[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays: The Return of Burning Long!

[arj]

I just had to buy the article to see the list. I like the deck a lot. I used to pilot the old pitch long decks to several pieces of power. It was one of my favorite decks. Not sure if I like the second list better than the first. Simian Spirit Guide against shop is just so insanely good.

Anyway I have a few questions.

- Why Duress over Thoughtseize? Given that Thoughtseize can take Thalia
- Might be interesting to test Silence instead of duress, given so much draw7
- What are your thoughts on maybe using flusterstorm instead of Duress? I can be used to generate insane storm levels, making it much easier to go off
- Could you comment on the lack of bounce, how have you faired against hate decks? Especially thalia, Null Rod and the like.

[BC]

Just a couple more notes on our testing:  We played 4 pre-board games.  We split 2-2, with the person on the play winning each game.  I think we only played 3 post-board games, with me going 0-3.  I think I was on the play for 2 of the games.  I wouldn't call it a large series of games, but it was enough for me to get a feel for the matchup.  I played my Gencon list with the following changes: Maindeck -2 Karn, -2 Ratchet Bomb, +4 Sphere.  Sideboard -3 Sphere, +3 Ratchet Bomb.  My sideboard strategy was -3 Trike, -3 Revoker, -1 Crucible, +4 Grafdigger's Cage, +3 Ratchet Bomb.  After these games I switched to Grixis Control and we played either 3 or 4 pre-board games, and I won 1.

[Smmenen]

I just had to buy the article to see the list. I like the deck a lot. I used to pilot the old pitch long decks to several pieces of power. It was one of my favorite decks. Not sure if I like the second list better than the first. Simian Spirit Guide against shop is just so insanely good.

Anyway I have a few questions.

- Why Duress over Thoughtseize? Given that Thoughtseize can take Thalia
- Might be interesting to test Silence instead of duress, given so much draw7
- What are your thoughts on maybe using flusterstorm instead of Duress? I can be used to generate insane storm levels, making it much easier to go off
- Could you comment on the lack of bounce, how have you faired against hate decks? Especially thalia, Null Rod and the like.

The key reason I run Duress instead of Flusterstorm or Silence or Orim's Chant is that your mana supply is very tight, and it's important to sequence disruption accross turns.  You can't possibly shut the opponent off from all disruption, nor is that your goal.  Instead, what you want to do is weave a pattern around their disruption and find their bottlenecks.   Also, you aren't trying to win on one big turn (although you are doing that), but rather wear them down and grind them out until you eventually win on one big turn.  

With enough experience you will begin to perceive and sense -- without knowing for certain -- where those bottlenicks are and when that will happen. 

One of the most incredible things I've learned about this deck is how bad Jace is against it.  When my opponent plays Jace, I'm almost always pleased that they spent their resources casting Jace rather than keeping up mana for disruption.  It's very easy to blitz past Jace with this deck. 

[evouga]

Stephen,

An interesting read as always.

Moreso than CotV @ 0, I'm concerned about the softness of the deck to Stony Silence. Unless I'm missing something, an early Silence leaves open very few viable lines of play. Even in the optimistic scenario where you're not under additional pressure from Thalia/Wasteland/Ghost Quarter, the two-mana tactic is a turn 3 out, and one for which Fish has several strong answers. Have you had a chance to do any testing against Fish? What were your observations?

[Smmenen]

Every deck has a weakness, and this one is no different.   Yes, Stony Silence is probably this decks Achilles heel.  But if you beat Shops, Grixis Conrtrol, and Dredge, you have to lose to something, no? 

[Cruel Ultimatum]

basically the way this deck plays out is you play bombs every turn until your opponent runs out of counterspells and then they lose. It is a very powerful strstegy since it forces your opponent to play your game,  but one I am not particulary fond of. the rainbow manabase also scares me to death since I live in ny...

This article lays a lot of the groundwork for the burning wish/ritual strategy, and I wouldnt be suprised to see myself playing this style of deck in the near future.

[Smmenen]

basically the way this deck plays out is you play bombs every turn until your opponent runs out of counterspells and then they lose. It is a very powerful strstegy since it forces your opponent to play your game,  but one I am not particulary fond of. the rainbow manabase also scares me to death since I live in ny...

yes, but the sheer quantity of moxen should provide solace against all of your workshop nemesi  

The Moxen -- esp. rainbow moxen, like the ones I use -- actually make the strategy you outlined viable since you can reuse them the next turn.  The other component of it is the variety of threats and how narrow countermagiic has become.   Half of your threats can't be countered by Flusterstorm (Bargain, Necro, Jar, [redacted], etc).  

And Mental Misstep doesn't stop you from going:  Mox, Mox, Land, Windfall , Mox, Mox, Burning Wish on turn one.    

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Deck looks really cool Steve...

Did I miss this somewhere, but was all of your shops testing vs "sphereless" shops lists? I know in our east coast meta game shops players are often maxing out on spheres....this may be much worse for this deck? Sorry if I missed this and it was already addressed...

[Smmenen]

No, BC had Spheres maindeck.  He posted the changes from his Gencon list in the last page of this thread. 

I also tested against Kuldotha MUD with Heiner, and went undefeated post board on the draw in a shorter set of games (although I lost one of the games on the play). 

[desolutionist]

this is palpatine at his finest

[Smmenen]

this is palpatine at his finest

Controls feeble skills....

[arj]

Moreso than CotV @ 0, I'm concerned about the softness of the deck to Stony Silence. Unless I'm missing something, an early Silence leaves open very few viable lines of play. Even in the optimistic scenario where you're not under additional pressure from Thalia/Wasteland/Ghost Quarter, the two-mana tactic is a turn 3 out, and one for which Fish has several strong answers. Have you had a chance to do any testing against Fish? What were your observations?

Just as a good fish player will know this and play accordingly, so must you. You need very explosive hands against these kind of decks or you end up dying a slow death.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

I had a testing session of landstill vs this deck last night and went 7-3 against it pre board. Landstill has all the free counters this deck doesn't want to face and has waste lands to attack the mana base at the same time. Additionally after stopping this deck on a big turn engineered explosives clears all of the mox mana. Landstill isn't that popular but I obviously play it and it is well positioned against this deck...

[Guli]

Didn't see the list, so I can not give feedback on that. But I do support this queste of yours Stephen. I would like a more combo meta and a bit less workshop. Thalia is probably going to be very important to give the Beats deck a fair fight against Wish long or Burning Long with rituals. I can only think of Mental Misstep and turn 1 Thalia and it has to lead to an intense match up (also thinking on the importance of Stony Silence since you run mass accelleration). Keep up the good work and get this combo in the meta top tiers!

[Grand Inquisitor]

I do support this queste of yours Stephen

I think this is good work too.  Innovation of ritual strategies is something Steve has a particular knack for and I think to the extent that the metagame becomes more diverse, the better.  I could do without the dramatic pronouncements, but people will always argue on style  

I think the choice to seek out Blaine for additional evidence of how the deck might perform against a weakness is a great move and I'm glad Josh has followed up.  I think this kind of pattern could be a great help towards having higher-level discussions about Vintage on this site, and I just wanted to throw a virtual high-five to those that are pushing it.

[Smmenen]

I had a testing session of landstill vs this deck last night and went 7-3 against it pre board. Landstill has all the free counters this deck doesn't want to face and has waste lands to attack the mana base at the same time. Additionally after stopping this deck on a big turn engineered explosives clears all of the mox mana. Landstill isn't that popular but I obviously play it and it is well positioned against this deck...

I thought you were playing Empty Gush recently   You should test against that

Seriously, though, the test deck in this article would be much stronger against Landstill since you get access the card that Josh Butker pwned you with at the Vintage Prelims .   If the metagame is more Landstill and less Workshop, that would be my recommendation for Burning Tendrils pilots. 

Given how difficult Long is to actually play, and how expert you are with Landstill, a 7-3 match result in your favor is actually a really strong result for Long and demonstrates how strong the deck inherently is.   

Take a less strong Landstill player and the matchup is probably closer to even.  Take an expert Long player, and well...

[Elric]

I just want to comment that testing 8-10 (or even 20) games shows very little statistically unless the results are extremely mismatched. And if you claim that one deck is extremely favored over another one, people naturally will doubt whether your testing was an accurate guide to the matchup. For much more detail, see http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=20129.0.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

I had a testing session of landstill vs this deck last night and went 7-3 against it pre board. Landstill has all the free counters this deck doesn't want to face and has waste lands to attack the mana base at the same time. Additionally after stopping this deck on a big turn engineered explosives clears all of the mox mana. Landstill isn't that popular but I obviously play it and it is well positioned against this deck...

I thought you were playing Empty Gush recently   You should test against that

Seriously, though, the test deck in this article would be much stronger against Landstill since you get access the card that Josh Butker pwned you with at the Vintage Prelims .   If the metagame is more Landstill and less Workshop, that would be my recommendation for Burning Tendrils pilots. 

Given how difficult Long is to actually play, and how expert you are with Landstill, a 7-3 match result in your favor is actually a really strong result for Long and demonstrates how strong the deck inherently is.   

Take a less strong Landstill player and the matchup is probably closer to even.  Take an expert Long player, and well...

HAHA yeah I was testing vs Rich Shay piloting this deck. The games I lost went as follows, 2 of the games he resolved a draw 7 early and my draw 7s had zero counters even having mana up to cast drain...but no lol. The other loss was to a turn 1 oath orchard while I was holding trap, misstep, sebotage, wasteland, etc.

I think one of the largest disadvantages of a deck like this is no basic lands. Doomsday gush has a mana base which can't be touched. This long deck opens up my mana denial strategy where as that is dead vs doomsday gush...

I do agree against other randoms running landstill a good long pilot will win more compared to mine and Rich's results. There were some tough decisions I had while playing against this deck and a lot of people picking up landstill would not play properly...

[Smmenen]

There is no doubt that you make trade-offs in design.   Xantid Swarm dramatically shores up matchups like Landstill, but impedes your ability to execute other important tactics for other matchups.  People will need to make metagame calls.  As I said before, the metagame is always iterative and dynamic.  Weaknesses can be built in but need to be accounted for in other times and other places. 

[Guli]

I want to add,

If this deck is so hard to play with, and on top if the skill level of the pilot is also a factor, then this leads me to the next remark:

Shouldn't we assess the decks strenght by factoring in these two important factors. I mean the deck 'an sich' is not going to play itself. I am sure this discussion has been made in the past but it does seem a relevant question when promoting a deck, which you are. Ok you offer tools, insight and guidelines, which is awsome, but...

In the final assessment, I think we should be consequential and not just say the deck is awesome and strong. Just stay objective and factor those two important criteria when you are giving a grade and scaling the deck in the current meta game. If you did this in your article, then I am fine with it.

[Smmenen]

The reason this deck is difficult to play is not just the inherent complexity in the lines of play (which is certainly true), but the unfamiliarity many players will have with the key tactics and the overall strategic approach.   Cards like Memory Jar or Wheel of Fortune haven't seen play in modern Vintage in several years at this point.  And decks that throw bombs turn after turn are different than decks, like TPS or Doomsday, that seek to set up a single bomb and protect the hell out of it. 

That's why a good part of this article was skill building: trying to show how to play this deck with examples and key principles of play. 

[Guli]

The reason this deck is difficult to play is not just the inherent complexity in the lines of play (which is certainly true), but the unfamiliarity many players will have with the key tactics and the overall strategic approach.   Cards like Memory Jar or Wheel of Fortune haven't seen play in modern Vintage in several years at this point.  And decks that throw bombs turn after turn are different than decks, like TPS or Doomsday, that seek to set up a single bomb and protect the hell out of it. 

That's why a good part of this article was skill building: trying to show how to play this deck with examples and key principles of play. 

I see, so what is the learning curve, in your opinion, to master this deck?

From what I understand, once mastered, this deck should be first pick if one is going for a tournament win. If it is not that hard to learn, and not expensive to gather the cards, I see a worthy investment. Plus the deck is probably filled with bombs and feels very 'eternal'. (fun)

[hitman]

Nice job, Steve. Time for me to dust off the Rituals. It's been a long time.

[median]

Very glad I bought this, good job. Also my first purchase of premium content, and based on what I read, not my last.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

So, an extremely competent long player (the guy's won a lot of power over the years with toa, and has top 8'd worlds) was playing this list against my 4 flusterstorm 3 drain deck, we played about 10 (usually we play more though) games last night, and it didn't really seem in favor of long, much to my surprise. It's the second control deck I've paired against long in testing with the unfavorable results for burning long. Day one was over 20 games. Both days, the weak link seems to be Steve's super secret 4 of main deck anti-shop tech, except for literally one game. Yes, I kept count. Personally I love the card so I'm a little dissapointed and was excited to see it in the return of rituals. Now, I'm not a particularly stone cold nuts drain pilot here either, but I ain't too shabby. Before I start ripping sections of the burning long list out, I just want to ask, has anyone had the same experience, the opposite experience, neutral? Blatantly, do you guys think my 30 some games generated anamolous data?

[Smmenen]

It probably just depends.  If the Control deck has more countermagic and harder forms of countermagic (like Spell Pierce instead of Mental Misstep), then the matchup probably becomes closer or worse for Long.  If the Control deck has Mystic Remora and Mindbreak Traps, it's probably a bad matchup.

Just to clarify, I didn't really make any claims until late in this thread.  I said in the OP nothing more than "The result is what I believe to be a top deck in the metagame."  I only later added that I had done substantial testing and specificed what some of that was.  In almost all my testing against Grixis Control I had sets that were basically X-1 or X-2 in favor of Long.  But that doesn't mean anything for other matchups.  

I think there has been a case of "It's not what you say, it's what people hear" if you look at GI's reply (about my broad pronouncements) and I think some of what the Moes bros said in their podcast.  I didn't really make any claims (except perhaps later this thread -- and only in the most general way) except to specifically talk about some specific (and not all) testing sessions.  

If you want to play the list that has the best control matchup, play the Test Deck in the article.  

[President Skroob]

It probably just depends.  If the Control deck has more countermagic and harder forms of countermagic (like Spell Pierce instead of Mental Misstep), then the matchup probably becomes closer or worse for Long.  If the Control deck has Mystic Remora and Mindbreak Traps, it's probably a bad matchup.

Just to clarify, I didn't really make any claims until late in this thread.  I said in the OP nothing more than "The result is what I believe to be a top deck in the metagame."  I only later added that I had done substantial testing and specificed what some of that was.  In almost all my testing against Grixis Control I had sets that were basically X-1 or X-2 in favor of Long.  But that doesn't mean anything for other matchups.  

I think there has been a case of "It's not what you say, it's what people hear" if you look at GI's reply (about my broad pronouncements) and I think some of what the Moes bros said in their podcast.  I didn't really make any claims (except perhaps later this thread -- and only in the most general way) except to specifically talk about some specific (and not all) testing sessions.

I've simply seen too many lopsided testing results on this forum and elsewhere. I can point to a bunch of different threads in the deck discussion forums where decks that nobody has seen perform in a tournament (then or since) claim wins with ridiculous regularity against anything in the format. I tend to think that anyone who sits down with the specific goal of finding out how a deck performs in certain matchups has an inherent bias, and that bias comes out. Even a real opponent has some idea of what they want to find from the exercise, and it's hard to draw the line on where the expectations made manifest end and the deck's true strengths begin.

I'm not calling out anyone specific (and I think that I'm the one who's really making the callout on the podcast), or even calling out anything specific to this list; there's just been a decent amount of numbers coming out about this list so it's become a discussion point.

I'm a doubter.

[Smmenen]

My point is that I think people read too much into what I said.   The OP never really made any claims, other than I said that this could be a top deck in the metagame, and later in the thread some of the specific testing results were shared on behalf of far less substantial claims than I think people read into them.

That's why I cited Frank Lutz book title, "It's not what I said, it's what people hear," - because, for example, I didn't offer the post-board Workshop testing results to prove or establish a claim that my deck "doesn't lose to Workshops," but to show that it is capable of beating a top Workshop pilot.   When I said that I went undefeated post-board against BC, I wasn't claimining that my deck has a 100% win matchup against Shops post-board, yet someone reading into it might think that.

My point is that my sense is that people inferred claims that I never actually made except as obviously hyperbolic or in jest/fun.  

It's one of those instances where people say "I disagree with you," but I don't think we are actually in agreement on what the statement in contention is -- or it is certainly less than clear what that might be.   To use an example: This deck is capable of beating a top Workshop pilot post-board on the draw =/ this deck doesn't lose to Workshops post-board  on the draw.  

You'll notice that the article doesnt make any Matchup claims at all.  Contrary to perception, I actually rarely make specific matchup claims. 

There is a disjuncture, often, between what I say, and what people think I say.  And alot of those 'doubts' appear to apply to apply to claims I never actually made.  That's all I'm saying.  

[vaughnbros]

I don't think people were making inferences that your writing didn't suggest.  

I said that this could be a top deck in the metagame

This statement has the implicit premise that your deck has good match ups across the meta game.  

Your last post makes it seem like you are kind of back peddling on that original statement.  I don't think you should jump off the bandwagon just yet.

While I personally don't think that your build is optimized, not a fan of a 5 color mana base or oath, I do think you at least laid the foundation for what can be done with this style of deck.

You've created a shell for the plan A that takes a little less than 50 cards in the main deck and about 2/3 slots in the sideboard to give you great pre and post board match ups against everything except for counter heavy blue decks and workshops.  Even though those are probably the two most important match ups of the format you're left with a ton of main deck and sideboard space to work on these match ups.  If someone can put the right plan B and answers in these 10+ main deck slots and 10+ sideboard slots I think this deck could definitely be a major player.

[Smmenen]

Believe me, I'm not back peddling.  This deck is unbelievable.  I'm just not making any specific claims about particular match ups, just sharing my testing.  I would play this in a heartbeat if there were a tournament nearby.