[Discussion-Strategy Issues] Are Tendrils Decks Underplayed?

[Kerz]

Hello guys. This thread  begins a camplaign to spur discuscussion in the Type One forum. Every Monday, I will post a new topic or strategy-related issue for our format's best and brightest to form opinions on and hopefully to
eventually some valid information out of, provided the discussion goes well. Seeing how this forum is basically where Vintage's braintrust resides, I think that we will be able to generate excellent discussion.

To begin, I ask your opinion on Tendrils decks. Ever since Long was neutered, no tendrils deck has recorded consistant wins. Why is this? The current mainstream tendrils decks are Draw7 and TPS. Why hasn't either deck posted a good amount of wins? Is it simply that they are lacking in raw power, or people don't know how to play them correctly? Are they fragile and hated out too easily?

As for versions: TPS (usually 2-3 color) usually plays 4 Duress, 4 Force of Will, Chain of Vapor/Rebuild and a manabase including fetchlands and basic lands. These choices make the deck extremely resilliant to hate and able to beat control with no problem. On the other hand, Draw7 plays many more bomb cards, using the strategy that your opponent will eventually be overwhelmed by the great average power level of cards in your deck. Draw7 (usually 5-color) plays 4 Force, but no other protection, especially against artifact decks. Draw7 is the faster of the two but sacrifices TPS's solid nature (in the sense that the manabase is stable, it has 8 ways to force threats through, and it has answers to problematic permanents).

Are these decks underplayed? If so, why?

Aaron Kerzner

[Kowal]

I'm of the opinion those decks are simply weak.  Any deck running Force of Will and something that can disrupt that costs one (Keeper's REB, Tog's Duress, etc) should be able to win the matchup fairly easily.  Workshop decks have a tendency to run Chalice or Trinisphere (or both.)

Not to mention, these decks are so inconsistant that they cannot be relied upon to do well over the course of many games, and as a direct result can't realistically win large tournaments (except in Italy, for some reason)

[Windfall]

My reason for "giving up on" Draw7 is quite simple - it randomly loses matches that it should not lose.  Sometimes the deck just says "I don't want you to win this game, so you're going to draw 7 new mana sources off that Twister and no business spells."

Despite the fact that I think the deck is decent (I played it in all of the tourneys in Origins and made Top 8 each day I played), I think that Type 1 is too intense a format to play a deck that can just lose to bad luck far more than other decks.  The fact that it can lose a game randomly is too great a risk to take.

In addition, the deck's worst matchups are 4cControl and Workshop decks with Trinisphere.  Since these matchups are quite popular, Tendrils Combo has trouble fighting to the top tables, especially since it's already the most unforgiving deck I've ever played, losing games to the smallest of play errors.

I say all this, and I'm a huge fan of combo.  I just know that despite my love of Tendrils decks, the time for it to sit on the shelf while other decks shine is right now.  Hopefully it'll come back but it may be awhile yet.

     ~Mark B.

[Vegeta2711]

Non-Belcher combo simply never stood up speed wise to Belcher or even their own predecessors. So why bother playing a deck where you look to lose at least 10-15% of your matches on the deck crapping out or play error? That also doesn't count, as Windfall and Kowal pointed out, the number of hard matches you have to expect you'll play. And this is just getting to the T8, let alone winning.

You may as well play the absolute fastest riskiest version of combo possible or scale back to a slow consistent model (Dragon).

[Dr. Sylvan]

Whoa whoa whoa. Storm decks don't post consistent wins? The Italians Top 8 with TPS on almost a weekly basis. It is the fourth-highest average percent occurrence in large Top 8s.

Six-Month Metagame Occurrence Percentages
MEAN% - Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May., Jun.
12.7% - 12.5, 10.0, _9.7, _9.7, 14.6, 19.6 4C Control
10.3% - _7.5, 12.5, 12.5, _8.5, 10.4, 10.7 Hulk Smash
_6.5% - 12.5, _7.5, _2.8, _4.2, _6.3, _5.4 Madness
_6.2% - _2.5, _5.0, _4.2, _8.5, _8.3, _8.9 Storm Combo

The reason Draw7 mostly performs only at smaller events below my articles' threshold is instability. It simply craps out on itself frequently because you either get too much mana or not enough. Smmenen and I collaborated on an article which should either already be in Ted's inbox or will be when Steve checks his email, in which I break down the 19 TPS builds and 2 Draw7 builds that made my reports in 2004 up to the time of the SCG tourney. Steve contends that Draw7's speed makes it the better deck, but I think the Italians are onto a serious idea that wins even in a metagame much more saturated with Workshops (and Trinispheres/Spheres of Resistance) than New England.

In addition to Duress and Force, TPS runs a fleet of bounce and extra sideboard counters like REB. Hurkyl's Recall and Echoing Truth are sideboard staples, and Rebuild is consistently maindecked. The goal, unlike Draw7's goal of playing serial D7s, is to play one critical threat that will win the game. This is why the additional disruption is so excellent.

[Hi-Val]

If anything, MORE people should be playing draw-7 and friends. I base this on the prevalence of 5- and 9-proxy tournaments. With 5 proxies, you can use the power you have (yes, even the crappy Twister) and put something together, and with nine proxies, you can make the whole thing. The phenomenon of nobody playing combo (even Belcher) with proxy rules like that baffles me. They're just about the easiest decks to put together and are quicker to learn than Fish.

I think that people are afraid of playing combo. Whenever I'd play it, I felt very comfortable knowing that each spell could potentially win the game for me. Combo should terrify opponents, not potential players.

[walkingdude]

I think that a large part of draw 7s problem is a lack of serious players. The deck is very fast even if its no long and has more game against counters than you might think. The deck has serious trouble with turn 1 sphere of any kind or chalice is extremely harmful, and null rod is a bitch too.

I think if the top players played D7 with the same frequency as the bus it would win a few major event, but the fact is if you are one of the top players odds are you are not willing to take the risk of random losses or hate. The deck has a high enough variance that it won’t every be played with the frequency it needs to produce the results that many other decks have. Also, despite its power, I still think it probably isn’t as good as some of the other choices out there, which probably contributes to it not being played often.

[Smmenen]

I think walking dude is right.

Force of Will and Null Rod own and control a large portion of the environment at the moment and I think only committed players can make it survive.

Part of the problem is that insufficient people are innovating the archetype.

[Methuselahn]

I think a decent majority of players feel that metagaming is just as important as piloting a good deck/being a good player.  That said, fast combo relies on the opening hand a lot more and matchup percentages a lot less.  With this logic you decide to gamble with your deck.  Do you like to go "all in" (belcher) or do you make your progress with small bets (gay/r) and have increased odds with proper metagaming.

I think the risk is greater going "all in" with combo than making baby steps with fishes over the course of 4-7 rounds.

Personally, I think all are strong, but the controlling TPS decks have the most potential for winning tournaments regularly.

[rozetta]

With most good combo decks, one should goldfish the deck some 100 times before getting comfortable with it. This is actually one of the few things you can do in your spare time without any need to find an opponent, and in a way, it's fun. It should be an incentive for keen players who always have Mtg on their mind to give these goldfish sessions a try.

However, I think in some cases, people might try, let's say, 20 goldfishes and get fed up of inconsistent opening hands, lack of turn 1 wins and the random factor of getting a hand full of crap after a draw7 and give up.

I think another factor is the fear of the fact that, at least for draw7, something like a resolved turn 1 sphere is game, and that's a random loss that's just not worth taking. This is all part of the bad luck thing - you want to win the die roll, you must get a decent opening hand, you must get good pairings and you must draw into more gas to go off. A smaller point to note is, for instance, not removing all your win conditions from an unlucky returns, but that's almost negligible compared to the other luck factors in play.

Long was so consistent that it could be piloted with slightly more comfort than, for instance, draw7.dec. This is part of the reason why it was the last storm combo deck to see more widespread play.The fact that, at this moment, there aren't enough man hours being put into these sort of decks to really push them into the comfort level of long.dec is a massive contributing factor to their lack of popularity.

[MaxxMatt]

In addition, the deck's worst matchups are 4cControl and Workshop decks with Trinisphere. Since these matchups are quite popular, Tendrils Combo has trouble fighting to the top tables, especially since it's already the most unforgiving deck I've ever played, losing games to the smallest of play errors

I bolded the crucial part that I want to underline.

If your reasoning is based on a pure teoretical speculation, so.. I think that you can change your way of looking at "Storm Based Combo" only by playing them well or seeing them played by strong player.

If your reasoning is based on tests, your results seemed to me astonishingly distorted.

UB-TPS had a solid mana base. It has nearly untouchable lands AND it has both Duress and FoW to fight Drains and FoW. How 4C-C should be a BAD mathcup for it? I play 4C-Control vs. StormBasedCombo almost 2-3 match EVERY tourney and they are my WORST matchup.

4C-C is totally reactive and need time ( UU Open Mana FOnts ) to set up is best defence ( Drain + FoW ). TPS needs only an open mana to steal your Drain with his Duress in your initial hand and then backup his BOMB! with a FoW. You need MORE than Drain+FoW+Denial to stop this monster.

All his huge bombs are NON blue cards and you can't rely on Blasting Necro, Bargain, Y.Will, Duress, Jar, Mind's Desire and so on...

4C-C have to be really lucky or it must start really strong to win easily as you are referring agaisnt TPS.

Our last versions of TPS are almost totally immune to the common Mana Denial. This led us to rise A LOT even our worst matchup: MW.dec.

We usually packed 3-4 Duress, 4 FoW, 2-3 Bouncers ( mix Rebuild, H.Recall or Chain of Vapor as you want ). Basic lands AND Bouncers are
usually GameOVER agaisnt MW.dec. You can backup them with your own FoWs ( if needed as against MW:Slavery for example ), during opponent's EoT and then you are EASILY able to go off against that deck.

We usually packed Basic lands to stop the usual strong start of a common MW:dec: 3Sphere and some Denial. Having a good immunity against Wasteland is KEY in this matchup to transform match lost in match won.

When you are able to bounce back all his hate and all at once, you are able to do permanents and spell to go off without any problems. If needed you can do this route twice with 2 little Tendrils.


I'm really satisfied about the results of our good players playing TPS.
Their work is always rewarded with some Top8s and always good score at our tourneys.

All I can say to all the players that dislike this deck is to TRY intensively HOW to play it well and then maybe, you'll have a different approach to it.

[Windfall]

Hmmm.... I figured that I would be misunderstood a little by my post.  I guess I should have reiterated that my experience with Tendrils combo is with Draw7.dec.  I Have no experience with TPS, but I will probably try out a U/B build.

In my experience with Draw7, the problem against 4cControl wasn't always the denial - that's what ends the game for you - but it's too hard to win because they have removal for Xantid Swarm.  Swarm was the reason you could beat Tog all the time.  Against 4cControl, if they leave their removal in the main deck, you can't win unless you happen to resolve a non-Draw7 bomb because refilling their hand has this uncanny ability to give them a counterspell for the next bomb.

I was in no way making shots at TPS in my post.  I was merely saying that Draw7.dec has a few key weaknesses that make it tough to pilot in the current metagame.  Since my only experience with Tendrils combo is with Draw7, that's what I was posting about.  It's been on my agenda to build a more stable combo deck (such as TPS) and I will get to it eventually, but right now I'm in the middle of moving and that's a chore as it is =).

     ~Mark B.

[Machinus]

The prevalence and popularity of workshop has had a drastic effect on the success of combo. I expect some of this reduction in the potency of combo to remain a part of the metagame always, even if workshops decline in success in the future. Hulk, as the most disruptive control deck in the environment, does not put up a fight that is even comparable to the defense offered by workshop decks. Simply put, combo is an 'inferior strategy' in the more resilient metagame that has been evolving over the last year.

Of course, combo suffers from a lack of skilled players, as always. The right decisions and plays change DRASTICALLY in combo decks, despite the decklists changing by very few cards over long periods of time. This means that more work is required, constantly, to maintain the same level of play and success. This is always a factor in combo and is not the prevalent factor in the current drought of combo success.

Long.dec ravaged the earth before Mirrodin block. This is an important fact.

[rvs]

It takes a lot of time to truly master combo decks. Even something totally broken as long.dec, which had the first versions running around in June, took me quite some time to master. To be honest, I doubt I even mastered it completely until like November/December. (although I must admit, I dismissed the deck as being too random up until like September).

I don't think Workshop decks are really what is keeping combo from being underplayed. It's the nature of combo to crap out on you, thus it has trouble winning major tournaments, unless all the good players are playing combo. It is probably the thought of having to play against blue-based control decks about 70% of your matches, and you are bound to lose one of those matches simply to double-FoW draws, or your deck crapping on you when it matters.

I have to say I largely agree with what Windfall and Smmenen are saying in their posts.

[Thug]

I played both Long and Draw-Seven for a while and the thing that keeps me from playing it now (draw-seven that is, Long RIP) is that while it's probably one of the hardest decks to play, while you are playing it feels like your deck should be winning the games, and you should just be playing the deck. It doesn't feel like your skill has anything to do with your performance, and sometimes the deck just craps out on you, no matter how good you can play the deck.

Long almost never crapped out, the new incarnations do from time to time. Even Draw-Seven which is probably as optimal as a tendrils deck can get right now does.

But that aside I think too few people play these deck. I only know like 1 person that ever played draw-seven in my environment (aside from me)

Koen

P.S. what also keeps me from playing the deck is that people actually sometimes like to show up with hate.dec just to keep you and all other combo players from winning.

Last time playing the deck I lost to a deck with FoW, Scepters, Chants, Chalices, Stifles and Arcane Labs all Maindeck!!

[MaxxMatt]

I hope that anyone would agree with me that TPS and Draw7 are two extremely different decks.

Draw7 die really soon to a good combinations of ReBs, FoWs and some form of Denial ( Rod, Shamans and Waste ).

TPS is far more consistent and really challenging in everyone of his games for both the players involved in the game.


IMHO, the pair Atog & 4C-C can be compared to Draw7 & TPS.
Atog usually die from the same configuration of cards that on the other hand don't affect the modern 4c-c maindeck's configuration. The first is more hatable rather than the latter.
Draw7 and TPS usually must be hated out in a different manner.

Add 3 or 4 ReBs against Draw7 and you should have a good time dealing with him with a first turn Double counter ( ReB + FoW + Removal for Swarm )

Add 3 or 4 ReBs against TPS and they would be Duressed away as any other bomb Before TPS would start to win. Post side, if I can sideboard well, I would certainly have a better winning rate, but from my perspective ( of a 4C-C Player ), I would be really happier on fighting 5-6 Draw7 during my tourneys rather than facing 2 or 3 TPS.

[Eastman]

I agree with Matt, I'd rather play against draw7 as a control player, particularly with 4cc. For all the reasons he mentioned but particularly because draw7 lacks the resiliency against strip effects that a modern U/B/splash tps build like Tentrix or the one I was playing in NE at the beginning of the summer  have. The ability to fetch up key basics is often a crucial part of winning a game against 4cc.


I should also mention that any sort of tendrils deck running in a heavy fish environment should be running darksteel collosus, if not in the maindeck then in the sideboard. The tinker---> giant man plan completely turned around the fish matchup when I first started using it.

[Purple Hat]

I think either Death Long or TPS is probably gonna make a big showing in the states some time soon.  Draw7 has a tendency to get stalled into oblivion by counters/spheres while Wishes in Death Long and the inheirent stability of TPS make these decks much more resistent to the "drain the draw 7, win the game" strategy that seems to work so well against draw7.dec.

[rvs]

Snip![/color]

[Eastman]

Snip![/color]

 


Academy Rector can't be forgotten here... the fact remains that he is incredibly powerful. Last year at Gencon the country showed up sporting rectors, most of which won the first few rounds but then started losting. The hate was too strong then, but is it now?

Can a TPS list with rector but not reliant on it be produced?

[Wollblad]

Academy Rector can't be forgotten here... the fact remains that he is incredibly powerful. Last year at Gencon the country showed up sporting rectors, most of which won the first few rounds but then started losting. The hate was too strong then, but is it now?

Can a TPS list with rector but not reliant on it be produced?

Much of the strenght of TPS is the good access to basic lands. Playing Rector would deminish this access and probably much of the stability. Also you would be quite low on blue cards.

Before this weekend I would say that Tendrils deck wouldn't stand a chance due to lack of consistency. But in one of the tournaments this weekend here in Sweden (I have written a short report here) the final was between two TPS. They showed very good match-ups against both Stax and control. Stability and consistency is the way to go. The only one you own with brokeness is probably yourself!

[theorigamist]

If we can agree that, for the most part, the randomness and luck of the game comes from the shuffle, than Draw7 shouldn't ever be reliable, because it shuffles more than any other deck.  In other words, no matter how much it gets tweaked, it will always need at least decent draws off its draw7s.

TPS somewhat solves this by having more resilience in the mana base and with Duress/Force, but it's not as resilient as Dragon.  And Dragon has the least luck from shuffling and drawing because once you're comboing off, Bazaar will draw everything.  TPS also sacrifices some of Draw7's speed.

I think Belcher combo is the way to go.  Half the deck is mana, a quarter of the deck is tutors, a quarter of the deck is absolute "I win" bombs, and the other four cards are Belchers.  When you are playing Draw7, for instance, you can calculate what cards you are most likely to have in your opening hand.  (I think Smmenen once said something like Land, 2 Artifact acceleration, 1 BS/Force of Will [which is now Duress], 1 Draw7, and some other stuff I don't remember).  But use the same approach for Belcher, and you get a hand like this: 4 mana cards, 1-2 tutor, 1-2 bomb/1 bomb and 1 Belcher.  The important difference, though, is the difficulty in deviating from that starting hand.  Since the deck is split into basically only three different functions of cards, you can get different bombs each time, but you can use any one.  I'm not really sure how to explain it better than that, although I'm aware that's not entirely clear.  Basically, I tested Tendrils combo a bunch (though, admittedly, not TPS), and you get hands that just shit on you sometimes.  But then after every draw 7 you cast you increase the chances of drawing a shit hand.  With Belcher, you have slightly less randomness with the original hand, and then less randomness in the game itself.

It seems that TPS is probably the way to go for Tendrils based combo (although Death Long with Lim-Dul's Vault has been absolutely amazing in my goldfishing, I can't compare it to TPS without having played or seen TPS), but I think Belcher is the way to go for combo in general.

[ELD]

Combo in the current meta is a losing choice IMO.  I do love combo, and I occasionally break out a storm based Rector deck to win small tournaments.  I would never play them at a larger event that I actually care about because you are not the one in the drivers seat.  Why shift away from winning by outplaying your opponent and rely on luck.  

IMO Tog and Control Slaver are amazing decks.  Either one is a nightmare to play against from a combo standpoint.  Duress and Force are more that enough to get mana drain online.  From there it gets very grim.  It basically boils down to luck at that point.  Can you win before they get mana drain online?  

Mulling aggresively is an option, but losing CA vs a control deck is painful as well.  IMO this only works when you're playing as well.  Nothing punished a player on the draw who mulls into an excelllent hand of 5 or 6 as much as Duress.

[Zherbus]

IMO Tog and Control Slaver are amazing decks. Either one is a nightmare to play against from a combo standpoint. Duress and Force are more that enough to get mana drain online. From there it gets very grim. It basically boils down to luck at that point. Can you win before they get mana drain online?
 

That's a really good observation, but I'd like to add to it. Without Tog as a metagame force, we're left with Control Slaver and to a lesser extent, 4cC as a foil to combo. I would say in a metagame that lacks Duress (and Chalice which really seems to be lacking lately), combo decks (that aren't Dragon) really only need to worry about what they've always had to worry about: FoW, Drain, and the occasional Shaman.

[Klep]

...a metagame that lacks Duress...

That's not entirely true, as Control Slaver is starting to sideboard Duress.  Nevertheless, 4CC is a far more common deck and for the most part your point holds.  Combo players should just be aware of the potential for Duress games 2 and 3 against Control Slaver.

[MuzzonoAmi]

To kind of steer this thread in a different direction --

I think that RectorTendrils decks (e.g., Rectal Agony) are underplayed. They pack serious disruption in the form of 4 Therapy, 4 FoW, and at least 2 Duress, and have Baragin as the unstoppable draw engine. They are easy and cheap to assemble (budget versions suffer little, if at all) and easy to play. They are among the most resiliant combo decks around. I have no idea why they don't get played.

[rvs]

because in fact they aren't that consistent. TPS, for example, is much, much more consistent and better equipped to deal with hate.

[Methuselahn]

I think many consider Rector based decks to be hated out because they suffer from splash hate aimed at Dragon.  All the Dragon player has to do is not die in order for their deck to eventually overwhelm the opponent with card draw via bazaar.  This point is especially crucial.

I think tendrils and other combo decks would be played more as these mana denial decks (read: crucible) become more widespread.  Still, as Smmenen pointed out, Null Rod and Force are a major obstacle.

EDIT:  Morefling beat me to it!

[Zherbus]

That's not entirely true, as Control Slaver is starting to sideboard Duress.

Ahh, but sideboarding and maindecking are two different things.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

I think that RectorTendrils decks (e.g., Rectal Agony) are underplayed. They pack serious disruption in the form of 4 Therapy, 4 FoW, and at least 2 Duress, and have Baragin as the unstoppable draw engine. They are easy and cheap to assemble (budget versions suffer little, if at all) and easy to play. They are among the most resiliant combo decks around. I have no idea why they don't get played.

MoreFling already answered that, but without mentioning the reasons for that. The lie in Smmenens once stated "rule of 8", which mentioned that just about any t1-deck can be broken down into groups of 8 cards each with similar functions. This is because it means you'll reliably have access to one of those cards till turn 2-3. This is why Dragon is good, 7-8 outlets, 7-8 animates, 4 Dragons + X Intuitions + Tutors (which means you have 3 blocks of 8 functional identical cards if necessary, the tutors doubling as better Dragons).
This is also why rector is bad. The deck doesn't work reliably without one but you won't reliably be able to sac a Rector that early (because you don't have one + a therapy, there just aren't 8 to run...), the deck doesn't win without Rector usually, which makes the deck highly inconsistant for a t1 deck.
You won't see any deck that is succesful with a gameplan that is a 2 card combo of which you can only run each part 4 times. Each other deck has different cards that do the same thing, simulating a higher key-card count.