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

@Izor:

Agree on all except:

with 3 B.W. you have more chances to go PiF Route than with plain ANT if you have D.P. in side because you play 3 B.W. in comparison to 2 D.P. the unique "but" is that is 2 more mana expensive if you cast it in the same combo turn.

That is true, I do of course play a DP in the side and I've never felt like my PiF routes were any weaker than ANT's overall, given that I can also often just BWish for PiF and win with either a Tutor or Tendrils already in my graveyard (or discarded to LED in resp to BW). Generally speaking, if games go long, BWish pretty much just loses all of its disadvantages to black tutors a lot of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

I haven't only taken a look at it, I've cast hundreds of ANs with this list and I honestly fail to see how you can compare its AN win rate to that of ANT.

- a 5th ims is a 25% increase in chances to hit one post AN, and that's a pretty big deal tbh. I've seen TES lists that ran only one Mox, so why does it help those decks bust out better ANs, but not mine?

---

Going from 4 IMS in 60 cards to 5 IMS in 60 cards is a 25% improvement? What kind of math is that? I really hate it if things are taken out of the context of the whole deck or facts like that you don't always have 5 IMS left IN the deck are simply ignored. Its also pretty advantageous, if you opt to not lose a word about your IMS in relation to your average CMC which is a lot higher than in traditional TES lists. Look at the GP Seattle coverage to see how several 2/4 cmc spells influence the AN flips

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

- I play only one extra 4cc spell in comparison to TES, and in contrast to TES I can usually stop if I just hit the Tendrils off of AN while TES has to keep going until they find a way to tutor for Tendrils out of the board.

---

You also play two moxen less. Its plain annoying to discuss such things like "only 1 more 4cmc spell" out of the context of the whole 60.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

- In contrast to that, AN plays 1-2 Dark Petitions plus two 4 mana spells main. How does that compare to my list that plays zero DP and two 4 mana spells main?

---

Most ANT list which opt to run AN do not run DP as the past has shown how bad these cards in fact interact so the ANT players are split between DP+EtW and Preordain+AN these days. I too grew to hate DP in ANT as its clunky, does not interact with LED and is basically a dead card outside the combo. Lets not craft a strawman with AN + 2 DP + PIF + ToA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

- finally, just like TES I don't necessarily have to find LED to win post AN because I have BWish. Having BWishes in your deck increases your win rate post AN by a huge amount, I'm assuming you know that?

---

I asume you know that your winrate with the BW line mainly despends on your ability to produce 3BBR AFTER Ad Nauseam, despite the increased number of high cmc flips and lowered IMS'. Another case of hinting at single cards without an eye on the whole construct

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

Yes, my fast combo is decreased in comparison to TES, but you can't just say it's as slow as ANT. There's a lot in between the two, and that's where my deck is situated.

It's easy to see that my list has way stronger ANs than traditional ANT. For reference, I'm currently considering either Caleb Scherer's list with 2 DP or the common 2 Island, 1 DP variation as the stock ANT lists. All of those play 1 ToA, 1 PiF, 1 AN, just like I do, except I have a Mox over the 15th land and BWishes over durdly Preordains/SDT/DP which massively increases my win % post AN.

---

I don't really care which list you set as your fundament to argue as long as traditional ANT lists do fine T4ing (here or here).

Its comical to call Preordain "durdly" if you opt to run dead MB cards like ToA instead. What Preordain does, but BW or DP cannot to is creating a further density of quality cards instead of running substitutes (BW, DO, GrimT) or additional copies (discard)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

i'm not saying my list is the best, I'm saying it's the one I've liked most. What Storm variant you choose always just depends on how much raw speed you want and what routes to victory you prioritize over others.

---

Its a metagame choice mainly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

In comparison with ANT, my list has a slightly lower chance to PiF loop because I play one less black Tutor. Other than that, my PiF loops are just as powerful as ANT's. My AN route is much stronger than ANT's. My natural Storm/tutor chain route is exactly the same as in ANT, except I may need one extra red mana for it depending on the situation. Plus I have a ETW route which ANT doesn't have at all. Also, my local meta has main deck Teegs and people who are willing to discard+DRS Tendrils whevener given a chance, so having BWish is mandatory to win through these things.

---

Its ridiculous to claim your PIF loop is as strong as ANTs given the less cardselection tools to setup the loop or Cabal Rituals. Teeg is no argument for PIF+ToA in maindeck but running 3 Moxen and MB EtW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

In comparison to TES, my AN is a little weaker due to less Moxen and only 3 BW. Plus my curve is slightly worse due to MD PiF and CR over Rite. But it's by no means as bad as ANT's. My ETW route is also weaker because I need 8 mana to IT for it instead of 6, and my BW into ETW route can be slower because I have less red rituals. However, my natural Storm/tutor chain route is clearly stronger due to 4 CR. And most importantly, I have a reliable and strong maindeck PiF loop that TES lacks.

---

You can not bring DRS & Teeg as arguments to the table and act as if the loss in speed is no matter now. You can't doom Preordain for being durdly, if its a valid tool to fix you mana and feed t.hold for Cabal Rituals which seem to be NOW your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

Overall, I like my lists' win conditions better than those of ANT and TES. It's just my preference, I'm not claiming that my list is better than anything else. I don't rule every other person's opinion out by default and act like I fail to see the advantages other peoples' lists have. There are people who are better than me at doing that.

---

I'm totally fine with preferances and such, but I have my issues with one or the other reasoning for choices. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Going from 4 IMS in 60 cards to 5 IMS in 60 cards is a 25% improvement? What kind of math is that? I really hate it if things are taken out of the context of the whole deck or facts like that you don't always have 5 IMS left IN the deck are simply ignored. Its also pretty advantageous, if you opt to not lose a word about your IMS in relation to your average CMC which is a lot higher than in traditional TES lists. Look at the GP Seattle coverage to see how several 2/4 cmc spells influence the AN flips

---

Yes, it is at least a 25% improvement of my chances to hit an IMS in every single flip while resolving an Ad Nauseam, and that is all that matters in this context. The number goes up for each IMS that has already been used prior to AN. If one has been used, the increase is 33% per flip. Sometimes you have no choice but to go for AN and in most cases IMS are the most important thing you're looking for. Having a 25% increased chance to flip one per card is helpful.

I love the 5th petal so far, but I dislike playing more than 1 Mox in my list, because naturally drawing two is almost always terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

You also play two moxen less. Its plain annoying to discuss such things like "only 1 more 4cmc spell" out of the context of the whole 60.

---

I said exactly that a little later in my post. My avg cmc is higher, not just that one cc4 card. However, oftentimes you barely care about your avg cmc when resolving an AN, but you do care that once you hit 4 life there are cards that kill you. That's why I highlited the extra cc4 and cc5 cards as being the main disadvantage. Those cards matter the most when it comes to having to stop flipping. It is of note that this is exactly why I hate DP with AN. Even though your avg mana may only increase by 0.0X, which seems like it doesn't matter, having just one copy of DP in your deck means you can't freely continue revealing when you're at 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Most ANT list which opt to run AN do not run DP as the past has shown how bad these cards in fact interact so the ANT players are split between DP+EtW and Preordain+AN these days. I too grew to hate DP in ANT as its clunky, does not interact with LED and is basically a dead card outside the combo. Lets not craft a strawman with AN + 2 DP + PIF + ToA

---

The most recent past has shown that the currently most successful Storm player plays maindeck AN and 2 DPs. And the more traditional 2 Island lists have generally adapted to replacing the previously run Grim with 1 DP. So I disagree with you here. DP has made it into a lot of ANT decks and despite the obvious nonbo, it works. I also haven't seen a single list place at a tournament with main deck DP plus ETW, so idk where you got this from. If you have a source, please share it, because I'm interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I asume you know that your winrate with the BW line mainly despends on your ability to produce 3BBR AFTER Ad Nauseam, despite the increased number of high cmc flips and lowered IMS'. Another case of hinting at single cards without an eye on the whole construct

---

Once again you seem to be drawing the comparisons in a way that always makes my list seem worse than the other. Yes, I've admitted about a thousand times that my list is worse at resolving AN than TES. No need to bring this up over and over again. But my list is significantly better at winning through AN than ANT is. We're talking about 1 Mox, 1 Rain of Filth and 3 BWish vs the 15th land, 2 Preordain and 1 DP. All 5 of those cards in my deck are relevant post AN, and all 5 of those cards in ANT are either irrelevant and/or bad flips. I know you see this as well, so idk why you're trying your best to talk around the fact and deny it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Its comical to call Preordain "durdly" if you opt to run dead MB cards like ToA instead. What Preordain does, but BW or DP cannot to is creating a further density of quality cards instead of running substitutes (BW, DO, GrimT) or additional copies (discard)

---

I'll just ignore the fact that you calles ToA a dead maindeck card, because we all know that this is not true. I opt to play MD ToA because I do not want to miss out on the most reliable kill condition a Storm deck can have in Legacy, which is a nice and clean PiF loop that doesn't require more than one red mana total and as little as RB3 floating when tutoring for PiF. ToA is not durdly, in case you were implying that, because it actually lets me kill with PiF way earlier and faster than if I was running something like Bryant's current hybrid list.

I choose not to run additional cantrips because my local meta does have some decks that make any cantrip in my opener beyond the first a dead card, namely Chalice, Thalia and Gaddock Teeg decks. Cantrips are very strong against discard and against blue decks that give you a lot of time before they kill you, but if you're trying to kill early and all you're using your cantrips for is finding that one Ritual or Tutor effect you need for the kill, playing an extra Ritual and an extra Tutor effect over the two worst cantrips makes perfect sense in my eyes. Increasing threat density at the expense of Cantrips is what TES has always been doing, so idk why you have a problem with it. In that regard your denotation of Preordain as 'quality cards' doesn't make sense for me, maybe you could elaborate what you mean with this. I think that DP/BW are business cards and Preordain are merely cantrips that help you sculpt, and that's the durdly aspect I was referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Its ridiculous to claim your PIF loop is as strong as ANTs given the less cardselection tools to setup the loop or Cabal Rituals. Teeg is no argument for PIF+ToA in maindeck but running 3 Moxen and MB EtW.

---

I'm playing 3 Burning Wish main that help me beat Teeg, and I'm playing PiF+ToA main because I consider it the best kill condition. One doesn't really have much to do with the other. And if you're trying to convince me that those 2 Preordains are the reason ANT has a stronger PiF loop than my deck, then I won't buy it. Yes, that one Preordain in the graveyard may help you get Thresh. That one blue mana you spent may also be exactly that one mana you'll end up short of killing them. And yes, that Preordain will help you sculpt your hand perfectly, but cantrips can also miss and there are times when you wish that cantrip had just been another Tutor effect or Ritual, because you may have killed 3 turns earlier if they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

Yes, it is at least a 25% improvement of my chances to hit an IMS in every single flip while resolving an Ad Nauseam, and that is all that matters in this context. The number goes up for each IMS that has already been used prior to AN. If one has been used, the increase is 33% per flip. Sometimes you have no choice but to go for AN and in most cases IMS are the most important thing you're looking for. Having a 25% increased chance to flip one per card is helpful.

---

With all respect, this is math in a nutshell. The relative increase of IMS' in that list (total of 60 cards) is marginal especially as it doesn't outweight the increase of average cmc you flip with that list (thanks to cutting Moxen, and more 2/4cc cards).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

I love the 5th petal so far, but I dislike playing more than 1 Mox in my list, because naturally drawing two is almost always terrible.

---

It's the usual dilemma of TES: you want speed and a lot of IMS', but that bites you in longer games and mulligans. I search for a solution for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

I said exactly that a little later in my post. My avg cmc is higher, not just that one cc4 card. However, oftentimes you barely care about your avg cmc when resolving an AN, but you do care that once you hit 4 life there are cards that kill you. That's why I highlited the extra cc4 and cc5 cards as being the main disadvantage. Those cards matter the most when it comes to having to stop flipping. It is of note that this is exactly why I hate DP with AN. Even though your avg mana may only increase by 0.0X, which seems like it doesn't matter, having just one copy of DP in your deck means you can't freely continue revealing when you're at 5.

---

I feel it's a bit more complicated as "having to stop" implies that you need more components to kill and you have to work around a lack of a certain factor. This is pretty tricky if facing burn, Tempo or other combo decks, where "passing the turn" after a resolved but non-lethal AN pretty much equals a loss. The required IMS' in the deck are tacked to the average number of cards you're able to flip to AN factoring optional mana floated.

With this in mind, the average number of required IMS can be raised/lowered by a) the average cmc of the whole deck and b) the highest cmc left in the deck to flip to AN. This works to two extreme sides in TES as running with several EtWs postboard required me to run more IMS (reads: Moxen) to make up for the increased cmc (topend manacost for AN remained the same obviously), while the other extreme of running w/o a Maindeck 4cc card pretty much voids the need for ANY Chrome Moxen as the topend cmc to flip is no longer 4 mana but 2.

Your list (and probably others which take the direction of TNT) is special as your added 4cc cards (ToA & PIF) have no Synergy with either the Mox(en) nor for good AN flips (baring cornercases of flipping 4 black mana in various combinations plus ToA). You run the Mox(en) for AN only which do not even interact well with Cabal Ritual either, nor does Cabal Ritual work well with BW to grab EtW. For me both traits you try to combine lack the glue which keeps them together as a working unity. This is a personal POV that both concepts don't fit into a single 60 card deck, unless WotC actually prints this "glue" I'm waiting for since years. DP was close, but is not what we were looking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

The most recent past has shown that the currently most successful Storm player plays maindeck AN and 2 DPs. And the more traditional 2 Island lists have generally adapted to replacing the previously run Grim with 1 DP. So I disagree with you here. DP has made it into a lot of ANT decks and despite the obvious nonbo, it works. I also haven't seen a single list place at a tournament with main deck DP plus ETW, so idk where you got this from. If you have a source, please share it, because I'm interested.

---

I could hint at MKM Madrid where you also see a traditional list of ANT in the top 4 beside the netdecked one with AN + DP. If you want to see the later config comically fail at winning with Ad Nauseam look at the Gp Seattle coverage. To be clear: DP does NOT work with AN (Vice versa) and boarding plans showed it. It's a plan C in the deck that ran it. DP + EtW was the non-combo postboard for Caleb and Eric in SCG IQ Kansas. Given they both made T8 it seems to have not been too bad, compared to the AN Stunts we saw in the Seattle coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

Once again you seem to be drawing the comparisons in a way that always makes my list seem worse than the other. Yes, I've admitted about a thousand times that my list is worse at resolving AN than TES. No need to bring this up over and over again. But my list is significantly better at winning through AN than ANT is. We're talking about 1 Mox, 1 Rain of Filth and 3 BWish vs the 15th land, 2 Preordain and 1 DP. All 5 of those cards in my deck are relevant post AN, and all 5 of those cards in ANT are either irrelevant and/or bad flips. I know you see this as well, so idk why you're trying your best to talk around the fact and deny it.

---

I sure wouldn't have started if your Verdict would not have boiled down to "it's better than TES here and better than ANT there" rather than adressing the obvious issues of combining both concepts into a single 60 card deck which the collectible storm HiveMind failed to solve in the last 5+ years because the "glue" which would fit AN + PIF together (conceptionally) isn't printed (yet).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

I'll just ignore the fact that you calles ToA a dead maindeck card, because we all know that this is not true. I opt to play MD ToA because I do not want to miss out on the most reliable kill condition a Storm deck can have in Legacy, which is a nice and clean PiF loop that doesn't require more than one red mana total and as little as RB3 floating when tutoring for PiF. ToA is not durdly, in case you were implying that, because it actually lets me kill with PiF way earlier and faster than if I was running something like Bryant's current hybrid list.

---

The cleanest way is imo a natural 10 count and ToA in hand is lackluster (barely as often as it is to flip to AN) unless you have the remaining spells for a leathal stormcount available as well. It's a lot like drawing a Mox for my personal taste in most cases.

I cannot agree with PIF looping "fast" if you play less cardselection to get access to IT and Rituals while filling your graveyard for CRs t.hold. This is one more of the problematic differences between the storm siblings as TES dös not want to rely on the graveyard, nor wants to cantrip for about two turns before having access to the full potential of manaacceleration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

I choose not to run additional cantrips because my local meta does have some decks that make any cantrip in my opener beyond the first a dead card, namely Chalice, Thalia and Gaddock Teeg decks. Cantrips are very strong against discard and against blue decks that give you a lot of time before they kill you, but if you're trying to kill early and all you're using your cantrips for is finding that one Ritual or Tutor effect you need for the kill, playing an extra Ritual and an extra Tutor effect over the two worst cantrips makes perfect sense in my eyes.

---

While these hatebears and Co are a perfect reason to dismiss the regular ANT plan to cantrip for the first two turns, it raised the question how PIF and the slower Rituals are a better solution than Moxen and EtW in the Maindeck. Unless you have a SB plan to basically board out the whole PIF package to bring in EtWs, the whole package is no solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

Increasing threat density at the expense of Cantrips is what TES has always been doing, so idk why you have a problem with it. In that regard your denotation of Preordain as 'quality cards' doesn't make sense for me, maybe you could elaborate what you mean with this. I think that DP/BW are business cards and Preordain are merely cantrips that help you sculpt, and that's the durdly aspect I was referring to.

---

I have "a problem" with it as Wishes/Moxen do absolutely nothing for CabalRitual/PIF or Vice versa. If you have mana and PIF and topdeck a Wish, it leaves you with barely an out (double red!) but a Preordain feeds your yard and gets you closer to IT without the need to run substitutes like Wish/Grim/Petition/etc. at all and without splashing a full color like Wish requires, so a Preordain serves double duty. Wish is a density option for a fast layout of a storm deck, but Preordain basically does the same (by finding IT) if you need to get t.hold first anyways

A deck with CR does not plan to explode T1 or T2 all the time and if a deck does not, there is no reason to run a density option like Wish (because of colorsplash, limited options, not feeding t. hold, etc). Dunno how to express it differentes . Sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

I'm playing 3 Burning Wish main that help me beat Teeg, and I'm playing PiF+ToA main because I consider it the best kill condition.

---

Trying both in the same deck is the impossible split I mentioned. Trying to reliable Wish for EtW without several Moxen or RiteOfFlame is a pure matter of luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

One doesn't really have much to do with the other. And if you're trying to convince me that those 2 Preordains are the reason ANT has a stronger PiF loop than my deck, then I won't buy it. Yes, that one Preordain in the graveyard may help you get Thresh. That one blue mana you spent may also be exactly that one mana you'll end up short of killing them.

---

The difference between your suggestion and ANT are not +/-2 Preordain as we discussed already. It's what the Preordains do for your virtual density of Rituals/IT, for your t.hold and for your manabase, given you can't fully profit from the potential speed Wish->EtW provides. It's a bit off to point at a single blue mana of being short of killing your opponent if you consider Wish->ToA a common trait to win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

And yes, that Preordain will help you sculpt your hand perfectly, but cantrips can also miss and there are times when you wish that cantrip had just been another Tutor effect or Ritual, because you may have killed 3 turns earlier if they were.

---

Cantripping into cantrips is an annoying possibility in ANT variants with up to 16 cantrips, but not more lackluster than drawing into several Wishes/Moxen in TES. At times cantripping into cantrips is even handy if fighting against DRS while trying to turn on CRs. the discussion of "too many tutors you draw VS not enough Tutors to cantrip into" is endless :)

Thanks for your answer, I understand many of your points better now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

It's the usual dilemma of TES: you want speed and a lot of IMS', but that bites you in longer games and mulligans. I search for a solution for years.

---

Me too, although probably not as long as you. When I first built a Storm deck I immediately turned towards TES because I live the card BWish and I generally love cards that give me options and outs in almost any situation (I'll get back to that preference of mine in a second). However, after testing everything from TES to Grinding station and anything in between I know that I don't want to run more than one Chrome Mox in my decks any more. I've had it happen way too often that I keep a medium hand with a Mox and draw the second mox that turns the hand into total garbage. If you mulligan even just 1 Chrome mox is very bad most of the time. I am fine replacing my 15th land with just a singleton copy though. I'm constantly keeping track of whether a land would have been better when I draw it. Mox isn't only for post AN, it can also just be better than another land in somewhat clunky hands (and by virtue of BWish in my list I can actually imprint PiF or Tendrils into a Mox instead of almost always wanting to Brainstorm them away asap).

@ everything else talked about:

I think we agree that a hybrid list will always have advantages and disadvantages over the specialized lists. If we boil down the game plan of Storm decks into 4 main paths to victory, those would be Ad Nauseam, Past in Flames, Empty the Warrens and natural Storm/tutor chain. Specialized Storm decks try to optimize usually two of those 4. TES prioritizes AN and ETW, but has (in comparison) a very weak PiF and natural storm route. ANT is very good at PiF looping and natural storming, but has severely weakened ANs and no EtW at all.

My list is not as good as the specialists at anything, but in turn it is at least decent at everything. I fully understand if other people don't want to choose that list. But I prefer it over the specialized lists because, as I mentioned above, I like to have options and outs in all situations.

I don't want to play regular ANT because I refuse to scoop to a game 1 Teeg. I also refuse to scoop to a DRS eating my Tendrils. In generel I refuse to struggle very hard to win before I have threshold or if my graveyard is heavily disrupted. Just a turn 1 DRS on the play is a huge problem for ANT. And the deck just has too few ways to reliably beat Thalia and friends game 1, whether it be through racing or actually killing it.

At the same time, I don't want to play Rite of Flame and Chrome Mox any more, because every time you cast them outside of turn 1 or 2, you notice their incredible lack of power. I also don't want to be stranded without a reliable way to win if the game goes on for a few turns and my life total is threatened. I've ran into too many situations where my life total was getting low (below 10) and my opponent had a board that 14 Goblins could never beat. TES is often out of options in that scenario, because their PiF route requires too many resources.. I also don't want to get Wastelanded out of the game more frequently.


If everything goes well and your specialized win cons are not threatened, my deck is worse than ANT and TES, because I may look at my hand not sure what path to choose, because several paths seem equally likely to work. That's the disadvantage I have to live with, but that's fine with me. I can be happy when my opponent spends his first two turns dropping graveyard hate, because I know I have a reliable enough AN or EtW route. I can also be happy if my opponent has 20 unblockalbe Merfolk power on board with me at 1 life as long as I have a quick PiF route that takes the game regardless. Or when they play Burn and get you down to below 10 life on turn 2, etc.

With the list I posted above, I can basically sideboard into any existing Storm variant if I feel the need to. I can take out BWish and board in DP and turn my deck into the standard post board configuration of ANT. I can also board out PiF and Tendrils and board in EtW and play out more like TES. I can even board in the 2nd Tendrils, DP and PiF and take out AN and 3 Wish to play Grinding Station. Once again, I'm not saying that this is the only and best way to go, but I love it and I've been successful so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

Me too, although probably not as long as you. When I first built a Storm deck I immediately turned towards TES because I live the card BWish and I generally love cards that give me options and outs in almost any situation (I'll get back to that preference of mine in a second).

---

TES traditionally sucks in finding solutions with Wish as it's a horrible Tempo move first and requires you to expose duals to Wasteland second. TES is build to be the aggressor in each match. You'll sure understand my point that making bad Tempo-tradeoffs is no way to turn around a match if you need to invest 3+ mana (Wish + "solution") with a manabase of Petals, Moxen and limited lands. ANT might be able to make up for some Tempo losses thanks to the power of CR and stable mana (Basics!), but for TES it's a losing Position. (This I removed Void Snare from my SB)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

However, after testing everything from TES to Grinding station and anything in between I know that I don't want to run more than one Chrome Mox in my decks any more. I've had it happen way too often that I keep a medium hand with a Mox and draw the second mox that turns the hand into total garbage. If you mulligan even just 1 Chrome mox is very bad most of the time. I am fine replacing my 15th land with just a singleton copy though. I'm constantly keeping track of whether a land would have been better when I draw it. Mox isn't only for post AN, it can also just be better than another land in somewhat clunky hands (and by virtue of BWish in my list I can actually imprint PiF or Tendrils into a Mox instead of almost always wanting to Brainstorm them away asap).

---

There is barely a bigger Mox-hater than me in this thread. Every game which exceeds turn 2, Mox is a lackluster card to palm/draw. This lead me to cutting all 4cc cards in the Maindeck for the GP Lille so I get around bothering with the Moxen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

@ everything else talked about:

I think we agree that a hybrid list will always have advantages and disadvantages over the specialized lists. If we boil down the game plan of Storm decks into 4 main paths to victory, those would be Ad Nauseam, Past in Flames, Empty the Warrens and natural Storm/tutor chain. Specialized Storm decks try to optimize usually two of those 4. TES prioritizes AN and ETW, but has (in comparison) a very weak PiF and natural storm route. ANT is very good at PiF looping and natural storming, but has severely weakened ANs and no EtW at all.

---

I don't quite agree with the idea that TES sucks at natural stormchains, given I basically won half my GP games with it. Key to that route however is deciding on that trait early in the game and stocking up resources/cantrips/discard/mana rather than blowing all Probes & Ponders & discard spells in the first two turns as you can't cheat on stormcount by chaining Tutors, but have to do it with cantrips/discard instead, which was how I beat several Delver variants (running DTT) back in summer. It's not quote intuitive for TES to be kinda passive in the early game, but it can pay off against decks which pressure your life, giving another angle in addition to EtW or PIF. (You'll find more details on the TES Website in the actual report if you Wish)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

My list is not as good as the specialists at anything, but in turn it is at least decent at everything. I fully understand if other people don't want to choose that list. But I prefer it over the specialized lists because, as I mentioned above, I like to have options and outs in all situations.

---

Depends on if you don't prefer clearly defined "stumblestones" matchwise instead of encountering problems which are a result of drawing unfortunate combinations of both decks halves. Personally I favor the clear cut cases like seeing Delver on the opposing side to know that "I" HAVE to adjust my gameplan, rather than potentially falling for the idea that MAYBE all is fine IF I draw the PIF half of the deck. It's one of many examples which are "STOP!" signs for the average aggressive approach of TES in a game. I hope you can follow me here. Sorry for any possible confusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

I don't want to play regular ANT because I refuse to scoop to a game 1 Teeg. I also refuse to scoop to a DRS eating my Tendrils. In generel I refuse to struggle very hard to win before I have threshold or if my graveyard is heavily disrupted. Just a turn 1 DRS on the play is a huge problem for ANT. And the deck just has too few ways to reliably beat Thalia and friends game 1, whether it be through racing or actually killing it.

---

Playing around DRS is an ANT 101 lesson imo. From overloading it with chaining cantrips to reacting to DRS with instant speed for t.hold shenanigans to the double IT play for the successful PIF loop, DRS is still a lot less annoying than Thalia or Meddling Mage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

At the same time, I don't want to play Rite of Flame and Chrome Mox any more, because every time you cast them outside of turn 1 or 2, you notice their incredible lack of power. I also don't want to be stranded without a reliable way to win if the game goes on for a few turns and my life total is threatened. I've ran into too many situations where my life total was getting low (below 10) and my opponent had a board that 14 Goblins could never beat. TES is often out of options in that scenario, because their PiF route requires too many resources.. I also don't want to get Wastelanded out of the game more frequently.

---

See the Passage above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

If everything goes well and your specialized win cons are not threatened, my deck is worse than ANT and TES, because I may look at my hand not sure what path to choose, because several paths seem equally likely to work. That's the disadvantage I have to live with, but that's fine with me. I can be happy when my opponent spends his first two turns dropping graveyard hate, because I know I have a reliable enough AN or EtW route. I can also be happy if my opponent has 20 unblockalbe Merfolk power on board with me at 1 life as long as I have a quick PiF route that takes the game regardless. Or when they play Burn and get you down to below 10 life on turn 2, etc.

---

Extension of the written above. TES doesn't leave you stranded with Goblins if life drops low if you acknowledge the possibility to that happening early into the game and adjust your use of Fetchlands/cantrips accordingly. Another common counter to facing decks which damage you fast, is boarding in PIF (and potentially ToA) to turn into TNT with the option to Wish->DP->ToA or Wish->DP->PIF->DP->ToA for these games without messing with TES' mainboard strengh to race Teeg/Thalia/YouNameIt with it's average Standard setup. The decks 75 are interchangeable to turn into TNT postboard anyways (in addition to the previous mentioned natural storm plan by sandbagging cantrips/etc), so I can't quite agree having to have a PIF mainboard plan to maintain a shot at beating very aggressive and fast decktypes like Burn. Labeling TES only being able to win with AN of EtW is off. The deck has a lot more strategic depth if you don't look at PIF as "a Sideboard card" only, just to repeat a single aspect ned to far :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

With the list I posted above, I can basically sideboard into any existing Storm variant if I feel the need to. I can take out BWish and board in DP and turn my deck into the standard post board configuration of ANT. I can also board out PiF and Tendrils and board in EtW and play out more like TES. I can even board in the 2nd Tendrils, DP and PiF and take out AN and 3 Wish to play Grinding Station. Once again, I'm not saying that this is the only and best way to go, but I love it and I've been successful so far.

---

So I ask: Have you given the average TES list the same Chance to "board into any existing storm variant" in your testing & tournaments played? Have you explored the strategic variance of the full 75 by boarding in various numbers of PIF/EtW/ToA/DP/etc. according to the matchup you're facing before deciding you "have to" alter the Maindeck despite the highlighted number of Teegs/Thalia/etc in your metagame?

P.S.: i enjoy the discussion. Greetings from a SPA Ressort is Ustka/Poland

So has anyone else started to consider the impact of Warping Wail on Storm, because between Sneak Attack and Death and Taxes I think it means Xantid Swarm is worthless in the SB and Thoughtseize takes the place of Duress in the MD as boarding out discard is a mistake for game 2 vs aggro.

They basically gave D&T SB, if not MD, Counterspells that they'll likely use considering it tripples as removal and a creature. It may have even greater impact on the meta as a whole, as decks like URx Humans with Cavern of Souls makes Warping Wail a MD/SB card and threatens Miracles with uncounterable creatures and dedicated counters to Terminus, or Stompy and Merfolk decks see a revival and we have to deal with MD Chalice of the Void.

Edit: And Thought Knot is 4x T2 Clique in Stompy decks, yeesh.

This set looks pretty profound for the format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

So has anyone else started to consider the impact of Warping Wail on Storm, because between Sneak Attack and Death and Taxes I think it means Xantid Swarm is worthless in the SB and Thoughtseize takes the place of Duress in the MD as boarding out discard is a mistake for game 2 vs aggro.

They basically gave D&T SB, if not MD, Counterspells that they'll likely use considering it tripples as removal and a creature. It may have even greater impact on the meta as a whole, as decks like URx Humans with Cavern of Souls makes Warping Wail a MD/SB card and threatens Miracles with uncounterable creatures and dedicated counters to Terminus, or Stompy and Merfolk decks see a revival and we have to deal with MD Chalice of the Void.

Edit: And Thought Knot is 4x T2 Clique in Stompy decks, yeesh.

This set looks pretty profound for the format.

---

I don't see either card making an impact. If D&T boards Canonists or Warping wail maked a minor difference for storm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I don't see either card making an impact. If D&T boards Canonists or Warping wail maked a minor difference for storm

---

I think it matters a lot if prison decks can interact on the stack with a card that isnt as one dimentional as Mindbreak Trap, its actually decent removal fwiw, i'd expect it and Thought Knot to see play. Im not saying it is the death of Storm or anything, but multi vector hate is worrysome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final Fortune

I think it matters a lot if prison decks can interact on the stack with a card that isnt as one dimentional as Mindbreak Trap, its actually decent removal fwiw, i'd expect it and Thought Knot to see play. Im not saying it is the death of Storm or anything, but multi vector hate is worrysome.

---

It IS Mindbreak Trap just that our opponents HAVE to keep two mana up AND it is no thread before they have these two mana. For me the card is a lot worse than MBT covering that angle of defense against storm and most decks which are named as potentially interrested in the card have already better tools in Chalice/Thorn/Discard/hatebears/etc. than Warping Wail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

It IS Mindbreak Trap just that our opponents HAVE to keep two mana up AND it is no thread before they have these two mana. For me the card is a lot worse than MBT covering that angle of defense against storm and most decks which are named as potentially interrested in the card have already better tools in Chalice/Thorn/Discard/hatebears/etc. than Warping Wail

---

Ofcourse Mindbreak Trap is better than Warping Wail vs Storm, that would be a relevant statement if anyone actually played Mindbreak Trap, but the point of the matter is Warping Wail is good enough of a removal card in order to also be a Counterspell vs Storm. Yes Chalice, Thorn and Trinisphere are better than Warping Wail vs Storm, however why wouldn't they play those cards in additiona to Warping Wail considering the latter serves as removal, threat (Equipment) and mana ramp which none of the former do? You're more likely to see the cards in conjunction and not in place of one another as the Ancient Tomb/City of Traitors "1 drop," and given the ressurrection of every Stompy thread on the first page of Established Decks I think that's a fair indicator that Warping Wail and Thought Knot are going to have an impact on the format.

New TES mailbox is up: http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-mailbox-6/

@ Bryant

What list do you refer to at the end in the latest TES mailbox?

I got a question, to which i probably know the answer, concerning Burning Wish. Can you bring back a sorcery that was previously exiled with say Deathrite Shaman? Thought i ask it here since this is probably the one deck that knows all ins and outs to Burning Wish interactions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobmans

I got a question, to which i probably know the answer, concerning Burning Wish. Can you bring back a sorcery that was previously exiled with say Deathrite Shaman? Thought i ask it here since this is probably the one deck that knows all ins and outs to Burning Wish interactions.

---

Not anymore. That used to be the case but there was a rules change some years ago changing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobmans

I got a question, to which i probably know the answer, concerning Burning Wish. Can you bring back a sorcery that was previously exiled with say Deathrite Shaman? Thought i ask it here since this is probably the one deck that knows all ins and outs to Burning Wish interactions.

---

WotC changed how the Wishes work a few years ago and Exiled cards cannot be wished for to make it short

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario91234

@ Bryant

What list do you refer to at the end in the latest TES mailbox?

---

It was your list from the Tales of Adventure Satellite event. I mentioned in the group how I think you were onto something interesting, but the list itself needed a lot of work.

Thnx Hopo and Lemnear for the quick answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bryant Cook

It was your list from the Tales of Adventure Satellite event. I mentioned in the group how I think you were onto something interesting, but the list itself needed a lot of work.

---

I figured since i've been working on that list for about 4-5 months. I lately had dark petition as a the md toughtseize, but decided that there was sufficient business already. In traditional TES i was not pleased with any hand that was not fast and would mulligan aggressively hands that were 1 land and 2 blue mana cards as those lose more games than they are worth. I ended up losing in t8 to a pretty bad hex depths deck due to mull to 5 vs t3 marit lage and a t2 gobs on play vs hand full of disruption but he still t4 marit laged.

I commonly side out brainstorms against decks with 2 mana you cant storm cards when i am on the draw. Because i play so much business i feel this is a reasonable approach to those matchups and one that traditional TES did not allow. Sometimes, the best card filtering is the mulligan and that might be were the deck is headed. Having the full 12 rituals and some supplemental chrome mox, spirit guide allows for belcher speed starts. When speed is not important, those cards can come out in exchange for decays, the bayou, contract, etc.

Contract did win me a game against 10 post though in willing to admit it's a pet card.

Im unsure where the deck can go other due to my belief that the deck is optimized for speed g1 as is. There is considerable flexibility with the amout of fast mana and storm cards. I was happy with this flexibility.

Interested to see your take.