Read these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax-
http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-matc...les-4c-control
http://theepicstorm.com/tes-matchup-...eovold-sultai/
Printable View
Read these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax-
http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-matc...les-4c-control
http://theepicstorm.com/tes-matchup-...eovold-sultai/
You could replace some lands with SSG perhaps, can't GQ that. Go full ape.
I started playing with Diminishing Returns awhile ago just to be able to play out Lion's Eye Diamond and Burning Wish off the top for 7, vs discard heavy control it's a pretty good option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Ya know, back when this deck was three-and-a-half-and-a-half colors, between Decays and Silence, one of the neat features of Gemstone Mine was that you could "bait" a Wasteland and have a functional means of juggling a turn 1 cantrip with whatever your business spells would lead into. Also, I think an early Wasteland, that delays Thalias/Hymns/Pyromancers, is probably easier to recover by laying more lands than a Wasteland that hinders you after the opponent has developed any of those other cards. It created this neat sort of head-game where the opponent was forced to let you have your dual or push the threats back a turn, both of which are really scary with this deck boasting such a fast fundamental turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
That said, I think Gemstone Mine itself probably isn't needed. Instead of the highlander manabase of 2 basics and 3 different duals, though, you could do something like basic Swamp + 2 Volcanic Island + 3 Underground Sea (maybe 2:1 split with Badlands? I don't find Badlands very appealing), and then a basic Island in the sideboard. You can aggressively fetch duals, as you have redundancy in your configuration, as opposed to having to wait on fetches, and then bring in the second dual for those (often slower) post-board games.
Especially given the EE7 changes mentioned on the TES site, which take a more "bias for action" type of approach, I think this could be an effective way to maintain the edge over opponents. Especially as a Basic Island has that classic problem of contributing little to turn 2 kills you might be aiming for. I have some more thoughts on the EE7 deck changes, it was a good read, but, I'm really curious on how the manabase for this deck has developed.
Were Silence and Abrupt Decay ever in the same decklist?
@Lem and co and sure - to whom may interest....:
just out of curiosity as looked at EE7 super changes... (the more time elapses the funnier it seems to me...) :
are you back to the idea from 2012 - 3B.W. full EtW again? cause: Mr B. now decided is good, rigth? joke.
finally no Defense grid? - you lem seemed to convice them that D.G. is not good vs discard, great!
Good card Perilous! - not sure if worth the space but I'll test it!
I am also evaluating to take out SE... no much reanimator shows these days...
I've been thinking in adding a 2nd Tendrils just to side it in vs Super Control as by here everybody seems to be quite conscient on EtW... so maybe out 2 SE and in 2nd Tendrils +1 IoK... but dont know.... I've been changing my manabase from 4Gemstone to 3!!!! but forgot to put in the card i needed when went to the torunament.... I am more focused on reducing my gemstones to 3 without hurting my manabase... it is difficult I swear... now it is on 5 fetches 3gemstones 4 duals!!! a great advance!
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Mind rephrasing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
In general, you can be assured that most of the decklist changes & reasonings you read in the article are results of the TES Think Tanks discussion, evaluation and testing over weeks.
Defense Grid was never going to last, if we cut Silence in order to deal with an angle of attack other than counter spells then a more expensive, less effective version of it doesn't pass muster. I don't think it ever worked, just because Stifle would target your fetch lands anyway and Leovold, Emissary of Trest had 3 mana for Force of Will always so it was only good vs Flusterstorm.
Cutting Massacre and Meltdown is fine, but I don't see a reason to play Chain of Vapour over the sorcery bounce spell since one 1cc card makes only a small difference vs Sphere of Resistance but is completely useless vs Chalice of the Void. I think the new bounce spell will probably replace Echoing Truth as double Chalice of the Void is a marginal concern where Scry 2 is generically useful for stalling and digging when cold decked.
I've resigned myself to 6 discard, but I'd sooner cut Infernal Tutor than Burning Wish so I could have a SB business card to bring in later. To me it doesn't make much sense to cut a Burning Wish but SB 3 Empty the Warrens because threat density is more important than disruption density vs discard heavy meta games since you can't always remove their discard before they can target you with it so it's better to rebuild faster. I really think you are missing the boat on Diminishing Returns, if you are playing 4 copies of Empty the Warrens in a discard heavy meta already then Dimishing Returns is both incredibly consistent at Goblins for 20 and there is less interaction on the stack to punish you for giving them a new 7. If you are playing in a meta where wishing for discard is too slow then wishing for a tutor is nigh impossible, either the life or the mana isn't there for it where Dimishing Returns is at least a spin to win.
Edit: 3 Warrens has always been a thing, it's just a situationally exploitative SB configuration depending on where the rest of the meta game is.
I haven't moved off the 8 fetch, 2 Usea, 2 Volc, 1 Swamp manabase, but if Soothsaying Or Scrollrack Miracles is a thing then ditching the Island, bounce and creature removal for a SB Bayou and 4 Abrupt Decay is the right move. I still feel like fetching for Island and having to play Badlands is often self defeating and decks with Ghost Quarter are otherwise really good matchups.
I dont understand this... sorry. I hope I answer you with my next answer...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
TES Think Tanks discussion??? well you seem to belong to the NASA team... I belong to a similar team - but not in my favourite hobby... I couldn't stop laughing when reading this. Sorry. I would name you the TTTD team? I imagine one team member says: mmm miracles is now a real deck. Other: mmm - then get back to A.D.... Other: NO we settled on BUR!!!... Other: Then Wipe Away!!! then some of them started to test Wipe Away and then: a multitude of TTTD Team claimed Wipe Away, Wipe Away! and then Mr. B saying: NO! Wipe Away has non sense! but we can't go back to A.D. unless Pelikanudo stops playing it! ha ha ha. Sure all this is a joke please!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I can say that if you say so, then I will believe you, but when I read Mr B. articles, the only reference I see are "I" instead of "we" which led me to think that all these changes come from Mr B. Super Mind and some contributions from others minds. Ok that's fine. However I see that change is just a reference to a list from a deck designer from 2012 - these changes are nothing new... even I have to say that if I was going to play a fetch list likely THAT would be the list I would play... the 3 B.W. 7 discard, fetch list - The 2012 Bahamut List (or Bahamut Team List)...
@F.Fortune: I have to say that I completely disagree on cutting 4th I.T. instead of 4th B.W. (well we anyway play 4 Ofs) by doing this you decrease the odds of drawing the efficient A.N. engine which is our main engine - I even disagree on older lists which played 4 B.W. 3 I.T. and 2 C.Rit... they had 0 sense as well - you need to use the most you can of a 7 mana playline via I.T. > A.N. and by moving IT to the side you just decrease the odds of that engine. A 9 mana playline via B.W. > I.T > A.N. is absolutly no mana efficient... and therefore non sense. B.W. is likely in conjuntion with C.M. the worsts cards in the deck. Do not forget B.W. as a threat is quite bad.
Apart, agree on D.G. is a shit card as no others...
7 discard has been an staple for me since years and it is the minimum for me even in this so discard/fow era.
What do I read?? soothsaying or Scrollmiracles beeing a REAL deck??? joking?
anyway we just touch the deck from 2 to 3 cards in main and sometimes - you - change to that EtW SuperNewTech (sarcasm - it is not new) which - with no doubt - gets better the tempo match ups.
Apart, one card I've seen in ANT is Ground Seal, which seems good vs those reanimate and also snaps/DRS and REPLACEs itself! - likely too specific but I'll give it a try just for the sake of funny! other experience on this test in TES if any?
EDIT: Trying to better use of proper punctuation, capitalization, and grammar
We're always circling around to the 7th discard argument, I'm not going to ever play 12 lands again so the question is whether or not the 7th discard increases the winrate of the deck more than the 8th tutor. I think Burning Wish is more important than Infernal Tutor in this deck and there was a reason we were playing the 4 Burning Wish, 3 Infernal Tutor package before the new tutor was printed.
I'm not saying cutting threats is right, I don't have the data either way, but that new tutor is really awful and this appears to be the best reason to cut it entirely. I'm not really a stickler for the 8th tutor or the 7th discard, because if you want them then you can SB them in.
Edit: Dark Petition, case in point I can't even remember the name of the card I used it so little in the SB lol.
I'm indifferent to whether or not we ever go back to Abrupt Decay, while bounce and creature removal is more efficient if CB isnt completely dead then it has to be respected. Not everyone in the ANT thread cut green either, it's not like Abrupt Decay became awful.
Jim Baxter's report from EE7! http://theepicstorm.com/eternal-extr...617-8th-place/
@Related to Jim Baxter's EE7 Tournament Report and to whom may interest:
I just read the Grixis and Czec Pile reports as really they were the unique ones which could catch my eyes, unfortunatly they were the unique losses...
4th Therapy is a card that has always and will always belong to the 75 in TES.... It is frustating reading: MVP: 4th Cabal Therapy as if it was a good idea to take it out at some point... Sad. It is like reading: Well we started building rockets with steel, and they worked!, then we tried plastic rockets - they worked also and now we returned to steel rockets which is beeing fantastic! Yes it is wonderfull!. Joke.
@F.Fortune:
I don't say you have to play 12 lands. I never said so. Look at me. I am playing now 5 Fetches! which is a great achievement! Maybe at some point I try the 3 B.W., 7 Disruption, 13 Fetch Manabase, but I feel too much love by B.W. although my gut feeling tells me the 3 B.W., 7 Disruption, 13 Fetch Manabase is the way to go...
B.Wish is not more important in this deck than I.T. I even dare to say: B.Wish is much worse than I.T. in this deck. Well unless a card like A.N. is printed as sorcery or everybody plays Griselbrand in his 60. The reason you were playing 4 B.W. 3 I.T. is just - how I would say so... - the real reason is: Non sense. This just was a plain mistake. Why would you play 4 9 mana playline if you can increase 1/4 a 7 mana playline? why?
I will have 0 respect for a counterbalance based deck in this era, but hey! I can be wrong about it! (joke)
I don't what it is with Magic players but at some point you're going to have to realize that more than 50% of your games are played post-SBs. If you cut a Burning Wish then you're playing with 7 tutors in all of your games, where if you cut Infernal Tutor you can choose to replace Dark Petion with it and play 8 tutors for more than half of your games if that is what is optimal in a particular matchup. The power level of Infernal Tutor may be higher than Burning Wish, but that doesn't matter nearly as much game 1 as it does game 2 when Empty the Warrens is at its best and the opponent SBed in hate vs goblins respectively. I'm more concerned with maximizing my marginal utility for Burning Wish and postboard flexibility than any one particular play line, because I'd rather be able to deal with actual problems than goldfish alone. If speed and power were what really mattered, then we'd all go back to playing 4 Chrome Mox, Gemstone Mine and Silence, but the deck has iterated towards stability and adaptability for a reason.
I'm not cutting a MD tutor anytime soon, but I do think playing 4 Infernal Tutor and 3 Burning Wish when the opposite was the standard before Dark Petition was added needs to be addressed.
Absolutely fair point. I voted to remove a Wish for the 14th land (after my suggested removal of EtW due to the MD sweepers people run because Pyromancer & TNN wasn't appealing) due to not giving much credit to its use as Game One Toolbox as I deem it unreliable. For the postboard games, I didn't see a potentially boardable SB Infernal of too much value as long as we would opt to go for the EtW rush against all the decks we want to combo off asap. If D&T is our scenario to discuss 3 IT, 4 BW with 1 SB IT to bring in for more 6-mana playlines, then I think it's inferior to the current practice of siding in EtWs to increase the number of 4-mana-playlines in these matchups instead. If we would drop the EtW SB plan (which we didn't have when we ran the SB IT) the split might me indeed reversedQuote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Peli, Fortune, Jax and all the other cool cats frequenting this cozy little corner of the internet. I published an article today that is pretty apropos of Bryant's recent deck update and the 4x Gobbos plan. Let me know what you think! I've been telling everyone on facebook that they will be cursed and their faces will melt if they don't read it, but that's bullshit. They'll probably just get minor fungal & bacterial infections on their feet - nbd. Anyway, read it and let me know your thoughts: http://theepicstorm.com/so-meta/
I think that Bryant list from Vegas was better, Pile and Delvers was already a thing back in June and he lost only to unfair there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MangoPunch
Playing multiple copies of EtW make AN plan terrible, also cutting 1 BW make it worse. Opening clucky hands seems pretty common postboard with that setup, we still need rituals to go off and they get discarded/extracted leaving you with a 4CC card in hand that do no thing.
From the Vegas list I'll not change anything maindeck, I think doing -1 Meltdown +1 Consign/Oblivion and -2 DG +2 Discards would be a better way to adapt to the meta without making drastically changes on how to approch postboard games while making our primary win condition straight worse.
Also Massacre can be cutted in favor of a 2/2 split of E.Truth and Voyage.
Natural EtW is 4 mana, IT into AN is 7.
The mana required makes quite a difference if you opt to punch through Daze/Pierce/Wasteland/discard or have to combo off before a hatebear comes down. Same is true for the scenario of extracted manaaccelerants as EtW unlike AN/ToA doesn't need a significant amount of mana
@Lemnear, why wouldn't you SB in the Infernal Tutor and the 3xEmpty the Warrens together?
Saying 3 Empty the Warrens ruins Ad Nauseam is an overstatement, ANT plays Ad Nauseam with Past in Flames, Tendrils of Agony, Dark Petition and without Chrome Mox and it still works.
One thing that might be interesting to test is a deck with 4 Chrome Mosx and 3 Empty the Warrens MD if you are getting that much mileage out of goblins.
Sure, you can try AN, 3 EtW and 8 Tutors postboard if you find the slots to board it and don't fear cluttered handsQuote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
Im going to Ovinogeddon here in Milan this saturday (200 players expected) with Las Vegas list with a slighty different sideboard. Im pretty confident that is the best TES list so far and this multiple EtW plan will not last. Saying that AN still works in ANT is not right, AN in ANT with multiple high CC cards is a nightmare, you can easily flizze it. Also IT into AN >>> Natural EtW. Its 3 more mana? Ok but I have LEDs, ok but I win the game on the spot. If Bryant had 2 Surgical Extraction at Vegas im pretty sure he would had top8'd the event.