LED.  

Conclusions?  The deck is very well designed (applaud myself) and well ratioed to produce strong results.  The high mana numbers mean that mulliganing is likely to be effective, but that you are probably not going to need to mulligan unless you don’t even have a business spell at all.  The two most surprising conclusions from my perspective that I realized in the course of my analysis is how important Crop Rotation and Chrome Mox are – a point I didn’t or wouldn’t have realized until I had performed this analysis.  Something I haven’t mentioned is that if you lump Will, Desire, Necro, Bargain, Ancestral, DT, and Vamp with the 9 draw7s you have 15 total business spells outside the Brainstorms.  For this reason the more appropriate analysis might be to say that your opening hand is going to be:

2 business spells
2 mana “accelerants�
1 mana “facilitator�
1 Brainstorm or FoW
and 1 Land (with a good chance of seeing another) – slightly undercounted.

When looked at this way, the deck really comes into focus.  It really wants to play a turn one broken spell and if that is stopped a turn two broken spell.  If that is stopped (which hopefully it isn’t), the game plan turns on using Braistorm to find another, or to realize that the force of your threats has so decimated the control players hand that you have just a good of chance of recovering as they do of drawing permission to stop you from trying again.

In other words, this deck is a hurricane that jumps out of the box and will give no quarter to its opponent because it can have cast two cards that have to be FOWed before the control player gets UU.

Just to illustrate. Say Draw7 is going first.
And it has a hand that has:
1 Gemstone Mine
1 ESG,
1 Mox Pearl
1 Dark Ritual
1 Brainstorm
1 Dimishining Returns
1 Necopotence

I tried to construct this hand with the largest numbers of cards.  Since land is the most undercounted thing in the deck, assume that the top card is a land.  

Draw7 is playing first

I go: Mine, Dark Ritual, Necropotence.  Tog goes: FOW pitching Tog.

Tog Goes: Delta, Mox go.  They now have 4 cards in hand.

I go: draw the land, ESG, Mox Pearl, Returns.  They go: break Delta, for Sea, play Brainstorm, FoW pitching Mana Drain or Cunning Wish.  They now have 2 cards in their hand and likely a land and possibly two.  The point is that I am in a position to recover more quickly because I have Brainstorm and two lands and a mox.  I am likely to see something in my next four cards that I can play that will be good (draw and brainstorm).   While they may have nothing.

One other thing.  Part of this analysis has revealed a real weakness for cards that make you mulligan – that is cards that aren’t immediately useful.  That is why I am not sure that we can run Chain or Hurkyl’s or possibly even LED (despite its obvious power).  The LED spot is up for grabs in my deck.  I think that by removing any obstacles to a turn one Draw7 you make your deck much faster and far more likely for it to be necessary to have to remove some obstacle with Chain – i.e. a Trinisphere or Chalice because if you play a Draw7, then they will lose their hand they can’t mulligan out of and you also have a good chance of just proceeding to win immediately.   There is also a slight chance that we are using the wrong win condition.  The blue storm spell may be superior.

Using the analysis there it should be understandable why Time Walk isn't so hot.  It doesnt actually acellerate you - it untaps you like Hurkyl's Recall.  It's very narrow and conditional.

[goober]

Have you tested out Channel in this build, it seems like a winner.  I did a few goldfishes, and it usually came in handy.

[theorigamist]

It seems like Channel would take away too much colored mana and cards.  You would need to use probably one of your Cities of Brass/Gemstone Mines for green instead of blue or black, and then you need to pay life that otherwise would be cards through Necropotence or Bargain.  Also, what are you taking out for Channel?

[Thug]

I picked up the deck for some tests again too, and so far I have come to a very remarkable conclusion: Fastbond isn't cutting it for me. Fastbond always was one of the weaker cards in my opinion, and it got a little worse with the inclusion of Mox Diamond.

Fastbond very often acts as a win-more card in this deck, where it does totally nothing in the games you need it. It great to draw after your first draw-seven together with an ESG and a land in your hand, but it's often a dead draw in your first seven.

Another conclusion is: Time Walk belongs in the deck. You said it yourself Steve, you'd be suprised how often you can cast Time Walk with 5 (or even 6 with Spiral) twisters in the deck. On top of that it has synergy with some parts of your deck and cycles if you draw a hand with land + mox/crypt, which is pretty often with 11 lands and 8 moxes/crypt.

I also still like having a single Hurkyl's Recall in the maindeck since it often turns your tendrils from (nearly) dead draws into lethal weapons. On top of that it gives you a change against a resolved Rod/Chalice game 1.

I think playing less than 4 Gemstone Mines is not a smart thing to do. With Swarm and even Hidden thingies you don't want your Glimmervoid to act as an overcosted petal when casting one of these. Also Glimmervoid are very vulnerable when playing against prison decks in which you need every single land to operate if you cant defeat them early on.

Channel I haven't tried but I doubt it's better than Ironworks, since Ironworks also gives you loads of colorless mana, but does require a colored investment.

One other thing. Part of this analysis has revealed a real weakness for cards that make you mulligan – that is cards that aren’t immediately useful. That is why I am not sure that we can run Chain or Hurkyl’s or possibly even LED (despite its obvious power). The LED spot is up for grabs in my deck. I think that by removing any obstacles to a turn one Draw7 you make your deck much faster and far more likely for it to be necessary to have to remove some obstacle with Chain – i.e. a Trinisphere or Chalice because if you play a Draw7, then they will lose their hand they can’t mulligan out of and you also have a good chance of just proceeding to win immediately. There is also a slight chance that we are using the wrong win condition. The blue storm spell may be superior.

 

Using the analysis there it should be understandable why Time Walk isn't so hot. It doesnt actually acellerate you - it untaps you like Hurkyl's Recall. It's very narrow and conditional.

But card like fastbond and spiral also make you mulligan more often so replacing those cards with cards like time walk and H. Recall does not really affect how often you mulligan.

Spiral IMO is mainly there to fight through counterwalls, not to speed up the deck. So adding something like a H. Recall instead of it only improves your matchup against prison, where if we follow your theory it should either stay even (if you look at spiral as a card that does not speed you up) or get worse (if you look at spiral as a card that does speed you up).

I think H. Recall is a card that doesn't belong in that theory since it has so many different uses. You can't just give it a value since if has so many different ones. (I do think it's an excellent theory, and most likely the right one, but it just doesn't cover cards like H. Recall)

What I think is that people are getting into the mentality that "the more draw sevens, the better"

It is better, it means for less fizzling. You fizzle on hands with massive stacks of mana, and no draw7. If you up the count of them you will fizzle less. We will never have the 4 Will or 4 Desire decks back, but a few rungs down from the most broken deck ever legal and the deck that made it look bad, isn't too shabby.

I think this is where some theories go wrong, cause they do not take into consideration that you don't need to draw two draw-sevens. And having a 6cc one together with only 3-4 isn't so hot either.

I think that if you goldfished about a million times with a Walk instead of the Spiral you would notice that you would be able to cast the lethal tendrils first turn slightly more often than you used too (clausule: a time walk turn does not add up to your turn total  ). This is because a Time Walk can be an useful draw out of a draw-seven (for example, if you only get get up to two mana, but also if you are able to drop necro and walk in the same turn).

My 2 cents,

Koen

p.s. and off topic:

wouldn't hidden guerillas be a perfect fit for a Belcher sideboard?

[BreathWeapon]

That was a pretty interesting read Steve, but it brought up a few questions. How did Mox Diamond find its way into Draw 7 after your Land Count argument? How likely is it to see Mox Diamond and 2 Land in your starting hand? I find myself cursing this card almost every time I see it in my First 7, the same way I curse at LED. Even after a Draw 7, the card isn't that remarkable, because it's like a 1 time Fastbond.

Oh, and I like Time Spiral. I played it in Death Wish Long and it seemed to work well enough.

[theorigamist]

BreathWeapon, if you have even Mox Diamond and 1 land in your opening hand, wouldn't you opt for the Diamond?  It produces all colors better than Cities (no pain) and better than Gemstone (slightly, because it doesn't die after three uses), and it leaves your land drop open for a Tolarian Academy later in the turn, should you draw it (not to mention it provides you with an artifact for Tolarian to produce more mana).

[Machinus]

Right, but this isn't Academy - you want to make your second and third land drops, and mox diamond can really screw you like that.

[Smmenen]

But it accellerates out your first Draw7.  It is, like someone said, a mini-fastbond.

I think, Koen, cutting Fastbond is a huge mistake.  It is worse in some matchups, and better in others. Test more.

Steve