[Premium Article] Pitch Burning Tendrils, Other Brews, and 3 Tournament Reports

[Smmenen]

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-pitch-burning-tendrils-other-brews-and-two-tournament-reports/

Editor's Blurb:

Stephen Menendian’s latest weapon of choice is revealed here, in an epic 35 page primer and report from a local tournament and the Vintage Championship. A compelling read for Vintage enthusiasts and experts alike, Stephen’s nuanced and characteristically detailed analysis of the critical trends in the late 2013 Vintage metagame, innovative deck designs, and updated favorites like Maniac Doomsday, are all part of a must read, end of year Vintage strategy article you won’t find anywhere else. His latest deck is, in his view, the best deck in Vintage going forward, and the perfect weapon for upcoming tournaments.

Free Excerpt:

What an incredible year 2013 has been for Vintage! A new marquee event launched (the NYSE Open), the Vintage Championship was relocated from GenCon to Eternal Weekend with much acclaim, fanfare, and record attendance, and Wizards of the Coast announced that the Power Nine would be released on the Magic Online platform next year. There is much to celebrate and much to look forward toward.

The Vintage format suffers from benign neglect from Wizards of the Coast and most tournament organizers, and as a consequence, inaccurate stereotypes and a general lack of understanding of its dynamics or metagame trends. There are very few experts who not only understand the format at a fundamental level (meaning an understanding all of the basic tactics and important interactions), but have the experience to understand its long-term trends. Of those, only a small subset is able to convey these insights to wider audiences. And those who can, in most cases, develop an unfortunately insular perspective, unable to recognize the parochial nature of their perception of the format, shaped largely by their attachments to certain Schools of Magic (such as the Weissman School) or developed play-styles.

Vintage is particularly susceptible to the last kind of bias, since the Schools of Magic that define the format are so ripened with trained disciples, many of them unwitting. My long experience in the format, research, and innovation and efforts within each of the Schools of Vintage, I believe, gives me a rare perspective on the Vintage format.

This is an omnibus article, touching on a broad range of subjects relating to the Vintage format. In this article, I will describe my view of the Vintage metagame up to the Vintage Championship and beyond, as we look towards 2014. I will describe some of my observations and insights derived from copious amounts of testing and preparation for the Vintage Championship. I will share with you a few brews and deck innovations, including my latest efforts with Control Oath, Pitch Long, and a new Burning Tendrils list. I will also share my updated Doomsday decklist, which I played to a Top 4 finish at a Vintage Championship preliminary tournament. I will then share two tournament reports, including a 2nd place Finish at Eudemonia with my updated Burning Tendrils deck, and then my Vintage Championship report. I close with some final observations and insights.

The Fall 2013 Vintage Metagame

In my Vintage Championship preview article, I described six major pillars of the Vintage metagame: Dredge, Workshops, Combo-Control (like Grixis and Esper Control), Slower Control (like Landstill and Keeper), Aggro-Control (like RUG Delver and BUG Tempo), and Combo (like Doomsday and Burning Tendrils). I suppose I left out Grow, which is Aggro-Control-Combo, but a big chunk of what Grow does tactically can be captured by RUG Delver decks with Pyromancer. What’s missing is the GushBond engine (refer to my book Understanding Gush for more on this). Blue Angels (which I mentioned) and Bomberman are also Control-Aggro archetypes, and there is, of course, Humans decks, or hate bears decks, which are a beatdown deck class of their own, but constitute the Aggro archetype of Vintage.

Every major permutation in Magic, Aggro, Aggro-Control, Control, Control-Combo, Combo, and Aggro-Control-Combo, can be found within these strategies, and others besides, in the current Vintage format. Each of the incipient Schools of Vintage are also embodied within these archetypes. Workshops are the O’Brien School come to life. Dredge is modern Reanimator. And the Weissman School is alive and well in both the Grixis Combo-Control decks as well as the slower Control decks. All of these basic approaches in Magic are viable in contemporary Vintage, and see play in most of the larger Vintage metagames.

While presented as a matter of fact description of the current metagame, this fact is remarkable. Vintage is a hostile format to new strategies and the bar to viability, not just success, is set quite high. The diversity of strategies, archetypes, and Schools of Magic currently able to make Top 8s and win tournaments is perhaps unparalleled or unmatched in the history of the format. It is the most diverse Vintage format, at its highest levels, perhaps ever.

The strategic diversity of Vintage is now on broad display, and I think increasingly highlights some of the deficiencies of Legacy. While Legacy receives much praise for its broad diversity and countless individual archetypes, I think Vintage is more strategically diverse, in the sense of having a broader array of strategic possibilities as well as far sharper differences at the strategic level among archetypes. This makes Vintage a more interesting format in my judgment.

Despite having a greater number of individual archetypes, Legacy is strategically narrower in the upper tiers. Legacy is basically dominated (in the sense of composing a majority of Top 8 appearances) by two strategies: Aggro-Control/Tempo and Combo-Control. Reading Bob Huang’s excellent November Legacy metagame analysis on Eternal Central, we see that two Delver decks are the most popular archetypes in the format. Shardless BUG is not far behind, and that’s simply yet another Aggro-Control strategy. While there are a greater number of individual archetypes to be found Legacy, it is far less diverse strategically, since the format is dominated by two basic strategies: Blue Combo decks (like Reanimator and Show and Tell) and Aggro-Control/Tempo decks. There are other viable options, but they tend to be the millionth iteration of the hate bears deck, Counter-Top, or the Storm/ANT deck.

Even the different strategies, while having relevant differences, are much more functionally similar than you see across the array of strategies in Vintage. In Legacy, one deck may have Tarmogoyf, whereas another has Stoneforge Mystic in that slot, and supplement with Nimble Mongoose, while another uses Goblin Guide. The Bant deck uses Noble Hierarch, while the BUG deck uses Deathrite Shaman. The deck with white uses Sword to Plowshares while the deck with red uses Lightning Bolt. Secondary and tertiary colors are dropped or added for marginal advantages and metagame positioning while retaining the same basic strategic orientation. One deck might have Show and Tell with Sneak Attack, while the other uses Dream Halls. The sharpness of the differences in Vintage, in contrast, can be found between a comparison of MUD and Landstill, Grixis and Dredge, Doomsday and BUG, despite the fact that cards like Force of Will and Mox Sapphire are omnipresent. After a while, Legacy becomes boring for having the same basic archetypes compete against each other, as a color is dropped in favor of another, or as one tactic falls from favor as another, similar tactic fills its slot performing the same role.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the mana acceleration of Vintage actually generates more strategic diversity. You have decks that use no artifact acceleration, like Dredge, decks that only use a few (like RUG Delver, Landstill, and BUG), and decks that use them all (the rest). The acceleration makes possible decks that aren’t viable in Legacy, but without rendering the Legacy strategies (like RUG Delver) unviable, which also have Vintage specific boosters, like Gush.

Careful management of the Vintage Banned and Restricted List has produced what I believe is probably the best Vintage format ever by any empirical metagame measure. It is at a high point in terms of the range of possible strategies thanks to several years of carefully planned unrestrictions, and reluctance to follow the impulse to restrict. This has given players a chance to develop tactical responses to many of the most oppressive strategies, as people have figured out reliable solutions to Workshops and Dredge. Unrestricting cards like Gush has let Gush strategies flourish along with Confidant/Jace decks, and yet compete alongside pure control decks like Landstill.

As the Vintage Championship approached, I perceived long-term and short-term trends converging to render the format…
[End Free Excerpt]

[Smmenen]

What an incredible year 2013 has been for Vintage! A new marquis event launched (the NYSE Open), the Vintage Championship was relocated from GenCon to Eternal Weekend with much acclaim, fanfare, and
Vintage is particularly susceptible to the last kind of bias, since the Schools of Magic that define the format are so ripened with trained disciples, many of them unwitting. My long experience in the format, research, and innovation and efforts within each of the Schools of Vintage, I believe, gives me a rare perspective on the Vintage format.

For this reason alone, i will not be reading the article. It may be right, but i find it obnoxiously arrogant to assume that your knowledge is so beyond the rest of us and special. Why taint an article with ego instead of just making your point? This is not meant as an insult in any way, i just do not see any need for it.

The formatting didn't copy, but the emphasis was on the word "each," which is italicized in the article.  

My point is that most Vintage players tend to be parochial -- knowledgeable about their specific sphere or School of play.  Blue pilots play blue control and are experts therein but don't often branch to a different school.  Fish players play Fish.  Workshop players play Workshops.  And so on.  My point is that my long experience in each of the so-called Schools of Vintage (the Weissman, O'Brien, etc) gives me a more holistic perspective.  Experts in the individual schools will give you their view, but because I've developed high level decks and piloted them in each of the major schools (for example, I was the first top Top 8 a SCG P9 with Dredge (the Reanimator School).  I called that a "rare" perspective, but I didn't say it was "so special and beyond the rest of you." You're reading a bit too much into it.

[personalbackfire]

@smmenen
Thanks for the article! I enjoyed the tournament reports, with decision making commentary, immensely. It's fun to read and compare how I would have played the games, learning from your notes.

I think what I was most surprised about was your general boarding against Shops. I understand that ritual is not a great card against workshops, but my first inclination would be that siding out all your rituals makes your Tendrils kill basically unplayable. Perhaps this doesn't matter if you are only concerned with Oathing into Maniac.

[Soly]

STUFF

Zeus, I definitely understand your point, but I also understand Stephen's point.  

Cases in point:  all the players I mention below are phenomenal vintage pilots, and I would trust their opinion on any archetype.  However, you'd be foolish to say these players don't gravitate and are not experts on a specific style of decks.

Detweiler & RafForino (Workshops)
Myself (RUG delver or Doomsday)
Rich Shay (Blue Control)
Josh P. (Landstill)

While I trust their opinions on other archetypes, these players are the master of their domain with their respective archetypes, and as such, their opinion may be one sided etc.   I know I don't play many things outside RUG and Doomsday these days, so if you asked me about workshops, my only experience would be from some testing and being on the opposing end.

[Smmenen]

@smmenen
Thanks for the article! I enjoyed the tournament reports, with decision making commentary, immensely. It's fun to read and compare how I would have played the games, learning from your notes.

I think what I was most surprised about was your general boarding against Shops. I understand that ritual is not a great card against workshops, but my first inclination would be that siding out all your rituals makes your Tendrils kill basically unplayable. Perhaps this doesn't matter if you are only concerned with Oathing into Maniac.

It doesn't actually.   All you are trying to do is develop your mana base with Ancient Tombs, Rainbow lands, and artifact acceleration, and either win with Oath or Hurkyl's.  If you Hurkyl's, what you then do is easily go off with artifact acceleration, explosive draw spells and Yawg Will into Tendrils.  Recall that you have 4 Hurkyl's Recalls and Chain of Vapor, so generating storm is not difficult, and with Lotus, Lotus Petal, Mox Jet etc, it's not at all hard to cast Tendrils.  If you run the LED or Opal, it's that much easier as well.  

Siding out all or most of the Rituals has been my plan against Shops with regular Burning Tendrils for about 7 months now.  I think that plan is reflected in the last Burning Tendrils article I wrote before this, but I may have only sided out 3 Rituals there -- I know I was doing this by the NYSE.  You'd just rather have Ancient Tombs.

Glad you enjoyed it!

[Meddling Mike]

Most premium writers will have a little blurb that establishes their credentials as somebody worth listening to. Not everybody that could potentially read this article will be familiar with Steve's accolades over the years. Let's not begrudge him a reasonable amount of self promotion and salesmanship.

[brianpk80]

This is the first time I bought an article related to Storm combo.  Just acquired it now; will let you know when I finish reading it. 

[Soly]

I happened to enjoy reading the article.   I find it hilarious how different your and my lists of the deck were, considering our facebook conversations.

I wish I had pulled the trigger and played it.  I am NOT happy with 25th with Doomsday :\

[Smmenen]

I happened to enjoy reading the article.   I find it hilarious how different your and my lists of the deck were, considering our facebook conversations.

I wish I had pulled the trigger and played it.  I am NOT happy with 25th with Doomsday :\

I hope you publish your article and report for all to see  I agree this was the deck to play.  It's just frustrating how badly I played in rnds 5 and 6.  I should have won both of the games I lost against Greg, and handily won my rnd 6.  

Brian and Paul came to a similar conclusion about the environment, but I think our approach was stronger

EDIT:

Oath strategies' overreliance on Oath has made them particularly vulnerable to anti-Oath tactics, necessitating cards like Show and Tell, which are effective, but situationally narrow.  I think Brian's deck is well designed, but my deck here is just stronger.  It features a dense amount of free countermagic, but retains the power of broken cards like Necro and Bargain, as well as consistent access to Yawgmoth's Will.  My Maniac plan for the slow control decks and prison decks use of Cage, also is a tactical edge.   Finally, the explosive draw capacity gives this deck an edge in the Orchard war.

My deck is well positioned because of the current structure of the Vintage metagame and the angles it approaches that structure form.  Anyone who is a high level Vintage pilot would do well playing my deck.  Burning Wish gives it a flexibility that other decks lack.  I can go for the Show and Tell plan, the combo plan, or just answer their threats.  This past weekend I Burning Wished for Shattering Spree to destroy multiple Cages, and make my answer uncounterable. 

[Twiedel]

First of all, another excellent article, I ESPECIALLY like the picture in the end, where did you find those cool Germans? 

Anyway, back to topic:
I will try to not talk about anything Young Pyromancer related, as I think I made my point on that card a long time ago, but as far as your analysis in the beginning goes, I guess altough we would both find different explanations to why things changed all that much, we are completely on the same page for the result: Vintage now has a strong set of aggro/aggro-related strategies, which it didn't have before. The decline in Shops and Dredge is significant in the US right now, and I fully expect it to shift over to Europe as well (altough I feel we have many commited and experienced Shop players there, especially in Italy. They will stick to their guns, and they will still wrecking some dreams).

Concerning Confidant/Jace control I feel just the same, and would sign your part on that with only one exception: I don't think it is well positioned against Aggro-Control strategies. Of course, it is still the premier Mana Drain deck, but I think it is particular soft to what I'd call "Legacy" Strategies: Decks packed with creatures, removal and a bit of discruption. You can easily loose too much tempo, and once there a some creatures out on the field, your "engines" become pretty much useless. I suspect it might come down to sideboards with mass removal that might change this, but only at the cost of Shop and Dredge matchup percentages.

The first Oath approach you mentioned is also pretty interesting, but I feel it is just not broken enough for the current state of Vintage. I'd much rather prefer something with Gush or Dark Rituals, and altough I think as long as creatures are played everywhere the Oath deck will put up some number here and there, my old concernes with this type of deck are still not solved: Too many bad draws, too weak against regular Mana Drain decks (which are ALWAYS part of the Vintage metagame) and a Combo that is just too slow for my taste.

For the next months, I completely agree that the Dark Ritual approach (the specific tactics need to be decided, as I still don't like Oath ^^) is the best to go. With all that many creature decks which are soft to fast combo but happen to knock out Shops, I will surely be on combo for the next big tournaments - we have to stop these creatures! And if we can't stop them, at least let them secretly work for the dark side to help getting rid of all those artifacts!

Congrats on a very good design, and make sure to keep on promoting MTGO. I see a brilliant future of Vintage matches every day!

[Varal]

For the next months, I completely agree that the Dark Ritual approach (the specific tactics need to be decided, as I still don't like Oath ^^) is the best to go. With all that many creature decks which are soft to fast combo but happen to knock out Shops, I will surely be on combo for the next big tournaments - we have to stop these creatures! And if we can't stop them, at least let them secretly work for the dark side to help getting rid of all those artifacts!

Congrats on a very good design, and make sure to keep on promoting MTGO. I see a brilliant future of Vintage matches every day!

I haven't tested the match-up a lot but I felt like RUG Delver has a good match-up against Storm. I've no idea about Merfolk and Hatebears but, in Legacy, Mefolk, RUG Delver and Death & Taxes are pretty good against Storm. Oath of Druids seems to improve the match-up. There's more aggro decks but it isn't Sligh resugence, it is Fish resurgence. Force of Will, Daze, Mental Misstep, Flusterstorm aren't easy cards for a Storm combo deck to deal with. They can be played around but it's definitely not a goldfish match-up.

[Soly]

I haven't tested the match-up a lot but I felt like RUG Delver has a good match-up against Storm.

I'm not the best to speak about RUG Lately having put the deck down but in the past the matchup against storm decks was INSANE, and the matchup against Oath was poor;   so it really depends on which route they are forced to take.

[Samoht]

I haven't tested the match-up a lot but I felt like RUG Delver has a good match-up against Storm.

I'm not the best to speak about RUG Lately having put the deck down but in the past the matchup against storm decks was INSANE, and the matchup against Oath was poor;   so it really depends on which route they are forced to take.

AJ is currently undefeated against Oath (both Pitch/Burning and Control) since he started playing the deck a few months back including wins against Coss, Fenton, and myself.

[Soly]

And that could be the case.  I know that I didn't top8 champs in 2012 when I officially broke the deck out becasue I lost to Oath.

To be fair, it was a list Demars wrote for SCG that had like 19 maindeck ancient grudges and ancient claims, and I only ever drew cages.

[Smmenen]

Having the varied and flexible routes to victory for my deck is a huge edge.  I can win with Oath for Grisel, Show and Tell for Grisel, Oath for Maniac, Tendrils or ETW.  In testing my Pitch Long deck (with double Flusterstorm) was winning against RUG, although I don't recall the specifics of the Pitch Burning Tendrils match.  Soly, try the Pitch Long list in here.  As I said, the only reason I went away from it was because it was soft to Landstill. 

[LotusHead]

Any chance you could post Eudo Tourney decklists?

[Smmenen]

Any chance you could post Eudo Tourney decklists?

I'll both post top 8s this week!  Probably Friday or Saturday. 

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

Excellent article as usual.

A few remarks:

1. boarding:

"Notice I don’t sideboard out Mental Misstep against Workshop, and the reason is I expect the opponent to have Grafdigger’s Cage. Between 4 Cages and cards like Sol Ring and Mana Vault, you have enough 1 casting cost targets to justify keeping Misstep in. I also tend not to sideboard in the Maniac unless I’m on the draw, but this is the general plan."

This sentence requires some explanation: you explain before this how you board against Shops, and take out the two griselbrands. This doesn't work well unless you do indeed bring in maniac. What is your boarding plan when on the play?

2. you explain the interaction between laboratory maniac and double oath, allowing to win the same turn you oath in maniac. This comes right after a sentence where you state the advantage of maniac being hardcasted in spite of grafdigger's cage. I'm sure you're aware that the double oath trick doesn't work when cage is in play, but the section could be a bit confusing to some.

3. In your feature match, neither the commentators nor you realized what was going on in the library situation: You resolved a draw 7.
Your opponent had 7 cards in hand. then you played dark ritual which he misstepped, meaning he is down to 6 cards. In his turn, he drew the 7th card again, but he wouldn't have an active library there, because if he'd play it, he'd be down to 6 cards again. This must be the real reason he didn't play it.

4. Your two obvious errors of 1. "mechanically" playing academy and 2. not boarding in the maniac when taking out griselbrands cost you the tournament. Do you believe this could be because the deck is mentally exhausting to play, which would make even you more susceptible to errors like these (playing on auto pilot, which this deck doesn't allow / misboarding)? Or where there other reasons?
How did you mentally feel in these two games? Could the crux lie in the game you lost when using necro conservatively?
I know this is speculation, but I'm asking because things like these tend to happen to me as well.

(In a 6 round tournament, you wouldn't have had to play these matches, and could have drawn instead).

Thanks,

P. Flugzeug

[Grand Inquisitor]

you explain the interaction between laboratory maniac and double oath...grafdigger's cage

I'm pretty sure Steve just means that the double oath works as a wincon when cage is absent AND, since Maniac is easily castable, and the oath delivers it to hand, that the Oath>(cast)Maniac>Oath is also a relatively quick and easy path to victory.

(Just speculating here)

[MaximumCDawg]

you explain the interaction between laboratory maniac and double oath...grafdigger's cage

I'm pretty sure Steve just means that the double oath works as a wincon when cage is absent AND, since Maniac is easily castable, and the oath delivers it to hand, that the Oath>(cast)Maniac>Oath is also a relatively quick and easy path to victory.

(Just speculating here)

Yeah, what people may miss is that Oath does still tutor you up to your Maniac even if it cannot put it into play.  That's critical to understanding why Oath -> Maniac is viable even through a Cage.  Indeed, since you need to Oath a second time to win either way, the only thing Cage does is require you to pay 2U (and dodge countermagic) before winning the next turn.

Im confused about the "double oath" statement, though, since this doesn't work if you're casting Maniac.  You need to draw it and cast it between Oath activations... which is possible but not likely to happen in Vintage.

[Smmenen]

Excellent article as usual.

Peter, Thanks for the kind words.  I'm glad you enjoyed the article.

A few remarks:

1. boarding:

"Notice I don’t sideboard out Mental Misstep against Workshop, and the reason is I expect the opponent to have Grafdigger’s Cage. Between 4 Cages and cards like Sol Ring and Mana Vault, you have enough 1 casting cost targets to justify keeping Misstep in. I also tend not to sideboard in the Maniac unless I’m on the draw, but this is the general plan."

This sentence requires some explanation: you explain before this how you board against Shops, and take out the two griselbrands. This doesn't work well unless you do indeed bring in maniac. What is your boarding plan when on the play?

In general, my plan against Workshops is roughly

- Dark Rituals/Necro/Misdirections
+ Max Ancient Tombs/Hurkyl's/Nature's Claims/Chain of Vapor

That's usually a 7-for-8 swap that only necessitates 1 additional cut (which is probably shaving off a Misstep or a weaker business spell).  

This passage is misleading to the extent that it suggests a clearly differentiated plan on the play v. the draw.  I suggested a rule of thumb at best.  The more important rule is to keep your opponent off balance by being unpredictable.    My decision varies by matchup, situation, game and feel.   I'm sorry I can't be more helpful here.  

2. you explain the interaction between laboratory maniac and double oath, allowing to win the same turn you oath in maniac. This comes right after a sentence where you state the advantage of maniac being hardcasted in spite of grafdigger's cage. I'm sure you're aware that the double oath trick doesn't work when cage is in play, but the section could be a bit confusing to some.

I edited this article more than once, but there may still be a few confusing passages that have to be understood only in context.   Sorry for any confusion.  I was explaining two separate thoughts here that subsequent posters have elaborated on/explained.  

3. In your feature match, neither the commentators nor you realized what was going on in the library situation: You resolved a draw 7.
Your opponent had 7 cards in hand. then you played dark ritual which he misstepped, meaning he is down to 6 cards. In his turn, he drew the 7th card again, but he wouldn't have an active library there, because if he'd play it, he'd be down to 6 cards again. This must be the real reason he didn't play it.

Yes, exactly.  Someone else pointed this out last week, and the article was edited accordingly.

4. Your two obvious errors of 1. "mechanically" playing academy and 2. not boarding in the maniac when taking out griselbrands cost you the tournament. Do you believe this could be because the deck is mentally exhausting to play, which would make even you more susceptible to errors like these (playing on auto pilot, which this deck doesn't allow / misboarding)? Or where there other reasons?
How did you mentally feel in these two games? Could the crux lie in the game you lost when using necro conservatively?
I know this is speculation, but I'm asking because things like these tend to happen to me as well.

(In a 6 round tournament, you wouldn't have had to play these matches, and could have drawn instead).

This is a very difficult question to answer.  I have no doubt that playing in a long tournament has a psychological toll, and endurance is a factor.  But I tend to have a very high threshold for that kind of thing.  In fact, I am often playing better and tighter by the end of long tournaments than I am earlier on.  I am a high energy person.  That said, I do believe mental fatigue played a role -- but not because of the length of the tournament.  I think I was emotionally and physically warn out by jetlag and a lack of sleep.  Despite having arrived Thursday night, I did not get a single good night's sleep from Thursday night through Saturday night.  I was jetlagged and couldn't get my body on the time zone change in time.  There is research that illustrates the effects of time zone changes on mental acuity (and possibly in the sports context), and may even be a Malcolm Gladwell chapter on it in one of his books IIRC.  Next year, I will better prepare by going to be early on the west coast so that I am ready for the transition. It also didn't help sleeping in a room full of men.  

My second blunder/mistake would not have occurred had I stuck to my usual pile shuffling practice, as I would have noticed the less than 60 cards library count.   That was just so ridiculous it's even hard for me to believe.   When playing this deck, I almost always also count my SB before the game because there is often a chance that a Wished for card is in my maindeck.  

As for the City/Tolarian error:  I have often said that people are most likely to make a mistake on the verge of victory at the end of a long match.   The reason for this is the psychological relief they get from victory.  The Academy play is a well ingrained play that is correct probably more than 98% of the time.  When playing any deck in Vintage, those routine plays are outsourced to the unconscious/subconscious's pattern recognition, and that's a good thing.  It allows our brains to focus on problem solving more important and difficult critical plays.  If we had to tax our brains by considering every action, Vintage would be impossible to play.   In this case, that unconscious decision making should have been checked by the paramount need to hardcast Griselbrand.  This is simply a reminder that, when on the verge of victory in a long hard fought match, take a breath and double check everything.  

[personalbackfire]

@Smmenen

I plan on picking up this deck soon to start testing. Do you find it hard to play against decks with Flusterstorm? Would you consider playing a Flusterstorm over a Misdirection?

[Soly]

My list that I was building for the event had one thing VERY different than Steve's;   Duress x3.   These were to fight the Flusterstorm Monster.  Realistically, you have Oath as your plan against those decks, because they're usually light on ways to stop that card pre-board.

[wiley]

My list that I was building for the event had one thing VERY different than Steve's;   Duress x3.   These were to fight the Flusterstorm Monster.  Realistically, you have Oath as your plan against those decks, because they're usually light on ways to stop that card pre-board.

Did you still have the same amount of counter magic plus the duress x3?  I felt it was really hard to make changes to the list without making play drastically different.  I would like to see your list if you don't mind.

[Soly]

MAINDECK
4 City of Brass
4 Forbidden Orchard
2 Gemstone Mine
1 Tolarian Academy
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Jet
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana vault
1 Mana Crypt
1 Lotus Petal
1 Chrome Mox
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
3 burning Wish
4 Force of Will 
2 Misdirection 
1 Swan Song 
2 Duress
1 Hurkyl's Recall 
1 Chain of Vapor 
4 Oath of Druids
2 Griselbrand
1 Brainstorm 
1 Ponder 
1 Time Walk 
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Timewtister 
1 Mind's Desire 
1 Yawgmoth's Bargain
1 Necropotence
1 Wheel of Fortune
4 Dark Ritual
1 Windfall
1 Gift's Ungiven   

SIDEBOARD
1 Duress
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Show and Tell
1 Yawgmoth's Will
3 Ancient Tomb
2 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Rebuild
2 Natures Claim
1 Diminishing Returns


This is the most recent list that I had, that I was going to play.  I switched to Doomsday the night before.

[Smmenen]

@Smmenen

I plan on picking up this deck soon to start testing. Do you find it hard to play against decks with Flusterstorm? Would you consider playing a Flusterstorm over a Misdirection?

The only reason I'd play Flusterstorm is to defeat other counterspells, so that's a legitimate thought.  But I think it's unnecessary.

First of all, you have a huge swath of threats that can't be stopped by Flusterstorm: Necro, Bargain, Oaths, Jar, etc.

Second, even though many threats can be targeted by Flusterstorm, they can't always be stopped by it.  If you play a threat anticipating your opponent might have a Flusterstorm, it's as easy to play around as a Mindbreak Trap (and similarly).   For example, I've often Wished for Will, and played it with mana available to pay for it, and once that happens, I can go off pretty easily, again, playing around it, or overcome it.   That's happened many times.

Third, once you Oath into Grisel, you don't always need to overcome a flusterstorm.  If you feel like going off, just Burning Wish for Thoughtseize first.  That's my standard play.  Then you'll Burning Wish for Will.   When I feel the need to beat Flusterstorm, that's usually what I do. 

If I had thought it necessary, I would have played Duresses. 

***
 Relatedly, I submitted a third tournament report (Top 4 at Eudo) for this article, so everyone who's got it will get the addendum when it's edited.

[JACO]

Just as a brief update to this article, Stephen recently played in another tournament with the deck, and we have updated the original article with another 10+ pages of detailed content and reporting from his latest tournament performance. We have created a separate Addendum for this for customers who already purchased this product, and we sent out an Addendum tonight to everybody who purchased this product. Please check your PayPal email address Inbox (or Junk/Spam folder if you don't see it in the Inbox). If you do not see it please email us support@eternalcentral.com and we can resend it.

The original product has been updated to reflect that it now includes 3 tournament reports, so any new buyers will receive the 'new' full 45+ page article, jam packed with the theory behind this modern Pitch Burning Tendrils deck, a number of updated decklists, multiple tournament reports, and a few of Stephen's other thoughts on the directions of the metagame. If you are searching for entertainment or starved for Vintage musings, this is quite beastly, in a good way (queue the Run DMC "not bad meaning bad, but bad meaning good!").

[hashswag]

Hi Steve,

Just wondering how you approach playing this deck against a generic Grixis Time Vault deck. Is there anything in particular you consider that's specific to that deck or do you just try to play tight?

Also wondering whether there are any rules you follow with regards to sequencing Draw 7s. If you had, say, a bomb and a Draw 7 in your hand against a deck running heavy permission, would you D7 first to fish for counters or keep it as a backup in case your bomb gets countered? Are there more factors in this decision than the number of cards in each player's hand?

[Smmenen]

Hi Steve,

Just wondering how you approach playing this deck against a generic Grixis Time Vault deck. Is there anything in particular you consider that's specific to that deck or do you just try to play tight?

Oh boy, you've asked probably one of the most difficult questions there is to answer about how to play this deck.  

When playing against a Grixis Control deck, my general approach is to throw bombs out there and try to get one to stick, sequencing them in the order so that the most important of them can resolve, but also sequencing them in the order that permits me to play them in an efficient manner.  This is a very complicated set of considerations.   For example, if my hand is Mana Crypt, Wheel, City of Brass, Dark Ritual, Necro, Hurkyl's Recall and Mental Misstep, what you do here is very complicated and depends on a ton of factors, such as who is on the play, and what you know about your opponent's deck.

All I can say, simply, is that there is a whole set of basic heuristics (rules of thumb) that you follow in terms of sequencing, baiting, and timing in this matchup, and how to do so for each spell in your deck.  It's far beyond my capacity here to set them out for you, but there are a few resources I suggest you consult (one premium, the rest free):

1) My Burning Tendrils Bible
This is a premium product that basically sets out how you basically play these various cards in general terms, and has a bunch of tournament reports that illustrate these principles.  

Since that's a not-cheap product, there are a few free resources you can consult:

2) The Burning Tendrils scenarios podcast: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=45647.0

Although my list here doesn't have the pitch counterspells, all of the basic ideas you are trying to learn about (sequencing, etc) are all described here.  They may even help put you in a mindset for trying to think through these basic questions.  

3) My SCG article archive.  There are a TON of tournament reports, primers, etc on this archetype and its ancestors.  Here's a good example with the original version of this deck versus the premiere Mana Drain control deck of that time: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/5856-Burning-Through-Type-One-Part-2-The-Control-Matchup.html

That article will help, again, put you in a mindset of how to play the Drain matchup.

]
Also wondering whether there are any rules you follow with regards to sequencing Draw 7s. If you had, say, a bomb and a Draw 7 in your hand against a deck running heavy permission, would you D7 first to fish for counters or keep it as a backup in case your bomb gets countered? Are there more factors in this decision than the number of cards in each player's hand?

There aren't rules, but there are definitely rules of thumb.  I would absolutely run the draw7 out first to draw out counters, but it all depends on the "feel" of the game, and relative risks.  I don't want to throw away an insane hand, but I also want to increase my odds of resolving a key spell.  Another key factor is my relative certainty in how assured I am they have countermagic.  A good example of when I run out Draw7s is my feature match in the Vintage Championship.  Recall, if you watched it or read this article, how I played Timetwister in game 2, to the surprise of the commentators.  The rationale behind that play is exactly what you suggest: to draw out counters so that I can resolve bombs the next turn.  I was fairly certain that he had countermagic, and, since he only had 1 turn, the risks of giving him a new hand weren't that great.  We talk about this specific situation in our latest podcast in my tournament report, so you should consult that as well.

The factors that you must consider are often nuanced and difficult to frame in general turns.  If you want to present me with a specific scenario, I can describe for you how I would approach it.  The resources I just linked or suggested should be more than ample to give you a general sense for these rules of thumb in the meantime.  

[hashswag]

Oh boy, you've asked probably one of the most difficult questions there is to answer about how to play this deck.  

When playing against a Grixis Control deck, my general approach is to throw bombs out there and try to get one to stick, sequencing them in the order so that the most important of them can resolve, but also sequencing them in the order that permits me to play them in an efficient manner.  This is a very complicated set of considerations.   For example, if my hand is Mana Crypt, Wheel, City of Brass, Dark Ritual, Necro, Hurkyl's Recall and Mental Misstep, what you do here is very complicated and depends on a ton of factors, such as who is on the play, and what you know about your opponent's deck.

All I can say, simply, is that there is a whole set of basic heuristics (rules of thumb) that you follow in terms of sequencing, baiting, and timing in this matchup, and how to do so for each spell in your deck.  It's far beyond my capacity here to set them out for you, but there are a few resources I suggest you consult (one premium, the rest free):

Awesome, thanks for the response. I've already got all of your material about the deck, but I guess what I was trying to confirm was that Drains was the 'default' mindset you want to be in when thinking about sequencing, unless you know your opponent is running a deck with a completely different approach, such as MUD or Dredge (or a particular piece of removal/permission). I suppose the only real extra consideration from the normal 'drains deck' mentality when playing against Grixis is the added incentive to not give them an extra turn to Time Vault.

There aren't rules, but there are definitely rules of thumb.  I would absolutely run the draw7 out first to draw out counters, but it all depends on the "feel" of the game, and relative risks.  I don't want to throw away an insane hand, but I also want to increase my odds of resolving a key spell.  Another key factor is my relative certainty in how assured I am they have countermagic.  A good example of when I run out Draw7s is my feature match in the Vintage Championship.  Recall, if you watched it or read this article, how I played Timetwister in game 2, to the surprise of the commentators.  The rationale behind that play is exactly what you suggest: to draw out counters so that I can resolve bombs the next turn.  I was fairly certain that he had countermagic, and, since he only had 1 turn, the risks of giving him a new hand weren't that great.  We talk about this specific situation in our latest podcast in my tournament report, so you should consult that as well.

Ah, that's the critical thing I wasn't considering, I guess, to put more emphasis on how the draw 7 will affect your opponent than yourself (and to be confident enough in the deck to provide another bomb to replace the one you wheeled/twistered/jar'd away). I guess this would mean that if you expected permission from your opponent (who kept a full 7), you'd want to be playing Crypt -> City -> Wheel on the play in your scenario, but if they, say, mulled to 5, you might be more tempted to try to Ritual into Necro knowing that you had the Misstep for their Misstep on Necro and if they Forced instead, they'd be down to 3 (drawing to 4) on turn 1 (while you kept Wheel as a backup plan if your card advantage doesn't get there)?