Empty the Warrens

[brianpk80]

To say that Tendrils of Agony and Mind's Desire are over the top in Vintage would be an understatement.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say this? ToA/Storm decks do not dominate this format, they aren't the most popular decks in most metas, and many strong players shy away from Storm based archetypes (typically gravitating towards Drain archetypes, because interactive decks that are flexible and least susceptible to hate cards are usually the best choices when trying to maximize differences in playskill). To say that ToA is "inherently broken" isn't something that has any particular relevance or consequence in a format where the same could be said about half of the cards.

Yes, but most of those inherently broken cards are currently restricted, notwithstanding Mana Drain, Mishra's Workshop, Oath of Druids, and some others.

Although my focus was more on its non-interactivity than its brokenness, I would classify Tendrils as broken for a few reasons.  Unlike the myriad of other broken cards in the format, once cast, Tendrils of Agony and Mind's Desire give little to no room for the opponent to respond.  Ancestral Recall and Forced, Misdirected, Blasted, Dazed, etc.  Yawgmoth's Will can likewise be countered and its exploitation of the graveyard means it can be preemptively nuked by Tormod's Crypt, Planar Void, and so forth.  There's no directly comparable way of undoing accumulated storm.  The most broken cards in the format at the very least carry the "balancing" factor which is that they afford the opponent some chance of intelligible response, like a counter.  In addition to its uncounterability, Tendrils of Agony itself is probably among the most undercosted cards in the format.  Converting previously (and easily) cast spells into virtual mana and calling it "Storm" is still a poor excuse for pricing, for instance, Drain Life for 22 at 2BB and making it uncounterable to boot.  Its standard cost would otherwise be 1BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB (23 black, 1 colorless), not to mention whatever a player would be willing to pay for the built-in City of Solitude/Xantid Swarm effect.  That's a ridiculous bargain.  Viewed in those terms, Tendrils is making as much if not more virtual mana as Academy made actual mana.  And the difference is negligible because, virtual or actual, that bargain is always realized once Tendrils resolves. 

Where restriction largely addressed the Academy problem, Tendrils already operates as little more than a singleton, or perhaps a 2-of, in most major storm combo decks, if not a mere Wish target.  It's a card that should warrant restriction based on its unbalanced effect and undercosted power alone but cannot be pragmatically addressed with restriction.     

You bring up the fact that Tendrils does not dominate the format but I don't think that can be attributed to the strength of the card or its enabling decks.  As a practical matter, most Magic players lack the eye for precision and superlative knowledge necessary to pilot Long decks through adversity or other dilemmas.  Less than stellar players fizzle the deck all the time or scoop to things they shouldn't, like a single Null Rod or True Believer.  In expert hands, Long decks are nothing short of brutal.  Secondly, those decks are prohibitively expensive and even in a 10-proxy setting, there's a lot lacking in most players' collections to build them.  Finally, if we consider Gifts to be a storm combo deck, then the combined presence of Gifts, Long, and errant Tendrils builds, with allowances made for the practical concerns above (skill level, financial concerns), then I would say storm combo borders on dominating the field.  The omnipresence of its counterstrategy (formerly Stax but now Fish) only further reinforces that point.
 
That aside, my main point wasn't so much that Tendrils is broken (which it is), but simply that decks relying on it share the mark of being "un-fun" along with decks built around Channel and Trinisphere. 

-BPK

[L_O_L]

Let's try to stay on topic though guys.

I concur with what has already been pointed out above, Empty the Warrens may justify its very own deck built around it, to fully take advantage of the card's power.  This got me thinking :

There is a plethora of red rituals available to us, some perhaps stronger than others.  The list includes but is not limited to Desperate Ritual, Seething Song, Rite of Flame, Brightstone Ritual.  Maybe this allows for a very consistent Red/Black combo deck with enough disruption elements and shitloads of acceleration to pull off an early EtW.

I don't have the answer yet, but I know I'll be trying a few concoctions and see how it works out.  Ideas are what keep the engine running, right ?

[lordmayhem]

Perhaps a conjunction of Black and Red Rituals with 4x Empty The Warrens can open up a new combo-esque archetype. Consistently dropping a small army of 6+ tokens can open up a bunch of cards.

These cards are

Skullclamp
Reprocess
Diabolic Intent
Culling The Weak
Cabal Therapy

amongst others.

[cophos]

Perhaps a conjunction of Black and Red Rituals with 4x Empty The Warrens can open up a new combo-esque archetype. Consistently dropping a small army of 6+ tokens can open up a bunch of cards.

These cards are

Skullclamp
Reprocess
Diabolic Intent
Culling The Weak
Cabal Therapy

amongst others.

The first question that comes to ones mind's though:
Why would I want to play a deck like this? Is it more resilient than Pitch Long? Probably not. So: Will it have a higher percentage than let's say Meandeck Tendrils regarding first turn kills? Probably not. Seriously, there's just no need for another combo deck which does not offer benefits over already existing archetypes at all. I'd love to see some solid lists, but one must seriously considering these points.

[lordmayhem]

Why would I want to play a deck like this?

Resilient to Null Rod, Crypt, Chalice...etc

Seriously, there's just no need for another combo deck which does not offer benefits over already existing archetypes at all.

That is yet to be seen, is it not?

[cophos]

Resilient to Null Rod, Crypt, Chalice...etc

Ok, I was probably looking at the Skullclamp to vehemently. On the other hand you're vulnerable to creaturehate like Pyroc. (I admit that this is not the most crucial argument, just wanted to state it once.)
The problem with non-U combo decks in general however is well known:
Look at belcher or KI.TT  for example. Especially the latter's fairly well-equiped vs hate. (Pretty much immune vs. Rod e.g)
But if you fail to go off, these decks tend to crap on you because of the lack of good draw spells (Infernal Contracts aren't so hot..) and bombs like Desire, Twister or Tinker. (Not to mention the inability to run cards like Force of Will, Rebuild/Recall et cetera.) Rituals do simply not draw cards. (This flaw's somewhat reduced by Empty the Warrens only needing a few spells to be effective, but it's still there.)
Blue's HUGE. And you'd better have a good reason to cut it. The argument "Well, let's just add blue then.." is somewhat flawed because on the one hand red rituals + U cards isn't that great, on the other hand you'll probably claim similiar niches as existing decks. Empty t.W therefore gets probably reduced to the "supplement status" right after tendrils itself.   

That is yet to be seen, is it not?

As I stated: I'd love to see some innovative lists! I just wanted to warn everyone who's trying to build a deck like you described it of getting misleaded by the "doing cool things" factor as long as there are better options around. (Yeah, this actually happened many times before..)


Edit:
Rhetorical Bonus Section:

Seriously, there's just no need for another combo deck which does not offer benefits over already existing archetypes at all.

That is yet to be seen, is it not?

Actually .. no
Since the second part of my statement's apparently a definition of the word "redundant" itself, (in magic terms obv.) there's no way that it's not true. ("There's no need for a thing that's not needed." C'mon. )
BUT: if your referring to the second part of my statement I'm 100% fine. But that's actually the thing I'm pointing at the whole time.

[lordmayhem]

There is never a lack of need of innovation. On the subject of blue, blue can be easily incorporated at the price of losing the red rituals, which in all seriousness, is not such a great loss, considering ETW's easy mana cost. All you need is one red, which can be acquired from different areas. The greatest two things in my opinion which ETW can offer though are Diabolic Intent and Reprocess.

If you play Land, Ritual, Mox, ETW, you have 8 tokens. Reprocess in such a case is 8 cards for 4 mana, as well as 8 damage if you attack before playing Reprocess.

In addition, Diabolic Intent becomes an extra 4 Diabolic Tutors which can fetch out anything you like. Protection, combo pieces...etc.

Granted, the mana requirements for this deck idea are far greater than other Tendrils builds; ETW and Reprocess alone equal out to a whopping 5RBB

I didn't suggest anywhere that all the cards I mentioned should be used, rather, I listed the cards which open up some possibilities.

[Khahan]

To say that Tendrils of Agony and Mind's Desire are over the top in Vintage would be an understatement.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say this? ToA/Storm decks do not dominate this format, they aren't the most popular decks in most metas, and many strong players shy away from Storm based archetypes (typically gravitating towards Drain archetypes, because interactive decks that are flexible and least susceptible to hate cards are usually the best choices when trying to maximize differences in playskill). To say that ToA is "inherently broken" isn't something that has any particular relevance or consequence in a format where the same could be said about half of the cards.

It's the same argument that we periodically hear about YWill - Will itself is deemed to be "broken" because of the strategy that a Will deck is trying to execute - when Will resolves people will typically point and say "look, that single card is too powerful!", when in fact the actual execution (casting of the Will) is the culmination of a strategy that has its own respective vulnerabilities and weaknesses which prevent it from dominating the format.

I think Brian was referring more to the storm mechanic as a whole and just using TOA and Minds  Desire as the obvious examples.   And reading his post, I have to agree. What other mechanic is as well represented in all formats?  Threshold?  Not across the board in all formats. Affinity? That pushed it. The storm mechanic was a neat idea and great in theory, but overall does bad things for the game.

Now, does this mean storm should be banned, restricted or shunned by all Magic players?  Not at all.  It IS part of the game. Its something we all have access to and its something we all have access to hosers for.  I play a tendrils kill in my slaver deck. And when it wins, it WINS.   It comes out of left field and the game is over and my opponent often did not even have any  idea I ran a storm win. But then games 2 and 3 its suddenly more difficult because of the hate.  It is, luckily, something we can deal with as a community. But that doesn't change the fact that its degenerate by its nature.

[policehq]

I'm really not feeling Reprocess/Diabolic Intent/Skullclamp/etc.

That deck would have to combo off to be able to use these cards efficiently and is theoretically slow.

The things I have learned with various testings of the list I posted (and other lists I've tried) are:

-The magic number is four spells before casting Empty the Warrens. You can do more and try to win two turns later, but if you can manage it, a storm of five is best and leaves you with a couple of cards in hand to go off again.

-The optimal turn, of course, is one. Otherwise combo decks like Belcher or Tendrils-based storm can ignore you completely and win regardless of the fact you went off. Also Oath, Goblin Welder->Triskelion, and Fish's consistent drop of creatures really messes with your math.

-Since you have to go off on turn one, Duress doesn't really seem like a viable option. You run out of black mana and can't go off on rituals. However, most of the spells leading up to Empty the Warrens are pretty innocent, and it is rather easy to play four, Empty the Warrens, and have two cards left in hand to do the same thing. I know it sounds like heresy not to include Duress and all, but going off on turn two is just too avoidable by too many decks.

-The only card that has shown itself to necessitate red in the deck is Empty the Warrens. Seething Song/Desperate Ritual decks have a tendency to fizzle out, and you can't devote enough space to tutoring and draw, whereas you can with basic Tendrils skeletons. The only other red card worth considering is Red Elemental Blast and various sideboard cards. Pyroclasm is very situational, and direct creature removal is a better answer to Meddling Mage and other creature-based hate.

-hq

[someone_unimportan]

After reading this thread, I thought that perhaps EtW could be used in a Pitch Long sb (EtW, 1 B/R Dual (Badlands?), 1 Volc) with respect to mainly fish, and to a lesser extent stax. Meddling Mage and True believer do nothing to EtW besides block the tokens, which assuming they have 2 creatures out, and a storm of 4, means they die in 3-4 turns, a storm of 3 means they don't die unless they've been dealt bob damage. On the flip side, it slows their clock to a crawl, allowing you to find an answer to those pesky creatures. Against stax, if you can fight through the storm hate, a mini-EtW is a hell of a lot better than a mini-tendrils. The 2 main problems I have with this is that it takes up a large amount of sb space (If you plan on going with the xantid swarm sb too thats 10 slots) and the lack of unwasteable lands post-board. Although I suppose you could sideboard out non-lands for the duals . . . Any Thoughts?

Edit: Hmmm I forgot about grunt with respect to blocking with EtW tokens. To me, he seems kind of unspectacular against PL, and I kind of assumed the Fish player would board them out. Am I right, or am I making crazy assumptions again?

[policehq]

Grunt does not block goblin tokens any better than Meddling Mage, True Believer, etc...

4/5-storm is not as reliant on the graveyard as some Tendrils builds can be. A build can be made to play out a couple of acceleration spells and one tutor/draw spell for Empty the Warrens instead of playing 5+ tutors to get Yawgmoth's Will.

To answer your question, I don't think I would side out Jotun Grunt against Pitch Long because his clock and minor disruption are significant.

-hq

[brianpk80]

Edit: Hmmm I forgot about grunt with respect to blocking with EtW tokens. To me, he seems kind of unspectacular against PL, and I kind of assumed the Fish player would board them out. Am I right, or am I making crazy assumptions again?

I think that's sometimes right.  I usually don't expect to beat Pitch Long with an army of creatures post sideboard.  The idea is usually to try puncturing their resources and deflating their advantages with things like Vial -> True Believer, Orim's Chant, Tormod's Crypt, and others.  Once Pitch Long blows its major load, if you're not dead, then you've probably won (there are some exceptions).  Beating down with 2/2's at that point is just a formality.  So I wouldn't count on a 5-turn-clock (Grunt) against a deck whose fundamental turn is Turn 2 or Turn 3, usually at the latest.  I do sideboard at least one Grunt out.  He's much better v. Stax, Slaver, Ichorid, aggro, and Fish than Tendrils based combo. 

-BPK

[BoomChild]

This deck is a whole lot of fun to play.  It plays like a cheap guy's long deck pretty much.  Here's a very beta list.

1 Swamp   
4 Bloodstained Mire   
4 Badlands   
4 City of Brass   
1 Lotus Petal   
1 Chrome Mox   
4 Chromatic Sphere   
1 Mountain   
4 Blood Crypt   
1 Black Lotus   
2 Pyroblast   
2 Seething Song   
4 Empty the Warrens   
2 Red Elemental Blast   
4 Rite of Flame   
4 Desperate Ritual   
4 Dark Ritual   
4 Chromatic Star   
1 Mox Jet   
1 Vampiric Tutor   
1 Imperial Seal   
1 Sol Ring   
1  Mox Ruby   
1 Necropotence
1 Yawgmoth's Bargain
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault

No sideboard yet as I don't know what the glaring weaknesses are yet.  We'll get to those as time goes on.  I know there's a lack of content, but someone requested a list and this is what I have so far.

[Evenpence]

What Brian Said Concerning Tendrils Of Agony.

Holy crap.  This was a well thought out and (for the most part) concise argument about ToA.

Congrats.  Write an article.  I would really enjoy reading it, even if it's only a page long.  Seriously.

Colby

[someone_unimportan]

When I was talking about blocking grunt I meant with tokens, since it is a lot harder than blocking mages and believers. you can let him in and only chump block when necessary i suppose. the reason I was talking about PL instead of a deck built around warrens is that I believe that a deck with warrens as its main win condition would be less resilient and less consistent than PL is right now. I do believe, however, that EtW could be used in a sb of PL as a much better kill than ToA vs fish and stax.  It's a lot easier to ministorm vs stax and EtW than to ToA, and against fish most of the hate is on ToA. If they Mage EtW post-board, then it leaves ToA or massacre open.

[dicemanx]

Yes, but most of those inherently broken cards are currently restricted, notwithstanding Mana Drain, Mishra's Workshop, Oath of Druids, and some others.

As I said, does appending the label of "inherently broken" have any significance? Does the fact that most "inherently broken" cards are restricted and ToA is not a major point in your argument? I don't see how.

Although my focus was more on its non-interactivity than its brokenness, I would classify Tendrils as broken for a few reasons.  Unlike the myriad of other broken cards in the format, once cast, Tendrils of Agony and Mind's Desire give little to no room for the opponent to respond.  Ancestral Recall and Forced, Misdirected, Blasted, Dazed, etc.  Yawgmoth's Will can likewise be countered and its exploitation of the graveyard means it can be preemptively nuked by Tormod's Crypt, Planar Void, and so forth.  There's no directly comparable way of undoing accumulated storm.  The most broken cards in the format at the very least carry the "balancing" factor which is that they afford the opponent some chance of intelligible response, like a counter.  In addition to its uncounterability, Tendrils of Agony itself is probably among the most undercosted cards in the format.  Converting previously (and easily) cast spells into virtual mana and calling it "Storm" is still a poor excuse for pricing, for instance, Drain Life for 22 at 2BB and making it uncounterable to boot.  Its standard cost would otherwise be 1BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB (23 black, 1 colorless), not to mention whatever a player would be willing to pay for the built-in City of Solitude/Xantid Swarm effect.  That's a ridiculous bargain.  Viewed in those terms, Tendrils is making as much if not more virtual mana as Academy made actual mana.  And the difference is negligible because, virtual or actual, that bargain is always realized once Tendrils resolves. 

...and? You list some strengths of ToA illustrating its power. So? ToA begets a couple of powerful, viable decks in the format in Long variants and Gifts. As stated previously, the decks don't dominate, and ToA isn't a problem in this format in that respect. The fact that you list ToA's uncounterability (incorrect by the way, since Stifle is played in the format, and Orim's Chant and Trickbind are possibilities) reflects a narrow view of addressing the problem - ToA can be attacked NOT by countering it, but by focusing on denying your opponent's resources via mana denial or counterspelling critical spells that try to draw/tutor cards or try to build up a critical number of spells/mana. Sometimes this plan is unsuccessful, but sometimes it works quite well - thats just the nature of the struggle in T1.

Maybe the problem is that you're too fixated on individual cards, circumventing the context in which they operate. Once you examine the strategies that are employed to fight Storm based decks, and further appreciate that they can be very successful, ToA itself becomes less and less of a problem. Storm is *good* for the format in that it contributes 2 viable archetypes that aren't overly dominant.

Where restriction largely addressed the Academy problem, Tendrils already operates as little more than a singleton, or perhaps a 2-of, in most major storm combo decks, if not a mere Wish target.  It's a card that should warrant restriction based on its unbalanced effect and undercosted power alone but cannot be pragmatically addressed with restriction.     

For this to be an issue, it has to be established that there is a problem that needs addressing in the first place. The fact that ToA cannot be effectively restricted is a Straw Man that you're setting up here. You also throw in a few buzz words to strengthen your argument: "unbalanced effect" and "undercosted power". Aside from describing just about every playable card in T1 (and in fact, to be even played in T1 most if not all cards have to HAVE those two traits!), there is no consensus in the T1 community that ToA is way too undercosted or that its way too unbalanced.

You bring up the fact that Tendrils does not dominate the format but I don't think that can be attributed to the strength of the card or its enabling decks.  As a practical matter, most Magic players lack the eye for precision and superlative knowledge necessary to pilot Long decks through adversity or other dilemmas.  Less than stellar players fizzle the deck all the time or scoop to things they shouldn't, like a single Null Rod or True Believer.  In expert hands, Long decks are nothing short of brutal.  Secondly, those decks are prohibitively expensive and even in a 10-proxy setting, there's a lot lacking in most players' collections to build them.  Finally, if we consider Gifts to be a storm combo deck, then the combined presence of Gifts, Long, and errant Tendrils builds, with allowances made for the practical concerns above (skill level, financial concerns), then I would say storm combo borders on dominating the field.  The omnipresence of its counterstrategy (formerly Stax but now Fish) only further reinforces that point.

"If only we were more skilled, we'd kick your ass!" To suggest that the only thing holding Storm variants back is the lack of sufficient playskill of the average player required for dominance is speculative at best (and it's a tired argument to boot). Doesn't this apply to just about every archetype as well? Perhaps if more people learned to play Drain decks well we'd likewise be attacking Mana Drain. In expert hands, all viable, top tier decks are "brutal" (whatever that means in terms of your argument - are you trying to add embellishments?).

Also: are you suggesting that the metas right now consist of nothing more than Gifts, Long variants, and their "counterstrategies" - Fish? I'm likewise confused by your statement that storm combo "borders" on dominating the field. It either does or it doesn't. You keep referring to the "potential" for domination, but that isn't the same thing as actually dominating. Maybe if players get better at piloting Long variants, and we see large percentages of the field consisting of MDG and Pitchlong (because apparently MDG is the "only" Drain deck that can stop it - lol), then we can address the "problem" then.

That aside, my main point wasn't so much that Tendrils is broken (which it is), but simply that decks relying on it share the mark of being "un-fun" along with decks built around Channel and Trinisphere. 

There is a vast chasm between something like Trinisphere and decks relying on ToA. I actually posted in a SCG thread asking what people feel about the restriction of Grim Tutor to slow the Long archetype down a little without killing it, but I certainly don't have any issues with the Storm mechanic itself.

[brianpk80]

As I said, does appending the label of "inherently broken" have any significance? Does the fact that most "inherently broken" cards are restricted and ToA is not a major point in your argument? I don't see how.

It's "significant" to the extent that restriction places a negative imprimatur on a card or set of cards that denotes them as unambiguous "problems" in the format.  The lack of an adequate bridle for Tendrils of Agony enables it to operate with out any checks/balances and thereby increases the "un-fun" factor which was the cardinal point in my original post.   

...and? You list some strengths of ToA illustrating its power. So? ToA begets a couple of powerful, viable decks in the format in Long variants and Gifts. As stated previously, the decks don't dominate, and ToA isn't a problem in this format in that respect.

From a power perspective, I find that Gifts and Long in fact are the dominant decks in the format.  Most of the top players are constantly looking for ways to further improve/exploit decks built around Tendrils of Agony (not, for instance, Balance) because it is so breakable and easy to exploit.  5 out of the Top 8 decks in the 2006 World Championships ran Tendrils of Agony as their primary win condition, some having a DSC back-up plan.  Nevertheless, any way you characterize it, the determination of what constitutes a "dominant" deck is nebulous and will vary per player's individual opinions.  Without more definitive criteria to guide the determination, both your perspective and my perspective are just that: individual opinions. 

The fact that you list ToA's uncounterability (incorrect by the way, since Stifle is played in the format, and Orim's Chant and Trickbind are possibilities)

I regret that my depiction of Tendrils as a generally uncounterable play signaled to you that I needed an introduction to Stifle, Orim's Chant, or any other narrow instant methods (Gilded Light?) of responding to a storm execution.  For future discussion, please assume that I am familiar with all of the above in addition to the elements of the mana denial strategy you bring up below: Chalice of the Void, Null Rod, Root Maze, Wasteland, Strip Mine, Sphere of Resistance, Trinisphere, Glowrider, In the Eye of Chaos, Gorilla Shaman, and so forth. 

ToA can be attacked NOT by countering it, but by focusing on denying your opponent's resources via mana denial or counterspelling critical spells that try to draw/tutor cards or try to build up a critical number of spells/mana. Sometimes this plan is unsuccessful, but sometimes it works quite well - thats just the nature of the struggle in T1.

While this may initially appear sound, your logic would too easily pardon the most broken spells in the format merely on the basis that they could theoretically be crippled by mana denial.  What you're actually saying here is not far from "Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall are balanced cards because anyone can run Chalice of the Void and Wasteland."  Why bother restricting Moxen when Null Rod is out there?

Gaging a card's strength primarily on the basis of its counterstrategies eschews the central issue of whether that card is intrinsically broken.   

Maybe the problem is that you're too fixated on individual cards, circumventing the context in which they operate. Once you examine the strategies that are employed to fight Storm based decks, and further appreciate that they can be very successful, ToA itself becomes less and less of a problem. Storm is *good* for the format in that it contributes 2 viable archetypes that aren't overly dominant.

Again, the subtext that I "[simply need some enlightenment on storm counter-strategies]" is inapposite both because I am well aware of the mana denial/"Counter-Enigma" styles you suggest and because it neglects to answer whether Tendrils is broken or, more pertinently, whether it is "un-fun." 

For this to be an issue, it has to be established that there is a problem that needs addressing in the first place. The fact that ToA cannot be effectively restricted is a Straw Man that you're setting up here. You also throw in a few buzz words to strengthen your argument: "unbalanced effect" and "undercosted power". Aside from describing just about every playable card in T1 (and in fact, to be even played in T1 most if not all cards have to HAVE those two traits!), there is no consensus in the T1 community that ToA is way too undercosted or that its way too unbalanced.

My argument that Tendrils of Agony is broken is independent of any existing or lacking consensus on the topic and I never suggested it reflected popular opinion.  What you mean by characterizing my short description of why Tendrils cannot be restricted as a "Straw Man" is not apparent.  Could you clarify?  I suspect you misread me as promulgating a call-to-action "to ban that damn Tendrils!" when in fact I've simply proposed that it's "un-fun" and that the storm mechanic's prominence in most popular formats signals that the game could benefit from one or two highly effective strategy hosers in an upcoming expansion.

Also: are you suggesting that the metas right now consist of nothing more than Gifts, Long variants, and their "counterstrategies" - Fish? I'm likewise confused by your statement that storm combo "borders" on dominating the field. It either does or it doesn't. You keep referring to the "potential" for domination, but that isn't the same thing as actually dominating.

Until there is specific and widely accepted criteria for defining dominance, arguing this point is moot. 

Maybe if players get better at piloting Long variants, and we see large percentages of the field consisting of MDG and Pitchlong (because apparently MDG is the "only" Drain deck that can stop it - lol), then we can address the "problem" then.

That's not going to happen in a format where players still run Ball Lightning and Nantuko Shade.  The fact that a good (and largely ignored) segment of Vintage players fail to grasp the dynamic of excellent decks like Long, Stax, and Gifts and opt for... junk is irrelevent to the question of whether the format benefits from having a non-interactive "kill you before you blink" archetype at the top rung. 

There is a vast chasm between something like Trinisphere and decks relying on ToA.

I disagree and when you're talking about a liquid concept like "un-fun," you're going to be dealing with opinions more heavily than facts.  Here's my opinion.  I would much rather see Workshop->Trinisphere on turn one than Ritual, Ritual, Tutor.  Why?  Because with the former, if it resolves, I lose the game if they follow with Crucible/Strip/Waste or Smokestack or if I don't have/draw 2 fetchlands and a third land in a timely way.  There's wiggle room here.  A Strip/Waste of my own on their Workshop sometimes buys time as well.  Resolved Trinisphere on the first turn is rough and there's a good chance of losing there, but it's not so immediately and certainly defeating as what Pitch Long comes off when it gets its own turn one engine.  The fact that I have an approx. 40% of countering acceleration or a tutor (which even then can be countered back, unlike when playing Workshop.dec) is even less consoling than the "but you can Force the Trinisphere" argument that failed to salvage 4x Trinisphere.  Whether playing Magic for pleasure or "for power," losing to an opponent's 15-Storm Solitaire with virtually no room for response, regardless of your skill level and deck choice, is not fun at all.  Accordingly, fostering a status quo where these encounters are enabled to flourish is not healthy for the game now or in the future.

Granted, as I willingy admit, this is my opinion and I do not arrogantly proffer it like it's a stone-cold fact.  But I know I am far from being the only voice here who finds the Pitch Long deck disgusting.  The enjoyment factor of the game, even in highly competitive Vintage Magic, is by no means negligible.  If I wanted to spend a weekend "earning" a Mox Sapphire, I'd do independent work and buy one.   

I actually posted in a SCG thread asking what people feel about the restriction of Grim Tutor to slow the Long archetype down a little without killing it, but I certainly don't have any issues with the Storm mechanic itself.

I don't agree with the prospect of restricting of Grim Tutor either.  That said, I would not put much faith in the merits of a poll or other opinion device designed to gage the sentiment for restricting any card valued at $50 or more.  I would expect personal and secondary market concerns to infect most viewpoints despite any veneer of concern for the empirical merits of its role the game. 

-BPK

[AnarchyB52]

id like to but in
along time ago when i was a new player i played a fecuntity deck....odd i know

but why not do skirk prospector/ fecuntity

its not expensive and you could draw 10+ cards...plus have a huge storm buffer zone and 10 red man......which isnt hard to kill with if you ask me

turn 1 prospector fecuntity and EtW would be a game win hell you could use this to dig for tendrills for you purists

but thats just one idea

another option is main decking both ToA and EtW giving you the best possible game 1 result

and i was looking at the deck list posted and in my opinion cabal rit is far better then desperation rit

cause it could be 5 instead of 3 for the same cost

Welcome to TMD! Please read our guidelines about post quality. Punctuation is a crucial part of effective posting.
-Jacob

[dicemanx]

As I said, does appending the label of "inherently broken" have any significance? Does the fact that most "inherently broken" cards are restricted and ToA is not a major point in your argument? I don't see how.

It's "significant" to the extent that restriction places a negative imprimatur on a card or set of cards that denotes them as unambiguous "problems" in the format.  The lack of an adequate bridle for Tendrils of Agony enables it to operate with out any checks/balances and thereby increases the "un-fun" factor which was the cardinal point in my original post.   

Can we then take this argument and extend it to Mana Drain? To some that's an "un-fun" card. What about Workshop and the broken 1st turn plays it enables? That's "unfun" too to some. "Unfun" isn't a criterion for restriction - it is the effect generated by fulfilling criteria for restriction, such as format dominance or an unacceptable degree of distortion, although as I indicate later its more likely a combination of factors. Like I said, you cannot start discussing that ToA is problematic because it isn't hampered by restriction until you're able to establish that its a problem for the format in the first place. Not being hampered by the lack of checks and balances on the operation of a card isn't an issue until the card needs to have checks and balances imposed on it.

...and? You list some strengths of ToA illustrating its power. So? ToA begets a couple of powerful, viable decks in the format in Long variants and Gifts. As stated previously, the decks don't dominate, and ToA isn't a problem in this format in that respect.

From a power perspective, I find that Gifts and Long in fact are the dominant decks in the format.  Most of the top players are constantly looking for ways to further improve/exploit decks built around Tendrils of Agony (not, for instance, Balance) because it is so breakable and easy to exploit.  5 out of the Top 8 decks in the 2006 World Championships ran Tendrils of Agony as their primary win condition, some having a DSC back-up plan.  Nevertheless, any way you characterize it, the determination of what constitutes a "dominant" deck is nebulous and will vary per player's individual opinions.  Without more definitive criteria to guide the determination, both your perspective and my perspective are just that: individual opinions. 

The "world championships" event isn't any more significant and doesn't carry more weight than any 50+ man event anywhere in the world. There are plenty of events where Storm based decks represent a fair proportion or are even underrepresented in the field. I'd even argue that the World Champs came at a time when interest rose in Long decks on account of PL making some waves which accounted for its appearance, but the better players will return to more consistent archetypes. And you're right - quite a few top players aim to exploit archetypes that will exacerbate skill level differences - Drain decks specifically give the stronger player the opportunity to outplay their weaker opponents moreso than any other archetype, despite the fact that arguably the give the smallest edges percentage-wise over the field. This isn't a testament of a decks brokenness, or even dominance for that matter.

The fact that you list ToA's uncounterability (incorrect by the way, since Stifle is played in the format, and Orim's Chant and Trickbind are possibilities)

I regret that my depiction of Tendrils as a generally uncounterable play signaled to you that I needed an introduction to Stifle, Orim's Chant, or any other narrow instant methods (Gilded Light?) of responding to a storm execution.  For future discussion, please assume that I am familiar with all of the above in addition to the elements of the mana denial strategy you bring up below: Chalice of the Void, Null Rod, Root Maze, Wasteland, Strip Mine, Sphere of Resistance, Trinisphere, Glowrider, In the Eye of Chaos, Gorilla Shaman, and so forth. 

My issue wasn't the fact that you mentioned that ToA was uncounterable. My issue is that you avoided the discussion of how best to attack such a card - by resource denial that makes the card effective in the first place. You don't have to play to stop ToA directly; you can try to neuter it by waging a battle on different fronts. ToA isn't a single card, its an entire deck strategy - your goal as a counterstrategy isn't to stop ToA itself.

ToA can be attacked NOT by countering it, but by focusing on denying your opponent's resources via mana denial or counterspelling critical spells that try to draw/tutor cards or try to build up a critical number of spells/mana. Sometimes this plan is unsuccessful, but sometimes it works quite well - thats just the nature of the struggle in T1.

While this may initially appear sound, your logic would too easily pardon the most broken spells in the format merely on the basis that they could theoretically be crippled by mana denial.  What you're actually saying here is not far from "Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall are balanced cards because anyone can run Chalice of the Void and Wasteland."  Why bother restricting Moxen when Null Rod is out there?

Gaging a card's strength primarily on the basis of its counterstrategies eschews the central issue of whether that card is intrinsically broken.   

Not only do my statements "initially appear sound", they happen to be quite factual. I'm not arguing that ToA isn't "broken", as are Lotus or Recall. Counterspells also don't make broken cards less broken. However, these cards or strategies that focus on resource denial can effectively combat Storm based decks. You in turn are distorting my logic when you say that my logic is pardoning the most broken spells in the format. Unrestricting Moxen (to use your example), because Null Rod or CotV exists to counter such explosive mana is moot because unrestricted Moxen would push past the barrier of unacceptability and create horrible degenerate distorting decks that will reduce the format into a coin flip. ToA doesn't even approach that level - in fact, you haven't established a single compelling reason for why ToA is pushing the bounds of unacceptability apart from offering your own arbitrary opinion and suggesting that the deck is on the verge of domination if only people would learn to play Storm based decks better. That's unfortunately not good enough (even though, as I admit below, I wish that it did so it would be easier to neuter the deck).

Maybe the problem is that you're too fixated on individual cards, circumventing the context in which they operate. Once you examine the strategies that are employed to fight Storm based decks, and further appreciate that they can be very successful, ToA itself becomes less and less of a problem. Storm is *good* for the format in that it contributes 2 viable archetypes that aren't overly dominant.

Again, the subtext that I "[simply need some enlightenment on storm counter-strategies]" is inapposite both because I am well aware of the mana denial/"Counter-Enigma" styles you suggest and because it neglects to answer whether Tendrils is broken or, more pertinently, whether it is "un-fun." 

I do not question whether ToA is broken, and thus I'm not neglecting the (straw man) question. I ask what significance it is to label it as such given that our format is filled with and is defined by broken cards that push the boundaries of unacceptability. Your suggestion that the more pertinent question is to ask whether ToA is "unfun" is a puzzling one, because you haven't established exactly what the cause of this would be, apart from personal preference. Like I said, you can extend such personal preference arguments to cards like Drain, Ritual, Bazaar, or Workshop.   

For this to be an issue, it has to be established that there is a problem that needs addressing in the first place. The fact that ToA cannot be effectively restricted is a Straw Man that you're setting up here. You also throw in a few buzz words to strengthen your argument: "unbalanced effect" and "undercosted power". Aside from describing just about every playable card in T1 (and in fact, to be even played in T1 most if not all cards have to HAVE those two traits!), there is no consensus in the T1 community that ToA is way too undercosted or that its way too unbalanced.

My argument that Tendrils of Agony is broken is independent of any existing or lacking consensus on the topic and I never suggested it reflected popular opinion.  What you mean by characterizing my short description of why Tendrils cannot be restricted as a "Straw Man" is not apparent.  Could you clarify?  I suspect you misread me as promulgating a call-to-action "to ban that damn Tendrils!" when in fact I've simply proposed that it's "un-fun" and that the storm mechanic's prominence in most popular formats signals that the game could benefit from one or two highly effective strategy hosers in an upcoming expansion.

That ToA is broken is a rather fruitless argument in itself, because most everyone, myself included are in agreement. You're operating with the premise that ToA is a problem to begin with, which is the only reason that I can think of why you'd highlight the fact that ToA cannot be effectively restricted like other broken, unbalanced, and undercosted cards in the format.

You've yet to establish the storm mechanic's dominance ("prominence" is a convenient shift of word choice, but not the word that you want to use to back your argument because it has a different meaning) or the fact that it's "unfun" outside of personal preference. It's one thing to call Trinisphere, for comparative purposes, as "unfun" as a result of its gross distortion and the ease with which it could win games on turn 1 without any measure of skill (thereby pushing the boundaries of acceptability), but ToA?

Also: are you suggesting that the metas right now consist of nothing more than Gifts, Long variants, and their "counterstrategies" - Fish? I'm likewise confused by your statement that storm combo "borders" on dominating the field. It either does or it doesn't. You keep referring to the "potential" for domination, but that isn't the same thing as actually dominating.

Until there is specific and widely accepted criteria for defining dominance, arguing this point is moot. 

Well, the burden of establishing whether such an arbitrary boundary has been crossed is on you. If it hasn't, highlighting the fact that there is otherwise no consensus will not get you very far. However, even without consensus, its actually far from impossible to come to decisions when it comes to the B/R list. I remember that during the debates about Trinisphere, some did mention that while they weren't exactly sure where the arbitrary cut offs were for restriction, they felt strongly that Trini crossed over the line of acceptability. Sometimes cards just "feel" wrong. As one top player said, "we'll know it when we'll see it".

Maybe if players get better at piloting Long variants, and we see large percentages of the field consisting of MDG and Pitchlong (because apparently MDG is the "only" Drain deck that can stop it - lol), then we can address the "problem" then.

That's not going to happen in a format where players still run Ball Lightning and Nantuko Shade.  The fact that a good (and largely ignored) segment of Vintage players fail to grasp the dynamic of excellent decks like Long, Stax, and Gifts and opt for... junk is irrelevent to the question of whether the format benefits from having a non-interactive "kill you before you blink" archetype at the top rung. 

Fewer and fewer players are opting for "junk" these days - most tourneys seem to consist largely of viable archetypes. I would even go so far as to say that Long decks aren't especially attractive to the top players, because they are more "binary" archetypes (approaching an all or nothing coinflip style) that can too easily succumb to hate or to themselves. Why take that risk when you can pilot something less binary, even if it objectively lowers the percentage against the field? In any case, you do have a point about the non-interactivity that decks like Grimlong present at times, and you're correct in that it is independent of what exists in the format. In fact, I echoed such a sentiment in a SCG thread, where I felt that Grimlong might need to be pruned slightly to make it even less appealing given that more players were starting to explore the archetype by possibly restricting Grim Tutor. The Storm mechanic doesn't bother me itself, and I wouldn't want to kill an archetype that doesn't even dominate the format, but I would want it to maintain its status as an infrequently seen deck. Making it slightly less consistent by cutting away some tutoring power would dissuade even more players from picking it up, and hopefully push it to around the same level as MeandeckSX or Belcher, two decks that are horribly fast (and "unfun" due to the lack of interactivity at times) but more acceptable because of their extreme binary nature and very infrequent appearances at events.

However, as I suspected the discussion fizzled because the archetype just doesn't "feel" wrong enough to the majority, because I suspect that it just isn't played often enough and doesn't perform consistently enough for the better players to stick with it.

There is a vast chasm between something like Trinisphere and decks relying on ToA.

I disagree and when you're talking about a liquid concept like "un-fun," you're going to be dealing with opinions more heavily than facts.  Here's my opinion.  I would much rather see Workshop->Trinisphere on turn one than Ritual, Ritual, Tutor.  Why?  Because with the former, if it resolves, I lose the game if they follow with Crucible/Strip/Waste or Smokestack or if I don't have/draw 2 fetchlands and a third land in a timely way.  There's wiggle room here.  A Strip/Waste of my own on their Workshop sometimes buys time as well.  Resolved Trinisphere on the first turn is rough and there's a good chance of losing there, but it's not so immediately and certainly defeating as what Pitch Long comes off when it gets its own turn one engine.  The fact that I have an approx. 40% of countering acceleration or a tutor (which even then can be countered back, unlike when playing Workshop.dec) is even less consoling than the "but you can Force the Trinisphere" argument that failed to salvage 4x Trinisphere.  Whether playing Magic for pleasure or "for power," losing to an opponent's 15-Storm Solitaire with virtually no room for response, regardless of your skill level and deck choice, is not fun at all.  Accordingly, fostering a status quo where these encounters are enabled to flourish is not healthy for the game now or in the future.

I appreciate the fact that ToA decks and Trini based decks at the time of unrestriction are (and were) both capable of generating ridiculously fast kills that make games unfun. However, that isn't the only criterion for restriction - its tied into frequency and ease with which the kill is made, along with the risks associated with playing for the first turn kill. Trini based kills were far more frequent on account of the deck enjoying considerably more popularity, they required no thought or skill in pulling off and didn't offer the possibility for the player to mess up (like Storm based decks do), and they suffered no seriously detrimental consequences if the trinisphere was FoWed 40% of the time (unlike Sotrm based combo, which frequently has to blow its load and put itself at the mercy of the deck that FoWs the right spell). Any one of those reasons would be insufficient to make Trini a candidate for restriction, but put them all together it made for ample reason for axing. ToA based decks could possibly be at the level of Trini one day if they become as omnipresent as Trini based decks were, and if that day comes we'll start with the axing of Dark Ritual and Cabal Ritual if necessary which will more than likely do the trick. 

Granted, as I willingy admit, this is my opinion and I do not arrogantly proffer it like it's a stone-cold fact.  But I know I am far from being the only voice here who finds the Pitch Long deck disgusting.  The enjoyment factor of the game, even in highly competitive Vintage Magic, is by no means negligible.  If I wanted to spend a weekend "earning" a Mox Sapphire, I'd do independent work and buy one.   

Now the argument is approaching something that I would agree with - I think the problem was that you were taking the wrong approach in attacking ToA and the Storm mechanic. I think we both agree that it is unacceptable to have decks that can kill so quickly and minimize interactivity as Trini decks have done in the past and as Long decks do now on occasion. However, I'd take it a step further and say that Long decks don't make frequent enough appearances for there to be an appreciable problem, and are unreliable enough (at least in the hands of the average competitor) to dissuade its prominence in the long run. The chances of succumbing at an event (generally speaking) to a quick Long kill is probably no different than succumbing very quickly to any other top tier archetype, because Drain and Fish/Prison strategies make more frequent appearances than Long variants on average.
 

I actually posted in a SCG thread asking what people feel about the restriction of Grim Tutor to slow the Long archetype down a little without killing it, but I certainly don't have any issues with the Storm mechanic itself.

I don't agree with the prospect of restricting of Grim Tutor either.  That said, I would not put much faith in the merits of a poll or other opinion device designed to gage the sentiment for restricting any card valued at $50 or more.  I would expect personal and secondary market concerns to infect most viewpoints despite any veneer of concern for the empirical merits of its role the game. 

-BPK

While the price tag might persuade a small majority to keep the card unrestricted, the value of collections as a whole is connected to format balance and fun. If we were at that point where Long variants were everywhere, I think we'd get more people on the side of restricting some piece of Storm based strategies to bring it down a notch and force it to at least permit 1-2 turns for the opponent.

By the way: I apologize ahead of time if it seems like I'm trying to give you a hard time. I'm on the fence right now on whether there should be a campaign launched to try to whittle down the non-interactivity of Long variants, because, while I haven't experienced it much first hand, I've watched good players randomly succumb to Storm based archetypes even though those decks didn't perform very consistently or even make t8. My last event, in fact, had about 5 fast combo strategies (4 Long variants and 1 Belcher) and only one succeeded in making t8 - the others lost to Drain and Fish strategies, and Fish was rife in the t8. I'm trying to get you to defend your stance on the issue, because if I can break or weaken your arguments, it might give me/us some idea of what might be required to put forth something that could ultimately get Grim Tutor (or another Long component) restricted in the interest of making the deck less frequent on the tourney scene and an unattractive choice for stronger players. I just think that attacking ToA or the Storm mechanic isn't the right path to pursue.

[brianpk80]

Dicemanx,

I believe I have a clear picture of where we now both stand on this matter.  I'm going to summarize my understanding here and give you an oppurtunity to confirm/deny that we're on the same page. 

I criticized Tendrils of Agony as "un-fun" and argued that the game would benefit from an effective single-card strategy hoser.  I proceeded to describe why it is broken and this exposition, while perhaps edifying for some minds who haven't mulled over the topic at considerable length, is moot among us because we both acknowledge it is broken.  In turn, you recognized the concept of "un-fun" as a single modern criterion for restriction and identified reasons why it fails to satisfy other prerequisites: in particular, deck dominance and format distortion. 

Although I didn't yet argue for its restriction (or banning), I'm not so opposed to nuking Tendrils itself on the basis of some totality of factors, but acknowledge that it currently presents a less clear and compelling case than Trinisphere, especially since an effective response would likely require Tendrils to meet the higher threshold of being banned.  You are currently ambivalent about whether some action needs to be taken to mitigate Long's actual or potential rendering of Vintage magic into a carnival of random game-ending coin flips & dice rolls.  You are considering some form of advocacy and are now at a preliminary stage of fleshing out the strengths and weaknesses of the methods, arguments, and counterarguments involved in any approach.  However, your position is that the remedy should focus on Tendrils enablers rather than Tendrils itself.  While I partially disagree, I can understand and respect that position. 

Can we then take this argument and extend it to Mana Drain? To some that's an "un-fun" card. What about Workshop and the broken 1st turn plays it enables? That's "unfun" too to some. "Unfun" isn't a criterion for restriction - it is the effect generated by fulfilling criteria for restriction, such as format dominance or an unacceptable degree of distortion, although as I indicate later its more likely a combination of factors. Like I said, you cannot start discussing that ToA is problematic because it isn't hampered by restriction until you're able to establish that its a problem for the format in the first place. Not being hampered by the lack of checks and balances on the operation of a card isn't an issue until the card needs to have checks and balances imposed on it.

On Mana Drain: Yes, and that is a particularly important counterargument to remediating Tendrils/Ritual/Grim Tutor.  The danger in having incorporated an exclusively subjective criterion (lack of "fun") into the restriction determination is that it poises to open the floodgates of campaigns against cards that are unduly based on personal preference.  There's no necessary analytical limit for that criterion.  Mana Drain is un-fun, Animate Dead is un-fun, Smokestack is un-fun, Wasteland is un-fun, Null Rod... and so forth.  Where would the line be drawn?  Mana Drain has been a staple in Vintage Magic since 1994.  Is that relevant?  Without Null Rod, budget players would be severely disadvantaged.  Is that relevant?  There are no concrete answers and I can't pretend to have one.  What I can say is that, as you stated below, a restriction determination will incorporate some totality of factors which are sometimes ineffable and may include a card simply "feeling" wrong.  This is my "feeling" on Tendrils of Agony and the storm mechanic in general, but it is only subjective and personal.  Hence, it makes an improper sole basis for banning or restriction.  But because I do know, for a fact, that a great many other players share this same repulsion for Tendrils of Agony based decks, I believe the aggregate happiness of Vintage players and health of the format would increase by the less bombastic measure of printing effective strategy hosers.  Further, because Wizards has begun supporting the Storm mechanic in Type 2, their history of balancing mechanics with counter-effects (like Stifle being printed along with Tendrils/Desire in Scourge) suggests that Storm hosers may be incubating as we speak. 

The "world championships" event isn't any more significant and doesn't carry more weight than any 50+ man event anywhere in the world. There are plenty of events where Storm based decks represent a fair proportion or are even underrepresented in the field. I'd even argue that the World Champs came at a time when interest rose in Long decks on account of PL making some waves which accounted for its appearance, but the better players will return to more consistent archetypes.

If anything, the world champsionship illustrates the dominance of Tendrils-combo in the upper skill-tiers in the Vintage community.  That said, you're right that one single tournament ipso facto doesn't determine a deck's dominance.  I cited that tournament as a recent and conspicuous example to help eke out whether and why storm combo would meet some accepted standard of "dominance."   

And you're right - quite a few top players aim to exploit archetypes that will exacerbate skill level differences - Drain decks specifically give the stronger player the opportunity to outplay their weaker opponents moreso than any other archetype, despite the fact that arguably the give the smallest edges percentage-wise over the field. This isn't a testament of a decks brokenness, or even dominance for that matter.

I agree with your point on Drain decks.  I played Mana Drain decks forever many years ago because they did exactly that: gave me an opportunity to exploit minutiae I understood (pardon any immodesty) which I knew many of my opponents were lacking.  As an aside, after years playing Drains and then several years away from the game, the reason I play Vial Fish now is not necessarily because it is the most powerful deck in the format, but because it gives great latitude to subvert opponents' expectations, maximize skill/knowledge differences, and most importantly: it's just personally more fun to play. 

A point that does need to be addressed when we refer to "dominance" is whether "dominance" contemplates the incidence/frequency of a given deck in general or whether it refers to a deck's "dominance" in the sense that, irrespective of its incidence, it's simply the deck that always or most often wins.  How would you define dominance?

My issue wasn't the fact that you mentioned that ToA was uncounterable. My issue is that you avoided the discussion of how best to attack such a card - by resource denial that makes the card effective in the first place. You don't have to play to stop ToA directly; you can try to neuter it by waging a battle on different fronts. ToA isn't a single card, its an entire deck strategy - your goal as a counterstrategy isn't to stop ToA itself.

That's a fair issue.  I don't dismiss the strength of redundant mana denial as a counter-strategy to Pitch Long; in my earlier post I highlighted the lack of post-resolution response to Tendrils and Mind's Desire.  That wasn't intended to be construed as a failure to consider preemptive strategies. 

That said, I believe mana denial and direct strains on limited resources are some of best routes to defeating a Long deck, but they do often come at an unfair expense to the pilot.  This isn't the place for discussing individual card strategies in depth, but to briefly illustrate, a card like Chalice of the Void in Fish is going to be a dead draw in so many match-ups and even deader half the time in the match-ups where it should shine, such that diluting one's non-Workshop deck with Chalices isn't worth the expense of having so many frequently dead maindeck cards.  And the unfortunate reality for mana denial strategies is that Magic is a game that wants to be played; spells want to resolve and the whole game simply militates in favor of things hitting the table.  Once an opponent finds that single-breakthrough (and there are so many) from any Prison or quasi-Prison, you just outright lose.  Forcing players to adopt fundamentally flawed strategies solely to adapt to storm combo is, in my opinion, an unfair burden to impose on most other decks out there. 

You in turn are distorting my logic when you say that my logic is pardoning the most broken spells in the format. Unrestricting Moxen (to use your example), because Null Rod or CotV exists to counter such explosive mana is moot because unrestricted Moxen would push past the barrier of unacceptability and create horrible degenerate distorting decks that will reduce the format into a coin flip.

I wonder if you are testing me here because your final clause seems to closely echo my take on the current incarnation of Pitch Long. 

ToA doesn't even approach that level - in fact, you haven't established a single compelling reason for why ToA is pushing the bounds of unacceptability apart from offering your own arbitrary opinion and suggesting that the deck is on the verge of domination if only people would learn to play Storm based decks better. That's unfortunately not good enough (even though, as I admit below, I wish that it did so it would be easier to neuter the deck).

This is a fair comment as well.  You are correct that I haven't done much to paint the existence of Tendrils of Agony as "unacceptable" for the entire format because my goals have been much less ambitious.  I've only proposed that some genuinely effective strategy hosers would be more than welcome, and that some may be pending.  Any failure on my part to prove that Tendrils of Agony is "unacceptable" in Vintage is not so much a failure to find support for that point, but rather a lacking incentive and occasion to even argue the point.  Given an opportunity to actually consider whether Tendrils should be banned, I agree that an argument along those lines would require much more than a few players hissing about it being "un-fun." 

I do not question whether ToA is broken, and thus I'm not neglecting the (straw man) question. I ask what significance it is to label it as such given that our format is filled with and is defined by broken cards that push the boundaries of unacceptability.

Since we appear to be in accordance on Tendrils' brokenness, I won't belabor this point but I find it relevant because Tendrils stands alone as one of few highly broken cards that has not received direct remedial attention.  The most obscenely broken cards are already restricted, many of which are much less problematic alone or in multiples than Tendrils of Agony.  Thus, if we were to consider an attempt to ban or restrict Tendrils itself, the comparison gives us at least some concrete demarcations for what qualifies as "unacceptably broken," "broken but Vintage-acceptable in multiples," and "not broken."  Its relevance to my point about it being "un-fun" is that if Wizards is going to force us to randomly endure "Land Mox! Ritual! Tutor! Misdirect your Force!" however frequently, they should at least throw us a bone like "Benevelont Meteorologist, 2/2 for 1WW, [Arcane Laboratory ability] If an opponent has played five or more spells this turn, you may play Benevolent Meteorologist without paying its mana cost.  If you do so, it gains Flash and Split Second."  Children of Korlis are quite good, but again, it's irrelevant if you are killed before laying a land or forced to endure the above scenario with a huge turn-2 Will, easy access to Chain of Vapor, etc.   

You've yet to establish the storm mechanic's dominance ("prominence" is a convenient shift of word choice, but not the word that you want to use to back your argument because it has a different meaning) or the fact that it's "unfun" outside of personal preference. It's one thing to call Trinisphere, for comparative purposes, as "unfun" as a result of its gross distortion and the ease with which it could win games on turn 1 without any measure of skill (thereby pushing the boundaries of acceptability), but ToA?

Consider any inconsistency in my terminology the product of having made a relatively free-form initial commentary which has only gradually begun to tighten in focus. 

Well, the burden of establishing whether such an arbitrary boundary has been crossed is on you.

It isn't though, because I haven't presented any case to impel remedial action.  I've only made a commentary on the state of the game, identified a card that I find problematic, and raised the idea of future strategy hosers. 

Sometimes cards just "feel" wrong. As one top player said, "we'll know it when we'll see it".

Ineffable unacceptability, like the Supreme Court's early foray into the concept of "obscenity."   

I appreciate the fact that ToA decks and Trini based decks at the time of unrestriction are (and were) both capable of generating ridiculously fast kills that make games unfun. However, that isn't the only criterion for restriction - its tied into frequency and ease with which the kill is made, along with the risks associated with playing for the first turn kill. Trini based kills were far more frequent on account of the deck enjoying considerably more popularity, they required no thought or skill in pulling off and didn't offer the possibility for the player to mess up (like Storm based decks do), and they suffered no seriously detrimental consequences if the trinisphere was FoWed 40% of the time (unlike Sotrm based combo, which frequently has to blow its load and put itself at the mercy of the deck that FoWs the right spell). Any one of those reasons would be insufficient to make Trini a candidate for restriction, but put them all together it made for ample reason for axing. ToA based decks could possibly be at the level of Trini one day if they become as omnipresent as Trini based decks were, and if that day comes we'll start with the axing of Dark Ritual and Cabal Ritual if necessary which will more than likely do the trick. 

I agree here that the case for remedying Tendrils directly is distinct from addressing Trinisphere in several ways and may not be as overt or compelling. 

Now the argument is approaching something that I would agree with - I think the problem was that you were taking the wrong approach in attacking ToA and the Storm mechanic. I think we both agree that it is unacceptable to have decks that can kill so quickly and minimize interactivity as Trini decks have done in the past and as Long decks do now on occasion. However, I'd take it a step further and say that Long decks don't make frequent enough appearances for there to be an appreciable problem, and are unreliable enough (at least in the hands of the average competitor) to dissuade its prominence in the long run. The chances of succumbing at an event (generally speaking) to a quick Long kill is probably no different than succumbing very quickly to any other top tier archetype, because Drain and Fish/Prison strategies make more frequent appearances than Long variants on average.

Although Long may be encountered less frequently than Drain and Fish/Prison, I think this comparison doesn't account for the fact that losing to Drain, Fish, and Prison somehow *feels* fair while getting blown out of the water on Turn 1 with an Ancestral, two lands, two Drains, a Sapphire, and a Thirst for Knowledge in hand just *feels* wrong. 

By the way: I apologize ahead of time if it seems like I'm trying to give you a hard time.

Not a problem.  I appreciate what you're doing here and find your posts to be worthwhile.

I'm on the fence right now on whether there should be a campaign launched to try to whittle down the non-interactivity of Long variants, because, while I haven't experienced it much first hand, I've watched good players randomly succumb to Storm based archetypes even though those decks didn't perform very consistently or even make t8. My last event, in fact, had about 5 fast combo strategies (4 Long variants and 1 Belcher) and only one succeeded in making t8 - the others lost to Drain and Fish strategies, and Fish was rife in the t8. I'm trying to get you to defend your stance on the issue, because if I can break or weaken your arguments, it might give me/us some idea of what might be required to put forth something that could ultimately get Grim Tutor (or another Long component) restricted in the interest of making the deck less frequent on the tourney scene and an unattractive choice for stronger players. I just think that attacking ToA or the Storm mechanic isn't the right path to pursue.

Well, I'd be glad to contribute to a concentrated effort to mitigate Pitch Long.  I find Pitch Long intolerably annoying whether winning or losing.  The reason is because it plainly makes little difference how you design your deck or play the game.  They either have it or they fizzle, and you don't matter.  Once you get to Turn 3 and are still in the game, it tends to be irrelevant whether you win with a protected True Believer, a Darksteel Colossus, an animated Worldgorger Dragon, or a Mountain Goat.  I'm probably not alone in saying I dislike playing a game where I don't matter.  Hence, I'm more than happy to help think this through. 

-Brian

[someone_unimportan]

The reason is because it plainly makes little difference how you design your deck or play the game. They either have it or they fizzle.

I strongly, strongly disagree with this. The presence of PL forces you to design your deck in such a way that you do matter. If you simply don't have
any plan against PL and just auto-scoop to its goldfish, then that's your fault. However, since I believe we are discussing decks that have a plan against
PL, but just randomly scoop to its nuts, I'd just like to say that I play PL, and I don't get the nuts very often. Sure, I've had some first turn win hands
with force backup (or first turn bargain/necro, which amounts to the same thing) but I don't think they happen with enough consistency to affect the
format. In my experience PL goldfishes a solid turn 2, and the percent of a turn 1 win should be around 15%. With force backup that number drops
a ton, since you now need 1 specific card, 1 blue card, and 5-6 cards that let you turn 1 (In all likelihood 6-7 mana + tutor). Giving your opponent
one or two turns opens up an entire new realm of hate cards that need to be fought through (null rod, chalice, drain, MM, TB, SoR, etc). I don't think
that playing against PL you have a 40/60 chance to lose on the spot. I don't even think you have a 20/80 chance if you've mulliganned correctly. As
for effective tendrils-based hosers, why not just MB 4 trickbind 4 Children etc? I think that the presence of Long decks tests your skill greatest not in the
actual game, but in deck construction and testing. You need to know your metagame and keep the appropriate balance of Long/Gifts/Slaver/Oath/Shop/etc
hate. Admittedly you could metagame correctly and randomly get paired against your worst matchup a bunch of times in a row, but that's just bad luck.
And as much as everyone hates to admit it, luck is a factor in this game.

[brianpk80]

The reason is because it plainly makes little difference how you design your deck or play the game. They either have it or they fizzle.

I strongly, strongly disagree with this. The presence of PL forces you to design your deck in such a way that you do matter. If you simply don't have any plan against PL and just auto-scoop to its goldfish, then that's your fault.

I disagree here.  I can't think of a single deck lacking some method of checking Pitch Long, but I will say that if someone is playing "Mountain.dec" with all burn spells and Ball Lightning, perhaps they do deserve to lose.  The problem is that Pitch Long is more than able to subjugate even decks that have very solid counterstrategies incorporated, and it has a greater tendency to accomplish this in ways that are undesireable and minimize the role of an opponent.  For instance, I play Vial Fish.  I have a pretty decent Pitch Long match-up because I use 4 maindeck Children of Korlis, 4 Meddling Mages, 4 Forces of Wills, 2 Tormod's Crypts, Strip Mine, Voidmage Prodigies, True Believer and some other really disruptive maindeck/sideboard choices (sometimes Stifle, sometimes Chant, sometimes Extract, I vary a lot based on what I expect) as well as a very dense draw system.  AEther Vials are also good here because they allow me to throw Mages and Chilren out on the table during draw-7's in addition to having FoW.  Even having designed the deck with the specter of Pitch Long (and other decks) very much in mind, while I often beat Long, I also lose to it without having a single moment to contribute any input to the game.  Losing because one makes poor design choices, play-errors, or poor sideboarding is just fundamentally fair while losing to the 15 spell equivalent of Lotus-Channel-Fireball is more a tumor on the format. 

Anyway, my argument here is only that Tendrils decks are "un-fun" and bad for the format.  I haven't suggested they ban/restrict any components of Long yet.  Right now, I think it would be beneficial for Wizards to begin by printing a few over-the-top strategy hosers to deter the threat of arbitrary and random coin-flip style game losses.  Shadow of Doubt or Arcane Laboratory on a cheap (or alternate cost) creature would be a good start. 

-BPK

[zeus-online]

Why on a creature? That way its only playable in fishy decks? So why give the deck with arguable the most potent choices against long decks even more disruption while leaving drain decks and shop decks out in the cold?

/Zeus

[brianpk80]

Why on a creature? That way its only playable in fishy decks? So why give the deck with arguable the most potent choices against long decks even more disruption while leaving drain decks and shop decks out in the cold?

Because I'm blatantly prejudiced in favor of Fish.  That's why.   

Actually, what you say is fair but a creature-response wouldn't limit the remedy to Fish.  If the hoser were a blue or alt-cost creature, Drain, Fish, and Oath could incorporate it into sideboards.  Making it a nonpermanent would make it useless in just about any other match, decrease the hoser's popularity, and thereby fail to fulfill its original purpose of steering players away from non-interactive storm decks.  If the hoser were an artifact, it would also be nearly useless in non-storm match-ups and would fail to get the job done if it had a CMC of anything over or an alternate casting cost (pitch, life-pay, etc.) in my opinion.  (Yes, I'm talking about a serious deathblow strategy hoser here, instead of opting for the controversy of restriction now).   

Arcane Lab seems to be the most straightforward route here because its ability reads "there is never any storm and it will probably take you forever to bounce this," only its 2U (2W for the white one) cost often makes that card itself too slow for consideration.  The ability slapped on some cheaper or "free" (alt-cost) permanent would go a long way here.

-BPK

[policehq]

I really want this topic to get back on track...

If an Empty the Warrens deck were ported from a Meandeck Tendrils list, as I have posted before, would the need for 5-storm (four spells + Empty the Warrens) be sufficient, in your opinion, to negate the amount of fizzling or mulligans that Meandeck Tendrils requires, to surpass the hate that is most likely only seen in game two, where your sideboard can play Tendrils of Agony and possibly Dark Confidant for mini-Storm?

I personally play with City of Traitors/Ancient Tomb in the Meandeck Tendrils skeleton instead of Land Grant, meaning that the draw cards and tutors are not meant to bring the storm count to 10, but to find your win condition (winning at turn 3). The mana-base is more stable, and you can go off on turns 1, 2, and possibly 3 if maindeck hate is posed against you.

When an opponent sides in Massacre/Pyroclasm, you can side out Empty the Warrens for Tendrils of Agony, making a few of their cards dead draws.

The only change that seems necessary for this skeleton is the dropping of Spoils of the Vault, because you are not able to gain the life back game 1, but, as the storm count needed is 5-10 instead of 10, this seems negligible.

Since Meandeck Tendrils is merely a gimmick deck that has been practically disowned by its team and does not have the sufficient means to do any more than an impressive goldfish, I think that Empty the Warrens is a good replacement game 1 to make the deck competitive.

-hq

[someone_unimportan]

BPK, the main reason I disagree with your quest for an "over-the-top strategy hoser" against tendrils is that I don't think that it has turn 1 wins with counter backup with any actual consistency. if it could do that even 15% of the time, I would agree with you that that is way too much. But I honestly don't see how it can warp the format and be "un-fun" if its t1 with counterbackup is as inconsistent as it is. It seems to me (I realize this probably isn't what you're trying to say, but this is what it sounds like to me) that you're angry at tendrils because once in 80 games, you will lose without laying a land because they went first, had the t1, and had the force backup, and then maybe once in 15 games you will lose because you got unlucky and they had the t1 and you didn't have a force.

[vroman]

I played against several warrens-storm decks on MWS. Clockwork hydra really shines as blocker for stax sideboard.

[kalithrian]

If the frailty of the tokens is problematic in certain matchups such as stax (caltrops or clockwork hydra), there are spells that account for this. Being goblins, the first that may come to mind is goblin king. This guy also speeds up the clock to a turn 2 kill if you draw him. Other solutions include coat of arms, dralnu's crusade, etc... etc...

If it were up to me to build the deck, though, I would go with something controllish. Red/blue, most likely. This would enhance the resiliency of the deck, and also give it some kind of a draw engine. Perilous research also should not be discounted for red/blue storm if cutting black is an option. I think 11 1/1's is a little more resilient than a single 11/11 in the current meta full of "bounce 1 guy" spells.

Empty the warrens is just an additional offensive stance a control deck can take. Similar to the old EBA-style decks running angels, mages, and tinker/colossus... empty the warrens could be seen hanging around tendrils and colossus in wierd-looking gifts decks. A card is only as resilient as the answers an opponent can present. This said, having three threats where the answers are all different cards (hurkyll's, pyroclasm, trickbind), it greatly increases the chances a skilled player has of winning. It tends to increase the number of useless combo pieces in a deck, and perhaps EtW should be sideboard tech as a burning wish target for this sort of strategy.

[Mr. Nightmare]

As much as I'm in love with Empty the Warrens in Extended, and would love to see it become competitive in Vintage, I think the result of the hybridized Gifts deck you are proposing is a simple one.  People start playing Echoing Truth again.  It still answers DSC, it now answers EtW.  I switched one Chain of Vapor for Echoing Truth in my board a month or two ago, I'm sure others would follow suit if EtW gets big.

[kalithrian]

Well if you want to beat gifts, you just need 2 cards... wipe away and trickbind.