[Deck] 12 Post

[Lemnear]

I think you are confused. I do not attest any wins or losses to the deck's sideboard strategy's validity. I attribute my own extensive two-fisted testing with both ANT and TES against the deck.

I approach deck building in a scientific method approach, not an anecdotal one. When you put actual testing behind the deck with skill in both decks being established, then we can discuss the failings of other approaches equally.

I don't know how far the scientific method reaches if you try to make a point about how good Swan Song and Flusterstorm are against Xantid Swarm and conclude that the single angle of counterspells is enough to tame a deck which's SB is tailormade to beat a counter-overload

[HammafistRoob]

Except the chance of you actually drawing the bees are quite low. You basically must have bees or a massive amount of protection on top of actual combo pieces.

[Tammit67]

Except the chance of you actually drawing the bees are quite low. You basically must have bees or a massive amount of protection on top of actual combo pieces.

Seeing a 3 of in the top 10 or so cards with 4 ponder/brainstorm/probe doesn't seem that low to me.

Even if you bring the post board games to 50%, you have to win both games postboard since you probably didnt get there game 1. So the match win percentage is something like 70-30 in storms favor assuming you win some small amount of the time preboard and half the time post

[HammafistRoob]

Seeing a 3 of in the top 10 or so cards with 4 ponder/brainstorm/probe doesn't seem that low to me.

Even if you bring the post board games to 50%, you have to win both games postboard since you probably didnt get there game 1. So the match win percentage is something like 70-30 in storms favor assuming you win some small amount of the time preboard and half the time post

It's roughly 37 percent to see a 3 of in the top 10 cards. I really think the matchup is around 65-35 postboard.

[Lemnear]

It's roughly 37 percent to see a 3 of in the top 10 cards. I really think the matchup is around 65-35 postboard.

I asume it's 65-35 for TES in that case. It's not that there are Silences or Wish->Therapy somewhere in that calculation aside the possible issue of being able to cast the overload of counters with that manabase. Dunno how relyable you get something like double U going to turn several counter in your hand on.

Overall I'm pretty surprised about the negative vibe which followed my sincere advice. Claiming TES a good matchup with nearly being a goldfish game 1 and having a narrow SB's plan which storm is used to battle since the existance of Meerfolk and S&T, is confusing. Keep dismissing Chalice and Resistors; I'm looking forward facing more players in the future who think Flusterstorm/Swan Song/Mindbreak Trap/Spell Pierce make them combo-proved...

[TimHarding]

I asume it's 65-35 for TES in that case. It's not that there are Silences or Wish->Therapy somewhere in that calculation aside the possible issue of being able to cast the overload of counters with that manabase. Dunno how relyable you get something like double U going to turn several counter in your hand on.

Overall I'm pretty surprised about the negative vibe which followed my sincere advice. Claiming TES a good matchup with nearly being a goldfish game 1 and having a narrow SB's plan which storm is used to battle since the existance of Meerfolk and S&T, is confusing. Keep dismissing Chalice and Resistors; I'm looking forward facing more players in the future who think Flusterstorm/Swan Song/Mindbreak Trap/Spell Pierce make them combo-proved...

I'm actually into this vibe - little over zealous at times but this is a good argument. Funny thing is that TES and POST are the two decks I'm usually playing. I'm going to do a test session tmrw after my local weekly legacy and try to do a legit report so we can pick this apart.

However, when on my counter heavy plan my attitude in general entering game 2+3 is to counter aggressively - as there are many counters, cantrips even, until I can get a counter under a top protected from discard or stick a glen elendra/one of the fewer permanent based hates. I don't pile on chalices and thorns because they narrow the board too much for me. You're very right about chalice and if I expect some TES,ill use one and go stall,stall, Mage> chalice - and it's worked out well for me. But if TES draws the bugs, it's difficult to win for sure.

[civet five]

I'm actually into this vibe - little over zealous at times but this is a good argument. Funny thing is that TES and POST are the two decks I'm usually playing. I'm going to do a test session tmrw after my local weekly legacy and try to do a legit report so we can pick this apart.

However, when on my counter heavy plan my attitude in general entering game 2+3 is to counter aggressively - as there are many counters, cantrips even, until I can get a counter under a top protected from discard or stick a glen elendra/one of the fewer permanent based hates. I don't pile on chalices and thorns because they narrow the board too much for me. You're very right about chalice and if I expect some TES,ill use one and go stall,stall, Mage> chalice - and it's worked out well for me. But if TES draws the bugs, it's difficult to win for sure.

Has anyone ever tried testing Counterbalance in the board as one of the counters? It seems that we have the spells in the right CC range that once we get a top-lock in, we can maintain some semblance of control. Not sure exactly what that exact configuration would look like, but it seems worth durdling and trying. Also, I think that its underappreciated that you can float Force of Will with a top, reveal it to CB to counter an opposing FoW, then Brainstorm/top into it if you still need it in a war.

I was tooling around again with a TurboMulch version of Post and the idea came to mind that CounterTop could work as part of it. Since I cannot make that deck work at all, this seems the next best place to throw the idea out.

[(nameless one)]

TurboMulch?

Care to share?

[Rock Lee]

Has anyone ever tried testing Counterbalance in the board as one of the counters? It seems that we have the spells in the right CC range that once we get a top-lock in, we can maintain some semblance of control. Not sure exactly what that exact configuration would look like, but it seems worth durdling and trying. Also, I think that its underappreciated that you can float Force of Will with a top, reveal it to CB to counter an opposing FoW, then Brainstorm/top into it if you still need it in a war.

I was tooling around again with a TurboMulch version of Post and the idea came to mind that CounterTop could work as part of it. Since I cannot make that deck work at all, this seems the next best place to throw the idea out.

I tested CB in the sb, but UU on turn two is very rare with a strong hand.

[Rock Lee]

Overall I'm pretty surprised about the negative vibe which followed my sincere advice. Claiming TES a good matchup with nearly being a goldfish game 1 and having a narrow SB's plan which storm is used to battle since the existance of Meerfolk and S&T, is confusing. Keep dismissing Chalice and Resistors; I'm looking forward facing more players in the future who think Flusterstorm/Swan Song/Mindbreak Trap/Spell Pierce make them combo-proved...

I have no negative vibe against suggestions or criticism. I have a negative vibe against nonscientific, non statistical hearsay of anecdotal origins. I happen to have tested over 25 two fisted matches with both ANT and TES vs my matchup, without a preference to playing either side, simply to know if I needed to change sideboard choices/plan, and ANT/TES were simply curb-stomped. Of all the variants of combo that exist, storm based combo is by far (over 35% higher than the next best competitive combo deck) my best win percentage.

[thefreakaccident]

If I can beat delver with TES, I can beat this deck with it too. Just saying. Yes you have a good 'clock' with the power of your manabase and SnT, but you have no time to set anything up, the moment you 'combo' you are likely going to die, as you cannot ever give him a chance to go off unimpeded. This is the nature of combo in the new age of cantrips and the consistency it allows.

That matchup will not get better, simply because this deck requires too many cards to actually win the game (lands). By needing to run more lands, plus land tutors/enablers, show and tells, the critters, etc. etc. you actually just don't have the slots necessary to fight that archtype anymore at a sufficient level. This is why 'control' as we've known it has also fallen to the wayside.

This is why you need to focus on trying to remain the combo player in that matchup, which means more bombs, not counters. Lock pieces on the board are always going to serve you better than countermagic, you have the mana, laying it at one cripples their cantrip base, and if they don't already have their combo/disruption they have to get lucky as hell. Even if they have the disruption, you've at least forced them to interact with the board which can buy you time to get your combo online. If you wipe them off lands with a lockpiece still intact, well...

[Rock Lee]

If I can beat delver with TES, I can beat this deck with it too. Just saying. Yes you have a good 'clock' with the power of your manabase and SnT, but you have no time to set anything up, the moment you 'combo' you are likely going to die, as you cannot ever give him a chance to go off unimpeded. This is the nature of combo in the new age of cantrips and the consistency it allows.

That matchup will not get better, simply because this deck requires too many cards to actually win the game (lands). By needing to run more lands, plus land tutors/enablers, show and tells, the critters, etc. etc. you actually just don't have the slots necessary to fight that archtype anymore at a sufficient level. This is why 'control' as we've known it has also fallen to the wayside.

This is why you need to focus on trying to remain the combo player in that matchup, which means more bombs, not counters. Lock pieces on the board are always going to serve you better than countermagic, you have the mana, laying it at one cripples their cantrip base, and if they don't already have their combo/disruption they have to get lucky as hell. Even if they have the disruption, you've at least forced them to interact with the board which can buy you time to get your combo online. If you wipe them off lands with a lockpiece still intact, well...

For your assistance, I have highlighted all the locations where you can add values and playtesting to make your statement have any relevance to this conversation. Thank you, let me know when you have returned with such information, and in what quantities. Until then I will shelve your statement under "wild theory from naysayers."

[Lemnear]

If I can beat delver with TES, I can beat this deck with it too. Just saying. Yes you have a good 'clock' with the power of your manabase and SnT, but you have no time to set anything up, the moment you 'combo' you are likely going to die, as you cannot ever give him a chance to go off unimpeded. This is the nature of combo in the new age of cantrips and the consistency it allows.

That matchup will not get better, simply because this deck requires too many cards to actually win the game (lands). By needing to run more lands, plus land tutors/enablers, show and tells, the critters, etc. etc. you actually just don't have the slots necessary to fight that archtype anymore at a sufficient level. This is why 'control' as we've known it has also fallen to the wayside.

This is why you need to focus on trying to remain the combo player in that matchup, which means more bombs, not counters. Lock pieces on the board are always going to serve you better than countermagic, you have the mana, laying it at one cripples their cantrip base, and if they don't already have their combo/disruption they have to get lucky as hell. Even if they have the disruption, you've at least forced them to interact with the board which can buy you time to get your combo online. If you wipe them off lands with a lockpiece still intact, well...

The point is: You can't race decks like Belcher or TES with this one. You are doomed to be the control-player here, no matter what.

I have no negative vibe against suggestions or criticism. I have a negative vibe against nonscientific, non statistical hearsay of anecdotal origins. I happen to have tested over 25 two fisted matches with both ANT and TES vs my matchup, without a preference to playing either side, simply to know if I needed to change sideboard choices/plan, and ANT/TES were simply curb-stomped. Of all the variants of combo that exist, storm based combo is by far (over 35% higher than the next best competitive combo deck) my best win percentage.

I had to laugh after reading the first sentence, because all scientific and statistical calculation blow your claim out of the water. I have no clue how badly played those matchups were from the combo-side to give the impression that the matchup in particular and combo in general are/remain curb-stomps within all the massive bi-weekly (gut-feeling) changes of the 75 you suggest.

At this point, I have to question your "scientific" method to determine the matchup against combo, with a deck running the SB plan of Meerfolk and S&T (sans Leyline) which is well-explored how to Dismember. It's hilarious that you mark my teammates and my tournament experiences as "anecdotes and hearsay" while ignoring statistical facts, claim the complete opposite and call that "scientific", even if you completely ignore the differences between the storm decks and put those into a single Box.

If we could discuss our obvious VERY different experiences in that regards on a serious level this might have been helpful for both threads on the board, but I can't see a base if you discredit anything "I" bring to the table as "baseless speculation" of a random biased noob out of the web (you don't even care to adress any of my arguments up to this point) and "You" claim the intellectual and statistical surpremacy with "25 two-fisted games" you played from both sides of the table which are worthless to any calculations, unless you or the other players you faced are true masters of TES (a whole different beast of required skill than ANT).

At this point I could also create a hyperbole like you did with your first sentence. May try ... "So you and your playtest buddies fail to pilot one of the most difficult combo decks in the format? A CLEAR scientific evidence that the deck on the other side of the table is GENERALLY "curb-stomping" the matchup!"

[thefreakaccident]

Rocklee, you clearly misread that first statement, as it meant exactly what you ended up typing it out to be. I did mean at all, if I could take a single game out of a thousand against delver with TES, then I could beat this deck. Just saying.

If you are both combo decks, the faster, more consistent combo will likely win the first game correct? Do you have a way to outright win the game turn 1/2?


I'll get around to showing you the awesomeness that is trinisphere/chalice + manadenial, preempting your opponent (conceding if they go first and combo turn 1 however).

@Leamner-> thanks for saying it in much fewer words :P

As far as my strange terminology goes, I didn't really mean that you should kill the opponent first. I consider laying down disruptive permanents 'comboing', its a bad habit. My reasoning is that you can 'race' with permanent based disruption that makes it more difficult for the opponent to play spells, but you cannot 'race' with countermagic, if that makes any sense.

This mentality comes from being a maniacal bastard that prefers making opponents concede under locks than actually winning. It's so much more satisfying.

[Lemnear]

My reasoning is that you can 'race' with permanent based disruption that makes it more difficult for the opponent to play spells, but you cannot 'race' with countermagic, if that makes any sense.

It does. Strange way to put it, but the essence is correct. Sitting behind counterspells without pressure, just to see those dismembered by Duress, C.Therapy, Silence and Xantid Swarm isn't a game-winning strategy, nor is a turn 3 S&T a real gamebreaker against decks which easily make you loose 30+ life

[Davek]

Even if i'm a convinced Post-player, i think storm players are right. Anyway, i went to a 70-man tournament yesterday and ended 5th, winning a savannah. The list is the same of a couple of pages ago, while this is the sb:

4 Flusterstorm
3 Force of Will
2 Swan Song
1 Thragtusk
1 Glen Elendra Archmage
1 Venser, Shaper Savant
1 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
1 Repeal
1 Show and Tell

Ended 1st in swiss with 5-0-2 (i'm not sure if this is the way to write it, won 5 games and made 2 ID), beating UWR miracles, Canadian, Grixis Delver (the list that ended 1st about a month ago in a SCG tournament), UR Delver and Sneak&Show. Lost in top 8 to a some kind of next-level canadian with mishra's factories, standstill, cliques and lavamancer. The deck decided it had worked enough, giving me a single land on the opening hand both games (even after mulligans). All sb cards have been sided in, the MVP have been S&T and repeal. A merit note goes to venser/karakas duo that did high leverage in Sneak&show matchup while bouncing constantly the lands of my opponent and slowly eroding his life total.
I'm still convinced that some permanent-based hate against storm decks is required, but i don't want to play chalice, i think it's not effective enough against ANT while set on 0 not being coupled by fast aggro (and ANT is much more popular here than TES) I was thinking about Sphere of Resistance, but any suggestion is really appreciated.
...one last thing about Elves matchup. How could you say it's a bad matchup? I think i've never lost a single game against them by simply crop rotating into Glacial Chasm while they do not have any answer to it even post-sb.

[thefreakaccident]

Challice at one is so much better than chalice at zero, it is not even funny. 0 hits 8 mana sources (granted LED is a huge deal), while 1 shuts them off of all of their cantrips/probes/discard, not to mention rituals.

If you've only been playing chalice at 0, I can see why you think it's bad.

[Lemnear]

Challice at one is so much better than chalice at zero, it is not even funny. 0 hits 8 mana sources (granted LED is a huge deal), while 1 shuts them off of all of their cantrips/probes/discard, not to mention rituals.

If you've only been playing chalice at 0, I can see why you think it's bad.

Tbh, a turn 2 Chalice @ 1 can be too slow, especially in game 3. Chalice @ 0 at least locks out the fast Ad Nauseams (TES only. ANT doesn't care much about Chalice @ 0).

[Darkenslight]

Challice at one is so much better than chalice at zero, it is not even funny. 0 hits 8 mana sources (granted LED is a huge deal), while 1 shuts them off of all of their cantrips/probes/discard, not to mention rituals.

If you've only been playing chalice at 0, I can see why you think it's bad.

Am I wrong, then, in thinking that Chalices set at 0 and 2 make it very difficult to go off for Storm (non-Belcher), but Chalices at 0 and 1 make it damn-near impossible?

[thefreakaccident]

Oh I agree, you need chalice at one turn one. Banking on turn two chalice @ 1 is some crazy shit.