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

@Bryant:
@Bahamut:
@Emidlin:

Have you tried 11 lands, 4 moxen, 4 gitaxian configuration?
Which are your feelings regarding to this?

I say this because surprisingly, 11 lands seem to me ok in testing, I'm also thionking in go back to:
4 gemstone
3 City
2 Fetches
1 volcanic
1 U. sea.


@Regarding the boy who asked me related to the DDFT win:
that was an old era... I think I won 1 or 2 'Big' torunament with DDFT and stop playing it, playing perfectly the deck can be exhausting and more in an important tournament where nervous makes you less intelligent.

That archetype is old, it even runs street wraith... see Asheimer lysts for reference.
I'm not saying DDFT is better than TES, just are different decks, BUT there are things that can be extrapolated from one deck to another.
I still prefer playing TES design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelikanudo

@Bryant:
@Bahamut:
@Emidlin:

Have you tried 11 lands, 4 moxen, 4 gitaxian configuration?
Which are your feelings regarding to this?

I say this because surprisingly, 11 lands seem to me ok in testing, I'm also thionking in go back to:
4 gemstone
3 City
2 Fetches
1 volcanic
1 U. sea.

---

I haven't tested the deck with eleven lands, only twelve. I don't know if shaving two lands off of the previous lists is a good idea, it's going to create some very difficult mulligan scenarios. Although, it would gain a tiny bit of explosiveness, I don't believe it would be worth the consistency issues.

I tested a bit more with Reanimator and Sneak Show. I've decided that bringing in Inquisition against these decks isn't correct anymore due to the addition of Karakas. The updated strategies are in the opening post.

Part of me wonders if the Inquisitions and Thoughtseize in the sideboard should just become three Cabal Therapy. The synergies between four Probe and Empty the Warrens seem incredibly strong.

Also, if anyone knows of any articles, reports, links that I've missed for the opening post. Send me a PM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AriLax

words

---

ANT was easier to play before the addition of burning wish because it much more linear. Now it has decision trees to be made during the game.

You could be right about the Merfolk match up although TES plays Xantid Swarm which is a huge boon, but I would say the Sneak n Show matchup is in TES's favor. Winning quicker is usually the way to win that match up and TES does it better and more efficiently.

You can easily splash green in a UB or UBr ANT shell postboard with one trop and some xantid's. You also have petals to cast xantid. Against merfolk, you typically have time to play through their soft countermagic. Just don't have discard countered by soft counters and you'll be able to take their FoW and then go off next turn through soft counters probably or at the latest the turn after that. Merfolk can rarely win on turn 4 and if they are putting you on that fast of a clock, they probably lack countermagic. I don't know why everyone thinks merfolk is such a rough matchup, I'd rather be facing merfolk instead of counterbalance decks.

Why not just cut all the lands Pelikanudo? I mean really, 11 lands sounds exceptionally greedy in a deck that is already quite greedy and will lead to mulligans. I'm not even a fan of going down to 12 lands, as this deck runs silence and silence requires +1 mana on the combo turn. When you don't run enough lands it's hard to support silence and will lead to awkward board states where you cannot combo due to being unable to protect your combo with silence due to lacking sufficient ritual mana afterwards in hands where you have RoF and DR but you have just one land on board and only one petal or chrome mox in hand. Going down to 12 lands is greedy, 11 even more so. And if you want to run a deck without protection that wins as fast as possible I recommend the spanish inquisition (runs 2 lands) or belcher (runs 1 land) as those decks are machines that win on turn 1 quite often if the opponent lacks force of will.

ANT is the more stable combo deck that can consistently go off on turns 3-4 with protection quite easily. TES is the deck that sacrifices manabase stability for speed.

Also, how hard is it to cast burning wish? I think it's rather easy to resolve wish. You grab what you need with it every time whether thats pyroclasm, duress, PiF, IGG, etc. etc. it all depends on what resources you have available and if you don't know what resources you have available I recommend playing a simple deck like zoo where it is quite linear in terms of playstyle and easy to pilot.

Played at a local tonight, went 3-1 not making the playoffs. I mulliganed once over four rounds, my loss was to Miracles. Where he top decked Counterbalance after a Duress in two straight games after I Emptied for 16 on the play game one. I sided out Empty then decided to bring in Tendrils, then opened it two games in a row (the one Mulligan). I beat two G/W decks, one being Maverick and RUG (He didnt want to play anymore :/).

Karakas would've been good games two or three if Maverick would've played anything relevant before I won. I did open it the third game but I also had a turn one.

Therapy out of the side was better than Inquisition.

Rough break against miracle control but usually they can't beat that turn 1 play. Since you guys innovated EtW main I think therapy is the easy to go.

Played the 4 probe list tonight at the local tourney and went 4-0. Beat some durdly mono white control deck with scepter chant and other bs, beat rug, maverick and ranimator. The 12 lands didn't bother me at all. Won 2 rug and 1 maverick game with empty. The rug games weren't even close and the information probe gives in that MU is very important in deciding what lines to take to win.

I mulled 3 hands total out of the 10 games I played and they were loose hands with no land. 2 of the hands were terrible even with a land.

all in all the 12 lands seems perfectly fine and it doesn't seem less consistent with only 12 land and the probes make the deck more explosive. I'm really liking this version of TES and probably stick with it for a while before deciding to play a different version( I always switch between versions from week to week at local tourneys for testing purposes).

List same MD as opening post and 3 thoughtseize in board in place of therapy inquisitions. I also was playing 1 karakas and 1 deathmark in the 2nd karakas' spot.

Wasteland can't beat us if we play zero lands!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaNDoMxGeSTuReS

Wasteland can't beat us if we play zero lands!

---

Maybe we can beat their wastelands with wastelands of our own!!!!!!!

As far as I'm aware, there's no precise mathematical argument for 13 lands in TES. As I recall, TES reached 13 lands when Bryant decided to cut 2x Simian Spirit Guide from the deck due to the 3cc manacast conflicting with Ad Nauseam. When determining the "correct" number of lands, we have to ask ourselves what that number of lands is suppose to achieve. If we're suppose to draw at least 1 land in our hand, then 11 lands is the "correct" number. If we're suppose to draw 1 land in our hand and one more land with a cantrip then X is the "correct" number of lands. So I guess we need to determine how many lands with X and try to play that many?

11 lands was the old standard for TES because it was the old standard for the Vintage Long decks, I don't think arguments like "if you're going to cut lands down to 11 you may as well cut every land from the deck" are really helpful. This isn't ANT, our deck is designed to win on T2 before the counter/top, hate bear or chalice at 1 hits the table.

As far as the number of Chrome Mox, I have no problem with 4 Chrome Moxes or 3 Chrome Moxes or even 2 Chrome Moxes, as far as I'm concerned it's the worst card in the deck and you either play 4 for the explosiveness (which I think is quite relevant playing a 6cc win condition in the MD and 4 free Peeks) or you play the minimum number to ensure that you'll draw an accelerant off of Diminishing Returns and Ad Nauseam without drawing it otherwise. Honestly, I'd cut every Chrome Mox in the deck for Simian Spirit Guide if the 3cc wasn't a detriment to Ad Nauseam, but Chrome Mox is still the homely girl that you take home at the end of the night absent any better options.

Hi,

I'm testing this UBR TES version so far:

Main 60

4x Polluted Delta
1x Scalding Tarn
1x Misty Rainforest
1x Bloodstained Mire
2x Underground Sea
2x Volcanic Island
1x Swamp
1x Island
1x Gemstone Mine (color fixer)

3x Chrome Mox
4x Lotus Petal
4x Lion' s Eye Diamond

4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
1x Preordain

4x Dark Ritual
4x Rite of Flame

4x Infernal Tutor
4x Burning Wish

1x Ad Nauseam
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Empty the Warrens

4x Duress
3x Thoughtseize

Side 15

3x Dread of Night
2x Echoing Truth
1x Inquisition of Kozilek
1x Cabal Therapy
1x Pyroclasm
1x Diminishing Returns
1x Ill-Gotten Gains
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Emtpy the Warrens
1x Meltdown
2x FLEXIBLE SLOTS (2x Extirpate, 2x Pyroblast, 1x Past in Flames + 1x Inquisition of Kozilek, this has been tested so far)

Nothing new, but a meta adapted TES. The idea behind the 3C choice is not for mana base consistency (sure it may help, but is not the main reason), but is that here in Barcelona (Spain) there are lots of CB-Top miracle decks, and I wanted to focus all my disruption in discard-like spells, hence, there was no reason to play white (nor green) and this led me to add some more fetchlands to maximize my set up cantrips.

I also do not wanted to play "do nothing cards", so Gitaxian Probe was, tested, and cut. And when chosing between IoK and Seize for main deck, the latter proved to be better simply because it can take the FoWs away.

I'm Playing Pyroclasm over Grapeshot because of Thalia being the hatebear of choice (if talking about maidecks). And I also decided to go with Pyroclasm over Virtue's Ruin simply for the increasing number of goblins that lately appeared.

I' ve chosen Meltdown over Spree because I no longer play Rainbow lands, so generating multiple red mana could be an issue. I felt Meltdown only worse against Blade (due to high cost of batterskull), but I can always discard the Skull away if I feel I need it.

The flexible slots, are not really "flexible" but, in fact undecided:

-Not sure if Past in flames is really needed (I haven't so far, but Ill give mroe time to see what I do).
-Extirpates are cream against Reanimator and OK agasint CB-Top.
-Pyroblasts are just quite good against CB-Top, and Ok against RUG (can kill Delver for extra time), and superb against Merfolks.

Greetings,

Iñaki.-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

As far as I'm aware, there's no precise mathematical argument for 13 lands in TES. As I recall, TES reached 13 lands when Bryant decided to cut 2x Simian Spirit Guide from the deck due to the 3cc manacast conflicting with Ad Nauseam. When determining the "correct" number of lands, we have to ask ourselves what that number of lands is suppose to achieve. If we're suppose to draw at least 1 land in our hand, then 11 lands is the "correct" number. If we're suppose to draw 1 land in our hand and one more land with a cantrip then X is the "correct" number of lands. So I guess we need to determine how many lands with X and try to play that many?

11 lands was the old standard for TES because it was the old standard for the Vintage Long decks, I don't think arguments like "if you're going to cut lands down to 11 you may as well cut every land from the deck" are really helpful. This isn't ANT, our deck is designed to win on T2 before the counter/top, hate bear or chalice at 1 hits the table.

---

This is pretty much all truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

As far as the number of Chrome Mox, I have no problem with 4 Chrome Moxes or 3 Chrome Moxes or even 2 Chrome Moxes, as far as I'm concerned it's the worst card in the deck and you either play 4 for the explosiveness (which I think is quite relevant playing a 6cc win condition in the MD and 4 free Peeks) or you play the minimum number to ensure that you'll draw an accelerant off of Diminishing Returns and Ad Nauseam without drawing it otherwise. Honestly, I'd cut every Chrome Mox in the deck for Simian Spirit Guide if the 3cc wasn't a detriment to Ad Nauseam, but Chrome Mox is still the homely girl that you take home at the end of the night absent any better options.

---

That last line makes me believe that you are secretly Zach Tartell.

Bryant,

Do you side in karakas vs. reanimator? My initial thought was no, since you're faster. But you have no real way of interacting with them, so if they jam an iona/Jin, it's just GG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clown of Tresserhorn

Bryant,

Do you side in karakas vs. reanimator? My initial thought was no, since you're faster. But you have no real way of interacting with them, so if they jam an iona/Jin, it's just GG.

---

It's on the opening post, but yes - I do. I've began to change my sideboarding plan a bit due to Therapy over Inquisitions/Thoughtseize. I've been going -1 Ponder, -1 Probe for 2 Therapy instead of the suggested -2 Probe. In match-ups like Reanimator where you don't bring in Therapy I think it's right to board out two Probe and not the Ponder.

Hi,

I played the other day this list:

4 Gemstone Mine
2 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Scalding Tarn (next change will be -1 = +1 city of brass)
1 Polluted Delta (next change will be -1 = +1 city of brass)


4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion’s Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Burning Wish
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Silence
3 Duress
1 Tendrils (Prefer this , in here there is too much e.explosives, and terminus)
1 Ad Nauseam

1 T.seize (next change will be -2 = +1 therapy)
2 Inquisition of Koc (next change will be -2 = +2 therapy)
2 Xantid Swarm
2 Karakas
2 Echoing Truth
1 Shattering Spree
1 Grapeshot
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Past in Flames

Side 2 xantid 2 e.truth 2 inquisition 1 t.seize
I played vs:
- Goblins
- Rainbow control (This archetype is played a few in spain is RUGW with cunin and punishing)
- Team America with All the hate of the world.(T.seize, Pierce, surgicals, liliana, Hymns! Daze, wasteland...)
- DDFT

Some conclusions:
- Regarding DDFT match up. - Loose 1 - 2
Win first game, was easy, he did not landed senseis
Second I side in xantid and when playing it on 1st turn he next win on its 2nd, !!!!.
This mutch up depends on speedy, and TES can not afford long game, it is impossible, even the player I faced o course wasnt a bad player...
In here the 2 inquisition was awfull, I simply need to (take senseis OR chant effect) OR loose
- Regarding Goblins: Won 2-1
I faced in second and third M.B. Trap.
It is really easy to play around M.B.Trap if you know they have in hand, so in here Probe is gold, and again Kocilek is useless.
- Regarding Team America: Loose 1-2
First game was one of those games where you see how goodis TES , even playing 11 lands and discarding 3 cards and no playing land in 5 turns, you can win...
I really do not see how to side in here, I see that a lot fire vs fire is ok, I mean more discard, but it was very close.
likely the inquisition where ok, but simply prefer other cards,

- Rainbow: Loose 0-2
In here I see the error of the lands, not the number, it was the configuration I should have move to 4 city 4 gemstone 2 U.sea 1 volcanic. (played only 2 city) becuase althouthg in first game he had 2 Fow plus Forbid and pierce,
I reached that moment on which I had 2 silence , Fetch , Brainstorm and waiting for Rainbow and dont get it, I had even 4 lands in play, but didnt see double rainbow. I inmediatly thouth in swithcing to 12 lands but that wasn't correct as I had won because of that, in the long game he needed to land Jace, the next turn was the turn I should have won. with double silence.
The second game I was dissapointed and didn't really pay attention.
Again inquisition nonsense.

- So,
I recognice Id dint faced lot of other tiers, but seems to me ok with 11 lands 4 probes.
I will change the configuration and take out those inquisition.
I think that the deck has gaind speed and the 2 karakas 2 e.truth is enogh to handle maverick
The Team America match up I felt like I would have won (I won first but needed some better cards that inquisition. sure its difficlut but always you see the good odds..
So I've been thinking seriously in those slots.
Therapy is as Bryant says the best choice as we now play 4 probes.
But also 1 T.seize 2 pyroblast seem to me ok becasue this handle lot of troubles in my meta S.Tell, Miracle ,Rainbow, AND snapcasters, c.balances , vencilion, FoWs
I think I'm going to test 3 thereapys simply because it's likely the correct choice, but again and playing only 11 lands I don't think that probe will need to be sided out too much instead or even nothing instead of ponder (thing I prevously metioned.)

I really think the No fetched plan 4 probes is the correct choice.
Point I didn't mulliganed.

I'm not sure how good the 3shold matchup can be with all these counters, sure they're not playing stifle (don't know why) however 11 lands can be few, I've thoutgh and as silnces is glond in here sidng in 1 karakas...

Questions:
@Bryant
@Egosum paisano!
@Emidlin
@CheseBurguer


Sure you didnt want to try 11 lands?
Have you tried 2 pyroblast 1 t.seize in those slots.?

One thing I want to share is the feeling regarding Probes, I mean this is TES, they literally do nothing, I think the idea is how good probe is in TES? what is its goal, with therapy in side we found one, but is really neccessary in TES? I've been happy with 13 lands 8 disruption 2 A.N, except that time I lost to the revealed A.N... at 20! but, why we can not play simply 2, 1 for 2nd A.N and 1 as parity with 8th disruption? I'd like to know Bryant your feeling related to this last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelikanudo

I recognice Id dint faced lot of other tiers, but seems to me ok with 11 lands 4 probes.
I will change the configuration and take out those inquisition.
I think that the deck has gaind speed and the 2 karakas 2 e.truth is enogh to handle maverick
The Team America match up I felt like I would have won (I won first but needed some better cards that inquisition. sure its difficlut but always you see the good odds..
So I've been thinking seriously in those slots.
Therapy is as Bryant says the best choice as we now play 4 probes.
But also 1 T.seize 2 pyroblast seem to me ok becasue this handle lot of troubles in my meta S.Tell, Miracle ,Rainbow, AND snapcasters, c.balances , vencilion, FoWs
I think I'm going to test 3 thereapys simply because it's likely the correct choice, but again and playing only 11 lands I don't think that probe will need to be sided out too much instead or even nothing instead of ponder (thing I prevously metioned.)

I really think the No fetched plan 4 probes is the correct choice.
Point I didn't mulliganed.

I'm not sure how good the 3shold matchup can be with all these counters, sure they're not playing stifle (don't know why) however 11 lands can be few, I've thoutgh and as silnces is glond in here sidng in 1 karakas...

---

First things first man, I appreciate your input and playing T.E.S. and all. But try to run your posts through autocorrect and use the shift key. It’s getting more and more difficult to decipher your posts.

I’m playing Cabal Therapy in the sideboard due to four Gitaxian Probe main deck, it happens to be more useful than Inquisition because of the synergy between the two of the cards. My sideboarding strategy changed due to the addition of Cabal Therapy, not because of something you mentioned previously. It would be pointless to sideboard out multiple Probes just to sideboard in Cabal Therapy. That’s why the change to sideboard out a single Ponder happened. Not to create some point.

I don’t see how the increased number of Probes makes fetchlands any worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelikanudo

Sure you didnt want to try 11 lands?
Have you tried 2 pyroblast 1 t.seize in those slots.?

One thing I want to share is the feeling regarding Probes, I mean this is TES, they literally do nothing, I think the idea is how good probe is in TES? what is its goal, with therapy in side we found one, but is really neccessary in TES? I've been happy with 13 lands 8 disruption 2 A.N, except that time I lost to the revealed A.N... at 20! but, why we can not play simply 2, 1 for 2nd A.N and 1 as parity with 8th disruption? I'd like to know Bryant your feeling related to this last.

---

I have zero interest in going down to eleven lands, the less lands we have the more susceptible to Wasteland we become. I don’t like losing to Wasteland. Cutting fetchlands for gold lands only makes it worse.

I’ve played Pyroblast in the past. Pyroblast is only useful in blue match-ups which is the problem. I want a more versatile card that I can sideboard in during non-blue match-ups too - Maverick for example.

How do Probes not do anything? They give information, which is their primary role. Then they increase storm for Empty the Warrens and have great synergy with Cabal Therapy.

This is still T.E.S. and I will not be going back to two Ad Nauseam for the foreseeable future.

Glad to hear you changed your SB to include Cabal Therapy, after playing Cabal Therapy with 4 Gitaxian Probe I realized I never Burning Wished for Thought Seize blindly anyway and that I was always better off Burning Wishing for Cabal Therapy because I could either discard multiple counter spells or force the opponent to counter the Burning Wish altogether if he expected me to get Cabal Therapy.

I don't understand how 8 gold lands makes the deck more susceptible to land destruction than 3 fetch lands, unless you mean you're holding onto your fetch lands in order to protect yourself vs Wasteland and not casting your Duress and Ponder turn 1? I'm not certain I agree that 12 lands is the correct number of lands, but I do agree that 3 Chrome Mox is the correct number of Chrome Mox considering how often we SB it out and thus I ended up at 12 lands as well; 4 City of Brass, 4 Gemstone Mine, 1 Bloodstained Mire, 2 Underground Sea, 1 Volcanic Island.

I don't know if I just have awful luck with 6 gold lands, but I find myself having to cast Silence off of a Lotus Petal far more often than I'd like to and getting into terrible situations where I have to make a decision to go for it right now where I could've waited if I had cast it from a gold land and held onto the Lotus Petal, it's really infuriating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

I don't understand how 8 gold lands makes the deck more susceptible to land destruction than 3 fetch lands, unless you mean you're holding onto your fetch lands in order to protect yourself vs Wasteland and not casting your Duress and Ponder turn 1? I'm not certain I agree that 12 lands is the correct number of lands, but I do agree that 3 Chrome Mox is the correct number of Chrome Mox considering how often we SB it out and thus I ended up at 12 lands as well; 4 City of Brass, 4 Gemstone Mine, 1 Bloodstained Mire, 2 Underground Sea, 1 Volcanic Island.

I don't know if I just have awful luck with 6 gold lands, but I find myself having to cast Silence off of a Lotus Petal far more often than I'd like to and getting into terrible situations where I have to make a decision to go for it right now where I could've waited if I had cast it from a gold land and held onto the Lotus Petal, it's really infuriating.

---

Not cracking fetch lands can win games against decks like Goblins and Maverick where a wasteland would really hurt but you need another land. These situations aren't that uncommon not to mention the shuffle effect from the lands has plenty of value between Brainstorms and Ponders. I don't have these color issues that people claim to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bryant Cook

Not cracking fetch lands can win games against decks like Goblins and Maverick where a wasteland would really hurt but you need another land. These situations aren't that uncommon not to mention the shuffle effect from the lands has plenty of value between Brainstorms and Ponders. I don't have these color issues that people claim to have.

---

Yes, this is correct.

Those few times that you can't cast a Silence cause your gold lands and petals were hiding from you are vastly overshadowed by the usefulness of fetch lands in this deck.

Fetches turn brainstorm into awesomeness and give us Wasteland resistance. Stifle isn't being played right now either.

Playing that tournament,
I played vs Goblins, in the 3 games I needed to fetch to look for and Play duress or Ponder, thats it. Moxen really shines in here.
I think even plkaying 7 lalnds I wont loose vs goblins.
So argument vs Goblins is nonsense.

And maverick, even you will need to fetch soon, that's even contradictory.
For sure I want to face those maverick and goblins even playin 10 lands.

The real Problem i see is sometimes the need of mana for silence.
So playing 11 - old configuration - no fetches 8 gold is ok for me. sometimes I dont need lands to win just 1, but please, the correct one.

I mean how do you beat a hand with 2 FoWs, spierce and Forbid and next drawing Cunning - > Fluster,
I needed during 5 TURNS a Petal or a Gold. . Playing 11 lands, those fetches and holding the brainstorm the most time, didnt served me of nothing (3 silence in hand).
Please respond!

i think that if you play brainstorm, you need to play fetchlands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelikanudo

Playing that tournament,
I played vs Goblins, in the 3 games I needed to fetch to look for and Play duress or Ponder, thats it. Moxen really shines in here.
I think even plkaying 7 lalnds I wont loose vs goblins.
So argument vs Goblins is nonsense.

And maverick, even you will need to fetch soon, that's even contradictory.
For sure I want to face those maverick and goblins even playin 10 lands.

The real Problem i see is sometimes the need of mana for silence.
So playing 11 - old configuration - no fetches 8 gold is ok for me. sometimes I dont need lands to win just 1, but please, the correct one.

I mean how do you beat a hand with 2 FoWs, spierce and Forbid and next drawing Cunning - > Fluster,
I needed during 5 TURNS a Petal or a Gold. . Playing 11 lands, those fetches and holding the brainstorm the most time, didnt served me of nothing (3 silence in hand).
Please respond!

---

I've made similar observations, I imagine 3 or 4 Chrome Mox, 11 or 12 Lands and 6 to 8 Gold Lands is just based on your own experience more than anything else.

Cause I failed some tournaments with the old “standard” list (most of the time screwed and lost thanks to Mulligans), I cutted some Chrome Moxe for more lands, Karakas and another City. It's a little bit slower but really constant and fits my playstyle very well. Has anyone else gained experience in this direction? In my experience you have with this version a better tempo matchup and its easier to combo through counterbalance/top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akmalik

Cause I failed some tournaments with the old “standard” list (most of the time screwed and lost thanks to Mulligans), I cutted some Chrome Moxe for more lands, Karakas and another City. It's a little bit slower but really constant and fits my playstyle very well. Has anyone else gained experience in this direction? In my experience you have with this version a better tempo matchup and its easier to combo through counterbalance/top.

---

I've cutted chrome mox completely long before and adjusted my playstyle to the weaker ad nauseams needing a Petal or a land Post nauseam as startup. I enjoy the additional fetches for the cantrips and stable mana vs. Wasteland and 4 developing my game.

I even Run confidant Main from Time to time to overcome Control/outdraw hatebears and Force them to keep creature removal in. Playing upkeep-chants/silence in several turns with confidant/s online is nice too.

@counterbalance: you should try to go Off before CB comes online. Therefore chrome mox is better than additional lands

Question for those opting for Xantid Swarm in the sideboard:

Was Dark Confidant also tested out when making this decision? I know on the front page it was a missed-the-cut listed creature. But at some point wasn't Xantid Swarm? Anyways, one premise that both strategies share is that decks with removal will board it out making the creatures you board in less vulnerable. From there, it's a just a question of wanting to prevent spells from being countered, or plowing through opposition and just draw a ton of cards to replace their disruption?

I've tried both out and just like the Confidant better. Granted, it's only been a few dozen games, limited testing. Maybe it's purely subjective, thought I'd ask and see what people thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandax

Question for those opting for Xantid Swarm in the sideboard:

Was Dark Confidant also tested out when making this decision? I know on the front page it was a missed-the-cut listed creature. But at some point wasn't Xantid Swarm? Anyways, one premise that both strategies share is that decks with removal will board it out making the creatures you board in less vulnerable. From there, it's a just a question of wanting to prevent spells from being countered, or plowing through opposition and just draw a ton of cards to replace their disruption?

I've tried both out and just like the Confidant better. Granted, it's only been a few dozen games, limited testing. Maybe it's purely subjective, thought I'd ask and see what people thought.

---

T.E.S. is fundamentally different than ANT. T.E.S. is much faster and has a worse time at playing the long game, it's strengths are having disruption while being fast. Mainly due to the lack of basics and less land for more acceleration. Dark Confidant does not fit this game plan - Confidant is a grindy card that's effect is most powerfully suited for a long game. T.E.S. never wants to play the long game. In this deck Confidant would be better off being Night's Whisper.

Fair enough. I guess my next question would be, does DC really affect the fundamentals of this deck in a way that it under performs?

I refuse to play ANT because it is slower, yet having the option of drawing extra cards seems to me, a relatively new player to Storm, more valuable in the matchups where your own disruption is matched by theirs. I'm willing to be completely wrong and accept that I'm trying to reinvent the wheel. You designed the deck, I just copied your list because its awesome.

The fundamentals I'm not trying to argue, it's the application of the card (Confidant) to this strategy of acceleration into a quicker combo that [to me] feels like it gives redundancy and card advantage back in matchups where Swarm would have done the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandax

Fair enough. I guess my next question would be, does DC really affect the fundamentals of this deck in a way that it under performs?

I refuse to play ANT because it is slower, yet having the option of drawing extra cards seems to me, a relatively new player to Storm, more valuable in the matchups where your own disruption is matched by theirs. I'm willing to be completely wrong and accept that I'm trying to reinvent the wheel. You designed the deck, I just copied your list because its awesome.

The fundamentals I'm not trying to argue, it's the application of the card (Confidant) to this strategy of acceleration into a quicker combo that [to me] feels like it gives redundancy and card advantage back in matchups where Swarm would have done the same.

---

The problem with Confidant is that you can play him and draw 2-3 cards off him before being in a position to win the game, that's three additional turns you gave the opponent. That's not what this deck wants to do - ever. You're better off running Night's Whisper and not giving your opponents time to find hate against you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bryant Cook

The problem with Confidant is that you can play him and draw 2-3 cards off him before being in a position to win the game, ...

---

Good point, and here's what I'm getting at; just through my limited play with it against top tier decks in testing, it seemed like going off was guaranteed in a couple turns. Again your argument is just as good, I thought I was on to something

I really dont think bob is even all that good in ANT, if that helps, so it would simply be worse in TES. Too much red, too many unfair decks and too many powerful interactions in this age make bob (and, IMO, straight CA cards) mostly an outdated concept.

Finally got down to actually test Probe, and am now seeing its benefits. I tested a metric shit ton of variants, and finally found the list I plan on running this Sunday for SCG: Minneapolis (shitty job permitting). I don't have time to post it and board plans right now, but I'll post it tonight; it's not playing any Chants, although it could be correct just to play Bryant's current list and play Chants. Basically, I found that a lot of what Bahamuth said was correct, aside from three points (that I can think of right now; the testing was exhaustive and so there's probably more I had to disagree with): that Burning Wish was the worst card in the deck after Chrome Mox; that having 3-4 EtW maindeck postboard vs. Canadian Threshold is a good enough strategy; that cutting Past in Flames is acceptable.

I will give my advice related to d.confidant.

First, don't play this in TES.
Is too slow and there are other much 1 cost cards that can be used instead, pyroblasts , xantid.

See our 2 costs, the more polivalent card, we could also make space to 1 krosan or 1 Limpiar
The only think I can think of it can be usefull ritgh now is Miracles Matchups and MUDs but you ll need to change the strategy.

I for example am playing the old style 11 lands no fetch plan. and 4 c.moxen.
For me its beeing great, tomorrow I have an important tournament and I'll tell you all how it was this build.

Apart
@Bryant:
I'm thinking on the 11 lnads build about siding astrategies and
I would prefer to side out brainstorm and ponder instead of gitaxian.
And in slow matchups I simply change to +1 karakas -1 moxen and then I can side out the gitaxian.
Gitaxian is great and its better the faster the deck is (as the MasterCard announcenment having a first turn win is great but having a first turn win knowing your opponent hasnt FoW has no price.) and the deck with gitaxian and 11 alnds is so thinned that i dont want to side them out. I kept for example a hand with no lands, 2 gitaxian and petal and LED, that's ok for me.

Let me know your thinkings related apart I know you dont play 11 lands.

Hi guys, Im trying with the last Cook´s list, and maked some good results.

But in two games vs Show and Tell, I realized that the 2xKarakas sb-plan is not as nice as it looks. If he plays Omniscience (70% aprox. of this deck), is useless. He can play Emrakul froms his hand all times he need.

Any idea vs Omniscience?????

I losed two times vs this deck, with karakas in board.... :frown: We NEED a new plan!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemariont

Hi guys, Im trying with the last Cook´s list, and maked some good results.

But in two games vs Show and Tell, I realized that the 2xKarakas sb-plan is not as nice as it looks. If he plays Omniscience (70% aprox. of this deck), is useless. He can play Emrakul froms his hand all times he need.

Any idea vs Omniscience?????

I losed two times vs this deck, with karakas in board.... :frown: We NEED a new plan!!!!!!!!!

---

Just killing them works fairly well. Omni-Tell is also fairly weak to discard as they have to go through a Show/Wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AriLax

Just killing them works fairly well. Omni-Tell is also fairly weak to discard as they have to go through a Show/Wish.

---

100% this. I played against burning wish omnitell yesterday, and all my disruption really got to him as that deck lacks redundant business spells as it has one route to victory and that is show and tell. You can also just race them, as they can't get a turn 2 kill or a turn 1 kill unless they have the nut draw. I wouldn't even board in karakas for the matchup, just board in more discard if you have it and try to just strip their FoW and go off afterwards or strip their one business spell, as they aren't particularly likely to draw a second business spell anytime soon giving you time to find another protection spell for their force.

I agree on dark confidant being bad in here. Night's whisper is better as funny as that sounds as you're likely going off the turn after you resolve a night's whisper unless you draw utter crap. Although night's whisper isn't close to being good enough currently in my eyes, there's almost no point to playing the card as 2 mana spells in this deck should be doing something gamebreaking like infernal/wish.

Dark confidant in general in storm combo is just too slow nowadays (sadly) I would love to run the card, but I have almost no excuse to run the card in the current metagame while RUG is on top. They will bolt it and they will trade their 1 mana for your 2 mana.

I'll head all of your advice and not run DC, because learning the hard way is like losing your entry fee before you register. Thanks


And with the talk about Omni-show and RUG, wouldn't Duress be better than Thoughtseize? That's what I get out of the conversation.

Brief Torunament report:

List:
4 Gemstone Mine
4 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island

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

3 Cabal Therapy
2 Xantid Swarm
2 Karakas
2 Echoing Truth
1 Shattering Spree
1 Grapeshot
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Past in Flames

Made 5-2.
15 of 83 people.
Lost To:
- RUG with stifles instead of the card that puts 2 on gy and from side surgical and fluster
- Miracle. No more miracles I faced. C.b. from side.

Notes related these looses:
- In both of these 2 looses I won both firsts games
- I can recognize I could have won the RUG matchup if when naming with therapy I had named properly (options were 1. FoW 2. Brainstorm) I named FoW, he had Brainstorm in hand, next he drew FoW. Thats simple.
- I should have mulliganed in one mutch up, regarding to this, I don't think parity can be applyed to Lands - Gitaxian.
- The deck as always when winning wins in extreme, I used twice diminishing today and got some maverick plays, but that was vs Burn. and Dredge.
- I faced another RUG which I won 2-1 with stifles also.

Other Notes:
- Vs Maverick, karakas was great in second game, and in first, simply was silence and comboing on second turn. Speedy of moxen was key.
- Information is nice vs second games and first, you know how to face the match up, I can recognize that withouh that information I could have lost the 1st game vs maverick for example or vs Burn, the Burn Match up was strange as I saw in first game a pirostatic pillar.!!
- I felt like 11 lands is enough and the deck has a perfect behavour,
made 3- 3 vs RUG, but I want that both the RUG match up and miracles match up gets better. winning 1st games is ok, but the therapy fails and the fact that the side in those 2nds and 3rd match ups was irrelevant make me think the how to side better.
- I really think that if I would have played fetches I would ha lost more match ups vs canadian thatn not, stifle was a useless card all the time for them.

Conclusions:
- I just dont want to take out 4th moxen, I really side it out in only 1 mutch up by karakas, was in RUG, just to try. Speedy even vs Miracles and RUG is what made me won those games. Thast why I'm going to try -1 gitaxian + 1 land, as I want to preserve speedy and want to side out only in some 2nd and 3rd games moxen. RUG for example.
- 11 lands seem ok, but sometimes risky, I maybe would include 2 Fetch instead 1 gitaxian + 1 City of Brass.
- I didnt used PiF, and I evaluated some games in which IGG would have been better, as they're potentially faster. So I'll change to IGG, and related to RUG match ups, I simply dont reach the time to play the PiF never, they, re just too fast.
- Diminishing again was key, I really don't like to play that card but sometimes is the only goal, when I played the card was vs burn, the turn after dieing and because I just didn't draw business until that last turn...
- The deck is extreme, as I like it, statistics are demontrated i this decks as in no one
- Related to mulligans I didnt made in the entire torunament altouth I kpet a hand with 2 gitaxian 1 petal LED burning ponder, which I kept and which I lost becuase i didnt draw the land.

Questions:

- What do you suggest:
- 1 gitaxian = +1 U.Paradise? or
- 1 gitaxian - 1 city = +2 fetch?
- I'm simply thinking in switching to t.seize. opinions?
Related to the previous builld.

I returned to 3 Gitaxian, 13 lands. Too many mulligans with no lands, and too many games with only 1 land in 3 o 4 turns.

En sb, Im trying with a Bribery for one of the two Karakas. In the pairing with Show Omniscience or Show and Tell or maybe Reanimator, is another bomb in the SB, that can take Iona or Gilselbrand, to make a mini adnauseam :tongue::tongue:

And finally, I can agree that the best bomb versus ******** UGR, is to include the EtW from the sb (2 main), and maybe a second EtW (3 main) if in your meta there are many ********.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelikanudo

Brief Torunament report:

List:
4 Gemstone Mine
4 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island

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

3 Cabal Therapy
2 Xantid Swarm
2 Karakas
2 Echoing Truth
1 Shattering Spree
1 Grapeshot
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Past in Flames

Made 5-2.
15 of 83 people.
Lost To:
- RUG with stifles instead of the card that puts 2 on gy and from side surgical and fluster
- Miracle. No more miracles I faced. C.b. from side.

Notes related these looses:
- In both of these 2 looses I won both firsts games
- I can recognize I could have won the RUG matchup if when naming with therapy I had named properly (options were 1. FoW 2. Brainstorm) I named FoW, he had Brainstorm in hand, next he drew FoW. Thats simple.
- I should have mulliganed in one mutch up, regarding to this, I don't think parity can be applyed to Lands - Gitaxian.
- The deck as always when winning wins in extreme, I used twice diminishing today and got some maverick plays, but that was vs Burn. and Dredge.
- I faced another RUG which I won 2-1 with stifles also.

Other Notes:
- Vs Maverick, karakas was great in second game, and in first, simply was silence and comboing on second turn. Speedy of moxen was key.
- Information is nice vs second games and first, you know how to face the match up, I can recognize that withouh that information I could have lost the 1st game vs maverick for example or vs Burn, the Burn Match up was strange as I saw in first game a pirostatic pillar.!!
- I felt like 11 lands is enough and the deck has a perfect behavour,
made 3- 3 vs RUG, but I want that both the RUG match up and miracles match up gets better. winning 1st games is ok, but the therapy fails and the fact that the side in those 2nds and 3rd match ups was irrelevant make me think the how to side better.
- I really think that if I would have played fetches I would ha lost more match ups vs canadian thatn not, stifle was a useless card all the time for them.

Conclusions:
- I just dont want to take out 4th moxen, I really side it out in only 1 mutch up by karakas, was in RUG, just to try. Speedy even vs Miracles and RUG is what made me won those games. Thast why I'm going to try -1 gitaxian + 1 land, as I want to preserve speedy and want to side out only in some 2nd and 3rd games moxen. RUG for example.
- 11 lands seem ok, but sometimes risky, I maybe would include 2 Fetch instead 1 gitaxian + 1 City of Brass.
- I didnt used PiF, and I evaluated some games in which IGG would have been better, as they're potentially faster. So I'll change to IGG, and related to RUG match ups, I simply dont reach the time to play the PiF never, they, re just too fast.
- Diminishing again was key, I really don't like to play that card but sometimes is the only goal, when I played the card was vs burn, the turn after dieing and because I just didn't draw business until that last turn...
- The deck is extreme, as I like it, statistics are demontrated i this decks as in no one
- Related to mulligans I didnt made in the entire torunament altouth I kpet a hand with 2 gitaxian 1 petal LED burning ponder, which I kept and which I lost becuase i didnt draw the land.

Questions:

- What do you suggest:
- 1 gitaxian = +1 U.Paradise? or
- 1 gitaxian - 1 city = +2 fetch?
- I'm simply thinking in switching to t.seize. opinions?
Related to the previous builld.

---

That's pretty much my version of the deck sans the Volcanic Island and Tendrils of Agony, I think you're really going to hate yourself for playing Volcanic Island when you draw it as your only land and the MD Tendrils of Agony is completely worthless and totally antithetical to what you really want to do with this deck when you're playing 4 Gitaxian Probe, peek, ritual, led, infernal and GG those scrubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

That's pretty much my version of the deck sans the Volcanic Island and Tendrils of Agony, I think you're really going to hate yourself for playing Volcanic Island when you draw it as your only land and the MD Tendrils of Agony is completely worthless and totally antithetical to what you really want to do with this deck when you're playing 4 Gitaxian Probe, peek, ritual, led, infernal and GG those scrubs.

---

Question for you guys who don't play fetchlands: doesn't that just make your brainstorm (and ponder) much worse? even with 4 fetchlands (+ 4 IT), I would othen like to have more shuffling effects. I never tried without fetchlands, but have you considered Preordain in this case?