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

[desolutionist]

You guys are really wasting your time talking about nothing.  Might as well be talking politics.  The tournaments are coming and we will all know for sure.

I'm probably going play this deck on Saturday  (If I go, which I think I will... probably ).  My opening hands are going to be like Necro, Lotus, Orchard, Mox, Oath, Timetwister, Mana Crypt.

[median]

You guys are really wasting your time talking about nothing.  Might as well be talking politics.  The tournaments are coming and we will all know for sure.

I'm probably going play this deck on Saturday  (If I go, which I think I will... probably ).  My opening hands are going to be like Necro, Lotus, Orchard, Mox, Oath, Timetwister, Mana Crypt.

I had a hand like that and lost on the draw to workshop-> trinisphere 

[Commandant]

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. 

EE

[emidln]

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. 

EE

Dubs EE (for 0 to stall then for 2 next turn to remove oath) or are you suggesting 4 mana on turn 1?

[Commandant]

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.  

EE

Dubs EE (for 0 to stall then for 2 next turn to remove oath) or are you suggesting 4 mana on turn 1?

I'm not sure how Empty the Warrens improves a match up with a stack oriented control deck that already main decks 3-4 EE.

If you read Steven's post it's pretty clear the Oath comment is a seperate line of play/point. I'm not sure how Oath into Empty is a real line. Unless you are suggesting Oath line followed up by Emtpy if Oath is deat with. I will note that I'm positive there are many permutations of Landstill hands that can beat first turn Oath followed by a turn two Empty.

[emidln]

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.ÂÂ  Not to mention, if you board in a bunch of ETW, like your Gush deck does, that's pretty effective as well.ÂÂ  There are ways to tune the matchup to improve your chances for sure, if you have lots of landstill in your metagame.ÂÂ Â

EE

Dubs EE (for 0 to stall then for 2 next turn to remove oath) or are you suggesting 4 mana on turn 1?

I'm not sure how Empty the Warrens improves a match up with a stack oriented control deck that already main decks 3-4 EE.

If you read Steven's post it's pretty clear the Oath comment is a seperate line of play/point. I'm not sure how Oath into Empty is a real line. Unless you are suggesting Oath line followed up by Emtpy if Oath is deat with. I will note that I'm positive there are many permutations of Landstill hands that can beat first turn Oath followed by a turn two Empty.

EE @ 0 clears spirit tokens giving you another untap and a chance to destroy the oath before it triggers. I said nothing about ETW.

[Commandant]

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.ÂÂ  Not to mention, if you board in a bunch of ETW, like your Gush deck does, that's pretty effective as well.ÂÂ  There are ways to tune the matchup to improve your chances for sure, if you have lots of landstill in your metagame.ÂÂ Â

EE

Dubs EE (for 0 to stall then for 2 next turn to remove oath) or are you suggesting 4 mana on turn 1?

I'm not sure how Empty the Warrens improves a match up with a stack oriented control deck that already main decks 3-4 EE.

If you read Steven's post it's pretty clear the Oath comment is a seperate line of play/point. I'm not sure how Oath into Empty is a real line. Unless you are suggesting Oath line followed up by Emtpy if Oath is deat with. I will note that I'm positive there are many permutations of Landstill hands that can beat first turn Oath followed by a turn two Empty.

EE @ 0 clears spirit tokens giving you another untap and a chance to destroy the oath before it triggers. I said nothing about ETW.

That's great, I mentioned EE because of Empty the Warrens being thrown around as a solution to a terrible match up for the combo player.

Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, and Force of Will all answer Oath on the play with Force on the draw. I'm not convinced Oath is particularly well positioned in modern Vintage to be a real threat to meta contenders. If you want to nit pick like Steve and argue Oath on the play as a viable line with the assumption that it is hard to answer on the draw outside of Force of Will then I will concede. That being said, if high variance lines on the play (also note the lack of protection outside of Duress/realistic mana expansion that doesn't fold to Chalice of the Void/Stony Silence) are how this list plans to win events then I believe GI has already come to the correct conclusion; "Dropping Bombs" does not make for a competitive list, consistency does.

[Smmenen]

"Dropping Bombs" does not make for a competitive list, consistency does.

Those aren't mutually exclusive qualities, btw.   And, it's not technically true that consistency is the key to a competitive list.   Burn is very consistent, yet uncompetitive in Vintage.  

[Grand Inquisitor]

You know who else was consistent?!?  No, not Hitler.

Island.dec 

[Smmenen]

I was dead sure my line of play was correct with that hand.

I intended to reply to this earlier, but this is a word of caution to anyone interested in playing this deck:  I would be very careful about that kind of attitude.

This deck definitely requires confidence, but it also requires a good dose of humility.   Nearly every hand offers challenging sequencing issues.  Do you play Wheel or Necro?  Do you cast Sol Ring or not - in case they have Mental Misstep?  Should you DT for Ancestral or Oath?  And so on.

Someone I won't name messaged me recently telling me that they encountered alot of difficult sequencing scenarios in their recent testing.  

If you have the attitude that you are "dead sure" your line of play is correct, there is a good chance it isn't and, more importantly, you are closing your mind off from looking at other lines of play.

The best way to play this deck is as if every hand is a truly interesting, fun and challenging puzzle.  Let your mind glide over the possibilities and explore lines of play.   There is nothing wrong with a probabilistic approach to playing this deck, which accepts a good measure of uncertainty in every play.  

Like puzzles in the classic games like the 7th Guest or other great mind benders, sometimes there are possibilities you won't even realize until you puzzle through them for a while.  

In other words, I'm saying this deck needs equal measures hubris and humility.  You have to be confident enough to be aggressive and make probabilistic but perhaps seemingly (although not) risky plays -- like calling an opponent's bluff, Consulting for the right card, being willing to play a Draw7 and refill an opponent's hand, and being will to play a bomb even when the opponent has cards in hand.  But you also have to have the humility to realize that you can always find a better play and should be actively searching for one and trying to improve your skills with the deck every time you play.  

[President Skroob]

Sometimes, in the course of playing Burning Long, you may come across a situation that looks like this:

Don't panic. Sometimes there are possibilities you won't even realize until you puzzle through them for a while. 

[Smmenen]

Think the Spider or Bishop puzzle, but yes

***

An update on this decklist -- I've been playing with an ETW maindeck over the 3rd Chrome Mox.  That gives this deck a way to win in game 1 in which Chalice 2 has been played.  

Anyone who doesn't think this thing smashes Control is grossly mistaken.  I just played a 19 game set against one of the best control players in my area (as measured by consistency of making the semi and finals of Vintage tournaments), who was playing this decklist:

4 Dark Confidant
4 Force of Will
3 Snapcaster Mage
2 Mental Misstep
2 Flusterstorm
2 Mana Drain
1 Duress
1 Spell Pierce
2 Jace, The Mind Sculptor
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Tinker
1 Sensei's Divining Top
1 Blightsteel Colossus
1 Mana Crypt
1 Lightning Bolt
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Time Vault
1 Voltaic Key
1 Yawgmoth's Will

2 Island
1 Swamp
3 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Polluted Delta
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Misty Rainforest

SB
1 Flusterstorm
1 Surgical Extraction
1 Duress
1 Mental Misstep
3 Grafdigger's Cage
1 Ravenous Trap
1 Lightning Bolt
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Pyroclasm
1 Spell Pierce
1 Spell Snare
1 Echoing Truth

My record against that deck was 15-4.  I went 7-3 pre board and 8-1 post-board.

Here's my game log:

The first ten games were pre-board:

G1: I won
G2: I won
G3: I win
G4: I won
G5: I won
G6: I lost -- I Oathed and both Griselbrands were in the bottom 3 cards of my library.
G7: I lost -- I Consulted for a Burning Wish, two of which were in the top 6 cards and the last two were in the bottom 6 cards, preventing me from winning with Griselbrand.  Griselbrand was bounced by Jace.  
G8: I won
G10: I lost.  He assembled Key Vault on turn 2.

We sbed.  I brought in Thoughtseize for 1 Mox Opal.  He brought in all of the sb countermagic and Cages.

G11: I win
G12: I win
G13: I win
G14: I lost.  I activated a turn two Jar, and go, Rit, LED, Petal, Consult (which he Missteps), and I am about to play Burning WIsh, when he bluffs me that he has Force -- which he does -- but no blue card to pitch.  I would have won here had I not been tricked.
G15: I won
G16: I won
G17: I won
G18: I won
G19: I won

This is pretty consistent with all of my previous testing.  

Half of the games I lost were because of bad luck with Oath or Consult.

Burning Long has a better Control matchup than Grim Long did over Control Slaver (which was considerable if you count the times I crushed Rich Shay in SCG events in that matchup), despite all of the new tools control has.   It's such a blow out.  

It's too bad that American Vintage seems to have a suffered a precipitous collapse just as this deck became legal.   

[Samoht]

Steve, saw you in that 11 man event. Care to explain what happened to the deck? Pairings boogy monster? Looks like a lot of UBx Snapcaster decks top 4'd. Trying to figure out why a deck that is being so pushed by some isn't performing in events. I assume this is your first run through the mill, but it either isn't being chosen in the NE or not placing here either.

[Smmenen]

I stomped two Control decks -- Jeff Huang on Snapcaster Control (I had 2 turn two wins -- the second was a Desire for 7) and another guy, Mike, on Remora Control.  I think Jeff and David Ochoa were playing pretty much the same deck.  

I lost to Stony Silence Fish in a very close match, despite it probably being my worst matchup and me making a huge blunder that cost me a game (he Drew Force the turn after I Duressed him, and Forced my turn two Necro, but I forgot to mark that he pitched his Meddling Mage, so I didn't Burning Wish for Show and Tell to play the Griselbrand next turn -- which would have won me the game - because I thought he still had Meddling Mage in hand, so I was waiting to draw one more mana to be able to do both in the same turn)), and lost to Blaine's Workshop deck after I Jarred into my Maniac post-board against Blaine (a huge blunder to activate Jar, since that was the only way I could actually lose the game -- drawing the Maniac in the Jar) which prevented me from winning the game since that was my only win condition.   I was able to activate Oath, but had no creatures in my deck thanks to my stupidity.  

Between rounds I played the guy who won the tournament with Dredge for fun in a game and crushed him 2 games pre-board -- I hear my deck is pretty good against Dredge.  

The other guy who top4ed with Snapcaster Control is the guy I tested the 19 games with after the tournament that I noted in my last post above this one.    Given that, I'm pretty sure I crush anyone in that top 4.  

[luudes]

I don't think a stomping is an accurate description of our games Smmenen.  If I had forced your vampiric tutor rather than misstep I would have vault key locked you game 3 at 1 life.  Alas, I can't do math and had mentally checked out.  Stomp is a bit harsh though don't you think.

[Samoht]

I don't think a stomping is an accurate description of our games Smmenen.  If I had forced your vampiric tutor rather than misstep I would have vault key locked you game 3 at 1 life.  Alas, I can't do math and had mentally checked out.  Stomp is a bit harsh though don't you think.

Steve is a bit harsh. Plus hyperbole makes a much better point.

[Smmenen]

I think playing 14 Goblins on turn 1 counts as a beating/stomping/whatever

Misstep is the right play there.  You need Force for the bomb I was clearly setting up.  If you Force my Vamp, then I can resolve a huge bomb unimpeded.  I cast Black Lotus, to set up a huge play.  You pretty much have to take the line of play you took.  The problem for you was that my bomb was a Storm spell, and thus not stoppable with Force.  

The only reason I lost game 1 was because I thought you were on Oath.  I wouldn't have a kept a hand built around Orchard superiority had I known, for example.  

[brokenbacon]

Steve, saw you in that 11 man event. Care to explain what happened to the deck? Pairings boogy monster? Looks like a lot of UBx Snapcaster decks top 4'd. Trying to figure out why a deck that is being so pushed by some isn't performing in events. I assume this is your first run through the mill, but it either isn't being chosen in the NE or not placing here either.

Steve wants people to keep buying his article (cocaine's a hell of a drug), and a t8 means publishing the decklist on TMD, so he intentionally missed t8. Nobody made t8 with the deck in the Northeast because Steve took a plane out to the most recent NEV and shot the prospective t8er(s) in the bathroom before they could make it.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Steve is a bit harsh. Plus hyperbole makes a much better point.

Hyperbole is all that is left after a deck fails to T4 an 11 person event.

While I've played the contrarian throughout this thread, I've also tried to be measured and accurate where possible.  My biggest problem with Steve is that he's a good salesman.  My aim is not to fight with Steve, but instead to try to help those who are new to the format, or who don't know the history of archetypes to make balanced judgments.  Eg, it would be sad to learn of how many people spent a lot of hard earned money on foil Death Wishes.  So Many Insane Plays is littered with ritual lists that had imperceptible impacts on the metagames of their time.  I just like to tell both sides since Steve's bombast is so, well, bombastic.

***Disclaimer*** I have a great deal of respect for Steve as a deckbuilder and as a player.  He pioneered the appreciation of Merchant Scroll, he's always streamlined Gush decks for a given metagame and I do see incremental value in his latest addition to the Long.dec series.

But even Steve's comments about his tournament play shows one of the structural problems endemic to the archetype: it's extremely difficult to play.  This can result in claims that a pilot looks back realizing 'misplays' could have been avoided to salvage victory.  Whether practice can mitigate these or not is open to debate.  I'll just add that what I've observed over watching Vintage since 2002: while talent can leverage a powerful deck, there are also substantive diminishing returns on complexity when trying to perform round after round.  

[luudes]

I'm pretty sure Steve used lotus in his storm turn making 14 goblins and going to one card and then vampiric tutored on the next upkeep. So I'm not sure how using FoW on the spell instead of misstep is worse unless his draw is time walk as he was hellbent until the draw step. Maybe I'm wrong though.

This is my recollection of game 3

Im on the play
I play t1 remora and mox, sol ring
go to 19 life off a fetch
His T1, he plays 7 spells, I draw 7 cards
I think he expected me to FoW spell 6 ,oath, but i had my one abrupt decay in hand mox emerald and mox jet
he makes 14 goblins and has 1 card in hand, pass
I start the turn with 9 cards going to 10
I play more artifact mana including mana crypt, Jace, Jacestorm into time vault blue card and tinker. I play vault and pass with FoW, blue card, and misstep, tinker D tutor
Steve casts vampiric in his upkeep, I assume to get timewalk, i misstep, 19-->17
you attack 17-->3 pass
I die to mana crypt roll.

[Smmenen]

Steve is a bit harsh. Plus hyperbole makes a much better point.

Hyperbole is all that is left after a deck fails to T4 an 11 person event.

Speaking of hyperbole...
If I had won that event, then you would be saying: "winning a 11 man event proves nothing."

Just because I didn't get top 4 or didn't win doesn't mean this deck is uncompetitive.  You know that too.  You asserted that this deck is not competitive.  That's where we disagreed.  I got like 5th or 6th place in an 11 person tournament.  It happens.  I played this deck not even that great, and I still felt like I had the best deck in the field, not close.   That doesn't prove your point.  

Lou Christopher got 2nd place in an 8 man in Vegas (his report is on eternalcentral.com right now).  Just as winning this event proves nothing, neither does failing to top 4 an 11 discredit it.    I lost a coinflip matchup, played poorly, and beat two Control decks.  The irony is that if we had more players, I would have had another round to make top 8, and then a much better chance to outright win this event.   I have many more occasions to make my case, and will.  

While I've played the contrarian throughout this thread, I've also tried to be measured and accurate where possible.

Except that you haven't nor do you seem to try to do so.   Being contrarian is necessarily being inaccurate.  You downplay facts when they don't support your arguments.

So Many Insane Plays is littered with ritual lists that had imperceptible impacts on the metagames of their time.

The reality is that you have always and continue to underestimate this archetype over the years.  I believe you were among the original Long skeptics.  To put your skepticism and point about "long's metagame relevance" into perspective, consider how many pieces of power I've won with this archetype (without even being exhaustive):

SCG p9 Top 4: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/12134_SCG_P9_Rochester_Report_Top_4.html  (round 5 against Rich Shay no less, going 2-0)
SCG P9 Top 8: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/11616_Grim_Longing_in_Virginia_A_Report_T8.html  (in which I beat Rich Shay again)
SCG P9 Top 4: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/10803_Grim_Long_All_Your_Questions_Are_Belong_To_Us.html

While you can say that Grim Long had a barely perceptible metagame impact, the reality is that I enjoyed tremendous success with it during the Control Slaver era.   I consistently and repeatedly top 8ed events where I played it.  (In fact, I believe I either had or was tied for most number of SCG P9 Top 8s (which are 8-9), just as I am Vintage Championship Top 8 appearances (3)).  

And then, when I got behind TPS in a big way, it won the Vintage Championship that year (and I played it in that tournament)... so  much for an 'imperceptible' impact...

The reality is that this Burning Long is better than any of the Long archetypes since the original Long.   It also has the best Workshop matchup of any of them, and it's Control matchup is just as good against the Bob/Snapcaster/Jace decks as Grim Long's was against Control Slaver.  In fact, it might be better, based upon the data I have.

I thought that that the density of new printings like Misstep, Flusterstorm, etc would be a serious barrier to this deck's success, but it turns out that the fundamentals of the matchup aren't defined by countermagic efficiency, but by the speed with which both decks can reload and the relatively efficiency of my threats.   My 19 game series against Snapcaster/Bob Control was highly illuminating in a number of ways.   This deck has the ability to wear an opponent down quite productively because of its capacity to deploy must-counter threats with such speed.  

I did not want to reveal it before this weekend, but I made, as promised, a few tweaks to continue to stay ahead of the metagame.  One of the points you had been making is that minor tinkering and continued adaptation may be a limitation of this deck.  On the contrary, I think this deck is equally capable of such adaptations.  

* I added a maindeck Empty the Warrens in place 3rd Chrome Mox, which has definitely given a few more points in a range of matchups, but most importantly, blue matchups
* I added a Laboratory Maniac to the sb for decks that have Leyline of Sanctity and for Workshops.   Maniac is the best Oath target because it is not stopped or slowed by Tangle Wire, Metamorph, or Spheres.  Also, you get random wins with Maniac + Consult.  

These are examples of tweaks that I made to continue to give myself subtle advantages even when knowledgeable opponents face me.   I will continue to make tweaks over time, just as any deck pilot should to an evolving metagame.  I also changed my sideboarding plans in other ways that I won't share now because I expect to use them in the future.  

My biggest problem with Steve is that he's a good salesman.  My aim is not to fight with Steve, but instead to try to help those who are new to the format, or who don't know the history of archetypes to make balanced judgments.  Eg, it would be sad to learn of how many people spent a lot of hard earned money on foil Death Wishes.

Yeah, it would be really sad if people bought those Grim Tutor's when they were $15 by reading my article... The irony is that if people had bought Grim Tutors when I suggested they do so, they'd have made huge profits off them.  

You use a selective example, yet when I was pushing Grim Long, Grim Tutors were like $15.   They peaked at ten times that amount.  Yes, I feel very sad for the folks who bought Grim tutors and Imperial Seals when they read my articles.  

 I just like to tell both sides since Steve's bombast is so, well, bombastic.

You act as if I wrote this:

"SWEET JESUS BURNING LONG!  Thank god the DCI unrestricted the BEST CARD EVER.  

Burning Long is so good it's going to knock the socks right off your feet!   This deck owns Vintage: your opponent's will tremble in fear and quake in terror as you destroy them and rape their women.   This deck is so good it has 90% win percentage against the ENTIRE FIELD!  

This deck is not just the best deck in Vintage, but the best deck ever!!!"

I mean, sheesh.  I think my remarks are pretty measured throughout this thread, and even if one could describe them as somewhat hyperbolic, I don't think bombastic is even remotely appropriate as a descriptor.  

Case in point, my first post in this thread:

As of today, Monday, October 1st, 2012, Burning Wish is now unrestricted in Vintage.  

When the DCI restricted Burning Wish, I was devastated.  Burning Tendrils, aka Long.dec, was my favorite deck of all time.   Too few Vintage players actually knew how to play the deck, and despite my success with it, it had not exactly been tearing up Vintage tournaments.  The final dagger was the fact that Randy Buehler actually posted my list (with my name on it) in citing why it needing restriction.  

For nearly a decade, we were forced to work with poor substitutes in an increasingly hostile metagame.  What we have now is a perfect convergence of factors: A counter-intuitively ripe metagame to key tactics, a series of great printings to bolster what this deck is trying to do, and a key unrestriction.  The result is what I believe to be a top deck in the metagame.

Why, then, am I unveiling this now?   Unfortunately, there are no tournaments anywhere near me scheduled in the near future here in Cali.   Otherwise, I would have kept this deck bottled up to uncork on an unsuspecting metagame.  It's time for Rituals to return.  I believe my technology is the implement to that goal.  

If you only buy one premium article from me this year, this is the one to buy.    I have been furiously testing and tuning this decklist, and what you have here is a 25 page primer on how to play one of the most difficult decks in the format, but also the most rewarding and fun.

I described this deck as:

* "what I believe to be" a top deck in the metagame
* difficult, rewarding, and fun
* asserted that it's time for Rituals to come back.

I hardly think that advertisement qualifies as "bombastic."   Your characterization of my commentary as "bombastic" is way off the mark or greatly overstated.  I said I think this deck is a top metagame deck and has a great Control (i.e. Grixis/Snapcaster Control) matchup.   I did say that, in my testing, this smashes Grixis Control.  While you might characterize that as bombastic, it also happens to be characterized, empirically speakikng, as factual.

***Disclaimer*** I have a great deal of respect for Steve as a deckbuilder and as a player.  He pioneered the appreciation of Merchant Scroll in Gifts lists, he's always streamlined Gush decks for a given metagame and I do see incremental value in his latest addition to the Long.dec series.

And I was the first to top 8 with Dredge in Vintage, Doomsday in Vintage (Beacon & Maniac), etc etc.   This isn't about my resume.  

This is about the fact that you are among a group of players who, for whatever reasons, have never really appreciated/respected the power of this archetype.  

You can call me a good salesman (and, yes, I will admit that sales on this article have been very strong), but the facts are the facts: my testing results show a very, very strong Control matchup, and winnable matchups everywhere else.

This deck can clearly hang with Workshops, beat Control, and compete with Dredge.  What more could you ask for in the format?  

But even Steve's comments about his tournament play shows one of the structural problems endemic to the archetype: it's extremely difficult to play.  This can result in claims that a pilot looks back realizing 'misplays' could have been avoided to salvage victory.  Whether practice can mitigate these or not is open to debate.  I'll just add that what I've observed over watching Vintage since 2002: while talent can leverage a powerful deck, there are also substantive diminishing returns on complexity when trying to perform round after round.  

No doubt, but it's definitely worth it when the metagame is structured properly.  As long as people like you play Snapcaster Control decks, this deck is going to be a very strong option.  In my testing, it has a very strong blue matchup, a very strong Dredge matchup, and a winnable workshop matchup, even under bad conditions (such as losing the die roll).  

If I could, I would be taking this to SCG p9 tournaments and making top 8s.  But Vintage seems to have collapsed recently.  I'm not at all surprised, for the reasons that you cite, that people might be scared to play this.  But I don't think there is anything misleading here.   If anything, this is an exciting reason to try this format and enjoy it.  I think this deck  has actually generated a good deal of enthusiasm and interest in the format where there are precious few things to celebrate in Vintage these days.   Vintage seems like its pretty much collapsed or on the verge of collapse.  I hope the eventual printing of online power gives it a second life. 

[median]

I don't see why people are so hung up on the control match. This deck beats pretty much everything else easily, If this was the MTGTheSource forums the sky would have fallen and banning would be incoming. For the deck to require significant thought against one archetype is a very good thing.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Speaking of hyperbole...
If I had won that event, then you would be saying: "winning a 11 man event proves nothing."

Is it appropriate to use the phrase "Speaking of..." when you're speculating on what someone else would say?

Also, I don't think it's mutually exclusive that both winning in that event would have little convincing power while losing adds to the specter of a glass cannon.

For my consideration, I don't care how you perform with the list.  Really.  The whole "challenge accepted" thing is agnostic to the ability for the deck to perform in the hands of regular pilots across metagames.  You are a non-factor (or at least not of statistical significance) in this debate.

[Methuselahn]

Okay, so I've played a number of games with this deck.  I have a few questions.

The big one:  Does the unrestriction of Burning Wish actually make the Ritual pillar viable again?  Personally, I'm not sure.  At any rate, I think that if you want to answer that question then you must read this article.  It's a wonderful starting point.

Burning Wish is just a tutor, it really doesn't shape the deck by itself.  Burning Wish, or any tutor, doesn't end games right there. It doesn't warp the board state without the support of the rest of the deck.  So, in order to figure out if B.Wish makes the archetype viable again I have to first ask myself; does this card break the deck whereas a three mana tutor in it's place means the deck is unplayable?   Is 1R really leaps and bounds more broken than the alternative?  The alternative obviously being four-of tutors like Grim Tutor (or even 3 mana transmute cards!).  In my experience Burning Wish isn't enough.  It doesn't break the deck hard enough.  It's not so much faster that the deck can go off before hate arrives and it's not broken enough to get yourself out of trouble - faster than what other comparable tutors can do.  Two mana is still a lot.  Is two mana still too much?

If Burning Wish makes Rituals viable then it must be the strongest play in your deck, right?  

It seems that if you're going to make a Ritual-BWish deck then the clear choice is to make it find Will.  And it better do a stellar job of setting you up and winning the game for you.  Burning Long seems conflicted.  Despite claims,  the deck is not brutally fast.   It has many cards that require you to pass the turn.  Necro, four Oaths, and Memory Jar are the biggest offenders.  Oath especially.  The theory is that Oath of Druids shores up the workshop matchup.  It does.  But it slows the deck down quite a bit.   The addition of Oath is marked as 'additional bombs'.   I have a hard time not calling any deck with four Oath of Druids in it anything but an Oath deck.   Oath of Druids shapes decks.  It warps the board state.  It becomes the dominant permanent in the field before the game is decided, in my experience.  So, when I see four Oaths in the deck and then see that the deck isn't tuned for that card, I have to wonder if the deck is built optimally.

I see Oaths and I see the Griselbrands and how powerful this broken turd is,  and I note how many games I've won on the back of this monster and can't help but think.... 'wow.  burning wish is awesome'  'Oath is still really good.'

I love casting overpowered bombs that give me 7 new random cards.  But even more than that, I like to see broken lines of play that lead to a win.  The key here is being able to take my opening grip, look at it, and then figure out how I'm going to use them to reach the end of the game with a victory.  Seeing  Mox, Lotus, Wheel of Fortune, Delta, Academy, Ritual means I have to gamble moreso than a hand with Oath, Petal, Duress, Island, X, X..  Burning Long deck presents a deck inherently stating that 4 Wishes plus Rituals is now viable, broken, and best-in-slot.  I think this is a hard sell in practice.   The list was made to rely on random broken plays.   Oath is bad when you're trying to storm out on the back of random nutty brokeness.

Is getting a Griselbrand into play more reliable and does it win more consistenly than storm-combo?  In my testing, yes, it is and does.  This demon is a house.  You get one, then you win.  I've seen articles recently built around this guy and then even ask 'How do you seal the deal once he's in play?'  Easy.  You draw a bunch of cards and then protect him with pitch counters.  Ritual-Oath lists with 'Brand seem improperly built.  I see Burning Long as a Griselbrand Oath deck without pitch counters.  I view it as such because the 7/7 has been the most reliable route to victory in the deck for me.  The deck is missing pitch counters to seal the deal and so I wonder if it is optimal.

Burning Long is fun as hell to play.  I'm not sure why people say that it requires an immense amount of skill to play.  I play it and I ask myself these questions.  I try to figure out where it fits into the metagame and whether other decks have better odds against the field.  I'm not entirely sure.  I'm not completely sold on it.   Is Oath-Grisel stronger?  Would BWish be better suited to finding Tinker to set up Vault-Key more efficiently?  Do these Burning Wishes want Forces over Rituals?  Is Wish the best card here?  Can I make it stronger by finding a way to set up Oath, specifically getting a Brand into play?  Can it be used to find game ending solutions?  Is it better off selecting Tinker, Show and Tell, or an Animate Dead sorcery?  I guess I'm not sure yet.

Burning Wish's unrestriction is young.   I'm glad Stephen has started to explore these questions by building Burning Long.  It is the natural place to start.

[Smmenen]

I think there are probably a wide range of options for Burning Wish decks.   This article is not just about Burning Tendrils, although it obviously is about that.  I talk about The Shining (Burning Wish Control), Ad Nauseam, even Doomsday, among other decks.   Heiner Litz has a very interesting Control deck that hasn't really had a chance to see play yet, but could certainly be viable.  

The way I play this deck is the same as original Burning Tendrils or Grim Long, but with Oath's as another bomb.   My teammate Lou Christopher recently posted a tournament report, and I was shocked by how much he banked on Oath.    I don't even know if half of my wins are with Oath.   I focus alot more on Desire, Bargain, Necro, Jar, and other Draws7 among other threats, and just storming out my maindeck Empty the Warrens (which I included over the 3rd Chrome Mox).  

Oath focused strategies are not as flexible and easier to hate out than this strategy.   I can literally ignore Grafdigger's Cage with this deck, or easily play around it (even when Oathing - wiith my sb tech of Maniac!).  I'm not a fan of Oath decks, but I am a fan of using Oath as a tactic.

My case for this deck is very simple:

1) It has an extremely strong Grixis Control matchup, based upon my testing.  Ridiculously favorable, in fact (see my 19 game set above).  

2) It has one of the naturally strongest Workshop matchups in the format based on three simple things: a) a huge abundance artifact acceleration (ala Turbo Tezzert's strategy for defeating Golem decks, b) a 2 mana win condition in Oath, and 3) perhaps most importantly, Ancient Tombs in the sideboard to boost your acceleration and give you a chance even under the most adverse conditions.   Even if your opponent has Spheres & Chalice, you can accelerate out Oath with an Ancient Tomb.

3) It also has one of the naturally strongest Dredge matchups in the entire format, and is probably the only deck aside from Dark Times that actually has a better than even game 1.   Twister and D. Returns are also obviously huge.  

At the core, the idea that this is a glass cannon is mistaken because of the fundamental tactic of Oath.  Oath is hardly a glass cannon.  But even if that were taken off the table, what I've found is that this thing is so powerful not because it is so powerful, but because it is so resilient, flexible, and difficult to shut down.   Shut Down Oath, and I'll win with Burning Wish for Yawg Will, Necro, Desire, etc.  Or just Empty you...

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

I think something people are missing is that, aside from the shop matchup, oath is just another thing to draw you 7-14 cards and kill some one next turn. It's like an easier to cast necro, and necro  isn't a debatable card. It also allows for looping time walk attack plays. It's miles above any other dude you can oath out for the strategy. Even ripping the 7/7 has lots of plays. I've definitely hard castes him- once through 3 spheres. I've even burning wished for s&n tell a number of times. This also speaks to how burning wish improves the list. It offers versatility and consistence, powering up cards like straight 7/7, and taking the risk out of demonic consultation. These are real concrete advantages that just weren't functioning with restricted burning wish and not quite the same as with grim tutor, which would require some very different main deck choice to even attempt, and ultimately fail, at giving these advantages. 

[Methuselahn]

I think something people are missing is that, aside from the shop matchup, oath is just another thing to draw you 7-14 cards and kill some one next turn. It's like an easier to cast necro, and necro  isn't a debatable card.

Wait, what?  Necro isn't a debatable card?  Every card is debatable. There is no reduced Demonic Consultation risk.  Oath doesn't draw you any cards.  You can't really assume that you're going to win just because Oath resolves.  >.>

This also speaks to how burning wish improves the list.

Which list does Burning Wish improve?  The list that this thread talks about puts Burning Wish at the foundation of the deck.  Burning Wish makes the deck possible, that's the point here.

Perhaps I don't understand you properly. Please elaborate.

2) It has one of the naturally strongest Workshop matchups in the format based on three simple things: a) a huge abundance artifact acceleration (ala Turbo Tezzert's strategy for defeating Golem decks, b) a 2 mana win condition in Oath, and 3) perhaps most importantly, Ancient Tombs in the sideboard to boost your acceleration and give you a chance even under the most adverse conditions.   Even if your opponent has Spheres & Chalice, you can accelerate out Oath with an Ancient Tomb.

Those are nice tactics to employ your strategy.   Oath is naturally strong against Workshops because of the fact that you only have to resolve one spell instead of the ten required to win with Tendrils.  It's hard to imagine that hating out one spell (oath) is easier than hating out ten (storm) if you're the Spheres.dec.  Especially game one where Shops don't typically maindeck Grafdigger's Cage.

Perhaps I'm having trouble seeing Oath as a tactic because I view it as a core strategy; it often dominates deck construction.  I'm not sure what I'm trying to argue at this point other than the fact that you made a nice Oath deck with Burning Wishes in it.

Either way, I've had favorable matchups versus Grixis Control and Dredge.  Which is reassuring.  Dredge has pissed in my campfire an abnormal number of times with Chalice+Unmask openers, but thats how the coin flips sometimes.

I'll have to check out Lou's report.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

I'm a little short on time and on a mobile device, so this response might be a little rough.
I really wouldn't call necro a debatable card in any ritual list with this game plan unless the printed some absolutely bonkers stuff to out class it. It isnt debatable in the same sense that ancestral recall isn't debatable in decks that want That type of CA and can reliably make blue mana.
Obviously you're ignoring the context of the list when you say oath doesn't draw you cards. You resolve it, pass the turn, and have the ability to put tons of cards in your hand because you run the 7/7 and orchards. Assuming you're making a point about orchard being require, sometimes it is, and the vast majority of the time evaluate your ability to find the pieces if you don't have them. Use the spell as cheap bate if you don't. *side note draw sevens are pretty good at finding pieces*. There is also the reality that decks do play creatures now a days, sometimes orchard is not needed. Assuming your making a point about just having the oath and it not inordinately doing anything, I think that idea plays out very differently in game. Having an oath warps plays from your opponent, it gives them something to worry about. I've definitely sand bagged orchards playing cob for turn to mind trick opponents.  To me it seems like saying "oath doesn't draw you cards in this list" is like saying "time vault doesn't take you infinite turns" I'm vault lists. Oath does a lot of things, the vast majority of them equates to drawing a million cards next turn, and the ones that don't can be leveraged if your a skilled enough player. This is coming from the perspective of  some one who has played a lot of oath. I understand the combo player perspective of "all your cards should do things immediately that are extremely impactful" I argues few things the immediately CAN be unrealistic  at times when it comes to the scale people are talking about. For example, the vast majority of ritual lists play necro, a pass the turn bomb. The the vast majority that don't play necro play doomsday, and any doomsday player will tell you, sometimes you just have to cast that sucker and pass the turn. *side note: doomsday lists have recent been more successful pre burning wish and passed the turn more often. I also argue that oath in this list is just high powered enough to make the list. It's as sort of enabler relationship between orchard and oath, like rit and bombs involving a lot of mana or black mana. You don't cut necro and bargain cuz sometimes they don't just kill the player because you drew them. And you don't throw hot rits because they don't just kill players when you draw then. They are undoubtedly powerful  because of the context.
^ metagame context is also the thing at the point of the decks playability. Can rits survive in the context of missteps and flusterstorm. A say that a skilled pilot can sequence plays and make choices to over come this. My testing agrees with me this far. Your testing may not. The deck is relatively young so time will tell.

The lists improved on are other ritual tendrils lists, some running grim some might not, that were unplayable pre unrestriction. Steve draws out a lineage of those list and puts this list at the end in his article, if you recall.  You can't say there sings a greatly reduce risk of consult now that you have 4 ways to get tendrils, which isn't in the main deck

Responding to "you can't assume you're going to win because you resolved oath is true. But you can say that about anything. Even recall and bargain. The point is, once you've enabled oath, which I've found to be easy, you are very likely to win. And even when it doesn't its impacting the game more significantly than when bargain and necro don't. It's far less risky than a lot of draw sevens as well. You have to understand this isn't an oath deck. it's a pile of bombs, of which oath is one.  And when online they can tendrils someone to death.

Sorry again for this post being scatter brained and sketchy. It was done quickly on a mobile phone on break.

[Lemnear]

So Burning Wish is now legal for 2 months. Did it put up any serious results as Steve and Shawn claimed it will do? Can't find anything of value.

It appears to me, that I wasn't too wrong about Burning Tendrils being a collection of hyperboles stuffed into 75 cards. Reminds me of Temporal Mastery...

[Smmenen]

What did I claim?

In the podcast, I predicted 11 Burning Wish top 8/top 4 appearances by the time of the next set review.   Kevin predicted 6.   Burning Wish has not even been legal for 2 full months. It's been legal for 1 month and not even 20 days.   So far, according to morphling.de and the Las vegas tournament there have been 3 such appearances, and plenty more time to go.  

Unfortunately, and this is sad to say it, but Vintage is pretty much dead or dying in almost every region from what I've been seeing.  There has literally been one 11 person tournament within 3 hours of me in the last two months. Has there been a tournament of more than 30 players in the United States in the last two months?  More than one in the world?   If I had tournaments nearby, I know I'd be playing this every weekend.   

According to morphling.de, there have been just 12 tournaments where Burning Wish has been legal, and most of those have been tiny, and some immediately after it became legal.  

If you want to claim that my predictions were wrong, come back in a few months and lets see if my prediction was wrong, and if so, how far off I was.    If you want to write this deck off, come back six months after Burning Wish has been legal, and lets see if it has just more than a tiny amount of appearances or whether it proves itself capable of doing something.

But so far, nothing I said has been disproven.  I predicted 11 top 8 appearances.  I don't think I will be too far off that mark.