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

[Smmenen]

I don't think it requires 'true mastery,' but it does require developed skills.  Many of these cards have not seen play in many years in Vintage.   To use them well means developing skills that never existed or have atrophied.  

For example, if you can't manage Necropotence well, then you probably aren't using it right.   You should almost never lose the game after resolving Necropotence.  The only time you should ever lose if your opponent literally kills you with Key+Vault or something that you can't force.

But if you resolve Necropotence, and then untap again, if you lose the game, you did something wrong.  

Few people back in 2003 actually did well with original Long, and yet it was so good that it warranted not one, but two restrictions.    I can remember Vintage "elite" players telling me that original Long was not actually that good.  That's how bad players were back then.

That said, as people come not to expect this deck, that's when this deck will also be most potent.  This deck obviously has alot of buzz at the moment (more than I expected) largely because of the interest in a unique design that hasn't seen play in Vintage in some time.   Once the coolness wears off a bit, then people will have a chance to see how it shakes out in a fair field -- and I'm sure it will do very well.   

[The Atog Lord]

I am not saying that it is necessarily the case here, but in the past, I have seen the label of "good but too hard for mortals to play" applied to decks that were, in fact, just bad.

[Smmenen]

Yeah, I'm saying that you do not need be a master to play this deck well.  But you do need to be competent with cards like Necropotence.   

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

I don't think it requires 'true mastery,' but it does require developed skills.  Many of these cards have not seen play in many years in Vintage.   To use them well means developing skills that never existed or have atrophied.    

^This. Talking with people, I feel like  they are very intimidated by burning long, Thinking it takes a true Sith Lord to win a single game. True, being it wouldn't hurt, but just take the deck and do some testing. If you run through different scenarios and work out some decision trees you'll learn lots about the deck.

That said, as people come not to expect this deck, that's when this deck will also be most potent.  This deck obviously has alot of buzz at the moment (more than I expected) largely because of the interest in a unique design that hasn't seen play in Vintage in some time.   Once the coolness wears off a bit, then people will have a chance to see how it shakes out in a fair field -- and I'm sure it will do very well.   

^ Also this. I've been seeing people prepare for this deck heavily, blindly challacing against unknown at 2 turn one and sbing mind break traps in unrealistic numbers. I don't plan on playing this deck at an upcoming event, but I'm going to have it on hand.

[Adan]

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.  

How can Time Walk be recurred infinite times? I kinda fail to see that. Another point I'd like to know about is the cirumstance that some opening hands can be broken as hell and some just suck. This deck has got a high mulligan rate, when I see that my first 4 of 7 cards are bargain, desire, jar, oath, I already brace myself for an auto-mulligan.

Other openers are like 6 mana-generators and 1 Draw7 (or Bargain or Oath for instance). This also seems bad to me as you are dying to FoW easily (or other countermagic if you are on the draw).

[Smmenen]

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.  

How can Time Walk be recurred infinite times?  I kinda fail to see that.

Regrowth + Timetewister.

I didn't say it was easy (or practical), just possible.

Another point I'd like to know about is the cirumstance that some opening hands can be broken as hell and some just suck. This deck has got a high mulligan rate, when I see that my first 4 of 7 cards are bargain, desire, jar, oath, I already brace myself for an auto-mulligan.

Why? The last three cards could be mana.

Other openers are like 6 mana-generators and 1 Draw7 (or Bargain or Oath for instance). This also seems bad to me as you are dying to FoW easily (or other countermagic if you are on the draw).

I'd keep the hand if it was 6 mana and Desire, for example.  

[Adan]

Regrowth + Timetewister.

I didn't say it was easy (or practical), just possible.

Ah, okay. The list I saw did not run Regrowth, that's why I was a bit confused, but even if you are running Regrowth, it's not possible to recurr Time Walk in a consistent manner like Demon Oath does for example.

Why? The last three cards could be mana.

But even then it's shaky, assuming you have one permanent source (any Mox or a Land), Lotus and a Ritual, you could do Land, Lotus, Ritual -> Bargain or Lotus, Ritual -> Memory Jar with that 5color land open and still brick to a Force of Will, setting you on draw-go. This deck can possibly topdeck one bomb after another, but relying on that in a format where kill-speed is nearly unpredictable seems kinda naive.

I'd keep the hand if it was 6 mana and Desire, for example.

I'd do the same in a blink of an eye because that one is pretty fail-safe when on the play and can only be stopped on the draw if the opponent has got Flusterstorm (well, or Mindbreak Trap, but that card is seldom maindecked anywhere except in Landstill).

[Methuselahn]

Nice article!  Worth the five bucks.

I've picked up Vintage Magic again as a friend of mine has recently discovered the format.  Although I have no intention of playing in tournaments (sold all my cards 5 years ago) I have most of the format's tier 1 decks proxied up and play them regularly.  Now including the test deck featured in your article!

The deck is fun to play, just like 4 LED- wish was back in the day.   Normally I glaze over decklists (especially the restricted cards) but I was pleasantly surprised at some of the 4-of card choices you've included in the list that I wouldn't have expected from you when I left the format five years ago.  The list has a number of interesting slots and appears well thought out. good show.

The article has the goods.   I enjoy seeing why cards didn't make the cut moreso than why a card is included.  Your best articles had always favored talking about vintage without using examples (card names), but rather, using logic of thought.   (not sure that makes sense but whatever) 

At any rate, keep on truckin' and good luck.

[Adan]

SO...

I didn't even manage to Top8 a 10 ppl event with the Griselbrand list. The blue matchups with Snapcaster Mage are just horrible. Defense Grids would be ballin' since the Draw7s were always better for the opponent than for myself. Whenever I had to pass the turn after a Draw7 I always got Key-Vaulted.

At one point my opening hand against Confi-Control was:

City, Mox Opal, Mox Peal, Sol Ring, Dark Ritual, Oath, Bargain and Timetwister.

I thought "Great, I can slam a 1st Turn Oath, if that gets countered, I can slam Bargain, if that gets countered, I can play Twister to refuel".
I lost that one because I got my Sol Ring misstep'd mindlessly. The next card was the 2nd Opal and I never saw mana again.

At another point I was on the draw and my opponent went 1st Turn Tinker -> BSC and Grafdigger's Cage. I was able to do 1st Turn Memory Jar with 4 black mana floating and cracking Jar with a Duress on stack. I bricked because Jar revealed me Windfall, Ponder, Brainstorm, Demonic, 3 lands. What do you do? Demonic on Sapphire (Lotus was already gone) and Windfall into nothing.

I also did Mind's Desire for 4 and 5 twice this day and only flipped mana.

I don't really think this is a deck to win tournaments with.

It was cool against Stax because I destroyed him g1 with a 1st Turn Oath, g2 I lost by default and g3 I did a 1st Turn I was able to do Burning Wish for Desire out of the board for 8.

But other than that, I'd suggest Defense Grids somewhere in the 75. Solves the Snapcaster Mages as well.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Re: consistency, my test group has also found that these lists don't produce winning hands against control any better than earlier ritual lists.  It was actually different than we expected.  The additional threat density of Burning Wish wasn't the boon we hoped for because the matchups often hinge on tempo plays, not lack of threat density (though this was an issue too).  The Long deck needs a hand that thru luck or tight play maneuvers the answer suite of an opponent AND does it quickly.

Delver, Landstill, Bomber, Grixis all interact early and with redundancy making every game (even with strong hands) a pitched battle.  The mana base (with less reliance on rituals) is definitely an improvement against control, but chrome/opal combined with the inherent weakness of draw7s still create a high percentage of losing to your own deck.

But other than that, I'd suggest Defense Grids somewhere in the 75. Solves the Snapcaster Mages as well.

The only issue with this is that defense grid allows cards like nature's claim to do double duty against Oath and Grid.  Chants have their own issues, but at least they usually negate flusterstorm if you have enough mana out.

[Smmenen]

At one point my opening hand against Confi-Control was:

City, Mox Opal, Mox Peal, Sol Ring, Dark Ritual, Oath, Bargain and Timetwister.

I thought "Great, I can slam a 1st Turn Oath, if that gets countered, I can slam Bargain, if that gets countered, I can play Twister to refuel".
I lost that one because I got my Sol Ring misstep'd mindlessly. The next card was the 2nd Opal and I never saw mana again.

No offense, but it sounds like you badly bungled that hand.  

I posted a very similar hand on Twitter for the purpose of illustrating the principle that with hands like that you don't lead with Sol Ring because if they have Misstep, you can't resolve Oath that turn.

Instead, what you do is: T1 Mox, Land, Oath, and turn two Sol Ring.  That way you have maximized your chances for resolving both Oath and Sol Ring.  If they Force the Oath, you reduce their chances of being able to MIsstep Sol Ring.  And if you have to T2 Oath, you have increased their chances for drawing Force at the right time.

Sequencing is critical, and you have to play around every counterspell, Misstep included, when possible.  It is possible to resolve Oath through Misstep with this hand.  

Although, with your hand, I would have played it very differently.  I would have played City, Dark Ritual.  If the Ritual resolved, then I would play, Pearl, Sol Ring, Opal, and hopefully, Bargain.  If the Ritual doesn't resolve, because of Misstep, you've cleared the way for Sol Ring.  So you just go Pearl, Sol Ring, Opal, Oath, pass.

Your sequence is the worst of the possible sequences.  

@GI  One thing to bear in mind is that Control decks have more tools than ever to combat Ritual based strategies, now that MBT, Fluster, Spell Pierce and Misstep all exist.  I have been extremely impressed by how this deck is even capable of competing against all of these new printings, let alone its performance more generally.  Original Long only had to defeat Mana Drain and Force of Will.  In some ways, that makes this deck the most ferocious of all.  

[President Skroob]

At one point my opening hand against Confi-Control was:

City, Mox Opal, Mox Peal, Sol Ring, Dark Ritual, Oath, Bargain and Timetwister.

I thought "Great, I can slam a 1st Turn Oath, if that gets countered, I can slam Bargain, if that gets countered, I can play Twister to refuel".
I lost that one because I got my Sol Ring misstep'd mindlessly. The next card was the 2nd Opal and I never saw mana again.

No offense, but it sounds like you badly bungled that hand.  

I posted a very similar hand on Twitter for the purpose of illustrating the principle that with hands like that you don't lead with Sol Ring because if they have Misstep, you can't resolve Oath that turn.

Instead, what you do is: T1 Mox, Land, Oath, and turn two Sol Ring.  That way you have maximized your chances for resolving both Oath and Sol Ring.  If they Force the Oath, you reduce their chances of being able to MIsstep Sol Ring.  And if you have to T2 Oath, you have increased their chances for drawing Force at the right time.

Sequencing is critical, and you have to play around every counterspell, Misstep included, when possible.  It is possible to resolve Oath through Misstep with this hand.  

Although, with your hand, I would have played it very differently.  I would have played City, Dark Ritual.  If the Ritual resolved, then I would play, Pearl, Sol Ring, Opal, and hopefully, Bargain.  If the Ritual doesn't resolve, because of Misstep, you've cleared the way for Sol Ring.  So you just go Pearl, Sol Ring, Opal, Oath, pass.

Your sequence is the worst of the possible sequences.  

@GI  One thing to bear in mind is that Control decks have more tools than ever to combat Ritual based strategies, now that MBT, Fluster, Spell Pierce and Misstep all exist.  I have been extremely impressed by how this deck is even capable of competing against all of these new printings, let alone its performance more generally.  Original Long only had to defeat Mana Drain and Force of Will.  In some ways, that makes this deck the most ferocious of all.  

What if they allow Ritual to resolve and then Mental Misstep Sol Ring? It doesn't seem unreasonable if they have a Force of Will that they'd sandbag the Misstep for a better target, since you've already invested the Ritual in whatever you're working towards, making it a more attractive Force of Will target.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I have been extremely impressed by how this deck is even capable of competing against all of these new printings, let alone its performance more generally.  Original Long only had to defeat Mana Drain and Force of Will.  In some ways, that makes this deck the most ferocious of all. 

Right, I think the design changes are in the right direction.  I also think that this certainly improves tactics against control compared with the original Long.  However, the overall EV of the archetype has decreased considerably relative to the current metagame IMO.  What you gain with Oath/Grisel is lost because Shops and control are MUCH stronger and the rest of the metagame has moved into tempo-based aggro control which is not a good pairing for the deck.

[Adan]

At one point my opening hand against Confi-Control was:

City, Mox Opal, Mox Peal, Sol Ring, Dark Ritual, Oath, Bargain and Timetwister.

I thought "Great, I can slam a 1st Turn Oath, if that gets countered, I can slam Bargain, if that gets countered, I can play Twister to refuel".
I lost that one because I got my Sol Ring misstep'd mindlessly. The next card was the 2nd Opal and I never saw mana again.

No offense, but it sounds like you badly bungled that hand.  

I posted a very similar hand on Twitter for the purpose of illustrating the principle that with hands like that you don't lead with Sol Ring because if they have Misstep, you can't resolve Oath that turn.

Instead, what you do is: T1 Mox, Land, Oath, and turn two Sol Ring.  That way you have maximized your chances for resolving both Oath and Sol Ring.  If they Force the Oath, you reduce their chances of being able to MIsstep Sol Ring.  And if you have to T2 Oath, you have increased their chances for drawing Force at the right time.

Sequencing is critical, and you have to play around every counterspell, Misstep included, when possible.  It is possible to resolve Oath through Misstep with this hand.  

Although, with your hand, I would have played it very differently.  I would have played City, Dark Ritual.  If the Ritual resolved, then I would play, Pearl, Sol Ring, Opal, and hopefully, Bargain.  If the Ritual doesn't resolve, because of Misstep, you've cleared the way for Sol Ring.  So you just go Pearl, Sol Ring, Opal, Oath, pass.

Your sequence is the worst of the possible sequences.  

@GI  One thing to bear in mind is that Control decks have more tools than ever to combat Ritual based strategies, now that MBT, Fluster, Spell Pierce and Misstep all exist.  I have been extremely impressed by how this deck is even capable of competing against all of these new printings, let alone its performance more generally.  Original Long only had to defeat Mana Drain and Force of Will.  In some ways, that makes this deck the most ferocious of all.  

Oh WTF, I wrote that during the ride home, the hand I posted is false because I was sure that I could not slam a 1st Turn Bargain. Additionally, having 8 cards on the play is kinda stupid.

I looked up my notes and my hand was:

Pearl, Opal, Solring, DRit, Bargain, Oath, Twister. These were my opening 7. Now it perfectly makes sense. I was dead sure my line of play was correct with that hand. I wrote my hand down because that random Misstep really got me boiling.

[Smmenen]

I have been extremely impressed by how this deck is even capable of competing against all of these new printings, let alone its performance more generally.  Original Long only had to defeat Mana Drain and Force of Will.  In some ways, that makes this deck the most ferocious of all. 

Right, I think the design changes are in the right direction.  I also think that this certainly improves tactics against control compared with the original Long.  However, the overall EV of the archetype has decreased considerably relative to the current metagame IMO.

That's a given.  The original Long was so broken the DCI felt it merited two restrictions. If this deck had the same EV, either Burning Wish would not have been unrestricted or it would be re-restricted. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

That's a given.

Ok, I'll be more clear.  Testing has moved me to the right of this spectrum:  <restriction worthy <> impressive <> uncompetitive >

[Smmenen]

Well, obviously my testing leads to a different conclusion as my results against Grixis Control has been extremely favorable (some of which is documented in this thread).     This deck was designed to beat the decks in the Top 8 of the Vintage Championship.  It sounds like you have a different metagame in mind based upon your metagame description (i.e. "tempo based aggro control," etc).  Landstill is obviously a more difficult matchup.  One of the key advantages of this deck against Control is the way in which it reduces the effectiveness of Jace.    But obviously the main objective of this deck was to design a Long deck that can compete with Workshops.  The artifact acceleration, 2 mana victory condition, and other tactics make this the best Long list against Workshops arguably ever, and at least since original Long.

has moved into tempo-based aggro control which is not a good pairing for the deck.

Tempo based aggro control decks can be tamed with available tactics.  Just pack in multiple Empty the Warrens, for example.  What concerns me more are decks like Landstill which run far more countermagic than a deck like Grixis Control.  That said, this deck has the capacity to win any game with the luck draw of T1 Orchard, Mox, Oath.  

[desolutionist]

That's a given.

Ok, I'll be more clear.  Testing has moved me to the right of this spectrum:  <restriction worthy <> impressive <> uncompetitive >

Can you explain that spectrum?  Restriction Worthy does not equal impressive does not equal uncompetitive?

Also, I think the idea that this deck loses to loads of countermagic is silly.  This deck plays more win conditions than most; so how are those other decks somehow exempt from losing to counterspells and this one not?

[Smmenen]

That's a given.

Ok, I'll be more clear.  Testing has moved me to the right of this spectrum:  <restriction worthy <> impressive <> uncompetitive >

Can you explain that spectrum?  Restriction Worthy does not equal impressive does not equal uncompetitive?

GI is being (and has a tendency to be) a bit opaque in his analysis.   What he's saying is that he does not think this deck is competitive.  Yet, while asserting an intent to be "more clear,"  he is being anything but.  Instead of just coming out and saying that, he has posted a confusing representation of a spectrum to make the same point.

The issue is not worth debating because it can't be proven one way or the other by people on message boards   But everyone is, of course, entitled to their views, and to share them.  

My case for this deck against Control is fairly straight forward:

1) There is a hard limit to the number of Fluster/Misstep blue decks can run maindeck because of Shops. 

2) Most control decks run just Fluster, Misstep, and Force, although some run a few Drains as well.   

3) the variability of threats this deck posts means that you can actually play through, around or fight through many of these defenses.  Oath, for example, is so potent because it unaffected by Flusterstorm or Mental Misstep.

4) Control decks also rely more than ever on creatures like Bob and Snapcaster.   That means Oath will trigger often without an Orchard.

5) Jace is weaker against this deck than any other deck in the metagame.  The resources aren't worth the immediate investment given the time frame this deck operates on.  Sure, it can beat you, but just as often you can beat it.

Against control, just shore up your matchup by giving yourself a bit more threat density post-board, such as by bringing in an Empty the Warrens or two, for example.  Should help tremendously.  Although tight play is obviously critical. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

GI is being (and has a tendency to be) a bit opaque in his analysis.

My spectrum is obvious if you've read the thread; I just picked words Steve used and added one of my own.  I was trying to be subtle/nice.

The list has struggled consistently against a wide number of decks I would consider common/competitive.  If you really wanted to test this to beat the GenCon T8 you would have tested against Raf's list and not Blaine's since it was more prepared for combo.  Outside of shops, Delver and Standstill didn't happen to be in that T8 but were widely considered topguns before and after that event.  Gush Tendrils, Bomberman, Intuitive Snapcaster and Noble Fish are lists which are more common to New York and/or Europe, but have also been 50%+ so far against this.  We haven't tested dredge yet.

Still, certainly metagames vary wildly in both archetypes and card selection.  I also haven't been to a decent size event lately, and perhaps my view is colored by my local weekly having a heavy presence of snapcaster-oriented aggro decks.

The Oath inclusion certainly gives this list a different angle, but this is hardly new.  5c combo lists have been splashing Oath for a very long time.  This strategy also didn't historically gain much metagame arbitrage since it usually becomes known soon enough and the deck is back to relying on dodging the right answer instead of having a strategy it can employ pro-actively.

I mentioned before and want to reiterate that the additional moxen do seem to help with the midgame in some of these matchups.  Obviously they're good against shops on the play.  However, they also add new problems by opening up the manabase to things like repeal, engineered explosives or ancient grudge.  My fundamental problem with the deck is that while some of the power of the archetype has been restored, the herd has been strengthened even more.  While it's possible to pull off spectacular wins, especially against unsuspecting opponents, I haven't seen and don't predict it will lead to consistent tournament success.

[Smmenen]

I was trying to be subtle/nice.

Which is, btw, not the same thing as clarity, which you claimed to be doing  

The list has struggled consistently against a wide number of decks I would consider common/competitive.  If you really wanted to test this to beat the GenCon T8 you would have tested against Raf's list and not Blaine's since it was more prepared for combo.  

I did.  I tested against multiple Workshop variants, including Koldotha.  Also, I did not test against Blaine's list from Vintage Champs -- I tested against Blaine, who was playing a list with Spheres maindeck.  

Also bear in mind that my testing was both pre- and post-board.

Outside of shops, Delver and Standstill didn't happen to be in that T8 but were widely considered topguns before and after that event.  

I tested quite a bit against Delver, and was crushing.  

To be honest though, I agree with Brian Demars that decks that don't have full Moxen aren't tier one right now.   Decks without full Moxen cannot consistently beat Shops, and that was, I believe, proven by Vintage Champs.

 5c combo lists have been splashing Oath for a very long time.  

The last time I saw a 5c rainbow mana base Tendrils deck with Oath was Aaron Forsythe in 2004.  So while your statement is true, it's only technically true, so far as I am aware.

This deck has a much higher threat density than the previous iterations of Long.  You get all of the huge bombs like Necro, Bargain, and Desire, and all of the draw7, including Wheel, and then 4 Burning Wish to find Empty, Will, etc, but then you also have Oath, which is Bargain/Draw7.    

This strategy also didn't historically gain much metagame arbitrage since it usually becomes known soon enough and the deck is back to relying on dodging the right answer instead of having a strategy it can employ pro-actively.

Speaking of opaque.  This is a sentence that would benefit from clearer construction.

If by arbitrage, you mean consistent metagame advantage, well that's true of most strategies in Vintage.  They have a huge advantage when the opponent doesn't know what they are doing, and get worse when confronted with hate.  Once that happens, what matters if if the pilots of these decks continue to evolve.  As the metagame changes/adapts, it's incumbent on pilots to adapt as well.

The second half of your sentence doesn't make sense (to me), as composed, when parsed.  Upon one semantic reading, the exact same thing could be said of Dredge -- yet that has not rendered it uncompetitive.  More critically, it's not a disjunctive: no deck deploys threats without an awareness of opposing defenses.   The idea of "dodging hate"versus "proactive strategy" is a false dichotomy. 

I am not claiming or have never claimed that this deck is unbeatable or the best deck in the format, but I have claimed -- and here is where I disagree with you - that this is a viable, competitive strategy.   Yes, it's true that Shops, Control, and Aggro-Control all have more tools than they did ten years ago, when Original Long was running rampant.  But this deck has gained much as well.  Hell, Forbidden Orchard didn't exist when Original Long was legal.  

[Grand Inquisitor]

true of most strategies in Vintage...get worse when confronted with hate.

This is perhaps why you don't think it 'makes sense', is because I'm referring to decks that remain competitive without the advantage of surprise and even when decks begin to evolve against them.

This deck has a much higher threat density than the previous iterations of Long

This is the substitution:

2   Lion's Eye Diamond
2   Lion's Eye Diamond
1   Mox Diamond
   
3   Brainstorm
1   Mystical Tutor
1   Tendrils of Agony

2   Griselbrand
2   Mox Opal
1   Lion's Eye Diamond
   
4   Oath of Druids
1   Ponder

There are less material upgrades like Orchard>Gemstone/Underground Sea.  I'd also grant that the SB options are more significant with Show and Tell available sometimes.  The last concession is that one could make an argument that if Tendrils is considered a threat than Griselbrand should be as well.  My observations is that surprise Tendrils kills are much more common than having the mana and a clear path to hardcast Grisel.  YMMV.

I would not characterize this as a considerable change in threat density.

[Smmenen]

true of most strategies in Vintage...get worse when confronted with hate.

This is perhaps why you don't think it 'makes sense', is because I'm referring to decks that remain competitive without the advantage of surprise and even when decks begin to evolve against them.

That statement is much clearer than the "This strategy also didn't historically gain much metagame arbitrage since it usually becomes known soon enough."

My response:

First, that's not what I was saying didn't make sense.   You've confused the referent.   I was talking about the second half of the sentence, which I'll deconstruct in a moment.

Second, all decks in Vintage lose points when the metagame begins to adapt to them.  There isn't a deck in any format that improves its matchup when the opponent understands it better and prepares for it.  The implication that this is somehow exclusive to this deck or a class of decks to which this deck belongs is ridiculous.  

Third, what I was saying doesn't make sense is this:

the deck is back to relying on dodging the right answer instead of having a strategy it can employ pro-actively.

I think this reflects a fundamental theoretical misunderstanding of the game.   Strategy is not based only upon what you do, but rather incorporates the opponent's plans and tactics as well.  The dichotomy you've set out suggests otherwise: either you have a strategy you can proactively employ or you have to dodge answers, to paraphrase you almost verbatim.   No deck pursues a 'proactive' strategy, to use your terminology, without planning and executing it in a way that is sensitive to resistance the opponent might have.  Not even the most mindlessly aggressive strategies.  Not even Belcher decks just run cards out there - they will select lines of play that maximize their odds against potential resistance.   If the opponent is more likely to have Flusterstorm, they will play Belcher.   If the opponent has Null Rod in their deck, perhaps they go with Empty.  And so on.  

There is also a practical flaw in your point: it's true that this deck, as with all decks, have to carefully navigate resistance regardless of the context.  It's true whether this deck is a surprise or not.   There are always going to be cards in the natural metagame that impact this deck.   In other words: it's true pre or post publishing of this article.   So, given that the need to carefully navigate resistance is equally applicable now or whether this deck is a surprise, it's not relevant.  

But perhaps ou believe that this deck is a glass cannon strategy, that folds under the tiniest amount of resistance.  To that I would say: There is really no silver bullet that causes you to lose because of the variety and flexibility of your threats.  It's hard to shut down all of your angles, especially post-board.  Dredge is much more of a glass cannon since it has only one primary route to victory.  And, yet, it has been able to adapt by fighting resistance.  This deck can also do that.  

Ultimately, where I disagree with you is the conclusion that this deck is somehow not competitive (i.e. not viable).   This deck has, at a minimum, enough points on key matchups to be competitive, IMO and based on my testing.  This deck has enough speed and tools to combat any strategy in Vintage, and while it may not be favorable against all, it is certainly favorable or even with enough to justify calling it competitive or viable.  

This deck has a much higher threat density than the previous iterations of Long

This is the substitution:

2   Lion's Eye Diamond
2   Lion's Eye Diamond
1   Mox Diamond
   
3   Brainstorm
1   Mystical Tutor
1   Tendrils of Agony

2   Griselbrand
2   Mox Opal
1   Lion's Eye Diamond
   
4   Oath of Druids
1   Ponder

You know that that list is not accurate, right?   For starters, this deck has an LED maindeck. 

In any case, in terms of non-mana sources, here are the differences:

Long 2012 (as represented in this article, at least -- my latest build is slightly different):

+ 2 Grisel
+ 4 Oath
+ 1 Ponder

Long 2003

+ 3 Brainstorm
+ 1 Mystical Tutor
+ 1 Tendrils

Given the nature of these cards and their strategic role, I'd say that's a pretty significant increase in threat density.  

The main threats in original Long were:

4 Burning Wish
Necro, Bargain, Desire
Wheel, Tinker, Windfall, Jar, and Twister

This deck gets all of those + 4 Oath and 2 Griselbrand.

I would not characterize this as a considerable change in threat density.

So, having all of the original Long bomb spells + 6 more is not a considerable increase?  Agree to disagree then.  

My observations is that surprise Tendrils kills are much more common than having the mana and a clear path to hardcast Grisel.

Even excluding Griselbrand, this deck has 4 more bombs maindeck than Original Long did.  Original Long couldn't run Oath because Orchard nor Griselbrand existed, and the substitutes for either were not as good.  

Even if you don't count Griselbrand as a threat, and you count Brainstorm as a threat, the change is:

- 3 Brainstorm
+ 1 Ponder
+ 4 Oath

Given the fact that Oath is actually a path to victory and Brainstorm is not, even a 2 card difference is a considerable difference.  

And, as I've already said, post-board, you get to bring in multiple ETWs in the right matchup.  ETW is clearly a considerable upgrade, as I point out in this article, over Hunting Pack.  

[bluemage55]

That's a given.

Ok, I'll be more clear.  Testing has moved me to the right of this spectrum:  <restriction worthy <> impressive <> uncompetitive >

Can you explain that spectrum?  Restriction Worthy does not equal impressive does not equal uncompetitive?

Also, I think the idea that this deck loses to loads of countermagic is silly.  This deck plays more win conditions than most; so how are those other decks somehow exempt from losing to counterspells and this one not?

Long expends more resources to cast its spells.  Walking into Drain with Ritual -> Necropotence costs you 2 cards instead of 1, and the extra acceleration also means a lower threat density, which favors countermagic. Draw 7s are also naturally problematic against a deck with lots of countermagic since refilling the opponent's is more likely to end badly.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Second, all decks in Vintage lose points when the metagame begins to adapt to them.

This seems so simple.  And yet, it's completely untrue.  There's a long history of decks that remained competitive or even dominant in the face of metagame adaptation.

Maybe if we remove the language of 'points' and talk about whether strategies remain competitive as tactics and pilot behavior adapts.

Historically ritual based combo decks have not adapted well or survived adaptations well.  This is because their fundamental strategy, as you say in the article, is to "drop bombs".  With little or no instant speed threats and high cc barriers for many of their plays, they're constrained against counter-adaptations more than most decks.  They're almost like a combo analog to workshop prison in that the sequence they choose for their main phase is their best opportunity to outplay the opponent.  TPS is a notable exception and I would argue that it's reliance on Gifts and other instant speed threats combined with FoWs is the reason why it had success.

You know that that list is not accurate, right?   For starters, this deck has an LED maindeck.

There's an LED in the text of mine that you quote.  Please read more carefully.

I agree that Oath of Druids is a good addition because it's a low-investment threat compared with the rest of the list.  But it's not compared with the metagame competition or the recent printings which answer it.  It's also contingent (like many other threats in the list) and it doesn't add any flexibility for timing outside of allowing you to play more threats per turn.  I agree that Oath of Druids is more potent than Brainstorm, but it does not actually increase the number of relevant cards in the list.

Even if you don't count Griselbrand as a threat

How generous of you not to include an 8cc (4 specific) spell as a 'bomb' in Vintage  

This deck has enough speed and tools to combat any strategy in Vintage, and while it may not be favorable against all, it is certainly favorable or even with enough to justify calling it competitive or viable.  

Wranglings about terms aside, I think this encapsulates the divide best.  I agree that the list is viable.  That is, you can bring it to a Vintage tournament and win matches.  I don't, however, think it's competitive.  I think it will have a very low instance of T8s and that those will be even lower in large events.

[Smmenen]

Second, all decks in Vintage lose points when the metagame begins to adapt to them.

This seems so simple.  And yet, it's completely untrue.  There's a long history of decks that remained competitive or even dominant in the face of metagame adaptation.

Wrong: Reread my statement, because what you said is not inconsistent with it, and therefore fails to disprove it.  The fact that decks can remain competitive after the metagame adapts does not mean that they don't lose points when the metagame adapts.  They do.   Think how insane Dredge would be if no one had hate for it.   Or any deck in the format.  

Every deck in the format loses points when the metagame is prepared for it.   As I said, "There isn't a deck in any format that improves its matchup when the opponent understands it better and prepares for it."  The problem with dominant decks isn't that they don't get worse when people adapt or learn how to play against them, it's that they are starting from such a advantageous position that they don't lose their dominance.  Think how insane Dredge would be if it didn't have to face dedicated hate.  

 TPS is a notable exception and I would argue that it's reliance on Gifts and other instant speed threats combined with FoWs is the reason why it had success.

That is laughably false.   The presence of instant speed draw had approaching zero relevance to either Pitch Long or TPS success.  Both TPS and Pitch Long had great success -- including multiple Vintage Championship Top 8s and a Vintage Champs victory.    I almost made top 8 with TPS, only losing to Paul in the final round of swiss in the mirror match the year he won Vintage Champs (ended up in the top 16).   The fact that they had instant speed "threats" like Gifts had almost no bearing whatsoever on their success.   They were powerful because they dropped bombs and secured their resolution with pitch magic and timing, such that the opponent could do nothing about it.  

A deck that I would say did get points from having an instant speed threat, though, would be Dragon circa 2003, which could deploy Necromancy for tempo on the opponent's endstep.

You know that that list is not accurate, right?   For starters, this deck has an LED maindeck.

There's an LED in the text of mine that you quote.  Please read more carefully.

This is yet another instance of bizarre representation of what you are trying to say.  Why would you say that the substitution is - 2 LED and then + 1 LED?   Where are the Chrome Mox?  Etc.  

Your substitution chart is strange, opaque and anything but clear, making it difficult for anyone to 'read.'  

The typical substitution chart in Vintage looks like

- 4 Birds of Paradise
- 2 Spirit MOnger
- 3 STP

+ 3 Abrupt Decay
+ 3 Prenicious Deed
+ 4 Nature's Claim

Your chart is strange, both in that it says 2 LEDs and then another 2 LEDs are subtracted, but then adds an LED.  Why would you add a card you are subtracting?  And why would you say -2 LED and another -2 LED?  Why not just say -4 LED?   And why add another LED.  Why not just make it simple and say -3 LED?  And in that it doesn't even have all of the relevant cards listed.   It's basically impossible to read because I have almost no idea what it is representing.   Very odd.

 It's also contingent (like many other threats in the list) and it doesn't add any flexibility for timing outside of allowing you to play more threats per turn.

The fact that it is a 2 mana threat (a simpler way of saying "low-investment") means that you have flexibility for timing because not just of more threats per turn, but more sequencing options.  Not to mention, playing more threats per turn is the name of the game.  So saying "aside from that" is ignoring the most important thing this deck does.

 I agree that Oath of Druids is more potent than Brainstorm, but it does not actually increase the number of relevant cards in the list.

Of course it does.  By increasing the number of threats, you have increased the number of cards in an opening hand our opponent must counter or address in a short time frame.

This deck has enough speed and tools to combat any strategy in Vintage, and while it may not be favorable against all, it is certainly favorable or even with enough to justify calling it competitive or viable.  

Wranglings about terms aside, I think this encapsulates the divide best.  I agree that the list is viable.  That is, you can bring it to a Vintage tournament and win matches.  I don't, however, think it's competitive.  I think it will have a very low instance of T8s and that those will be even lower in large events.

Challenge accepted.  

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Now I'm not a combo pro, I was never very good at pitch long, but a had decent chunk of success with 5 color grim long post brainstorm restriction pre-golem, and a decent amount of top 8's with labman doomsday. I've played this list and feel the control matchup is fine. I'm currently 7-2-0 against control across events. During some "while we're just sitting around waiting for everyone to finish" games, I went 5-1 against landstill in addition. It's much better than my initial testing showed when it came down to acctual performance, maybe I've just learned a few tricks since then, who knows.

Post board is pretty interesting because there isn't to much your opponent can do aside from maybe a couple/remaining flusterstorms, a couple mindbreaks. I had defense grid, which proved difficult to counter and has "haste", to turn these off when I was in my big turn. A few times I had to play through grafdigger's cage when oath was the bomb had to stick (it had something to do with a dark ritual and a duress needing to happen to optimize my outcomes), which is funny because leaving spree in board is completely fine for blowing cage out of the water. And as far as playing out of the yard, I really didn't rely on will too often.
The 7/7 was also hard castes twice, and was show and telled in via burning wish a couple times too. It was rarely a completely dead draw.

[Smmenen]

Now I'm not a combo pro, I was never very good at pitch long, but a had decent chunk of success with 5 color grim long post brainstorm restriction pre-golem,

Which is exactly the right skill set.  This deck is closest to Grim Long pre-Golem.

and a decent amount of top 8's with labman doomsday. I've played this list and feel the control matchup is fine. I'm currently 7-2-0 against control across events. During some "while we're just sitting around waiting for everyone to finish" games, I went 5-1 against landstill in addition. It's much better than my initial testing showed when it came down to acctual performance, maybe I've just learned a few tricks since then, who knows.

That's pretty consistent with my testing.  

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Alot of the matches against control depend on the opponent...

I tested landstill against Rich Shay playing this deck and I only lost a few games. I forget the exact count but it was something like 8-2 or 8-3...Against a person that knows how to play standstill this is not a good matchup for the long player. That being said, good landstill pilots are few and far between. The chance you play against it it very slim. The deck can certainly beat landstill but it is NOT a good matchup...

I like the deck a lot Stephen, it shows you put hard work into designing the deck.

[Smmenen]

Thanks Bro.

The deck can certainly beat landstill but it is NOT a good matchup...

There are still lots of things you can do, like Mox, Orchard, Oath, which can only be stopped by Force.  Not to mention, if you board in a bunch of ETW, like your Gush deck does, that's pretty effective as well.  There are ways to tune the matchup to improve your chances for sure, if you have lots of landstill in your metagame.