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

[Onslaught]

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?

Same experience for me, I think the list was a great starting point but I've since dropped the Oaths. Maybe I have a fundamental flaw with how the archetype is meant to be played, because I view it as beating the opponent over the head with bombs until one of them resolves. Oath is a do nothing card for one turn, possibly two, and it might be dead completely if they don't have Bob or you don't have an Orchard. Burning Wish for Show and Tell for Griselbrand is a cute 5 mana, 2 card combo, but I'd say either focus completely on Show and Tell (like multiple maindeck copies in additions to one in the board) while running 3 Griselbrand and just cutting Oath/Griselbrand completely.

The main thing to take away from this deck is that Ritual combo decks moving forward should have a ridiculous amount of artifact mana, it's really the best part of this list.

[brokenbacon]

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?

Same experience for me, I think the list was a great starting point but I've since dropped the Oaths. Maybe I have a fundamental flaw with how the archetype is meant to be played, because I view it as beating the opponent over the head with bombs until one of them resolves. Oath is a do nothing card for one turn, possibly two, and it might be dead completely if they don't have Bob or you don't have an Orchard. Burning Wish for Show and Tell for Griselbrand is a cute 5 mana, 2 card combo, but I'd say either focus completely on Show and Tell (like multiple maindeck copies in additions to one in the board) while running 3 Griselbrand and just cutting Oath/Griselbrand completely.

Hahaha I was waiting for someone to tell me what the super secret tech was. Now I'm saving my $5 - I only have $8 in my bank account anyway.

[Onslaught]

Oath was mentioned earlier in the thread in testing results too, you could have felt smug about your decision not to purchase it a long time ago.

[Guli]

I think the Oath plan is for Workshop. Show and Tell might be too hard to cast in that match up.

[brokenbacon]

Oath was mentioned earlier in the thread in testing results too, you could have felt smug about your decision not to purchase it a long time ago.

Hahaha I was just kidding around my friend, Oath is a common "super secret tech" card (see Probasco's Gush Tendrils from however long ago). No offense was meant, just joshing

[Smmenen]

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?

Same experience for me, I think the list was a great starting point but I've since dropped the Oaths. Maybe I have a fundamental flaw with how the archetype is meant to be played, because I view it as beating the opponent over the head with bombs until one of them resolves. Oath is a do nothing card for one turn, possibly two, and it might be dead completely if they don't have Bob or you don't have an Orchard. Burning Wish for Show and Tell for Griselbrand is a cute 5 mana, 2 card combo, but I'd say either focus completely on Show and Tell (like multiple maindeck copies in additions to one in the board) while running 3 Griselbrand and just cutting Oath/Griselbrand completely.

One of the reasons I was reticent to expound on a particular matchup is because archetypes themselves are so fluid.   A deck with 2 Drains, 2 Flusterstorm, 2 Mental Misstep, and 4 Force is very different for this archetype than a deck with 3 Drains, 4 Flusterstorm, X Misstep, and 4 Force.   It may be the case that a deck with few cards difference may tip the matchup, for some players, one way or the other in testing circumstances.   People may even be moving (subconsciously even) to a more counter heavy build to provide more help against you.  

One of the reasons I abandoned TPS a few years back is because blue control had sped up so much that TPS was not only modestly faster than Control decks, which did not offer enough in a trade off to offset consistency and other disadvantages.   TPS had a turn 2.5 or so fundamental turn, which was only a half or full turn slower than Control decks.  When Gush was unrestricted, the idea of playing TPS became absurd on its face.  You could not only play Gush decks instead, but if you really wanted to play with cards like Necro or Doomsday, you can easily support them with Lotus Cobra or without Rituals instead.   The post-Innistrad, Maniac Doomsday deck that I created for and top8ed the Waterbury last year with is a good example of the latter.   The Cobra Gush deck I played at Vintage Champs this year is a good example of the former.  

This deck has is much, much faster.  If you just goldfish my deck you will find yourself Goldfish winning on turn one a measurable percentage of the time.  With the "Test Deck"even more so.  I did a very small sample size, but in one set of 5 games, I noted goldfishing on turn 1 two of those five games.  I decided it was silly to try to count any further.  Obviously, the suggested deck will not be goldfishing at the same rate as the Test Deck.  That number is probably even higher if you have Tendrils maindeck and not just Empty the Warrens, like the test deck. The point is that this deck offers such blistering speed -- in no small part because of the benefits/efficiency offered by Burning Wish -- that it is you have a very different orientation to the Control opponent than a deck like TPS.  

I think there is almost no stronger evidence of this fact than the relative tepidness and inertness of an opposing Jace.  Jace is usually a gigantic bomb that takes over the game in almost every matchup except Long.   Here, Jace is a 4 mana Brainstorm, almost at best.  I've destroyed opponents through Jaces more times than I can count at this point.    

The point I am making is that I have been consistently defeating Grixis Control and its variants with the list in testing, against strong opponents like Heiner and BC and other test partners, but I cannot, on that basis alone, draw sweeping conclusions since people vary their lists so greatly.   I can say that there are fundamental reasons to believe that this deck can compete, and it has to do with key tactical advantages.   This goes to something someone said earlier:

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.  

No, what it implies is one of two things:  Either 1) that my deck is competitive across the top matchups, and/or 2) that it has some good matchups across the top of the metagame.

I believe both statements are true, but the more important statement is (1).   This deck can compete with the top tiered decks, namely Grixis Control, Workshops, and Dredge (the 3 decks that dominated the Vintage Champs).  Of course, I believe this deck is better than just being competitive (however you take that), but it is not really my style to make matchup claims or assertions, for a number of reasons.  First of all, I support the cause of fighting internet hyperbole.   Secondly, I realize that my experience and skill with this deck may not create the same match results as many of my readers.  I know for a fact when playing this -- despite my decade plus experience with this archetype -- that there are plays that ordinary players would normally flub or not make.   In fact, I often have to really work through difficult situations.  Consult decisions, DT targets, how much to Necro for -- and far more -- are really heavy decision intensive choices that I can only imagine less skilled or experienced players probably mess up all of the time.   Now, I've done my best to ameliorate this problem by really teaching skills in this article, but I can only do so much in an article.  What eventually is acquired is a way of thinking.  

I may add this to a future addenda, but one of the things that you need to learn with this deck eventually is viewing your deck and sideboard holistically, and, in fact, viewing all of your cards in that way.    What I mean by that is that you really need to be conscious of all of your cards -- what you have seen and what you haven't.    For example, suppose it is mid-game, and you have a choice between playing a Draw7 and something else.   What I think about are the following things:

* How many cards are left in my library?
* Have I seen the Lotus yet?  The LED?  (if your library is 30 or less cards, a draw7 might have a good chance of drawing one or both of them, etc).
* How many B. Wishes have I seen?
Etc.

Similar questions are posed when deciding what to Consult for, or whether to Consult.  Consult is one of the most important cards in any (ahem, good) Burning Wish deck.  Yet, it is a very tricky card, as I mention in this article.   There are 3-4 unrestricted cards you can often Consult for, B. Wish being obvious.  But there are even restricted cards you can consult for, but under certain circumstances, and you have to know what those are.  For example, if you have two B. Wishes in hand (or one in hand and one in the GY), you can Consult for Black Lotus aggressively, and you only lose the game if its in the top 6 cards of your library.  In any case, you get the idea.  You have to be thinking about the almost every card in your deck and sideboard all of the time.  Folks who played Burning Long back in the day or Death Long will know exactly what I mean.   This was even more true back then because these cards could retrieve exiled cards.  

Re: The Test Deck.   The Test deck is poorly named, but I encourage folks to practice with that deck, especially against Control.  I should have called this deck "Pure Long" because that's really what it is. The Test deck is the Long deck that is the modern incarnation of original Long.  It's probably the best way to get stronger with the non-Oath components of the deck and learn how to rely on Draw7s.  I suspect that what may be happening is that some people are probably using Oath too much.   Oath is just another tactic in this deck, unless you are facing Workshops, in which case it is more strategic.   The point is I think folks could really benefit from playing that deck more in terms of getting stronger with this archetype.   Practice practice practice!  You will also dramatically improve your Control matchup, however you may find that.

Re: secret tech (lol). Obviously there are no secrets here, but I would say there isn't one thing here that is innovative or not intuitive, but several areas and many specific cards, I and think the positive reader response from the very beginning of this thread on illustrates that.

The main thing to take away from this deck is that Ritual combo decks moving forward should have a ridiculous amount of artifact mana, it's really the best part of this list.

The artifact mana is a huge part of this deck and some of my key innovations.   As I've said many times now, the artifact mana not only gives you game against Shops, but it gives you reusable mana against Control, unlike Rituals, which, once used, are expended.   The many examples I give in this article are great illustrations of this idea.  But this idea isn't new.   The original Long relied heavily on 4 LEDs.   That's one reason I think this deck is not strictly inferior to original Long.dec.  This deck can, in many ways, be just as fast, without having to play around countermagic in the same way or use janky cards like Chromatic Sphere.  Instead, you get the insane artifact acceleration I included.  

Maybe I have a fundamental flaw with how the archetype is meant to be played, because I view it as beating the opponent over the head with bombs until one of them resolves. Oath is a do nothing card for one

I think you get it right in terms of understanding how this deck is to be played, but I don't agree with your point.   In terms the approach you describe, I really tried my best in the primer to explain just that idea.   The first principle I lay out and even label in this article is "dropping bombs."   That said, the idea that Oath isn't a bomb because it does nothing for a turn isn't true.  Necro doesn't win the game the turn it comes into play.  And in many, if not most, cases, neither does Jar either.  I view Oath as a card that people do have to counter, and it's just another tactic in that way.  Your opponent doesn't know don't have Orchard, if you don't, etc.  

The key though is that you want to have a range of threats and bombs.   One thing I like about this deck is how you turn certain otherwise powerful countermagic, like Flusterstorm, into useless or weak in certain situations.  Necro, Oath, Bargain, and Memory Jar cannot be stopped by Flusterstorm.  And so on.   It's all about interfacing tactics.  

[desolutionist]

With "TPS", you never Draw7 with XX floating; with this deck you do.  Aye?

[Onslaught]

One of the reasons I was reticent to expound on a particular matchup is because archetypes themselves are so fluid.   A deck with 2 Drains, 2 Flusterstorm, 2 Mental Misstep, and 4 Force is very different for this archetype than a deck with 3 Drains, 4 Flusterstorm, X Misstep, and 4 Force.   It may be the case that a deck with few cards difference may tip the matchup, for some players, one way or the other in testing circumstances.   People may even be moving (subconsciously even) to a more counter heavy build to provide more help against you.

Def, but even before Burning Wish showed up I've been playing against a lot more decks with 3-4 Flusterstorm main. The majority of my testing has taken place vs a deck with x4 Flusterstorm, so that is what I've focused on beating.

I think there is almost no stronger evidence of this fact than the relative tepidness and inertness of an opposing Jace.  Jace is usually a gigantic bomb that takes over the game in almost every matchup except Long.   Here, Jace is a 4 mana Brainstorm, almost at best.  I've destroyed opponents through Jaces more times than I can count at this point.

Yeah it's a great feeling, I've always loved that about Ritual decks. Duress and just ignore their Tinker or Jace because you know they won't matter in time...  

One thing I like about this deck is how you turn certain otherwise powerful countermagic, like Flusterstorm, into useless or weak in certain situations.  Necro, Oath, Bargain, and Memory Jar cannot be stopped by Flusterstorm.

This is the main problem I have with Oath. Against decks playing Flusterstorms, I never want to draw it. I just don't think it is a good enough tactic against them, even when taking into account the strategic Value of Oath against Workshops. I'd rather have a nicer manabase, 5+ freed up slots, and more business against a deck packed with counterspells than run the Oath package. Not that one way is better than the other, I just have a different metagame in mind.

[Smmenen]

With "TPS", you never Draw7 with XX floating; with this deck you do.  Aye?

For sure.  That's another big difference.  That's also a benefit of LED.

One of the reasons I was reticent to expound on a particular matchup is because archetypes themselves are so fluid.   A deck with 2 Drains, 2 Flusterstorm, 2 Mental Misstep, and 4 Force is very different for this archetype than a deck with 3 Drains, 4 Flusterstorm, X Misstep, and 4 Force.   It may be the case that a deck with few cards difference may tip the matchup, for some players, one way or the other in testing circumstances.   People may even be moving (subconsciously even) to a more counter heavy build to provide more help against you.

Def, but even before Burning Wish showed up I've been playing against a lot more decks with 3-4 Flusterstorm main. The majority of my testing has taken place vs a deck with x4 Flusterstorm, so that is what I've focused on beating.

Why? Are you a sadist?    Seriously tho -- I thought I was the only person who actually played 4 Flusterstorm decks (like my Grixis Control or my Cobra list).  I thought no one else actually played 4 Flusterstorm decks.

But again, play the Test deck.   Xantid Swarm maindeck, and more in the side.  Laugh at Fluster.

I think there is almost no stronger evidence of this fact than the relative tepidness and inertness of an opposing Jace.  Jace is usually a gigantic bomb that takes over the game in almost every matchup except Long.   Here, Jace is a 4 mana Brainstorm, almost at best.  I've destroyed opponents through Jaces more times than I can count at this point.

Yeah it's a great feeling, I've always loved that about Ritual decks. Duress and just ignore their Tinker or Jace because you know they won't matter in time...  

One thing I like about this deck is how you turn certain otherwise powerful countermagic, like Flusterstorm, into useless or weak in certain situations.  Necro, Oath, Bargain, and Memory Jar cannot be stopped by Flusterstorm.

This is the main problem I have with Oath. Against decks playing Flusterstorms, I never want to draw it. I just don't think it is a good enough tactic against them, even when taking into account the strategic Value of Oath against Workshops. I'd rather have a nicer manabase, 5+ freed up slots, and more business against a deck packed with counterspells than run the Oath package. Not that one way is better than the other, I just have a different metagame in mind.

I'm not sure why tho.  Flusterstorm decks aren't typically that fast, not even UR Delver, which can be blindingly quick.  I don't mind playing Oath and passing the turn any more than I do playing Jar or Necro and passing the turn.  Once it's on the table, you have a huge strategic advantage that you can really milk to your benefit.  Oath is also a cheap way to draw out counters.  Control decks may be fast, but they aren't so fast that they can generally ignore your ability to draw 7-14 cards the turn you activate Oath.   My problem with Oath isn't that it isn't a good enough 'bomb,' it's that it interferes with Xantid Swarm, which is a ridiculous tactic in this deck, and Spirit Guides, etc.  

[bluemage55]

Has anyone tested this deck against a control deck which includes Duress effects?  I'm curious how Burning Long fares against a mixed disruption suite with both counters and Duress (say, something like 4x Fow/4x Drain/4x Duress/2x Snapcaster), since some plentiful gas/little business hands will inevitably be vulnerable to Duress.  Granted, we don't see all that much Duress these days with how much Shops and Dredge are a part of the meta, but this would still be good to know.

[vaughnbros]

Has anyone tested this deck against a control deck which includes Duress effects?  I'm curious how Burning Long fares against a mixed disruption suite with both counters and Duress (say, something like 4x Fow/4x Drain/4x Duress/2x Snapcaster), since some plentiful gas/little business hands will inevitably be vulnerable to Duress.  Granted, we don't see all that much Duress these days with how much Shops and Dredge are a part of the meta, but this would still be good to know.

I've done some testing against such lists and duress can certainly hurt really bad some games, but not usually not any more than a well timed flusterstorm or mental misstep.  The real death kneel counter spell I've run into with this deck is mindbreak trap, with all the artifact mana its almost always completely free.  This is what kind of scares me about the long term play ability of this style of deck.  If this deck ever gets big any blue deck can just pack 2 main deck mindbreak traps, and 2 in the board, and then it instantly becomes a very favorable match up for your opposing deck.

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.  

No, what it implies is one of two things:  Either 1) that my deck is competitive across the top matchups, and/or 2) that it has some good matchups across the top of the metagame.

I believe both statements are true, but the more important statement is (1).   This deck can compete with the top tiered decks, namely Grixis Control, Workshops, and Dredge (the 3 decks that dominated the Vintage Champs).  Of course, I believe this deck is better than just being competitive (however you take that), but it is not really my style to make matchup claims or assertions, for a number of reasons.  First of all, I support the cause of fighting internet hyperbole.   Secondly, I realize that my experience and skill with this deck may not create the same match results as many of my readers.  I know for a fact when playing this -- despite my decade plus experience with this archetype -- that there are plays that ordinary players would normally flub or not make.   In fact, I often have to really work through difficult situations.  Consult decisions, DT targets, how much to Necro for -- and far more -- are really heavy decision intensive choices that I can only imagine less skilled or experienced players probably mess up all of the time.   Now, I've done my best to ameliorate this problem by really teaching skills in this article, but I can only do so much in an article.  What eventually is acquired is a way of thinking.  

You kind of quoted me out of context since I did say I was originally agreeing with your statement, but if you want me to play devil's advocate that I can do...

Your possible implication (1) is nearly exactly what I said you were implying, yet you seem to disagree.  Your second implication is just not correct from your original statement.  How can a deck be a top deck in the meta game when it only has some good match ups?  I think decks that only have some good match ups are much better classified as meta game decks or fringe decks than top decks.

What you also have to realize is for a deck to become a top deck a decent number of players have to be able to pilot the deck.  If what your saying is true that you need to be one of the best long pilots to have success with the list then this deck has a natural barrier in being able to become a top deck.  I think its unrealistic to expect anyone to sit down and play this deck for hundreds of hours in order to become effective with it.

[Smmenen]

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.  

No, what it implies is one of two things:  Either 1) that my deck is competitive across the top matchups, and/or 2) that it has some good matchups across the top of the metagame.

I believe both statements are true, but the more important statement is (1).   This deck can compete with the top tiered decks, namely Grixis Control, Workshops, and Dredge (the 3 decks that dominated the Vintage Champs).  Of course, I believe this deck is better than just being competitive (however you take that), but it is not really my style to make matchup claims or assertions, for a number of reasons.  First of all, I support the cause of fighting internet hyperbole.   Secondly, I realize that my experience and skill with this deck may not create the same match results as many of my readers.  I know for a fact when playing this -- despite my decade plus experience with this archetype -- that there are plays that ordinary players would normally flub or not make.   In fact, I often have to really work through difficult situations.  Consult decisions, DT targets, how much to Necro for -- and far more -- are really heavy decision intensive choices that I can only imagine less skilled or experienced players probably mess up all of the time.   Now, I've done my best to ameliorate this problem by really teaching skills in this article, but I can only do so much in an article.  What eventually is acquired is a way of thinking.  

You kind of quoted me out of context since I did say I was originally agreeing with your statement, but if you want me to play devil's advocate that I can do...

Your possible implication (1) is nearly exactly what I said you were implying, yet you seem to disagree.

Because it's not the same thing.   Being competitive is not the same thing as having a clear superior (i.e. good) matchup.  You read too much into what I was saying.  To say that my deck is a top deck in the metagame is not to say that it has good matchups accross the metagame.   That would only be implied if I was saying that my deck was "a dominant deck"or "the best deck."  I said neither thing.    

Your second implication is just not correct from your original statement.  
How can a deck be a top deck in the meta game when it only has some good match ups?  I think decks that only have some good match ups are much better classified as meta game decks or fringe decks than top decks.

Very easily.  

Suppose there are three top decks: Deck A, B, & C.   If a deck beats A and B, but not C, it is almost by definition a top deck in the metagame.   A deck that beats some or most of the top decks in the metagame, but not all, is a top deck.    A deck that beats all of the decks in the metagame is not a top deck, it is a dominant deck or the best deck.   

Both of these situations -- the idea of being competitive accross top matchups, or having some good, but not necessarily all, good matchups, is typically what happens in Legacy.   It's not usually the case -- nor should it be -- that a deck has good matchups (meaning clearly favorable) across the whole metagame spectrum (as you read into my statement).  If that were the case, a deck would not simply be a top deck, it would be a dominant deck or 'best deck.'

[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.  

No, what it implies is one of two things:  Either 1) that my deck is competitive across the top matchups, and/or 2) that it has some good matchups across the top of the metagame.

I believe both statements are true, but the more important statement is (1).   This deck can compete with the top tiered decks, namely Grixis Control, Workshops, and Dredge (the 3 decks that dominated the Vintage Champs).  Of course, I believe this deck is better than just being competitive (however you take that), but it is not really my style to make matchup claims or assertions, for a number of reasons.  First of all, I support the cause of fighting internet hyperbole.   Secondly, I realize that my experience and skill with this deck may not create the same match results as many of my readers.  I know for a fact when playing this -- despite my decade plus experience with this archetype -- that there are plays that ordinary players would normally flub or not make.   In fact, I often have to really work through difficult situations.  Consult decisions, DT targets, how much to Necro for -- and far more -- are really heavy decision intensive choices that I can only imagine less skilled or experienced players probably mess up all of the time.   Now, I've done my best to ameliorate this problem by really teaching skills in this article, but I can only do so much in an article.  What eventually is acquired is a way of thinking.  

You kind of quoted me out of context since I did say I was originally agreeing with your statement, but if you want me to play devil's advocate that I can do...

Your possible implication (1) is nearly exactly what I said you were implying, yet you seem to disagree.

Because it's not the same thing.   Being competitive is not the same thing as having a clear superior (i.e. good) matchup.  You read too much into what I was saying.  To say that my deck is a top deck in the metagame is not to say that it has good matchups accross the metagame.   That would only be implied if I was saying that my deck was "a dominant deck"or "the best deck."  I said neither thing.    

A good match up definitely doesn't mean clearly superior.  It just means at least a 50% chance of winning that match.

In this situation you are talking about introducing what is essentially an entirely new deck to the format.  Meaning your opponents play styles and deck lists have yet to adjust to your deck.  A top deck of a format has to be able to win through other decks adjusting to them.  These adjustments are likely going to drop your match win percentages across the board.  Making some of those formerly good match ups no longer good.  If your starting with already poor match ups these adjustments would likely crush you out of the format.

Your second implication is just not correct from your original statement.  
How can a deck be a top deck in the meta game when it only has some good match ups?  I think decks that only have some good match ups are much better classified as meta game decks or fringe decks than top decks.

Very easily.  

Suppose there are three top decks: Deck A, B, & C.   If a deck beats A and B, but not C, it is almost by definition a top deck in the metagame.   A deck that beats some or most of the top decks in the metagame, but not all, is a top deck.    A deck that beats all of the decks in the metagame is not a top deck, it is a dominant deck or the best deck.    

Both of these situations -- the idea of being competitive accross top matchups, or having some good, but not necessarily all, good matchups, is typically what happens in Legacy.   It's not usually the case -- nor should it be -- that a deck has good matchups (meaning clearly favorable) across the whole metagame spectrum (as you read into my statement).  If that were the case, a deck would not simply be a top deck, it would be a dominant deck or 'best deck.'

I'll give a simple definition for a top deck so I can make my argument.  A top deck is one that has a greater chance to win a particular tournament than decks that are not top decks.

Ok so lets say there are three top decks in a particular meta game, lets call them deck A, B, and C.  Since each of these decks is a top deck they have an equal chance of winning it all.  Deck D wins against deck A and B, but loses to deck C.  I choose to introduce a deck D to the format.  Deck D ends up becoming a top deck.  As a result of deck D's success, deck A's win percentage falls, deck B's win percentage falls, and deck C's win percentage rises.  This makes deck A and B no longer top decks.  As a result people play decks A and B less.  As a result deck D is no longer a top deck because it is not successful against deck C.  People stop playing deck D.  People now start playing deck A and B again.  So on so forth.

This should illustrate how in your example if a deck only has some good match ups it will alter the metagame and no longer be a top a deck.

Now if all you care about is making the claim that this deck could be a top deck without any adjustments to the current metagame then all my points are mute in this post.  I just don't think its much of a feat to be one of many top decks for a short period of time.

[arj]

I playtested the deck yesterday against control, white weenie (with cage and stony silence) and fish (with cage, stoney, daze, force). And I must say that having oath maindeck really helps against stony silence decks. Some of the matches were actually quite long, because a resolved stony silence really slows down this deck, but doesn't make it impossible to win. I'm considering hull breach in the sideboard Already added deathmark.

[DuKeLiO]

I have tested both list, with Oath and without them, more than 50 games against Gush Storm and the matchup isn't favorable. I can understand why it is so good against Grixis Control, but when you are playing the deck against another without creatures, that isn't too slower than you, the deck completly fails. I were losing too many games beacuse a ran out of gas with them countering and discarding my bombs.
I haven't the feel than the deck is very good. Maybe I have a bad feel beacuse I had played against a bad matchup, but I think the deck lacks consistency. I am no very sure if I will try to improve this deck, but I feel it lacks more fixers like preordain, or, maybe, Gitaxian Probe.

[benthetenor]

Hey Steve, nice list.

Having played Burning Long extensively when it was so ridiculous it lead to 2 restrictions (and having Brainstorm restricted eventually), I'm extremely excited to see an honest-to-goodness update that's definitely stronger against shops and doesn't lose much in terms of speed.

If we were wanting to squeeze a MD answer to chalice (probably a Shattering Spree, though there are arguments for other cards, too), what would be the card you'd be willing to cut? Windfall is the "weakest" draw 7, though it is certainly still a great card. Demonic Consultation is weaker now that we can't consult for LED, making it a Demonic Tutor for anything but mana (generally), though that's still pretty strong. Maybe a Chrome Mox, though I don't really like the idea of cutting any accel at all. Maybe the 4th Oath? Every card is strong (otherwise it wouldn't be in the deck), but I feel that Chalice might be something that needs to be addressed main. Maybe I'm just a worrier.

I'd also really like to see a way to get Xantid Swarm into the board, since the matchups where it's good are generally not the same ones where Oath is good, so there could be something of a straight swap.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

@ benthetenor

I've cut walk for a main deck alteration, I'm not willing to give up on the oath's just yet, it just seems like where you want to be in the meta. Keeping that in mind a good alternative to xantid swarm, especially with all the fliers in the format limiting the number of uses you get out of it, is defense grid. It really plays into the multi bomb turn strategy you want to be playing and if functions the turn it comes into play. it also really helps power up duress, basically asking your opponent, "do you really want to tap out to misstep this?" I've fit 3 into the sb by basically cutting a couple wish targets and something else.

[benthetenor]

Defense grid is a nice alternative, especially since mana isn't really something that we're running out of (with a dozen permanent mana accelerants). I'd hesitate to cut Time Walk though, given that Time Walk + Gristlebrand is pretty spicy, particularly if you can find a way (Yawgmoth's will, perhaps) to rebuy it.

[Smmenen]

One of the reasons I would not cut Time Walk is that it is a 2 mana way to untap with all of the card advantage generated by a Draw7.  So, for example, if you cast Windfall on turn one, and you play Mox, Mox (Chrome, etc), Time Walk, you get to untap and continue to assault the opponent.  As pointed out, Walk is also great with Griselbrand in play, and can be recurred multiple (actually infinite) times.  Time Walk is also a key, must-counter card in certain game states, and allows you to be extremely aggressive.  If you want to cut a card for a maindeck Shattering Spree, I would cut the 4th Duress.  

[median]

Hey Steve, nice list.
Demonic Consultation is weaker now that we can't consult for LED, making it a Demonic Tutor for anything but mana (generally), though that's still pretty strong.

I've actually been consulting for lotus regularly with this list. Very rarely (but occasionally) do I wish I hadn't.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Hey Steve, nice list.
Demonic Consultation is weaker now that we can't consult for LED, making it a Demonic Tutor for anything but mana (generally), though that's still pretty strong.

I've actually been consulting for lotus regularly with this list. Very rarely (but occasionally) do I wish I hadn't.

I've been consulting for all kinds of restricted stuff and, unless I run it over in the initial rfg, I haven't had an issue winning because of it. Once I had one burning wish left, but one is all you need.

[benthetenor]

Hey Steve, nice list.
Demonic Consultation is weaker now that we can't consult for LED, making it a Demonic Tutor for anything but mana (generally), though that's still pretty strong.

I've actually been consulting for lotus regularly with this list. Very rarely (but occasionally) do I wish I hadn't.

I've been consulting for all kinds of restricted stuff and, unless I run it over in the initial rfg, I haven't had an issue winning because of it. Once I had one burning wish left, but one is all you need.

It's entirely possible that I haven't even played enough test games for Demonic Consultation to come up. Mostly, I'm just remembering the deck from before any restrictions when Consulting for LED was an extremely strong (and common) play, given that it was an unrestricted Lotus so you were never going to kill yourself by doing it. There were rare occasions to Consult for a restricted card, back in the day, but most often you just needed either Burning Wish or LED. It's been so long since I've even used Demonic Consultation very much that I could just be forgetting how relatively safe it is.

Dropping the Duress for a maindeck Shattering Spree does seem like good advice, and also brings into focus how much I probably just don't care if they beat me game 1 with a Chalice or two. I'd rather not lose the Duress, so Shattering Spree probably isn't worth putting main.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Agreed about spree in the main, sometimes all i want is duress. When I was talking about cutting walk for a main deck alteration earlier I wasn't talking about the spree, although it could contextually seem like I was. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood. I cut walk for a main deck kill spell. So far I'm pretty into it. I have yet to think "oh man if only I could time walk right now", and a few times been like, "Yep, I'm going to kill you where I otherwise could not." that's not to say time walk wouldn't have gotten there next turn a certain percentage of the time, in fact I bet that percentage is pretty high. Its a pretty minimal improvement if you ask me, so if you're getting mileage out of the walk, by all means, keep it. I'd be tempted to keep it in for oath, but with rest in piece adding an incentive to play white I've just been getting my dude pathed/stp'd and drawing seven anyways.

[emidln]

Consult for what wins you the game. If you can win right now by going consult for a 1-of (like Black Lotus), do it. The chances of fizzling is likely much smaller than the chances of you losing because you sat there durdling for another turn or two.

[boggyb]

Yeah, I would suggest to everyone who has never really played with Demonic Consultation: try it out. Be a bit liberal with it in testing. It's one of the most powerful cards ever printed. A one mana instant speed wild card? Yes, please.

[Smmenen]

If you don't feel comfortable using Demonic Consultation, don't.  There is no sense trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  If you don't feel lucky or effective with Demonic Consultation, then you probably won't use it well in tournament and it may simply not suit your style. Play Imperial Seal, Mystical Tutor or Regrowth in that spot instead.  

I am a strong advocate, and a few posts up I described some of the ways in which I use it:

I know for a fact when playing this -- despite my decade plus experience with this archetype -- that there are plays that ordinary players would normally flub or not make.   In fact, I often have to really work through difficult situations.  Consult decisions, DT targets, how much to Necro for -- and far more -- are really heavy decision intensive choices that I can only imagine less skilled or experienced players probably mess up all of the time.   Now, I've done my best to ameliorate this problem by really teaching skills in this article, but I can only do so much in an article.  What eventually is acquired is a way of thinking.  

I may add this to a future addenda, but one of the things that you need to learn with this deck eventually is viewing your deck and sideboard holistically, and, in fact, viewing all of your cards in that way.    What I mean by that is that you really need to be conscious of all of your cards -- what you have seen and what you haven't.    For example, suppose it is mid-game, and you have a choice between playing a Draw7 and something else.   What I think about are the following things:

* How many cards are left in my library?
* Have I seen the Lotus yet?  The LED?  (if your library is 30 or less cards, a draw7 might have a good chance of drawing one or both of them, etc).
* How many B. Wishes have I seen?
Etc.

Similar questions are posed when deciding what to Consult for, or whether to Consult.  Consult is one of the most important cards in any (ahem, good) Burning Wish deck.  Yet, it is a very tricky card, as I mention in this article.   There are 3-4 unrestricted cards you can often Consult for, B. Wish being obvious.  But there are even restricted cards you can consult for, but under certain circumstances, and you have to know what those are.  For example, if you have two B. Wishes in hand (or one in hand and one in the GY), you can Consult for Black Lotus aggressively, and you only lose the game if its in the top 6 cards of your library.  In any case, you get the idea.  You have to be thinking about the almost every card in your deck and sideboard all of the time.  Folks who played Burning Long back in the day or Death Long will know exactly what I mean.   This was even more true back then because these cards could retrieve exiled cards.  

That last paragraph in particular is specific to Consult, but the general approach I described above it is essential to using Consult.  If you don't have that holistic perspective of your deck, if you don't constantly have the big picture in view, then it is probably much easier to get lost in the weeds when using Consult.  

I can remember Paul Mastriano having terrible luck with Consult back in the day in our old Illusionary Mask deck.  For some people, for whatever reason, Consult just does not work.   For me, Consult has always been brilliant.   But I can't say why.  Maybe it's luck, maybe it's style, maybe its tolerance and comfort level.   It's difficult to say.   But what I can say is that if you use Consult, make sure you are doing everything you can to make informed decisions.   Be conscientious.  Think about what you are trying to achieve, how big your deck is, what is left in your library, and where your key cards might be.  I consult for Oath, but I obviously wouldn't do that if I've already removed a Griselbrand, say, to Chrome Mox, or am holding one in hand.   I'll Consult for Burning Wish all the time.  

It's entirely possible that I haven't even played enough test games for Demonic Consultation to come up. Mostly, I'm just remembering the deck from before any restrictions when Consulting for LED was an extremely strong (and common) play, given that it was an unrestricted Lotus so you were never going to kill yourself by doing it. There were rare occasions to Consult for a restricted card, back in the day, but most often you just needed either Burning Wish or LED.

Don't forget Dark Ritual.   Original Long would often go: Land, Ritual, Consult, Ritual, etc.  Dark Ritual was and remains a great Consult target.   It generates mana post-Will almost as explosively as LED.  

Defense grid is a nice alternative, especially since mana isn't really something that we're running out of (with a dozen permanent mana accelerants). I'd hesitate to cut Time Walk though, given that Time Walk + Gristlebrand is pretty spicy, particularly if you can find a way (Yawgmoth's will, perhaps) to rebuy it.

I think it may be possible to integrate Xantid Swarms into the deck anyway (at least, post-board).  It's not the worst thing in the world to Oath up a Swarm.  But I have to confess that Defense Grid - a relatively weak card -- may actually be not bad here, for a number of reasons.  It obviously has synergy with the moxen (especially Opal), and can be accelerated out very quickly on turn one.  If anyone tests out Defense Grid, I'd be curious to hear how it performs.  I believe it is also cumulative, so is fine in multiples as well  

I have tested both list, with Oath and without them, more than 50 games against Gush Storm and the matchup isn't favorable.

LOL: To me that's just like the person who played against Stony Silence decks.  Well, duh?  I mean, a deck that is almost as fast and has a bunch of blue countermagic is probably always going to be a deck that is a turn or so faster, but doesn't have those tactics.   The key point, though, is that Gush storm isn't viable, at least in US metagame, because it is crushed by Shops.   This deck isn't.  

Agreed about spree in the main, sometimes all i want is duress. When I was talking about cutting walk for a main deck alteration earlier I wasn't talking about the spree, although it could contextually seem like I was. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood. I cut walk for a main deck kill spell. So far I'm pretty into it. I have yet to think "oh man if only I could time walk right now", and a few times been like, "Yep, I'm going to kill you where I otherwise could not." that's not to say time walk wouldn't have gotten there next turn a certain percentage of the time, in fact I bet that percentage is pretty high. Its a pretty minimal improvement if you ask me, so if you're getting mileage out of the walk, by all means, keep it. I'd be tempted to keep it in for oath, but with rest in piece adding an incentive to play white I've just been getting my dude pathed/stp'd and drawing seven anyways.

Dropping the Duress for a maindeck Shattering Spree does seem like good advice, and also brings into focus how much I probably just don't care if they beat me game 1 with a Chalice or two. I'd rather not lose the Duress, so Shattering Spree probably isn't worth putting main.

I tend to agree with this sentiment.  Here's my take: if they play Chalice at 2, they cut you off from lots of key tactics, but are they going to lead with Chalice 2?  They are probably going to lead with Chalice 0 or 1.  That means that their second Chalice is going to be at 2, which gives you a good chance to resolve an Oath before they Chalice 2.   Part of it is the gambit: a Shop player can't know that you are playing the exact list I posted in this article.  What if you have a maindeck ETW or Tendrils?  Or a maindeck Shattering Spree?  You can't know.  I'm comfortable, situationally, playing decks with built-in weaknesses knowing those weaknesses are, for specific reasons, difficult to exploit or hard to exploit in particular situations.   Again, recall the Meandeck Oath example vis-a-vis Platinum Angel that I discussed before.  This principle is applicable here.  

***
It's great to see old timers coming out of the woodwork.  This deck is easily one of the most fun decks you can play in the format.  It's so addicting that  I have trouble putting this deck down, and the reader response, overall buzz and excitement around not just my deck - but some of my ideas here -- is wonderful.  The point is that I think this deck is a great reminder of how fun Vintage can be.  Regardless of how they are performing, I hope people are just having a blast with the format at the moment.  That's what's most important.  

[chingpaq]

Played this deck at the last Manila Vintage tournament. Instead of playing Shattering Spree in that 4th Duress spot, tried Abrupt Decay and opted for 3 Defense Grids in the SB. Decay helped me with Delver and could have some potential with COTV set at 2. Unfortunately my deck was brutal to me that day: 4 different occurrences that i resolved a bomb (via Twister, Jar and Necro) and 4x rewarded me with 5 lands, and two other jank cards. In one game versus RUG, was doin all the draw 7s and wishes only to be punk'd by Flusterstorm in the end (boarded out Duress in favor of Grids).

Another Long player opted for Past and Flames MD.

Need to run this again to get better results.

[xouman]

I faced this deck a couple of weeks ago. I lost 2-0, and played several matches for fun (4-3 for him after that 2-0 for a total 6-3, IIRC). The list suffered a lot to cotv, spree was top card most of the time. necropotence was quite mediocre, but maybe it was just bad luck.

from what i saw, the deck is as good as pilot's skill. seems VERY hard to play, but in expert hands could win tournaments.

[AmbivalentDuck]

but in expert hands could win tournaments.

Damning with faint praise. In other words, it's a deck that requires minimal play errors over many many hours of tourney play. How much "oops I win" does this provide compared to Vault-Key assembly or Workshop-Lodestone?

One of Doomsday's big strengths was how many of your matchups could really have been played on autopilot. It left you with a reserve of focus for the few matchups that demanded it.

[MaximumCDawg]

but in expert hands could win tournaments.

Damning with faint praise. In other words, it's a deck that requires minimal play errors over many many hours of tourney play. How much "oops I win" does this provide compared to Vault-Key assembly or Workshop-Lodestone?

One of Doomsday's big strengths was how many of your matchups could really have been played on autopilot. It left you with a reserve of focus for the few matchups that demanded it.

So true, so true.  I took Menedian's Legacy Doomsday list to a tournament.  It felt sort of like flying an old WW1 fighter plane, except that the machine gun was pointed directly at the pilot's head.  Sometimes I'd lose legitimately before I went off (burn is a terrible matchup) but when I did go off I often just blew my own head off.

Long is neat looking, but I'm not gonna mess with a deck that requires a true master of the game to pilot effectively.  I suspect this mentality will hurt Long's chances to make a big impact on Top 8s.