UW Fish v Grim Long Play Situation

[Xcisus]

This past weekend, I played UW Fish at the Sports Zone in Cary, NC. During a match against Grim Long, the following play situation arose in game 3.
He had:
In play: some lands, artifacts including mana crypt and jar, necro, and swarm.
In hand: 7 cards, one of which he had I. Sealed for.
In yard: some acceleration, and seal
9 life
I had:
In play: mage on Will, stormscape apprentice, plains, and tundra
In hand: magex2, daze, beb
20 life

what is the correct play on my turn? As I see it, I have two options.
1. Beat with mage, on his turn tap down the swarm in order for draw sevens to be useful for me too.
2. Beat with both, and play mage #2.

If you choose #2, what do you name with the mage? For background, I have 4xforce, 2xdaze, 3x chant still in the deck, and game 2 he played a massacre.

I ended up choosing to play mage #2 on massacre figuring that for his Isealed card(also because I got burned not playing a mage on pyroclasm against Machinus earlier), and lost to several draw 7's, CoV on the Will mage, and desire. I drew an active force in a jar hand, which may have won me the game (I also found out afterwards that he had sided out massacres :/, so a mage on tendrils or Will would have certainly won it)

[And11]

You should never fool around with Meddling Mage. Name Tendrils always.

[Scoops666]

I agree with And11. However, in your situation, I'd tap the swarm.

Reason being, he probably didn't go for Massacre. While casting Will is nice, he's in a plenty good enough situation where he doesn't need to use it. As you said, he has a Jar in play. That combined with the Swarm swing would most definately put him over the top to kill you (I also assume he necro'd on his turn bringing himself to 9). And you know he's going for it this turn. He necro'd, he doesn't get another draw phase, and he'll start the turn at 7(or 4 from crypt). Nows the time to go, so you need to be able to counter anything you can to stop the win, which can only be doen if you can play spells post Draw 7, which means the Swarm can't be allowed to swing.

[mongrel12]

You should never fool around with Meddling Mage. Name Tendrils always.

Is this some sortof joke, or what... naming Tendrils with your first Mage is almost always borderline retarded... they will just outbroken you, bounce/massacre your mage, and win the game. Depending on how far the game has come along, my mage almost always names Dark Ritual, Tinker, or Will.

[Liek]

If I were playing, I would wonder why I have a Daze or a Blue Blast in my hand, why I don't have an Aether Vial in play, and why my opponent has both Necropotence and Memory Jar in play. Clearly, something went wrong this game.

The way I see it, your only play is to use the Apprentice to tap the Swarm. If he's got a ton of mana and a ton of cards, Meddling Mages aren't going to stop him. Your only way to win is to hit multiple Force of Wills from his draw 7s. Even still, you shouldn't win this game if he has what he has.

The second Mage simply cannot win you this game. Even if you read your opponent well enough to hit the card he Sealed for, if he has any sort of reasonable hand it won't matter and he'll kill you.

You should never fool around with Meddling Mage. Name Tendrils always.

Naming Tendrils of Agony with Meddling Mage is a very poor play at any point of this game (and most games, for that matter.) Fish's role in this matchup is to stop them from producing mana, and stop them from chaining broken cards together. Naming Tendrils of Agony lets them do all the broken they want.

[mongrel12]

My plan in the UW fish matchup vs Pitch Long is to shut off their mana via Chalice/Rod/Stifle/Mage. Putting your first mage on Tendrils of Agony, seems most of the time to be a terrible play, given that it is NOT a must answer, as you state.

With all due respect, the last time I checked, Pitch Long has at 3-6 turns before you beat them to death with your creatures (after you cast mage on derf, tendrils). Thats 3 turns where they can Brainstorm, Tutor, and set up a huge Will with Force backup. Sometime during that huge Will (or Desire, or Bargain) turn, they will (derf derf) tutor for CHAIN OF VAPOR, bounce your mage, and lay a huge tendrils on your ass.

Assuming you manage to lay a Rod, Chalice, or Kataki (in some cases) earlier, you've cut off their artifact acceleration. Why name tendrils when they will go broken on your ass with 3 rituals and a Will with force backup (this is oversimplification, but you get what i mean). My point in the original post, is that if you don't execute your mana denial plan against pitch long effectively, you will get pwnd by yawgmoth's will/rituals. Once long casts 10 spells (as you say, through WIll, Bargain, Necro, Desire, Jar, Twister, Windfall), it usually doesn't matter what is on the other side of the board (in my experience from piloting the deck against fish).

[Smmenen]

Disagree.  Mage on Tendrils is a MUST answer.  Anything else is an inconvenience and can be won around.  Mage on Tendrils must be dealt with, which is what you want to force Long to do--deal with things in play.  It's not that good at it if the cards aren't artifacts.

Eloquent and true. 

[mongrel12]

How do you counter the "naming ritual, coupled with your other mana denial elements, stops them from going broken" argument?

[Shock Wave]

I love how everyone is so absolute in their answers here.

"You MUST name Tendrils!"
"Are you dumb!? You must name Will!"
"I'm not dumb! You're dumb! You must name blah blah!"

The correct card to name is always different depending on the state of the game. Are you going to name Tendrils when your opponent is stuck on 1 land and you have  Null Rod in play? Are you going to name Tendrils when you have a handful of Stifles? Nope.

The correct play depends on a combination of factors. How many cards does your opponent have? How many do you have and what are they? What's the board position? Who are you playing against? These are just a few of the questions you should be asking yourself before making such a decision.

[rare hunter]

I love how everyone is so absolute in their answers here.

"You MUST name Tendrils!"
"Are you dumb!? You must name Will!"
"I'm not dumb! You're dumb! You must name blah blah!"

The correct card to name is always different depending on the state of the game. Are you going to name Tendrils when your opponent is stuck on 1 land and you have  Null Rod in play? Are you going to name Tendrils when you have a handful of Stifles? Nope.

The correct play depends on a combination of factors. How many cards does your opponent have? How many do you have and what are they? What's the board position? Who are you playing against? These are just a few of the questions you should be asking yourself before making such a decision.

In those situations, Tendrils is still correct. Wether its Draw7s, Duress, Swarm, or FoW, Tendrils is still better. Long decks have one goal: cast a lethal Tendrils. Mage forcing them to bounce/kill it, and win on the same turn.

[chrissss]

How could you have tapped the swarm?

isn't it untargetable?

[Mr. Nightmare]

How could you have tapped the swarm?

isn't it untargetable?

If only it were so....

[Harlequin]

Playing mage #1 names tendrils, I agree with all the arguments posed so far.  I dont have much to add there.  But what you name with mage #1 is basically irrelevant in this situation because it is likely going to be dead anyhow.  Mage #2 if it were your only option should name a spell to protect mage #1.  this is weak in game 2 because they could potentially have Massecre (wich is free but would kill swarm), E-truth (costs mana), Chain of vapor (cheaper and weaker, but can add storm), or Pyroclasm (because they may have chosen to run this over massecre because of SS).  I'm willing to bet that the card that was Sealed for was one of the cards i mentioned above (unless they allready had one in hand).  So if mage #2 is your ONLY option, look at the board try and deturmin which of the above cards is most likely and take a shot in the dark at protecting mage #1. 

However, you have another option, A dirrect way to stop Xantid.  Also if you stop the Xantid, it means if they went for Massecre or Pyrclasm ... they wont play it in fear of haveing it kill thier Xantid.  You might be able to scare them into not cracking jar (if they are easily startled by the stormscape tapping Xantid).

Definately pass the turn, and Tap swarm in the upkeep.

[Shock Wave]

I love how everyone is so absolute in their answers here.

"You MUST name Tendrils!"
"Are you dumb!? You must name Will!"
"I'm not dumb! You're dumb! You must name blah blah!"

The correct card to name is always different depending on the state of the game. Are you going to name Tendrils when your opponent is stuck on 1 land and you have  Null Rod in play? Are you going to name Tendrils when you have a handful of Stifles? Nope.

The correct play depends on a combination of factors. How many cards does your opponent have? How many do you have and what are they? What's the board position? Who are you playing against? These are just a few of the questions you should be asking yourself before making such a decision.

In those situations, Tendrils is still correct. Wether its Draw7s, Duress, Swarm, or FoW, Tendrils is still better. Long decks have one goal: cast a lethal Tendrils. Mage forcing them to bounce/kill it, and win on the same turn.

No, it is not correct. Are you telling me that regardless of what is happening in a game of UW Fish vs. GL that Mage #1 always names Tendrils? If so, I can happily provide you with a plethora of scenarios where it is not the right play.

Consider: When your opponent has mana, they can position themselves to win by removing your Mage with CoV after a Will, Bargain, whatever. As has been previously stated, it doesn't really make a difference that you have a Mage naming Tendrils when your opponent has just cast a Will and has their whole library at their disposal.

[netherspirit]

I think naming Tendrils is fine, think about it, you're playing Fish so you have counter magic, the only options they have here are to bounce/kill your Mage. You should be able to counter it, and assuming you're running four Mages you can also actually name their bounce/kill card. Well, that's just my opinion, I doubt any of you will agree, but still.

[Scoops666]

Actually Netherspirit, I know that JD(Cause of what he's already said), myself, and a lot of other people all agree with that. Thats actually the shortest explanation possible of why you name Tendrils w/ your Mage.

[bertmathis]

Disagree.  Mage on Tendrils is a MUST answer.  Anything else is an inconvenience and can be won around.  Mage on Tendrils must be dealt with, which is what you want to force Long to do--deal with things in play.  It's not that good at it if the cards aren't artifacts.

Eloquent and true. 

Agreed

Edit:

Posts: 78

originalcommie
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
   
   
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2006, 11:23:06 PM »
   Reply with quote
My plan in the UW fish matchup vs Pitch Long is to shut off their mana via Chalice/Rod/Stifle/Mage. Putting your first mage on Tendrils of Agony, seems most of the time to be a terrible play, given that it is NOT a must answer, as you state.

With all due respect, the last time I checked, Pitch Long has at 3-6 turns before you beat them to death with your creatures (after you cast mage on derf, tendrils). Thats 3 turns where they can Brainstorm, Tutor, and set up a huge Will with Force backup. Sometime during that huge Will (or Desire, or Bargain) turn, they will (derf derf) tutor for CHAIN OF VAPOR, bounce your mage, and lay a huge tendrils on your ass.

Isn't bouncing the mage considered answering it? I would like to see a scenerio where the generic Pitch Long list (i.e. no colossus) can win without removing the mage on tendrils... otherwise, it is indeed a MUST ANSWER)

[dicemanx]

If you do name Tendrils, they HAVE to bounce it before they can win.  By naming something other than Tendrils, you just let them choose one of the infinite alternate paths to victory.  Given a bit of time (which Fish does b/c the clock is slow), it's not hard to win without any card in particular (including Dark Ritual)...except Tendrils, which is pretty necessary for victory.

So long as we treat any Long variant as the second coming of the messiah, can we not extend the (absolute) argument to Long having "infi" time and "infi" ways to find a Chain of Vapor and bounce the Mage naming tendrils? Since Fish apparently plays "nothing of consequence" (Wastelands? Useless! Null Rod? Rituals!!), I fail to see why Long can't just go infi on Fish's ass and find its removal. Long is apparently nigh unbeatable, always comboing off in turns 1-2 (with counter backup) and always finding the answers it needs. Unless you play MDG apparently.

/sarcasm

[dicemanx]

However, cutting off Tendrils itself is eliminating all paths to victory.  No matter what cards you play, if the path doesn't involve removing the Mage, it cannot lead to victory.  That's the point.

Cutting off Tendrils doesn't remotely eliminate all paths to victory, unless you're referring to a Long build that doesn't have bounce for the Mage (or features a DSC). I appreciate the fact that it makes the path to victory more challenging, but there are easily a number of scenarios where naming, for instance, Ritual, is more sound. I was poking fun at the fact that since Long advocates seem to think that they can find answers at will to whatever is in their way, they should have very little trouble finding a bounce spell when going off.

Wasteland is pretty worthless vs. 2c Long.  Unless the Long player was a moron and fetched out Seas (or was unlucky and those are the only lands he drew), Wasteland won't be doing anything.

Not every Long player plays 2C Long. This wasn't even the point of my sarcasm - it was to ridicule the absoluteness of the contentions in many of these threads.

Tormod's Crypt cuts off Will, but I've never heard anyone clamor about how absolutely great Crypt is.  Usually, it's more that Crypt buys a little time, but really doesn't do a whole lot otherwise.  Why are we willing to say things like "Mage on Will is the awesome!"?

Maybe we play T1 differently in Canada, but we don't focus on the "awesomeness" of single cards against given archetypes. Looking at individuals cards in a vacuum is a rather useless exercise - of COURSE a card like Crypt or Mage can be played around. What needs to be looked at is the card's synergistic role as far as the execution of a strategy is concerned. This is the point that Shock Wave was making - context matters.

[Shock Wave]

That's the crunching point: the bounce for Mage.  There's only one of those, so finding it is typically difficult and annoying.

What I'm saying is that you force Long to locate Chain of Vapor and resolve it.  Instead of trying to stop all this stuff, you have to stop that one spell, and that's the ballgame.  You have limited countermagic.  You won't be able to counter everything (or much at all, really).  Mage gives them one out, and your new goal becomes to stop that one out.

You're going to have to elaborate on the "that's the ballgame" part. How can you possibly imply that resolving a Mage naming Tendrils is the final nail in the coffin? You've stated that there is a healthy array of broken options with Long. Is it not conceivable that after indulging in say, a Yawgmoth's Bargain, a Will, or a Desire for as many copies as there are stars in the sky, that you would somehow find a tutor or the CoV itself? If naming card X with Meddling Mage prevents or at least stymies your opponent from casting any spell of relevance, would you not agree that there are situations where this is in fact the optimal play?

Furthermore, it happens often vs. GL that stopping one spell is good enough to win the game. You can't deny that you have to expend resources to cast a lot of Long's bombs, and often, if your bomb doesn't resolve, you don't have the time or the mana to set up again.

[rare hunter]

That's the crunching point: the bounce for Mage.  There's only one of those, so finding it is typically difficult and annoying.

What I'm saying is that you force Long to locate Chain of Vapor and resolve it.  Instead of trying to stop all this stuff, you have to stop that one spell, and that's the ballgame.  You have limited countermagic.  You won't be able to counter everything (or much at all, really).  Mage gives them one out, and your new goal becomes to stop that one out.

You're going to have to elaborate on the "that's the ballgame" part. How can you possibly imply that resolving a Mage naming Tendrils is the final nail in the coffin? You've stated that there is a healthy array of broken options with Long. Is it not conceivable that after indulging in say, a Yawgmoth's Bargain, a Will, or a Desire for as many copies as there are stars in the sky, that you would somehow find a tutor or the CoV itself? If naming card X with Meddling Mage prevents or at least stymies your opponent from casting any spell of relevance, would you not agree that there are situations where this is in fact the optimal play?

Furthermore, it happens often vs. GL that stopping one spell is good enough to win the game. You can't deny that you have to expend resources to cast a lot of Long's bombs, and often, if your bomb doesn't resolve, you don't have the time or the mana to set up again.

He says you need to stop that one spell in order for it to be the ball game. Thats the point. Mage namign Tendrils is a must answer for Long. It isn't something like Chalice for 0, which they can play around, or wasteland. They need to get rid of it. Long Variants are not packed with removal, or creature bounce as was stated. They can win without Will, but not without tendrils.

[dicemanx]

Being "must removal" doesn't make for a compelling argument when certain bombs (notably Bargain, Will, or Mind's Desire) will likely find that removal spell without that much of a problem.

[desolutionist]

Being "must removal" doesn't make for a compelling argument when certain bombs (notably Bargain, Will, or Mind's Desire) will likely find that removal spell without that much of a problem.

The argument isn't whether or not Mage is a sufficient answer to Tendrils; it's if Tendrils is the correct Mage target.  Honestly, it's common sense.  It's much easier for the Long player to play around a Mage targeting Will than a Mage targeting Tendrils.

[Shock Wave]

He says you need to stop that one spell in order for it to be the ball game. Thats the point. Mage namign Tendrils is a must answer for Long. It isn't something like Chalice for 0, which they can play around, or wasteland. They need to get rid of it. Long Variants are not packed with removal, or creature bounce as was stated. They can win without Will, but not without tendrils.

Thanks, but I think it's pretty intuitive that if a Mage naming Tendrils resolves, it has to be removed before Tendrils can be cast. That's not what I am disputing. My contention is that it is not as difficult to find a CoV as is implied by the posts in this thread.

Your side of this argument is stating that the first resolved Mage in this match unequivocally names Tendrils. Your reasoning is that it has to removed before Tendrils can be cast, and this is very difficult because there is only one bounce spell.

My contention is that if the GL player resolves one of the many broken spells in the deck, it is very probable that they will be able to find removal and enough resources to win the game. As such, there are circumstances in which a Mage may want to name Dark Ritual, Cabal Ritual, or another situation specific card.

I find it borderline disturbing how linear the thinking in this thread is. To advocate naming a specific card with Meddling Mage without any consideration for the state of the game, and without any thought involved in general, in any matchup, is .... well, not consistent with how an intelligent person plays this game. If every game was the same, I could easily understand why it is permissable to play like a machine.

The argument isn't whether or not Mage is a sufficient answer to Tendrils; it's if Tendrils is the correct Mage target. Honestly, it's common sense.  It's much easier for the Long player to play around a Mage targeting Will than a Mage targeting Tendrils.

Wow, that clarified a lot, on the grounds that "it is common sense". Where I come from, common sense dictates that Meddling Mage names the card that facilitates the process of winning for your opponent. It may be their win condition, it may not. It seems that "common sense" is so readily accepted here that it has prevented people from thinking at all.

[Nixons_Evil_Twin]

Really, what the primary point many posters were making was that Mage on Tendrils must be answered, probably with, and only with, Chain of Vapor. As such, your goal becomes solely to protect the Mage with any disruption you have, and as a UW Fish deck, you are in a pretty bad situation if you can't counter a single spell (2 if Will is involved.)

[Shock Wave]

Really, what the primary point many posters were making was that Mage on Tendrils must be answered, probably with, and only with, Chain of Vapor. As such, your goal becomes solely to protect the Mage with any disruption you have, and as a UW Fish deck, you are in a pretty bad situation if you can't counter a single spell (2 if Will is involved.)

Really, I understand that. I think I've stated my position and the opposing argument quite clearly in my last post. The fact that you would try to protect the Mage is quite obvious as well.

The argument being repeatedly posed here is that "There's only 1 CoV in the deck!". Again, I ask what difference this makes if resolving a broken spell (of which the deck has plenty) provides a high probability of finding that 1 removal spell.

[desolutionist]

Wow, that clarified a lot, on the grounds that "it is common sense". Where I come from, common sense dictates that Meddling Mage names the card that facilitates the process of winning for your opponent. It may be their win condition, it may not. It seems that "common sense" is so readily accepted here that it has prevented people from thinking at all.

In what instance would it be appropriate to name something other than Tendrils?

The "multiple-methods-to-get-cov" argument doesn't account for the tutors lost in exchange for the CoV.  Unless Long's hand is godly, not only is he going to have to dig for the CoV, he's also going to have to replenish the cards lost in the process.

[Liek]

In what instance would it be appropriate to name something other than Tendrils?

-You have Aether Vial on two counters and True Believer in hand.
-It's thier end step/upkeep, they've Mystical Tutored or Vampiric Tutored for something, and you have a Vial on two with a Meddling Mage in hand.
-It's early in the game and you know they have Brainstorm in thier hand.
-They Burning Wished for something and passed the turn.
-You have Ninja of the Deep Hours ready, so you name an early game spell with the Mage the first time, then change it to something else after you Ninja them.
-They just tutored for Yawgmoth's Will.
-It isn't game 1.

There are more, those are just some situations.

I find it borderline disturbing how linear the thinking in this thread is. To advocate naming a specific card with Meddling Mage without any consideration for the state of the game, and without any thought involved in general, in any matchup, is .... well, not consistent with how an intelligent person plays this game.

Spot on.

The "multiple-methods-to-get-cov" argument doesn't account for the tutors lost in exchange for the CoV.  Unless Long's hand is godly, not only is he going to have to dig for the CoV, he's also going to have to replenish the cards lost in the process.

Then they cast Yawgmoth's Will and play all of thier cards again.

[Harlequin]

Here is my reasoning on why 1st Mage nameing Tendrils is the right choice like 80% of the time.

Think of Long (or any combo deck really) as an array of different paths to winning.  Every combintion of cards is essentially another tiny thread in this mesh of possible combination of cards played in any possible combination of orders, that result in letal tendrils. 

There are essentially 3 main Highways, or cluster of cards - THAT ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.  Those Highways are Yawgmoths Will (by far the largest highway), Yawgmoth's Bargin/Necro, Mind's Desire.  Almost every thread that leads to a win, takes a trip on 1 or more of these highways.  Sure there are plenty of Draw-7 type wins that take the "Back Roads" to winning, but essentially there are 3 main paths.  Oh and there are some paths that go off in a different dirrection called "Tinker DSC" but lets assume for a momnet were not concerning ourselves wtih those paths.

Some of the paths are very short... Land, Rit, Rit, Lotus, DT for will, Will Rit Rit lotus, DT for Tendrils.  Some paths include protection like Land, Rit, Duress, Rit, Lotus, DT for will, Will, Duress, Rit, Rit lotus, DT for Tendrils.  Some path's include answers like Bounce or Massecre. 

If I have stifle in hand, I have a way to stop all the paths that don't have Xantid or Duress.  If I have Orim's Chant in hand I can cut off all the paths that don't have Xantid, and that use tutors, and that spend alot of consumable resources.  Etc etc... each control card can essentially sever some paths.

Now onto the topic of Mages.  Nameing Will, Desire, Bargin, or Necro puts a huge stopper into a major vien.  But it doesn't cut off access to that cluster all together.  It only cuts the threads on that path that do not pass through a bounce spell, or a Clasm/Massecre.  Can we all agree on that?  havieng Mage nameing Will and a force backup gives you a chance to cut the threads on that highway that pass through a single bounce spell.  There are still plenty of paths that can be taken on that highway, but they must include 2 ways to remove the road block, or Duress + one way.  that is assuming they want to continue to take the "Y-Will Express."  They could also choose to simply take a Detour onto the "Bargin Parkway" or "Desire Memorial Highway." 

What card is at the center of ALL these Paths? .... Tendrils of Agony.  Nameing Tendrils of Agony Isolates all the "short" paths to victory.  Now, the downside is that all 3 highways are still up and running, by no means do we have gridlock  ... but you can only travil on the Threads that include Bounce or Removal. 

I think bang for your buck, the first mage causes the most damage to the infrastucture of the deck if you name tendrils.  And then Mage 2 and 3 try to go after the most logical alternate routes, namely, Chain of Vapor, Massecre, E-Turth.

[Dominik]

What card is at the center of ALL these Paths? .... Tendrils of Agony.  Nameing Tendrils of Agony Isolates all the "short" paths to victory.  Now, the downside is that all 3 highways are still up and running, by no means do we have gridlock  ... but you can only travil on the Threads that include Bounce or Removal. 

You still didn't explain why an early mage on Ritual (or another 4-of like Brainstorm) isn't as good as Mage on Tendrils. Yes, Tendrils may be a better option than Will, etc in GAME 1 but why not cut off the Ritual engine? That way, they can't get a big desire up easily (and you'll have Chalice@0 or NullRod anyways), they probably won't be able to play their Bargain, not to mention the fact that the three-mana investment they put into Will doesn't get them any mana anymore, save for the possible Cabal Ritual(s).

Just curious, why is it mostly Canadians that are arguing against naming tendrils blindly?

EDIT: Tendrils may be the destination, but Dark Ritual is the gas