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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

@Bryant: I looked over the updated opening post, and I want to ask about a few of the matchups mentioned

Miracles: You mentioned in an earlier post that you sided out a Cabal Therapy when you sided in Tendrils of Agony for Miracles, in the OP it suggests another Ponder can be sided out when making room for a storm card. Is there a particular scenario where you'd want more Ponders versus more Therapies? I think if I'm bringing in Grapeshot, for instance if I see Canonist or Meddling Mage, I would want to side out Therapy because the Grapeshot is more if a removal spell than a business spell (you can natural Tendrils, probably can't natural Grapeshot, lol) and I wouldn't want to have too many cards that just answer/discard things. With Tendrils, I could see it going either way, since Tendrils is another business spell that's resilient to counters and it can be supported by both Therapy and Ponder.

---

I usually side in the Tendrils myself, but I was displaying options. I change my boarding strategies all the time, I don't do always copy/paste for every round. The opening post isn't meant to be an exact instruction guide as much as it is to teach you how cards should and can be used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

Esperblade: I'm curious how well EtW works for you postboard. Since Ad Nauseam is typically so strong against control, does that option feel weaker when you're carrying along 2 cmc 4 storm cards, as well as Abrupt Decay? Also, given the higher likelihood of various sweepers (I've seen all kinds of stuff out of Esperblade), is EtW a go-to play like it would be against Delver decks, or is it just another win-con to help play through Meddling Mage and Surgical Extraction? Against UWR Delver, where Ad Nauseam is less effective and sweepers are less likely (but still possible), this boarding plan seems crystal clear, I'm just wondering how it interacts with Esperblade.

---

They're a slow deck that doesn't apply pressure, Ad Nauseam is still incredibly effective even with those cards in the deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

Burn: Should Burn be treated like DnT style decks, or possibly get it's own reference? Eidolon really changed the way the matchup plays out, and even if EtW is somewhat risky, I'd rather get something down before Eidolon than try for a natural storm chain or something like that after Eidolon. Whats also interesting is that EtW deadens their Eidolon, because once the Burn player is behind on board, Eidolon becomes a liability.

---

This was an oversight, I was updating a lot of pre-existing content and forgot that Burn received a new edition. I'll try to update it soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

Storm: Is there a particular situation where siding in PiF is the optimal choice in the spot EtW occupies? I typically bring in the Infernal Tutor for speed's sake, and if I see Surgical Extraction I opt for Tendrils of Agony instead. I hadn't thought of maining the PiF, and the situations I can think of where it'd be useful would be against TES if they do early pressure with a Goblin all-in and thus you need a win that doesn't use life, or if ANT is on the play and siding Confidants, since you can get hit for damage and then Mind Twisted by Therapies and you can top PiF to bounce back.

Thanks for the updates, I really appreciated all the upkeep you handle for the thread.

---

As mentioned above, I like to switch things up. I've sided in Tendrils and/or PIF in the past, but I'd like to keep Tutor in the side. Otherwise Wish must get PIF/ETW, which can be weak depending on the game state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bryant Cook

I usually side in the Tendrils myself, but I was displaying options. I change my boarding strategies all the time, I don't do always copy/paste for every round. The opening post isn't meant to be an exact instruction guide as much as it is to teach you how cards should and can be used.

---

I understand that what you want to side in/out might change depending on what you notice in the games, with that in mind, my question was about what signals you'd use to differentiate something like that. Siding out the 3rd Ponder versus 4th Cabal Therapy, for instance, seems like a really borderline thing to me. Like, if I were to see 2 V-Cliques and a SCM in their hand/board, or something like Venser, game 1 I might be inclined to board our the Ponder as having the 4th Therapy to go after what would appear to be a higher number of creatures can be really relevant. By contrast, if I were to see in game 1 cards like their own Ponder and techs like Spell Snare, I might put them on a slower more diverse counter composition, and the extra Ponder to help sculpt natural Tendrils would appeal more to me compared to the Therapy that would be struggling against higher densities of cantrips and hard counters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bryant Cook

As mentioned above, I like to switch things up. I've sided in Tendrils and/or PIF in the past, but I'd like to keep Tutor in the side. Otherwise Wish must get PIF/ETW, which can be weak depending on the game state.

---

That's an interesting point about Tutor, especially since it gives you access to whatever Wish-Board card you are maining after board. Like above, I'm curious as to what signals you use to decide whether to bring in Tendrils or PiF. Surgical Extraction postboard would push me towards boarding in Tendrils, but I'd have no way of knowing whether that's coming going into game 2. Does being on the play/draw affect the decision? For example, being on the draw means a natural Tendrils is slightly more achievable. Would the opponent running TES instead of ANT be a signal to board in PiF since discard is technically denser through Wish and Goblins are a possible occurrence?

I'm sorry if this comes off as a lot said about really minor things, but it is very interesting to analyze opponents, and pretty rewarding too, as far piloting TES goes. Since you have the more experienced feel for picking up on these signals, I can't help but be curious about your mindset as to what influences the sideboarding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bryant Cook

I sided out a Ponder and a Mox. Needle shutting down any of those cards dramatically slows down the already glacially slow Shardless decks. A lot of TES's speed creates Goblins, creating time to ensure an Ad Nauseam is worthwhile.

---

I agree with this way of thinking. Let's say you've also seen Savannah and/or Meddling Mage in addition to Null Rod during g2. Would you swap Needles for AD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennotsi

Perhaps a stupid question, but: How often do people you play against name Tendrils of Agony against TES when they play Meddling Mage? I don't think it's the best target for them to name, I would probably name Burning Wish in most games, but how often do people name Tendrils?

---

Doesn't matter to be honest, as you would never gamble on your opponent being an idiot. If you feel you are playing against Meddling Mage in game two/three, board accordingly. I guess I saw ToA named twice over the last two years (more frequent: Dark Ritual and Infernal) and chained it once while hard-killing via AN -> PIF -> Grapeshot the other time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

Siding out the 3rd Ponder versus 4th Cabal Therapy, for instance, seems like a really borderline thing to me. Like, if I were to see 2 V-Cliques and a SCM in their hand/board, or something like Venser, game 1 I might be inclined to board our the Ponder as having the 4th Therapy to go after what would appear to be a higher number of creatures can be really relevant. By contrast, if I were to see in game 1 cards like their own Ponder and techs like Spell Snare, I might put them on a slower more diverse counter composition, and the extra Ponder to help sculpt natural Tendrils would appeal more to me compared to the Therapy that would be struggling against higher densities of cantrips and hard counters.

---

First, why ponder to board out a Therapy instead of a Duress if you argue with Cliques and Co.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deviruchi

I agree with this way of thinking. Let's say you've also seen Savannah and/or Meddling Mage in addition to Null Rod during g2. Would you swap Needles for AD?

---

I would rather use CoV then, instead of gambling on the green mana to cast Decay against a deck running Wasteland


Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

Esperblade: I'm curious how well EtW works for you postboard. Since Ad Nauseam is typically so strong against control, does that option feel weaker when you're carrying along 2 cmc 4 storm cards, as well as Abrupt Decay? Also, given the higher likelihood of various sweepers (I've seen all kinds of stuff out of Esperblade), is EtW a go-to play like it would be against Delver decks, or is it just another win-con to help play through Meddling Mage and Surgical Extraction? Against UWR Delver, where Ad Nauseam is less effective and sweepers are less likely (but still possible), this boarding plan seems crystal clear, I'm just wondering how it interacts with Esperblade.

Quote:

---

EtW works as Esperblade and Esper Deathblade are pretty slow, but features several angles of attack with FoW, Thoughtseize and Meddling Mages postboard and EtW often screws certain gameplans of them, leaving you with the occasional need to disarm Zealous Persecution and the usual Batterskull. I usually don't board in ToA for that matchup personally

---

Burn: Should Burn be treated like DnT style decks, or possibly get it's own reference? Eidolon really changed the way the matchup plays out, and even if EtW is somewhat risky, I'd rather get something down before Eidolon than try for a natural storm chain or something like that after Eidolon. Whats also interesting is that EtW deadens their Eidolon, because once the Burn player is behind on board, Eidolon becomes a liability.

Quote:

---

Burn, D&T, MUD, Dredge ... all the same gameplan

---

---

2x 3sphere decks r1+2? thats absurd. Good run, unfortunate loss to uwr.

I consistently am boarding in grapeshot vs blade and BUG as outs to possible meddling mages or just to kill a delver/deathrite.

Gonna be testing out some infernal contracts this wednesday ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario91234

Gonna be testing out some infernal contracts this wednesday ^_^

---

Don't bother.

But if you do bother, don't forget to swap Rites for Cabal Rituals.
Rites don't help casting Contracts too well.

Two feature matches from over the weekend added to the OP.

Congrats Bryant on a strong finish. At least they're calling it "Ad Nauseam" now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario91234

Gonna be testing out some infernal contracts this wednesday ^_^

---

Bryant tested them afaik (at least as a 1-off in the SB as helooked for a replacement for the Dim.Ret.)

hello, everyone,

I've got a national qualifier competition on this weekend, and the meta here is D&T, BUG delver and burn (w/ eidolons) heavy.

How am I supposed to treat the burn matchup, now that they play 4 eidolons maindeck? Should I return to the empty the warrens plan?

My deck right now is the same as bryant's, but I changed the sideboard (-1 chain of vapor, +1 massacre).

I was thinking about running about adding a reforge the soul and the cabal rituals back to accelerate the gameplan, and be less AN dependant, in order to improve the burn matchup. Or should I just aim for the fast kills? (removing warrens for a infernal tutor)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seilaquem

hello, everyone,

I've got a national qualifier competition on this weekend, and the meta here is D&T, BUG delver and burn (w/ eidolons) heavy.

How am I supposed to treat the burn matchup, now that they play 4 eidolons maindeck? Should I return to the empty the warrens plan?

My deck right now is the same as bryant's, but I changed the sideboard (-1 chain of vapor, +1 massacre).

I was thinking about running about adding a reforge the soul and the cabal rituals back to accelerate the gameplan, and be less AN dependant, in order to improve the burn matchup. Or should I just aim for the fast kills? (removing warrens for a infernal tutor)

---

Against Eidolons you can just play the Chains or Pyroclasm if you like them. However, I would like to test Angel's Grace for shits n giggles against Burn. Angel's Grace into Ad Nauseam seems like fun against that deck (also against Elves' lethal Craterhoof or Ruric Thar). :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seilaquem

hello, everyone,

I've got a national qualifier competition on this weekend, and the meta here is D&T, BUG delver and burn (w/ eidolons) heavy.

How am I supposed to treat the burn matchup, now that they play 4 eidolons maindeck? Should I return to the empty the warrens plan?

My deck right now is the same as bryant's, but I changed the sideboard (-1 chain of vapor, +1 massacre).

I was thinking about running about adding a reforge the soul and the cabal rituals back to accelerate the gameplan, and be less AN dependant, in order to improve the burn matchup. Or should I just aim for the fast kills? (removing warrens for a infernal tutor)

---

Well it hurts the Burn match-up when you cut a Chain of Vapor from the side for a Massacre. Chain is effective in both match-ups where you would use both of those slots where Massacre is really only effective in one. Sideboarding in Chain against burn can be very effective at dealing with Eidelon for the one turn that you need to.

Just change -2 pithing +1 massacre and may be another decay/chain or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Togores

Just change -2 pithing +1 massacre and may be another decay/chain or so.

---

but I have been using the needles very often. in every game i casted it, it was very relevant. specially against delver tempo strategies.

and, eventhough it's not gonna be a lot of people, I know there will be at least 1 RUG and 1 miracles. so the needles are essencial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seilaquem

but I have been using the needles very often. in every game i casted it, it was very relevant. specially against delver tempo strategies.

and, eventhough it's not gonna be a lot of people, I know there will be at least 1 RUG and 1 miracles. so the needles are essencial.

---

What are you naming against Rug, wasteland?

I've played Cheeri0s in MTGO and loved the concept of storm decks. With my collection I can build TES and it looks fun as it can run a MD silence which I like. Is the learning curve on this deck difficult and should I work my way up with Belcher/ANT before trying this one out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

What are you naming against Rug, wasteland?

---

I did 2 things:

when landlight, I name wasteland
also got to name scalding tarn against a UR delver deck, while having 3 lands on hand, when I had one of mine on hand, after fetching for the turn 1.

delaying their mana denial plan is really neat. It works well naming "liliana of the veil" as well.
these were cards i were losing too much to =/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nuke is Good

I've played Cheeri0s in MTGO and loved the concept of storm decks. With my collection I can build TES and it looks fun as it can run a MD silence which I like. Is the learning curve on this deck difficult and should I work my way up with Belcher/ANT before trying this one out?

---

Work through Bryant's practice hands (Cook's Kitchen series?), and read a bunch of the tournament reports on the front page. Goldfish a few times or play against friends. You should be good to go after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nuke is Good

I've played Cheeri0s in MTGO and loved the concept of storm decks. With my collection I can build TES and it looks fun as it can run a MD silence which I like. Is the learning curve on this deck difficult and should I work my way up with Belcher/ANT before trying this one out?

---

We dismissed Silence for several reasons rooted in the current metagame landscape. On learning the deck:

1) you have to figure out which is the right Path to take in certain situations (Natural 10-count/Ad Nauseam/Goblins/PIF) and how to work towards that chosen direction which is a lot different from ANT which has less complex traits. This is crucial to beat critical matchups like D&T or combo mirrors

2) understand that the deck is very redundant and you can burn Wishes/Infernals to get additional gas or protection at will.

3) learn to sequence and maximize cantrips. This deck does not work with the attitute of "Fetchland + cantrip can fix all". If you are auto-casting Probe turn 1 or regulary fetch U.Sea turn 1, you are doing it wrong.

4) as cards like Moxen and RoF have a pretty low power level compared to Cabal Ritual, you cannot afford wasting a single card to bait counters or the like.

One important thing that I think more experienced players do that less experienced players aren't as good at with this deck is what Lem said about figuring out what line to win you will be taking, except that you need to figure it out in time so that you aren't wasting your resources.