Hey Hanni, isn't it time to update the OPost? There are a few changes that most of the people in the thread agrees and isn't reflected in that list yet? (like 1 IGG MD?)Originally Posted by Hanni
What do you guys want to see in the OP? Not everyone agrees on card choices and not everyone agrees with the correct color splash.
Some people play Ponder, some people don't play Chrome Mox or Infernal Tutor, etc.
Some people play B/u/r, some people play B/u/w (like me), etc. Some people don't even run fetchlands and are playing 5c with Gemstone/City.
If I had some more input on how to update the OP, I'd be happy to do so. For right now, I don't think ANT is developed enough to make too many clearcut choices.
I have new stuff to discuss.
I play the following MD list. Not very original, except maybe for its low count of key spells (understand high CC spells). I'm very happy with that part, I even sometimes SB out 1 AN or 1 IGG, or even both. Here is the list, but actually, there is not much to debate in this list. As I play LED, pact is subpar compared to duress and chant, but I still play 1 to be tutored with mystical if needed. I don't have goldfish stats, but I think that it can go off on turn 2.5 in average with no protection, and 3 or 3.5 with a protection during the same turn as we combo.
Lands 14:
1 swamp
1 island
1 scrubland
1 tundra
4 underground sea
4 polluted delta
2 flooded strand
Stormy Mana 20:
4 chrome mox
4 lotus petal
4 LED
4 DR
4 cabal ritual
Tutors/manipulation 12:
4 BS
4 mystical
4 IT
Disrupt 10:
4 duress
4 chant
1 repeal
1 pact of negation
Key spells 4:
2 AN
1 tendrill
1 IGG
My SB used to be filled with slaughter pacts, tormod crypts and bounces. But it appeared to me that in some MUs, like against discard, burn, ichorid, aggro or even chalice decks, the MD disruption was ok but often weak. Actually, against these decks, you would basically want to accelerate the combo and have more bouncers, give up the 9 disruption MD spells for 3+ other bouncers and 6 - combo accelerators. I try for the moment 3 mox diamond and 3 gemstone cavern, maybe the best proportion is 2+3 or 2+4, since mox diamond helps to get rid of multiple gemstone caverns.
As a summary, I found that my SB was not really relevant. For instance, tormod is good against ichorid, but accelerating the combo is good too and it's more often usefull.
So now my SB for testings is the following one, and that's what I'd want to debate (do you have better ideas basically?):
3 gemstone cavern
3 mox diamond
2 wipe away
2 repeal
3 slaughter pact
2 tormod's crypt
Another concern is that extirpate could be better than tormod, because it could be entered against very heavy blue control decks, to get rid of counterspells/forces.
@ Maveric78f
-I appreciate your heavy use of protection. If you play protection at all, then you better do it right. You want to see it pretty much every game (otherwise, why play protection in the first place?).I play the following MD list.
-The deck still lacks answers even given those protection choices. I believe the protected versions of this deck will continue to evolve towards TES, primarily for the use of Burning Wish. The deck will probably become B/U/r/w because it offers the most versatile answers.
-PoN, while it can be Mystical'd, is just not worth the slot when you play Duress+Chant in the main. Not only is it dangerous in a deck that doesn't choose to go all in, and rather opts to play control elements, but it has serious synergy problems. Instead you could just mystical for a different piece of protection that doesn't have the danger or synergy problems.
-Repeal is an excellent choice, and it is a much better topdeck than other bounces. However, if I'm going to MD bounce, I'm doing so because I have a very strong need, and want to practically guarantee that it will do its job. Wipe Away fits the role of that bounce slot more effectively. Despite its double U cost, if you choose to run bounce, you should really be using Wipe Away.
-I'm glad someone is mentioning the matchups that our protection spells hinder us. And, you are right, you need to accelerate (go for speed) against most of those decks.
-For the sake of acceleration, Mox Diamond/Caverns is simply not going to be as effective as ESG. Diamond/Caverns are way too conditional and really just in the wrong deck. Test the ESG. Unconditional, uncounterable, colorless mana that the opponent doesn't know you have is actually strong. ESG is useful pre and post AdN, and the life cost is very minimal.
-2x AdN is appealing when you start flipping cards. However, the right number is still 4x. It is a card you want to see everytime, and it is perfectly fine in multiples, especially against control. Running 4x AdN means you can save Mystical for other things too. Against decks you want to race, 4x is clearly preferred, and against control decks 4x is very strong because you can bait.
-Your decks highlights one of the choices we have to make: Ponder vs. Protection. If you run protection, then Ponder needs to come out of this deck.
I run a protected version within 3 cards of your deck, and I know that the average unprotected kill is closer to turn 3.0 when you include mulligans.I don't have goldfish stats, but I think that it can go off on turn 2.5 in average with no protection, and 3 or 3.5 with a protection during the same turn as we combo.
peace,
4eak
Hello , I have some questions to everybody :
About Lion Eye Diamond, is the best way to get mana in a combo deck based on the idea of playing A.Nauseam ? because they both cards have counter effects : I mean LED discard your hand , A.N fill your hand, how do you procceed to get the goal of casting A.N with LED, because before you should have played any defense spell ,
has anybody tryed the package of 4 chrome moxen, 4 Mox diamond and artifacts bouncers like the old vintage style?
Some people play with LEDs because it makes easy to go with IGG loops and play AdN in your draw step with LED mana for speedy approach. Others play without it for many reasons, like playing Pact of Negation. Choose, test, make conclusions to which group you belong to. I don't think there are decks that use only Ad Nauseam as an engine. Usually IGG or something else is there to give outs for example to decks that deal damage to you and you can't reliably expect to draw lots of cards with AdN. In those decks, LED + Infernal Tutor is awesome storm enabler.
If you draw 10+ cards in a turn, you shouldn't need Retract tricks. My opinion is that it's a bad idea.
I don't get the use of burning wish. It does not search for AN, and bouncers make the job. The only reason why it could be good is to have the alternative of EtW.
The thing is that PoN costs 1 less than duress or chant. And that changes everything when you have the following hand:-PoN, while it can be Mystical'd, is just not worth the slot when you play Duress+Chant in the main. Not only is it dangerous in a deck that doesn't choose to go all in, and rather opts to play control elements, but it has serious synergy problems. Instead you could just mystical for a different piece of protection that doesn't have the danger or synergy problems.
landē+DR+cabal/mox/metal+AN+mystical+random
With PoN in your deck, you can go mystical for it and combo protected on your next turn.
Repeal is a MD slot, and that's why I want to be able to "cycle" it. In SB, I play stronger bouncers such as wipe away, or rushing river.-Repeal is an excellent choice, and it is a much better topdeck than other bounces. However, if I'm going to MD bounce, I'm doing so because I have a very strong need, and want to practically guarantee that it will do its job. Wipe Away fits the role of that bounce slot more effectively. Despite its double U cost, if you choose to run bounce, you should really be using Wipe Away.
The main problem with diamond/cavern is that you eventually have 14 cards of your deck that are direct card disadvantage (4*chrome, 3*diamond, 3*cavern and 4*mystical).-I'm glad someone is mentioning the matchups that our protection spells hinder us. And, you are right, you need to accelerate (go for speed) against most of those decks.
-For the sake of acceleration, Mox Diamond/Caverns is simply not going to be as effective as ESG. Diamond/Caverns are way too conditional and really just in the wrong deck. Test the ESG. Unconditional, uncounterable, colorless mana that the opponent doesn't know you have is actually strong. ESG is useful pre and post AdN, and the life cost is very minimal.
But, they are very good for the following reasons : you won't need to lose 10-15 life through an AN in order to combo anymore. Against the decks I target, I can just wait 1 turn more but still combo, because I lose less on AN.
I'm considering to play city of traitors instead of caverns, as I really don't need to fiw my color base after such a SB (no more white spells and mox diamonds entering).
I understand why you want 4 AN in a deck where you want to combo on first or second turn. But that's not my case, and I take really care of the CC of the spells I play. Moreover, another point that is very important is that I very often combo by playing chant, emptying my hand, play IT for AN and play AN. That's another reason why I try to play very few IGG/tendrils/AN. I'm aware it's also a good argument against my PoN singleton. Actually, it's the best, from my testing. But in this case, I would never consider it against another high CC spell.-2x AdN is appealing when you start flipping cards. However, the right number is still 4x. It is a card you want to see everytime, and it is perfectly fine in multiples, especially against control. Running 4x AdN means you can save Mystical for other things too. Against decks you want to race, 4x is clearly preferred, and against control decks 4x is very strong because you can bait.
You mean that only 3 cards differ?I run a protected version within 3 cards of your deck, and I know that the average unprotected kill is closer to turn 3.0 when you include mulligans.
Ok, maybe I'm too enthousiastic. I have to say, that I rarely mulligan, because, I'm still too young with this deck and because I'm rarely disappointed with a 4 lands hand. I'll kill later, but it's not really a problem.
peace2,
Mav
@ Maveric78f
Burning Wish is both an offensive and defensive tool. The card clearly isn't IT (searching for AdN), but rather, it offers diverse win conditions (not just EtW, but also Tendrils and IGG) and enables you to win in the face of control. BW is not an "all-in" card, and a protected version of ANT need that against a well-developed metagame that is prepared to handle combo. BW let's you tutor for important cards without blowing your hand to get it.I don't get the use of burning wish. It does not search for AN, and bouncers make the job. The only reason why it could be good is to have the alternative of EtW.
Go try Cook's AnD-TES list. It is definitely slower than what you and I are playing at the moment, but it has better answers and options.
I question running bounce at all in the main in your case. Run bounce because it really, really matters that you resolve it, or just play without it. A resolved Counterbalance is the prime example of why we should run MD bounce, and Wipe Away is an actual solution while Repeal is unlikely to be one.Repeal is a MD slot, and that's why I want to be able to "cycle" it. In SB, I play stronger bouncers such as wipe away, or rushing river.
I definitely care about my average CC cost (I'm sure you're not implying that I don't). The costs of running the additional AdN's is worth the reward. You don't run multiple AdN just because it gives you higher early game wins; you play them in multiples because it really does play very well against control--and that is the match that we are really concerned about.I understand why you want 4 AN in a deck where you want to combo on first or second turn. But that's not my case, and I take really care of the CC of the spells I play.
If you played Ponder in addition to your other CQ effects, then I'd be more willing to agree with you. But, since you don't, running your primary game winning spell at 4x doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do.
Look at this way, against:
Combo or Aggro: You want to win as early as possible. Multiple AdN's are fairly key to making sure that happens.
Control: You want to disrupt->bomb them. It isn't like our disruption is fool-proof though. Good control players can play against duress/chant effects (and even PoN), and you'll still need to chain bombs against them until one sticks. In conjunction with your disruption and IGG, using 4x AdN means you can afford to have two or three bombs not resolve. Additionally, it isn't like your lifetotal is really taking major lifetotal hits against most control decks, and so your CC curve isn't going to be going into the danger zone nearly as often. You can afford the 4x AdN here as well.
Yes.You mean that only 3 cards differ?
-1x Repeal
-1x Duress
-1x Underground sea
+1x Wipe Away
+2x AdN
After testing PoN a good deal (even as singleton like you did-check out a few pages back), I looked for other answers. I arrived, as many did, at Duress/Chant too. Our protected version of ANT seems like a natural evolution given our test results. And, as I said before, I suspect that the next natural evolution of protected ANT will be moving towards TES because Burning Wish, while slow, is necessary against metagames that are even decently prepared for combo.
You should probably be mulliganing about 25% of your hands. I hate doing it, but it is a necessary process.I have to say, that I rarely mulligan
I think many of us don't remember how often our deck wasn't performing well until we sit down and put our records on paper.
peace,
4eak
Burning Wish is another possible route, dropping IT for it. The problem is that losing IT weakens IGG. At that point, it's probably better to just drop IGG for EtW (kinda like my old B/u/r, which probably would have evolved to dropping IT for BW anyway). I'd also drop Cabal Ritual for Rite of Flame, as I proposed and suggested a while back for Burning Wish ANT lists.
I do not think Burning Wish is an evolution of B/u/w ANT lists but I do think it is an evolution of B/u/r ANT lists. That's just my opinion, though, and is subject to being wrong.
At least in my testing, Repeal is usually fine against Counterbalance. In most games, if the opponent is able to resolve Counterbalance, it is because he has already used/lost countermagic(s) in order to get to that point. Most of the time, the opponent's hand is void of protection after it does resolve Counterbalance, where Repeal being cmc 3 to bounce Counterbalance dodges Counterbalances and effectively bounces it. This is not always the case, but my testing has shown this to be the case a large majority of the time.I question running bounce at all in the main in your case. Run bounce because it really, really matters that you resolve it, or just play without it. A resolved Counterbalance is the prime example of why we should run MD bounce, and Wipe Away is an actual solution while Repeal is unlikely to be one.
Counterbalance is only 1 problematic permanent though, and should not be the only thing looked at when considering a maindeck bounce spell. With UU in the casting cost, Wipe Away is extremely difficult to cast against decks with Chalice, where split second is usually irrelevant. It is my personal opinion that Chalice is much more problematic than Counterbalance. Therefore, I'd prefer to have a better Chalice answer than a better Counterbalance answer.
The problem with maindeck Repeal, though, is that it does not answer Gaddock Teeg. If I'm going to run maindeck bounce, I want it to be able to answer everything. For this reason, I run 1 maindeck Rushing River.
In my sideboard, I run 3-4 Repeal for Counterbalance decks and 3-4 Serenity for Chalice decks, with 1 Slaughter Pact and 1 StP for Teeg/Mage. So far, with Rushing River maindeck and these spells sideboard, testing has been doing very well. Further testing needs to be implented, I agree. For now, I like this configuration. The reason I don't like multiple Wipe Away sideboard, for now, is because bringing in 4 3cc bounce spells is just killer on the curve for AN. Maybe a 3/1 split of Repeal/Wipe Away could be good... it's something that needs to be determined. Even Serenity, at 2cc, is a bit steep. Luckily, in the matchups where Serenity comes in against, going for an IGG win instead of AN is usually viable to negate lifeloss (highly relevant against Dragon Stompy, for example).
I also agree about running AN... multiples are always good. However, I've come to like my 3/1 AN/IGG configuration for the meantime. 4/1 is a good configuration too, and is something I could come back to in the future. I tried 2/1 and 2/2 before... and I would never go back to only 2 AN's again. 3 is the minimum, IMO.
I mulligan alot less often than this. Most of my starting 7's are keepers. When I do need to mulligan though, it's usually bad... i.e, I don't mulligan to 6 (because the 6 card hand also sucks), I usually end up with a 4 or 5 card hand.You should probably be mulliganing about 25% of your hands. I hate doing it, but it is a necessary process.
EDIT:
As far as the red splash goes, this is what I would try (start with) for B/u/r:
B/u/r ANT
Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Flooded Strand
2 Underground Sea
1 Badlands
1 Volcanic Island
1 Swamp
1 Island
Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Burning Wish
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Red Elemental Blast
1 Rushing River
Sideboard (15)
1 Mountain
1 Thoughtseize (or a different sorcery speed protection spell)
4 Repeal
4 Shattering Spree
1 Slaughter Pact
1 Chain Lightning (or sorcery speed black removal)
1-2 Empty the Warrens
X Tormod's Crypt/Extirpate
Last edited by Hanni; 10-03-2008 at 04:33 PM.
I was looking for another B mana provider, and I ended on this one: rain of filth.
It's rarely useless (it almost always provides BB for B), bad in multiple, but I play only 1.
Edit: it gets easily the threshold for the cabal rituals
Last edited by Maveric78f; 10-03-2008 at 05:31 PM.
Since I think its fairly obvious that this deck stomps most control and aggro matchups I thought it best to test against blue based aggro control. I decided to test against the nightmare matchup as much as I could. I chose faerie stompy because it can play chalices and threats backed up by force faster than pretty much any other deck in the metagame. It should be a tougher matchup than threshold because threshold doesn't play chalice main and its threats are never as big in the early turns where it really counts. Its also much easier to deal with counterspells than it is to deal with fast lock permenants like chalice. Here is my list:
4 dark ritual
4 cabal ritual
4 lotus petal
4 chrome mox
4 lions eye diamond
4 flooded strand
4 polluted delta
4 underground sea
2 tundra
4 mystical tutor
4 infernal tutor
4 duress
4 orim's chant
4 echoing truth
4 ad nauseam
2 tendrils
I found in testing that the curve is extremely well suited to battling a resolved chalice because you have 12 0cc cards, 16 1cc cards and 12 2cc cards. Its still tough but you can play around it relatively well as long as multiple chalices don't hit.
I put echoing truth in because I got tired of being so vulnerable to cards like chalice. Being able to effectively answer any resolved permenant with ease is like playing a whole new deck. It also has a side advantage of being able to slow down the opponents clock to buy some time and in some rare situations I use it post AN on my moxes to generate extra storm. I initially tried repeal but the fact that it can't get rid of a chalice at 1 is terrible, besides echoing truth gets rid of all chalices not just one. I have recently considered hurkyl's recall which is a bit narrower than echoing truth but much better at generating storm count and getting rid of opposing artifacts. I haven't tested it but I think I feel safer knowing I can deal with any permenant rather than just artifacts.
I went back and forth about whether or not to include LED and infernal tutor but the fact of the matter is that both the cards are more useful than they seem. LED has been good a generating mana in response to AN as well as making infernal tutor into a demonic tutor post AN and you can mystical for a AN during your upkeep, chant them and then crack LED during your draw step to AN. Infernal tutor has been good without LED to find a backup AN or more mana without an LED on the table so I have been pleased but IT+LED has allowed for so many insane starts that I feel its a must.
In testing, its proved to be an obviously tough matchup but as always who went first makes the biggest difference. If stompy goes first they can drop a turn 1 chalice for 0 or 1 which could devastate a good portion of your hand and or draw but if ANT goes first you have the opportunity to time walk them with chant, duress away chalice/force or mystical for anything you need to combo next turn or tutor up an answer to chalice. Of course force is somewhat of an issue but being able to mystical for protection, infernal for an extra AN copy or just play protection in your hand somewhat neuturs force. The worst situation is double force because most of the time if you duress/chant and it gets forced you can combo out and win but when that second force comes out its game over. There have been many games I have won with a chalice still on the board because once AN resolves you can find an answer or just play around it and tendrils. Its important to remember though that multiple chalices are bad and so are multiple forces but you can deal with multiples of either much easier than you can force+chalice and usually being able to protect chalice allows them enough time to win. A fun trick I learned is that if they try to play a chalice for 2 while they have a chalice for 1 in play you can bounce the chalice for one in response and lock them out of playing another chalice for 1 because of chalice for 2.
Its still a horrible matchup but you can make it competitive if you are a better player or if you get lucky.
The one thing I might change is 1 IGG main. Being able to generate the extra storm to tendrils out without AN can be a lifesaver when you are low on life or storm. I'm not sure what I would take out because I think the list is so solid the way it is.
To not thirst for power is to be at the mercy of those that do
@Hanni
Are LED's optimal in the BUr version? I start to see they really are.
It is probably more efficient in terms of life than cabal/manamorphose (you'll draw more, improve chances against aggro) )
but when you finish off via burning you'll be left unprotected (unless duress)
I guess the blast are there basically because they deal with balance while pact doesn't.They are, however, not that great at protecting AN ( R cost).
I agree: rushing river is the bouncer to play since it can handle resolved trinishpere's and chalice at the same time (I'd add 1 or 2 more Sb) .
E.explosives can be another resilient tool in the sideboard against chalices and counterbalance. Note you won't take damage from it with AD.
Deathmark is your black sorcery removal, kills mage/canonist/teeg or beaters in case of need
I just bought my set of Ad Nauseams today, so I'm gonna shuffle up and test with real cards now (sometimes I just hate proxied cards, so much).
I guess I'll run it through a gauntlet of cookie cutter lists (Eva Green, Tempo Thresh, Dredge, i.e. whatever my friend has built at this moment), I'll see how it goes. I'm thinking the tempo thresh matchup is going to suck somewhat, even without CBTop.
Whatever, I'll see.
Three mana for a tutor is too much so it would be way too expensive to pay three for bounce. I have personally preferred echoing truth because it gets rid of any number of troublesome permenants especially multiple chalices. I didn't think about explosives though. I think its an interesting idea since you will be using blue and black mana on echoing truth anyway and it is possible to make 3 different colors. It also doesn't cost you any life but thats not a huge issue. Probably the 2 biggest drawbacks is that you have to pay so much to use it and it can be stopped by a chalice or counterbalance because its casting cost is so low. Two mana for bounce is the perfect number because its not cheap enough to get countered by an early chalice but is still cheap enough to use. Just my thoughts
To not thirst for power is to be at the mercy of those that do
@ Hanni
IT cannot come out of this deck. IT is even stronger than Mystical Tutor (ouch, did I just f'in say that?) in Legacy Storm. If we had to make room for it in our CQ slots, then I would drop Mystical Tutor for Burning Wish.Burning Wish is another possible route, dropping IT for it.
Mystical tutor is a card that belongs in an 'all-in' deck or a deck that plays a unique bomb (Ancestral Recall, toolbox, etc.) in the main itself. If you play protected combo, then against many matchups you'll find that card advantage matters too much to run Mystical Tutor.
Perhaps you are right, I don't know. I was thinking more along the lines of both decks being melted together. I'm pretty convinced that we'll be moving towards a B/U/r/w list, and a 5-color mana base to support it (sadly).I do not think Burning Wish is an evolution of B/u/w ANT lists but I do think it is an evolution of B/u/r ANT lists.
CB is a general 3rd or 4th turn play in most decks (it can be 2nd turn, but that is less common). Finding bounce before or as it comes into play is the only time that I could agree that Repeal is likely to resolve. Once a CB is in play, you'll find it much harder to even find your bounce card, let alone resolve it. CB timewalks the control deck into more permission, and that is the problem in my experience.In most games, if the opponent is able to resolve Counterbalance, it is because he has already used/lost countermagic(s) in order to get to that point.
There are many cases where Split Second can guarantee one or two timewalks for me, and I would not have played bounce in that circumstance unless I knew it would work. Wipe Away answers a whole lot that other bounce just doesn't.
Don't get me wrong, I think Repeal is a beautiful card. It isn't a bad card at all in this deck, but it just doesn't guarantee that I can answer CB (which is a major concern for me).
As long as you play around Wasteland, I really don't have that difficult a time casting Wipe Away as opposed to Repeal.With UU in the casting cost, Wipe Away is extremely difficult to cast against decks with Chalice, where split second is usually irrelevant.
Clearly, Repeal is preferred for cycling (when you don't have need for bounce) and Chalice (a serious problem for us). But, your singleton bounce needs to answer as many of the major threats to this deck as possible. I find Repeal fails where Wipe Away doesn't.
Rushing River's ability to handle 2 perms at once has been relevant. It is the only other bounce card that I have found worthy of the bounce slot. It has a distinct advantage over Wipe Away against Chalice/Sphere.dec.The problem with maindeck Repeal, though, is that it does not answer Gaddock Teeg. If I'm going to run maindeck bounce, I want it to be able to answer everything. For this reason, I run 1 maindeck Rushing River.
If you play against a lot of CB, then I still think Wipe Away is the correct card. If you play against a lot Stax, then Rushing River is the correct card.
I'll agree that 3 AdN is the bare minimum. Sometimes it is hard to find room for the last one.3 is the minimum, IMO.
Determining the rules for mulliganing for a particular deck is not something I want to do off anecdotal experience usually.I mulligan alot less often than this. Most of my starting 7's are keepers.
Catalogue your hands and your testing. You'll be able to look back and say whether you should have mulliganed many hands, even the ones that turned out to win (against the odds). You'll also have hard evidence about how much you actually mulligan.
Especially in the case of building a deck, many of us don't have enough experience with 6-card hands to know their exact value. You'd be lucky to have 100 games under your belt with 6-card hands is what it sounds like.
Test your deck with just 6-card hands; in this way you'll have hard numbers for what your average 6-card hand will play like, and in many cases you'll find the average value of the 6-card hand will be higher than some of your 7-card hands.
The majority of the time this deck is obvious and intuitive, but there are still circumstances in which we need better evidence as to why we should make a particular choice. In order to combat some of the more complex choices, including mulligans, I think we should keep a list of card statistics with us while we test. You can determine the probability of drawing any card or function at a glance, and that really helps when evaluating whether you should keep a hand or how you should play some of your more complicated hands. For example, when I look at a hand, I want to know the value of Brainstorm or my next draw. I need to know the odds of drawing a mana-source or grabbing a tutor in the next two turns. You'd be surprised how many times we might keep hands that only have a 30% chance to draw what we need to make it viable.
peace,
4eak
blacklotus3636:
- You don't need 2 tendrils if you play IGG.
- I don't understand why you play 4 echoing truth. There are a lot of better bounces among repeal (good for storm, cycles), rushing river (double effect), chain of vapor (good for storm), wipe away (split second).
- brainstorm is strongly missing from your list. It's very good to settle your handle for infernal tutor, when you have a lot of mana but no LED.
For the story yesterday, I've won against a blue deck with counterbalance and arcane laboratory in play: end of opponent's turn, I wipe away arcane lab, which enables me to see that his topdeck is 2CC (he had only 1 plains untapped, as he just played the counterbalance). Then, at my upkeep I search for AN with mystical. I double DR into AN, no FoW, I draw no DR from AN but enough 0CC to play repeal on counterbalance and save 2 manas for cabal ritual.
I play 2 tendrils because sometimes I have to pop an LED with IT on the stack. I understand your reasoning for playing IGG in place of the second but I'm not sure what card to take out of my list for it but I'll try to find a way to fit it in. On the bounce issue I agree that repeal, and chain of vapor seem better but in testing those cards I found that its inability to answer a chalice at 1 is a huge problem. Besides those cards can't answer multiples of the same permenant. I know it sounds stupid but if your bounce is too cheap an early chalice will be able to stop it and chalice is the most maindecked and sideboarded card to stop combo with the possible exception of counterbalance. I know if I were running almost any deck that was having problems with combo 4 chalice would be in my sideboard so your ability to handle that card is absolutely crucial.
As for brainstorm, I used to run it but this deck needs very specific cards at certain times and whenever I cast brainstorm I needed something specific and when I didn't get it it always slowed me down. I have found the current tutor package to be just what I need. I would ask that you try it and see if you like it:)
To not thirst for power is to be at the mercy of those that do
You know what sucks hard? Fish decks. Who the hell maindecks Gaddock Teeg anyway :angryangry:
My friend was like "oh, test against this new deck I just made, it's pretty cool." I'm like "no, just play tempo thresh." and he was like "just play against this a couple of times".
So I caved in and got my skull bashed in by Gaddock Teeg and friends (of course backuped by FoW and Thoughtseize and stuff) all 5 preboarded games.
So I am going to go tweak, but just dropping in and saying that FoW+Thoughtseize+Teeg sucks hardcore. Mage doesn't even suck that hard, at least Mage naming Tendrils allow me the chance of Ad Nauseaming into a bajillion cards to find that bounce (and naming Ad Nauseam allows me to go IGG), but Teeg shuts down like all of the engines.
I think I just played you on MWS, and I was playing BWG Funkbrew. From my point of view you should've tutor'd for Rushing River and waited till you could have gone off that same turn. Teeg wrecks this matchup which I know realize coupled with thoguhtseize and therapy. Has there been ay testing for smother in the maindeck, or something like that?
This is my Signature
Slaughter pact
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
