The only question I have here is: Did he have the turn 2 kill or not? If not the play is broken stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardTron
Printable View
The only question I have here is: Did he have the turn 2 kill or not? If not the play is broken stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardTron
I think the longer games are actually worse than the ones that end within the first 3-4 turns, because then it really just boils down to topdecks. In the early game, you can have interesting mindgames (postboard mostly) and small decisions that boil down to risk evaluation, which can be super interesting when it comes to discard spells. But when neither player really has any cards in hand but graveyards are full, the person drawing a hard business spell first simply wins. And if they don't, that's because the other player happened to draw something to stop them (Flusterstorm, basically).Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonmutant
Storm can win out of nowhere, that's why we play it. Thinking that's not true in the mirror is delusional. I have lost games in the mirror where my opponents didn't notice they had a kill in their hand, where they declined to protect their artifact mana from discard despite not having any other cards and countless other things. But I have also won games in the mirror where I misread my opponent's deck on the draw, screwed up cantrips, ignored sideboard cards like Surgical and just flat out played horribly overall. I honestly can't think of a matchup in all of Magic where decisions have as little impact on the outcome of a game as the Storm mirror. Of course, they matter when someone simply can't play the deck, but I believe as soon as you have basic lines down, you simply don't go below 45% unless you continuously play against people with silver bullets like Aegis of the Gods and the like.
Obviously, this doesn't mean you can't always improve your play, but it will have much more impact in matchups other than the Storm mirror.
To those claiming positive records in the mirror, do you have actual data? I'm genuinely interested in your approach to the mirror. Maybe I have a different picture of how it works out because roughly 80% of my games in the mirror are against Pascal, but I barely see games come down to unintuitive lines. (Disclaimer: That number is a very conservative estimate, it's probably more than 80%.)
That's not what I was saying. I meant that I don't want to run, e.g., Abrupt Decay against a deck with Wasteland, which it sounded like people were trying earlier in the thread, and I don't want to have a bunch of green slots in the sideboard because I feel like the only times I've found green to be useful (and at the same time to not stretch our mana base too far) was against Miracles (note, again, that I haven't faced certain decks in my metagame). Swarm and Carpet haven't done me much good. I was saying that their requiring green makes them even more iffy in a bunch of matchups, so I haven't been running them lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Alexander
[EDIT: In other words, I'm running five green cards (Decays and a KGrip) and one Tropical in the 'board. I don't see the point in running Swarm or Carpet right now because they stretch our mana and I can't see the purpose of running either of them when the other green cards will do. I'd rather have sideboard space for other stuff right now, if for no other purpose than to test things.]
@Jonathan: I have a similar experience in the mirror as phazonmutant but don't have any actual stats that I can show you to back it up. Some general tips I have are:
-Board down to 14 land
-Whoever has better access to PiF will win the game after you pass the turn 1/2 explosive win phase; this means I will snap off a Grim for PiF as soon as I can if we are in a yucky midgame state
-Don't go autopilot on your discard
-Utilize cantrips in anticipation of protecting important cards and trick opponent into using their discard incorrectly
-Consider playing out LED to protect it if it's the most important card at that moment in the game
-And my most controversial piece of advice... 6 Tutors, 2 PiF, 1 Empty is much better than the 5 Tutors, 1 PiF, 1 Ad Nauseam, X Preordains plan that 99% of people seem play in the mirror online. I have come to this conclusion over a long period of time and don't expect to win many people over with it, but I feel very favored in Storm mirrors right now because of my list. Ad Nauseam is over-hyped vs most combo decks.
I don't see Dark Petition being a slick topdeck in a matchup where both players shred their opponents hand, while Preordains offer the option to not only find more discard early, but also to float business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
Variance, for example, means I had to drop from the event at 2-0 because my daughter started puking everywhere. Talk about getting top decked....lol
Which is one of many reasons I like Grim Tutors more, and like I said in my advice for the matchup, you can immediately fire it off to grab a PiF. My Grim Tutor vs the opponent's Preordain is probably the difference in the game with all else equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
@BeardTron I can relate to the daughter-related variance drops haha.
Game 1 he was on play . He Turn 1 blind Therapy on Force of Will then T2 makes 12 goblins and I kill him two turns later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
In Game 2 he did not have the T2 "kill". He did have the pieces to make 10-12 goblins if I recall correctly but then I Therapied his LED, then Extracted them. Then took his Tutor next turn then killed him turn after that. Not sure why he didn't play his LED when he saw I had Therapy ...
If he would've named Tutor or LED in Game 2 it likely would've taken me longer giving him more draw steps.
I also don't have hard stats, but I can remember losing 2 games out of the 15+ times I've played the mirror since mid-Treasure Cruise season. Human memory is faulty of course, could be a couple either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Alexander
Definitely some of it is that I've played the deck and the mirror quite a bit so I know what to do, whereas most opponents miss lines, don't play artifact mana, etc. That will bias results. Another factor is that I've been on 2 Flusterstorm, 1-2 Surgical for nearly the entire time since I picked storm back up, which is more and better combo hate than most have. So probably my record wouldn't be as good against exclusively top-class opponents, but that's true of all mirrors. When the skill is equal, by definition the mirror is dominated by luck.
Besides the times where they should win, or are outgunned, there are times where smart discard use makes or breaks the game, on both sides. Like when you have close to a kill so you take the ritual instead of the tutor from an opponent who is also close to the kill. Or when you Ponder, leave a tutor on top to kill next turn, and they Duress taking Tutor. That's about judgment calls and reads.
To be honest, I consider all of these basics, although I have to say the land thing depends on your list. I definitely prefer 14 lands + 1 Mox to 15 lands, but not entirely sure on 14 vs. 15 without.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
I don't see how more hard business being better than less hard business is controversial. When games come down to topdecks, the person with better odds to topdeck naturally has better odds to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
To be honest, if the mirror really came down to skill, players missing basic lines would never win. But they still do. Of course, if players mess up really simple things like miscounting Tutor -> Past in Flames loops, that will heavily reduce their win percentage. However, I see loads of people not understanding lines like Tutor, crack LED, discard Past in Flames, get Cabal Ritual, profit. (Side note: I watched an unnamed pro play the Storm mirror in Seattle; instead of going for this line, they Cabal Therapy'd their opponent for Duress, see Therapy, not play their LED, but topdeck to still win the game next turn.)Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonmutant
This is not actually true. It's a common misconception. If two players are equal in skill (in anything, really), games are not primarily decided by variance but by form. Because really, no two players consistently play on the same level. We make so many mistakes in everything we do, but in competition it comes down to the timing of these mistakes, which is, quite simply, form. If I play 10 games of any mirror match and split them 5-5, that doesn't mean that mirror is a coin flip. It can also mean my opponent and I are on similar skill levels and simply take turns in making mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonmutant
This happens very rarely. As I said, there are certainly edges you can gain, but they are neglible, that's my whole point.Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonmutant
Are there other matchups in which these cards have been particularly useful? What does the rest of your sideboard look like at the moment? One of the reasons I ask is related to my previous few posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonmutant
This is extremely important, and not just for playing this deck. It's worth pointing out that deciding to keep or ship a hand is a crucial situation to which this statement applies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Alexander
I don't know how this is possible unless you opponent misses to flashback the Therapy lol. You might want to clear this up for me. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardTron
Turn two goblins is a valid reason to fire off T1 discard vs. Discard in a vacuum, but if he saw that he missed with the Therapy and a backlash is coming, he has to drop his mana and go into the float-business-mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardTron
@Lemnear
He did flashback therapy when he made the Goblins in Game 1. He had to choose between LED, Tutor, Brainstorm and He took the Tutor but Brainstorm got me there. I drew really hot this game.
The value of this pick waxes and wanes with your access to red mana. If you had no red source otherwise, the LED would have been more interresting to pick tbh as it would have costed you mana volume and color at the same time. Also interresting: Why did YOU not play the LED in your first turn to evade the value Therapy in case goblins come down or simply played the Brainstorm to hide your Tutor in case he throws goblins at you?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardTron
I would've hit the LED regardless, but I've only played Storm versus Storm once. I don't remember much except that I won the discard war early by Duressing a Tutor and leaving him without any business and, I think, with only one Ritual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I guess I'm just not sure what the opponent was hoping to do there. What would be a reason to pick the tutor or the Brainstorm? It feels to me like locking someone out of fast mana or accelerants is a pretty cash play, and I've found that when opponents strip out an LED or a CabRit early in the game it can often knock me out at least as effectively as taking a tutor.
Depends on the rest of the hand. If there are other red sources available or already two Rituals, picking the LED makes no sense obviously. Its not enough data for me to discuss the matter in detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
Ya it was likely a mistake on my part not to play out LED my first turn. My first turn I spent w a Ponder and tucked away business to make his 2nd therapy not really matter. Then brainstorm took it home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I can't stand the mirror match at all, either someone wins quickly or someone wins the lategame topdeck war. Sure, there are interesting spots on turn-1 & 2, especially involving discard, but it's nothing like playing against blue decks.
Having 70%-80% in the mirror match seems like positive variance to me, unless you're playing against people who don't know how to count (obviously having 70% with ANT in any matchup requires a decent edge in skill, but in the mirror it's not so easy to find those edges).
Playing/Mulliganning worse in matchups I don't find interesting (Most fast matchups, especially non-blue) is definately a leak in my game though.
Having said that, I did find the storm mirror very interesting and unique when people were still playing Chant effects.
Nice point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jona
TES vs ANT was my favourite Legacy matchup to play back when TES played Silence. It was pretty unwinnable for ANT, but never boring.
Unlike most of the people I enjoy to play the mirror match, used to feel favoured because of playing 2Pif instead of 1 and having actual SB instead of none, still feel a bit favoured because of experience, not sure about the build, the experience is different if it's an actual tournament or you do not know the opponent, I can see it becoming boring if you play the same guys over and over (like every other deck) or you want to test like 20 games against a deck... btw. I'm 4-4 for the last year
I had the exact opposite experience, TES got a lot better since - both in disruption and BS+fetchland effectivity to be a favourite now but It wasn't my impression back then, Silence was usualy very pasive card... I've never lost to TES with ANT but lost my fair share with TES to ANTQuote:
Originally Posted by thefringthing
but it was definitely interesting, also had a 7 chant DDFT in the LGS back in the day, good old times...
I agree. Silence was the absolute noob-check in the old Storm mirror and pretty much the same Flusterstorm does for ANT these days, if people decide to run it (or Mindbreak Trap for non-blue decks): It loses 95% of effectiveness once your opponent is aware of it and it got totally pointless after the printing of Gitaxian Probe to check for such cards without spending cards or mana (unlike discard). Only total idiots comboed right in the face of a Silence versus TES and I only remember that happend twice since I picked up TES, so i sure don't buy Silence as a boon in the storm mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloshthedark
Silence was a card to battle conditional counters like Stifle, Spell Snare, Envelop, etc. and bait hardcounters like FoW, but got pointless during 2013 with the metashift from pure reactive solutions for storm to Dual hate in Form of either discard+counter or hatebear+counter, which pure discard can handle better than the reactive Silence/Chant as cards like Therapy can hit Hymn, FoW and Thalia without (timing) restrictions. The shift from Silence/Chant to Duress/Therapy and the cut of white mana obviously improved the manabase, the effectiveness of cantrips and certain playlines/interactions like the 4x Therapy + EtW one
#StormHistory #TES #Silence
This statement might be true, but it is incomplete. Silence effects and Flusterstorm are very good when Top is involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
So what's the thinking right now about how our deck does against TES? One of the reasons I ask is that I've been wanting to try both variants (just need two more Burning Wishes) and I'm wondering what the prevailing wisdom is right now.
Preliminarily it looks like our using Tendrils as the primary win can get us where we need to be as quickly as TES can (we don't need attack steps to Tendrils), assuming of course that TES doesn't play fast Therapy into Empty or nut-draw into AdN/sideboard Tendrils. Also it looks like we get better odds of getting there the longer the game goes on without TES's comboing. We've also got a virtually identical discard package, so I'm not sure we'd be at an advantage if all else were equal. What's everyone else think at this point?
So, first of all I wouldn't use the strength of each deck in the storm mirror to decide anything. If anything it should be how well each deck does vs the rest of the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
I *think* the generel consensus is, that TES is best vs non-blue decks, decks with hatebears and hateful permanents and ANT is stronger vs blue, counter-decks. This is an oversimplification to be sure but something to use as a starting point. TES is faster and is the better Ad Nauseam deck. ANT is better at using Past in Flames and with that comes more inherent resiliency to counter spells that. Each deck has it's zealots that think one is clearly better than the other. I'm guessing Bryant Cook will tell you that TES is just the better deck.
Talking about incomplete: It also counts for Xantid Swarm. Flusterstorm still voids the use of LED and SDT can be handled with Needle or eot Decays as well. Many paths lead to rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Alexander
ANT vs. TES is pretty miserable in both ways, decided by who can delay their opponents critical turn long enough with discard or who has the nut draw. In regards to the discard topic, the increased number of cantrips sure helps finding Duress/Therapy. ANT is also better suited for topdeck wars due to stronger Rituals, PIF being discard-proof and an increased redundancy of quality cards (via more cantrips) instead of limited substitutes like Burning Wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
If you are on the draw and/or have no T1 discard vs TES, it however looks pretty grim due to speed reasons (best case scenario for you is "just" needing to race Tokens)
I was referring to the Storm mirror only, which I thought you were referring to as well. I hope we all agree that Xantid Swarm, Needle and Decay are too narrow for the Storm mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
When you were talking about SDT, I really did not get the idea that you talk about the storm Mirror with an average of 0-1 SDT in ANT listsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Alexander
I had the most enjoyable match against miracles that I've had for a looooong time. I'm back to a list resembling my GP Lille list with 2x past in flames, 2x tendrils, 1x empty in the main. I played a bit fast and loose but it was so much fun... the feel-good storm vs miracles movie of the year! I even found room for an OGW card in the sideboard. Enjoy:
https://youtu.be/XdnGtzbS5U8
Another video made with the same list playing against a bit of a weird UR Delver list:
https://youtu.be/CDC_VOb-cZ4
Oh, don't get me wrong; I know that matchups against other decks are at least as important. I was just wondering about the specific matchup because I tend to read (for what it's worth) that people say TES is faster. I've only played a Storm versus Storm game once so it's a matchup with which I don't have much of any experience (I think the opponent was on TES but he may have been playing a hybrid). Again, I think I just lucked into quick hand disruption that kept him off the mana he needed, so I was curious as to whether it's usually a troublesome matchup, or whether their (supposedly slightly better) speed doesn't tend to avail them of much.Quote:
Originally Posted by nevilshute
Also, awesome vid versus Miracles! I like that sideboard tech, even if it looked like you got a bit lucky with the opponent's not stopping your Ritual. Keep us posted if you discover anything further!
Sorry for nitpicking. You say "at least as important" but I would contend that it is way more important how well your combo deck does against the other top decks of the format and not in the corner-case mirrors. I'm way more comfortable playing ANT than TES and I happen to think ANT is better situated - at least the way I play it -fight stuff like delver and miracles. As such I couldn't really care less if I was 20/80 vs TES, a deck which I am quite unlikely to face as it is a deck that isn't played very much in the main stream these days (correct me if I'm wrong, this is my impression without checking hard data). So by no means should you, in my opinion, be making decisions on which deck to play based on which one of TES or ANT has the upper hand in the TES vs ANT matchup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
Also, regarding the Sphinx play I wouldn't say I was lucky that they didn't counter the ritual or the petal as it would be pretty unexpected (I had a full grip and four lands, why would you waste a hard counter on the first Dark Ritual - that kind of thing). I think I did ride my luck in that matchup, first by them making a mess of their counterbalance/top lock in game one and brainstorm hitting LED and then, for game two, in drawing as many decays/grips as they drew CBs and then, of course, by actually top-decking the sphinx right when the game was in the balance :smile:
Having had a day to think some more about the Sphinx I think Terminus could be a big issue going forward. I face plenty of miracles players as it is that leave in some number of Terminus post board, especially if I've shown them Empty in game one. Now, them having access to Terminus isn't the same as saying the Sphinx shouldn't be played but if Sphinx ever becomes a thing and miracles players have it on their radar then it seems rather likely that they will value keeping in (more) Terminus post board and playing towards being able to access one.... that might not necessarily be a bad thing as that will decrease their overall effenciency (even if only slightly), but it is a pretty big blow out if they ever get to terminus the sphinx... Sphinx is almost guaranteed to be at least 2 cards for us (a ritual and the sphinx itself) and I don't know if we can recover that kind of 2-for-1 / time walk.
Continuing to run Sphinx might even call for us to want to start running pithing needle in the board. It means we have to eschew our own tops but 2 needle against miracles is a fine place to be. Needle on top means they will have a much, much harder time setting up a terminus and will just in general screw up their strategy against us something fierce as top is a beast for them. At that point the sphinx might end up as win-more and if we are using needle already it might be better paired with a city of solitude which is significantly easier to land than the sphinx and offers a similar kind of effect, that's not counting sphinx bossyness as a 5/5 flyer though. Needle also has auxiliary uses against deathrites etc. Hmm, something to think about it.
Anyway, thanks for watching and commenting!
You're right; I think we started talking past each other. Was just wondering about the matchup because I've played against a lot of BUGs and Miracles lately and I was curious about how to beat a (maybe slightly faster) combo deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by nevilshute
I mix it up regularly, but last time I played storm I was trying sideboards like the ones from MKM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
2 Flusterstorm
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Chain of Vapor
4 Abrupt Decay
1 Carpet of Flowers
1 Xantid Swarm
1 Dread of Night
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Sensei's Divining Top
Flusterstorm is absolutely the best card you can have against Show and Tell decks, and I'm including Xantid Swarm here. Especially potent is Fluster + Surgical. Flusterstorm is obviously good against almost all combo decks. It's also fine to bring in against Hymn decks.
Surgical is good against graveyard decks and combo decks. I don't bring it in against Miracles. Because of this I think it's worse than Flusterstorm, but our worst combo matchups are fast and graveyard-based - Reanimator and Oops. With the combination of both, Storm can legitimately position itself to be the combo-control deck against Reanimator who is typically forced into the aggressor. Post-board the reanimator player usually doesn't realize that and their board plan matches up poorly. That and a decent helping of luck is how I've beaten so many Reanimator players.
Still talking about the Miracles matchup, I was wondering about some number of Bitterblossom in the sideboard. I mean, it's a low investment card that, if resolved, put pressure on they to lay down a fast clock, keep forcing terminus, and, unlike Young Pyromancer and Mentor, is very hard to be responded in a clean way (they usually don't keep Council's ou Wear/Tear postboard). Oh, also, it can't be hit by Flusterstorm.
So, what do you guys think about this possibility?
It's an incredible slow kill condition, plus dies to Izzet Staticaster as well as the Spell Snare, which is becoming more and more prevalent in the miracles lists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maikhell
If you want a creature card, I'd much rather have mentor (power level) or Pyromannen (Speed), as both cards kill much, much faster than bitterblossom.
Miracles will usually board in some number Wear//Tear, if not only because of counterbalance curve.
I have actually tried Bitterblossom and I didn't like it. It's too slow even if you land it turn two and does next to nothing if you only resolve turn five or so. Not that it's better or worse than any of the other creature cards, I really don't like any of them.
after an ill-advised fling with RUG lands I'm back on combo. and lemme tell you, the Mentor/Bob plan in TinFins is bonkers.
I guess what I'm saying is: +1 to Monastery Mentor if you really want to catch them off-guard.
That was quite the game one.Quote:
Originally Posted by nevilshute
I feel that the "man-plan" is very high variance. And mind you I'm currently testing Sphinx of the Final Word vs Miracles so I'm not against trying out weird stuff. I've run Pyromancers and Bobs before. Haven't tried mentor yet but off the bat I'm not a fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by warfordium
I primarily consider each of these creatures against Miracles. That they might have uses in other matchups is a clear secondary thing for me. When your opponent is unprepared then each of these creatures can wreck them. However, every Miracles player knows (or should know) that creatures have had a place in storm sideboards since forever, be it Xantid Swarm, Dark Confidant or one of the grow creatures. They know that these types of creatures can wreck them so they leave in swords to plowshares and potentially also bring in other types of answers like Engineered Explosives, Izzit Staticaster or the likes.
If you bring in a creature and it immediately trades with a plowshares then that's pretty bad for you. You've traded a high impact card from your hand with a nonsense card from their hand that has no usefulness against your actual combo.
Of course there will be feel-good stories with grow creatures but I feel like they are too high variance for my taste.
What Martin said.Quote:
Originally Posted by nevilshute
Don't mean to lay into people, but I feel like most of the man-plan suggestions have one big problem: they tend to be aiming to do what Empty the Warrens does at a fraction of the speed. For the sake of argument, why wouldn't one run four copies of Empty instead of any number of Mentors (Gaddock notwithstanding)?
Maikhell may be onto something with Bitterblossom simply because it's an enchantment and dodges Terminus. I'm not sold on the card's viability, though, because there's no way to increase the rate of token generation, and life-loss is a problem if we can't keep the pressure on. It does give me a (probably terrible) idea, though: anybody interested in trolling maximally by testing a copy of Assemble the Legion?:cool:
I'm not too enthusiastic about running creatures (incl. Xantid Swarm) or turn-based token generation in our sideboard at all. How much can we really expect to hedge out decks that board out their removal? If they're running blue, we're not going to have an easy time anyway (counterspells), and if they aren't, none of the creatures discussed so far will be able to keep pace with DRS, Tarmo, Batterskull, Banana King, etc. I can see some merit to running a copy or two of Xantid, but I don't know that it's worth it. It's a counter-magnet for cmc1, so that's something, but again, that's all I've ever seen it do.
Warfordium, thanks for the info regarding Mentor and Bob. I feel like those are much more viable in the other deck than they are here, though. Someone tried a quad of Mentors in the sideboard a few months ago and it didn't go all that well. Can you elaborate on the thinking/strategy behind Mentor and Bob in the Tin-Fins deck? I've never played Tin-Fins, but I'm guessing that G-brand's card advantage probably plays a pretty big part in making Mentor tick. Keep us posted!