[Deck] U/G Enchantress

[LurkingMatt]

Considering all posts that where made while I was lurking (which I probably will do again ; ) ), a bit of feedback:

@Ben: Please, you "try to discuss logically" but:

1. If you want to improve a deck (e.g. Di's, WaytoWinAWar's) you do not only disrupt an idea but offer alternatives. "My build/ the old build is better" doesn't really qualify. And yes I know Di can be frustating since he is so empathical about his ideas.
   Especially since you more then once stated "I changed that in my deck" during this threads timeline without any update to the- admittedly not really primer like front post - nor a post of your current decklist(s)/ iteration of those.
2. I really enjoy(ed) your style of discussion since you always try to reason with anyone. But since Di and you seem to
   agree to disagree - leave it be (as a suggestion).
3. How about an updated list and a few things you learned while trying different things?
   I am really eager to learn more about the deck and dust it of (I am currently running Tide/ 12Post since I am more comfortable with those but take this beauty for a ride in our local LGS regularly). But not without convincing that my Matchups vs fair decks are better/ Storm "not worse" then 12Post.
4. How about aOr maybe a "real" primer? I would be willing to help out any way you want.
5. This deck (Enchantress in any incarnation has been a baby of mine for quiet some time. So I am willing to invest/ do stuff if the reasoning is logically (and yes, I own the whole shebang (including exotic Helm-Enchantress or
   some Curios I purchased to test Di's suggestions (NO I WILL NOT RUN TENDRILS) excluding ITEOC.
   The fact alone that I joined the active community (more or less at least ;) ) and created an account to get involved should be proof enough

@ Di (sorry for shortening your Name, Di)

1. I know you are not a native speaker (Belgian I would guess?), but please keep your sentences simple.
   If you do that I am more willing to follow any argument you make and the sense is less open to interpretation.
2. Thanks for your interest in the deck and the will to innovate.
   While not all of us might buy your ideas, your "mad scientist build" helps the rest of us to learn more about the deck.
   So keep on doing your thing and to push borders!
3. Speaking of that:
   Please consider dropping either Tendrils OR Emrakul. At least main deck. I understand the general idea of redundancy you want to have but both go different ways:
   Tendrils -> Storm (works nicely with Curio, likes Sanctum since you need more mana).
   Emrakul -> going BIG (works nicely with the "normal" engine, likes Sanctum since you only need Faeries and a few enchants to drop him fast)
4. Your manabase is really interesting. As long as it works: "Go push the probabilities".
   My experience as a "casual" tournament player (2-3 tournaments (16+ players) / month, no big leagues since Germany has few of those + 3-4 LGS meetings / month) tells me it will bite you in the ass in a critical moment.
   Also thank you for your explanation(s) of your land choices!
5. Thanks for the math on your manabase but you have to consider the probabilites of "usable" mana in your hand.
   That'S the main point of argument by Way and Ben.
6. Could you please offer "a complete standard list" integrating Cloudstone Curio and Abundant Growth for real discussion of the topic "Curio + Growth"?
   My experiences while testing them showed that they don't really like being one ofs, you need both of them
   preferably as two+ ofs(Growth at least - and that thing at least cantrips on its own).
   I am currently not bought by the tech but it showed more promise then most things I tried.