[Premium Article] Matchup Analysis Burning Tendrils v. Forgemaster MUD

[Smmenen]

http://www.eternalcentral.com/?p=3369

Stephen Menendian runs his new Burning Long deck up against Workshops for some intensive matchup analysis. Each game is with Burning Long on the draw for maximum difficulty, and greater challenge. This detailed, play-by-play article, taken from a long set of post-board games, illustrates the dangers and key principles of play for the Long pilot. This is a must-read for anybody interested in learning about the nuances of modern Vintage combo versus Workshops, especially for the aspiring combo players.

This article presents 8 games from a 30 game set, and features an analysis of what conditions are winnable, what are not, and how to win under adverse conditions.   All of the games are post-board, so the emphasis is on sideboard strategy and tactics.

Enjoy!

Stephen

[Nastaboi]

Wonderful, I was just about to PM Stephen about his new sideboard plans, and he responds with an article!

[Smmenen]

Wonderful, I was just about to PM Stephen about his new sideboard plans, and he responds with an article!

I'm glad this satisfied your curiosity, albeit preemptively. 

One thing I hoped was sufficiently emphasized is the dynamic approach to sideboarding.  I sought to illustrate not just the dramatic need for different plans from play to draw, but even different plans from match to match depending on and turning on subtle variations in the opponent's decklist.   I hope those ideas are clear and well illustrated by the end of the article.

[mmcgeach]

I liked the article.  I don't know if I missed this in the article, but what was the total score for the 30 post-board games?  I know you said you excerpted the most instructive and representative of the 30 games, which I appreciate, but I was hoping to get an idea about the percentages of the matchup.

thanks much!

[Smmenen]

I liked the article.  I don't know if I missed this in the article, but what was the total score for the 30 post-board games?  I know you said you excerpted the most instructive and representative of the 30 games, which I appreciate, but I was hoping to get an idea about the percentages of the matchup.

thanks much!

Thanks.   I didn't actually keep count, but it was fairly even. 

As a side note, I've drafted an addendum to this article, based upon my latest anti-Shop sideboard, that explains that sideboard and my sideboarding plans.  I'll ask EC to send that update out to everyone who got this article. 

[mmcgeach]

So, I like this deck as a tendrils combo and as a oath deck.  It feels better than 1) an oath deck and 2) a storm deck, which I think is a huge accomplishment.

The other thing that attracted me to the deck is the ability to beat workshops on the draw, while still having a decent game against blue.

My luck with the shops matchup hasn't been quite as good as Stephen's.  I find that even with up to 11 sideboard cards for shops, it's pretty hard to win on the draw.  Against a decent shops hand you need:

1) an ancient tomb
2) a colored land
3) an anti-artifact card
4) some proactive bomb to resolve

I find that this is a lot to ask of one seven-card hand. In addition, it seems you need exactly the right answer for their threats.  Chalice demands tombs for acceleration, but if they don't have chalice then moxes are your best acceleration.  Wasteland blanks tombs.  Tanglewire requires instant-speed removal (nature's claim), but if they don't have tanglewire then you need two-for-one removal (shattering spree). Hurks is great if you can play it end-step, but I've never once been able to play it then.  I usually have to play it attack phase to stop golems, but then some number of spheres get replayed main phase 2.

This is sort of the opposite problem people have when trying to fight dredge.  Vs dredge, decks have access to a wide variety of _extremely effective_ hate cards, and it's the dredge player that has to guess which narrow anti-hate card will answer the hate played.  If we play leyline, they need nature's claim / chain in hand now, since they can't dig for it.  If we play jailer, they need darkblast. If we play cage, they need ingot chewer, if we play ravenous trap, they need therapy or unmask. If we play nihil spellbomb, they need mental misstep.  The shoe is on the other foot, here.

With the anti-artifact hate being more narrow and less effective than the artifacts themselves, it makes it a real puzzle to play the best hate.  I'm sure ancient tombs are part of it.  And probably Nature's Claim (or some other instant). But Tombs + Cities + Orchards + Opponent's Factories = too much life loss, for a deck that uses life as a resource.  Any longer game requires two-for-one
removal (hurk's, shattering spree).  And something that hits man-lands.

I dunno.  I think I might try a couple Rack and Ruin.  Is this crazy?  Is there some other trick I'm missing?  How have other people fared on the draw, post board?

[Smmenen]

So, I like this deck as a tendrils combo and as a oath deck.  It feels better than 1) an oath deck and 2) a storm deck, which I think is a huge accomplishment.

Haha, thank you.  While I will take the compliment, I actually don't see it as a huge accomplishment.  My goal in creating this deck was to create the best modern, iteration of my original Burning Tendrils deck, which I had played through various iterations with Death Wish and Grim Tutor. 

If it weren't for Workshop decks, and certainly not the printing of Griselbrand, I probably would not run Oath as a tactic.   Someone can run the numbers in my tournament reports, but I'm fairly certain that I actually trigger Oath well under 50% of the games that I win, and probably closer to 40%. 

Oath is merely expedient in this deck to fill the 6 slots that were opened up by the restriction of Brainstorm and the 3 Chromatic Spheres (which are unnecessary with Lion's Eye Diamond restricted).  Oaths/Griselbrand are simply better than the alternative of playing cards like Mystical Tutor, Imperial Seal, and Regrowth in this slots, largely because of the strength of Workshops in the metagame, and the natural support of a 5c mana base.  If my Grim Long deck hadn't already used Orchards, I may not have even included Oath.  Oath seemed like a natural sideboard tactic, so I felt I should bring it into the maindeck when you compare it to other options.   

I think, by far, the bigger accomplishment is crafting and rendering a viable, tournament successful Dark Ritual combo deck in an environment such as this one, where Workshop decks are as tough and difficult to overcome as ever, where control decks are as fast as ever, and where there are more anti-combo tactics than ever.  I'll take more pride in that, especially now that this deck has lots of Top 8 appearances over the world.

The other thing that attracted me to the deck is the ability to beat workshops on the draw, while still having a decent game against blue.

Yes, I think that is key to its viability, and the difference between this deck, and something like my Gush Doomsday deck, which is quite powerful against Blue, but greatly struggles against Workshops, especially on the draw.  It was truly unfortunate that my first pairing in the top 8 of the waterbury of 2011 was the only Workshop deck in that top 8. 

My luck with the shops matchup hasn't been quite as good as Stephen's.  I find that even with up to 11 sideboard cards for shops, it's pretty hard to win on the draw.  Against a decent shops hand you need:

1) an ancient tomb
2) a colored land
3) an anti-artifact card
4) some proactive bomb to resolve

I find that this is a lot to ask of one seven-card hand.

If that were the case, then this deck's plan against Workshops on the draw would be dire indeed.   The way I think about it is more like this.  I need a hand that has:

1) Decent mana -- meaning at least a few lands.   Mana accelerants like Chrome Mox are great, but just gravy.
2) Oath or Hurkyl's Recall (or at least a Shattering Spree/Nature's Claim)   

I would not be inclined to keep a hand that lacked either element.

What you really want post-board against Workshop is:

4 Ancient Tomb
4 Hurkyl's Recall
4 Oath
X Shat Sprees/X Nature's Claims

This is the formula for success.   The Shat Sprees/Nature's Claims are simply there to clear the way of Hurkyl's or Oath -- they are support.   

I have found that if you go the Hurkyl's Route, there is usually never a need for something to play after it.  You usually have at least one threat in hand, whether that be Desire/Bargain/Windfall or even an Oath. 

In addition, it seems you need exactly the right answer for their threats.  Chalice demands tombs for acceleration, but if they don't have chalice then moxes are your best acceleration.  Wasteland blanks tombs.  Tanglewire requires instant-speed removal (nature's claim), but if they don't have tanglewire then you need two-for-one removal (shattering spree). Hurks is great if you can play it end-step, but I've never once been able to play it then.  I usually have to play it attack phase to stop golems, but then some number of spheres get replayed main phase 2.

Again, I think you are getting to granular.   I don't prepare for the matchup on the draw that way at all.   What I do is this:

Pretend that your opponent will have Golem/2Sphere + Chalice on the play every time.   Obviously, you aren't going to mulligan to oblivion in search of the perfect hand, but if you basically assume this kind of opening structure, you will optimize your chances.   You can't, for example, keep a hand that has Mox, Mox, Mox, Land in the hopes that they don't have Chalice.  So, where you seem to categorize the matchup in granular terms, I keep focused on the big picture.

I do apologize that I don't really think I did a good enough job conveying that picture in this article.   In this article, I was much more focused on showing that you could beat workshops than explaining it (ironic, since my teachers always said: show, don't tell).   My Team Serious tournament report I think does a much better job of explaining this matchup, along with the addenda I wrote to this matchup article. 

But what I recommend is this: take your deck, sideboard, and goldfish pretending your opponent, every game, has this sequence:

T1: Workshop, mox, Golem, Chalice
T2: Sphere/Tangel Wire (alternative)
T3: Wasteland + Sphere

Just take that opening and pretend that they play a Sphere on turn two or a Tangel Wire (alternating between the two) and see what you can do.   That kind of big picture focus is what you need, not getting into the weeds of the match.  If you can beat the worst they can throw at you, then you can beat anything less or will be prepared to beat anything less. 

Also, your land sequencing is hugely important for determining your vulnerability to Wasteland/Ghost Quarter.  You'll get better at this if you conduct the kind of post-board, on the draw test I just described. 

I'm not saying you are going to win every game -- far from it  But the goal isn't to win every game, it's to make the match close enough that you can leverage your superior skill and experience to win at least one of the games on the draw, and thereby win the match. 

Hope this helped...

[tribet]

But the goal isn't to win every game, it's to make the match close enough that you can leverage your superior skill and experience to win at least one of the games on the draw, and thereby win the match.  

I fear that comments like this one only substantiate the fact that Vintage is a casual format and far less competitive Magic than what we'd like to think (and to a certain extent, I also think it is true: I'm one of the amateurs). This is all too relative. Of course skills and overall Magic culture/knowledge will considerably leverage our Vintage match-ups and this is very unfortunate for our Format and its growth. We shouldn't use such arguments to defend the viability of a deck or whichever strategy.  

Since I got you and since we are mentioning experience, I will side-track onto another subject. You are often referring to your past experiences and deep knowledge to debate, argue and, with great prose, steer the format where you think it should be. I honestly love reading about all this, but some may argue that un-restrictions should be vigorously tested in the latest environment rather than debated. For example, today I'm honestly not too sure why Burning Wish or Oath un-restrictions are more defendable than Thirst for Knowledge and others. Again, I really think the Vintage is more casual than what we’d like to think. Let's not be too overconfident as it is isolating us and it is not helping Vintage in the midterm. Let's un-restrict, Let’s brew it.

[Smmenen]

But the goal isn't to win every game, it's to make the match close enough that you can leverage your superior skill and experience to win at least one of the games on the draw, and thereby win the match.  

I fear that comments like this one only substantiate the fact that Vintage is a casual format and far less competitive Magic than what we'd like to think

I really don't know what you are talking about, but I will say this: of course the goal is to win every game, but I'm conceding at the outset that this isn't realistic.  The fact of the matter is that MUD will win a non-trivial number of games when it is on the play.   The goal is to win matches.  You do this by winning most of the games in which you are on the play, and enough of the games in which you are on the play to be competitive.  I have a plan that allows me to do this.   

The goal of winning every game against every deck would not only be unrealistic, but it would distort every deck.  If I said my goal is to win every game against Dredge, for example, think about how that would change the maindeck of most decks in the format.   That can't be the goal. 

My plan is to make the post-board, on the draw matchup even enough that I am competitive against MUD, which I believe I've accomplished.   I fail to see how that makes my deck casual.   When I am blowing up my opponents, I don't think they think my deck is a casual deck.   I'm not going t respond to your other non-sequitur except to say that Thirst will never be unrestricted on my watch. 

[tribet]

The goal is to win matches.  You do this by winning most of the games in which you are on the play, and enough of the games in which you are on the play [draw] to be competitive.  I have a plan that allows me to do this.

Absolutely and this plan has been really well thought through and clearly exposed.

In fact, I was commenting on the part of the plan that is to rely onto one's superior skills and plays to leverage a match-up. By qualifying Vintage as "casual" (and not the deck) I'm of the same mind than you. I think that Vintage is “less pro" than other formats and I indeed think that overall MTG culture, experience and knowledge is unfortunately a strong prerequisite for success in Vintage.

To picture the above, let's imagine that we want to discuss about "How to win the Mirror match-up?" It is a very good starting point, but I don’t think we shouldn't really answer "use your superior skills and play better". We should only talk about techs, cards, plans, stats, tuning the deck: "Find room for Flusterstorm, run Serum Powder, Overmaster in SB, I don't know what..."

The other aspect I was addressing when qualifying Vintage as "casual" is that I believe that Vintage’s R&D is not steaming at its hardest. And that's where I completely side-tracked onto the un-restriction topic “more brewing, more testing, less debates” etc... Our opinion about our Format is biased because we are lacking the brains. Not brains quality but brains quantity. The card pool and options are astronomical and I have difficulty to accept that only too few strategies, combos or decks are competitive in Vintage.

Apologies. I'm thinking out loud, it's not the right thread and I'm clearly side-tracking...

[Smmenen]

The goal is to win matches.  You do this by winning most of the games in which you are on the play, and enough of the games in which you are on the play [draw] to be competitive.  I have a plan that allows me to do this.

Absolutely and this plan has been really well thought through and clearly exposed.

No, I literally meant on the play there.

What I am saying is this: to win a match you have to win 2 out of 3 games.   My deck and sideboard are designed to give me a meaningful chance -- a viable plan -- for winning a match against Workshop.   This plan has two components:

1) A Plan for on the PLay
2) A Plan for on the Draw

As is evident from my two tournament reports, I have VERY different plans -- starkly different -- depending if I am on the play or draw.  My entire sideboard plan and approach to the matchup is different.  

In general, Workshop decks are favored on the play, and much less favored on the draw relative to other decks in the format.   They've always been that way.   The point is this: My deck is designed to have a strongly favorable match on the play, and a competitive match on the draw.  That way, I am competitive in every match, regardless of whether I lose the die roll or not.  My plan is to win at least ONE of the games on the draw, in other words.  

In fact, I was commenting on the part of the plan that is to rely onto one's superior skills and plays to leverage a match-up.

I did not quite understand what you meant, but now do.    I did not mean *MY* Particular play skill.  I meant any Burning Long pilot.  My point is simple: Burning Long pilots should put more time and energy into practicing the matchup and preparing for it than their opponents.  If they do that, then they can leverage their skill to win one of the games on the draw.

By qualifying Vintage as "casual" (and not the deck) I'm of the same mind than you. I think that Vintage is “less pro" than other formats and I indeed think that overall MTG culture, experience and knowledge is unfortunately a strong prerequisite for success in Vintage.

To picture the above, let's imagine that we want to discuss about "How to win the Mirror match-up?" It is a very good starting point, but I don’t think we shouldn't really answer "use your superior skills and play better". We should only talk about techs, cards, plans, stats, tuning the deck: "Find room for Flusterstorm, run Serum Powder, Overmaster in SB, I don't know what..."

The other aspect I was addressing when qualifying Vintage as "casual" is that I believe that Vintage’s R&D is not steaming at its hardest. And that's where I completely side-tracked onto the un-restriction topic “more brewing, more testing, less debates” etc... Our opinion about our Format is biased because we are lacking the brains. Not brains quality but brains quantity. The card pool and options are astronomical and I have difficulty to accept that only too few strategies, combos or decks are competitive in Vintage.

I actually really disagree with this sentiment.    Superior skill, meaning technical play, not just deck selection, should result in better outcomes.  I consider formats less skill intensve and less sophisticated where that is not true. 

Therefore, I consider that a strength of Vintage, not a disadvantage. 

Contrary to rendering the format casual, it actually makes it more competitive.  High level players, like those on the Pro Tour, routinely seek to outplay opponents. 

[mmcgeach]

T1: Workshop, mox, Golem, Chalice
T2: Sphere/Tangel Wire (alternative)
T3: Wasteland + Sphere

I think we're agreeing here in substance but with a somewhat different affect.  I feel a good workshop hand can be realistically battled with a hand including all of: 1) colored land 2) ancient tomb 3) anti artifact spell 4) proactive bomb.  I think this is also what's required to beat the sequence you've outlined above.  ie, as a thought experiment, try beating the above sequence with a burning long hand that is missing one of the 4 requirements.  I have a hard time imagining such a hand that doesn't include sol ring.

I agree that preparing for the worst is the right way to go.  But, it *really is* a lot to ask to have all 4 of these elements in your hand.  If the shops pilot does have a killer opening sequence like this, the probability of beating it is low - because the probability of having one of these 4-pointer hands is low.  I've beat a lot of shops guys on the draw when they have lame hands - and perhaps they have those frequently enough to tilt the match in favor of burning long.  But beating these strong hands is, well, unlikely, in my experience.

[Smmenen]

I don't really think that's the case.  I don't feel like I need anti-artifact, spell, for example, if I'm pretty certain I'm going to be able to Force through a Turn 2 Oath through a Sphere and Chalice @ 0.   So, I'd keep a hand that had Oath, Orchard, City, Ancient Tomb, Mox Pearl, and two blanks on the draw.  I'd lead with City on T1.

[mmcgeach]

I don't really think that's the case.  I don't feel like I need anti-artifact, spell, for example, if I'm pretty certain I'm going to be able to Force through a Turn 2 Oath through a Sphere and Chalice @ 0.   So, I'd keep a hand that had Oath, Orchard, City, Ancient Tomb, Mox Pearl, and two blanks on the draw.  I'd lead with City on T1.

That's a helpful heuristic!  So you feel, on average, assuming the shop player will play one sphere on his first two turns, and having a hand that beats that is good enough? I guess with the hand you describe you've got the mox as a hedge against a 2nd sphere if there's no chalice=0.  And the second colored land if there's a wasteland or another sphere.  So that hand actually beats a shops opening involving two spheres and one of (chalice, wasteland, or a 3rd sphere) over 3 turns.

I think I'm learning something.  Thanks for the hints. 

[Smmenen]

I don't really think that's the case.  I don't feel like I need anti-artifact, spell, for example, if I'm pretty certain I'm going to be able to Force through a Turn 2 Oath through a Sphere and Chalice @ 0.   So, I'd keep a hand that had Oath, Orchard, City, Ancient Tomb, Mox Pearl, and two blanks on the draw.  I'd lead with City on T1.

That's a helpful heuristic!  So you feel, on average, assuming the shop player will play one sphere on his first two turns, and having a hand that beats that is good enough?

No, what I'm saying is that this hand *can* (but won't necessarily will) beat two Spheres and a Chalice at 0.   I'm just trying to say that you don't actually need *all* of the elements you described in your opening hand.  

[mmcgeach]

I wonder if you might want to more broadly discuss sideboard strategies for Burning Long? 

The expected number of workshop matches seems to squeeze a lot of stuff out of the sideboard.  When I'm sure to play at least one workshop deck, I've wanted this in the board:

4 Ancient Tomb
1 Hurkyl's (w/ 2 in the main)
2 Shattering Spree
3 Nature's Claim

For a total of 10 cards... of which I probably leave 1 shattering spree in the board as a wish target.  Although, if I was expecting more shops, I'd try to fit in one more card... maybe another nature's claim.  In practice those seem to be the most useful, although I wouldn't argue with someone who felt another hurks or spree was better.

This doesn't leave a lot of space for the other wishboard targets.  I sort of prioritize them like so:

1. Yawg Will
2. Tendrils
3. Lab Maniac

The deck doesn't work without these; and then everything else is sort of expendable.

4. Show and Tell - I like this in principal, it seems really cute, but it's rarely a relevant play to wish for this.  If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 5% of games?  It's ridiculously hard to pull off against blue; and I probably side the griselbrands out against anyone I think might bring in cages (ei, shops & fish) which is where this might otherwise shine.

5. Diminishing Returns - I think I've only ever won one game after wishing for, and resolving, this. It just seems like the times I need to wish for a draw 7 are the times I'm incredibly far behind, and this effect just doesn't get there.  It doesn't help that it makes oathing much more dangerous by exiling win cons or oath targets.

6. Thoughtseize - This does seem like a good wish target against control, except that it seems to delay everything by 1 turn: wishing for this and casting it makes for a slow set-up.  The games I do wish for it are games where I spend too long setting up a big bomb, and in the meantime the blue player has drawn more counters.  I find wishing for this to work maybe 50/50.

7. Balance - This really is great against fish.  And randomly against empty the warrens.  But these decks seem to be low in the metagame at the moment.  I'd include this if I was expecting more fish.  Although, frequently against those decks you can wish for something more direct and just win.


I've been cutting thoughtseize and balance to make room for the 10 anti-shops cards.  But I'm starting to think that show and tell is a better cut.  Since it becomes totally dead once you switch to the Lab Maniac plan.  (Although, I guess you could side S&T in and try to bluff with it, baiting a counterspell?)  I feel like wishing for thoughtseize happens a lot more.

On a tangent: Defense Grid is really strong in this deck.  It means you don't have to wheel into more duresses than your opponent does forces, every time you play a draw seven.  Although, sometimes when I run it out early, it just encourages the blue player to play way more aggressively, looking for a combo or immediate win, which they probably should have been doing anyway (the Grid just makes it obvious - even to unprepared players - that we're in a solitaire-combo race).

[Smmenen]

What about Empty the Warrens in the sideboard?  You didn't touch on that card in your list. 

[mmcgeach]

Good point.  I haven't had Empty in my sideboard since I started seriously playing this deck.  It was the first thing I cut to make room for more shop hate.  It's essentially a redundant win-condition, and sometimes really anti-synergistic with oath. I know it can be useful, but...

I mean, there's a lot of things that would be nice to have; and I like the idea of a versatile wishboard toolbox (hull breach!), but there is just not enough room if I want to have realistic chances against shops on the draw.

... which, of course, is where I'm going with this: is the cost of being prepared to play against shops on the draw too high?

[Samoht]

Good point.  I haven't had Empty in my sideboard since I started seriously playing this deck.  It was the first thing I cut to make room for more shop hate.  It's essentially a redundant win-condition, and sometimes really anti-synergistic with oath. I know it can be useful, but...

I mean, there's a lot of things that would be nice to have; and I like the idea of a versatile wishboard toolbox (hull breach!), but there is just not enough room if I want to have realistic chances against shops on the draw.

... which, of course, is where I'm going with this: is the cost of being prepared to play against shops on the draw too high?

If you can resolve Empty, it's better than Tendrils as it needs a lower storm count to be lethal and can provide you with permanents to play against some of the shop strategies. That said, if you can resolve BW -> EtW, then you were likely to win the game anyway.

[Smmenen]

One of the reasons I like Empty is that it fills a role similar to D Returns, but better against Shops.  After playing a Hurkyls, one if the best things you can do is BWish --> ETW

Even more importantly, against Workshops on the play, it gives u a free win with Lotus.  I will B Wish for ETW and play it on turn 1, just the way and reasons Samoht described.  For example, a land, ritual, Lotus hand is lethal on turn 1 with Burning Wish for ETW. There may be no other option, or at least no better one.   You have nothing to recur with Will, and Tendrils isn't lethal.

[mmcgeach]

Yeah, ok.  I know there's plays like that.  What I'm interested in is how often they occur...

Do you think empty is better against shops than: Hurkyls, Shattering Spree, Nature's Claim, or Ancient tomb?

w/o empty in the board, I'd probably play something like: Land, Mox, Wish for Shattering Spree, play lotus, pass.  Hold up shattering spree with lotus mana and draw into some kind of threat.  Although if you side out a lot of the power cards (bargain, mind's desire; necro and windfall on the draw) the deck becomes somewhat more threat-light, which can lead to drawing into more lands/hate and not enough business.  In that scenario, I guess we're on the play, so we're just missing bargain and desire, which is fine.

[Smmenen]

You've raised alot of good/difficult/thorny issues and excellent points.  

Without addressing all of them, globally speaking, this is the bottom line: Without gigantic sample sizes, its really difficult to answer these on any other basis than intuition or experience, in much the way that Josh Potucek or other Landstill experts evaluate their choices with those decks.  

* I'm on board with cutting Diminishing Returns.  With both Thoughtseize and ETW in the sideboard, that's a cut that can be made.   I play DR roughly one or two games out of 20 against blue decks, and probably more than that against Dredge.  My next list likely won't have this spell either.  

* I do not sideboard out Windfall agianst Workshops.  One of your main plans is to Hurkyl's Recall them.   You shouldn't sideboard out Windfall imo.  Windfall can actually draw MORE than 7 cards in a number of ways.  If you Hurkyl's them on your upkeep or mainphase, for example, or Hurkyl's them inside of a draw7, like a Jar.

* You may be right about ETW, but I appreciate the security blanket it provides.  It's a play you can make against control to buy significant time, and it is especially important against decks like Landstill, which then have to have EE to not lose.  I view ETW as much a mandatory SB card as Maniac, if not very close.  

I'm happy/willing to have the broader discussion with you, but I think it needs to include a much broader list of cards, and we should probably have it via PM. 

[mmcgeach]

Alright.  Will go to PM for further discussion.

Although, I will say, I'm leaning toward a shop-hate package that DOES NOT win against the "shop, mox, chalice, golem" opening very often.  It just squeezes too much out of the sideboard.