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

[Tammit67]

Situation: you play against RUG Delver, as many of you wrongly call the deck these days. You have no cantrips in hand. You have Cabal Therapy, plus plenty of accelleration and a Burning Wish. It's your turn one, after he started by playing Volcanic-go.
Now we have many options. I'd rather not sit and wait until I luckily draw a cantrip or a Duress.
Here, I'd like to go land, ritual, Seize that bitch, take the best spell, petal, ritual2, rite, LED, Wish-resp sac that LED, and make a million Goblins. Your scenario is that you have to guess what he has. We guess FoW obviously, since that's the most likely card that could stop our turn one awesomeness, and oops - he has Stifle instead.

Guys, seriously. Don't tell me your mindfucks always work. They don't. And if you play against proper players, you'll soon enough notice their mindfucks are just as dangerous as yours.

About the lands: if you think 13 lands in the deck will stop you from getting hellbent, then it's you who is playing the deck wrongly. Seriously, you rarely get more than two lands in hand, even with the staggering amount of 13. If 13 lands would be a guarantee for having at least 2 in my opening hand, I would consider 13 lands optimal for my Doomsday list. The ONLY thing I want to do, is optimize my number of hands with 1 or 2 lands in them. those are the hands we are looking for. Turn 1 Ponder, turn 2 Brainstorm, fetch, go off is a very nice sequence. Turn 1 Duress, turn 2 go off also. Of course we prefer going for it on turn 1, but hands without LED are usually slightly slower anyway. What I notice in testing is that I have to mulligan about 95% of my hands with no lands (mostly because they just suck, sometimes because of the matchup). With 12 lands, I feel I get too many hands with no lands. Therefor I go for the 13 lands option. When you are finally ready to accept that, please help me cut another card.

I just find it strange you are unwilling to take the advice on thoughtseize but seek advice elsewhere. If you miss with therapy and he has stifle, just cast diminishing returns with a bunch of mana floating, seems fine.

12 lands has been perfect for me, even after weeks of playing AnT and telling my screen during this time that 12 lands in TES has got to be a mistake. The deck runs even more smoothly than before, I don't feel pressure from wasteland. If you do not feel the same, tweak it as you will, but don't expect us to necessarily agree.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

Situation: you play against RUG Delver, as many of you wrongly call the deck these days.

I call it RUG Delver.

You have no cantrips in hand. You have Cabal Therapy, plus plenty of accelleration and a Burning Wish. It's your turn one, after he started by playing Volcanic-go. Now we have many options. I'd rather not sit and wait until I luckily draw a cantrip or a Duress.

Sounds like you kept a bad hand.

...and make a million Goblins. Your scenario is that you have to guess what he has. We guess FoW obviously, since that's the most likely card that could stop our turn one awesomeness, and oops - he has Stifle instead.

If our plan is Empty the Warrens, you don't name Force of Will. How is this a fucking question? Force doesn't beat Empty.

Guys, seriously. Don't tell me your mindfucks always work. They don't. And if you play against proper players, you'll soon enough notice their mindfucks are just as dangerous as yours.

You should learn how to fuck minds better.

About the lands: if you think 13 lands in the deck will stop you from getting hellbent, then it's you who is playing the deck wrongly.

Thirteen lands can and will stop you from getting hellbent. I've lost more games with 13 lands than I have with 12. Apparently, you haven't played the deck enough.

Seriously, you rarely get more than two lands in hand, even with the staggering amount of 13. If 13 lands would be a guarantee for having at least 2 in my opening hand, I would consider 13 lands optimal for my Doomsday list.

I keep a lot of zero land openers, and I win plenty of games with them. Thirteen lands in Doomsday is so wrong. That deck wants 17 to 18, but wrong thread, man.

The ONLY thing I want to do, is optimize my number of hands with 1 or 2 lands in them. those are the hands we are looking for.

It's called a mulligan.

Of course we prefer going for it on turn 1, but hands without LED are usually slightly slower anyway.

Are hands with Dark Ritual equally as slow?

With 12 lands, I feel I get too many hands with no lands. Therefor I go for the 13 lands option. When you are finally ready to accept that, please help me cut another card.

See above.

[Bahamuth]

Sounds like you kept a bad hand.

Do you call a hand that does turn 1 protection and make Tokens a bad hand? What the hell?

If our plan is Empty the Warrens, you don't name Force of Will. How is this a fucking question? Force doesn't beat Empty.

Maybe you should read what he's actually writing before blurting out random shit. If you're going to win through Wish, then how exactly doesn't Force beat that again?

You should learn how to fuck minds better.

Your mindfucks are pretty much a myth. You very occasionally can find out what he might be holding due to his lands, but after that it's a complete stretch. Most players aren't good enough to make sense anyway.

Thirteen lands can and will stop you from getting hellbent. I've lost more games with 13 lands than I have with 12. Apparently, you haven't played the deck enough.

This is just an arbitrary statement. I could also say that I have lost more games with 12 land than I have with 13. Saying someone just hasn't played the deck enough is just a pathetic ad hominem.

I keep a lot of zero land openers, and I win plenty of games with them.

No you don't. No land hands are almost always a mulligan. The only hands you would keep are those that are the nuts already.

Asthereal, the probability of drawing either 1 or 2 lands is 67% with both 12 and 13 land. These are the percentages:

12 Land:
0: 0.19
1: 0.38
2: 0.29
3+ 0.14

13 land:
0: 0.16
1: 0.36
2: 0.31
3+: 0.17

Of course, this again doesn't help you at all, since you would have to judge if you value getting less 1-land hands more than having having less 0-land hands. If you want to run 13 land (which I do as well), I would cut a Wish. I'm probably the only one doing that though.

[Asthereal]

Thanks for helping me out with that post.
The hairs in my neck went up as I read it, and I was thinking of neat comments to post, but you saved me the trouble.

Asthereal, the probability of drawing either 1 or 2 lands is 67% with both 12 and 13 land. These are the percentages:

12 Land:
0: 0.19
1: 0.38
2: 0.29
3+ 0.14

13 land:
0: 0.16
1: 0.36
2: 0.31
3+: 0.17

Of course, this again doesn't help you at all, since you would have to judge if you value getting less 1-land hands more than having having less 0-land hands. If you want to run 13 land (which I do as well), I would cut a Wish. I'm probably the only one doing that though.

It does help, for a small part. I just really dislike no-landers, and Probe does make mulligan decisions harder, since it's a mystery card in hand. That's the main reason for me sticking to 13 lands.
Funny you should mention cutting a Wish. I was actually thinking of cutting an Infernal, moving it to the sideboard. It allows for a tutor chain finish from both Wish and Infernal. And I really like the tutor chain finish. It's nice and solid. More of an ANT style finish though. Perhaps I am tuning the wrong deck.

[Lemnear]

Why in the world you want to cut an Infernal Tutor from TES MD?? Reducing the ability to find Ad Nauseam for some ugly, mana intense Tutor chains or turning Wish into a bad Diabolic Tutor?

[Megadeus]

I think that the reason that it is such a difficult decision to make on what to cut is because it is just not the right one.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

Perhaps I am tuning the wrong deck.

Guess what? You're right.

[Bahamuth]

Guess what? You're right.

More arbitrary statements without any actual content. Why are you not responding to anything else? Why are you even posting?

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

More arbitrary statements without any actual content. Why are you not responding to anything else? Why are you even posting?

People keep asking questions that have already been discussed.

Ask a question on one page? It gets an answer.

Then someone else asks it again.

Repeat.

[cuthbertthecat]

I have an idea. Rather than come to the TES thread to discuss ideas that will likely be dismissed, test them first. If they work for you, talk about why they worked for you. If they didn't, don't bring them up. This idea will solve a lot of problems such as the entire last page of this thread.

[Koby]

I have an idea. Rather than come to the TES thread to discuss ideas that will likely be dismissed, test them first. If they work for you, talk about why they worked for you. If they didn't, don't bring them up. This idea will solve a lot of problems such as the entire last page of this thread.

Or don't test them and just play in a tournament, then come and discuss why you think it worked anyway :D

[cuthbertthecat]

Or don't test them and just play in a tournament, then come and discuss why you think it worked anyway :D

High stakes playtesting, I like it.

[Bryant Cook]

Situation: you play against RUG Delver, as many of you wrongly call the deck these days. You have no cantrips in hand. You have Cabal Therapy, plus plenty of accelleration and a Burning Wish. It's your turn one, after he started by playing Volcanic-go.
Now we have many options. I'd rather not sit and wait until I luckily draw a cantrip or a Duress.
Here, I'd like to go land, ritual, Seize that bitch, take the best spell, petal, ritual2, rite, LED, Wish-resp sac that LED, and make a million Goblins. Your scenario is that you have to guess what he has. We guess FoW obviously, since that's the most likely card that could stop our turn one awesomeness, and oops - he has Stifle instead.

Guys, seriously. Don't tell me your mindfucks always work. They don't. And if you play against proper players, you'll soon enough notice their mindfucks are just as dangerous as yours.

About the lands: if you think 13 lands in the deck will stop you from getting hellbent, then it's you who is playing the deck wrongly. Seriously, you rarely get more than two lands in hand, even with the staggering amount of 13. If 13 lands would be a guarantee for having at least 2 in my opening hand, I would consider 13 lands optimal for my Doomsday list. The ONLY thing I want to do, is optimize my number of hands with 1 or 2 lands in them. those are the hands we are looking for. Turn 1 Ponder, turn 2 Brainstorm, fetch, go off is a very nice sequence. Turn 1 Duress, turn 2 go off also. Of course we prefer going for it on turn 1, but hands without LED are usually slightly slower anyway. What I notice in testing is that I have to mulligan about 95% of my hands with no lands (mostly because they just suck, sometimes because of the matchup). With 12 lands, I feel I get too many hands with no lands. Therefor I go for the 13 lands option. When you are finally ready to accept that, please help me cut another card.

Thanks for helping me out with that post.
The hairs in my neck went up as I read it, and I was thinking of neat comments to post, but you saved me the trouble.

It does help, for a small part. I just really dislike no-landers, and Probe does make mulligan decisions harder, since it's a mystery card in hand. That's the main reason for me sticking to 13 lands.
Funny you should mention cutting a Wish. I was actually thinking of cutting an Infernal, moving it to the sideboard. It allows for a tutor chain finish from both Wish and Infernal. And I really like the tutor chain finish. It's nice and solid. More of an ANT style finish though. Perhaps I am tuning the wrong deck.

Is it really that big of a deal that I call the deck RUG Delver? You knew instantly what deck I would be talking about. Anyway, that scenario, if you have “Tons” of acceleration, you’re not worried about Daze or Spell Pierce. Meaning that there are two cards you could possibly care about from RUG Delver – Stifle and Force of Will. Not every RUG list plays Stifle, while every list plays Force of Will. It’s all process of elimination and naming things that you actually care about. Cabal Therapy is a skill card, rather than play a suboptimal card, increase your skill. It’s all about analyzing situations. If the opponent had Stifle, guess what? There’s always the option of Diminishing Returns.

My mind fucks work more than one would think, have you ever read any of my reports? It’s all about reads on players and mannerisms during matches.

Thirteen lands is fine, the problem is finding what to cut. By adding four Gitaxian Probe to the deck you’ve increased the number of potential lands drops. I cut a land to add a probe but I view Probe as .5 of a land, my math is probably off, Bahamat could probably actually do it. By having twelve cantrips in the deck we’ve increased consistency as well as land drops, by playing Probe on turn one you receive information as well as one card deeper for your Ponder or Brainstorm. These additional cards seen are where I really value Probes over the potential thirteenth land. The difference between twelve and thirteen lands is barely noticeable. Turn the thirteenth land upside down in your sleeve and pay attention to when you draw it. Most of the time it’s better off as anything else.

You want to cut an Infernal Tutor or Burning Wish? Weren’t you the one complaining about BUG Delver/Team America? Something along those lines about it being a miserable match-up? You want to cut actual business spells in a format where black has recently come back to power and has discard spells? Do you see how ridiculous that looks?

It seems when people start to play a new deck they feel the need to make changes to add their own “contribution.” This is not the deck to do that. TES is a fine tuned machine and it’s incredibly tight on space right now. Making small changes is only going to hurt your winning percentages. However, if you do make suboptimal changes and it isn’t performing well, I just don’t want read about them.

[Asthereal]

Some guys here are pretty sad. I ask a simple question:
What would you cut from list X if the 13th land were mandatory?
Answers I get are:
- Cut the land anyway
- Chrome Mox
- You are an idiot
- Test more
and finally from a fellow Dutchman: - Burning Wish
I respond to the latter by commenting I was contemplating cutting an Infernal instead, because in the sideboard it serves a purpuse, and suddenly everyone start ranting again. Why is cutting an Infernal so out of limits? Burning Wish at least serves multiple purposes: getting us a kill spell, and getting answers to stuff that's preventing us from going off. Infernal gets Ad Nauseam, yes, but does that make it sacred? Not in my book. It's an idea. If you dislike ideas so much, please go somewhere else.

Edit@Bryant: you didn't call it that. You called it Canadian Threshold. And you've been around long enough to know its real name.

Edit2: All right, I need to explain more, it seems.

About sutting a business spell:
I haven't tested it. Bahamuth mentioned it, and I responded with the idea of cutting the other tutor. I have reasons for it, yet I don't know whether my reasons are sound. At least I thionk, if one were to cut a business spell, it'd be worth looking into which one. Both have their upsides and downsides.

About wanting to make changes:
I have bad experience with 12 lands. That makes me an at least slightly experienced player with TES. It was my first deck when coming back into MtG in 2008. I'm not new to it by any means. I have played every Storm variant ever since, apart from Team Nijmegen Tendrils, which didn't appeal to me for some reason. Right now I play Doomsday because I cannot seem to find a TES list that I like, and I cannot afford Grim Tutor.

About BUG being a bad matchup:
Yes I was the one mentioning it. Not complaining, mentioning, as a response to someone who wanted advise on the matchup. He got his advise, but no-one had yet mentioned that whatever the advise, your chances are still slim. So I did mention it. He'd probably feel a lot worse if he would playtest and tune for a month only to find out he still loses more than half of the time. Testing and tuning for that matchup helps, but only to some extent. Hey, not every matchup can be favourable.

If I add everything up, so far I must conclude that I should either cut a Ponder or a Probe. My pokerskills are terrible, I just cannot read people, so Cabal Therapy seems to be still bad for me. From that point of view, it seems best to cut a Probe, since Thoughtseize will stay in there, and I don't need the info to make Therapies work.

Last edit: Oh and Bryant, of course I read your reports. A friend of mine actually has a foil Tendrils signed my you.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

Ready Hollywood's article about casting Cabal Therapy. It'll help. Intimidate knowledge of the format and planning X turns ahead get you more mileage out of therapy.

[Lemnear]

Dude, you are about to cut a biz-spell from a deck light on biz. You discuss cutting a Demonic Tutor in a combo Deck. Just think about that.

If this thread would not have more than 50 pages of input and results we can discuss cutting Single moxen, Lands, Rite of Flame etc. (which are topics of the OP) if you want to make some meta adjustments (due to Staxx or crazy shit) but questioning LED + Infernal in any way is off.

Bahamut even gave evidence for his stance about 12 lands

[Asthereal]

Dude, you are about to cut a biz-spell from a deck light on biz. You discuss cutting a Demonic Tutor in a combo Deck. Just think about that. If this thread would not have more than 50 pages of input and results we can discuss cutting Single moxen, Lands, Rite of Flame etc. (which are topics of the OP) if you want to make some meta adjustments (due to Staxx or crazy shit) but questioning LED + Infernal in any way is off.

I'm not about to do anything. Bahamuth suggested I could try -1 Wish. I responded by saying we could try -1 Infernal instead, adding it to the sideboard. Just an idea. And no card is ever sacred in discussion. If you think Infernal is sacred, don;t join the discussion. I've heard enough people wine about how bad an idea it is to cut it, without daring to really try it.

Bahamut even gave evidence for his stance about 12 lands

He didn't, really. He said 'I could say...'. And he agrees with me about the 13 lands.

Anyway, once you have finally learned how to read, you might notice I just decided on cutting either a Ponder or a Probe.

[Ad-Nauseam]

I'm not a great TES player but I like to listen and learn form the forum. I would like to add something to all the people trying to tweak the deck. Whether it be adding or cutting a land etc.The creator of the deck has spent hours and years playing the deck. HE probably know the deck better than anybody else. As far as what works for the deck he knows best. Like someone earlier said if you want to spend equal amount of time with an idea about the deck than post your opinion on what you found. Otherwise these back and forth posts will just continue.

[Asthereal]

If we were to always follow Bryant, there would be no discussion at all. just pages of Bryant referring to reports and lists, and followers thanking him for it. Not that I don't value his remarks - I too think he is usually the one to listen to if it comes to TES - but a forum is meant for discussions, not just for being a broadcast tool for one expert.

Let me put in a new question: am I really the only one who tunes his decks to his own abilities?

[Clown of Tresserhorn]

If we were to always follow Bryant, there would be no discussion at all. just pages of Bryant referring to reports and lists, and followers thanking him for it. A forum is meant to for discussions, not just for being a broadcast tool.

Let me put in a new question: am I really the only one who tunes his decks to his own abilities?

There's lots of ways to tune TES. You'll notice many players who are successful with the deck have much different sideboards. The maindeck though, feels pretty much optimal. It's okay to disagree and tune the deck to your liking. Just don't expect people to agree with you without sound reasoning.