Crosslong

[Cross]

I was not really intending to start a discussion about my tendrils list that has seen some recent success, but the Waterbury thread has turned into a thread about it, so rather than clog that thread I decided to begin one here. People have taken to calling it Crosslong, I wouldn’t name a deck after myself, but that’s what people call it. Here’s my list from Waterbury:

Artifacts
1 Black Lotus
1 Lotus Petal
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring

Enchantments
1 Yawgmoth's Bargain

Instants
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Brainstorm
4 Cabal Ritual
1 Chain Of Vapor
4 Dark Ritual
4 Force Of Will
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Intuition
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor

Sorceries
1 Demonic Tutor
3 Duress
2 Grim Tutor
2 Infernal Contract
1 Mind's Desire
2 Tendrils Of Agony
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Yawgmoth's Will

Basic Lands
1 Swamp

Basic Snow Lands
2 Snow-covered Island

Lands
1 Bloodstained Mire
1 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
3 Underground Sea

Legendary Lands
1 Tolarian Academy

Sideboard:
4 Leyline Of The Void
1 Rebuild
2 Trickbind
1 Duress
3 Empty The Warrens
2 Massacre
2 Badlands

Here’s what’s beeen said about it:

Hmm both the 2nd and 5th place are playing without Necro and with Tinker but NO Jar. Do you guys want to find Black Lotus only?
Otherwise pretty cool Top 8 with lots of the top players and top decks in there.

I can understand omitting Tinker/Jar, but cutting Necropotence? That card, in my opinion, is one of the reasons to play ritual combo. The most confusing part to me, is that Infernal Contract and Merchant Scroll were played over them. If Cross or Outlaw could make a post in the Full User forum about the omission of necro, and their reasoning, that'd be great.

EDIT: Looking further into Cross' List, I can't help but think its a lot like IT. Here's the differences

IT                                        CrossLong
+1 Necro                               (Contract)
+1 Twister                             (Desire)
+1 Scroll                                (Time Walk)
+2 Remand / Bounce / Perplex  (2x Cabal Rit)
+2 Intuitions                           (Contract + Tendrils)
+1 Land                                 (Tinker, but no jar)

The card choices are a little different, but many are similar in function, leading me to wonder how in the world you beat gifts? Do you bring in Leylines vs. gifts?

Tinker should actually be in neither of our lists. In my list it was a Timetwister, I am not sure what it was in Justin’s because he ran a few cards different, but I suspect it to be the second grim tutor.

The inspiration for the list actually comes from TPS lists from like 2 years ago, the only difference being that it ran full a set of cabal rits and grim tutors. Obviously IT and pitchlong have been successful and are also good sources of inspiration.

I played gifts a lot that weekend, and I only lost to it in top 8 against demars, and both of his openings included strip mine and tormod’s crypt. I think that cutting necro and jar make a big difference in the match up though. I have never really had a good experience with tinker+jar and necro. Other people rave about it, but it has been my experience that they are too much for a good effect, but that does not guarantee the game. I’d rather put the same amount of resources into finding better bombs like bargain and desire, or drawing four cards off contract. I am not the only one to come to these conclusions; if you check Gagooch’s tourney report from ELD’s mox, he was playing my list also. He played at Waterbury too and did poorly in the main events but did top 8 in the day 2 side event.

My list definitely didnt run Tinker.  Our lists ran less "all-in" cards.  Tinker -> Jar is a definite all in play along with necro, despite resolving either of these its not a guranteed win.  I ran a gifts which I soon cut, the merchant scroll was for finding recall, h.recall and gifts.  We both ran desire, bargain, twister, 2 tendrils, contract, and x grim tutors.  I ran 2 merchant scrolls and a single grim tutor if i'm right.

Hmm both the 2nd and 5th place are playing without Necro and with Tinker but NO Jar. Do you guys want to find Black Lotus only?
Otherwise pretty cool Top 8 with lots of the top players and top decks in there.

I can understand omitting Tinker/Jar, but cutting Necropotence? That card, in my opinion, is one of the reasons to play ritual combo. The most confusing part to me, is that Infernal Contract and Merchant Scroll were played over them. If Cross or Outlaw could make a post in the Full User forum about the omission of necro, and their reasoning, that'd be great.

EDIT: Looking further into Cross' List, I can't help but think its a lot like IT. Here's the differences

IT                                        CrossLong
+1 Necro                               (Contract)
+1 Twister                             (Desire)
+1 Scroll                                (Time Walk)
+2 Remand / Bounce / Perplex  (2x Cabal Rit)
+2 Intuitions                           (Contract + Tendrils)
+1 Land                                 (Tinker, but no jar)

The card choices are a little different, but many are similar in function, leading me to wonder how in the world you beat gifts? Do you bring in Leylines vs. gifts?

From my experience I really have to question why you would ask how this deck beats gifts.  Of all the gifts I played in both days at waterbury and Eld's mox #2 I lost one match to gifts.  The only reason I lost this matches was because my opponent had the rare gifts god draw in both games, it happens and i'm over it.  But the gifts match is very much winable, it's no where near an auto-loss.  Shouldn't combo with duress beat gifts?  Without running tinker->jar we take out some gas, but at the same time we help protect ourselves against a gifts deck.  Now when I duress them any card I cast, other than timetwister, will generally lead me to where I want to go with little to no disruption.  Timetwister against gifts however can be a big reset button.  As for the Necro debate, i've been wanting to cut it for some time, and I, as I state in my tournament report, feel that in the current state of type one necro is worse.  This would be because of the very high number of duress that are running around, I tested without necro and to this point have not been dissapointed.  I do however believe that eight rituals is one too many and am testing many cards in that slot and the merchant scroll slot.

Sorry about the extra Tinkers.  It was in my copy/paste

I am with Becker in finding it odd that you guys don't like Necro.  I have found it wins about 90% of games it comes down and its about 95% when it comes down on turn 1.  Of course, PL has Misdirections to get it to resolve instead of Duress, so you aren't wasting a turn playing Duress.  But even in IT I thought the card was #2 in the deck, behind Will. 

I mean, Infernal Contract costs the same as Necro but it only draws 4 cards for 9-10 life instead of 10 cards.  I don't understand why Contract would be better than Necro.

Contract give me the cards right away, instant gratification.  Necropotence makes me wait until the end of turn.  When I pay three mana for any spell I want it to be the spell that helps me end the game right away, and I personally feel Contract does that better. 

Contract give me the cards right away, instant gratification.  Necropotence makes me wait until the end of turn.  When I pay three mana for any spell I want it to be the spell that helps me end the game right away, and I personally feel Contract does that better.

You find yourself able to go off the same turn after spending your Ritual to draw 4 random cards and use half your life?  What turn are you trying to kill on?  Turn 4?  I dont see how Necro isn't better than Contract on turn 1 (unless you drew the absolute balls for your opener) and most of the time on turn 2. 

I agree that Necro sucks more in a heavy Duress environment, but if you Contract and pass turn you paid 3 mana and 10 life to draw 4 cards and RFG your best. 

Of course, PL has Misdirections to get it to resolve instead of Duress, so you aren't wasting a turn playing Duress.  But even in IT I thought the card was #2 in the deck, behind Will. 

Maybe that's what it is then. Duress is definitely better in the metagame with trickbind and all the misdirections floating around.

My list of best cards in the deck would probably be 1. Lotus 2. Bargain 3. Will.

Edit: The list is fairly well proven, it was apart of the top 4 split of the last myriad; I was on track day 1 waterbury to make elimination rounds but didn't due to some heinous play and sideboarding error; was 2nd and 5th day 2 of waterbury; 1/2 split at ELD's mox.

[Gaagooch]

I am posting this here rather than in the waterbury thread, but that is where the content originated.

Contract give me the cards right away, instant gratification.  Necropotence makes me wait until the end of turn.  When I pay three mana for any spell I want it to be the spell that helps me end the game right away, and I personally feel Contract does that better.

You find yourself able to go off the same turn after spending your Ritual to draw 4 random cards and use half your life?  What turn are you trying to kill on?  Turn 4?  I dont see how Necro isn't better than Contract on turn 1 (unless you drew the absolute balls for your opener) and most of the time on turn 2. 

I agree that Necro sucks more in a heavy Duress environment, but if you Contract and pass turn you paid 3 mana and 10 life to draw 4 cards and RFG your best. 

I dont understand what you mean by RFG your best off contract, you don't remove anything.  I think the problem is im not looking at this situation the same way you are.  Necropotence, and Infernal Contract are not fighting for a spot in the deck, i've played the deck with both of them.  I am simply playing Contract because through testing and play time I have found it to be very useful.  Look at it like this in the early part of the game Necro is by far better, im not going to argue that, I completely agree.  I have lost faith in necro however due to the large number of decks packing 3-4 duress.  Necro is one of those cards that is assumed a must include in all combo decks, and im just trying to look outside and see how much of a difference it really makes.  If you look at ELD's mox #2 the top two decks, both combo decks, both running rituals, both running duress, neither running necropotence.  I havent missed it yet, not to say I won't at some point.


I completely agree about those being three of the strongest cards in the deck, although I also think Mind's Desire is quite high too. 

[BoOBaZ]

Just to continue de discussion about Infernal Contract.

I used to play Pitch long a lot, and every time I played I.Contract in tournaments, I won right away ... every single time.

I don't know if it has been said already but Nerco have another bad side against Mindslaver.deck, wich is obvisous. My personal  way to beat combo is simply to Slave my opponent as fast as possible and then to tutor Necro and have him drawing 20+ cards.

[Scott_Limoges]

I haven't tested necro in your combo varient but I can compare the logic of running ancestral in a field with misDs to running necro in a field of duresses.  Objective power will win games regardless of the hate against it.

[Gekoratel]

After seeing this deck at Waterbury I built a simiilar version to what is posted here except it had Scroll over Intuition and Necro over GT #2.  I have been doing very poor in playtesting which is probably because I am playing the deck more like Pitch Long than it is.  I'm curious about what turn this deck goes off on average.  I also find the 4th Cabal Ritual to be somewhat out of place because the deck has the same number of rituals as other combo decks but less threats to use them on. 

Like other combo players I find the omission of Necro to be very odd because that card was still awesome in IT which has the same FoW/Duress disruption base.  I find that you need to activate it for larger numbers in these kinds of decks than Pitch or Grim but it still wins the majority of the time.  It could be that I'm just lucky with Necro or you guys are unlucky.  With an average turn 1-2 Necro how much do you usually activate it for?

[Gaagooch]

After seeing this deck at Waterbury I built a simiilar version to what is posted here except it had Scroll over Intuition and Necro over GT #2.  I have been doing very poor in playtesting which is probably because I am playing the deck more like Pitch Long than it is.  I'm curious about what turn this deck goes off on average.  I also find the 4th Cabal Ritual to be somewhat out of place because the deck has the same number of rituals as other combo decks but less threats to use them on. 

Like other combo players I find the omission of Necro to be very odd because that card was still awesome in IT which has the same FoW/Duress disruption base.  I find that you need to activate it for larger numbers in these kinds of decks than Pitch or Grim but it still wins the majority of the time.  It could be that I'm just lucky with Necro or you guys are unlucky.  With an average turn 1-2 Necro how much do you usually activate it for?

The decklist that cross played at day two included intuition and merchant scroll.  I found the merchant scroll to be out of place in the deck along with the eigth ritual, thus am testing new cards in these slots.  When I do cast a turn 1-2 necro, having played it for so long I tend to pay somewhere between seven and ten life.  I've found there to be a very thin line between overpaying life, and underpaying.  I sometimes only feel like filling my hand up to seven cards, but in a deck that runs force of will and duress I usually need to necro for more to ensure that I get cards that can help me go off on my next turn.  Maybe im playing necro wrong, but I have played a lot of combo and think that I play the card correctly thus maximizing my ability to win the game with it.  It was said to me that necro along with tinker->jar are cards that I will never miss in my deck if I am not playing them, but if they are in the deck they can help.  I completely agree with this, as I don't miss them, but with them in my deck I would also not lose more games than I would without them.

Just to continue de discussion about Infernal Contract.

I used to play Pitch long a lot, and every time I played I.Contract in tournaments, I won right away ... every single time.

I don't know if it has been said already but Nerco have another bad side against Mindslaver.deck, wich is obvisous. My personal  way to beat combo is simply to Slave my opponent as fast as possible and then to tutor Necro and have him drawing 20+ cards.

I agree that playing contract wins the game upon casting, as I said in my previous post it helps me win quicker than necro can.  However I believe the part about necro's bad side against slaver is negligible.  Slaver generally has a bad match against most combo decks.  If you allow them enough time to set up, and get off a slaver activation that means your hand has to be absolute trash or they had to have had a lot of disruption to slow you down.

[ErkBek]

Don't run necro in a field of duress, Infernal Contract is better!

I honestly don't get it at all. Here's how I see the combo bomb hierarchy (excluding tutors)

Yawgmoth's Will
Necropotence
Ancestral Recall
Yawgmoth's Bargain
Wheel of Fortune
Mind's Desire
Tinker / Memory Jar
Timetwister
Infernal Contract (Contract can be better or worse depending on how draw7's play out in your deck)
*****of course this varies slightly with the deck

In my opinion, cutting Necropotence from a deck that can handily cast it largely because of the presence of Duress in the metagame, is almost like cutting Ancestral Recall from combo because many people are running Misdirections.......except worse.

I don't know about you guys, but Necropotence is my favorite card to see in an opening grip. Combo decks can power it out so easily, its just ridiculous. I would say in a given tournament (6 rounds of swiss) I win about 3-4 games on the back of turn 1-2 necropotence.  Honestly, I'd say I win at least 85% of games which necro resolves early, whether I'm playing IT, PL, or TPS.

Something tells me that you guys must be doing something wrong when playing necropotence. I've played the card 100's of times and never once lost to my opponent untapping and casting duress on me, a play that has happened numerous times. I've been fortunate enough that when the duress has resolved I was either not holding a tendrils, they have feared 2x Tendrils and did not take the tendrils, or I was running 2x tendrils. My loses when resolving Necro have generally come from either my opponent dropping a very painful chalice@1 that I was unable to sculpt my hand around, having 2 or more counters the following turn (or Duress + a topdecked counter), a tendrils that was lethal anyways, being slaved, or a sudden lock down on my mana (ie: waste + chalice, waste + 2sphere, etc). Most of time I lost was basically because my opponent had the nuts that I would have lost to anyways.

So back to the Duress vs. a necro. I've got some questions I've got for everyone that cut necro:

What happens if your opponent resolved a turn 1 duress is you are on the play?

What happens if your opponent resolves a duress after a Infernal Contract?
 
What card are you so afraid of having duressed from your necro hands?

Given Cross' list what would you do in this situation vs. the opening.
     -Strand go
     -Your hand is: Lotus, Necro, FoW, Tinker, Cabal Rit, Desire, Grim Tutor (let's say you mulled to 6 and drew for turn already)
     -So you you obviously, play Lotus->Necro which meets a FoW
     -You FoW back, what do you pitch?
     -Necro resolves. How many cards do you go for?

I really think that people must be playing necropotence wrong. It's the most difficult card to play correctly in combo, but probably the most rewarding. In a nutshell, if you are drawing 15 more cards than your opponent, and folding to them on a regular basis, because they have a particular card, then you are probably playing poorly.

[Imsomniac101]

Kobefan, I can't believe you rank Desire that low.

[desolutionist]

Day 1, I played the list that Cross last used at Myriad and can vouch that Gifts and Intuition are not better than the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Grim Tutors; maybe there is something that I'm not realizing?

[Cross]

Passing the turn just seems really bad to me. The deck is just as fast as any other long variant. I have just been really unhappy with necropotence and decided to drop the cards I did not like, including necropotence, the gifts I had in there for awhile and tinker+jar. As Outlaw said dropping a majority of the "all-in" cards makes it more resilient.

I want to make clear that everyone should play the cards you want. I like how the deck plays, and the results speak for themselves. In fact you should play necroptence if you think its better. There are like 5 slots in this deck that are totally configurable, and the deck would be just as good. Like you could play Hill Giants and tarpans and the deck would still pull plenty of weight; however necropotence just wasn't that great for me, whereas infernal contract has been insane. You get 4 cards, your opponent draws none, off a ritual, how you usually play it, it's 2 storm and if you have to pass the turn your still drawing next turn so the card disadvantage tutors still work without brainstorm.

Edit: This list:
Yawgmoth's Will
Necropotence
Ancestral Recall
Yawgmoth's Bargain
Wheel of Fortune
Mind's Desire
Tinker / Memory Jar
Timetwister
Infernal Contract

seems really off to me. Black Lotus, as I said, is the biggest bomb in the deck, and bargain is definitely the second best card in the deck. Will is definitely good, but a resolved bargain gets around anything. Also timetwister seems better to me than the other draw sevens against a lot of decks, and desire is completely retarded.

[Moxlotus]

I really have to ask why everybody is afraid of getting duressed when playing Necro instead of Contract.  Is it because if you resolve Contract you have the chance to draw 4 cards and kill them that turn?

When you are casting Contract do you actually have mana floating to continue to go off?  Cross said that his list kills as fast as PL, so you are spending BBB and 10 life on turn 2 to draw 4 cards and you still have mana to go off consistantly through disruption?  That seems highly unlikely.  Because if you don't, then Necro is pretty much superior since you could have used that 10 life to draw 10 cards instead of 4 and craft your hand to bust through whatever disruption you feel is coming.

I don't know if it has been said already but Nerco have another bad side against Mindslaver.deck, wich is obvisous. My personal  way to beat combo is simply to Slave my opponent as fast as possible and then to tutor Necro and have him drawing 20+ cards

I don't want to be mean, but that's the worst logic ever.  If you slave any player you are going to win the vast majority of the time.  If you slave a combo player, necro or not, you have the game won 95%+ of the time

Also timetwister seems better to me than the other draw sevens against a lot of decks

Twister destroys your graveyard.

I agree that playing contract wins the game upon casting, as I said in my previous post it helps me win quicker than necro can.

I completely disagree with that.  A turn 1 Contract won't win you the game that turn any more than a turn 1 Ancestral would (because you get to keep the Ritual you would be using for Contract so its the same CA).  A turn 1 Necro practically guarantees the win.  A turn 2 Contract has a chance to win you the game that turn but its unlikely unless you drew amazing or are not playing against any disruption.  A turn 2 Necro again practically guarantees the win next turn.  I can see turn 3 where Contract may start getting better, but at turn 3 you are probably out of gas since you should have either killed them already or had your stuff countered.  And if you're out of gas, drawing 4 cards might not be enough so, again, Necro is hot.

You get 4 cards, your opponent draws none, off a ritual, how you usually play it, it's 2 storm and if you have to pass the turn your still drawing next turn so the card disadvantage tutors still work without brainstorm.

Here's where this plan of action would break down.  With necro you just drew 10-12 cards and chances are your card disadvatange tutors are the worst cards in your hand even if you had a draw phase next turn.  If you have to pass the turn, Necro drew you 6 more cards than Contract.

I'm not just typing to be argumentative.  Cutting Necro is a major change in combo design and theory.  I'm not opposed to cutting sacred cows (we cut stuff from IT and swtill believe in them), but I want to understand why you are finding Contract to be better.  Pretty much every example of "would I rather have Necro or Contract" I can think of ends up being Necro with the exception of "if my hand had another dark rit in it and the next 4 cards are Rit#3/Lotus/bomb/card"

[ErkBek]

Cross, you seem really dependent on Bargain. You do realize Necro is a very comparable, except only 3 mana.

I agree with what you said about run the cards you want. I cut a lot of traditional combo bombs when I used to run IT and did quite well because I cut the bad cards.

@ my hierarchy of combo: I excluded mana sources and tutors since I was going more towards threats. I weighted the casting cost of the spells, thus Necro>Bargain. Ever have a Bargain countered? You probably burn 2 rituals playing it, recovering is going to be difficult. If Necro is countered you probably traded 2 for 2, so recovering won't be so bad.

Timetwister is nice and all, but it's not as good as most people give it credit for IMO. Drawing 7 random cards, meanwhile losing your GY can be real problematic. Those random 7 better be good.

Kobefan, I can't believe you rank Desire that low.

Powering out mid-sized Desire just isn't that easy. It's mana cost is clunky, can be difficult to storm up without giving away what you are doing, and simply put it can fizzle really hard.

[Cross]

I really have to ask why everybody is afraid of getting duressed when playing Necro instead of Contract.  Is it because if you resolve Contract you have the chance to draw 4 cards and kill them that turn?

When you are casting Contract do you actually have mana floating to continue to go off?  Cross said that his list kills as fast as PL, so you are spending BBB and 10 life on turn 2 to draw 4 cards and you still have mana to go off consistantly through disruption?  That seems highly unlikely.  Because if you don't, then Necro is pretty much superior since you could have used that 10 life to draw 10 cards instead of 4 and craft your hand to bust through whatever disruption you feel is coming.
 

I think duress is really bad to see no matter what cards you are running in your combo list. Duress is not the reason that I am playing contract, but there are situations that occur when, after you have necro-ed, your opponent duresses you, and it really sucks, though again, not the reason I cut Necro.

As far as having mana floating it’s not really difficult to have other mana with the deck, it’s not like contract is 6 mana, it’s only three black, and the deck is built to produce black mana. As with all decks there are situations where you don’t have mana floating, but unless you’re casting this on your first turn, you probably have access to other mana, some of which is probably black.

Also, if Contract resolved then it probably resolved through protection. Most people are not going to let you draw 4 cards with any deck.

Also timetwister seems better to me than the other draw sevens against a lot of decks

Twister destroys your graveyard.

I like Brassman’s theory on this card: Twister is great if you are losing. With all decks you are not always winning, and sometimes losing you graveyard is better than losing the game. I’ve used this just to kill lethal jotun grunts, and to screw up gifts when I could not go off. The utility of this card, especially in the face of graveyard hate causes me to rank this higher than other draw sevens, which help your opponent a lot more than twister.

I'm not just typing to be argumentative.  Cutting Necro is a major change in combo design and theory.  I'm not opposed to cutting sacred cows (we cut stuff from IT and swtill believe in them), but I want to understand why you are finding Contract to be better.  Pretty much every example of "would I rather have Necro or Contract" I can think of ends up being Necro with the exception of "if my hand had another dark rit in it and the next 4 cards are Rit#3/Lotus/bomb/card"

I understand your thoughts here, and I don’t think you’re being argumentative. I think our line of reasoning is not as scientific as people would like it to be. The conversation that led up to these changes was something along the lines of:
Gagooch: You know I think I want to cut Necro.
Me, really depressed because I just lost a game after whiffing on a Necro day 1 of Waterbury, which knocked me out of day 1 contention: Actually I was thinking that, it’s been really shitty for me.
Gagooch: sounds good.

The deck runs fine without it, its stormed 3 tournaments so far, so I am not sure what I am missing. Maybe I was playing necro wrong as you suggested, but I am playing the deck fine without it, so I don’t see a reason to put it back in.

Cross, you seem really dependent on Bargain. You do realize Necro is a very comparable, except only 3 mana.

They’re comparable in their mechanic, but Bargain is %1000 better for obvious reasons. Also, I am not dependant on it, rather I just find it an easier way to win in the meta-game through graveyard and other focused hate, something that necropotence does not do nearly as well.

I agree with what you said about run the cards you want. I cut a lot of traditional combo bombs when I used to run IT and did quite well because I cut the bad cards.

That’s a refreshing point of view, and I commend this.

@ my hierarchy of combo: I excluded mana sources and tutors since I was going more towards threats. I weighted the casting cost of the spells, thus Necro>Bargain. Ever have a Bargain countered? You probably burn 2 rituals playing it, recovering is going to be difficult. If Necro is countered you probably traded 2 for 2, so recovering won't be so bad.

This is delving into personal opinion, but I consider Lotus to be a threat, Lotus makes everything else in the deck happen, so even in a list of threats Lotus is my number one. I understand the card advantage argument of Necro as far as it being countered, but I’m not playing bargain because if it gets countered it’s worse than having Necro countered, but rather that if bargain resolves I win immediately most likely, whereas if Necro resolves I win next turn most likely.

[Smmenen]

I was asked to post in this thread and discuss my thoughts on the Necro v. Contract debate.   For that reason, aside from the following question, I'm going to leave behind all of the various and intriuiging questions this list raises aside from the Necro v. Contract question.

The inspiration for the list actually comes from TPS lists from like 2 years ago, the only difference being that it ran full a set of cabal rits and grim tutors. Obviously IT and pitchlong have been successful and are also good sources of inspiration.

I'm am generally curious what you are talking about.    Grim Tutor has only been legal for a year and a four months.  What TPS list from two years ago ran Grim Tutors?  It would not have been legal if it had.   And I don't recall any TPS list running Grim Tutor, ever actually.   The first two combo decks to run the card were first Grim Long (my version and others attempting it early - I recall some reflection Oath/Grim Long lists) and IT.

The persons who asked me to intervene may find this surprising: but I completely understand the omission of Necro in this list.   

1) Anything but turn one Necro is really a liability in Vintage nowadays.   At SCG Roanoke, Paul Mastriano repeatedly complaind to me that he was losing games with Necro resolving.   That's because, frankly, the control decks are much faster than they have ever been.   Both Gifts and Slaver can blow you out on turn three, two and even turn one (very rarely, but still possible).   Turn two Necro is only a winner a slight majority of the time and often a risk.   

2) Only turn one Necro is really GG anymore.   In contrast, Contract is always good.   turn one, turn two, turn three, whenever - it's going to be good.   

3) In addition, this deck is full to the brim of things that do you damage.  Without Tinker, Jar, and Draw7s, what are you going to play off Necro?   Basically things that do you damage and a few random bombs like Desire.    Most of your "threats" are weak after Necroing: your Contracts are poor, your Grim Tutors eat into your life quite a bit, and Bargain is dead.   Conversely, Necro is dead when drawn off a Contract.   

[Largent]

Kobefan, I can't believe you rank Desire that low.

its because desire has 2 blue in the cost, you pretty much never want to see desire in the opening hand unless you have the absolute nuts and usually the only time you cast desire is when you win with pretty much any business spell anyways be it a bargain, necro, will, tinker, tutor, draw 7, etc...

[Cross]

I was asked to post in this thread and discuss my thoughts on the Necro v. Contract debate.   For that reason, aside from the following question, I'm going to leave behind all of the various and intriuiging questions this list raises aside from the Necro v. Contract question.

I would be interested in what those questions are.

On the necro debate…

That’s actually a pretty good analysis of why one over the other.

Edit: Steve asked me what list I was referring to as far as inspiration.


The Absolutely Perfect Fucking Storm

4 Polluted Delta
3 Underground Sea
1 Tolarian Academy
3 Island
2 Swamp
1 Flooded Strand

1 Timetwister
4 Force of Will
4 Duress
2 Tendrils of Agony
1 Mind's Desire
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Yawgmoth's Bargain
4 Dark Ritual
1 Black Lotus
1  Lotus Petal
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Sol Ring
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Brainstorm
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Necropotence
1 Rebuild
1 Time Walk
1 Gifts Ungiven
1 Tinker
1 Time Spiral
1 Memory Jar
1 Cunning Wish
1 Frantic Search
1 Chain of Vapor

This was the list I found when I was looking for old TPS lists. It was Justin Branfield's list from Waterbury 6 I believe, and it was 2nd that day. I started with a similar shell and just immediately cut all of the bad cards, and worked out from there. As I said earlier, there is also obvious influence from recent developments like pitch long and IT.

[NWI Team_Zilla]

Hi Cross,
I have one question.  When you building/testing your version of long, did you think that Necropotence was sub optimal and put Contract in stricty as a replacement for the necropotence ---or over the course of testing did you have both and felt that Necropotence was the wrong card for *your version* of the deck and Contract was left in simply because it worked well for you and not to take on the role of the previously cut Necropotence?

As Gaagooch said that Necropotence was very underwelming in what you considered to be a metagame that consisted of many decks packing 3-4 Duress, and even may have been unimpressed by Necropotence hitting the table later than turn 1 as Smmenen suggested.  So if you added in the Contract as a replacement for the Necro in a meta characterized by 3-4 Duress, then you and Outlaw made a good meta call and it payed off for you.  This raises some questions about you reasoning behind that call, but gennerally it is inferred that you and Outlaw feel that Necro is generally good except in that specific meta game ending any and all debate over the subject.  If you feel that currently, necropotence is just underwelming in any enviroment and you simply took the deck in a direction that further optimizes it in this new enviroment than an explanation of which card is better or why the Necro is excluded is frivalous because you have apparently done well with your build of the deck in situations where the Necro-toteing long varients just haven't.  Your top8 performanaces with the deck or evidence and justifacation enough.

Props to both yourself and Outlaw on your finishes and the slight long innovations you made.

Thank you,
NWI

edit: Mixed up what Cross and Gaagooch said, fixed now.

[Gaagooch]

Hi Cross,
I have one question.  When you building/testing your version of long, did you think that Necropotence was sub optimal and put Contract in stricty as a replacement for the necropotence ---or over the course of testing did you have both and felt that Necropotence was the wrong card for *your version* of the deck and Contract was left in simply because it worked well for you and not to take on the role of the previously cut Necropotence?

I think that you have allready explained this, but for reference you (and probabaly Outlaw) said that Necropotence was very underwelming in what you considered to be a metagame that consisted of many decks packing 3-4 Duress, and even may have been unimpressed by Necropotence hitting the table later than turn 1 as Smmenen suggested.  So if you added in the Contract as a replacement for the Necro in a meta characterized by 3-4 Duress, then you and Outlaw made a good meta call and it payed off for you.  This raises some questions about you reasoning behind that call, but gennerally it is inferred that you and Outlaw feel that Necro is generally good except in that specific meta game ending any and all debate over the subject.  If you feel that currently, necropotence is just underwelming in any enviroment and you simply took the deck in a direction that further optimizes it in this new enviroment than an explanation of which card is better or why the Necro is excluded is frivalous because you have apparently done well with your build of the deck in situations where the Necro-toteing long varients just haven't.  Your top8 performanaces with the deck or evidence and justifacation enough.

Props to both yourself and Outlaw on your finishes and the slight long innovations you made.

Thank you,
NWI

I actually made the remark about there being a lot of duress in the current meta when I was asked why I did not run necro.  I have been testing the deck along with cross and outlaw and thought that to be very strong reasoning.  However as I have previously said I do not view this as a one or the other type situation, I have played both in a deck.  I just feel that necro isn't that good in this particular deck, steve made some very good points of which I tend to agree.

[Cross]

Hi Cross,
I have one question.  When you building/testing your version of long, did you think that Necropotence was sub optimal and put Contract in stricty as a replacement for the necropotence ---or over the course of testing did you have both and felt that Necropotence was the wrong card for *your version* of the deck and Contract was left in simply because it worked well for you and not to take on the role of the previously cut Necropotence?

I had both in for a bit, they were both in my Myriad list and in my Waterbury day 1 list, but Necro was cut after that. Contract even at Myriad was completely amazing, Necro lacked in pretty much every tourney I played it in.

I would still be interested in Steve's further questions:
Quote from: Smmenen on February 04, 2007, 02:38:35 AM
I was asked to post in this thread and discuss my thoughts on the Necro v. Contract debate.   For that reason, aside from the following question, I'm going to leave behind all of the various and intriuiging questions this list raises aside from the Necro v. Contract question.

[Smmenen]

Hi Cross,
I have one question.  When you building/testing your version of long, did you think that Necropotence was sub optimal and put Contract in stricty as a replacement for the necropotence ---or over the course of testing did you have both and felt that Necropotence was the wrong card for *your version* of the deck and Contract was left in simply because it worked well for you and not to take on the role of the previously cut Necropotence?

I had both in for a bit, they were both in my Myriad list and in my Waterbury day 1 list, but Necro was cut after that. Contract even at Myriad was completely amazing, Necro lacked in pretty much every tourney I played it in.

I would still be interested in Steve's further questions:
Quote from: Smmenen on February 04, 2007, 02:38:35 AM
I was asked to post in this thread and discuss my thoughts on the Necro v. Contract debate.   For that reason, aside from the following question, I'm going to leave behind all of the various and intriuiging questions this list raises aside from the Necro v. Contract question.

Most the questions I had in mind I thought were so important that I try to answer them in my article next Monday.  In short, it's an analysis of the fragmentation and hybridization of Yawgmoth's Will strategies (and strategies that complement yawg will).   

[Moxlotus]

One criticism

3) In addition, this deck is full to the brim of things that do you damage.  Without Tinker, Jar, and Draw7s, what are you going to play off Necro?   Basically things that do you damage and a few random bombs like Desire.    Most of your "threats" are weak after Necroing: your Contracts are poor, your Grim Tutors eat into your life quite a bit, and Bargain is dead.   Conversely, Necro is dead when drawn off a Contract.   

Everything involving Necro's loss of life after drawing 10 cards is the same downfalls that a Contract drawing 4 cards does.

[Cross]

I was unable to go due to car problems, but apparently my teammate Outlaw top 8'd at yesterday's Myriad Games, which had an impressive 37 players.

[moxpearl]

Nice deck, and compliments on its success.

First, some additional comments on the Necro vs. Infernal Contract:
* It's technically 5 (not 4) cards vs. 10, because with Infernal Contract, you'll get your draw phase. 
* You can also play artifact-mana and 1cc tutors prior to discard.
* Having a draw phase can be huge with mysty and vamp.
I'm not saying Necro shouldn't be in the deck, because it probably does, but it can be a difficult card to play.  I haven't been a big fan of Necro either, but maybe that's because I haven't mastered balancing aggressiveness vs. patience with the card.  Is there an article or thread out there on typical cards drawn with turn 1/2 Necros against Stax and Gifts?

Why no LED?

Also, with ETW coming in post-board, do players generally board out the necro?  It doesn't seem to fit in there, particularly since you can't gain life to keep Necroing and you need to live a 1-2 more turns.

Last, to Cross, I'm very curious about the Leyline of the Voids.  I think someone else asked about them.  I'm curious what decks you bring them in (besides the obvious Ichorid)?  Other than bringing in one more Duress, it seems Leyline is the only possible other card you might bring in against Gifts, which is probably one of your worse matchups.  Why not crypt or planar void?

[Cross]

Why no LED?

Gagooch has played with it. I don’t like it, as its usefulness is dependant on the rest of your hand. It’s better with more draw 7s, which I have mostly cut.

Last, to Cross, I'm very curious about the Leyline of the Voids.  I think someone else asked about them.  I'm curious what decks you bring them in (besides the obvious Ichorid)?  Other than bringing in one more Duress, it seems Leyline is the only possible other card you might bring in against Gifts, which is probably one of your worse matchups.  Why not crypt or planar void?

Leyline were there specifically for the hype that ichorid received before Waterbury, mainly due to Steve’s articles and lengthy threads on the subject. Obviously it hits dragon to, but dragon was largely absent from the meta. As far as I can tell, this above any other card hoses ichorid the best, plus it's easy for you to hardcast.

[mongrel12]

I've been testing this deck very extensively over the past couple of days, and there's one slot that's been consistenly sub-par for me every time I've drawn it: Intuition. In the absense of even a single Deep Analysis, or Coffin Purges out of the board, it seems like the card is really out of place. I understand that it was used in IT fairly effectively, but every time I've drawn it, its been a win-more card, rather than something that I'd like to topdeck more than say, Gifts Ungiven. Has anyone experimented with a Deep Analysis in one of the Infernal Contract slots? I used it a couple of years back in some TPS builds and was rarely unhappy to draw it. Skeletal Scrying is also another possible substitution (probably the best of the three options IMO, but I will test more and get back to this thread).

How has 3 versus 4 duress been working out, especially in a post-extirpate metagame?

Other then that, this build looks really good--it definately melds some of the best aspects of TPS/IT, and Grimlong.

[Implacable]

How has 3 versus 4 duress been working out, especially in a post-extirpate metagame?

I just want to address one thing here; we are not playing in a post-Extirpate metagame.  No one has, as of yet, begun to even use the card and put it into a good place in a tournament.  When someone does add it to a deck and posts a tournament result, that will be the time to begin talking about it.

[nataz]

Both outlaw and Andy ran 4x extirpate to a top 8 at myriad on sat.

[Implacable]

Both outlaw and Andy ran 4x extirpate to a top 8 at myriad on sat.

Then I eat my words and spit.  At the time of my posting, however, I had not seen any results with Extirpate.

[nataz]

As a bit of a tease, I wanted to let people know that I have a video interview with speed from the GG's on why they cut necropotence from the deck. Check the tournament reports later in the week for the full clip.

[wox2]

I have a question connected with your ETW postboard plan. I tried Scullclamp in my Two Warrens funnyGifts list and it was not so bad especially against stax.I remember one game when I casted small warrens, skullclamp, draw some cards, played Rebuild-get another mana, played Time walk, attacked, played Will and Casted large warrens With time Walk then my opponent showed me Volcanic Spray. I was thinking that I will won thanks to warrens, because stax has problems with them but then I realised that I will loose with only warrens. And now I see your four warrens plan... Is Skullclamp so bad idea?