I played in the Pre-Lotus event today, taking 2nd and winning a Beta Sol Ring with the list on the opening post.
-1 Rebuild
+1 Shattering Spree
I decided 4cc artifact bounce against sphere effects was too much.
Printable View
I played in the Pre-Lotus event today, taking 2nd and winning a Beta Sol Ring with the list on the opening post.
-1 Rebuild
+1 Shattering Spree
I decided 4cc artifact bounce against sphere effects was too much.
Have you considered a meltdown in the side?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
Often spree will require at least 3 mana to wipe up artifacts and meltdown wipes anything that could give up trouble for 4 mana and still costs 2 to kill a chalice at 1. honestly, it might be better than spree...
I have considered meltdown. The only problem was that it destroys your own artifacts. Mox, petals, and very rarely LED.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Kruchkow
I can see that as being an issue occasionally. However, petal would be sacced if you use it and i would gladly give up a mox to kill off some chalices/trini.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
IMO it comes down to math on it.
Look at it like this:
Spree
Chalice @ 0: R
Chalice @ 1: RR
Trini: 2R
Chalice and Trini: RRR or more
Meltdown
Chalice @ 0: R
Chalice @ 1: 1R
Trini: 3R
Chalice and Trini: 3R
Since Stax decks are slower we can afford the extra mana and against stuff like d. stompy, the costs are the same except for trini and imo, the ability to kill multpile chalices and trinis for cheap is really good. That and the red cost is much less intense. Plus, we should shoot less of our own stuff if we know we have meltdown then i personally would just play out less arti mana and kill all the chalices.
I have considered by myself Meltdown as an additional artifact-based answer, and i wasn't really happy with it. The point is, as Bryant suggested, that it kills your own artifacts, especially moxes. In these matchups, you usually want to drop down all your artifact acceleration to avoid chalice @0 and trini to leave you unplayable cards in hand. But we can't rely solely on lands (keeping moxes and petals in hand ) to cast meltdown, because it would require 4 lands, which this deck reaches perhaps on the 12th turn, when we've already been armageddoned/killed 3 times by DS fatties, and so.
At this point, i'd consider a Hurkyl's Recall in the place of Rebuild:it's cheaper, and, although can't be tutored by Wish, usually doesn't care about chalices , and does its job in one hit. And exploits USeas better, too.
Rebuild can't be wished too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piceli89
I tested the 3 U.Seas configuration and they're good in in the maindeck, but I'm often unsatisfied by them during g2s and g3s. Shattering Sprees are significantly weaker, and breaking something like Chalice @0 and @1 is going to require RRR, that I almost never can afford. Meltdown can actually be the solution.
Anyway, with the 3 U.seas i find some good problems into casting those Chants and Pyroblasts and rituals in the same turn I'm going off. Finding Red and White becomes harder and harder.
Did anyone experience the same thing?
Maybe something like 2 U.Seas, 1 Orchard is a better configuration?
Or maybe even something like 1 Underground sea, 1 Polluted delta, 1 Volcanic island?
Or a fetchland configuration to add shuffle effects, as stifles are on the downfall?
I had the same problems regarding pyroblast + orim chant or rite of flame+orim's chant, and i decided to go 2 USeas + 1 Orchard, and has worked pretty fine since now. Of course, Orchard still sucks in giving 1/1s to opponent, but i think there isn't a better alternative than it. And giving 1/1s is acceptable, as long as you aren't going the Etw kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenOne
The configuration with fetches seems good, perhaps is worth testing. Let's hope we won't ever draw the 2 duals and then the fetch :tongue:
EDIT:I'm testing a hybrid configuration atm. It's working pretty well.
// Lands
1 [U] Underground Sea
1 [R] Volcanic Island
4 [WL] Gemstone Mine
2 [ON] Polluted Delta-->Will be 1 Delta and 1 Mire
4 [AN] City of Brass
// Spells
4 [CS] Rite of Flame
3 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
2 [ALA] Ad Nauseam
2 [FNM] Duress
4 [MM] Brainstorm
4 [MI] Dark Ritual
3 [MI] Mystical Tutor
4 [PS] Orim's Chant
4 [JU] Burning Wish
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
3 [LRW] Ponder
1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains
1 [ON] Chain of Vapor
// Sideboard
SB: 1 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
SB: 1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
SB: 1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains
SB: 1 [TSP] Empty the Warrens
SB: 3 [GP] Shattering Spree
SB: 1 [CHK] Cleanfall
SB: 1 [AL] Diminishing Returns
SB: 4 [IA] Pyroblast
SB: 1 [TSP] Grapeshot
SB: 1 [US] Duress
It's the maindeck in the OP, with the exception of -1 Duress, +1 Land. I know 6 protection pieces could be too light, but i find myself very comfortable with this quantity, and i know i'd perform this deck in a meta where counterbalance isn't the only deck in massive quantities ( i expect a lot of tempo thresholds, and so..at least, i hope).
The 2 fetches add some shuffle effects, which are vital when you're drawing ton of shit ( anyone said Moxes?) and can grab the 2 duals. since I had issues with not having red with the USeas, i decided to add 1 Volcanic Island Instead. Moreover, i opted for a higher land count because it often happened to open with 1 landers, which was a serious threat in case of opponent wasteland, and couldn't make the job with moxes as long as i had hands with 3-4 colors and 1 land. With 12 lands, the % of opening with 2 lands is more higher, and i feel more safe with it.
This version wants to be a convergence between the "conventional" TES and that strange one played by Kolowith on Gp:chicago. It basically tries to mix the more noticeable aspects of both: the land count is neither too low , neither too high, so it ensures a certain fleibility whether you're going for the long way (against blue decks) or you're aiming to a fast victory (against non-blue, non-diruptive decks). I also opted to keep a high number of rainbow lands because, diffrently from Kolowith's list, i felt Orim's chant had to be in the list as a 4-ofs, since it's clearly the best protection spell avaiable, far more than Duress. The maindeck, for the rest, is pretty standard, 3 ponders is the way to go. The only doubt is whether or not keeping the 3rd mystical, but i got close to understand that it can function very well when you drop the "all-in" philosophy which characterized this deck some time ago, and you opt for waiting some turns more building a solid and protection-endowed hand.
That 4th IT in the sideboard is amazing , it allows victories being grabbed with burning Wish and going to take Igg/An that the "normal" targets of Burning wish (Igg with no other tutors in the yard, Diminishing returns, which is hella risky) can't ensure really much.
I'm pondering whether or not to reduce the number of cinq lands to make room for other fetches, but i fear i'd expose too much the deck to Stifle , in this way, and could have issues finding the W to cast Orim.
Had the same idea but never tested it. I mean, of adding IT in the SB, maybe in the IGG slot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piceli89
The question I ask myself the most is what the hell is doing IGG in the SB?
It's arguably the worst SB card cause you always need 2xWish or Wish+IT to make it work (but if you got IT, why didn't you just IT for IGG?). It's also a strategy that usually doesn't work against blue decks (same ol' IGG problem) that are featuring a large part of the meta right now.
Maindeck IGG can also get removed by itself, Chrome Mox or even Diminishing Returns if you really need to wish for it.
Is the IGG in the SB still worth it?
Did anyone test a deck without it? How did it work?
IGG in the side is amazing. It helps make muli tutor hands good and honestly it might not seem worth it but i wish for IGG with about half of my wishesQuote:
Originally Posted by GreenOne
I never ever used IGG from the sideboard yet :/
50% of my B-Wishes go to Diminishing Returns to be honest
QFT. the other 50% usually goes for ETW (unless wishing for Tendrils obv)Quote:
Originally Posted by evilchen
Well, personally, about 60 % of the times i use burning wish to grab the protection spell ( Duress, for instance), the other 20% (usually post AN), it takes me Tendrils, and just 15% and 5% it goes for EtW (which i find to be really risky nowaydas) and DReturns ( which is even more risky, ofc). But yes, the flexibility of the card is what makes it a great swiss knife for this deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenOne
@ GreenOne, evilchen, Piceli89: I mean absolutelyno offence by this so please don't take it that way but, if you are going for returns half as much as you say then you are either missing another way tocombo out or you are making horriblemulligan decisions. DReturns is a LAST DITCH card. If you can win without it do. If not and there is no pressure, chill and go for the kill with AdN or IGG. Thats half the power of IGG anyway that you can use it and go off from 1 life. No I do understand that if you are simply goldfishing that DReturns might seem like a good choice but let me tell you that in actually tounament play, giving and opponent 7 new unknown cards is alnmost always a horrible idea. Especially if they are playing blue. Honestly though, I don't know how the legacy scene is your areas (I know mine sucks) but goldfishing can only help you understand the deck so far. After that you really need to experience play vs. real ppl (read: Not MWS) to get a feel for how to play it.
Actually, if you read carefully at least what I wrote, you'd have noticed i mentioned Diminishing Returns is "hella risky" and i use it about 5% times, i.e. when i'm going to die and have only few mana after Burning Wish. At that point, DReturns is the only out before dying. I dislike that card by myself, because half he time it gives me new shitty hands or the opponent receives plenty of counters. So , of course is the "last hope", we are not that stupid to NOT understand it; if we can go off in an another way, we choose that, either way, if DR is the only chance left, so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Kruchkow
Thanks for the lesson and the explanation, in any case, but i somehow feel I'm already quite capable of piloting the deck (except against fucking Counterbalance, which is rising impressively, and will never allow this deck to return a tier1..i think it's pretty known in our coscience, even if we don't want to admit it. Hope WotC will take a look at legacy and move some tasty Banhammer..but it won't happen).
EDIT: ah, i forgot to say that i'm currently piloting the deck irl, after having bult it almost entirely. I'm testing against some decks which represent bad MUs for TES, like Dragon Stompy, Counterbalance Threshold, UBG Tog-esque controls, ecc. Just to make you know I'm founding what i say on real facts and observations :).
When I used to play TES, before AdN was printed (now I play ANT), Dragonstompy was a match I tested quite extensively and my conclusion was that the MU is alomst exactly 50%. Now with AdN, I would guess it's even a bit in your favor. Remember EtW is very strong against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piceli89
Not when your opponent goes turn 1 Trinisphere 3 times on 5, and the remaining 2 it goes first turn chalice @ 0 and Magus of the Moon.. Yes, there are Lucksacks here too :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by matelml
I apologize to you i was typing at like 9 am with no sleep and saw 5% as 50%. going back and reading it your percentages are close to what i wish for although i go for protection much, much less. and i still think that this deck can be tier 1 through counterbalance it just takes tons of practice time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piceli89
I'm sure this has been addressed before, but I couldn't find any definitive statement: in terms of included cards and strategy, what's the difference between ANT and TES (and Fetchland Tendrils for that matter, besides the obvious inclusion of fetchlands)?
TES runs red for Rite of Flame and Burning Wish, and therefore uses a rainbow land mana base. Also, because it's generally faster, it runs less land than ANT. ANT is able to run a fetchland because it has more land and less colours.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordofthepit
Also, ANT is mystical tutor centric and uses only AdN (and sometimes DD) as a win con. Most FT lists use DD as the win-con and the side in AdN if need be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamuth