TPS players

[TheBrassMan]

I totally get that you used to like TPS and now you don't. I used to not like TPS and now I do.

The reason I play TPS over a super consistent Gush strategy is because, for me, TPS has consistently beat Gush decks. That is not an argument that TPS is better than Gush, but that it has a good matchup against it. I did not get similar results with a variety of other, noncombo lists I tested. I play TPS on mtgo specifically because I've found it to be a good decision in that metagame - which is heavily saturated with Gush decks. I can conceive of lots of environments in which it would not be a strong decision.

It feels like my experiences with the deck recently don't line up with other people's expectations - but it's hard to tell from the posts whether those expectations are based on theory or results.

Of course, if you have been playing the deck and not getting those results, it is not a good choice. If you just don't like playing the deck, regardless of results, it is not a good choice.

I understand that you don't enjoy playing with or against TPS right now - there are many decks in vintage, current and historical, that I have not enjoyed playing with or against. While you are absolutely free to enjoy the kinds of games you want, it only hurts your case to combine that with your strategic argument. "This isn't fun" doesn't explain which matchups are good or bad, and obviously doesn't help players reading the thread, who have their own opinions about which games are enjoyable.

[jamestosetti]

I actually really enjoy playing with TPS. One of my major complaints is that creature strategies can shut off the Necro plan. I've played against enough Gush decks to know that the lists that resemble older TPS versions fair pretty well against them. I am sure that Defense Grid makes the match even better. When a ton of Pyroblasts started showing up things got a little more complicated though. I still believe TPS is as good as any deck, but not nearly as many players attempt to pilot the deck in a tournament. That will naturally cause a much lower top 8 percentage for the deck. I would play TPS in any tournament with no problem, and still be hopeful that I am going to win. I must admit though, Mental Misstep can give you some bad days when you are playing with rituals.

I prefer TPS builds with three FOWs at the moment. I have better result with the them than without. The lists that I was testing seemed fairly close to playing at a level that could be taken seriously, but I think they were about three cards off. This Summer I will try to find out what they might be. Again, I think it is just that fewer people play with this deck.

[desolutionist]

I'm trying to stick to positive contributions here.  Just strongly believe "fun" is a valid topic since that is the reason we play games: to have fun.  I'll stop mentioning it after this post.  Just let me try and clarify my view.

When I say it "isn't fun" I'm directing that information towards someone who may just be beginning to develop a local vintage scene; this deck quite possibly would scare away potential Vintage players.  I think it's unhealthy for new, developing vintage metagames because it attempts to bypass a lot of what makes Vintage "fun": the high level of interaction.

I'm a member of a new, developing metagame and I have realized that Dark Ritual is a terrible deck to bring.  Not only do I have tremendous difficulty against Dredge decks packing 12 Counterspells but it doesn't actually accomplish anything against the novice players; We both already know I'm going to win so the Ritual approach is just kind of pointless and maybe a little selfish.

The reason it is un-fun is linked to it being sub-optimal, strategically.  Similar to playing an 80 card deck, a lot of it is unnecessary.  You don't need Dark Ritual to win with Yawgmoth's Will.  So how is going in on a Draw7 a better plan than sticking a Mentor?  Certainly the latter has more room in the deck for customization and thus discussion.  

So maybe we can just forget everything I've said up until now and discuss this fundamental:

What is the point of Dark Ritual in this deck?  Its a bad card in a vacuum, so does having a couple mid-range restricted cards really make it deserving of its own archetype?  What if you could use those mid-range restricted cards effectively, without Dark Ritual.  Wouldn't that be a better deck in theory?  I honestly don't think anyone has ever considered cutting Dark Ritual from "TPS".

Also for this discussion, if Empty the Warrens and Grapeshot are related to Tendrils of Agony than so should Monastery Mentor.  It's still basically the storm mechanic...

They could print this card:

Better than Ritual
B
Instant
"This card owns Gush decks hard"

And people would still play the standard TPS shell strictly for nostalgic reasons.  Nostalgia might be the reason its played today the way its played.

[jamestosetti]

 I think the advantage Dark Ritual has is that it not only ramps, but it also causes mana to be a bottleneck resources. Sometimes your opponent just can't play anymore spells, but you can just play another bomb. This is the strategic advantage. I do think the strategy is valid, but not quite as effective as it once was. This is where Flusterstorm trumps the strategy. If they have one mana, they do not need all of the mana to keep up with what you are doing. Its just part of the give and take of the game. TPS is kind of like a stepping stone anymore. Learning the lines helps you out in a lot of other decks. I stick with Gush Tendrils anymore because in the end I am still chaining ten spells together. Gush just gives me more consistency. However, I am still using ramp, its just not a blatantly obvious as a Dark Ritual. Sol Ring, Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, Fastbond, and Gush can provide ritual effects more than once. It is essentially the same strategy, but it is more resilient to getting its spells countered. I am not saying drop TPS for Gush Tendrils, just that they are essentially doing the same thing with different cards.

[Hrishi]

Different people's definitions of what constitutes fun may not coincide with your idea of what is fun. For this reason it is absolutely pointless to have a discussion on the "fun" aspect of any deck because different people enjoy different things. Additionally, if your aim is to win, presumably your fun comes from winning. In the end, fun is a subjective quantity.

You make the statement to someone new that this deck "isn't fun", but it "isn't fun" in your point of view. Apparently the concept that fun is a subjective quantity seems to be lost on you. I find Delver to be an absolutely boring deck to play, but I'm not going to go over to a thread talking about the Delver deck and thrust my beliefs on people. I strongly suggest you stop doing so as well. If you do not enjoy TPS, then feel free to pick up another deck to play and talk about whichever deck you so desire in the appropriate section. I'm sure there are plenty of "fun" decks for you to pick up.

On topic, the advantage Dark Ritual has over Gush is celerity. One of the ways to beat Gush decks is to win before they overwhelm you with their card advantage. By attempting to accelerate into a win, you attempt to circumvent the card advantage they are about to gain over the course of the game. Dark Rituals allow you to do that. For this reason, a properly metagamed TPS deck has a favorable matchup against a deck packing Gush as it's acceleration/card draw/etc. The problem arises when you are faced with Workshops. If you could reasonably dodge Workshops in a given event, you could metagame TPS to power through most of the Gush-based decks in existence, but sadly in many areas this is simply not possible.

What is the point of Dark Ritual in this deck?  Its a bad card in a vacuum

This is also a ridiculous statement. In a vacuum, Dark Ritual is a great magic card. It is the presence of spheres and mental misstep that makes it not so good.

[The Atog Lord]

You make the statement to someone new that this deck "isn't fun", but it "isn't fun" in your point of view. Apparently the concept that fun is a subjective quantity seems to be lost on you.

Absolutely.

This whole discussion of whether this deck is fun is meaningless.

Drop it, desolutionist.

[Aardshark]

So I've noticed a slight resurgence lately in TPS lately with Dark Petition, further assisted by the banning restriction of Chalice of the Void. Can anyone who's played the deck comment on how it deck plays, and some of the choices. In particular, I was wondering
why (at least some of) the lists exclude Jar?
whether the 3rd and/or 4th Dark Petition are truly better than mystical tutor and/or grim tutor?
whether colossus belongs in the main?
why 4x hurkyl's recall (both main and sideboard) and no chain of vapor?
is 4 defense grain main truly necessary?

Most of all, wondering how good this deck is? It's put up some results, but the sample size is pretty small. I'm having a hard time seeing how DP adds that much over grim tutor, mystical, etc so as to make TPS strong again, but I'd love for it to be true!

[matori]

whether colossus belongs in the main?
why 4x hurkyl's recall (both main and sideboard) and no chain of vapor?

I am not TPS player, but I played few games against it lately and regarding these 2 questions I can say :

whether colossus belongs in the main?-> Definitely  yes. You can Tinker it very fast if your other win conditions are not available due to some kind of disruption.
why 4x hurkyl's recall (both main and sideboard) and no chain of vapor? -> You are returning your own cost artifacts to build storm counter with only 2 mana

[Aardshark]

why 4x hurkyl's recall (both main and sideboard) and no chain of vapor? -> You are returning your own cost artifacts to build storm counter with only 2 mana

Thanks for the quick reply! In my experience Chain of Vapor (sacrificing lands) has built storm and raised mana more efficiently, at least on or after turn 3. But maybe Hurklyl's is better because its less all-in? Or maybe bouncing workshop's board is more important than anything chain of vapor can do?

[TheBrassMan]

Just my take on the questions you raised (I'm sure there are a variety of opinions on these, though)

why (at least some of) the lists exclude Jar?

I can't speak for everyone, but Jar suffers a lot of the same problems that other Draw 7's do - unpredictability. Jar is powerful, but leaves a lot up to chance - different players have different amounts of risk-tolerance when going off, and Dark Petition allows an almost unprecedented amount of surety when going off (I guess 4 wish Long was comparable). When you go with tutors you leave nothing to chance, whereas Jar requires you not to whiff off seven. It's still very powerful though, and I wouldn't say it's incorrect to run it.

whether the 3rd and/or 4th Dark Petition are truly better than mystical tutor and/or grim tutor?

For me it's a clear yes. The one mana difference between GT and DP (assuming spell mastery) is a really good deal. Anecdotally, I used to like running Grim Tutor, but I never wanted to see more than one of them - when I switched to 1/2 DP's I found myself wanting to draw more. I'm not convinced 4 is the correct number in every list, though.

Mystical Tutor is sort of in a different boat. The topdeck tutors (Vampiric Tutor and Imperial Seal included) have always been weak against counters. Often their best use against a counter-heavy deck would be tutoring for a counter-resistant card - the key piece being Mind's Desire. The influx of new counters in the past few years has really weakened it - which has nothing to do with Dark Petition at all. Mental Misstep, of course, happily goes after Mysticals, but more importantly, the card you get with Mystical is less likely to resolve. The most important difference though, might be Flusterstorm. With Flusterstorm (and to a lesser extent, Mindbreak Trap) being particularly common right now, Mystical->Mind's Desire is nowhere near the haymaker it used to be against control decks - and decks are more controlling than ever. All of this applies to Vampiric Tutor too, and some of my lists have cut that as well - but they're both still powerful cards that still have a lot of value in some matchups.

whether colossus belongs in the main?

This is likely a personal preference issue. For a while Colossus was pretty terrible - mostly because of Dack Fayden, but removal like Swords to Plowshares is at an all time high. These things seem to be backing off a little now, but we'll see how the meta shakes out. Personally I like to sideboard but not maindeck Colossus (when I'm not running a less traditional list like Mentor-TPS). The decision to run Colossus or not is also very affected by your choice to run Jar, when you're running one of those two, the cost to run the other one is a lot less (I've actually run tinker-colossus-jar all in the board before, and brought one or both in in different matchups)

I've heard some combo players refer to alternate wins like Colossus (or mentor) as "Training Wheels" (I've heard them say the same about Tendrils #2) - but I don't see it that way. It adds an orthogonal angle of attack that your opponent may have to split their resources to stop - I think it's worth playing with until you find out whether it fits your game plan smoothly, it's easy enough to cut later if you find yourself never getting it.

why 4x Hurkyl's Recall (both main and sideboard) and no chain of vapor?

Short answer: Chain isn't very good against shops.

Hurkyl's Recall fills a very different role in the deck than Chain. Yes, Chain and Hurkyl's can both generate storm, but they're both first and foremost defensive cards. (If you seriously had nothing to remove, you'd be far better suited running more rituals or tutors or disruption than a storm generator). Hurkyl's is an anti-shops card, plain and simple ... likely the best available.

Chain of Vapor is more of a "catch-all" - but catch-all's are, by definition, not great against anything in particular. I wouldn't be running Chain of Vapor myself without some specific card that I'm afraid of - but depending on your list, you might have valid reasons to be afraid of, say, Leyline of Sanctity, or Stony Silence - which Chain is reasonable against (but personally I prefer other strategies to answer those cards).

The lists that are running 4 Hurkyls/0 Chain are reacting to the pre-chalice-restriction meta, where shops was considered by many to be the best deck choice, and was clearly the worst matchup for TPS. It's hard to say if that's still the case, with the post-chalice meta still unsettled. I think running the old 1 Hurkyl's/1 Chain maindeck might be more reasonable these days - but I absolutely would not assume that suddenly shops became a good matchup ... it's just a lot less common now.

is 4 defense grain main truly necessary?

Compared to other disruption, Defense Grid is real real real good against Mental Misstep, Flusterstorm, Pyroblast and Mindbreak Trap. It is quite good (though not as good) against any other counter, like Force of Will, Mana Drain, Spell Pierce. It's bad against discard and mana denial, like Duress, Cabal Therapy, Null Rods. Whether 4 maindeck is correct or not is a function of your metagame - but I will say that there are definitely metagames where it is correct. If you're walking into a field of Delver, for instance, Defense Grids can make most of their deck look pretty silly.

Worth mentioning though, you can't just throw 4 defense grids in any list. It should be pretty obvious what works and doesn't work with Defense Grids, but you probably don't want to end up with say, 4 D-Grid and 4 Force and 4 Misstep in the same list. I'm sure you can figure out good replacements

Most of all, wondering how good this deck is? It's put up some results, but the sample size is pretty small. I'm having a hard time seeing how DP adds that much over grim tutor, mystical, etc so as to make TPS strong again, but I'd love for it to be true!

Don't ask me! The meta is crazy in flux right now. I don't think anyone knows where things are going to settle yet. Depending on where they do, TPS could end up being a great choice or a terrible one. Personally I like aggressive decks in wide metas, so I think TPS, or other storm combo, is a fine choice right now.

[Aardshark]

Thank you for the detailed response! These all make sense. I definitely need to play with DP more to get a feel for its strength (this is true in both Vintage and Legacy).

One question I forgot to ask is what's up with the Wastelands and Strip Mines in the sideboards of recent TPS lists. Is this the new answer to Dredge, now that their portfolio includes dark depths? Or is their another explanation for this tech? Seems sorta bizarre on its face, since we're not a tempo deck in any traditional sense. 

[ObstinateFamiliar]

Thank you for the detailed response! These all make sense. I definitely need to play with DP more to get a feel for its strength (this is true in both Vintage and Legacy).

One question I forgot to ask is what's up with the Wastelands and Strip Mines in the sideboards of recent TPS lists. Is this the new answer to Dredge, now that their portfolio includes dark depths? Or is their another explanation for this tech? Seems sorta bizarre on its face, since we're not a tempo deck in any traditional sense. 

They're for the shops matchup.  A lot of older lists had additional basics in the board for the shops matchup.  I think replacing them with Waste/Strip makes sense in this case since most DP lists already have 2-3 basics maindeck and boarding in more probably wouldn't do much.  They might have some utility against dredge but personally I find the best strategy against Dredge is to just race them -- I don't think blowing up their Bazaars/Depths is really want to be when you're playing Storm combo.

 

[TheBrassMan]

I'll echo what ObstinateFamiliar said - the Strip/Waste is there for Shops matchups - basically where other people might run basics in their sideboard, TPS usually has a decent basic count, and Strip effects serve a similar function, while sometimes stealing a game against an unlucky draw.

It's not plan A against dredge by any means - but if you have other cards just doing nothing in the matchup (Thoughtseize and Defense Grid come to mind), it's not a bad card to bring in and fill that space.

That's just my interpretation, though - my understanding is that the 5 strip sideboard is an Adrian Becker innovation, I'd be happy to have him weigh in on the subject

[Aardshark]

Interesting. I remember back before loadstone golem was printed, the standard sideboard plan for vintage storm (both TPS and grim long) versus shops was to sideboard into 4-6 bounce spells and 2-3 additional basics, even though you had 2-4 basics main. The idea being that they could play out their lock pieces, but as long as you could develop your manabase without being disrupted you had a good change of eventually resolving a bounce spell with mana to go off before smokestack or crucible/strip mine locked you, or one of their critters clocked you out. With this plan, you wanted to have a bunch of basics (especially islands), to provide a super-stable manabase to both fetch and draw naturally.

I thought the consensus was that loadstone golem made that plan much weaker, though some still played it as there wasn't an alternative that was clearly better. (Loadstone golem arguably marked a turning point for non-hybrid storm as a strong tier 1 deck, though the printing of strong 1cc countermagic also contributed.)

But whatever the current merits of this plan, it's counter-intuitive to me that playing strip effects that don't produce colored mana, and are themselves vulnerable to wasteland (albeit often at a two-for-one cost), would make it better. I'd think that the odd game where you are able to stunt their development and they can't recover in time would be more than offset by those games where you open yourself up to having your own development disrupted. After all, they are a dedicated mana denial deck. Nor do I see how the restriction of chalice does much to change this equation.

But there must be something to the strategy, or it wouldn't be catching on.

[Islandswamp]

Interesting. I remember back before loadstone golem was printed, the standard sideboard plan for vintage storm (both TPS and grim long) versus shops was to sideboard into 4-6 bounce spells and 2-3 additional basics, even though you had 2-4 basics main. The idea being that they could play out their lock pieces, but as long as you could develop your manabase without being disrupted you had a good change of eventually resolving a bounce spell with mana to go off before smokestack or crucible/strip mine locked you, or one of their critters clocked you out. With this plan, you wanted to have a bunch of basics (especially islands), to provide a super-stable manabase to both fetch and draw naturally.

I thought the consensus was that loadstone golem made that plan much weaker, though some still played it as there wasn't an alternative that was clearly better. (Loadstone golem arguably marked a turning point for non-hybrid storm as a strong tier 1 deck, though the printing of strong 1cc countermagic also contributed.)

But whatever the current merits of this plan, it's counter-intuitive to me that playing strip effects that don't produce colored mana, and are themselves vulnerable to wasteland (albeit often at a two-for-one cost), would make it better. I'd think that the odd game where you are able to stunt their development and they can't recover in time would be more than offset by those games where you open yourself up to having your own development disrupted. After all, they are a dedicated mana denial deck. Nor do I see how the restriction of chalice does much to change this equation.

But there must be something to the strategy, or it wouldn't be catching on.

The best performing TPS deck at Vintage champs was using the land-destruction sideboard plan. It works well, otherwise people wouldn't be using it.

[Hrishi]

While I am not saying that the plan is not going to remain strong, I would not take vintage champs results as anything to go by. The format is completely different from that time. No chalice for shops makes the basics+bounce plan a lot more attractive.

[Zieby]

I use when not playing with red the following:
4x Steel Sabotage
4x Hurky's Recall

After boarding in any storm deck (must say I have also 4 FOW) and that worked even with chalice unrestricted.

This should be even stronger at this moment due to cotv.

[Stormanimagus]

I use when not playing with red the following:
4x Steel Sabotage
4x Hurky's Recall

After boarding in any storm deck (must say I have also 4 FOW) and that worked even with chalice unrestricted.

This should be even stronger at this moment due to cotv.

I'm not sure that force of will is really needed in current iterations of storm. I'd sooner run 4 duress, 3 Therapy and 4 git probe to clear the way before "going off." Force is card disadvantage that the deck can't really afford in my opinion.

-Storm

[PeAcH]

I have tested with

4 Duress
4 Defense Grid

Package has proven really really strong vs. 14-16 counters.deck. I think that´s the way to go.

However, after some testing the opponent counter deck starts to play the aggressive role and try to go faster than  you. And he can do it because you don't have any disruption apart from Duress.

That has made me think that maybe we could main deck FOWs and board Grids for certain matchups, because the other way around is a problem when opponent knows you are not playing FOWs.

The range of hands your opponent keeps is pretty different (like 1st turn Tinker or Tezz, Oath, etc...)

[Hrishi]

I have tested with

4 Duress
4 Defense Grid

Package has proven really really strong vs. 14-16 counters.deck. I think that´s the way to go.

However, after some testing the opponent counter deck starts to play the aggressive role and try to go faster than  you. And he can do it because you don't have any disruption apart from Duress.

That has made me think that maybe we could main deck FOWs and board Grids for certain matchups, because the other way around is a problem when opponent knows you are not playing FOWs.

The range of hands your opponent keeps is pretty different (like 1st turn Tinker or Tezz, Oath, etc...)

This has been my experience as well. I've never been comfortable playing without more disruption. Defense Grid does not really count as disruption until you are going off. I have been trying FoW + Duress and 3 Grids in the board. Have you also been trying something like that? This is especially noteworthy against decks that have ways to win out of nowhere.

Another option is to go heavy on discard like 4 Duress + 3 Therapy or something like that.

[Jostin123]

I just played Storm this past weekend at the Comic Book Depot's Monthly 1k event, to test it in a shop heavy meta.  I played my decklist on the fly because testing with defense grids was not getting me the results I wanted.  I played 2/2 split of Thoughtseize and duress and 3 cabal therapy and they were golden all day.  They were much better than force because the card disadvantage didn't rack up, and quit honestly, seeing their hand is more important than countering their spell.

In sideboarding, I had 4 extirpate in the board, but only brought 3 in (4 diluted the deck too much), swapping git probe for them.  These, in tandem with the discard were just golden, giving me two play options:

With Hands that were slow, I could cast a bait spell,  let it get countered and sit back knowing I could just strip out that counterspell anytime I want and get free info when I'm ready to go off because of split second while their sculpting their hand to deal with me...

Or

I could play and aggressive hand, use my discard to strip out counters then and there and play extirpate before a draw 7 to up the storm count and just limit the number of options they'll draw into that can interact with me.

Either way, it gets around misstep, is a great answer to fluster with the draw 7s and discard, can be used to pull Win cons out of decks if you hit lucky and need the time (pyromancer/ mentor, I'm looking at you), gives you free information, can be used proactive to neuter the efficiency of gushes, and can shut down library for a number of turns while you result your hand if you couldn't go off.

[Aardshark]

I have tested with

4 Duress
4 Defense Grid

Isn't defense grid + discard a bit of a nombo, in that defense grid essentially limits them to playing 1 (cheap) disruption spell per turn, of which a counter-heavy deck is likely to draw multiples?  Certainly defense grid can be fine on its own, but it seems stronger paired with counter-magic like FOW, fluster, which force them to use their mana.

[cYnic]

I use when not playing with red the following:
4x Steel Sabotage
4x Hurky's Recall

After boarding in any storm deck (must say I have also 4 FOW) and that worked even with chalice unrestricted.

This should be even stronger at this moment due to cotv.

I'm not sure that force of will is really needed in current iterations of storm. I'd sooner run 4 duress, 3 Therapy and 4 git probe to clear the way before "going off." Force is card disadvantage that the deck can't really afford in my opinion.

-Storm

I feel like Dark Petition lists don't have enough things you don't mind pitching to Force either to make it reliable enough to have force+x as your primary plan. However the discard package leaves you super exposed against shops, so I'm not happy with that going into an irl tournament either.

[Stormanimagus]

FoW rarely saves the day vs. shops though is the thing. Cards that DO are cards like hurks or steel sabotage. FoW is a bandaid that rarely leverages you to a win vs. a deck that plays only value lock pieces. You are trading 2 cards for their mana and 1 copy of a card they run 3-4 of more than likely. A good shop pilot can easily play around FoW.

-Storm

[desolutionist]

I like FoW vs. Shops because its the cheapest possible way to stop a Lodestone Golem.  You can't effectively Hurkyl's EOT if they're going to attack for lethal; so keeping threats like Lodestone off the table contributes to Hurkyl's.

Its also a great tempo play. If the rest of your hand is a win, Forcing that Sphere effect on the draw is something Steel Sabotage cannot do.

Of course FoW is bad in the long game, but its purpose in the Shops match is to stop them turn 1, so you can win on your turn 1.

[Space_Stormy]

FoW rarely saves the day vs. shops though is the thing. Cards that DO are cards like hurks or steel sabotage. FoW is a bandaid that rarely leverages you to a win vs. a deck that plays only value lock pieces. You are trading 2 cards for their mana and 1 copy of a card they run 3-4 of more than likely. A good shop pilot can easily play around FoW.

-Storm

Agreed.  FoW in storm is a thing of the past.  The cards we have now support the Discard plan far better and you want to Hurkly's Recall all of your opponent's lock pieces back to their hand rather than 2 for 1 yourself.

[ObstinateFamiliar]

I'm not going to make any absolute statements like "no force in storm ever" but I will say I have tested it quite a bit and my experience has been:

1) It weakens your blue matchup significantly -- to the point that it honestly might not even be a positive matchup anymore. You are not going to Force your threats through against decks packed with pyroblasts, missteps, etc. Hopefully I don't need to explain that any further.

2) It doesn't help the shops matchup as much as you might think. Ok, they had a t1 golem and you forced it pitching one of the other non-mana cards in your hand. Now what? Sure, sometimes you can win with the remaining 5 or draw into a win but I don't think "nut draw my opponent" really counts as a valid anti-shops plan

3) It requires you to run enough blue cards to support force, some of which may not be totally optimal in terms of advancing your primary gameplan. If you're running quad laser preordain, missteps, etc...maybe try cutting the rituals for gushes and the tendrils/bargain/necro for mentors and see if that doesn't work out a bit better.

I could go on but I have to run to work and I think the point should be clear enough. You are playing ritual storm. You WILL get blown out by a good shops draw a lot of the time. There's no real fixing that. Luckily, shops doesn't always draw the nuts and not everyone plays shops. Think about how you're winning *those* games and I think you'll see why Force might not be good here.

[Chaam]

So I'm playing in a Vintage tournament on Friday this week and I am trying to decide between GushBond and BurningTendrils. Any thoughts on my BurningTendrils list?

Tutors/Cantrips (17)
4x Burning Wish
4x Dark Petition
1x Demonic Tutor
4x Gitaxian Probe
1x Ponder
1x Ancestral
1x Brainstorm
1x Vampiric Tutor

Bombs/Tutor Targets/Win Conditions (8)
1x Mind's Desire
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Timetwister
1x Wheel of Fortune
1x Windfall
1x Yawgmoth's Will
1x Necropotence
1x Yawgmoth's Bargain

Mana (28)
1x Black Lotus
1x LED
1x Lotus Petal
1x Mana Crypt
1x Mana Vault
5x Mox
1x Sol Ring
4x Dark Ritual
2x Cabal Ritual
1x Badlands
4x Polluted Delta
1x Scalding Tarn
1x Tolarian Academy
3x Underground Sea
1x Volcanic Island

Interaction (7)
4x Duress
2x Thoughtseize
1x Hurkyl's Recall

Sideboard (15)
4x Defense Grid
2x Swamp
1x Island
3x Hurkyl's Recall
2x Empty the Warrens
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Thoughtseize
1x Void Snare

[ObstinateFamiliar]

Err...so you're main decking 4 Burning Wish and your wish board contains Thoughtseize, Void Snare, Empty, and Tendrils? And you're also running 4 Dark Petition? Don't take this the wrong way but...have you ever played Vintage storm before?

[Jostin123]

I'm not going to make any absolute statements like "no force in storm ever" but I will say I have tested it quite a bit and my experience has been:

1) It weakens your blue matchup significantly -- to the point that it honestly might not even be a positive matchup anymore. You are not going to Force your threats through against decks packed with pyroblasts, missteps, etc. Hopefully I don't need to explain that any further.

2) It doesn't help the shops matchup as much as you might think. Ok, they had a t1 golem and you forced it pitching one of the other non-mana cards in your hand. Now what? Sure, sometimes you can win with the remaining 5 or draw into a win but I don't think "nut draw my opponent" really counts as a valid anti-shops plan

3) It requires you to run enough blue cards to support force, some of which may not be totally optimal in terms of advancing your primary gameplan. If you're running quad laser preordain, missteps, etc...maybe try cutting the rituals for gushes and the tendrils/bargain/necro for mentors and see if that doesn't work out a bit better.

I could go on but I have to run to work and I think the point should be clear enough. You are playing ritual storm. You WILL get blown out by a good shops draw a lot of the time. There's no real fixing that. Luckily, shops doesn't always draw the nuts and not everyone plays shops. Think about how you're winning *those* games and I think you'll see why Force might not be good here.

There's to much blue vs blue in the format for TPS to want to fight on the same axis.  My experiences are similar when it comes to counters vs discard.  If my discard spell gets countered -Oh well"  that's one less spell aimed at my bomb.  If it resolves, the free information is critical and you set them back.  Either way, you're kinda winning those small battles.  I also have to say, although it's not that difficult to do, the discard spells turn on spell mastry a lot more easily and efficiently, and in a more timely fashion than force if you're playing with DP.