[Deck] Meandeck Tendrils

[dicemanx]

So I take it that Tolarian Academy wasn't strong enough to make the cut? I haven't seen any discussion on it, and it wasn't mentioned in the list of candidates that didn't make it into the build.

Also, was the possibility of maindeck FoWs ever a consideration at the expense of reducing the goldfish rate? It just seems that even with a ridiculously fast turn 1 kill rate its much too difficult for any such deck to be a consistent performer in todays environment, given the fact that decks are much faster and more explosive these days and with access to a wide array of very powerful hate cards. In fact, it seems that slower, more controllish approaches to particular combo decks make for better choices - we've seen this  with Dragon (BUG over Spoils for instance) and Tendrils (TPS and maybe even Doomsday over Deathlong and Belcher).

This of course doesn't take away from Meandeck's most remarkable achievement (creating one of the fastest decks ever, according to their goldfishing results), but its quite curious that such a deck would have so much difficulty in succeeding.

[rozetta]

Just to clear things up: you don't have to remove a card from your graveyard with Conjurer's Bauble - it says "up to one" so it's application would be purely cantrip and threshold building if it were in use. I'm assuming the Meandeck guys knew this already, though - it was just bothering me that there have been enough assumptions about cards on this thread where people thing the action is a "should" and not a "may" action (the other being the Land Grant thing).

@ Darkwater Egg: yes it's a damn shame there aren't other "draw now" Chromatic Sphere style cards. I remember some people used Barbed Sextants in Belcher for a while, but those don't draw you a card until the next turn so in that way, Pentad Prism would be even better. Pentad Prism is not good for the reason that it needs a 2 coloured mana input to be useful enough in addition to not cantripping. This logically points to the next best thing being the Odyssey eggs, since the deck needs only U or B.

I have noticed the same thing that blue-heavy starting hands look bad when you consider how much blue this deck can make by default, but Sleight of Hand seems to be one of the key factors in making this deck work the way it should (and hence it's not using, e.g. Serum Visions). Having tried myself to build decks of this ilk, I can imagine they went through a lot of cantrip effects to get to  the current list. (Out of interest, regarding digging as deep as possible while attaining threshold, did you try Careful Study or even Mental Note? The only reason I ask is that the deck is so redundant that you probably don't really care what goes into the grave as long as you churn along and make mana)

[Zherbus]

So I take it that Tolarian Academy wasn't strong enough to make the cut? I haven't seen any discussion on it, and it wasn't mentioned in the list of candidates that didn't make it into the build.

You can't Land Grant for it, and you don't want to Tutor for it (when you Consult/DT for something, it's usually Lotus and Will and by that point you've made your one land drop). Your one land likes to be Bayou most of the time to start Dark Ritual. I personally don't think it's especially bad in the build, but from experience with running non-forest lands, you rarely want to see them.

Also, was the possibility of maindeck FoWs ever a consideration at the expense of reducing the goldfish rate? It just seems that even with a ridiculously fast turn 1 kill rate its much too difficult for any such deck to be a consistent performer in todays environment, given the fact that decks are much faster and more explosive these days and with access to a wide array of very powerful hate cards. In fact, it seems that slower, more controllish approaches to particular combo decks make for better choices - we've seen this with Dragon (BUG over Spoils for instance) and Tendrils (TPS and maybe even Doomsday over Deathlong and Belcher).

Force of Will is better 'on the draw', but not necessarily good 'on the play'. There are times when it just gunks up your hand and gets in the way of the real gas. Honestly, if we wanted a Turn 2 combo deck with protection we'd have played TPS or Doomsday. Our goal was to play a turn 1 combo deck that didn't rely on any real bomb resolving (much like traditional combo relies on a gamebreaking Draw 7, Tinker, Necro, etc.) in order to win.

This of course doesn't take away from Meandeck's most remarkable achievement (creating one of the fastest decks ever, according to their goldfishing results), but its quite curious that such a deck would have so much difficulty in succeeding.

That's because one thing the deck fails to do is have any real resiliance to hate in addition to crapping on itself. It's an incredibly broken machine that shouldn't theoretically exist, but broken isn't always better.

RE: Conjurer's Bauble

The best thing this card had going for it was that in turn 2 games, it allowed a Striped Bayou to be Land Granted again.

Out of interest, regarding digging as deep as possible while attaining threshold, did you try Careful Study or even Mental Note? The only reason I ask is that the deck is so redundant that you probably don't really care what goes into the grave as long as you churn along and make mana

Let me walk you through a scenerio to help you understand that a little better. Assume we're at Storm count 7, you just Dark Ritual'd off a Darkwater Egg draw. You have BBBU floating and a Spoils and Sleight in hand. You know that you need to Sleight to see if you can find another Ritual so you can Spoils for Tendrils and win (or Slight for Tendrils and Spoils for a Ritual to win). If you had Mental Note and you throw a Tendrils to the bottom, your Spoils now has a higher probability to be lethal. The issue with Careful Study is that it loses momentum. While it digs, it loses one mana and gains no cards.

[Saucemaster]

Also, was the possibility of maindeck FoWs ever a consideration at the expense of reducing the goldfish rate? It just seems that even with a ridiculously fast turn 1 kill rate its much too difficult for any such deck to be a consistent performer in todays environment, given the fact that decks are much faster and more explosive these days and with access to a wide array of very powerful hate cards. In fact, it seems that slower, more controllish approaches to particular combo decks make for better choices - we've seen this  with Dragon (BUG over Spoils for instance) and Tendrils (TPS and maybe even Doomsday over Deathlong and Belcher).

To expand on Zherbus' reply, FoW is an almost completely dead card when you're trying to combo off, and most of the time you're comboing out you need all 7 cards in hand (the exceptions usually involving Will).  On the draw, this doesn't matter so much, since you get an extra card to balance out the "dead" FoW if you draw one, though it does make your mulligan decisions a little more difficult at times.  On the play, though, that extra card can easily turn a turn 1 win into a turn 2 win--actually, the general trend with this deck is that for each card fewer you start with, your goldfish increases by a turn, which is sometimes useful to know in assessing when to mulligan.  FoW on the play is a virtual mulligan.  Now the cost-benefit analysis STILL might be positive if FoW provided adequate protection, but really Force is more of a desperation card in the deck; it kind of sucks, but there's just nothing better.  It comes down to questions like "on the play, which is a better answer to 3sphere: a turn slower goldfish, or trying to win on turn 1 before they get a chance to drop the sphere?"  Our testing, and the simple mathematics, showed that it was better to plan on just winning.  Note that the tournament results would indicate that "better" here doesn't necessarily mean "good"!

EDIT: Another way to say this might be to just say that as soon as the deck starts giving up slots for disruption, it needs to start running more high-effect cards like Draw7s and more tutors in order to continue to work, at which point it simply becomes a better choice to run something like MeanDeath, TPS, or Doomsday.

This of course doesn't take away from Meandeck's most remarkable achievement (creating one of the fastest decks ever, according to their goldfishing results), but its quite curious that such a deck would have so much difficulty in succeeding.

Thanks for the props, of course, and again I encourage anyone who's interested to practice for a while with the deck, get comfortable, and try goldfishing it--it really does win on turn one as frequently as we've claimed!  I think there are a few reasons for our failure with it in tournament magic, actually:

1) Overestimating the power of speed in the environment.  Not in the sense that "a turn 3 deck can be just as good as a turn 1 deck", since (if we leave it unqualified) that statement is obviously false.  I mean that the environment is already SO FAST, and the disruption and hate so prevalent and cheap, that a 65-70% turn 1 goldfish rate simply isn't broken ENOUGH to punch through.  That would have sounded incredible to me (and to my teammates, I'm sure) before Waterbury, but we learned the hard way.  A 70% turn 1 goldfish is incredibly seductive, but Vintage is so resilient right now that even that failed to really make a huge dent.  I think this indicates that the environment is significantly healthier--or at least, more resistant to brokenness--than I have given it credit for in the past.

2) Difficult of play.  Some of my teammates make more of this than I do, because I hate arguments that rely on the player limitations, but the deck is unforgiving and in the course of 8 rounds of Swiss you WILL make a mistake at some point.  Given that almost all of your decisions, and therefore mistakes, take place in one turn, you have no extra untaps or draws to try to minimize their impact or to fortuitously topdeck that tutor or Will or Ancestral, etc.  That magnifies the effect of your mistakes and, given the fragility of the deck, usually means that if you don't manage to kill yourself, your opponent will probably find a way to do it on his/her turn.

3) Under-preparation.  We all spent tons of time mastering the goldfish and tuning the maindeck, and *some* matchups were tested pretty heavily, but honestly we just didn't do enough.  Our initial sideboard plans were more or less cobbled together and I actually stumbled on what we think is part of the correct sideboard plan somewhere around Round 3 of Waterbury.  That's obviously unacceptable.  I think we relied too heavily on the effect of surprise to make up for our underpreparation, and that just didn't pan out.

I had another point, but I can't remember it.  If I do, I'll post it.

[rozetta]

One more question concerning cards you tried while developing this deck:

I know the deck runs a lot of four-ofs, but did you ever try Tainted Pact in the Night's Whisper slot? The reasoning behind my asking is that you're using Night's Whisper to dig into a little more fuel (most probably rituals) and you're only going to go 2 cards deep for a huge (for this deck) investment of two mana (in addition to giving yourselves the possibility of seeing 2 less cards with Spoils). With Tainted Pact at the same mana cost, you could, even with the deck's redundancy, go a little further (3 or 4 cards) looking for the next ritual, etc.

Night's Whisper seems like one of the weakest cards in the deck to me, but replacing it with something marginally better in blue means increasing the blue requirement to an unnacceptable level. However, if any card looks like it could replace Night's Whisper, I would guess it would be Tainted Pact. I know this adds yet another "playing the odds" decision in an already complicated deck, which might end up being too stressful in a tournament situation, but I thought I'd suggest it in case if was overlooked.

[dicemanx]

Very good points Saucemaster. I didn't state it explicitly, but your point #1 is exactly what I had in mind when making my comment that it was curious that such an incredibly fast deck failed to dominate. We've certainly come a long way, and the fact that decks are far more explosive and have access to some very powerful anti-combo cards greatly diminishes the importance of goldfish rates. What I'm wondering is if you minimized the downsides mentioned in #2 and #3 (difficulty of play and underpreparation), if that would be enough to make this deck a consistent performer. My instinct tells me that it wouldn't be enough.

Of course, it doesn't mean that such a deck has a right to exist in the environment - even if it cannot perform consistently it will simply demolish many unlucky opponents that get paired against this monstrosity who don't succeed in drawing the "correct cards" in their opening 7. But that's a separate issue of course .

[Saucemaster]

@ rozetta: We did think about Tainted Pact, yes, but honestly two mana for one card was just too much, with the exception of Demonic Tutor.  Night's Whisper's function in the deck is to increase your hand size when you just need to replenish your hand to either: a) increase storm or b) get your hand back up to a size where you can keep multiple cards off a good Brainstorm (which is frequently a real problem when you're at, say, 5 or 6 storm with Ritual mana floating and just Brainstorm and Night's Whisper in hand).  And with so many four-ofs to maximize Spoils, Pact craps out more quickly than it does in something like Mask.  Good suggestion, however, and the card is sort of on the cusp; if it put the removed cards to the graveyard instead of RFGing them, it would probably be an auto-include.

@ dicemanx:

What I'm wondering is if you minimized the downsides mentioned in #2 and #3 (difficulty of play and underpreparation), if that would be enough to make this deck a consistent performer. My instinct tells me that it wouldn't be enough.

I think I would tend to agree with you.  My point #3 was somewhat answered by the deck's repeat (non)performance in Richmond, where some of our best players had proper sideboards and maindecks, and a good plan to utilize both, and still had trouble.  I think the environment might actually be able to "handle" the deck when combined with the deck's tendency to kill itself or mull into oblivion once in every ten games or so.

Of course, it doesn't mean that such a deck has a right to exist in the environment - even if it cannot perform consistently it will simply demolish many unlucky opponents that get paired against this monstrosity who don't succeed in drawing the "correct cards" in their opening 7.

Yeah, I had two separate matches at Waterbury where I won on turn one in both of my winning games.  In at least one game of each of those matches my opponent had the proper response cards in hand, but needed a turn in order to actually cast them.  The most frustrating thing about playing against the deck with MWS decks in testing was that there was absolutely nothing you could do to stop it if you were on the draw.  You had to just pray that the odds went against them and they either killed themselves or stalled on turn 1, and even then you had to have WS -> 3sphere on your first turn or you were still probably dead.  Without turning the thread into (yet another) war over restriction, I will say that I agree that the deck is beyond the pale and that I wouldn't exactly be saddened to see it neutered as an extension of the Long.dec principle.

[Smmenen]

2) Difficult of play.  Some of my teammates make more of this than I do, because I hate arguments that rely on the player limitations, but the deck is unforgiving and in the course of 8 rounds of Swiss you WILL make a mistake at some point.  Given that almost all of your decisions, and therefore mistakes, take place in one turn, you have no extra untaps or draws to try to minimize their impact or to fortuitously topdeck that tutor or Will or Ancestral, etc.  That magnifies the effect of your mistakes and, given the fragility of the deck, usually means that if you don't manage to kill yourself, your opponent will probably find a way to do it on his/her turn.
.

It isn't that the deck, in a vacuum, is too difficult to play.  That is not the case at all and that's not what I'm asserting.

The problem is that in TOURNAMENT magic you are expected to play in a "reasonable" amount of time.  That time generally isnt' perceived as much different from a game of draft to type one.  This is the first deck that I beleive is not tournament playable becuase you cannot make optimal decisions in a "reasonable" amount of time.  Doomsday came close to this limit, and this deck has hit is square on.  The number of calculations that must be made to find the optimal play are simply toomany to permit a person to make the optimal decision under tournament time limits.  If a match ws 3 hours with a chess clock, you would have NO problem with the deck.

As for Justin's first point, underestimating speed in the format - I don't agree with that.  Perhaps there was a miscommunication on our team - but I don't feel like we were underestimating this fact at all.  The whole allure of speed is the Workshop-Trinisphere dileimma.  I knew, or should have known, that giving any opponent a turn would give them an opportunity to do something.  I also knew that against FOW decks, the speed was simply a leverage point.  It doesn't mean you'd win on turn 1 - but the speed permits you to leverage the decks power so you simply overpower a control opponent - which is how most game 1s go against control decks  

The real key was that we were very under-prepared - relying on skill and goldfishing and minimal match testing to win.  We also didn't realize the meta-mechanics of the deck - the fact that you might not have any idea what your opponent is playing game two.  And we underestimated the player limitations.  If Justin doesn't feel that the player limitation is a real limit - then that is a sign that he should play the deck as long as he possibly can

[Saucemaster]

As for Justin's first point, underestimating speed in the format - I don't agree with that.  Perhaps there was a miscommunication on our team - but I don't feel like we were underestimating this fact at all.  The whole allure of speed is the Workshop-Trinisphere dileimma.  I knew, or should have known, that giving any opponent a turn would give them an opportunity to do something.  I also knew that against FOW decks, the speed was simply a leverage point.  It doesn't mean you'd win on turn 1 - but the speed permits you to leverage the decks power so you simply overpower a control opponent - which is how most game 1s go against control decks

Interesting.  For #1, I can obviously only speak for myself, but I was completely surprised at the format's resiliency to a deck that wins the majority of its games on turn 1.  It's not so much that there was a miscommunication, just that I, at least, had too much faith in what mere speed would accomplish.  I completely agree re: speed as a leverage against control--God knows that was all I did at Waterbury for like 7 of my  10 (played) rounds.  What surprised me was that while that ended up working out well for me, equally- and more-talented players on our team didn't manage the same results.  The blinding speed of the deck certainly impacts the matches, outraces 3sphere, can be used as leverage against control, etc; it's just that all of those effects are smaller than I, for one, thought they'd be.  You have more tournament experience with the deck than I, however, so you may have more insight into how it came up short.

The real key was that we were very under-prepared - relying on skill and goldfishing and minimal match testing to win.  We also didn't realize the meta-mechanics of the deck - the fact that you might not have any idea what your opponent is playing game two.  And we underestimated the player limitations.  If Justin doesn't feel that the player limitation is a real limit - then that is a sign that he should play the deck as long as he possibly can

Thanks for the compliment.  It's actually not that I don't feel player limitations are a real limit--they very much are.  It's that using them as a reason to excuse a deck's performance always feels like a cop-out to me, even if deep down I know that's a large part of the problem.  In the large scheme, I think that generally speaking, player limitations shouldn't be a factor, because some people *will* be skilled enough with the deck to play it to its fullest potential; and in the meantime, blaming too much on player limitations can blind people to actual design or metagame problems with a deck.  As a private aside, I don't think that's happened with us, but I think as a general rule player limitations should be used as an explanation only rarely and with great discretion.  On a personal level, play limitations are very real and will impact a player's deck and card choices, etc, but on the macro-level, I think the cream rises to the top eventually.

The meta-mechanical issue was actually the point #4 that I forgot!  Thanks for reminding me.  I would say that in at least 1/3 of my matches I had no idea what my opponent was playing when I was sideboarding.  In a number of others I had a small idea, but even then it was only like, "look, basic island + brainstorm.  He's probably playing control, or something like TPS that might as well be straight-up control as far as I'm concerned.  But does he have Tinker for Platz?  Is he with Tog or Oath instead of Control Slaver?  Does he maybe (gasp) have 4cC?".   Not being able to answer those questions really puts a crimp in your sideboarding, which is why I started just siding Force any time I was on the draw.

As for continuing to play it, I don't know, the first thing a good gambler learns is when to quite while you're ahead.

[Smmenen]

Thanks for the compliment.  It's actually not that I don't feel player limitations are a real limit--they very much are.  It's that using them as a reason to excuse a deck's performance always feels like a cop-out to me, even if deep down I know that's a large part of the problem.  In the large scheme, I think that generally speaking, player limitations shouldn't be a factor, because some people *will* be skilled enough with the deck to play it to its fullest potential; and in the meantime, blaming too much on player limitations can blind people to actual design or metagame problems with a deck.  As a private aside, I don't think that's happened with us, but I think as a general rule player limitations should be used as an explanation only rarely and with great discretion.  On a personal level, play limitations are very real and will impact a player's deck and card choices, etc, but on the macro-level, I think the cream rises to the top eventually.
)

I'm not sure whether it was my greater knowledge or tournament experience with the deck, but I was acutely more aware of superior plays at SCG VA than I was at the Waterbury.  I think, honestly, it was becuase in preparing for SCG VA I was making a very concerted effort to be aware of potential lines of play; far more so than I had before.  I think it was this effort that opened up reams of potential plays to me that I had not seen or was not looking for at Waterbury (becuase I played far more intuitively at Waterbury).  

It was then, that I became most aware of the player limitations.  I'm not saying that you can't play this deck in a reasonable amount of time, but that you can't pilot it optimally all the time in a reasonable amount of time.  About one game every two matches will be such a game.

[Ultima]

I think this deck insane.  When I put it through the gauntlet, I was shocked at how well i was doing.  I have to agree with just about everything, you guys were saying about outracing 3sphere and burning through FOW.  I do have some ideas at the same time although, they are similar to what has already transpired.

A. While I understand the the notion not to play a sea, I cut the fetch for another Bayou.  Maybe I missed something but I think the extra bayou is way better than the fetch because you can grant for another B source if you have to win on turn 2 instead of 1.

B. I tested the SB, FOW idea and found that the blue is far too low to support FOW even in the board.  I think the SB should house 4 Annul instead since 3sphere and lab are the only things that you have to counter.

What was the testing like when you guys tried MD duress?

-John

[Saucemaster]

Annul: Yeah, the blue count is definitely low, but the whole idea is that you need something on the draw to hedge against the hate that you're sure to face after SBing, and Annul can't answer your opponent's first turn plays.

Bayou #2: The basic idea was simply that you aren't planning on the game lasting beyond two turns, and you really don't want to see a land when you're cantripping.  Lands are the only things in your deck that don't add to your storm count.  The point about a second black source on turn 2 is well-made, and at Waterbury we actually had a Bayou in the board to bring in against control for exactly that reason, since your games typically last up to 3 or more turns against a decent control player, but against Workshops that second Bayou may just kill you or stall you out, whereas if it's a fetch, at least in the 50% of cases where you draw the fetchland before the real land, you've dramatically decreased your chances of seeing a land while going off.  A vague side benefit is that you can leave a fetch in play if you're squaring off against Wasteland and setting up a 2nd turn win, but I'm not sure that's ever actually come up in my testing.

Duress: I don't know that there's a consensus here.  It's better in the maindeck than Force of Will, but I don't much like it.  It breaks the "generates mana or draws a card" rule, obviously; and in all my experience with Duress--we were siding it in on the play against control--it was nearly useless.  Either it was holding back my win or it was unnecessary.  BUT I think my own experiences were different from other teammates' experiences; in particular I think Z mentioned loving Duress.  In game one, though, I think the deck still really wants to just be as fast as possible.  The looming threat of WS->3sphere, Chalice 0/1, or first turn Arcane Lab, you lucky miser really casts a shadow on the maindeck.  Duress might hit some of the hate, but for example if they have a hand with both 3sphere and Chalice, your only real option is to just win immediately (you *can* win through Chalice, but they'll usually find some way to break your back before you do).

[Imsomniac101]

Just an idea, maybe you could try a transformational sideboard with Illusionary Mask + Dreadnaught. You already run spoils + ritual, and with  the amount of cantrips it might not be difficult to play. It does have a surprise factor and can help in difficult match-ups (bar stax).

[Saucemaster]

Some of us did at Waterbury.  I know it cost Smmenen at least one game, so maybe he can elaborate on why that's a bad call, but once your opponent knows it's an option, it ceases to be effective.  Plus you'll start noticing hands where you think "God, if that Mask was just a Night's Whisper I could probably win this turn instead of having to Spoils for a Dreadnaught and then wait two more to kill".

[Shock Wave]

I think this deck insane.  When I put it through the gauntlet, I was shocked at how well i was doing.  I have to agree with just about everything, you guys were saying about outracing 3sphere and burning through FOW.  I do have some ideas at the same time although, they are similar to what has already transpired.

A. While I understand the the notion not to play a sea, I cut the fetch for another Bayou.  Maybe I missed something but I think the extra bayou is way better than the fetch because you can grant for another B source if you have to win on turn 2 instead of 1.

B. I tested the SB, FOW idea and found that the blue is far too low to support FOW even in the board.  I think the SB should house 4 Annul instead since 3sphere and lab are the only things that you have to counter.

What was the testing like when you guys tried MD duress?

-John

I'd like to echo the above sentiments. The deck is insane. I also cut the delta and have tried several cards in its slot (chrome mox, mox diamond, grim monolith), all of which haven't been great but decidely better than that damn delta which tends to be an inconvenience far too often.

I don't think FoW can be removed, as you obviously need an answer to 3S on the draw. The Duress idea is interesting, but I don't think the list has any room for those things.

I've made some changes to the deck (3 or 4), the majority of which I won't discuss because they've already been branded as suboptimal choices (they've been working great for me, however). The one change I made that I strongly feel is a heinous error to exclude from the decklist is Vampiric Tutor. I really don't understand why this card doesn't make the cut as it has retarded synergy with Sphere/Egg.

To date, I've goldfished 150 hands with the deck and have gotten my win percentage to almost 60%. I think to say that the deck has a 70% win percentage on turn 1 is little optimistic, but even if it is so, 60% is a ridiculous goldfish rate. Something definitely needs to be done here.

Some notes from my testing:

- 3 1st turn kills when mulling to 5
- 1st turn kill when on the draw through Stifle

Perhaps the 1st turn kills with 5 cards were just lucky, but I mean, that's rather silly. This Stifle scenario hasn't come up often, but the few times that it has (ie. my opponent starts with Island, go, with Stifle in hand), it wasn't enough to save them. Is Turn 1 Stifle really an issue, or only with FoW backup?

At any rate, this deck is rather ingenious. I take my hat off to everyone who had a hand in devising this beast.

[Saucemaster]

I've made some changes to the deck (3 or 4), the majority of which I won't discuss because they've already been branded as suboptimal choices (they've been working great for me, however). The one change I made that I strongly feel is a heinous error to exclude from the decklist is Vampiric Tutor. I really don't understand why this card doesn't make the cut as it has retarded synergy with Sphere/Egg.

In total I think I personally had about 50 games of goldfishing experience with a decklist that was exactly like my Waterbury list (in the Waterbury t16 thread) but with Vampiric in the Necro slot.  I personally liked the Vamp better, but other team members have reported Necro being incredible in a lot of control matchups.  I'm willing to chalk this one up to personal preference, but I certainly have a soft spot for Vampiric.

To date, I've goldfished 150 hands with the deck and have gotten my win percentage to almost 60%. I think to say that the deck has a 70% win percentage on turn 1 is little optimistic, but even if it is so, 60% is a ridiculous goldfish rate. Something definitely needs to be done here.

I honestly think that in the end you'll find it at somewhere around 65-70%, after that "deck intuition" settles in that comes from playing something a bajillion times in goldfishing and testing.  My goldfish average once I wiped my initial "learning the deck" results and started counting from scratch were at about 67%.

At any rate, this deck is rather ingenious. I take my hat off to everyone who had a hand in devising this beast.

That would pretty much be Smmenen.

[Smmenen]

I tested Vamp Tutor - among other cards I've already explained.  I already explained that after lots of testing I didn't use it becuase the card disadvantage - not becuase of the fact it finds Lotus.  It caused me to not achieve 10 storm an inordinate amount of the time.

I'll talk about most of this in my primer.  Which will probably be in four parts at this point.

[Whatever Works]

4 point primer = $200 thats awsome I must say (especially for a deck that has proved dissapointing by the high standards of meandeck)

I was wondering what you considered the best # to cast CoTV at against this deck??? I was thinking the logical # would be at 1 (or possibly 2 if you live that long but bounce is scary still), because it would also shut down chain of vapor...

Here is what each # gets for reference for others:
0 --> Moxes, Lotus, crypt
1 --> Dark Ritual, Chromatic Sphere, chain of vapor, sleight of hand, ancestral recall, eggs, sol ring, mana vault, something else that I cant think of...
2 --> Cabal Ritual, Night's Whisper, Land Grant, Demonic tutor, more stuff i cant remember...

[jpmeyer]

1, followed by 2.  0 does very little, as it often will let them do things like dump Moxes into the graveyard to get threshold.

[Shock Wave]

I was wondering what you considered the best # to cast CoTV at against this deck???

CotV = 1 nails 28 cards in the deck immediately. I would set it at 1 almost exclusively.

[onelovemachine]

The problem is that in TOURNAMENT magic you are expected to play in a "reasonable" amount of time. That time generally isnt' perceived as much different from a game of draft to type one.

I was hoping you were creating a deck that wouldn't take you so long to play.     It obviously has inherent strategic advantages.  Example:  First turn win in game one, 38 minute first turn in game two thinking about which cards to brainstorm back= match win for the swiss rounds!    My suggestion to improve that is to remove necro.  It will make your deck's power less solid, but keep you from worrying about cards getting removed from the game.  But seriously, I'm beginning to realize why you cream your pants playing combo.  Regardless of how extensively the deck must be tested with to achieve 60-70% first turn win scenario,  if it achieves this, how does that make you and/or  your teammates feel about the health of the format with decks capable of doing this?

[Snoop]

Ok first with the CotV debate ... how do you win again? I mean it should be obvious to everyone that 1 is the correct number and then 2 for the clincher if possible later. All of your draw spells are 1 casting cost so that leaves you with night's whisper to hopefully draw into hurkyl's? It just seems like this deck is missing the simple outs that normal combo decks enjoy. Now I know you guys are trying to create the fastest possible highest % goldfish rate but why couldn't this deck be more tournament worthy. I mean barring Saucemaster's finish at Waterbury the results have been piss poor. And I'm not blaming it on bad players ... you guys are all well experienced and excellent Type 1 players - so why not mold this deck to be a winner. As it stands this deck is the fastest turn 1 kill deck - but what does that mean anyway. I feel like Zherbus was right with the whole Duress/Hurkyl's plan. Deathlong was very successful with those same plans and this should technically goldfish faster anyway.

I mean technically hurkyl's is pretty much a mana/storm booster when cast on yourself not to mention it can handle opponent's stuff when necessary too. I feel like adding hurkyl's could increase this decks chance to survival in a brown world with it's red weenie king. I mean playing TPS i have managed to kill many people off rebuild into tendrils and with this decks explosiveness i would imagine it's capable of much more.

[Saucemaster]

Hurkyl's and Chain of Vapor are already in the maindeck.  They weren't at WBury, but we added them for Richmond.  As for adding more disruption and slowing the deck down a little in the interests of winning, I'll rephrase myself from earlier: that may be the right way to go.  But adding disruptive elements will slow the deck down.  Adding enough disruptive elements to really get the job done will probably dial the kill rates back a full turn each, and increase your stall percentage.  So then what are we left with?  A slightly faster version of Doomsday that doesn't have Doomsday, or a much faster version of Rector Trix or TPS that doesn't have the disruptive power of either.  In that case, you would be better served by playing one of the already existing combo decks that don't have to bastardize their maindecks to try to fit in disruption that never wanted to be there in the first place.  So *if* added disruption is what a combo deck this fast needs to win in Type 1, then the real lesson is that this isn't the combo deck you want to be playing in Vintage, and that it's better to play a different deck entirely.

[Fall-Titan]

The criticism around this deck is a little out of hand. It comes down to you playing it if you want to or you playing against it if you dont. It has been quite a while since we have had a pure combo deck in vintage. With the emerging control combo decks such as control slaver and oath why not give something that relies completely on speed a shot. Sure the lack of disruption may hurt you in some cases but at least the deck is staying true to the overall objective of  combo: Winning and winning fast.

[ump]

If this is a goldfish deck, I don't see why you even care about hate.  If you win the dice roll, you win first turn game one, lose if they play a first-turn hate and you don't have a force game two, then win first turn game three.  If you lose the dice roll, that is when things get interesting.  You lose game one to a first-turn hate, win the second game first turn, then try to survive past the hate again the third game.  However, you need to win this time.  That said, you should not maindeck any reactive cards with the possible exception of Force of Will.  If you are on the draw, you make sure you have force.  If you are on the draw third game, you need the force and the hate, but you should know what hate you need to worry about.  Of course, this is not factoring in the times that you die to Spoils or the few times that you cannot win on the first turn.

[wonkey_donkey]

If this is a goldfish deck, I don't see why you even care about hate.

That was, surely, meandeck's reasoning for playing the deck in the first place? There are some cards that are insurmountable obstacles, whilst due to the inherent randomness of the coin flip and spoils deaths, getting a 6-2 or better record in a tournament isn't easy - no matter how good the player or how broken the deck.

Tom

[Smmenen]

Ok first with the CotV debate ... how do you win again? I mean it should be obvious to everyone that 1 is the correct number and then 2 for the clincher if possible later. All of your draw spells are 1 casting cost so that leaves you with night's whisper to hopefully draw into hurkyl's? It just seems like this deck is missing the simple outs that normal combo decks enjoy. Now I know you guys are trying to create the fastest possible highest % goldfish rate but why couldn't this deck be more tournament worthy. I mean barring Saucemaster's finish at Waterbury the results have been piss poor. And I'm not blaming it on bad players ... you guys are all well experienced and excellent Type 1 players - so why not mold this deck to be a winner. As it stands this deck is the fastest turn 1 kill deck - but what does that mean anyway. I feel like Zherbus was right with the whole Duress/Hurkyl's plan. Deathlong was very successful with those same plans and this should technically goldfish faster anyway.

I mean technically hurkyl's is pretty much a mana/storm booster when cast on yourself not to mention it can handle opponent's stuff when necessary too. I feel like adding hurkyl's could increase this decks chance to survival in a brown world with it's red weenie king. I mean playing TPS i have managed to kill many people off rebuild into tendrils and with this decks explosiveness i would imagine it's capable of much more.

Chalice of the Void actually isn't that bad.  In testing a Chalice for 1 slows you down to a turn 3 and sometimes a turn 2 kill.  Moreso if you have been forced - say turn 4 or 5.  

On the other hand, chalice for 0 slows you down no more than a single turn.  

Additionally, I have won under Trinisphere in actual games with this deck becuase of Cabal Ritual.  It is unlikely, but at least possible, however remote.

[xrobx]

On that note, I've won with this deck under a pyrostatic pillar on the board when I had only 9 life.  Quite an amazing goldfishing deck I'd have to say.

Also, I want to give props for the idea of the maindeck chain of vapor.  This card is bomb, and I've used it more than once to up my storm count by tapping out land and moxen, then bouncing back a few moxen/mana sources to my hand only to play them out again, and up the storm count.  Brilliant.

[Yawgs_sammich]

First off, i have to argue for the inclusion of vamp/mystical.  with dozens of cantrips, getting Will or Ancestral (or sometimes lotus) on top of the library is too powerful to ignore, even with the temporary card disadvantage.  it just makes all the cantrips that much better.  For example, cast vampiric for ancestral, then cast/break chromatic sphere for blue, ancestral.  you have spent three mana to draw three cards (four including the ancestral) and three storm counts, all of which will be useful if played again out of the graveyard.  Not to mention that the topdeck tutors make Spoils better, taking the risk out of spoiling for a one-of and upping storm by an extra spell at the same time.  Spoils for Will when you know it is the top card is hott.  The extra tutors are also good for shuffling away crap you put on top with brainstorm.

Secondly, has anyone tried desperate research in this deck?  It can be risky, but the chance to nab multiple dark rits or cabal rits is tempting.

[Saucemaster]

with dozens of cantrips, getting Will or Ancestral (or sometimes lotus) on top of the library is too powerful to ignore

The order in which you listed them there is interesting; I would say that the cards I most frequently Vamp for, in order, would be Lotus, then Will, then a specific card I need like Cabal Ritual or Tendrils of Agony.  Ancestral comes in after all of those, though obviously it's always a consideration.