Printable View
Setting it on 0 counteracts their explosiveness (Petal, LED, etc) while 1 counteracts cantrips and ritual effects. Against TES I would set it at 0 and against ANT I would set it at 1 but either deck can technically fight through both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davek
I approve of dissenting opinions from other deck foundations on the source, but I would caution against hasty matchup appraisals without testing. All forms of storm are positive matchups. TES does have silence and Swarm, but this makes them more vulnerable to repeal and grindiness due to gemstone mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I would strongly suggest testing this matchup before suggesting different/more sideboard cards. Coming in here and blindly fear mongering doesn't help. This matchup has been tested extensively for many years.
Jerry, I just hopped in because I saw a shift towards the overload on counterspells and destroyed our local 12-post player several times now, with him claiming to read this thread, building his SB in regards to that. I was just curious...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Lee
I can't share the impression that storm is a positive matchup with the Sideboards (and mainboards) i had to face and read here the last few pages tbh.
I'm not drawing conclusions off thin air, but off actual live games.
Hi all
A question about the sideboard. I have seen a lot playing with Venser in SB, but I myself cant seem to get the right value out of it. Against which match ups does he really shine? May be a stupid ass question, but against Combo he's too slow and against Aggro and Control I dont think I want to see him. Is it to remove problematic permanents or...? There we have Ulamog.
Thanks in advance
I've also never been very successful on the venser plan for all the reasons you've mentioned. Right now the combination of Swan Song and Glen Elendra provide the same coverage, and more, for less blue requirement. For me, venser has little to add when comparing to a SB pool of FOW, Fluster, Swan Song and Glen Elendra. Glen Elendra is amazing in the omni and sneak matchups, with needle adding more sneak support. Also at the moment any other MD creature spot goes to Trinket Mage which is better positioned now for MD.Quote:
Originally Posted by PollePotDK
Venser is for Show and Tell combo, but as it's a counterspell, you will bring it in against other combos as well.
It's not the best answer to either S&T or to storm, but it sort of works against both so I dig it more than the fairie wizard at the moment. Casting sorcery speed Glen Elendra Archmage with U or UU up is painful.
It is interesting that you mention venser, because I have been testing venserx2 MD in my recent build. Venser is there specifically against omni, where they let you put him in for free. His other role against combo is to let you exhaust all your cheap counters early, and then use venser + karakas to lock out the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by PollePotDK
This is the un-tuned version I've been testing recently:
// Lands
4 [ZEN] Misty Rainforest
1 [WWK] Bojuka Bog
1 [WWK] Eye of Ugin
2 [TSP] Vesuva
4 [U] Tropical Island
4 [SOM] Glimmerpost
4 [MR] Cloudpost
3 [ZEN] Island (8)
1 [LG] Karakas
1 [ON] Polluted Delta
// Creatures
4 [M12] Primeval Titan
1 [PRE] Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 [ROE] Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre
1 [ROE] Kozilek, Butcher of Truth
2 [FUT] Venser, Shaper Savant
2 [FD] Trinket Mage
// Spells
4 [UL] Crop Rotation
4 [5E] Brainstorm
4 [V09] Sensei's Divining Top
4 [ZEN] Expedition Map
1 [UL] Snap
2 [US] Show and Tell
4 [GP] Repeal
1 [AQ] Candelabra of Tawnos
// Sideboard
SB: 4 [AL] Force of Will
SB: 4 [CMD] Flusterstorm
SB: 2 [EVE] Glen Elendra Archmage
SB: 3 [THS] Swan Song
SB: 1 [MMA] Chalice of the Void
SB: 1 [IA] Glacial Chasm
I was testing Venser in my main-deck for a little while. It's totally a meta-call, if you deal with a lot of S&T decks he's awesome. Plus, that Venser/Karakas lock is wonderful. I eventually moved away from him and am now actually maining 2xSwan Song instead. I've been pretty excited by how well I can protect my S&T now. I know people have mixed feelings about SS in the maindeck, but I'm enjoying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Lee
Now for some more controversial opinions:
~Glacial Chasm is a Sidebard Card. I'm glad to see you trying that out. It comes in against a lot of decks, but those decks are already pretty positive matchups in Game 1 (save Elves and MUD). So often it's such a frustrating dead-draw that I had to move it to the board. I've been much happier with that.
~Chalice is our BEST SB card against combo, as well as many other bad matchup decks. I see no reason not to 4x it. I'm also testing 3x Sphere of Resistance right now in the board, and that will probably be coming to Seattle with me for SCG. I like what sphere does against combo, and we're always winning on mana so the two sided nature is usually not an issue.
Right now my deck looks like this:
~Land (26)
4x Cloudpost
4x Glimmerpost
4x Vesuva
4x Misty Rainforest
4x Tropical Island
1x Island
1x Forest
1x Karakas
1x Eye of Ugin
1x Cavern of Souls
1x Bojuka Bog
~Creatures (7)
4x Primeval Titan
1x Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1x Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre
1x Kozilek, butcher of truth
~Spells (27)
4x Crop Rotation
4x Sensei's Divining Top
4x Brainstorm
3x Repeal
3x Show and Tell
3x Expedition Map
2x Candelabra of Tawnos
2x Pithing Needle
2x Swan Song
~Sideboard (15)
4x Chalice of the Void
3x Flusterstorm
3x Sphere of Resistance
2x Oblivion Stone
2x Grafdigger's Cage
1x Glacial Chasm
This is 99% the build I'm going to bring to Seattle. My only consideration at the moment is to cut the two Pithing Needles for a fourth Show and Tell and a fourth Repeal. I love having needle in against Wasteland and especially Liliana OTV who is often pretty brutal. That said, a SDT can combat Lili pretty well and streamlining the S&T and Repeal tempo portions of the deck seems appealing. Especially with MD SS to protect all those S&Ts.
Anybody else planning on hitting up Seattle? I'll do my best to represent.
Oh SNAP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Lee
Nice man good luck. I agree with the Venser meta call comments. I don't really pay too much mind to the Top Gear Karakas/Venser situation, I mean I know it can happen but that's nothing I will rely on for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Funk
I'm interesting in your SB take though, you've got a ton of permanent based hate - which I envy. Can you explain what decks you've tuned this to play against? No T1 counters is a little risky at least in my meta and I'm curious what lines you are playing into for the bad combo matchups.
I like the Glacial in the board idea, but I bet ill face the same conundrum that we already have in the MD lol. But for me as long as that stupid elves deck is alive - I'll pack chasm.
Thanks, I'm really interested to see how this SB works out. What I have done is I've removed my turn 0 protection in favor of more consistent hate. More often than not, I would find myself sitting with a hand of countermagic against combo and watch as they systematically removed all the spells from my hand with Duress and Therapy until they have enough space to go off safely.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimHarding
I also found that I almost never lose against storm when I lead Chalice on :0:. Follow up with chalice on :2: and you've got a hell of a lock.
I spent a lot of time playing High Tide this summer, and saw first-hand how brutal Thorn of Amethyst is to play through on the combo end. I like sphere better here because it gives it even more relevance against other decks (Elves is a good example) and doesn't hamstring us too much.
The final piece of the puzzle is the lack of turn 0 protection. That is, losing on the draw because I have no mana sources for Fluster/Swan song. I know lots of ANT players, it's a really popular deck here in Portland. In talking to them, Turn 1 is a dream scenario. It happens sometimes, but often not very safely. If they can ramp into the Ad Nauseam on turn one, they usually have no mana left floating and need to hit some really lucky cards on the flip.
Considering that I'm running Swan Song in the main-deck now, I figure I have better lines of play against Storm game 1, giving me a better chance to steal that game and have at least one more game on the play. This is all a lot of conjecture, but this thought process has freed up a lot of more sideboard slots for cards like Cage and Oblivion Stone.
Part of my inspiration was going back to Tony Murata's deck that won SCG San Diego last January. Look at his sideboard:
3 Chalice of the Void
2 Cursed Totem
2 Elephant Grass
4 Flusterstorm
1 Pithing Needle
1 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
2 Venser, Shaper Savant
That's a lot of permanent based hate, and I'm sure that the staying power of permanents helped him get there. Spells are fragile, and tend to be easier to play around. Obviously the meta has changed, so some of the card choices change. Elephant grass isn't quite as relevant anymore, and I don't think Tabernacle does enough work here. Cursed totem is still a great card, but I like Graff better with how much reanimator is running around right now.
Those were my general thoughts. This is definitely a big experiment here, but I feel good about these choices. We'll see what happens, I suppose.
Bravo! These SB's look a lot better now :)
J-Funk, your sb looks much better against ANT/TES players, but to me it seems really soft to another deck which almost always top8s in SCG lately.. Omnitell. How do you side against it? I think that if you do well with the deck you may end facing at least one of them. That's the dilemma for me... more permanent hate to face stormy decks, or more counterspells to stand a chance against that brainless mono-u deck?
You can call me mad or noob, but i'm testing in sb one of the narrowest card ever printed... Extract! Why? Because i think it may be really good against both kinds of deck! ANT typically has 1 winning condition main deck (1 tendrils)... what about exiling it turn 1? Feel free to storm for infinite then! TES is another story, but what exiling Ad Nauseam? They'll probably have to go through the graveyard route, and we are much more prepared to face this. And Omnitell? Why not exiling their lonely Emrakul? They'll have to go trough the clash with Enter the Infinite as their last card in deck, but we play eldrazis, and if we are high on life (and it should be so, since they abosolutely do nothing except cantripping before going off), we should have about 20+ chances to reveal Kozilek or Emrakul and stop the combo, leaving them plain dead.
Let me know what you think
If I may. His SB is not that "weak" to omnitell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davek
Chalice at 1 breaks cantrip. Chalice at 3 will put them on the dream hall plan.
Sphere delays cantrip & combo.
Flusterstorm also helps in this MU (and O-stone to a lesser extend and you have to keep a lot of mana)
About the "extract" thing. The idea is cute. But you will have to make at least room for 3 of it in the SB to challenge the odds of having it in your opening hands...
Is it what we need ?
I think you're really too optimistic, i think you're around 30/70 in favor of the omnitell player with that side. Chalice at 1 also kills all your manipulation. Suddenly, all your Tops, Crops, Swan Songs, Brainstorms, Maps, Candelabras and even Flusterstorms (even if just a bit) are crippled, making your deck able to just land-go, while our opponent still has strong tutors like Intuition and Cunning Wish. I think this is not the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralf
About Chalice at 3, you can realistically hope to reach 6 mana not before turn 4, so even if it doesn't get countered your opponent will have about 4 lands in play. From there, playing 1-2 more mana sources to go through Dream Halls doesn't seem impossible.
Sphere and O-stone inmho do nothing here. Even if you drop sphere in resp to show and tell and lock the combo you've just delayed it by 1 turn. This is a working startegy for decks that apply a lot of early pressure, but we are not that kind of. He'll probably have 3 or so lands in play, so he'll pay :1: for Enter the Infinite, :1: for Cunning Wish, :1: for a random bounce spell and win from there. O-stone is even worse, you need your opponent to be brain-pudded to lose from that. Lets say you show it while he plays Omniscience, he retains priority and casts Enter the infinite, while in resp you sac the stone. He now has the entire deck in his hands, so he will probably go something like triple Petal/double petal + land -> Show and Tell again with a new Omniscience and win. That's why i think that sb is weak
You are the one playing Chalice. You should play around your own hand/ and made the appropriate changes with your SB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davek
12 cantrips - 19/20 lands in Omni. An unanswered chalice at 1 will put him back and no he won't likely have 4 lands on turn 4... (maybe 2 + 1 sol land)
Thereafter, you resolve chalice @ 3. You have likely won. No bounce MD and they have to reach 5 mana for dream hall.
It is just a speed test here. the first to combo wins. But we have to reach at least 13 mana + ugin (and more if sphere) for Emrakul.
Lotus petal in Omni ? Did you ever play it/ against it ?
The MU is bad and will remain bad except if you devote half of your SB into it.
Forget about omni and hope you can dodge it.
I like this SB. Improve Storm MU and elves, does what it can against omni.
Now we could try to work on sideboard tables.
Omni/sneak definitely deserves half of the side board IMO. The choices made to combat these two should also be relevant against storm and others. Rock Lees last sideboard post is probably the best example of this. Early powerful counters - fluster, force, and swan song - which bring him to the later game kill card - glen elendra, venser Karakas, to lock out omni, glacial or elves and aggro, and trinket to chalice for storm. This amounts to a massive amount of defense adaptable for each match up. Plus this board still can fight chalice, moon, and loam. Could even use a cage with the same logic as the chalice tutor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralf
Going into an scg planning to dodge the easiest, cheapest, most borrowable combo deck is a terrible plan.
Couldn't agree more. Keep in mind that the shift in sideboard that jfunk and others are doing now, and then being lauded for is by an individual anecdotal case. Tim and I have each tested against both ANT and TES for over a year with various builds and concepts, and we both agree that the aforementioned counterspell overload simply beats them. Perhaps if Lemnear did some actual testing rather than give nebulous iterations of beating one local Turbo Eldrazi player, someone piloting the most difficult competitive deck in any format to play, then I would give his thoughts more credit than mere hearsay.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimHarding
For my own testing, I've been all over the place recently. MD'ing fow, md'ing swan song, going back to bonfire. We will see what I decide for come tomorrow at Feinstein's event, which I am almost certainly going to.
Lemnear is very good as is rock. Good players beat bad players. What's so surprising about that? The two of you should play over mws or cockatrice to figure out who is right :)
You may Check the TES thread or my reports before questioning my credibility. Ever thought the other way round, that your beaten ANT and TES players may play not on top level? I expected moreQuote:
Originally Posted by Rock Lee
I think you are confused. I do not attest any wins or losses to the deck's sideboard strategy's validity. I attribute my own extensive two-fisted testing with both ANT and TES against the deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I approach deck building in a scientific method approach, not an anecdotal one. When you put actual testing behind the deck with skill in both decks being established, then we can discuss the failings of other approaches equally.
I don't know how far the scientific method reaches if you try to make a point about how good Swan Song and Flusterstorm are against Xantid Swarm and conclude that the single angle of counterspells is enough to tame a deck which's SB is tailormade to beat a counter-overloadQuote:
Originally Posted by Rock Lee
Except the chance of you actually drawing the bees are quite low. You basically must have bees or a massive amount of protection on top of actual combo pieces.
Seeing a 3 of in the top 10 or so cards with 4 ponder/brainstorm/probe doesn't seem that low to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by HammafistRoob
Even if you bring the post board games to 50%, you have to win both games postboard since you probably didnt get there game 1. So the match win percentage is something like 70-30 in storms favor assuming you win some small amount of the time preboard and half the time post
It's roughly 37 percent to see a 3 of in the top 10 cards. I really think the matchup is around 65-35 postboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tammit67
I asume it's 65-35 for TES in that case. It's not that there are Silences or Wish->Therapy somewhere in that calculation aside the possible issue of being able to cast the overload of counters with that manabase. Dunno how relyable you get something like double U going to turn several counter in your hand on.Quote:
Originally Posted by HammafistRoob
Overall I'm pretty surprised about the negative vibe which followed my sincere advice. Claiming TES a good matchup with nearly being a goldfish game 1 and having a narrow SB's plan which storm is used to battle since the existance of Meerfolk and S&T, is confusing. Keep dismissing Chalice and Resistors; I'm looking forward facing more players in the future who think Flusterstorm/Swan Song/Mindbreak Trap/Spell Pierce make them combo-proved...
I'm actually into this vibe - little over zealous at times but this is a good argument. Funny thing is that TES and POST are the two decks I'm usually playing. I'm going to do a test session tmrw after my local weekly legacy and try to do a legit report so we can pick this apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
However, when on my counter heavy plan my attitude in general entering game 2+3 is to counter aggressively - as there are many counters, cantrips even, until I can get a counter under a top protected from discard or stick a glen elendra/one of the fewer permanent based hates. I don't pile on chalices and thorns because they narrow the board too much for me. You're very right about chalice and if I expect some TES,ill use one and go stall,stall, Mage> chalice - and it's worked out well for me. But if TES draws the bugs, it's difficult to win for sure.
Has anyone ever tried testing Counterbalance in the board as one of the counters? It seems that we have the spells in the right CC range that once we get a top-lock in, we can maintain some semblance of control. Not sure exactly what that exact configuration would look like, but it seems worth durdling and trying. Also, I think that its underappreciated that you can float Force of Will with a top, reveal it to CB to counter an opposing FoW, then Brainstorm/top into it if you still need it in a war.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimHarding
I was tooling around again with a TurboMulch version of Post and the idea came to mind that CounterTop could work as part of it. Since I cannot make that deck work at all, this seems the next best place to throw the idea out.
TurboMulch?
Care to share?
I tested CB in the sb, but UU on turn two is very rare with a strong hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by civet five
I have no negative vibe against suggestions or criticism. I have a negative vibe against nonscientific, non statistical hearsay of anecdotal origins. I happen to have tested over 25 two fisted matches with both ANT and TES vs my matchup, without a preference to playing either side, simply to know if I needed to change sideboard choices/plan, and ANT/TES were simply curb-stomped. Of all the variants of combo that exist, storm based combo is by far (over 35% higher than the next best competitive combo deck) my best win percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
If I can beat delver with TES, I can beat this deck with it too. Just saying. Yes you have a good 'clock' with the power of your manabase and SnT, but you have no time to set anything up, the moment you 'combo' you are likely going to die, as you cannot ever give him a chance to go off unimpeded. This is the nature of combo in the new age of cantrips and the consistency it allows.
That matchup will not get better, simply because this deck requires too many cards to actually win the game (lands). By needing to run more lands, plus land tutors/enablers, show and tells, the critters, etc. etc. you actually just don't have the slots necessary to fight that archtype anymore at a sufficient level. This is why 'control' as we've known it has also fallen to the wayside.
This is why you need to focus on trying to remain the combo player in that matchup, which means more bombs, not counters. Lock pieces on the board are always going to serve you better than countermagic, you have the mana, laying it at one cripples their cantrip base, and if they don't already have their combo/disruption they have to get lucky as hell. Even if they have the disruption, you've at least forced them to interact with the board which can buy you time to get your combo online. If you wipe them off lands with a lockpiece still intact, well...
For your assistance, I have highlighted all the locations where you can add values and playtesting to make your statement have any relevance to this conversation. Thank you, let me know when you have returned with such information, and in what quantities. Until then I will shelve your statement under "wild theory from naysayers."Quote:
Originally Posted by thefreakaccident
The point is: You can't race decks like Belcher or TES with this one. You are doomed to be the control-player here, no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefreakaccident
I had to laugh after reading the first sentence, because all scientific and statistical calculation blow your claim out of the water. I have no clue how badly played those matchups were from the combo-side to give the impression that the matchup in particular and combo in general are/remain curb-stomps within all the massive bi-weekly (gut-feeling) changes of the 75 you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Lee
At this point, I have to question your "scientific" method to determine the matchup against combo, with a deck running the SB plan of Meerfolk and S&T (sans Leyline) which is well-explored how to Dismember. It's hilarious that you mark my teammates and my tournament experiences as "anecdotes and hearsay" while ignoring statistical facts, claim the complete opposite and call that "scientific", even if you completely ignore the differences between the storm decks and put those into a single Box.
If we could discuss our obvious VERY different experiences in that regards on a serious level this might have been helpful for both threads on the board, but I can't see a base if you discredit anything "I" bring to the table as "baseless speculation" of a random biased noob out of the web (you don't even care to adress any of my arguments up to this point) and "You" claim the intellectual and statistical surpremacy with "25 two-fisted games" you played from both sides of the table which are worthless to any calculations, unless you or the other players you faced are true masters of TES (a whole different beast of required skill than ANT).
At this point I could also create a hyperbole like you did with your first sentence. May try ... "So you and your playtest buddies fail to pilot one of the most difficult combo decks in the format? A CLEAR scientific evidence that the deck on the other side of the table is GENERALLY "curb-stomping" the matchup!"
Rocklee, you clearly misread that first statement, as it meant exactly what you ended up typing it out to be. I did mean at all, if I could take a single game out of a thousand against delver with TES, then I could beat this deck. Just saying.
If you are both combo decks, the faster, more consistent combo will likely win the first game correct? Do you have a way to outright win the game turn 1/2?
I'll get around to showing you the awesomeness that is trinisphere/chalice + manadenial, preempting your opponent (conceding if they go first and combo turn 1 however).
@Leamner-> thanks for saying it in much fewer words :P
As far as my strange terminology goes, I didn't really mean that you should kill the opponent first. I consider laying down disruptive permanents 'comboing', its a bad habit. My reasoning is that you can 'race' with permanent based disruption that makes it more difficult for the opponent to play spells, but you cannot 'race' with countermagic, if that makes any sense.
This mentality comes from being a maniacal bastard that prefers making opponents concede under locks than actually winning. It's so much more satisfying.
It does. Strange way to put it, but the essence is correct. Sitting behind counterspells without pressure, just to see those dismembered by Duress, C.Therapy, Silence and Xantid Swarm isn't a game-winning strategy, nor is a turn 3 S&T a real gamebreaker against decks which easily make you loose 30+ lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by thefreakaccident
Even if i'm a convinced Post-player, i think storm players are right. Anyway, i went to a 70-man tournament yesterday and ended 5th, winning a savannah. The list is the same of a couple of pages ago, while this is the sb:
4 Flusterstorm
3 Force of Will
2 Swan Song
1 Thragtusk
1 Glen Elendra Archmage
1 Venser, Shaper Savant
1 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
1 Repeal
1 Show and Tell
Ended 1st in swiss with 5-0-2 (i'm not sure if this is the way to write it, won 5 games and made 2 ID), beating UWR miracles, Canadian, Grixis Delver (the list that ended 1st about a month ago in a SCG tournament), UR Delver and Sneak&Show. Lost in top 8 to a some kind of next-level canadian with mishra's factories, standstill, cliques and lavamancer. The deck decided it had worked enough, giving me a single land on the opening hand both games (even after mulligans). All sb cards have been sided in, the MVP have been S&T and repeal. A merit note goes to venser/karakas duo that did high leverage in Sneak&show matchup while bouncing constantly the lands of my opponent and slowly eroding his life total.
I'm still convinced that some permanent-based hate against storm decks is required, but i don't want to play chalice, i think it's not effective enough against ANT while set on 0 not being coupled by fast aggro (and ANT is much more popular here than TES) I was thinking about Sphere of Resistance, but any suggestion is really appreciated.
...one last thing about Elves matchup. How could you say it's a bad matchup? I think i've never lost a single game against them by simply crop rotating into Glacial Chasm while they do not have any answer to it even post-sb.
Challice at one is so much better than chalice at zero, it is not even funny. 0 hits 8 mana sources (granted LED is a huge deal), while 1 shuts them off of all of their cantrips/probes/discard, not to mention rituals.
If you've only been playing chalice at 0, I can see why you think it's bad.
Tbh, a turn 2 Chalice @ 1 can be too slow, especially in game 3. Chalice @ 0 at least locks out the fast Ad Nauseams (TES only. ANT doesn't care much about Chalice @ 0).Quote:
Originally Posted by thefreakaccident
Am I wrong, then, in thinking that Chalices set at 0 and 2 make it very difficult to go off for Storm (non-Belcher), but Chalices at 0 and 1 make it damn-near impossible?Quote:
Originally Posted by thefreakaccident
Oh I agree, you need chalice at one turn one. Banking on turn two chalice @ 1 is some crazy shit.