Originally Posted by
4eak
@ pi4meterftw
You replaced the broad term "storm" with what is usually the more specific term "TES". I'm not sure what you mean by the term, but I hope you are talking about more than just Burning Wish based Tendrils (Cook's list). Plain ANT is much more common and DDay-Hybrid lists are extremely flexible (and difficult to find good testing partners for).
Your post indicates that you think alderon666 is playing merfolk. I believe alderon666 is playing Storm, not merfolk. It looks like he is speaking from the perspective of a storm player, explaining that he initially would fear merfolk more than your list. I'm inclined to agree with alderon666; Merfolk does seem a stronger deck in the storm matchup.
No need to "humor" us with your comparison of merfolk and nogoyf. To claim anything close to merfolk's matchup percentages against storm is not an easy task. Also, since the primer suggests that many folk are likely to compare this deck to Merfolk, don't pass off this comparison as "silly".
First off, I think game 1 is the most important game against combo decks. Turning the game 1 which combo decks expect to win into even or better matchups is backbreaking to a combo player. I think Merfolk has the major asset here, and I think we have good reason to be skeptical of your 50% claim.
You have 12 cards which of major concern to the storm player (3x Wasteland, 4x Force, 3x Daze, 2x Spell pierce), the rest are much more neutral. Merfolk have 20-24 cards (Stifle, Wasteland, Daze, FoW, Cursecatcher, Standstill) which are of major concern. I consider this a large difference in game 1; which I think translates into a wider margin in game 1 win percentages than you seem to think.
Stifle is still better than you've given it credit for. Yes, you want to stop the engine, and stifle doesn't commonly hit the storm trigger, but when you have very clutch games (which Merfolk can certainly force against storm decks), every little bit of mana counts. They won't always be able to play around stifle. Stifle also has that invisible hand effect, whereby players will simply assume it is there, and artificially lose tempo because of it. Forcing the storm player to Chant or Duress regarding Stifle is a meaningful barrier. 1x Wasteland and 1x Daze which many Merfolk play that you don't does count for something (you don't have the "same daze"). In addition to all the -1 mana stacking effects like Stifle, remember that Wasteland and Daze have very important synergy with each other which will show itself in this matchup. Merfolk's Dazes count for more than yours because they have higher synergy.
Wayfarer hardly makes up for this either. Wayfarer will buy you more tempo against decks which actually rely upon dropping more than 1 land. Storm decks can play around wayfarer to a greater extent than many decks though; in fact, in many circumstances, storm breaks wayfarer's symmetry better than your deck (to your detriment).
I consider the 4x Cursecatchers to be stronger than 2x Spell pierce by a large margin as well. This "surprise factor" isn't as big a deal as you seem to think (duress reveals nicely). Aether Vial allows Cursecatcher to be a surprise too. Against Orim's Chant (the really dangerous card), I think Cursecatchers are deadlier. Force spike on a stick is pretty sweet, especially when subsequent drops makes him 2/2 or 3/3.
Also, Seer and Standstill aren't so easy to compare. You seem to think these cards should be compared in the mid-late game, where you are likely already winning as the fish deck. I think Standstill is much stronger than Fathom seer in the storm matchup though, especially since it can be used earlier. Standstill's symmetry is almost always broken by the fish player in this matchup, and with Vial and man-lands, the Merfolk player makes "setting up" (for the storm player) exceedingly painful. Standstill is a fine turn 2 or 3 play (depending on what you drop before it); generally catapulting the Standstill player into a much better game position than when they first dropped the Standstill. Seer, on the other hand, requires a lot of resources to play and activate at a vulnerable time in the game. Standstill with creatures/vials/man-lands often functions as a Time Walk, and Seer really doesn't do this.
You obviously don't autolose to combo game 1, but 50% does look a bit like hyperbole for the average player. I'll grant you have a plan for game 2, but surely you can at least see why alderon666 would be skeptical.
As for your testing, I think you need to take that into perspective as well (you show some perspective, but not enough imho). I've seen you play this deck, and I know you are an expert with it. I also think you can boast matchup percentages that are well above average because of it (and I expect nothing less from someone's pet deck). Apples to apples though, where I'm comparing average pilots against average pilots, I think you'll find different results for this matchup. You, as an expert pilot of Nogoyf, might have extraordinary results against average storm pilots. This is unlikely to be the case for most pilots.
Let us also remember how difficult it can be to find comparably expert storm partners (of all the variants) with which to test against -- this might be an issue for your reporting.
Even worse for your matchup percentage claim is that this deck is somewhat rogue (some have known about it for a while, but many have no idea what it is). Remove the 'rogue' mystique, and have people actually learn to play against it, and it seems quite likely that the matchups become at least slightly less favorable than before.
It isn't unreasonable to be skeptical -- if you think it is, then yes, please "humor us". =)
peace,
4eak