Try it out for yourself. Come to a decision on your own.
Printable View
Try it out for yourself. Come to a decision on your own.
bryant's a dick
I use the second configuration. I don't love mox under the best of circumstances, so the 4th one is one of the first things I'm liable to cut.
There's nothing wrong with letting people figure out things for themselves. Its better to learn from experience than from what others say.Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaunder
First congrat to Bryant to have built this deck. I found it extremly interesting to play (sometime it gives headaches, but i'd always prefer to get headaches than headrest), and results I obtained were pretty good in average.
I'm running the page 1 list updated, and I am pretty satisfied with it as match after match, I'm feeling how tested & worked is each card choice. That said,and sorry in advance if already debated anywhere along the full thread : I often feel the deck is missing IGG md. Sure wish into IGG works well, but sometimes, if the only relevant decision is to play an IGG loop, to get 1R+2BB is a bit expansive although I could combo off faster if I could find it MD.
Is(are) there reasons not to play x1 IGG md ? It seems not good with ANT, often not a really good draw, but it just win some games faster in my experience with tutor/LED. Enlight me please or redirect me on the good part of the thread if it was already discussed.
95% of the time you draw IGG it's a dead card in your hand. By not having it mainboard you just need to have an extra Burning Wish/Infernal Tutor in your hand/graveyard when you IGG loop, or you need to pay 1B more for the loop (hellbent IT into Wish) so it's not really a lot more difficult to pull off. You can always board it in against aggro in game 2/3, but it's nice to have the maindeck clean of the more situational cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOurs
I highly agree. Also this thread is becoming too much an "ask Bryant" thread. Props to him. He's done a great job at creating and developing TES but don't expect him to be your mother and also remember that there are other experienced TES players aswell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
I guessed this answer and that seems pretty logical so I would agree with you. To be a bit more accurate, I observed that IGG md was more useful vs fast-clock deck or hard-discard decks. Otherwise, to get it by tutor and/or wish is already working well. I should try to board 1 more IGG which I could sb in only vs these decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikoo
I cut Ill Gotten Gains a while ago because I never used it anymore. I hated drawing it and even more importantly I hated revealing it off Ad Nauseam. I replaced it with warrens because I'm rarely upset to draw it and it massacres our worse matchups.
Jon barber - quit trolling my thread. It's getting old.
Thank you for your reply. I will train more without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Train? Are you running a marathon or playing a fucking card game?
sorry but as you probably saw it, english is not my native langage and maybe "train" was not the good word. Let's say playtest in a competitive view if it's better.Quote:
Originally Posted by lebron jim
Ignore that idiot. Your english is fine. I think the word you intended was "practice".Quote:
Originally Posted by LOurs
You're right. Reinventing the wheel is useful in this context, because this wheel is madly f*cking hard to use properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Bryant (and everyone else), I haven't been super fond of ETW, whenever I use it I feel like I'm whipping my ballsack out on the table and hoping that my opponent doesn't have something sharp or heavy hidden somewhere. Have I just been running into an unusual number of decks with EE and firespout, or does anyone else feel like ETW makes you awfully vulnerable if you can't chantwalk it after? It's probably worth the slot for the merfolk matchup alone, but it feels sup-optimal. I know there are lists out there running 2x AdN in place of your MB ETW. The percentage of drawing it over drawing the 1-of or a tutor is too small to warrant the slot, is that the main reason you don't run it?
I already have created the wheel, showed the people of bedrock how to use it, and left them the wheel. All that's left if for people is to use the wheel themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaunder
I play against a large number of blue decks. Empty the Warrens is great here. If you go all in and they Daze/Spell Pierce/Curse Catcher, guess what's there to break your fall? Empty the Warrens. You're low on life and don't think Ad Nauseam will get you there? Guess what? Empty the Warrens. Have a move that you want to bust? Empty the Warrens. See the big picture?
Diversity is important in a combo deck. This message is so important I'm breaking it down into it's own line.
Sure. Sometimes ETW gets stopped. More than likely they're lower than 10, now all that's left is to rebuild and mini-Tendrils or Grapeshot. Empty the Warrens also let's you stop at 4 as opposed to 5 on Ad Nauseam. That matters some times.
The best way I've found to learn to play combo is to build an understanding of it from the ground up by making your own deck, knowing that it'll eventually get tweaked to look like the optimal lists. It shows you not only the right plays and strategies, but why to make them and why the good lists run what they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
/tl;dr: I wasn't being sarcastic. I agree.
Good points on ETW.
For what it is worth, I would consider boarding a land out from my build against any non-Wasteland deck where you don't need the super long game (ie. CB-top, NOT Merfolk or Landstill). Chrome Mox is the worst land in Bryant's build.Quote:
Originally Posted by OurSerratedDust
Thats really the best way to do things. Bryant's list is definitely a good starting point, but if you look at the history, the decks undergone a lot of changes. I highly doubt the current build will stay that way forever. Not to mention, the build should reflect your play style. If you find you don't like doing things like ETW, don't play it. It doesn't mean the deck will no longer work. Lebron Jim just top 8'd vestal with a x2 Ad Nauseam list. Play the deck, experiment, and figure out what you like. The deck's flexible. Use Bryant's knowledge as a starting point, and then personalize it from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaunder
That said, I card-for-carded Bryant's GP T8 list tonight (except I used Silence instead of Chant), and the deck is off the chain. I beat Merfolk, Bant, and GW survival without dropping a game, and at one point I won through Daze, Spell Pierce, Cursecatcher, FOW. ETW was essential a lot of the time, as getting to 6 mana for Ad Nauseum+Daze protection can be a trial.
Agreed. I do understand that trying to build a storm deck from scratch, really working at it and still arriving at something close to the "top" lists several weeks later seems like a waste, but it is the best way to get a feeling for what you need, when and why (and also makes you more open minded to find interactions and outs you may otherwise not be aware of). It also teaches you a LOT about matchups and your meta, which is much needed knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaunder
I have come to the (temporary) conclusion that I personally - considering my style, my (lack of) skills and my meta - really like 4 Chrome Mox, BW and ETW in my decks; but that 4c-variants have a much to vulnerable manabase for me. To arrive at this conclusion I have tried out UB, UBw, UBR, 4c, 5c, with and without Doomsday, iGGy-variants, 2 AdN no IGG, etc. Now I know what kind of speed I need, how my manabase should look, which wincons I prefer and what consistency I expect.
Combo decks need to be adjusted to your personal playing style, even more so than most other decks I believe, so while I do think that there is nothing wrong with asking for tips and hints, to make something out of another person's knowledge you must have the ability to apply their knowledge to yours to validate whether something is right or wrong for you.