[Deck] T.E.S. - The EPIC Storm

[LDX]

So with Fatal Push putting BUG back into the DTB it looks like cutting Empty the Warrens is ill advised?

I think it's still fine. I'll try it back if others disagree, but on my own I don't see the difference regarding that specific match. It seems like main deck Empty was more for DnT and Delver decks. If you can cast main deck Empty against them, most likely you can cast sideboarded Empty too.

[Doneval]

I've been trying to decide which flavor of Storm to play for the next few weeks. I would have thought that TES would be the choice right now due to its faster starts, but I'm very surprised that on MTGGoldfish, only ANT decks show up as winning leagues for the last month.

Any idea why that would be? Is there something in the current meta that makes ANT a much better choice? Or am I reading the results incorrectly?

[Ebonclaw]

I've been trying to decide which flavor of Storm to play for the next few weeks. I would have thought that TES would be the choice right now due to its faster starts, but I'm very surprised that on MTGGoldfish, only ANT decks show up as winning leagues for the last month.

Any idea why that would be? Is there something in the current meta that makes ANT a much better choice? Or am I reading the results incorrectly?

The differences between the two are often subtle enough that many TO's or whoever categorizes said decks don't bother to differentiate. ANT is not an archetype, but it's sometimes treated as though it is one. Additionally, ANT is the more popular of the two decks until recently, meta shifts have made TES the more attractive option and some people haven't figured that out yet. The meta is also not very friendly towards storm right now, but I enjoy the challenge. Still, the result is fewer players playing storm, of those playing it they often choose the more popular of the two decks, and of those that choose TES, it sometimes goes misreported as an "ANT" deck, under the subcategory of "Burning ANT" or something.

I should note one of the more interesting things about the two decks is that they are both starting to resemble the other, I'm seeing more ANT decks running a pair of moxen, or even two Burning Wish while TES has tried mainboarding PiF, experimented with some number of Cabal Rituals, and recently cut EtW (and the PiF that was being tested) out of the main. This is the most interesting change and I've been playing it for a few weeks and love how potent Ad Nauseum has become without having to worry about flipping EtW. While the changes haven't really sped up the deck much, it does noticeably improve the kill/whiff ratio, particularly if one needs to go off with no mana floating leftover and having already spent a land drop, meaning you're relying and need to find moxen and petals to continue. TES remains a deck that shines and kills by T3. ANT is a more resilient build, but it usually doesn't do much till T4. I should also note the other modification I made is cutting the 4th Bloodstained Mire to play a single Cabal Ritual, which makes PiF a much more attractive Wish target when I have it.

[Kap'n Cook]

I've been trying to decide which flavor of Storm to play for the next few weeks. I would have thought that TES would be the choice right now due to its faster starts, but I'm very surprised that on MTGGoldfish, only ANT decks show up as winning leagues for the last month.

Any idea why that would be? Is there something in the current meta that makes ANT a much better choice? Or am I reading the results incorrectly?

Mainly what ebon said. It's almost purely a numbers game. There are way more "ant" looking decks and players than "tes" ones, and since you have to go 5-0 to get reported its more likely from a pure probability standpoint that some of these ant players get the 5-0. I think I have something like 10 4-1s in the past month but haven't been able to break through for the 5-0 yet and don't remember facing any tes mirrors, while I have faced a decent number of "ant" builds

[Polski_]

Another episode of the series TheEpicStorm.com: TES MATCHUP BATTLES! is up and this time we face Sneak and Show! Giving a breakdown of the matchup that we are likely to face in a tournament after its top 8 performance in GP Louisville.

http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-matc...neak-and-show/

Let me know your thoughts and opinions. Thank you.

- Alex Poling

[Jay_Gatz]

Another episode of the series TheEpicStorm.com: TES MATCHUP BATTLES! is up and this time we face Sneak and Show! Giving a breakdown of the matchup that we are likely to face in a tournament after its top 8 performance in GP Louisville.

http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-matc...neak-and-show/

Let me know your thoughts and opinions. Thank you.

- Alex Poling

In the first game you posted I like leading off with dark rit after seeing your opponent's hand. If they don't counter it you therapy and then ad nauseam, if they do counter it you've burned their force and you're only one mana off from trying again next turn.

[Pelikanudo]

Another episode of the series TheEpicStorm.com: TES MATCHUP BATTLES! is up and this time we face Sneak and Show! Giving a breakdown of the matchup that we are likely to face in a tournament after its top 8 performance in GP Louisville.

http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-matc...neak-and-show/

Let me know your thoughts and opinions. Thank you.

- Alex Poling

In my area usually uniquely one player plays Sneak and he is likely the best Sneak player by here. you always need to be prepared vs this boy.
Thats a good reason why I play V.S. and Bribery in side. also my 2 extirpate can help... likely i'll play surgical at sometime instead...
I believe that CoV is a shit of card vs this archetype. I lately for example play 2Extirpate - likely my plan If leyline is in play is to try to (burning for V.S. to be countered and next extirpate (FoW) or (A.N)). OR (win ASAP) - note as a hope. Sure the best thing is Xantid but even sometimes is uselss vs Omni archetypes as can race you if they are un checked

for example my Sneak opponent does not play Leyline, but toooons of counters from side. last time I sided like: -1EtW -2 ponder = +2 Extirpate +1 bayou, but next time will be: -1EtW, -2C.M = same.
as I am more focused in disrupting and grininding as 2nd games OtD I absilutly need to disrupt.

for you case then I believe 2S.E and uniqeluy 1C.V. is ok. - you can play 1CoV just to not to loose - you can do PiF loop and next pick it up with I.T. - just play the less neccesary. take any C.M.

well just my opinion.

EDIT: Curiosly Bribery provided you a potential 1st turn Bribery and ponder for disrupt.

[owerbart]

Hi. I'm trying to build TES these days (I've never played any storm deck before)

I was reading the matchup guide and saw that you guys board in the Decays vs Stoneblade, but not the Bayou. Why?

Thanks for the help

[LDX]

Hi. I'm trying to build TES these days (I've never played any storm deck before)

I was reading the matchup guide and saw that you guys board in the Decays vs Stoneblade, but not the Bayou. Why?

Thanks for the help

Sometimes the sideboard guide takes time to update. Or, at least, it doesn't keep up with the current decklist at all times. Bayou is a card that goes from main to sideboard frequently, most likely in that situation the guide was written with a Bayou main in mind.

Of course you wouldn't board green spells without green lands.

[Bryant Cook]

Report from Eternal Extravaganza VI - http://www.theepicstorm.com/eternal-...a-vi-03182017/

[Ebonclaw]

Thanks for the writeup, I appreciate the highlighting of relevant cards throughout the article- really great to be able to identify frequency of key cards. To that end, I noticed that Pulverize got used once throughout the event to good effect, and the other time it would have been viable if the deck had had a second mountain to feed it. I see that after the event it looks like you'll be adjusting the deck to permanently include Pulverize for the time being, despite the fact that you've had to finagle the mana base a bit and lean a little more on Petals for B as noted and it still wasn't enough to feed it reliably in this particular instance. However, it seems you clearly find the card worth playing despite this. I can guess that your testing probably shows more utility and better reliability then this event does then?

[Bryant Cook]

http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...?DeckID=112744

[BoomChild]

http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...?DeckID=112744

Is the addition of the two empty the warrens a stabilizing method to beat decks that just can't deal with tokens well? I played this main deck last night but a different sideboard, I'm embarrassed that I forgot to add in Past in Flames to my board and it cost me a match but the two extra Empties were interesting.

[Bryant Cook]

My report from SCG: Worcester: http://www.theepicstorm.com/scg-worcester-0407-092017/

[d0nkey]

My report from SCG: Worcester: http://www.theepicstorm.com/scg-worcester-0407-092017/

The Worcester decklist appears to be a card short.

[MrFrowny_]

The Worcester decklist appears to be a card short.

Yeah you're correct, the only thing I can think of is no Empty the Warrens/Tendrils in the main. But he goes on the specify why there's not one in the main so I'm not sure what's missing.

[Ebonclaw]

There is supposed to be an EtW main. You see him sideboard it out several times throughout the article. Which begs the question of "is there really 2 of them in the SB?"

Meltdown was too mana intensive in certain applications like thorn/sphere, and destroyed our own LEDs/petals/moxen if for some reason we deployed them beforehand.
Shattering Spree got around Chalice for 1, but was very red intensive.
Pulverize was also too red intensive and required sacrificing the board under the premise you were going to win that turn.

Enter a new contender?

By Force
XR
Sorcery
Destroy X target artifacts
https://i.redd.it/3ble948ja5ry.png

Destroying a Chalice for 1 is still probably a multi-turn task, which is admittedly clunky, but it can be done in a more cost effective way now with the added bonus of being able to hit other problems in about as cost effective manner as we could hope for without sacrificing the board state/placing a "win this turn" requirement on it, and is easier to cast in regards to color requirements.
A good option for chalice heavy metas?

[Bryant Cook]

Deck list corrected in article.

[MrFrowny_]

There is supposed to be an EtW main. You see him sideboard it out several times throughout the article. Which begs the question of "is there really 2 of them in the SB?"

Meltdown was too mana intensive in certain applications like thorn/sphere, and destroyed our own LEDs/petals/moxen if for some reason we deployed them beforehand.
Shattering Spree got around Chalice for 1, but was very red intensive.
Pulverize was also too red intensive and required sacrificing the board under the premise you were going to win that turn.

Enter a new contender?

By Force
XR
Sorcery
Destroy X target artifacts
https://i.redd.it/3ble948ja5ry.png

Destroying a Chalice for 1 is still probably a multi-turn task, which is admittedly clunky, but it can be done in a more cost effective way now with the added bonus of being able to hit other problems in about as cost effective manner as we could hope for without sacrificing the board state/placing a "win this turn" requirement on it, and is easier to cast in regards to color requirements.
A good option for chalice heavy metas?

Yeah you're probably right.

And I'm not sure.. I personally don't like it and I'd rather stick with pulverize. I just wouldn't like dumping a large amount of mana into just wiping the board of lock pieces and then having to refill your hand in the next few turns. Then they just slam another lock piece after wiping. I could be wrong though, just my two cents.

[d0nkey]

Deck list corrected in article.

Thanks. Great report as always. One question regarding your top4 g2 match:

Game Two: I kept a slow hand of: Polluted Delta, Bloodstained Mire, Bloodstained Mire, Abrupt Decay, Abrupt Decay, Cabal Therapy and Infernal Tutor. It's not a great hand and

Can you explain your thought process behind keeping this hand?

The obvious concern here is T1 mother of runes, and of course your opponent just happened to have it. But it seems like durdling against D&T is not where we want to be. There's just too much hate they can bring down that 2 abrupt decays can't deal with (and possibly a 3rd if you infernal for one). If you had lost game 1, I could see the risk of a mulligan to 6 or 5 being worse than this starting hand, but you won game 1. I would think taking the mulligan risk would be a better bet here.