You're playing against bad players, Burning Wish should be countered to protect the "hate bear" from removal and prevent Empty the Warrens, Grape Shot just opens you up to both a counter on Burning Wish and Stifle on Grape Shot.Originally Posted by GreenOne
Ethersworn Canonist + Chalice of the Void = Affinity, White Weenie, GBW Rock and sometimes Landstill. Pyroclasm > Ethersworn Canonist is enough to justify Pyroclasm > Grape Shot, that slot is for "hate bears."
A "hate bear" or a couple of "hate bears" aren't always problematic, because I have walls.
No, the opponent can't just drop Meddling Mage on Ad Nauseam, Infernal Tutor -> Burning Wish -> Diminishing Returns and Infernal Tutor -> Burning Wish -> Empty the Warrens cost 1 more (and Tinder Wall upped the mana threshold) and more importantly Infernal Tutor -> Burning Wish -> Ill Gotten Gains is still possible. You can always cut a land for a MD Empty the Warrens regardless, but the point is TES was designed to ignore Meddling Mage on Tendrils of Agony, so putting Meddling Mage on Tendrils of Agony is really stupid.
You're right.
Yeah, Burning Wish should be countered, but since you're not playing Burning Wish+Pyroclasm on the same turn, they have a turn to cantrip into FoW, Spell Snare or BEB.
You can work against Stifle with Chant (if you play it).
Looking at the last 10 decks that top8ed on deckcheck for each deck type here are the results:
Affinity: 17 canonists played. Zero canonist+chalice
WW: zero Canonists played.
The Rock: zero Canonists played.
UBGW Landstill: 1 Canonist played (!!!).
UW(x) Landstill: zero Canonist played.
If I'm not playing against real opponents, you probably aren't playing against real decks
I'm not changing my strategy based on what less than half of Affinity decks (an already favoured matchup) might be playing.
That said, I'm still of the opinion that Pyroclasm is a good choice in metas with many tribal decks or 8hatebears.dec
Currently Playing: Nourishing Lich.Deck
Current Record: 1-83-2
It seems to be a bit off topic at this point, but with Tinder Wall being discussed I am curious if anyone has done further testing with the card?
Who cares if she was dead, we did her anyway...
Breathweapon is testing it in the list he posted.
I really wanna test it but don't know which slot should be dedicated. The natural slot would be the Cabal Ritual ones, but I'd like to have a single copy to Mystical, and a second one to Infernal Tutor (this one is less important). It probably can take some protection slot in aggro metas, but I guess Cabal Ritual is the only slot that can be used for testing.
Currently Playing: Nourishing Lich.Deck
Current Record: 1-83-2
Tinder Wall is awesome, once you run a set of Tinder Wall and a set of Ad Nauseam, you'll wonder why we weren't running Tinder Wall in the fist place. I'm certain it's superior to Simian Spirit Guide and Cabal Ritual, and I actually like it more than Rite of Flame depending on the situation.
It's a mini, unconditional LED a lot.
Tinderwall isn't worth it. We've been over this before. Requiring G mana is awful in a combo turn and if you don't use it in the combo turn you risk losing acceleration to creature hate. It only adds one mana - ever. Cabal Ritual and Rite of Flame both add one, while having a possibility of creating more mana. While not being stopped by removal and they are both colors the deck already uses. Also, a set of Nauseum? Ludicrous.
Typically I am not one to disagree with people I highly respect as combo players however in this case I feel it is necessary to disagree with Bryant.
Yesterday morning I attended a tournament with 16 players playing Breaths list with the exclusion of main deck protection to run more storm accelerants and took second place with my only losses occurring against a mono-black discard deck backed up by quick Stalker beats which I still went 2-1 against and against a fairly standard team America deck. The team America losses were mainly due to my lack of game 1 protection and game 2 casting Diminishing Returns and fizziling.
One of the strongest tools that Breaths list allows for is top decked Adnausems when otherwise impossible without Tinder Walls in situations such as heavy discard. Not to mention His version is also slightly better in a blue light/blue non-existant meta game. I do realize that such a meta is almost impossible however yesterday there was only one Team America and one Merfolk deck packing control.
I realize that my adjustments also skew the results from Breath's deck however I was in a position to do very well if I cut the main deck protection for increased speed. In hindisight I realize it cost me first place. I also realize that five rounds is not even remotely a large enough pool of data to prove the value of Breath's list but the initial test seemed good IF YOU DODGE blue decks otherwise I would stick with Bryant's list.
This is untrue. Tinder Wall also gives at least 1 and sometimes 2 mana. If played in the combo turn it gives 1 and is just as hard to cast as Rite of Flame (ok, excluding Mox, not really relevant) and it gives 2 if you play it the turn before, which is probably a less restricting condition than getting threshhold.
Why do you base the strength of some card, like Tinder Wall in this case, on what someone plays next to it? It's pretty clear you don't need to play 4 AdN next to it.
Edit: I might have misunderstood, if you meant the only spells that make 1 unconditional, 2 under some condition and don't have the creature removal drawback. Still, you could see it as a ritual that makes 1 and only makes 2 against decks that don't play removal. Than it's still reasonable, even though it's probably better to just take the chance in some situations.
Last edited by matelml; 02-10-2009 at 06:33 AM.
Team Nijmegen
I don't even play this deck that often, but each time I play I find it extremely relevant to be able to cast red spells off Chrome Mox by imprinting other red spells. This comes up a lot after I've cast Ad Nauseam. This seems like a serious drawback and a place where Bryant is correct.
BZK! - Storm Boards
Been there, tried that, still casting Doomsday.
Drawing my deck for 0 mana since 2013.
After a bit of testing, I'm feeling comfortable with the actual number of Black sources in the deck. It can be good with -1, but I like at least a cabal ritual in the deck.
I'd love some number of tinder walls, but I really don't know wchich slots they should take: They're worse than Rite of Flame and Dark Ritual, they can't replace moxes or petals, 1 Cabal ritual should be played, so that leaves me with just a single slot. I guess they can take some protection slot in aggro-heavy metas, but not in a normal one. The deck already plays 22 acceleration spells, so it's probably not a good idea to take out some business spell to play more acceleration. In the end, Tinder Wall just seems worse than every other acceleration piece in our deck but Cabal Ritual, that it's a 2of.
Currently Playing: Nourishing Lich.Deck
Current Record: 1-83-2
So you basically played Belcher? Because dropping protecting and adding more accel just makes a really odd version of belcher.
As far as Tinder Wall, color is really important off a mox as if you cant get enough to go off after AdN you are in a bad place.
Also, as far as it being a mini-LED, LED can't get Swords/Snuff Out/(insert creature removal). The fact that Game 1 your opponent has alot of dead cards helps TES out a god deal, turning that removal back on is bad. Also, as far as its ability to stop turn 1 lackey, we are playing COMBO. If you can't outrace Goblins easily you are terrible with, 1) the deck, 2) mulligans, 3) luck. Yes it's nice to be able to store mana for the next turn but if i wanted to do that I would just run more lands.
Just my 2 cents.
You said the same thing about Mystical Tutor, what you have to realize is that Ad Nauseam has changed the function of the cards we cut and the cards we play, and Tinder Wall is the same as Mystical Tutor in that case. Tinder Wall turning removal into a "counter" isn't a problem game one, because you have an either/or choice, and it isn't a problem game two/three unless your opponent keeps his removal (and I 8> acceleration that creates DCA). G mana is no worse than W on the combo turn, and you can either play Tinder Wall before the combo turn or you can replace Orim's Chant with Duress, which lets you both play your disruption before the combo turn or on the combo turn off of Dark Ritual. My deck is faster than your deck, my deck is more threat dense than your deck and my deck has greater color stability than your deck and I've tested both to know. About the only serious draw back is that my deck isn't packing the same amount of disruption, 5 now that I've cut the 11th land, but I can break counter walls with threats.
Stop passing judgment and pick up the deck, not running a set of Ad Nauseam when you're running a set of Brainstorm and Ponder is retarded, so many of my turn 2 wins come from casting Brainstorm or Ponder, stacking Ad Nauseam and then sacrificing LED during my upkeep. If you cut Ill Gotten Gains, I'm running 1 more high CC card than you.
Edit: Don't understimate Tinder Wall as a blocker, while yes you can "go off" before Goblins kills you, those attacks do mathematically reduce your odds of winning post Ad Nauseam. Tinder Wall holding off Meddling Mage is a pretty common scenario, and those life points are going to matter.
You're arguing for a BUILD that's quite different from the accepted list. That's very different from arguing for the inclusion of a card.
Running a set of Ad Nauseam seems like a bad decision. Yes, it wins games. No, it is not necessary to run all 4. Mystical serves as Ad Nauseams 3 and 4, plus it's able to get disruption or acceleration.
It seems like you're just planning on going all-in every game and taking your chances. If that's your plan, you may as well play Belcher. Not TES.
Ill-Gotten Gains?
I still hate Mystical every time I open up two I want to throw the deck. It's like mulliganing to five. Also, That's not a valid excuse and is a poor argument. One card making one other card somewhat playable does not mean that my credibility and knowledge of storm is less than yours. I have plently of results that show otherwise.
Are you kidding? I'm being serious here. I can't tell. Turning a dead card into a card that has a use isn't like a counter. Counter's hit relevant cards, not weak Rite of Flames.
I'm glad you think these things about your deck. But where are the statistics? Faster isn't always better, the list you pilot is terrible against real opponents playing blue in a tournament where the skill level is above average.
Making assumptions doesn't make your argument any more valid. I do a lot of testing and know what cards work and don't, what cards fill roles better than others. I was wrong about 2 cards in all of TES's history, Brainstorm and Mystical. Would you like to compare to your list? Cutting Ill-Gotten Gains leaves you next to no outs maindeck. Meaning an average hand won't win you the game because you need an extraordinary hard with Protection, more acceleration and a way to find Burning Wish. Too many Ad Nauseum causes games in which you should've won, to losses. Why do this when you can just lower the average cc and play different cards?
The goblins argument is irrelevant. You shouldn't be caring about goblins. Also, if you played a different list you wouldn't be holding off Mages. You'd win around them.
Last edited by Bryant Cook; 02-10-2009 at 05:55 PM.
@Arsenal
Against Goblins, yes, against Threshold maybe or maybe not. The usefulness of Tinder Wall comes down to your hand composition and their disruption/clock, in theory it never blocks, in reality it does.
@B4ron
Ok, but it's TES at TES's core, I'm just emphasizing a different acceleration, threat and disruption package.
Mystical Tutor is versatile, but it's also slow and costly, Time Walking your opponent into Counterbalance is antithetical to TES.
That argument is non-sense, I could just as easily say you should play DDFT, TES has and always will be a turn 1/2 Storm deck.
@Bryant
1)
It's not a you or me pissing contest, my point was Ad Nauseam has changed the utility of Mystical Tutor, Orim's Chant and Tinder Wall, and the merits and demerits of each card have to be re-evaluated.
2)
Tinder Wall turns Swords to Plowshares into a W "counter" for your mana, it's no more or less a counter than Blue Elemental Blast on Rite of Flame is, but again my point was Swords to Plowshares isn't problematic because you have the choice of "Tinder Wall go" or sacrificing Tinder Wall immediately.
3)
Me claiming my deck is faster and more efficient is less dubious than you claiming my deck is "terrible" vs skilled players with blue decks in tournaments when you have absolutely no evidence.
I don't think it has more speed and efficiency, I know it has more speed efficiency, because that's what happens when you increase the acceleration and threats in a combo deck. Whether or not more speed and efficiency makes up for less disruption and flexibility is your real argument here, and that's totally a meta game and play style call.
4)
I'm sorry, but I don't buy "I know what cards work and what cards don't work" as the status quo, and considering I've done more testing with your deck and my deck for comparison, you're the one assuming things here.
Cutting Ill Gotten Gains doesn't leave the deck with next to no outs, cutting Ill Gotten Gains just adds +R to Infernal Tutor to find Burning Wish -> Diminishing Returns or Burning Wish -> Empty the Warrens compared to the IGG loop, and that's not counting +W and Orim's Chant if a counter was baited. I'm tired of mulling to six just for IGG MD, I don't think it's worth it any more.
Saying Ad Nauseam costs you games you should've won is only relevant when it kills you post Ad Nauseam, but that's not a fair argument because with out Ad Nauseam(s) you couldn't have cast one in the first place. What I mean is, the number of Ad Nauseam(s) matters, both in a negative sense where Ad Nauseam increases avg. CC and in a positive sense where Ad Nauseam off of Brainstorm/Ponder turns a LED into a Lotus or Add Nauseam off of Diminishing Returns lets you keep going.
As far as why play Ad Nauseam when you could play other cards ... because if you're not playing Ad Nauseam then you're playing Mystical Tutor, and Mystical Tutor has its own issues.
5)
Goblins I'll give you, but saying Tinder Wall is worthless vs Meddling Mage, Gaddok Teeg and Ethersworn Canonist is going too far, because even tho' you can win around Meddling Mage he still buys time and deals damage. I'd rather have the life than not, and that's all there is to it.
6)
I'm happy with my deck, it suits my style, whether or not it is or it isn't better than your deck is debatable.
Either way, Tinderwall just doesn't have a place in the deck.
You're still making dead cards relevant.
You don't play Orim's Chant. Of course your list is going to be worse versus blue.
You now rely too much on Burning Wish. You'll lose to Spell Snare because you couldn't Duress that Counterbalance/Force and Spell Snare.
How is it not fair? Playing 4 5cc cards in the deck is certainly a fair argument. It's a deckbuilding flaw that will cause losses.
You wouldn't need all of this life if you just played Ill-Gotten Gains. You wouldn't be forced into casting Nauseum every game.
1)
Tinder Wall is less CC than Simian Spirit Guide and Cabal Ritual for either the same or more amount of mana, whether or not you run it is up to you, but you can't say it's not worth running. Tinder Wall doesn't really make Swords to Plowshares relevant, Swords to Plowshares just makes "Tinder Wall, go" a risky move game 1. It's not like it's Vexing Shusher, where Swords to Plowshares and Blue Elemental Blast really fucking hurt.
2)
My win rate with Duress is higher than my win rate with Orim's Chant vs blue decks, because stopping Counterbalance is more important than stopping Stifle and Spellsnare when you're running Ad Nauseam. You can play around the 1cc counters, but you can't play around permanent hate.
3)
Huh?
4)
It's not a fair argument because all you're considering is the avg. CC when the odds of drawing Ad Nauseam with Brainstorm/Ponder and Diminishing Returns are also relevant. It's not a design flaw, it's risk vs reward.
5)
That's fair, but it's still useful, IMO.
1) It may be less CC but it costs an off color to the deck. You can say its not worth it to play it because it has more downsides and less potential upsides that Cabal Rit or Rite of Flame.
2) How does duress stop an active counterbalance? And last i checked, TES ran duress and Chant but i would rather only worry about active counterbalance than counterbalance, Force, stifle....
3) Hes saying that you list is worse vs. blue because you can only get 4 counters from them since you only have duress. See the Chant vs Duress arguments a few pages earlier.
4) Diminishing Returns is a last ditch thing. If you have to go for it, you probally aren't in a position to use AdN. Also, your chances of getting one of 2x Mystical or 2x AdN is the same as getting 4x AdN, only one hurts a hell of a lot less during AdN.
Overall, the debate isn't necessarily that Tinder Wall is bad, obviously it isn't since it is played in Belcher but what is being said is that it is just inferior to other mana accel options.
I think that Tinder Wall makes a lot of sense in the deck. I haven't tested it at all, but in theory it should be better than Cabal Ritual. One less CC for AdN...check. Gives the option of +2mana if you are willing/need to take the risk of playing it and passing...check. Can block random creatures to preserve life for AdN...check. I know many people will write off this third point, but even Bryant himself has lost to random non-FOW aggro(Goblins) in tournaments. I also would not consider it "off-color" either...all the lands in the deck produce all 5 colors and you have 4 lotus petals (Also when you don't need W in the combo turn the G mana is even less of an issue)!
I've switched my protection suite to 4 Duress and 2 Orim's Chant and have been very pleased. BreathWeapon is right - I've lost many more games to a resolved Counterbalance than to Spell Snare/Stifle now that Ad-Nauseum has been printed. Also, I've found myself requiring IGG less frequently since a resolved AdN will typically give you plently of storm to win. Though I still like my maindeck IGG...
@Jeff
#2) Duress is played to take the Counterbalance out of someone's hand. Orim's Chant cannot do this. Both cards (and for that matter the whole fucking deck) are pretty shitty when facing down a resolved Counterbalance.
#3) This is basically only relevant in the Landstill match where they actually play Counterspell, and are thus mana restricted from playing multiple Counters.
#4) Diminishing Returns is not a "last-ditch" thing. It is a relatively common path to victory when the only "threat" in your hand is Burning Wish.
Last edited by jrp; 02-11-2009 at 12:51 AM. Reason: Modding myself - flaming removed :)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
