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

[Chikenbok]

Is there by here the pilot of the deck, I'd really like to make hime/her some questions...?

Don't turn around... he's hiding right behind you!

[Pelikanudo]

Don't turn around... he's hiding right behind you!

Yeah I didn't read the previous posts and then noticed there are posts around the Top 8 he made, and noticed how easy the match ups were.... So I'm sorry I really do not have many questions...

@Koby

I have the following questions:

1) Will you change to +1 Tendrils in base?, which will be the change if so?

2) How were the 3 Burning wish for you, didn't you prefer 4 instead and -1 Disruption?

3) were you comfortable with 13 lands instead 12?


The other day I made 0-3 DROP loosing to a Joke MUD match up, 1-2 to Canadian (in here I drew in 2 match ups the Grim Tutor and this boy won the tournament) and 1-2 to ANT, he took me the 2 Silences in hand and next he just was quicker than me... Sometimes I just simply win all match ups with TES and sometimes I just loose as a Joke of Destiny... I wanted to make Top 8 with My One Grim Tutor List but this is not going to be possible...

[Koby]

I have the following questions:

1) Will you change to +1 Tendrils in base?, which will be the change if so?

Likely -1 Duress or -1 Fetchland.

2) How were the 3 Burning wish for you, didn't you prefer 4 instead and -1 Disruption?

No, I felt very comfortable with 3 BWish. I don't ever want to see the 2nd since I'm not using BWish for utility -- all the Sorceries in the sideboard are kill spells.

3) were you comfortable with 13 lands instead 12?

I was flooded from time to time. It's hard to really gauge whether 13 or 12 is correct. I would board in Karakas against matchups where I needed both Lands as well as bouncing legends (for instance Maverick).

[egosum]

This is just a thought that came to my mind when thinking about the list from the last SCG, by the way gratz Koby, i.e., the idea/list above is neither well-tested nor tuned, but theoretically speaking it make sense. The main idea is why not running a list with 3x Ad Nauseam in the main deck with 0 other cards with CMC greater than 2. IT will respect the usual 3-bomb skeleton we are used to, I know it would mean swap 2 cards with CMC 4 for 2 cards with CMC 5, but I think it would make very little difference when flipping for the win (as I said I' m not completely sure of what I' m saying, I should do the math to confirm). But as the deck main and most powerful engine is Ad Nauseam, and normally once you resolve one the game will be won even if you start at 14-12 life, sometimes 10 can get you there too, I' d like to test the idea of maximizing this spell in the deck. this will imply relying on Burning Wish to win (and here is where the inspiration on the Koby's SCG came from). Of course this is detrimental for those 6 mana Infernal tutor kills (with LED), but the chances to have Land + Rite/Dark (+ Petal/Chorme) + Infernal + LED seem rather quite low (once again, math are needed to confirm), so it seems that having 3 natural bombs (Ad Nauseam) with 4 "semi"-bombs can provide some consitantcy. Moreover, having this high number of Ad Nauseam in the deck give better match up against any discard deck, and this is specially good in a metagame that is evolving into a BUG-infested meta, and other forms of Deathrite Shaman decks (most of them splashing black disruption).

For those interested I leave a potential list below, I tested just twice online, and won both matches (but this of course means exactly nothing).


4 Rite of Flame
4 Dark Ritual

4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond

2 Silence
2 Orim's Chant (2/2 split is for surgical resiliance, feel free to add 4 of whichever you feel)
4 Duress

4 Ponder
4 Brainstorm

3 Ad Nauseam

4 Infernal Tutor
3 Burning Wish (with this threat density BW should not be needed in multiples anymore, I would keep it to 2 because when you really want it is after resolving Ad Nauseam, but I feel 3 is a good number for keeping the wish-board alive but also to have good chances on flipping it early with Ad Nauseam, some more math are needed to confirm if 2 or 3 is the correct number for a safe Ad Nauseam flip).

2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Badlands (this extra land was added because after I wrote all my thoughts down in form of cards there were 50 slots covered and the last one was naturally the place of the 4th BW, but as stated above I think is not needed, in the other hand an extra 0 CMC cost is never bad in a heavily Ad Nauseam centric deck, plust it gives some space against wasteland decks. It had to chooses between badlands, another fetchland or another city of brass. I finally took the badlands option because 5 fetchland for 3 lands may be bad in some games and we don't take any advantage by generating threshold, and the effect of clearing the deck of a single land off fetchland is irrelevant, about this topic I think there is an interesting article around the net for those interested, city of brass was OK but again the deck is Ad Nauseam centric so it seemed that increasing the number of pain lands was antisinergic, finally badlands has always been the land that finally didn't made the cut in T.E.S. but is a mroe than OK land when you are rushing, and not grinding, hence, since the original manabase remained untouched badlands seemd the best option for a 14th land)
4 Gemstone Mine
2 City of Brass
2 Polluted Delta
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Bloodstained Mire


SB: 1 Diminishing Returns
SB: 2 Tendrils of Agony
SB: 1 Empty the Warrens
SB: 3 Chain of Vapor
SB: 1 Meltdown
SB: 1 Pyroclasm
SB: 2 Karakas
SB: 1 Ill-Gotten Gains
SB: 2 Xantid Swarm
SB: 1 Thougthseize

Note that IGG is not really a Wish target, I mean with no win con in the main is even more difficult to take profit from it from a wish, but is, in this iteration, just a B-plan to adopt against fully aggro decks. Just side -2x Ad Nauseam +1x IGG, +1x ToA against those decks and you'll have a pretty regular TES.

Greetings,

Iñaki.-

P.S. if I can find time for it I'll do all the maths needed.

[Bryant Cook]

I really don't like this list, but with that aside. I think people really misunderstand the amount of mana that is needed for an Ill-Gotten Gains kill with Burning Wish, Infernal Tutor, and Lion's Eye Diamonds. It's exactly the same, after resolving Infernal Tutor finding a second copy of Lion's Eye Diamond into Burning Wish. Ill-Gotten Gains with two mana floating is a guaranteed kill, play the LED's, Infernal, Wish, and Tendrils. It's just as easy as it was before.

Granted, it's slightly tougher with Dark Ritual. Although at this point, that player should probably start to consider Past in Flames anyway.

[r3dd09]

Only played some casual games. There is a player I see at the LGS often, but I've never played against him. He approached me to play legacy. After his turn one with a wild growth, he was playing enchantress. So I was durdling to see what was in his deck, then he played a confinement. I scooped as he also has out Wheel of Sun and Moon and I didn't want to play it out. Again, casual.

The next two games I went off turn one with an Ad N. with no mana floating. The next game was just a stacked hand with me drawing a probe. He didn't want to play another set and left.

Don't want to play any "under the radar" decks for Denver, so I'm taking TES. Lets just hope my next shipment gets here in time so I have a mostly pimped deck.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

Did some runs with Iñaki's twist on T.E.S.

Here's where I'm at:
12 Land
4 Gemstone Mine
2 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Misty Rainforest
1 Flooded Strand

48 Spells
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion’s Eye Diamond
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Silence
4 Duress
3 Chrome Mox
3 Ad Nauseam
2 Burning Wish

15 Sideboard
3 Chain of Vapor
2 Xantid Swarm
2 Karakas
2 Abrupt Decay
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Past in Flames
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Empty the Warrens
2 Tendrils of Agony

Opening with Ad Nauseam in nearly every hand is pretty bad ass.

[Koby]

@egosum
If it matter at all, I never fizzled with Ad Nauseum - going so far as to claim "let's count by twos" to my opponents and they always scooped before I had to demonstrate the kill. I often stopped at 8 cards once I found the tutor kill with LED or BWish.

[KevinTrudeau]

Cutting the fourth Burning Wish to allow for a maindeck Tendrils and maindeck Empty the Warrens (with the slightly coinciding philosophy of relying more on cards to board in to deal with perms) seems like a very real option right now; TES continues to be stretched every which way with regards to strategies that trump it, and must react accordingly. I'd like to still run four, but I'm hesitant to cut anything else (although going down to eleven lands could certainly be a possibility, possibly utilizing the manabase Final Fortune suggested that ups the amount of gold lands), and it is true that seeing one copy is probably generally better than seeing two copies per game. This change will not only increase the win percentage versus Tempo Thresh post turn two/three due to making PiF cost less/making the Probe-fueled raw dog option available and allow corner-case Ad Naus to stay in postboard, but allow IGG an easy slot to fill in in the sideboard (it replaces the second copy of ToA that was boarded in versus LED combo/FoW combo/UW/Thresh/Extirpate).

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

Binned the 3 Ad Nauseam list. Currently playing a list with 4 Infernal Tutor, 1 Ad Nauseam and 1 Burning Wish. Also playing 2 Mox Opal. (No main deck kill spells.)

Only targets for BW are currently kill spells and storm engines. Rest of the board includes instants and/or other cards that are sided in vs. hate.

Common play with extra wishes in hand is to grab a Duress-effect or something similar and durdle around.

Still testing, but results look promising.

[vercadium]

Binned the 3 Ad Nauseam list. Currently playing a list with 4 Infernal Tutor, 1 Ad Nauseam and 1 Burning Wish. Also playing 2 Mox Opal. (No main deck kill spells.)

Only targets for BW are currently kill spells and storm engines. Rest of the board includes instants and/or other cards that are sided in vs. hate.

Common play with extra wishes in hand is to grab a Duress-effect or something similar and durdle around.

Still testing, but results look promising.

I'm usually more diplomatic than this - but Mox Opal seems, quite simply, horrible. It doesn't matter what way I look at it, it just doesn't make sense.

I can't recommend only 1 Burning Wish either. It's important to be able to find a tutor when you need it; only running 5 decreases the odds of this considerably.

I wouldn't personally run the list with 3 Ad Nauseam, but I can appreciate the logic behind the concept. Increasing the chance of having Ad Nauseam in the opening hand is a valid argument. What made you drop it?

[Bryant Cook]

Storm Hands II

This week's article.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

I wouldn't personally run the list with 3 Ad Nauseam, but I can appreciate the logic behind the concept. Increasing the chance of having Ad Nauseam in the opening hand is a valid argument. What made you drop it?

Mostly I was bored and wanted to switch things up.

[Psyqo]

There seems to be a lot of decklist changing in this thread, when Bryant and Koby both demonstrate great results with their builds. Why all the tinkering? Why not just playtest their builds more and sideboard according to your meta?

All the adjustments to proven, efficient decklists seems like a waste of time to me.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

There seems to be a lot of decklist changing in this thread, when Bryant and Koby both demonstrate great results with their builds. Why all the tinkering? Why not just playtest their builds more and sideboard according to your meta?

All the adjustments to proven, efficient decklists seems like a waste of time to me.

Then take your own advice and play the OP list.

[joemauer]

Storm Hands II

This week's article.

I throughly enjoyed this article. Better than the last.

I appreciated all the good and creative uses of the more controversial cards: Probe, Iggy, PiF, and Returns. Particularly liked the use of Diminishing Returns; it is not just an 'Oh Shit Button'!

[Koby]

There seems to be a lot of decklist changing in this thread, when Bryant and Koby both demonstrate great results with their builds. Why all the tinkering? Why not just playtest their builds more and sideboard according to your meta?

All the adjustments to proven, efficient decklists seems like a waste of time to me.

Part of the last few pages of discussion is in fact centered on Kirby's unconventional list which I piloted. The central question to the changes: "can this deck play with no maindeck win conditions and streamline the Ad Nauseam flips?"

[Bryant Cook]

Part of the last few pages of discussion is in fact centered on Kirby's unconventional list which I piloted. The central question to the changes: "can this deck play with no maindeck win conditions and streamline the Ad Nauseam flips?"

If the deck lists were to go to no maindeck win conditions in order to streamline I would definitely be playing four Burning Wish. Anything less than that is a mistake in my eyes. At that point there's too much value placed on Wish in order for it to be anything less than four. Now I'm a huge advocate of Empty the Warrens for the time being, so I'll continue to keep it on my maindeck. However, if I was to cut it, I'd probably replace it for a land.

I think the lists and ideas that are being thrown out there at this point are a bit unrealistic in their expectations. I wouldn't advise three Ad Nauseam or Mox Opal, pretty much ever. Being able to stop at four on Ad Nauseam against stopping at Five is huge, it's about three cards! I also believe that the chances of killing yourself are much higher with two additional Ad Nauseam in the deck compared to my current list. They've gone beyond streamlining to the point where they're just narrow effectively shutting off the benefits of Burning Wish by narrowing it down to two copies

I need to get back to work and posting on my phone is obnoxious, but I see these new lists/ideas as steps in the wrong direction. They're being thrown out there for the sake of being something different or "cool" and not functionally equivalent.

[Gaka]

There seems to be a lot of decklist changing in this thread, when Bryant and Koby both demonstrate great results with their builds. Why all the tinkering? Why not just playtest their builds more and sideboard according to your meta?

All the adjustments to proven, efficient decklists seems like a waste of time to me.

While I don't agree with the changes (namely three ad naus, mox opals, or cutting burning wishes) this statement is just asinine. Why do people tinker? To make decks the best they can be. How did the current decks get to the status that they are? By tinkering. If you're not experimenting and striving to improve, you're a damn sheep and will be ripped apart by the wolves. This doesn't mean you should bring experimental lists to tournaments and expect to do well based on theory. Play what's comfortable, but don't ever proclaim a list "perfect" and leave it to wither and die.

[Final Fortune]

Part of the last few pages of discussion is in fact centered on Kirby's unconventional list which I piloted. The central question to the changes: "can this deck play with no maindeck win conditions and streamline the Ad Nauseam flips?"

I don't understand the desire to play without Empty the Warrens MD, it's a business spell in hand and a situational win condition in and of itself that gives the deck the ability to go off an entire turn sooner ... what's not to like?

If we're on the subject of oddball deck changes tho', has anybody tried adding Simian Spirit Guides back into the deck? I've been tinkering with reducing the Chrome Mox slots as far as possible and off setting them with SGS and man does having a red lotus petal instead of a resource intensive card like Chrome Mox make a huge difference on how quickly you can go off. I know the card kind of sucks as far as Ad Nauseam flips go, but it makes a pretty big difference on how reliably you can win on turn 2.