Don't turn around... he's hiding right behind you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
Printable View
Don't turn around... he's hiding right behind you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
Yeah I didn't read the previous posts and then noticed there are posts around the Top 8 he made, and noticed how easy the match ups were.... So I'm sorry I really do not have many questions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chikenbok
@Koby
I have the following questions:
1) Will you change to +1 Tendrils in base?, which will be the change if so?
2) How were the 3 Burning wish for you, didn't you prefer 4 instead and -1 Disruption?
3) were you comfortable with 13 lands instead 12?
The other day I made 0-3 DROP loosing to a Joke MUD match up, 1-2 to Canadian (in here I drew in 2 match ups the Grim Tutor and this boy won the tournament) and 1-2 to ANT, he took me the 2 Silences in hand and next he just was quicker than me... Sometimes I just simply win all match ups with TES and sometimes I just loose as a Joke of Destiny... I wanted to make Top 8 with My One Grim Tutor List but this is not going to be possible...
Likely -1 Duress or -1 Fetchland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
No, I felt very comfortable with 3 BWish. I don't ever want to see the 2nd since I'm not using BWish for utility -- all the Sorceries in the sideboard are kill spells.Quote:
2) How were the 3 Burning wish for you, didn't you prefer 4 instead and -1 Disruption?
I was flooded from time to time. It's hard to really gauge whether 13 or 12 is correct. I would board in Karakas against matchups where I needed both Lands as well as bouncing legends (for instance Maverick).Quote:
3) were you comfortable with 13 lands instead 12?
This is just a thought that came to my mind when thinking about the list from the last SCG, by the way gratz Koby, i.e., the idea/list above is neither well-tested nor tuned, but theoretically speaking it make sense. The main idea is why not running a list with 3x Ad Nauseam in the main deck with 0 other cards with CMC greater than 2. IT will respect the usual 3-bomb skeleton we are used to, I know it would mean swap 2 cards with CMC 4 for 2 cards with CMC 5, but I think it would make very little difference when flipping for the win (as I said I' m not completely sure of what I' m saying, I should do the math to confirm). But as the deck main and most powerful engine is Ad Nauseam, and normally once you resolve one the game will be won even if you start at 14-12 life, sometimes 10 can get you there too, I' d like to test the idea of maximizing this spell in the deck. this will imply relying on Burning Wish to win (and here is where the inspiration on the Koby's SCG came from). Of course this is detrimental for those 6 mana Infernal tutor kills (with LED), but the chances to have Land + Rite/Dark (+ Petal/Chorme) + Infernal + LED seem rather quite low (once again, math are needed to confirm), so it seems that having 3 natural bombs (Ad Nauseam) with 4 "semi"-bombs can provide some consitantcy. Moreover, having this high number of Ad Nauseam in the deck give better match up against any discard deck, and this is specially good in a metagame that is evolving into a BUG-infested meta, and other forms of Deathrite Shaman decks (most of them splashing black disruption).
For those interested I leave a potential list below, I tested just twice online, and won both matches (but this of course means exactly nothing).
4 Rite of Flame
4 Dark Ritual
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
2 Silence
2 Orim's Chant (2/2 split is for surgical resiliance, feel free to add 4 of whichever you feel)
4 Duress
4 Ponder
4 Brainstorm
3 Ad Nauseam
4 Infernal Tutor
3 Burning Wish (with this threat density BW should not be needed in multiples anymore, I would keep it to 2 because when you really want it is after resolving Ad Nauseam, but I feel 3 is a good number for keeping the wish-board alive but also to have good chances on flipping it early with Ad Nauseam, some more math are needed to confirm if 2 or 3 is the correct number for a safe Ad Nauseam flip).
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Badlands (this extra land was added because after I wrote all my thoughts down in form of cards there were 50 slots covered and the last one was naturally the place of the 4th BW, but as stated above I think is not needed, in the other hand an extra 0 CMC cost is never bad in a heavily Ad Nauseam centric deck, plust it gives some space against wasteland decks. It had to chooses between badlands, another fetchland or another city of brass. I finally took the badlands option because 5 fetchland for 3 lands may be bad in some games and we don't take any advantage by generating threshold, and the effect of clearing the deck of a single land off fetchland is irrelevant, about this topic I think there is an interesting article around the net for those interested, city of brass was OK but again the deck is Ad Nauseam centric so it seemed that increasing the number of pain lands was antisinergic, finally badlands has always been the land that finally didn't made the cut in T.E.S. but is a mroe than OK land when you are rushing, and not grinding, hence, since the original manabase remained untouched badlands seemd the best option for a 14th land)
4 Gemstone Mine
2 City of Brass
2 Polluted Delta
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Bloodstained Mire
SB: 1 Diminishing Returns
SB: 2 Tendrils of Agony
SB: 1 Empty the Warrens
SB: 3 Chain of Vapor
SB: 1 Meltdown
SB: 1 Pyroclasm
SB: 2 Karakas
SB: 1 Ill-Gotten Gains
SB: 2 Xantid Swarm
SB: 1 Thougthseize
Note that IGG is not really a Wish target, I mean with no win con in the main is even more difficult to take profit from it from a wish, but is, in this iteration, just a B-plan to adopt against fully aggro decks. Just side -2x Ad Nauseam +1x IGG, +1x ToA against those decks and you'll have a pretty regular TES.
Greetings,
Iñaki.-
P.S. if I can find time for it I'll do all the maths needed.
I really don't like this list, but with that aside. I think people really misunderstand the amount of mana that is needed for an Ill-Gotten Gains kill with Burning Wish, Infernal Tutor, and Lion's Eye Diamonds. It's exactly the same, after resolving Infernal Tutor finding a second copy of Lion's Eye Diamond into Burning Wish. Ill-Gotten Gains with two mana floating is a guaranteed kill, play the LED's, Infernal, Wish, and Tendrils. It's just as easy as it was before.
Granted, it's slightly tougher with Dark Ritual. Although at this point, that player should probably start to consider Past in Flames anyway.
Only played some casual games. There is a player I see at the LGS often, but I've never played against him. He approached me to play legacy. After his turn one with a wild growth, he was playing enchantress. So I was durdling to see what was in his deck, then he played a confinement. I scooped as he also has out Wheel of Sun and Moon and I didn't want to play it out. Again, casual.
The next two games I went off turn one with an Ad N. with no mana floating. The next game was just a stacked hand with me drawing a probe. He didn't want to play another set and left.
Don't want to play any "under the radar" decks for Denver, so I'm taking TES. Lets just hope my next shipment gets here in time so I have a mostly pimped deck.
Did some runs with Iñaki's twist on T.E.S.
Here's where I'm at:
12 Land
4 Gemstone Mine
2 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Misty Rainforest
1 Flooded Strand
48 Spells
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion’s Eye Diamond
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Silence
4 Duress
3 Chrome Mox
3 Ad Nauseam
2 Burning Wish
15 Sideboard
3 Chain of Vapor
2 Xantid Swarm
2 Karakas
2 Abrupt Decay
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Past in Flames
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Empty the Warrens
2 Tendrils of Agony
Opening with Ad Nauseam in nearly every hand is pretty bad ass.
@egosum
If it matter at all, I never fizzled with Ad Nauseum - going so far as to claim "let's count by twos" to my opponents and they always scooped before I had to demonstrate the kill. I often stopped at 8 cards once I found the tutor kill with LED or BWish.
Cutting the fourth Burning Wish to allow for a maindeck Tendrils and maindeck Empty the Warrens (with the slightly coinciding philosophy of relying more on cards to board in to deal with perms) seems like a very real option right now; TES continues to be stretched every which way with regards to strategies that trump it, and must react accordingly. I'd like to still run four, but I'm hesitant to cut anything else (although going down to eleven lands could certainly be a possibility, possibly utilizing the manabase Final Fortune suggested that ups the amount of gold lands), and it is true that seeing one copy is probably generally better than seeing two copies per game. This change will not only increase the win percentage versus Tempo Thresh post turn two/three due to making PiF cost less/making the Probe-fueled raw dog option available and allow corner-case Ad Naus to stay in postboard, but allow IGG an easy slot to fill in in the sideboard (it replaces the second copy of ToA that was boarded in versus LED combo/FoW combo/UW/Thresh/Extirpate).
Binned the 3 Ad Nauseam list. Currently playing a list with 4 Infernal Tutor, 1 Ad Nauseam and 1 Burning Wish. Also playing 2 Mox Opal. (No main deck kill spells.)
Only targets for BW are currently kill spells and storm engines. Rest of the board includes instants and/or other cards that are sided in vs. hate.
Common play with extra wishes in hand is to grab a Duress-effect or something similar and durdle around.
Still testing, but results look promising.
I'm usually more diplomatic than this - but Mox Opal seems, quite simply, horrible. It doesn't matter what way I look at it, it just doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaNDoMxGeSTuReS
I can't recommend only 1 Burning Wish either. It's important to be able to find a tutor when you need it; only running 5 decreases the odds of this considerably.
I wouldn't personally run the list with 3 Ad Nauseam, but I can appreciate the logic behind the concept. Increasing the chance of having Ad Nauseam in the opening hand is a valid argument. What made you drop it?
Storm Hands II
This week's article.
Mostly I was bored and wanted to switch things up.Quote:
Originally Posted by vercadium
There seems to be a lot of decklist changing in this thread, when Bryant and Koby both demonstrate great results with their builds. Why all the tinkering? Why not just playtest their builds more and sideboard according to your meta?
All the adjustments to proven, efficient decklists seems like a waste of time to me.
Then take your own advice and play the OP list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyqo
I throughly enjoyed this article. Better than the last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
I appreciated all the good and creative uses of the more controversial cards: Probe, Iggy, PiF, and Returns. Particularly liked the use of Diminishing Returns; it is not just an 'Oh Shit Button'!
Part of the last few pages of discussion is in fact centered on Kirby's unconventional list which I piloted. The central question to the changes: "can this deck play with no maindeck win conditions and streamline the Ad Nauseam flips?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyqo
If the deck lists were to go to no maindeck win conditions in order to streamline I would definitely be playing four Burning Wish. Anything less than that is a mistake in my eyes. At that point there's too much value placed on Wish in order for it to be anything less than four. Now I'm a huge advocate of Empty the Warrens for the time being, so I'll continue to keep it on my maindeck. However, if I was to cut it, I'd probably replace it for a land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koby
I think the lists and ideas that are being thrown out there at this point are a bit unrealistic in their expectations. I wouldn't advise three Ad Nauseam or Mox Opal, pretty much ever. Being able to stop at four on Ad Nauseam against stopping at Five is huge, it's about three cards! I also believe that the chances of killing yourself are much higher with two additional Ad Nauseam in the deck compared to my current list. They've gone beyond streamlining to the point where they're just narrow effectively shutting off the benefits of Burning Wish by narrowing it down to two copies
I need to get back to work and posting on my phone is obnoxious, but I see these new lists/ideas as steps in the wrong direction. They're being thrown out there for the sake of being something different or "cool" and not functionally equivalent.
While I don't agree with the changes (namely three ad naus, mox opals, or cutting burning wishes) this statement is just asinine. Why do people tinker? To make decks the best they can be. How did the current decks get to the status that they are? By tinkering. If you're not experimenting and striving to improve, you're a damn sheep and will be ripped apart by the wolves. This doesn't mean you should bring experimental lists to tournaments and expect to do well based on theory. Play what's comfortable, but don't ever proclaim a list "perfect" and leave it to wither and die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyqo
I don't understand the desire to play without Empty the Warrens MD, it's a business spell in hand and a situational win condition in and of itself that gives the deck the ability to go off an entire turn sooner ... what's not to like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koby
If we're on the subject of oddball deck changes tho', has anybody tried adding Simian Spirit Guides back into the deck? I've been tinkering with reducing the Chrome Mox slots as far as possible and off setting them with SGS and man does having a red lotus petal instead of a resource intensive card like Chrome Mox make a huge difference on how quickly you can go off. I know the card kind of sucks as far as Ad Nauseam flips go, but it makes a pretty big difference on how reliably you can win on turn 2.
That exactly thing I've been thinking exactly this past weekend and also the same reason...Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Pros:
- We play rite of Flame
- Is not as bad as C.Mox
- Is instant speed
- Forgot! You now have +1 Win Con.
Cons:
- 1 or 2 cards of 3 cost vs 1 or 2 cards of 0 cost. We will need to evaluate this, but I don't think this will affect too much... Need opinions in here
Also resuming about Empty and Tendrils Base, I think it is meta dependant and based on sinergy cards on the build, I don't think Empty Base worths but this is a Personal Choice, I prefer simply to play Tendrils Base, Examples: a) its is supposed to get better A.N, b) you can go long game vs Control Based if drawing Same opinions as Emidlins in here, etc, etc. I recognize Gitaxian gets better Empty, but I don't play Gitaxian, also.
So based on my latest build of Non Gitaxian List.
- I'm thinking on the Disruption approach and 3 Silence 2 Orims 3 Duress seems to me perfect to handle Canadian because of +1 Chant Effect and Letting The duress in side however 4 duress 4 silence as Kobys List seems interesting but I have no B.Wish disruption target good enough as Duress.
- The mana Base is 13 lands 7 of them Gold Lands, and can be 2 C.Moxen 2 Simian Spirit Guide. or 3 Moxen 1 Simian Spirit Guide -Need to agree on this with you boys.
- The Slot I Hate is the 1 Personal Tutor OR 1 Totally Discarded Grim Totor OR 2# A.N. OR Changing parity beetween -1Diruption = +2 Gitaxian -Discarded also OR as from now on +1 Preordain
Here it goes:
4 Gemstone Mine
3 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
2 Scalding Tarn
1 Misty Rainforest
3 Chrome Mox
1 Simian Spirit Guide
OR
2 Chrome Mox
2 Simian Spirit Guide
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
3 Silence
2 Orims Chant
3 Duress
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Ad Nauseam
1 Preordain (I hate this slot...)
The Side:
1 Duress
3 Karakas (Great Card I almos always Side In -1 C.Mox +1 Of this if I do not expect Opposite Karakas AND it is a Slow Match Up)
3 Abrupt Decay
1 Empty the Warrens - Thinking in swithcing to 2 as vs MUD I felt I lost significatly when swithch to A.D. instead of E.T. Maybe -1 Karakas I'll see need opinion in here, I think it is the ritgh move.
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Grapeshot
1 Revoke Existence
1 Past in Flames
1 Diminishing Returns
2 Xantid Swarn (In my meta there is S&T, and this is the best cards vs them. Apart In mirror and In Merfolk and In Reanimator and In Surprising With No Removal Scenarios this cards is Simply Great)
I agree, in DD Builds you can opt to not to play Main Win Con but these are decks that their only draw back is that you loose only some piles while the Usual Piles are still strong and mana efficent, For TES I think having Tendrils Main reduce the chance of Not Winning Post A.N as equal to Empty Main , but the position when you draw until 13 or 15 is irrelevant as you have 8 ways to kill with Tendrils regardless having them or not, and the Draw back is that for these 50Percent -4 you need extra 2 mana, as opposite to 9 (4 B.W , 4 I.T , 1 Tendrils Base).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
I can agree that if siwthcing to Gitaxian Build I'd make also these change +1 Land, however as previous post now I'm considering in adding Simian Spirit Guide to reduce those C.Moxen.
No More than 2 A.N, I personally Will play 1 Until There is a better Draw Engine than A.N.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
No Opal, I tryed Builds with this playing Senseis, Even Artifact Lands and simply doen's adapt to TES.
Burning Wish Is the Card that defines TES in my Opinion, even this card , I won't say it is better than I.T. but Again, defines the Concept of TES. Please no less than 4.
I agree apart from Non Gitaxian Or Empty/Tendrils Main.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
I just love how in every post you reiterate, "Oh, you play probe. I don't. Maybe I'll play probe? Nevermind."Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
And how you keep adding bad cards instead of Probe.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaNDoMxGeSTuReS
I, J, and Ks can re-iterate in a While Loop, unless I, J and Ks are equal to 1 in that case the I, J and Ks will only iterate, I don't see myself as a I, J and Ks iterating or re-iterating in a While Loop.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaNDoMxGeSTuReS
I hope this helps!
@Bahamut:
I don't see Gitaxian > Preordain At Least In TES Build. I recognize Grim Tutor was an Error.
Preordain doesn't reveal your opponent's hand. Seems bad.
I play only 1 Preordain in that hatable Slot so this is not much relevant, apart and going on the discussion:Quote:
Originally Posted by RaNDoMxGeSTuReS
Preordain
- serves as 8th Suffle Effect to make Brainstorm Better
- It is better at Deepening into the deck
- Doesn't make you to loose 2 lifes
- I don't need to see hands to win with TES
If you find a better slot for that single Preordain I'd like to know,
I can see the list for Gitaxian as:
4 Gemstone Mine
3 City of Brass
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Scalding Tarn
1 Misty Rainforest
1 Flooded Strand
3 Chrome Mox - Maybe -1 = +1 SSG.
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 Ad Nauseam
So as Bryant Post List For reference Except - 1 Win Con Main = +1 Gold Land.
But As said, applying the parity Concept I prefer, as opposite as Bryant Post List For reference :
a) -1 Empty = +1 Tendrils Main
b) -1 Gitaxian = + 1 Disruption
c) -1 Gitaxian = + 13th Land
d) -1 Gitaxian = + 4th C. Moxen - The idea in here is to test SSG as, yes its cost 3 but it is much better than C.M. as a 1 or 2 Of, Again For me Exploting A.N. is the important thing. so keeping 8 Free Mana Efffects is important for me also.
e) -1 Gitaxian = +1 Preordain.
Don't play SSG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
Don't quote fifty lines of text to add one.
I can't take these Simian Spirit Guides and stuff seriously.
I like the list Koby played -1 Duress +1 Tendrils or Empty the Warrens. Not sure about whether I'd want a different bounce split; depends on how likely you think you are to play against Chalices.
Recently started picking up cards for the deck on MTGO. Soon I'll be able to beg people to lend me LEDs so I can sit in DEs that don't fire!
Drew Levin tweeted about playing "5c Storm" in the SCG Invitational. Is his list available?
He is playing Bryants list but Tendrils instead of EtW. 12 land, 3 Duress, 4 Bwish, sb infinite sorceries no Chain of Vapor.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefringthing
Took first place at Jupiter with the list from the opening post.
Read all of the suggestions from the last day or so on my phone... /facepalm
Edit: Ning top 8'd with TES too.
Just T4ed a GPT with TES after months of non-play.
The deck is fucking savage, as I ripped through a room filled with RUG. Empty MD will never be questioned again by me. That card is the fucking nut sauce, and gives the deck a way to win at low life without Ad Naus. I'll write a tourney report soon.
Nice results for the deck. Next report should be interesting. I was watching a little bit of Jupiter twitch and TES was strong in action. That game vs Eli :D He may be switching to FoW deck again ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Long-time ANT player, took TES to a small local tournament for the first time today, got 2nd. Punted away g3 to not playing out LEDs against that Goblin Bombardment zombie deck when he played 5 disruption spells in the first 4 turns. Sweet deck, seems like to flows much better than ANT nowadays.
Bryant, why do you play 4 Gemstone Mine instead of like a 3-3 split with City of Brass? I had some issues with it as my only mana source in my opener and it going away against control decks. Also, I'm surprised there's no Badlands. Otherwise the list seems tight. Loved the Diminishing Returns!
There's an issue with this thread being selectively critical, if a player wants to play the 9th cantrip or split acceleration into 2xChrome Mox and 1xSimian Spirit Guide it's not going to have any where near the same impact as cutting Burning Wish(es) from the deck or playing 3 Ad Nauseams, 2 additional 5c spells, and playing with no win conditions MD. I realize Pelikunado is kind of annoying, but I don't see where you guys can get away with suggesting massive structural changes to the deck and then chastize other players for making small structural changes to the deck for the purposes of decreasing the odds of double Chrome Mox hands/draws or increasing the odds of opening with a cantrip or chaining cantrips and not come off as complete hypocrites.
I mean seriously, you guys are cutting win conditions, cutting kill conditions, adding 2 Ad Nauseams to the deck and then just scoffing at 2xChrome Mox and 1xSimian Spirit Guide configurations or an extra 1x Pre-Ordian without any actual counter arguments?
As far as not running Gitaxian Probe for 4 more cards, it's not like TES without Gitaxian Probe isn't viable, and I could definitely follow the logic if somebody wanted to make a more stable TES deck that wasn't running the absolute bare number of lands. I definitely like Gitaxian Probe myself, but there may be some underlying problems with the deck's ability to consistently reveal a land off a Brainstorm or Pre-Ordain with only 12 lands compared to 14 or the ability to open a land off a mulligan to 6 that could need to be addressed. There needs to be less ego based bull shitting and more math done in a few areas of the deck.
All I'm criticizing is that he's not running Gitaxian Probes. There is in my mind absolutely no reason not to run Probe. I don't even know what you mean with 'TES without Probe is viable'. You can probably say Solidarity is viable, or pre Ad Nauseam TES is viable. I'm sure you can win game with it. It's just worse than other decks. Additionally, I think it's easy to see that Simian Spirit Guide is just not a good card at all. I have had the same list for a long time now, and I still think it's the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
You say you think math should be done. The truth is that there's next to no math possible in MtG. The only thing you can realistically do is calculate probabilities of drawing combinations of cards, and that's not going to get you anywhere, since the only possible conclusion would be 'if I add more of these cards, I'll draw them more often'.
So a card that produces an on color mana without the cost of imprinting a card is "easy to see that it's not good" despite being played in the deck before both pre and post Ad Nauseam from 4 to 2 copies and mathematics doesn't apply to a deck of 60 cards beyond basic probability? This translates into you making arbitrary judgement calls regarding card choices and having no understanding of applied math, which is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about in this thread. It's all ego and no substance based on speculation instead of mathematics or design objectives, even if it's something as simple as the utility of reducing the odds that you draw a second Chrome Mox compared to bolting yourself with Ad Nauseam flips, you just give a one liner without any substance instead of providing any arguments that contain an ounce of actual merrit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamuth
There are definitely reasons not to run Probe, the "Street Wraith" effect being one of them, but the overall land count despite the deck thinning effect is a bit unreliable if you want to be able to mulligan and open up with a land without having to accept the variance from Probe. And honestly if that is an issue, what other card would you cut before Probe in order to increase the land count? Burning Wish? Please.
The fact that others used to run SSG is no argument at all. I don't know why you would be wanting to take 3 damage for a card that probably has less value after resolving Ad Nauseam. The fact that it doesn't count for storm is a huge deal too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Oh please, go ahead and lecture me on math. You can't mathematically determine if running a SSG over a Chrome Mox is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
You just confirmed my statement. You can use math to calculate the odds of seeing 2 Chrome Mox and the odds of Bolting yourself with Ad Nauseam flips. Now what? You're going to make the same arbitrary call on what odds you like better? On what authority are you stating that a certain combination of odds is better for the deck then another? There's no way to tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Yes, I am aware of the fact that running Probe has this extremely obvious consequence. You know, there's reasons not to run LED too actually. Yeah, if you draw LED + Ad Nauseam, the LED is pretty often pretty much dead. Also, you have to discard your hand when you sac it. That's really bad you know. The fact that there are reasons not to run a card is by no means an argument not to run it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
And yes, I would cut Wish down to 2 before cutting the 4th Probe. The value of seeing my opponents hand is way too high to cut it.
Fuck it, I can't take some one who just advocated cutting two of their win conditions before cutting a free Peek seriously after going on a tirade about how math should and should not be applied to this deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamuth
Yeah, I can't "prove" SSG is better than Chrome Mox based on a mathematical argument, however I can calculate the increase in the average amount of life lost while flipping after an Ad Nauseam and I can calculate the decrease in the average amount of times I draw 2xChrome Mox and make a value judgement based on an actual metric as opposed to saying such brilliant one liners as "cards that produce on color mana for free in Storm are clearly bad" or "seeing my opponent's hand is more important than drawing the cards that can actually win the game in a timely manner" based on nothing at all but a biased opinion. Go ahead, cut 2 Burning Wish from the deck and then wonder why your turn 1 and 2 win percentages plummet, math is totally overrated right?
Edit: Obviously SSG is worse after an Ad Nauseam, it's also significantly better than Chrome Mox before it.
I'm not advocating cutting Wish down to 2. Don't put words in my mouth. I run 3 Wish 4 Probe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
You know what, I think I'll go do this for you to show you there's no point. Give me some time. The amount of Chrome Mox you see is pretty easy, but getting to a quantification of how bad a SSG is may be a bit more difficult. I think it's probably easier to simulate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
No one here is saying things that are not biased opinions. Your opinion is that math can tell you what the best configuration is. I also never said any of these things. I can go ahead and exaggerate what you're saying too if you like. 'We should go ahead and base everything on math, instead of actually relying on playing the deck'. Yeah, that's not what you said either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
I think I value math more than you do. I use math on a daily basis in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
It is definitely not significantly better, because not producing storm is a huge deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune