Printable View
There's a video from earlier last year. Even Bryant said he learned something there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
This thread is 74 pages. This is like the 4th or 5th TES thread. I don't know if "lazy" should be the word to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasDowd
Top 4'd the side event at GP Sydney (63 people) with TES, including beating Justin Cheung (who came 2nd in the GP) and ID'ing with Tomoharu Saito (who I later beat in a friendly... and he's back on the tour now!)
May write a report later.
@Bryant:
I think that playing 2 CoV main then it is not neccessary to play H.Breach, instead play S.Spree,
Have you faced some Player playing Leyline Main?
@F.Fortune:
Try to make TES hands with Badland in the 7 and you'll notice that for those scenarious in which you draw Badlands you will want Fetch OR Gemstone OR C. Of Brass. This is a fact and you'll need to avoid this, how? not playing Badlands.
@Rest:
A note:
I just wanted to test the 3 Color Timo Shu8nemant List taking -1 C.Mox and adding a Island
I took the same base as:
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/dec...6&iddeck=72223
Changes were +1 Therapy = -1 Duress
I evaluated including A.Decay but Wipe Away was ok for its purpose, althoutgh I didnt need this for S&Tell I just sided 2 Probes for 2 Inquisition and was ok.
I faced Canadian, S&T, Rainbow Control and went 6-1 vs Blue,
I wanted to feel the difference between this and TES and althoutgh there are specific changes (C.Ritual, Therapys, etc), TES and ANT-B.Wish are absolutly 2 different decks,
The 3 basic lands configuration was great agains Canadian the game plan has nothing to do when playing TES, you just sit down play ponders brainstorms, and kill with PiF safety,
I never used A.N. in the whole tournament.
C.Therapy is great in here I take out 2 FoWs in Canadian match up. in here is the Silence slot (I Suggest to play 4 therapys and 3 duress instead of backwards and same applicable for TES 3 colors)
Conclusions:
I would not play TES 3 colors, I would play ANT- B.Wish List 3 Colors.
The only difference about making C.Ritual strong between this list and TEs is only more Fethes, therefore if you anybody intends to play 6-8 TES Fetchs configurations the logical change is C.Ritual instead Rite of flame.
The deck is insane and more stable than TES, althoutgh you can not win on turn 1 with A.N or it is difficult.
The Silence vs C.Therapy discussion is interesting, In TES I'll still keep Silence but it is great to understand the value of Therapy. (after 5 turns elapsed people always counter this with FoW...)
Who said I was playing Chain of Vapor main? My list is always on the opening post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
I think he means that if one were to play with 2 Chain of Vapor in the main deck then Hull Breach isn't necessary and Shattering Spree could take its place. I may be misinterpreting this though, it's hard to tell because of the language barrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
You really need to stop telling other people who actually playtest their manabases what they should or shouldn't be doing, you can't play 3c TES without Badlands - end of discussion - but as far as the rest of your post is concerned there's no correlation between playing fetchlands and playing Cabal Ritual instead of Rite of Flame in TES, because if you want to win before turn 3 consistently then Cabal Ritual is awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
Timo's list is alright, but I think it's worse then the other ANT lists with Grim Tutors or Pre-Ordains because it has serious issues with exposing itself to Wastelands after you Burning Wish - also you'll notice all of those lists play Badlands ... -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
You really need to stop telling other people who actually playtest their manabases what they should or shouldn't be doing, you can easily play 3c TES without Badlands - end of discussion.
Tried both, made no difference at all in my testing. But I guess I was lucky enough to never have Badlands mess up my cantrip casting, and also to never really need to fetch Badlands to cast combo stuff. I cannot really say which situation will come up more: Badlands as only land while you need to cast those Ponders, or needing to fetch Badlands since its your last option to cast the spell chain. My gut tells me I should more often hate than love Badlands, but as I said, my testing revealed nothing. Did only play like 30 testgames though.
I played about 10 games with a badlands instead of the second USea due to availability, and it did mess me up once not having a blue source.
Bryant's mana base is one of the defining features of TES that separate it from ANT. It also allows the deck to play 5c. I think changing it that dramatically would cause fundamental changes to the list effectively changing it into ANT. ANT as it stands now is fundamentally an IGGY Pop/Past in Flames deck more than it is an Ad Nauseam Deck. The "stability" in the mana base almost means you need more time to find the correct lands. If that's the route you want to play, then might I suggest playing ANT.
I just wanted to put that out there for people tinkering with TES's mana base.
What is this? Bashing with the use of the argument "Bryant does this!"? Decks need to adapt or change to stay compeditive. If Bryant would not have switched MD EtW and Tendrils because he took outside suggestions serious, you would still Play Tendrils and bash the EtW idea with that kind of argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by jin
TES is an Ad Nauseam deck, ANT a PiF deck. I can't see the need to argue this again and again or bitch about the naming in official result tables. This is like protestants and catholics. We should get over that
Maybe you are reading too much into it. I used the words "Bryant's mana base" for lack of a better description. For argument's sake, I don't see why the deck would need to go to a 3c list when it does fine running 5c. 5c brings must more power to the deck in the form of Chant effects/Swarm/Hull breach effects. This is power a 3c list would not have. Chant effects make the tempo match up a lot easier, blanking out otherwise surprise Stifle/Spell Snare tricks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I would rather blank a stupid card like Flutterstorm and play around Wasteland than to play with a compromised mana base.
I made an error, I meant :Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
If you play 2 CoV In Side then you do not need to play Hull breach, unless you expect to face Decks which play Leyline in Main, so the question is: Have you faced opponents playing Leyline Main?
@Final Fortune:
For me as a Rule, I will not play ANY land in TES that does not produce Blue mana. I really do not mind what people will do regarding this. I will play U. Paradise before Badlands.
In a 15 Manabase Lands (ANT - B.W. List) you CAN play Badlands as a 1 Of and Swamp as a 1 Of and then you will have a 13 Lands Build with 2 Lands Not producing Blue Mana, Exact Same numbers as Current TES List with 13 Lands.
In the ANT - B.W. List I play 3 Basic Lands 8 Fetches and I do not have mana issues due to Wastelands Effects.
I just exposed my ideas..., agree, end of discussion.
Hull Breach is pretty good. I used yesterday twice to destroy Goblin Charbelcher when two opponents passed the turn. Still havent used the "and" mode but having that option isnt out of this world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
I think I am about to move to revoke over Breach. Like you said Koby I also havent needed the AND ability yet, I have however had a moment where I didnt want my opponent get back an artifact from the yard off of my IGG.
You don't have to. The idea is that it allows you to play more fetch lands, which improves Brainstorm dramatically. I tried it and wasn't convinced it was better, but the improved Brainstorm is very nice. ANT-players might like it better than a regular TES list, but TES players will care more about explosive starts than about improving Brainstorm.Quote:
Originally Posted by jin
Let's take a list I was tinkering with (not saying this is perfect, it's just one list I tried):
Main:
4 Brainstorm
3 Ponder
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Burning Wish
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Ad Nauseam /21
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
3 Chrome Mox
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame /19
4 Duress
3 Cabal Therapy /7
2 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island
1 Badlands
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Polluted Delta
2 Scalding Tarn /13
Side:
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Past in Flames
1 Ill-Gotten Gains.
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Grapeshot
1 Shattering Spree
1 Cabal Therapy.
1 Eye of Nowhere
3 Thougtseize
3 Chain of Vapor /15
Pro's to UBR:
- Brainstorm is a lot better
Con's to UBR:
- No Silence
- No Abrupt Decay
- No nice anti-enchantment Wish target
I'll leave the choice to you.
For the mana base of an UBR list:
I also tried 12 lands and +1 Ponder. In that case I decided I wanted the 12th blue land, so Badlands was cut, and I played 6 Fetch, 2 Sea, 2 Volcanic and 2 Gemstone Mine. Since that was fine to play with, I also tried that mana base +1 Fetch in the 13 land version. As I said, I noticed no real difference in the ~30 games I tried.
Fair point. I have Revoke now too in my 5C sideboard. I added it first because I had Karakas, and so getting white mana proved easier than green, but I kept it because in testing I once needed to imprint a Silence on a Chrome Mox to cast Hull Breach, and that obviously didn't work. Also like you said, I never encountered the need for a double hit from Breach, so Revoke went back into my 75.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
I just dont think I would like the deck without silence. It opens up IGG as a good way to up the storm vs blue decks since you dont care that they get back force.
Remember,Quote:
Originally Posted by Koby
Now we play CoV In side as 2 Of, so there is no need to play an Enchantment Destroyer in Side for B.W., this scenario happened before when we switched to A.D. and No E.Truth List, in that scenario we sill loose to Leyline in 2nd and 3rd games, therefore the need of H.Breach.
Well, now you play CoV as a 2 Of, therefore there is no need to play an Enchantment Destroyer for 1st games and for this case, S.Spree is much much better.
Conclusions:
If you expect to face in 1st games a Deck with Leyline -> Play H.Breach OR R.Existence
If you do not expect to face in 1st game a Deck with Leyline -> Play S.Spree AND 2 Enchantmen Bouncers to Side In. (CoV as example) -> For this scenario, H.B. OR R.E are nonsense.
Bryant? Agree?
Lets go back to the question: Bryant, have you faced any Leyline Base?
I still like having a wish-able answer. I haven't been disappointed with Revoke Existence so far, though it is definitely one of the weaker sideboard slots. That said, there's nothing I want in place of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
You're missing the point. I play 2 Chains in addition to Hull Breach. Chains are strictly for Leylines and other hateful permanents. Hull Breach is the answer for Game 1 problems. I've been perfectly fine using Hull Breach to destroy Counterbalance in Game 1 when the coast is clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
I would not board anything against Belcher, and especially not Chain of Vapor against them. You're fighting for a marginal sideboard slot at this point and there's not much justification for cutting it. The sideboard as it stands has plenty of wiggle room for Hull Breach.