Read these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax-
http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-matc...les-4c-control
http://theepicstorm.com/tes-matchup-...eovold-sultai/
Printable View
Read these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax-
http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-matc...les-4c-control
http://theepicstorm.com/tes-matchup-...eovold-sultai/
You could replace some lands with SSG perhaps, can't GQ that. Go full ape.
I started playing with Diminishing Returns awhile ago just to be able to play out Lion's Eye Diamond and Burning Wish off the top for 7, vs discard heavy control it's a pretty good option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Ya know, back when this deck was three-and-a-half-and-a-half colors, between Decays and Silence, one of the neat features of Gemstone Mine was that you could "bait" a Wasteland and have a functional means of juggling a turn 1 cantrip with whatever your business spells would lead into. Also, I think an early Wasteland, that delays Thalias/Hymns/Pyromancers, is probably easier to recover by laying more lands than a Wasteland that hinders you after the opponent has developed any of those other cards. It created this neat sort of head-game where the opponent was forced to let you have your dual or push the threats back a turn, both of which are really scary with this deck boasting such a fast fundamental turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
That said, I think Gemstone Mine itself probably isn't needed. Instead of the highlander manabase of 2 basics and 3 different duals, though, you could do something like basic Swamp + 2 Volcanic Island + 3 Underground Sea (maybe 2:1 split with Badlands? I don't find Badlands very appealing), and then a basic Island in the sideboard. You can aggressively fetch duals, as you have redundancy in your configuration, as opposed to having to wait on fetches, and then bring in the second dual for those (often slower) post-board games.
Especially given the EE7 changes mentioned on the TES site, which take a more "bias for action" type of approach, I think this could be an effective way to maintain the edge over opponents. Especially as a Basic Island has that classic problem of contributing little to turn 2 kills you might be aiming for. I have some more thoughts on the EE7 deck changes, it was a good read, but, I'm really curious on how the manabase for this deck has developed.
Were Silence and Abrupt Decay ever in the same decklist?
@Lem and co and sure - to whom may interest....:
just out of curiosity as looked at EE7 super changes... (the more time elapses the funnier it seems to me...) :
are you back to the idea from 2012 - 3B.W. full EtW again? cause: Mr B. now decided is good, rigth? joke.
finally no Defense grid? - you lem seemed to convice them that D.G. is not good vs discard, great!
Good card Perilous! - not sure if worth the space but I'll test it!
I am also evaluating to take out SE... no much reanimator shows these days...
I've been thinking in adding a 2nd Tendrils just to side it in vs Super Control as by here everybody seems to be quite conscient on EtW... so maybe out 2 SE and in 2nd Tendrils +1 IoK... but dont know.... I've been changing my manabase from 4Gemstone to 3!!!! but forgot to put in the card i needed when went to the torunament.... I am more focused on reducing my gemstones to 3 without hurting my manabase... it is difficult I swear... now it is on 5 fetches 3gemstones 4 duals!!! a great advance!
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Mind rephrasing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
In general, you can be assured that most of the decklist changes & reasonings you read in the article are results of the TES Think Tanks discussion, evaluation and testing over weeks.
Defense Grid was never going to last, if we cut Silence in order to deal with an angle of attack other than counter spells then a more expensive, less effective version of it doesn't pass muster. I don't think it ever worked, just because Stifle would target your fetch lands anyway and Leovold, Emissary of Trest had 3 mana for Force of Will always so it was only good vs Flusterstorm.
Cutting Massacre and Meltdown is fine, but I don't see a reason to play Chain of Vapour over the sorcery bounce spell since one 1cc card makes only a small difference vs Sphere of Resistance but is completely useless vs Chalice of the Void. I think the new bounce spell will probably replace Echoing Truth as double Chalice of the Void is a marginal concern where Scry 2 is generically useful for stalling and digging when cold decked.
I've resigned myself to 6 discard, but I'd sooner cut Infernal Tutor than Burning Wish so I could have a SB business card to bring in later. To me it doesn't make much sense to cut a Burning Wish but SB 3 Empty the Warrens because threat density is more important than disruption density vs discard heavy meta games since you can't always remove their discard before they can target you with it so it's better to rebuild faster. I really think you are missing the boat on Diminishing Returns, if you are playing 4 copies of Empty the Warrens in a discard heavy meta already then Dimishing Returns is both incredibly consistent at Goblins for 20 and there is less interaction on the stack to punish you for giving them a new 7. If you are playing in a meta where wishing for discard is too slow then wishing for a tutor is nigh impossible, either the life or the mana isn't there for it where Dimishing Returns is at least a spin to win.
Edit: 3 Warrens has always been a thing, it's just a situationally exploitative SB configuration depending on where the rest of the meta game is.
I haven't moved off the 8 fetch, 2 Usea, 2 Volc, 1 Swamp manabase, but if Soothsaying Or Scrollrack Miracles is a thing then ditching the Island, bounce and creature removal for a SB Bayou and 4 Abrupt Decay is the right move. I still feel like fetching for Island and having to play Badlands is often self defeating and decks with Ghost Quarter are otherwise really good matchups.
I dont understand this... sorry. I hope I answer you with my next answer...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
TES Think Tanks discussion??? well you seem to belong to the NASA team... I belong to a similar team - but not in my favourite hobby... I couldn't stop laughing when reading this. Sorry. I would name you the TTTD team? I imagine one team member says: mmm miracles is now a real deck. Other: mmm - then get back to A.D.... Other: NO we settled on BUR!!!... Other: Then Wipe Away!!! then some of them started to test Wipe Away and then: a multitude of TTTD Team claimed Wipe Away, Wipe Away! and then Mr. B saying: NO! Wipe Away has non sense! but we can't go back to A.D. unless Pelikanudo stops playing it! ha ha ha. Sure all this is a joke please!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I can say that if you say so, then I will believe you, but when I read Mr B. articles, the only reference I see are "I" instead of "we" which led me to think that all these changes come from Mr B. Super Mind and some contributions from others minds. Ok that's fine. However I see that change is just a reference to a list from a deck designer from 2012 - these changes are nothing new... even I have to say that if I was going to play a fetch list likely THAT would be the list I would play... the 3 B.W. 7 discard, fetch list - The 2012 Bahamut List (or Bahamut Team List)...
@F.Fortune: I have to say that I completely disagree on cutting 4th I.T. instead of 4th B.W. (well we anyway play 4 Ofs) by doing this you decrease the odds of drawing the efficient A.N. engine which is our main engine - I even disagree on older lists which played 4 B.W. 3 I.T. and 2 C.Rit... they had 0 sense as well - you need to use the most you can of a 7 mana playline via I.T. > A.N. and by moving IT to the side you just decrease the odds of that engine. A 9 mana playline via B.W. > I.T > A.N. is absolutly no mana efficient... and therefore non sense. B.W. is likely in conjuntion with C.M. the worsts cards in the deck. Do not forget B.W. as a threat is quite bad.
Apart, agree on D.G. is a shit card as no others...
7 discard has been an staple for me since years and it is the minimum for me even in this so discard/fow era.
What do I read?? soothsaying or Scrollmiracles beeing a REAL deck??? joking?
anyway we just touch the deck from 2 to 3 cards in main and sometimes - you - change to that EtW SuperNewTech (sarcasm - it is not new) which - with no doubt - gets better the tempo match ups.
Apart, one card I've seen in ANT is Ground Seal, which seems good vs those reanimate and also snaps/DRS and REPLACEs itself! - likely too specific but I'll give it a try just for the sake of funny! other experience on this test in TES if any?
EDIT: Trying to better use of proper punctuation, capitalization, and grammar
We're always circling around to the 7th discard argument, I'm not going to ever play 12 lands again so the question is whether or not the 7th discard increases the winrate of the deck more than the 8th tutor. I think Burning Wish is more important than Infernal Tutor in this deck and there was a reason we were playing the 4 Burning Wish, 3 Infernal Tutor package before the new tutor was printed.
I'm not saying cutting threats is right, I don't have the data either way, but that new tutor is really awful and this appears to be the best reason to cut it entirely. I'm not really a stickler for the 8th tutor or the 7th discard, because if you want them then you can SB them in.
Edit: Dark Petition, case in point I can't even remember the name of the card I used it so little in the SB lol.
I'm indifferent to whether or not we ever go back to Abrupt Decay, while bounce and creature removal is more efficient if CB isnt completely dead then it has to be respected. Not everyone in the ANT thread cut green either, it's not like Abrupt Decay became awful.
Jim Baxter's report from EE7! http://theepicstorm.com/eternal-extr...617-8th-place/
@Related to Jim Baxter's EE7 Tournament Report and to whom may interest:
I just read the Grixis and Czec Pile reports as really they were the unique ones which could catch my eyes, unfortunatly they were the unique losses...
4th Therapy is a card that has always and will always belong to the 75 in TES.... It is frustating reading: MVP: 4th Cabal Therapy as if it was a good idea to take it out at some point... Sad. It is like reading: Well we started building rockets with steel, and they worked!, then we tried plastic rockets - they worked also and now we returned to steel rockets which is beeing fantastic! Yes it is wonderfull!. Joke.
@F.Fortune:
I don't say you have to play 12 lands. I never said so. Look at me. I am playing now 5 Fetches! which is a great achievement! Maybe at some point I try the 3 B.W., 7 Disruption, 13 Fetch Manabase, but I feel too much love by B.W. although my gut feeling tells me the 3 B.W., 7 Disruption, 13 Fetch Manabase is the way to go...
B.Wish is not more important in this deck than I.T. I even dare to say: B.Wish is much worse than I.T. in this deck. Well unless a card like A.N. is printed as sorcery or everybody plays Griselbrand in his 60. The reason you were playing 4 B.W. 3 I.T. is just - how I would say so... - the real reason is: Non sense. This just was a plain mistake. Why would you play 4 9 mana playline if you can increase 1/4 a 7 mana playline? why?
I will have 0 respect for a counterbalance based deck in this era, but hey! I can be wrong about it! (joke)
I don't what it is with Magic players but at some point you're going to have to realize that more than 50% of your games are played post-SBs. If you cut a Burning Wish then you're playing with 7 tutors in all of your games, where if you cut Infernal Tutor you can choose to replace Dark Petion with it and play 8 tutors for more than half of your games if that is what is optimal in a particular matchup. The power level of Infernal Tutor may be higher than Burning Wish, but that doesn't matter nearly as much game 1 as it does game 2 when Empty the Warrens is at its best and the opponent SBed in hate vs goblins respectively. I'm more concerned with maximizing my marginal utility for Burning Wish and postboard flexibility than any one particular play line, because I'd rather be able to deal with actual problems than goldfish alone. If speed and power were what really mattered, then we'd all go back to playing 4 Chrome Mox, Gemstone Mine and Silence, but the deck has iterated towards stability and adaptability for a reason.
I'm not cutting a MD tutor anytime soon, but I do think playing 4 Infernal Tutor and 3 Burning Wish when the opposite was the standard before Dark Petition was added needs to be addressed.
Absolutely fair point. I voted to remove a Wish for the 14th land (after my suggested removal of EtW due to the MD sweepers people run because Pyromancer & TNN wasn't appealing) due to not giving much credit to its use as Game One Toolbox as I deem it unreliable. For the postboard games, I didn't see a potentially boardable SB Infernal of too much value as long as we would opt to go for the EtW rush against all the decks we want to combo off asap. If D&T is our scenario to discuss 3 IT, 4 BW with 1 SB IT to bring in for more 6-mana playlines, then I think it's inferior to the current practice of siding in EtWs to increase the number of 4-mana-playlines in these matchups instead. If we would drop the EtW SB plan (which we didn't have when we ran the SB IT) the split might me indeed reversedQuote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Peli, Fortune, Jax and all the other cool cats frequenting this cozy little corner of the internet. I published an article today that is pretty apropos of Bryant's recent deck update and the 4x Gobbos plan. Let me know what you think! I've been telling everyone on facebook that they will be cursed and their faces will melt if they don't read it, but that's bullshit. They'll probably just get minor fungal & bacterial infections on their feet - nbd. Anyway, read it and let me know your thoughts: http://theepicstorm.com/so-meta/
I think that Bryant list from Vegas was better, Pile and Delvers was already a thing back in June and he lost only to unfair there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MangoPunch
Playing multiple copies of EtW make AN plan terrible, also cutting 1 BW make it worse. Opening clucky hands seems pretty common postboard with that setup, we still need rituals to go off and they get discarded/extracted leaving you with a 4CC card in hand that do no thing.
From the Vegas list I'll not change anything maindeck, I think doing -1 Meltdown +1 Consign/Oblivion and -2 DG +2 Discards would be a better way to adapt to the meta without making drastically changes on how to approch postboard games while making our primary win condition straight worse.
Also Massacre can be cutted in favor of a 2/2 split of E.Truth and Voyage.
Natural EtW is 4 mana, IT into AN is 7.
The mana required makes quite a difference if you opt to punch through Daze/Pierce/Wasteland/discard or have to combo off before a hatebear comes down. Same is true for the scenario of extracted manaaccelerants as EtW unlike AN/ToA doesn't need a significant amount of mana
@Lemnear, why wouldn't you SB in the Infernal Tutor and the 3xEmpty the Warrens together?
Saying 3 Empty the Warrens ruins Ad Nauseam is an overstatement, ANT plays Ad Nauseam with Past in Flames, Tendrils of Agony, Dark Petition and without Chrome Mox and it still works.
One thing that might be interesting to test is a deck with 4 Chrome Mosx and 3 Empty the Warrens MD if you are getting that much mileage out of goblins.
Sure, you can try AN, 3 EtW and 8 Tutors postboard if you find the slots to board it and don't fear cluttered handsQuote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Im going to Ovinogeddon here in Milan this saturday (200 players expected) with Las Vegas list with a slighty different sideboard. Im pretty confident that is the best TES list so far and this multiple EtW plan will not last. Saying that AN still works in ANT is not right, AN in ANT with multiple high CC cards is a nightmare, you can easily flizze it. Also IT into AN >>> Natural EtW. Its 3 more mana? Ok but I have LEDs, ok but I win the game on the spot. If Bryant had 2 Surgical Extraction at Vegas im pretty sure he would had top8'd the event.
So 3 MD Warrens was pretty interesting today online,
3 Empty the Warrens
1 Ad Nauseam
4 Burning Wish
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Duress
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Chrome Mox
4 Flooded Strand
3 Misty Rainforest
3 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island
SB
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Grape Shot
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Past in Flames
1 Telemin Performance
1 Thoughtseize
2 Cabal Therapy
1 Consign/Oblivion
3 Echoing Truth
2 Rending Volley
I stole a lot of games off the back of Warrens game 1, there wasn't really anybody playing Stifle so I opened up a lot of games just by pushing Goblins on them and then SBed out the extra Warrens for the pretty standard 7 discard package and just played the deck normally after that. I really like that manabase even tho' it doesn't have a basic to it, the off color fetchlands are a pretty interesting strategy because people see the off color fetchlands and just tap out for their 1 drops without thinking about Storm as a possibility.
I'm not going to really say this is the best list or anything, but I didn't have much problems with Ad Nauseam despite the extra copies of Warrens since I could just stop short and spit 20+ attackers on the board without worrying about them being able to sweep em game 1. It definitely looks viable tho', if you think you can take advantage of the meta being soft vs Warrens.
Not that I like this list, but all those empties with Duress instead of Therapy hurts me.
@MangoPunch and to whom may interest...
Hi, that was a decent read. (I am an old dog and sure this is more usefull for starters) what I found interesting was the reference to that girl streaming MTG... I imagine someday even sharing my hobby with my girlfriend... althoutgh that is impossible, It is a good dream...
I have to say the following:
THERE IS a difference to face or not to face C.T., I dare to say that now likely C.T. decks are for me the worst match ups I face... I can face fluster, daze, triple fow, fivefold spheres... whatever, but C.T. is a shit of a card to face, I am not sure how much the loss percentage is incremented when I face an GRixis delver deck AND they draw C.T. but it has to be a great percentage difference.
The multi EtW plan is an old Plan which used to be good back in the 2012 to handle Tempo in the form of RUG which mainly played Stifle, FoW, daze and Wasteland. theoretically the same strategy should be applyed and should work vs those Grixis Delvers, BUT there is from that time to now a great difference - C.T. I have to say I've always survived to those Tempo decks withouth the need of multi EtW plan with success - until now - and I dare to say - although I didn't tested - that multiEtW plan will not work vs Grixis WITH C.T. the reason is clear: post board they can stop you enough with daze, fow, fluster, pierce UNTIL C.T. is thrown if this occurs no matter if you play 3EtW or a 4 mana card which reads: "when you cast it you win the game" because you will be discarded that card or the proper cards. I can say that I prefer even to be hymned than to be therapied as example... The hell of that card...
As i mentioned in other posts the games I was able to win vs Grixis Delver were because of:
a) they didn't draw C.T.
b) I was able to discard to death and mini EtW to the win BUT before doing this I needed to discard several flusters some stifles and fows and beeing discarded by C.T. and the fact that having multi EtW plan was 0 relevant.
there was another game vs a Control deck with C.T and Monastery Mentor which I was literally crushed - and all thanks to C.T.
I've been trying to find a way to combat those C.T. Grixis and in general those C.T. decks -because by here people is starting to notive that G.P. + C.T. is good! and by the moment I am in testing phase... my 2 Surgicals in side did not much work but even didn't have the opportunity to be tested... uniquely 1 IoK and 13rd land from side probed to be somehow good... my next try will be Ground Seal (this card invalidates DRS, Snaps, and replace itself) and now I'm looking at D.R. as a card to be considered but still no testing results about that... I don't play much MTG lately so I cannot say much... I wish I have more time to test... maybe I buy a MTGO deck and start to crush people with my 3Gemstones TES deck at some point...
By the moment: I'll see diff. things and see how they develop...
But one thing I have clear: multi EtW plan will not help me much vs those C.T. and as Lem says: having so many Grixis, people will consider that and if EtW starts to win, then people will start to put back even more -1-1 anti stuff... By here this is what happens... I even see ETruth and EE - sure apart of Toxic or Marsh C., etc... from side opp. in several decks...
By the moment fighting fire with fire is what seemed to work for me (a total of 8 discard - 7 base plus 1 from side)... but as said not solid to state as a rule.... and maybe SE work but didn't draw them when testing in tournaments...
@F.Fortune:
i have to say that likely If I have to cut 4th B.W. - sure it has nonsense - but I would put it back in the side... you know I am a very conservative TES player...
I foundtrivial: you're going to have to realize that more than 50% of your games are played post-SBs.
Related to that List you posted: I fail to see why the hell you play 0 C.T.... likely C.T. is the best card vs Fluster/Stifle which invalidates EtW...
@Lem and Jax:
I have one issue vs mutiEtW plan and it is not to show high costs from A.N. - it is the following:
Sure EtW is a 4 mana threat which is great BUT you loose the ability to use LED for that purpose and LED is just a 3mana for 0, Sure you can D.R. C.M. Petal and EtW and it is great! but if you are discarded D.R. you are dead - on the other hand you can land LED and pass the turn. I mean multiEtW plan just don't make use of LED and this bothers me much...
I agee that replacing EtW for threats is the proper move. I would replace more B.W. than I.T., maybe for the current Mr B. list: -3 B.W. + 3EtW (sure 0 B.W. left!) is the correct move, and still maintain A.N. as engine, I cannot conceive in taking out such a powerfull draw engine vs C.T. Decks.
I didn't see any way to add Cabal Therapy MD, cutting disruption for Warrens made the most sense to me since you don't have to protect Warrens or need to discard, pass as opposed to Goblins pass. Cabal Therapy without Duress isn't consistent, so they went to the SB for game 2 where you need them more to deal with hate. It only felt bad vs stuff like Reanimator and ShowNTell with a faster clock, but that is not really what you are aimimg at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Youre losing free woms from Mind Twisting them with Therapy. -4 Duress, +4 Therapy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Also, you should cut some tutor effects as your list is too threat dense. Add Duress in those areas.
I think it's win more game 1? Because if resolving the Goblins in and of themselves isn't enough to win the game then 3 MD Empty the Warrens has no merrit whatsoever. Duress is there over Cabal Therapy because it's more consistent in game 1 when you don't know what your opponent is playing, but I'll put in the 4 Cabal Therapy and cut a tutor and Ponder for 2 Duress since it's only a thought experiment anyway; I want to segway into a B/r Storm deck that doesn't use cantrips just to see what that'd be like next, I'm thinking you could cut the Ad Nauseam engine for a Past in Flames and Tendrils of Agony and play 4 Simian Spirit Guides and 4 Cabal Therapy in that space and be a super fast deck with a rock stable manabase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
I really don't know how much you decremented the chances of winning with so few disruption vs combo (omnishow, reanimate, ANT) decks by playing only 4 discard. Well if your meta has 0 combo decks then it's fine I believe. But I think the proper move is to take out some threats. I said -3 B.W. = +3EtW. But maybe it is better to leave at least 1 B.W...Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
EDIT:
Look at this list for your goal:
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=19222&iddeck=146118
Didn't notice the goal so... -3 B.W. seems non sense... Then..
I don't think it is a good idea anyway... Maybe less ponder but don't abandon the TryFoce
EDIT 2: I think I am going to test I. Contract for the 1st time for fun instead of D.R. and with the idea to fight discard... What do you think?
Another episode of the series TheEpicStorm.com: TES MATCHUP BATTLES! is up and this time we face Lands! Giving a breakdown of the matchup that we could face in a tournament and that has been around for many many years.
http://theepicstorm.com/tes-matchup-battles-lands/
Let me know your thoughts and opinions. Thank you.
- Alex Poling
to whom may interest...
Hi I've been toying around with the idea of going back to 3C.T. 4Silence 4Gemstones 2CoB List - call me cracy. I searched for lists in the TES Site from old eras and saw this:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...623#post772623
but with full of Silence instead of 3. my inital side - after some thoughts - is being:
1 T.Island
1 Carpet of Flowers
2 Abrupt Decay
2 E.Truth
1 Cabal Therapy
1 Grapeshot
1 Empty the Warrens
2 Tendrils of Agony
1 Past in Flames
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Bribery
1 Shatering Spree
but looking at the meta I found quite fine playing a full Silence along with D.R. from side vs all those Grixis Control and Tempo and that BR Reanimator - I mean Silence vs Surgical and Leovold and SnapsOnTheStack and even fluster is a great card. I also found Duress worse than C.T. vs Control in General and vs ANT Silence is quite fine and vs Hate Bears it's just as bad. The unique match up It could seem weaker is vs Chalice but I have lot of hate ¡n my side and lately I don't find many of these decks and duress is uniquely good on the play and when drawing in my initial 7.
I wanted to include a 13 land and looked at Tropical or Bayou but I wanted to include a land which was beeing utility also and karakas was a fine card (which allos to me to pay Silence) vs those Reanimate or teeg/thalias and BG Depths! so my initial idea is this and carpet vs Grixis Tempo/Control for stability/redundancy. and see what happens! in my before manabase I have exact the same odds as this one for drawing a G initial manasource for carpet or A.D.
maybe I am getting mad and I am - instead of advancing - just turning back, like crabs... but I'll likely play something like this in my next tournament!
the second tendrils is just that vs Control I found lot of times possible scenarios where once surgicalled B.W. I wanted my Tendrils main instead of EtW... and leaving G.S. in side is just not enough because of the opposite scenario can occur.
EDIT: Tropical instead of Karakas...
EDIT 2: well Silence was crap but I enjoyed a lot to cast D.R. under Silence and I faced a RUG which I crushed in a beauty manner!!
Congratulations Bryant, you finally reached the Perfect Storm List, long time took you to reach the Perfect Storm List. Sincerely congratulations. I'll still enjoy playing those Silence/D.R. althought I don't win too much...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Now you need to do the following:
a) Reach the finals of a GP
b) Concede (say to your opponent that he/she has won)
at some point that was my goal as MTG Player, however I doubt I got it... and I know that's a low impact... but this is something we need to start to do and MTG is - somehow - a way to teach each other about the fair play and that competitiveness is a bad thing in general
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post661836
Wait... why tf is "competitiveness a bad thing in general"???
Because when you have no tournament results or numbers to back your claims, you need a new excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by MangoPunch
Congrats on 1st
Guess the dood simply found a similar list from 2012 and tries to make a point based on that, not realizing that within 10 years of development pretty much every card/amount/constellation/etc popped up in discussion at some point. It's kinda annoying that some think we should give credit for deck development and testing based on namedropping cardsQuote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Thanks. How's the 3MD ETW plan going? Have you tried less threats and more disruption?Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Agreed. Also, the troll fails to realize that metagames and timing are factors. At the time Bahamut's list was suggested, Stifle, Spell Snare, and Spell Pierce were all VERY common in RUG delver where Silence was better at the time. Things change, but it's easier to discredit someone's work with old links (where if you read them, said user's lists were also off-mark).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Bryant-
Congrats on your win, I figured it was just a matter of time. I'll be piloting your current list in a small upcoming event, and was wondering if you could give some advice on sideboarding with this build due to the fact it's radically different than usual. I anticipate LED Dredge, D&T, R/B or U/B Reanimator, Tom Ross' Infect, maybe a 4cc/delver/sneak and show. It's not so much what I bring in that I have trouble with, but moreso what to take out that I find myself trying to figure out. Most of the time Ponders and a chrome mox are my choices to drop when trying to go fast with goblins, but since I'm playing more threats, do I instead want to droo tutors or a mix of the two? LED dredge seems like I want to go for a fast ad nauseum kill since they can't really interact too much but then they don't have many ways to stop a quick army of goblins either, just combo and kill them before they do the same. Infect feels like another match where I want to make a bunch of goblins and therapy their pump spells away to outrace them.
Reanimator is tougher, goblins aren't as good against a Griselbrand, but you don't have much time to work with either. Do I optimize the deck to win off a quick ad nauseum, or try and EtW and take enough reanimation spells to buy enough time to get there? Any advice you and anyone else has had sideboarding with the newest list would be greatly appreciated- I can apply much of what I've learned from your articles for the matchups where I won't be wanting to lean on EtW, but some pointers on boarding with EtW would be really helpful.
Please read the sideboard guide. It'll show you what to do with Warrens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebonclaw
Oh, awesome, I didn't realize it had already been updated for the new list! Thanks!
I did, I was removing tutors and adding disruption when I realized MDing multiple Empty the Warrens made a lot more sense in ANT than it does in TES, so I ended up with an ANT deck that cut Ad Nauseam and Dark Petitions for Empty the Warrens and some Cabal Rituals for Simian Spirit Guides and have had a lot of fun with it. I'm pretty sure it's just better as a SB plan tho', because there are a lot of decks where you don't want to have to commit Goblins against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook