This minion of wastes dies more quickly than empty the warrens, can be blocked and countered. The magi are really not comparable to their enchantments. The jar has summening sickness which is really bad and they both die very easily. You probably won't be able to win the turn you wish for them so you lose your storm count. The landdrop idea is bad because if you can cast the living wish without accceleration you won't really need land and if you use accelaration for the wish for land you traded accel for land where the accel is better.
I don't understand why confidant would be so good in the SB because wouldn't it do the same as night's whisper in this deck? It probably won't live more than 2 turns before it dies, needs to block or you can combo, so then whisper would be better, where I believe whisper is bad in this deck. I like to run duress instead of confidant. It helps against hymn,duress,chalice,pyrostatic pillar,other combo decks and counters if you don't need to use ill-gotten gains.
Last edited by Nightmare; 04-16-2007 at 01:06 PM.
Are you suggesting eight wishboard tutors? That's rediculous and if you're not it's still rediculous. Where's Jack Elgin to put out fires when you need him to? Street Wraith now this? Absolutely terrible. I'm starting to think people on this site come up with bad ideas to ruin decks, I mean look what happened to Hannifish; it got worse over time.Originally Posted by BreathWeapon
Swords to Plowshares is why most decks don't play Living Wish. The most played removal in the format. Wait...wait... Are you saying you like passing the turn with a combo deck after you comboed out to get a 3/3? That even dies to more removal than Swords to Plowshares. Diminishing Returns has the same effect without timewalking yourself, and it doesn't lose to removal of any kind. Breathweapon can we be honest here, do you really think this is a good idea? Future site? I mean I could've played the enchantment before what makes me want to play a version of it that dies to removal? Creatures are terrible in this format (Sans Xantid Swarm <3 that guy). That is why I play combo.
TES is fine as it was, before Wraith, before Living Wish and it's easily killed targets. I think we should play Golden Wish, I mean C'mon it tutors for LED AND HELM. If we play Cunning Wish I can play my Yawgmoth's will Second Sunrise. How come these bad ideas haven't been brought up? I'm starting to wonder if people think before they post these terrible ideas. "Mountain Goat in red splash SOLIDARITY!?!?"
Why would people SB out Swords to plowshares if they see you're playing Living Wish and Xantid Swarm? Seems dumb to me. Minion of the Wastes is also terrible, seeing as this deck plays ping lands and Plunge into Darkness. Also like every other reason to not play creatures as combo cards, Swords to Plowshares. TES already has non-LED bombs, since you don't need LED to cast anything. Wishing for a land that doesn't tap for any color and deals you two or any land for that matter is terrible. Wasting mana and a valuable tutor on a land is rediculous. "Small ball approach" I thought TES's plan was go big or go home. Just like every other combo deck out there. If you want to "Small Ball" things I'd recommend playing combo control.
Well, it's nice to be able to play "Small ball," until you wear your opponent out, then you apply those "dynamic homerun heroics" as the game progresses in your favor. Running cards like Dark Confidant basically says "win small until you win big."
ICBE - We're totally the coolest Anti-Thesis ever.
"The Citrus-God just had a Citrus-Supernova... in your mouth."
Yes. People adovcated running a 2nd EtW main and removal of Priest of Gix and Trinket Mage in order to absolutely demolish the decks competitiveness. That's what we're here for.
I agree, Living Wish is probably not a good idea for this deck. Maybe for another deck, but not this one.
But I cant understand how you can shoot down every single fucking idea without trying them. Maybe it will be great. Maybe it will blow. Who the fuck knows? Two years ago, people were debating how many Goblin Lackeys were the right number, and comparing them to Mons Goblin Raiders. No one knows fuck all without testing, and dismissing new ideas as 'absolutely terrible' is certainly not the way to make improvements. I'm almost surprised the deck got this far with that attitude.
I think you are missing the point. It seems he only says the bad ideas are shit...there have been mostly bad ideas.
Good idea or bad idea, all reasonable ideas are worth testing, and all tutors at 2cc are a reasonable idea in TES. I'm not going to debate whether or not there is or isn't something wrong with TES, but that doesn't mean that there aren't improvements to be made or options to be considered, a deck, theory or idea starts to grow stagnant at the moment it ceases to be constantly re-evaluated and becomes dogma, just look at Keeper and control.
No, I'm not stating that I like to pass the turn after I combo out to get a 3/3, I'm stating that after I Living Wish for a Magus of the Jar and cast him with out Lion's Eye Diamond, be it in one turn or over the course of multiple turns, I don't mind having to wait a turn before I can untap and combo out; people passed the turn after casting Tinker or Memory Jar in Vintage often enough, and people passed the turn after casting Future Sight all of the time.
Future Sight in the past had to be in the MD, and it had to be the target of Infernal Tutor, and Diminishing Returns and Empty the Warrens were both just better as hard castable alternatives to the card (at least I assume so, I've never seen some one use Future Sight in storm combo or even Academy Rector before).
Minion of the Wastes is bad after a Plunge Into Darkness, granted, but that just removes Minion of the Wastes as an out, not make Minion of the Wastes suck.
I'm not going to debate Swords to Plowshares, we all know this card is an answer to Xantid Swarm and Living Wish, but answers shouldn't prevent threats from being put into a deck. Threshold has a hard time having or finding one Swords to Plowshares for Xantid Swarm, let alone two Swords to Plowshares for Xantid Swarm and a Minion of the Wastes behind it etc. I look at it like Burning Long, the opponent could Force of Will the Xantid Swarm, the opponent could Mana Drain the Tinker but in the end the third threat did him in.
Combo's plan isn't go big or go home, it's winning, however combo chooses to achieve the goal, and the number of choices it has at its disposal is what's important. We all know that TES vs aggro-control is often a grueling match up, being able to tutor for Dark Confidant with out a loss of life or tutor for a land drop (you seriously never Infernal Tutor for another Dark Ritual or Burning Wish for another Right of Flame over the course of the game?) is just another option the deck has at it's disposal; I mean, we do SB in Dark Confidant against the aggro-control and control match ups right?)
There's nothing wrong with having two wish boards, it's been done before, the deck just has to be certain that it's SB is balanced between the two wishes and it can still SB in the cards it needs to improve its bad match ups. Combo is the best possible candidate for this, because it's SB tends to be the least important thing in swinging match ups unless it's doing something extreme like boarding in Force of Will and enough blue to support it.
TES doesn't have access to a non-Storm based win condition or a non-Diminishing Returns based bomb (unless you're playing Infernal Contract in the SB?), I'd like to see what these cards can do before I just dismiss them out right. Besides, there are a lot of respectable people testing Street Wraith right now and there have been two successful combo decks with Living Wish and LED in the past, it's not like either of those ideas are unwarranted.
Remember where we were with 5c Tendrils in the summer? This deck has seen a lot more jank cards than Living Wish.
The deck that was SHLong and the deck that is here now are two completly different decks with different goals. TES just happens to be an example of what new sets can do to a format. Once you play an archtype or deck for as long as I have you'll know whats going to be playable in deck X. Yes, I advocated Trinket Mage for a long time and this isn't the deck it fit in, however, I wasn't going to have terrible cards replace it. Yes, neither Trinket Mage or any card mentioned (until someone mentioned Brainstorm) were great but I choose the lesser of two evils, oh well. SHLong was semi-based on Second Sunrise and TES on "Do I have 6 mana to win with Ill-Gotten Gains?" the two decks are fundamentally different along with thier playstyle. I've played storm decks for a very long time and I happen to be good at it, I can tell on paper if a card will be worth it or not. You can too to an extent, everyone knows Serra Angel won't ever be played in SXS. It's just a matter of how familiar you are with the format and the cards in it. Don't get me wrong I test most cards in TES and there's some I don't when we were arguing Rite vs SSG, I tested SSG and didn't like it. Just because some doesn't post thier results with a card doesn't mean they haven't tried it.
EDIT: I hate when people post when I'm posting. This was directed at Etrignananamn or whatever his name is.
EDIT 2: To avoid double posting
I've tested most of the bad ideas that you posted, I'll probably end up testing Living Wish when I have more time. However, I still have the right to say it looks like utter crap on paper. This is an example: If a deck wins a large event 15 times in a row and isn't stopped is there reason to change it? I don't believe so, it's when that deck is finally hated out or is slowly becoming less successful is when you change it not when it's at it's peak.
How slow is that? Honestly? 4RUU AND waiting a turn. I could've just won off returns and not suffered a loss to Swords to Plowshares or Lightning Bolt. You're going to cast him without LED? I see that being painfully slow and subpar compared to what the deck can currently do. In order to cast him without LED you'll be so far behind in turns and not to mention card advantage wasted (Your acceleration) on skipping a turn. Combo is all about speed and consistancy, this card doesn't help either.
I'm lacking to see a point here.
When your deck deals yourself damage and lifeloss more than likely adding "outs" that require life isn't a good idea; that's what makes it "Suck".
There's a difference between Swordsing a Xantid and Swording whatever horrible idea you have in your Living Wish board. Swordsing a Xantid is one for one, Swordsing what you casted after Living Wish is card disadvantage from wasting acceleration and a tutor on a card that was answered by one card. That is the difference. When your threat is answered by the most common removal spell in the game yes, it should be considered.
Combo's first plan will always be "Go big or go home" there's no reason to play a slow combo deck. If it's second or third plan is "Slow balling it" I could see that happening but the way you referenced it made it seem like it was the primary plan. Dark Confidant is for lost card advantage in the Control and Discard match-up. I generally do not have 0 cards in hand and 4 mana avaiable against control to tutor up Dark Confidant nonetheless have him live.
Yes there is. It causes inconsistancy MD, SB, and leaves litterally no room for SB'ing.
YES it does, I can't count how many times there has been a Chalice/Pillar/Arcane Lab on the table and I got a 5/5 Flying demon and ran over thier head.
I agree with a lot of that in principle, but not all of it in practice.
The point on Swords to Plowshares is that if the opponent Swords to Plowshares the first Xantid Swarm then the odds of them being able to Swords to Plowshares the Living Wish->Xantid Swarm, Living Wish->Dark Confidant or the Living Wish->Magus of the Future, Magus of the Jar or Minions of the Wastes before either of them can win the game aren't that bad. I realize that all of the Living Wish win conditions and engine cards have to take Swords to Plowshares into consideration as a a counter spell.
Dark Confidant and Magus of the Jar are good tutor targets, tutoring for Dark Confidant with Living Wish is the equivalent of tutoring for a Xantid Swarm with Plunge into Darkness, both of them draw out the Force of Will or Swords to Plowshares, except Living Wish doesn't cause life loss and if the opponent doesn't have an answer to Dark Confidant the deck is going to be winning over the long haul instead of right after the card is cast. Tutoring for Magus of the Jar is one of three things, with LED it's a Draw 7 that requires the deck to lose it's storm and untap, but with LED the deck has Magus of the Future to consider instead, with out LED it's either the second or third threat that overwhelms the opponent in a chain of threats or a top deck. I do agree it seems to be the slowest of the wish targets, but it's effect is so strong that if it weren't as slow as it is it would be banned from the format, ala Memory Jar.
I'm still not certain whether or not Magus of the Future is busted in this deck or bad in this deck, sometimes it wins in spectacular fashion and other times it coughs up lands, but if it remains on the board it is bound to win the game. I've had a huge amount of success with Minion of the Wastes in all of the combo decks I have used it in, it's not an option after Plunge into Darkness, but pain lands aren't an issue and it's between a one turn and two turn clock against most decks.
Tutoring for a land hasn't been a bad thing, Ancient Tomb is alright, but Tomb of Urami seems to be one of the better options because it produces mana in the short term and becomes a threat in the long term. I realize the MD has Tomb of Urami as a threat, but I don't consider him to be a threat in the traditional sense, where the opponent is countering him or losing the game (obviously he can't counter him, but you know what I mean) or a threat that can be tutored for or searched for (Hellbent Infernal Tutor aside); he's sort of this 5/5 Flyer that came along for the ride, we've all won with him before, but it was rather random when we did.
Comparing Living Wish to Burning Wish isn't a fair comparison, IMO, because the two cards aren't competing for the same slots, and despite being similar, the nature of their targets are radically different from one another.
I'm still testing the deck with one Living Wish in hand and an unlimited SB, but if I had to make cuts to the MD and SB, I'd go with cutting the second Tendrils of Agony, second Empty the Warrens and maybe the MD Diminishing Returns if it's good enough.
The SB doesn't seem that difficult to restructure, my basic philosophy is that wishing for an answer is always bad, and you should just be wishing for an alternate threat to circumvent whatever hate they played against you.
For Burning Wish, the minimum is
Tendrils of Agony
Empty the Warrens
Diminishing Returns
For Living Wish, the minimum is
Minion of the Wastes
Magus of the Future
Magus of the Jar
Dark Confidant (Already in the SB)
Tomb of Urami
That's 7 cards that leaves 8 cards open, with 4 of those cards being Dark Confidant and the other 4 cards being removal like Shattering Spree, which gives Burning Wish back a removal card.
Ofcourse, the deck could still add answers for both cards and just SB in Dark Confidant in the match ups where Xantid Swarm is dead, but I'm not certain how that's going to work out.
I think combo has the space to run two wishes, Burning Wish loses some non necessary cards like Duress, Earthquake, Hull Breach (unless Solitary Confinement? you could cut a Shattering Spree tho'.) and maybe one semi-necessary card in Ill Gotten Gains.
What if they decide not to Swords the Xantid? What if they decide to wait to Swords the card you combo'd for and win the game? I mean it's not a terrible idea to win the game for a W. One of combo's greatest strengths has always been avoiding creature hate and your lists/deck idea doesn't follow through with this. Creatures in combo decks just aren't as strong and lose to more hate cards, Gamekeeper Salvagers is a perfect example; which has fallen into the face of oblivion. All of Living Wishes targets force you to pass the turn, when passing the turn in Legacy with a combo deck more than likely you are going to lose.
Now you're arguing Living Wish vs. Plunge into Darkness? Plunge into Darkness gets cards required to win with such as Lion's Eye Diamond. Lion's Eye Diamond is a stronger target than anything Living Wish can grab. Also, for Living Wishing for Dark Confidant seems weak. Why wouldn't you try and win the game? Why do you want to pass the turn with combo? Magus of the jar simply isn't strong enough to warrant Living Wish, neither is Magus of the Future. If I wanted to play that card I would just play Future site since it doesn't die to creature removal forcing the deck to fizzle and lose the game. Memory Jar doesn't lose to lightning bolt or any other removal that ever deck plays. I thought combo was all about speed, nothing you've posted or mentioned is fast, all of which require to pass the turn which is a bad idea.
Now that you've admitted that Magus of the Future causes you to fizzle because of lands, let's talk Minion of the waste. It's casting cost of 4GBBB pretty much requires you to use LED when a creatures casting cost is 8 mana. This whole combo losing to the most common spot removal in the format is a bad idea. When your combo deck loses to Zoo because they play swords, thats when you know there's time for change. Combo is not meant to use creatures, that's the advantage for it. How are painlands not an issue? Not being able to cast spells again because you play City of Brass seems poor to me.
Most Tomb victories are random yes, but the option is there and doesn't require 1G. That's the befefit, if it costed 3BBG I probably wouldn't use it. In fact I know I wouldn't.
They are definitly fighting for slots, sideboard slots. When you are forced to cut cards for other cards in the sideboard they are fighting for slots. With wish targets it also means that cards are fighting for MD slots as well between Burning Wish and Living Wish.
Wishing for answers is bad? That's one of TES's greatest strengths is being able to deal with hate game one is another reason to play TES over say IGGY POP but thats another argument. Now you're taking away one of the deck's greatest strengths to play one of the deck's weaknesses (Creatures), this is not a good idea.
That sideboard looks atrocious, why on god's green earth would you play two cards that have the exact same effect? Magus and Returns. It seems like poor deckbuilding.
Ill-Gotten Gains should never be cut from the Wishboard, by playing two wishes you are actually hurting the SB more than helping it. You are cutting cards that are nessesary such as Duress for cards that are redundant such as Magus of the Jar. Not to mention you are cutting answers from the deck, which leads the deck down a bad road losing to hate all over the format; Chalice of the Void, Lab, Nullrod, Pillar, ect...
Last edited by Bryant Cook; 04-17-2007 at 12:19 AM.
What opponent would risk sand bagging a Swords to Plowshares against a Xantid Swarm and hope that TES is going to use Living Wish to combo out when there is no guarantee that TES is using Living Wish, and even if TES is using Living Wish, that it's going to be in its hand?
Combo has used creatures as engines, win conditions and disruption before, from Academy Rector, Worldgorger Dragon, Hermit Druid, Gamekeeper, Auriok Salvagers and Trinket Mage, Darksteel Colossus, Sutured Ghoul, Empty the Warrens, Dark Confidant, Xantid Swarm, Goblin Welder and countless other examples; we all know that creatures are vulnerable to removal, but that doesn't mean that creatures should be dismissed from combo. Empty the Warrens, Xantid Swarm, Dark Confidant and Tomb of Urami all suffer from the same relative problems as their Living Wish counter parts, and Empty the Warrens and Tomb of Urami are just as commital as Magus of the Jar or Minion of the Wastes in terms of the amount of resources lost as a result of removal. If we can accept these card's weaknesses to removal, I think we should at least consider the Living Wish cards as well.
Magus of the Future doesn't require TES to pass the turn, regardless, passing the turn is a part of Magic, it's the same as seeing The River in Poker, the opponent has his statistical outs, but that doesn't mean that the dominant hand should be folded on the off chance that the opponent hit his out. I'm fully aware I'm going to lose games because I am passing the turn, but I'm also fully aware that the number of games I win should be significantly higher than the number of games I lose.
Magus of the Future revealing lands can cause the deck to fizzle, Diminishing Returns can draw 7 bad cards and cause the deck to fizzle, as well as give the opponent a new hand; even tho' neither of them are guaranteed, when Magus of the Future fizzles it can still go off again on the next turn with out improving the opponent's position.
Minion of the Wastes costs eight mana if it is cast on the same turn or six mana if it is cast on the following turn, so the deck has two options at its disposal, more on this below tho'.
No, I'm not comparing Plunge into Darkness to Living Wish, I would never cut Plunge into Darkness from this deck; I was drawing a correlation between the use of Plunge into Darkness and the use of Living Wish being similar when the deck doesn't have disruption at its disposal; the deck has to decide whether or not it is going to just go for it or if it is going to tutor for disruption or a non-LED based threat, both Plunge into Darkness and Living Wish offer similar options in this regard.
Living Wish for Tomb of Urami isn't a 1G + 2BB win condition, that's wasteful and we both know it, Living Wish for Tomb of Urami is a land drop that will constitute an additional threat to the opponent as time passes; I want the mana first, and I want the opponent considering whether or not I will sacrifice the Tomb second.
I agree that Living Wish and Burning Wish are fighting for slots in the SB, but not in the MD, both Living Wish and Burning Wish don't need more than 3 to 4 or so slots each in order to have access to enough threats in the SB, and the deck can still add answers if it's willing to SB in Dark Confidants for Xantid Swarm in the aggro matches, and you've done it in the past. Duress isn't needed in the SB, you've stated it yourself before. Altho' it's nice to have, if I think the opponent has something I would want to discard, I reconsider what engine or win condition I can use to get around that card and use that instead.
Wishing for answers is bad when the hate can be circumvented thru' threat selection, we've all disregarding a Pyrostatic Pillar and Burning Wished for an Empty the Warrens before; like Duress, I don't think answers are necessary, but they are nice to have, and I would probably play at least Hull Breach because it's impossible to play around Solitary Confinement or Arcane Lab.
Diminishing Returns and Magus of the Jar do not have the same effect, regardless, using two cards with two similar functions is only redundant if those two cards belong to the same wish, i.e Infernal Contract and Cruel Bargain would be redundant. There's nothing wrong with Diminishing Returns and Magus of the Jar both being in the SB, because each wish board and the rest of the SB itself are independent from one another.
I've gotten away with cutting Diminishing Returns from the MD and Ill Gotten Gains from the SB, and while I consider both of them to be useful, I don't consider both of them to be necessary; it's not as if the deck is going to suddenly collapse from their absence. I'm not certain I wont put them back into the MD or SB after I decide what should or shouldn't be cut to make room, if I go with cutting the Shattering Sprees I will be certain to return some of those cards to the SB.
Back to Minion of the Wastes, a lot of those counter examples are based on two things, first the worst case scenario and second me being a complete idiot; if Swords to Plowshares is a threat, I'm going to Living Wish for Dark Confidant and slow roll the opponent, if Lightning Bolt is a threat I am going to Living Wish for Minion of the Wastes and beat down, and if I can't do either of those I am going to drop a land. Any one can misplay any tutor in this deck, you can Infernal Tutor for Ill Gotten Gains with Force of Will in the discard pile or Burning Wish for Empty the Warrens against board control. The assumption is that the selection of threats each card has will allow it to adapt to any given situation, and every other card in your hand also plays a role in your decisions.
All that aside, a couple of other things sort of bother me here, Burning Wish for Duress is all of a sudden necessary, but Living Wish for Dark Confidant is terrible? Both of those plays are analogous to one another, except one of them is hoping that discarding a single card will allow the deck to go off when the other is just going to over power the opponent over the course of the game.
Just win isn't always an advisable answer to any given situation, if you're comboing blind against an opponent on the draw in game two with complete disregard for an untapped Island and whether or not the opponent mulliganed, you had better have a damn good reason.
Finally, I haven't passed judgement on the card, the two to three cards removed from the MD may just be better than Living Wish, or the number of occurences of the card may not be enough to justify the contortions to the SB, but that's besides the point, which is to see whether or not the card is functional in the deck.
I don't read the forum for a little time, so I have read now the disquisition about the living wish.
Good Idea! I don't think sincerely to this argument. Sure, I'll try this.
What do you think about the rumor on the blue pact?
It seems to be a counter for 0 & next turn pay 3UU or die.
Can the pact replace orim/xantid/duress in main/side? or be a good addition to the deck beyond others protections?
I'm not so sure. I think that blue pact can be extremely good in a belcher deck, but in a deck like this where a standard play is infernal tutor, crap led, discard the hand with eventually the hypothetical blue pact gives the opportunity to my opponent to counter my tutor, so I think I continue to prefer our protections.
@ Living Wish:
- can't be cast off ritual acceleration
- requires almost always to pass the turn
- creatures are easier to hate
- requires another wishboard
- there's no worst tutor to cut in the deck
It's not one of this argument that warrants it's exclusions (as it looks like it's about this that you are discussing), but their sum.
@ jegger:
I think i'd never use Tomb against white *****, since i believe them to have too many outs for that situation.
The flaw of the blue pact is that you can't win with IGG, EtW and LED.
“My power is as vast as the plains, my strength is that of mountains. Each wave that crashes upon the shore thunders like blood in my veins.” —Memoirs
What if your opponent has outside information in the form of Duress or Cabal Therapy? What if all your opponent has is a Swords?Swordsing a Xantid would be worthless and you combo out and get a man, you lose to a single card. A very common card at that. Another scenario would be Lightning bolting the Xantid and swordsing whatever you get off Living Wish. These are not uncommon and can be relevant in match-ups such as Hannifish and UGRW Gro.
Rector hasn't been in a good combo deck since Necro rained Magic. Also, where's Dragon in Vintage? Dwindled down to nothing, it dies to all forms of hate. This is besides the point and doesn't belong here. Empty the Warrens doesn't fit in the catagory, it doesn't lose to spot removal and most decks in the format can't deal with 8-10 goblins on turns 1-2. Xantid Swarm and Dark Confidant aren't cards you combo into unlike the rest that you've posted, they are there to protect and build stability. Neither card also requires resources (Accelleration) to get on the table Both of the Maguses that you posted die to another form of removal Lightning Bolt, which sees play in alot of aggro decks. You're willing to throw away more good match-ups to do cool tricks with new cards?
I'm not much of a gambler, never have, never will be. That is why we don't play bad cards like Spoils of the Vault. They are too risky and often cause you to fizzle. Magus of the Future folds to more than just land, it folds to storm spells, too many tutors or uncastable cards (Xantid). It takes alot more than one card to make a Diminishing Returns hand bad, there's many cards that can make Magus bad with one shot. If combo decks ever had a choice your opponent would never get a turn, I don't see why you're comfortable with passing and timewalking so many turns. How will you win more games? You're combo loses to Lightning Bolt.
There's no reason you can't go off the next turn with Diminishing Returns either, there's alot more to stop Magus of the Future than there is to stop Diminishing Returns as I've posted before.
You're willing to give your opponent timewalk twice? The longer a game goes with combo the more likely you are not to win. In combo more than likely your opponent will have more answers than you do threats, therefor you want to end the game fast. Living Wish doesn't help end the game quicker.
Alright.
2/3rds of the game is played post sideboard, because you play two wishboard tutors you are at a natural disadvantage. Leaving yourself next to no room for sideboarding, I feel like I'm cutting it too close with 6 cards that are very verastile and can come in during most matches. You're cutting it down to 4 or less which is insanity. I did state that Duress wasn't needed then when I added Chant to the sideboard I found out I was wrong. I played 3 games against control and lost 2 of them because I didn't have Burning Wish -> Duress. After those 3 games Duress has never found it's way into my sideboard so quickly.
Yes we can all play around Pillar it's not hard, however, can we play around two? I've tried and was unsuccessful. The deck's strongest feature is outs to hate game one without wasting maindeck slots. You're taking that away leaving the deck very similar to Iggy Pop losing to hate.
Both cards read "Each player draws 7" and you play two of them in the sideboard, that's redundant. Especially when you are cutting cards like Ill-Gotten Gains to do so. Is there a reason for two wishboards? There's not much Living Wish can do that Burning Wish can't. If you want creatures there's plenty of sorceries that create them.
They most certainly are necessary, a copy of each maindeck and sideboard. If you don't have a copy of each in both the maindeck and sideboard you have to force yourself to find Burning Wish to dodge graveyard hate, a Diminshing Returns with a casting cost of 4RBUU isn't that impressive nor effective.
Your worst case scenario happens to be very common seeing as it's the most played spot removal in the format. If your opponent is playing Lightning Bolts you're going to go for a creature that requires you to lose life? Not a smart plan, they'll just burn you out then. If your opponent plays both Swords and Lightning Bolt you're going to waste a tutor on a land? Seems weak. Burning Wish is never dead. You only need one sideboard tutor to utilize in a deck. Taking play mistakes into consideration is irrelevant, once you've played the deck long enough you shouldn't make play mistakes. I don't.
Burning Wish for Duress ensures victory in protection that turn, Living Wish for Dark Confidant to gain card advantage to ensure protection takes time and timewalking you're opponent several turns. This is assuming it went unanswered. Timewalking your opponent is bad in Magic, you want to get things done as fast as possible.
The scenario had either Burning Wish or Living Wish in hand with Burning Wish I would get Duress and pass the turn, Duress then attempt to combo during the next. With Living Wish this isn't possible.
I had typed this up once before but internet explorer hates me and closed so I shortened everything I said because It was much longer. I apologize if some things don't make as much since to you as they do me.
OK, so I've been following this deck for a couple weeks now and just got through reading this thread.
I've been playing combo decks for a LOOOONG time. Matter of fact, I've been playing combo decks since before Mana Vault was restricted and the mulligan rule was 0 lands in hand = 7 new cards with no limit on the number of mulligans. (This was great in a deck that played 0 lands) Now, with as long as I've been playing Magic in general, I've developed the ability to pretty much pick up any deck and be able to play well with it - TES has been no different.
Now, like wastedlife said, there are some cards that you can look at on paper and immediately know that they are awful for a certain deck. In Legacy, in TEPS, the Magus' (all of them) are not awful, they're HORRID.
So, Magus of the Future lets you play the top card of your library as if it were in your hand.... great. I have a better idea.... If you're that concerned about playing the top card of your deck, why not just put it in your hand with Dark Confidant with a CC of 1B, instead of 2UUU? Not just that, but Confidant, over the long game in which neither creature is answered, WILL generate a guaranteed card advantage whereas the Magus MIGHT generate an advantage. This is not taking into consideration that any deck playing black, red or white is simply going to untap and kill your creature.
Now, the times that Magus WOULD generate an advantage (and granted, it would be a nice advantage) you would only need to get to a tutor of some sort to get a win-con and win anyhow. That is something that Plunge already does, Infernal already does, Burning already does, the 2 - 4 win-cons already in your deck do, Diminishing Returns sometimes does..... You see a trend I hope. Magus' are simply win-more cards here and add no real value that the other cards already in the list provide.
Magus of the Jar? C'mon now... Why not just get Diminishing Returns and do everything that turn instead of wasting precious resources and storm count to drop a magus a turn in advance and risking it getting killed?
Street Wraith - now this might be a different story because on paper, I'm torn. I can see the benefit of having an almost free slot. However, this is not the same as running 56 cards as some people are claiming. In order for that to be true, you'd have to guarantee that you see all 4 of them in the course of the game, which would then be the equivalent of running 56 cards and starting at 12 life.
The problem with Wraith, as others have said, the 2 life could turn out to be dangerous. It starts limiting how many times we can tap our City of Brass, how many cards we can dig for with Plunge. Not to mention the fact that you most likely have to remove some sort of accel from your deck in order to fit them in and this list is tight to begin with. It almost requires every piece of accel already in the deck to remain in the deck. I, personally, have dropped one of the MD EtW for the 4th Cabal Ritual because there have been too many times when I've needed just one more black mana and I can't imagine cutting any of that accel. I'll still be testing him.
I was caught in between posting, so let me rephrase.
Both of those scenarios requires the opponent to have two outs, removal for the Xantid Swarm and removal for the Living Wish target, and a Duress for "something" and removal for the Living Wish target.
If an opponent removes the Xantid Swarm, and I can't use the Living Wish to get the Xantid Swarm back and win with another threat, there's no guarantee I'm going to combo out in this position, because if Force of Will and Stifle are still a consideration, Living Wish for Dark Confidant and winning small is still an option. Even if I did combo out in this position, it still requires the opponent to have two removal spells, and the odds of that are less then the odds of the opponent having two counterspells, Force of Will/Daze and Stifle, and both Magus of the Future and Minion of the Wastes are immune to Stifle.
Edit: I still need to get a ruling on Minion of the Wastes, but there is a difference between As and When and additional costs and triggered abilities.
If all an opponent has is a single Swords to Plowshares, he is going to Swords to Plowshares the Xantid Swarm and bluff the counter. Not removing the Xantid Swarm is guaranteeing the opponent can combo off, taking him off the bluff and wasting tempo and mana.
If all an opponent has is a single Swords to Plowshares because he is some sort of Zoo deck that just isn't using burn for some reason, then even if I lose the game. I imagine I'm good enough to come back and win the next two games. I would never cast Magus of the Future or Magus of the Jar against aggro, that's retarded, I would cast Minion of the Wastes and kill them before I could be burned out or get a Dark Confidant or a Land if I felt like being a complete bitch.
Pernicious Deed and Engineered Explosives seem to be MD staples in control and aggro-control, or some sort of Cunning Wish, Burning Wish or Living Wish for mass creature removal, and while there is less of in in the MD than Swords to Plowshares, there are more targets for it.
I agree about Xantid Swarm and Dark Confidant, tho' Dark Confidant is Xantid Swarms analog in the SB. As far as Burning Wish -> Duress being better/worse than Living Wish-> Dark Confidant, one is going to give the opponent a chance to win now and the other is going to overwhelm the opponent in card advantage.
I have no problem winning small in combo, I've been dropping Confidants and Goblins for 6 and slow rolling the opponent for awhile in this deck, coin flipping against Force of Will and Stifle just isn't my thing.
I'm not arguing over Diminishing Returns and Magus of the Jar because it's asinine, the two wish boards have nothing to do with each other, and Diminishing Returns and Magus of the Jar aren't the same effect, the opponent doesn't get to replenish card advantage from Magus of the Jar.
So an opponent casts two Pillars, and a double Time Walk for Burning Wish and Tranquility and the 8 to 12 damage isn't going to win the game for the opponent? Most people SBs aren't prepared for situations that outrageous, just go to game 3 on the play and win.
Magus of the Future doesn't seem to be that bad, with about 10 lands, up to 2 lands are drawn and others are removed with Plunge into Darkness, and the deck gets to drop one land per turn. It either wins on the spot, wins on the next turn or wins if it sticks.
With a teched out SB for both Wishes, I still have 4 slots for SBing. Considering all I SB out is Xantid Swarm against non-blue and SB in is more threats against aggro-control, I'm ok with that, but if teching out both Wishes do cause problems for other people, then Magus of the Future and/or the Tomb of Urami can be cut and just the Minions of the Wastes, Magus of the Jar and Dark Confidant are enough to support the card (That's Living Wish taking up a total of 2 SB slots)
While I prefer using the Simian Spirit Guide, 3 Empty the Warrens and MD Diminishing Returns build I had before, I am convinced that Living Wish is still good enough to be in this deck for people who dislike the second Tendrils of Agony, the second or third Empty the Warrens, the MD Diminishing Returns or the tertiary cards like the 4th Plunge into Darkness, 4th Cabal Ritual, 4th Chrome Mox or 11th land.
@ BreathWeapon - I think it's safe to say that there are options that you and wastedlife and others disagree about, but with all of your propositions to changing the decklist of TES, you're completely botching the original idea.
TES is a combo deck that IS designed under the "win big or go home" philosophy. You're proposing to completely change the way that TES wins - via IGG and Diminishing Returns - into a slow winning combo deck that attempts to answer anything and everything that the opponent is doing. That isn't TES, it's a different deck. If it does well, let us know and maybe you can post some winning tourney results with it. I hope for your sake that you do well with it - but it isn't TES.
Now, Wastedlife, please correct me if I'm wrong, but TES was designed to be a combo deck that attempts to completely disregard what the opponent does via protection from Xantid Swarm if they play blue, (if they don't then it doesn't really matter) but to have the flexibility via the wishboard of removal to beat what the opponent does if they happen to put something down that we don't like before we win.
Playing Living Wish with a double wishboard completely destroys the flexibility of the utility wishboard that TES plays to get around the opponent hate that they might sneak in on you. For example, here are the cards that I run in my board:
1x Tranquility
1x Duress
1x Earthquake
1x Shattering Spree
1x Chainer's Edict (I've seen some strange crap hit the board in Legacy Testing)
2x Empty the Warrens
2x Tendrils of Agony
4x Dark Confidant
1x IGGy
1x Diminishing Returns
Now, to remove even 4 of those cards for Living Wish targets either cripples the ability to pull answers, recursion or win-cons out of the board via Burning Wish.
You aren't playing TES, Breathweapon, you're playing some sort of funky homebrew combo that tries to respond to and answer anything and everything your opponent does, attempts to do, or can possibly do. This is why you and Wastedlife so vehemetly disagree. He's trying to keep the original philosophy in tact and you are trying to create a completely new deck and call it TES.
I had a pro player friend of mine once tell me "quit fucking around and just win" when I would try to pull funky combos that did cool things. This is where I feel some of your ideas lie. While dropping a Magus of the Future and going nuts would be cool, it absolutely IS NOT NECESSARY TO WIN. This is the part that I think you are missing. Sure it'd be absolutely awesome to run nuts and play the top 30 cards of your library, but does it really matter when you can just win anyway?
That's the way to fucking play this deck! Win when you know you can, and dont over extend. In a deck like this, over extended is just going above your mana budget. This deck is good in the hands of a skilled player because they're very calculating with their mana and decisions, and yet aggressive.
ICBE - We're totally the coolest Anti-Thesis ever.
"The Citrus-God just had a Citrus-Supernova... in your mouth."
First, I am using TES, I haven't changed the deck's use of Tendrils of Agony, Empty the Warrens, Ill Gotten Gains and Diminishing Returns at all (I've removed Diminishing Returns from the MD and Ill Gotten Gains from the SB before, but I'm still using Diminishing Returns in the SB and Ill Gotten Gains in the MD) what I changed was the second Tendrils of Agony and the second Empty the Warrens into Living Wish and debated about whether or not I wanted to add a third Living Wish.
Second, I don't think it's your place to tell me how I play this deck, when you've never seen me play it. I know how I play it, and I think you actually have Wastedlife and me completely confused.
Wastedlife concentrates on using Tendrils to win the game, which requires TES to be reactive, not pro-active, against aggro-control, answering the opponent's hate with Burning Wish and prefers Ill Gotten Gains.
Breathweapon doesn't concentrate on using Tendrils to win the game, which allows him to be pro-active, not reactive, against aggro-control, and uses an assortment of threats in order to reduce the effectiveness of the opponent's hate and prefers Diminishing Returns.
The difference is Wastedlife wins big and Breathweapon wins small, it's this disagreement that has led us to all of our arguments, from SBing a Right of Flame and MDing a Seething Song, three Empty the Warrens vs one Empty the Warrens, Chain of Vapor vs Shattering Spree, Simian Spirit Guide vs Right of Flame, Duress vs Xantid Swarm, whether or not this deck wins more with Diminishing Returns or Ill Gotten Gains and now whether or not Living Wish is a viable consideration in this deck.
We've had some other arguments in the past, Plunge into Darkness vs Spoils of the Vault, Nigh Whispers vs Brainstorm and Death Wish as additional threats etc. but that was back when the deck was still being developed. Of those arguments, I conceded two of them, Plunge into Darkness is better than Spoils of the Vault and Xantid Swarm is better than Duress, two of them became obsolete, other threats replaced Death Wish and Dark Confidant was a superior Night Whispers, but the rest of them are still valid points of contention for people to consider.
It's not as if I just came along and hijacked TES, we were both working on Burning Wish based Tendrils in the summer of '06.
We met each other here,
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29508.0
We had our first argument here,
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29531.0
Not Quite Long and/or TES started here,
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29807.30
And we banded together here,
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29955.0
After a PM from Wastedlife to me we more or less have been working in the same threads since.
It's interesting to go back over some of those threads and see what our positions were then, me suggesting Xantid Swarm and Brainstorm and him arguing against them, me flip flopping and suggesting Duress and Night Whispers and him arguing for Xantid Swarm and Brainstorm etc.
Living Wish IS a consideration for this deck, LonelyBaritone, another member of Wastedlife's own team agreed with me before his post disappeared; what was with that any way?
Regardless, I agree that Magus of the Future is too unpredictable and that he shouldn't be included in the SB, and there's no need for Tomb of Urami in the SB because Plunge into Darkness can RFG a target, or two if the deck is using Simian Spirit Guide, for it to produce mana; altho', I really do like being able to Living Wish for Tomb of Urami and win small by pressuring the opponent with him.
So, that leaves us with whether or not Living Wish butchers the SB,
SB(s)
Burning Wish SB
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Ill Gotten Gains
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Hull Breach
1 Duress
All of the cards that are required according to Wastedlife, Earthquake is debatable, because the deck shouldn't take the time to answer a single Meddling Mage and a second Meddling Mage can be placed on Burning Wish.
I think the SB you posted is seriously redundant, I could cut the second Empty the Warrens, second Tendrils of Agony, Chainer's Edict, Tranquility and Shattering Spree for Hull Breach and be -4 cards and just fine.
Living Wish SB
1 Minion of the Wastes
1 Magus of the Jar
X Dark Confidant
That leaves 7 open slots in the SB, since one of the Living Wish slots was in the SB to begin with, and that's one more open slot than Wastedlife has with out Living Wish.
SB
4 Dark Confidant
3 (open slots)
People can argue over the MD slots and the strength of Living Wish to death, but considering I'm the one person that has tested the card in the deck, I'm going to state that the card can be between a 2/3x, it is strong, and that Dark Confidant, Minion of the Wastes and Magus of the Jar are all good tutor targets.
My opinion of Street Wraith: It is a good card. It going to help out a lot of combo decks. However, TES is not one of the.
Seriously Magus of the Future would be better. Last time I check there is no way of giving MotJ haste. Thus, this makes it a wasted slot. Gettingfirst turn. Then next turn ( or leaving 5 mana in the pool) having
is not going to happen. then untap-ing then having to combo with wasted resources, then getting a sub-par Draw7 hand..... and fizzling. The reason that I think that Returns is good is because it takes the graveyard and put it back into the deck.
If LW gets Bob, then 4 mana (one being
Minion of the Wastes is to put is simply stupid.for something that says "If you are able to deal with me you win" Also you are fucking lucky if you have 3bbb in your pool. and there is much better things at that mana cost, that at least do something.
To clarify a few things, alot of what Sycik said was true and alot of what Breathweapon was true. The deck comes down to playstyle alot when it comes to card choices. However, Breathweapon's playstyle is a polar opposite then mine; this is where I start to agree with Sycik. Alot of Breathweapon's choices dramatically change the way the deck plays and it's options, which is starting to lead to a different deck. I could see it branching off or branching closer once again, who knows.
Also, LonelyBaritone's post was a joke. That is why it was deleted.
Thanks Breathweapon, looking back at some of those arguments and posts/lists gave me a few good laughs. Also, the arguments, god I was quite immature in a few(/alot) of them.
Somewhat back to the topic, is Living Wish worth running for 3 cards in the SB? I don't believe so, there's nothing that any of those three cards posted can't be achieved via Burning Wish. Burning Wish is simply a better tutor all around.
EDIT: Looking back the deck and my post quality has come a long way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
