[Deck] T.E.S. - The EPIC Storm

[Dr Brian Pepper]

@Dr Brian Pepper: Sounds like we're just not going to agree. The last point I'll make is this: I assume you'd agree LSV is one of the best players in world, correct? If you watch his Legacy videos and intend to learn how to play ANT with zero skepticism in the watching/listening process, you will learn how to play ANT very poorly. He makes a lot of obvious misplays with this deck, makes some very poor SBing decisions, and his ANT lists are mediocre. You can still learn a lot from him, sure, but you need to constantly question whether he is right or wrong in his plays if you want to truly learn how to play the Storm variant in his videos. This is true with ANY player. This is also true for life in general.

@JDK: Players who have 100% bought into this deck are going to make excuses for those results, and there's nothing you/we can do about it. It would be way different if you presented that information to a player who is trying to figure out what deck to build and has 20 different decks that they are genuinely considering. In the end most players on here have already bought into the deck, and their debate is "which cards should I run in these 5 slots" rather than "is this deck even viable right now?" I wish that the community at large were more open-minded about their decks choices rather than subconsciously considering decks "extensions of themselves" (psychology/marketing principle that is definitely at play here). In the end this helps a competitive player build their deck because you know a huge portion of the Legacy metagame at any given time since players are slow to change and adapt in Magic in general, but especially in Legacy.

If I was new to MTG I would watch LSV play some type of format, his technical play is amazing and you can and I have learned a lot from it. But, that is not the same thing going on here. In the format as Legacy, it's a know thing that sticking to one deck is a good thing to do (For this instance, Bryant has played TES for a long time, and im in the process of learning it) so im listening and valuing his opinion because I can easily say he is on a different level with this deck. Now, if I wanted to play Elves, i'd watch LSV. I am just stating that listening to others more experienced than you in a certain department is a good learning process, and you're...saying it's not?

[LDX]

If I may add a quick part here, following someone blindly on a topic you 100% know they know better than you isn't that bad, really.

Sure, critical thinking is always the best, in a situation in which it gives you more, or at least even, than what it costs you.

Having someone to follow doesn't prevent you from learning as long as you take some time afterwards to think about it. It doesn't have to be an ongoing, active process like you guys suggest. When critical thinking takes more time/energy than what it gives in exchange, you might as well fix the issue real quick by admitting someone knows better than you and move on. What you would have learned with that so called critical thinking will come to you 1000x faster with a quick introspection after you amassed experience in the process. Spending hours pondering every single choices on your own when you can have them being explained to you is a waste of a time you could have used to learn something else, like how to play TES properly.

Call me Utilitarian if you want, but most on this thread aren't demagogic dictators. They're offering a quick help.

At least, that's what my critical thinking tells me: learn to use the best of your capacity by putting the right energy at the right place. Avoid the waste when you can.

[Patrunkenphat7]

@Dr Brian Pepper: I 100% agree that listening to others is good for learning something new. The debate began when you said you would take everything one person says WITHOUT a grain of salt. Maybe we have a different understanding of a silly idiom, but there is the age-old saying that ALL advice should be taken with a grain of salt, and that's all I was saying. Bryant seemed to agree with me on the last page, and I think that's the only thing we've ever agreed on.

@LDX: You make a good point that it is useful to listen to others if you want to save time. I think a lot of it depends on what you want to get out of the hobby, and that is different for everyone. I like to spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours deckbuilding, theory-crafting, and then testing my ideas. It helps me get through the long miles on the road when I'm working, and I am just a research-minded individual. Some people might want to hop on the internet before a local IQ and find and learn a Legacy deck in less than a day. For those people, yes, I agree that just copying someone else's opinions and list is more beneficial for that person than trying to perfect a unique 75 with no experience. Regardless though, you should "question" every card choice even with the limited knowledge you have so that you can at least better learn the deck even if you decide you don't have enough experience to make changes to it at that time.

[Dr Brian Pepper]

@Dr Brian Pepper: I 100% agree that listening to others is good for learning something new. The debate began when you said you would take everything one person says WITHOUT a grain of salt. Maybe we have a different understanding of a silly idiom, but there is the age-old saying that ALL advice should be taken with a grain of salt, and that's all I was saying. Bryant seemed to agree with me on the last page, and I think that's the only thing we've ever agreed on.

@LDX: You make a good point that it is useful to listen to others if you want to save time. I think a lot of it depends on what you want to get out of the hobby, and that is different for everyone. I like to spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours deckbuilding, theory-crafting, and then testing my ideas. It helps me get through the long miles on the road when I'm working, and I am just a research-minded individual. Some people might want to hop on the internet before a local IQ and find and learn a Legacy deck in less than a day. For those people, yes, I agree that just copying someone else's opinions and list is more beneficial for that person than trying to perfect a unique 75 with no experience. Regardless though, you should "question" every card choice even with the limited knowledge you have so that you can at least better learn the deck even if you decide you don't have enough experience to make changes to it at that time.

Ironically you took what I said literally, fair enough haha. Not trying to start arguments here, just stating that I value Bryant's opinion higher than others. (Perpetuating "mindlessly" is what got me a little annoyed I guess, no worries)

[Patrunkenphat7]

Ironically you took what I said literally, fair enough haha. Not trying to start arguments here, just stating that I value Bryant's opinion higher than others. (Perpetuating "mindlessly" is what got me a little annoyed I guess, no worries)

I agree that you should take Bryant's opinion on TES higher than many, so truce :P

[Lemnear]

I'm not sure if you are serious about talking stochastics with a sample size of 4 (read: four). I hope you are not.

I'm talking about the deck still having results despite being a fringe one. Claiming it has NO SUCCESS for YEARS is wrong.

You keep reiterating this; I don't have a problem with only cutting Chrome Mox, I have a problem with relying on a ritual that scales by playing land drops and Infernal Tutor with only one, slower win condition compared to a ritual that scales by playing any card and a tutor with a second, faster win condition.

This is a topic worth discussing and I'm up to look if Cabal Ritual isn't probably a better tool to achive the goal than Rains. I just looked at the Rains working excellent with the increased landcount I wanted anyway for the usual suspect which give TES more headache than ANT and cut the Carpets from the sideboard as a result. Its also an accelerant you can cast off a single IMS post AN unlike CR. I fear that with Cabal/Petition/PIF we rely too much on the yard and would be a reason to ask "why not play ANT?" and potentially haunts us against DRS + Wasteland like common in BUG Delver. Even if EtW is a faster wincon, its up to question if it's an efficent one (given you go all-in on goblins) in the current metagame.

There were multiple card decisions that made that deck unbearably slow vs prison to the point where I didn't see any reason to play it over ANT/TNT etc. Chrome Mox is just better vs the non Island decks, and when we start to cut them for rituals that are better vs Island decks the "why am I not just playing ANT" argument becomes very relevant because we're possibly just playing TES to keep playing it.

There were 4 cards changed (3 Moxen + 1 EtW -> 1 Bayou, 2 Rains, 3rd Duress) and I'm fine with giving away percentages against those prison decks. There is one hell of a difference between running 8 Tutors and AN as turn 1 combo enablers and Rituals which are all castable off 2 IMS only. ANT has a lot more requirements to combo turn 1 or 2 and still suffers from stuff like DRS or Cage. The disadvantages by reducing Moxen in regard to the current metagame structure are just marginal, but improves the odds against blue/wasteland decks while remaining faster than ANT. I dunno why I have to explain this.

As long as D&T and MUD are a thing, I think Chrome Mox still has a lot of justification behind it, otherwise the 2xCabal Ritual/1xChrome Mox build seems like as close of a compromise to Island.dec as I'd bother with.

MUD and D&T have like 6% of the metagame pie together so I wouldn't call that "being a thing" we have to streamline our maindeck for. I'm puzzled about your position: Is 1 Mox vs. 0 Mox in the 60 such a big difference for you to combo off T1?

Edit:

@JDK: Players who have 100% bought into this deck are going to make excuses for those results, and there's nothing you/we can do about it. It would be way different if you presented that information to a player who is trying to figure out what deck to build and has 20 different decks that they are genuinely considering. In the end most players on here have already bought into the deck, and their debate is "which cards should I run in these 5 slots" rather than "is this deck even viable right now?"

Just a question as this rubbed me the wrong way: Do you think I own/play only one deck or did I ever made the impression that I defend the rainbow manabase because of monetary reasons?

[Dr Brian Pepper]

I feel like D&T is 100% "a thing", MUD is more fringe

[JDK]

I'm talking about the deck still having results despite being a fringe one. Claiming it has NO SUCCESS for YEARS is wrong.

Well, I didn't say that and I guess deep down you are aware that Patrunkenphat7 probably meant "TES has gathered very very very limited results over the last years" (which is 100% true, as you can see from the links I posted).
If you took him literally and wanted to point out that this is not true, I can somewhat understand you, but arguing with "50% winrate out of top16 finishes!!" is pretty desperate or plain out delusional, when you consider a samplesize of 4 vs dozens.

[Bryant Cook]

This is a topic worth discussing and I'm up to look if Cabal Ritual isn't probably a better tool to achive the goal than Rains. I just looked at the Rains working excellent with the increased landcount I wanted anyway for the usual suspect which give TES more headache than ANT and cut the Carpets from the sideboard as a result. Its also an accelerant you can cast off a single IMS post AN unlike CR. I fear that with Cabal/Petition/PIF we rely too much on the yard and would be a reason to ask "why not play ANT?" and potentially haunts us against DRS + Wasteland like common in BUG Delver. Even if EtW is a faster wincon, its up to question if it's an efficent one (given you go all-in on goblins) in the current metagame.

With Cabal Ritual/Petition/PIF, you're never truly locked into using the graveyard as you have Empty the Warrens as an alternative with Wish instead of the other two options.

EDIT: Also, I've noticed recently that I feel a little foolish siding out Cabal Ritual against Delver decks for Carpets. Is carpet a slot that should change? It was a little different when we were swapping Chrome Moxens.

[Lemnear]

Well, I didn't say that and I guess deep down you are aware that Patrunkenphat7 probably meant "TES has gathered very very very limited results over the last years" (which is 100% true, as you can see from the links I posted).
If you took him literally and wanted to point out that this is not true, I can somewhat understand you, but arguing with "50% winrate out of top16 finishes!!" is pretty desperate or plain out delusional, when you consider a samplesize of 4 vs dozens.

I answered a hyperbole with a hyperbole. You can't compare decks performance without looking at their results in relation to their representation. You expect that TES, which is ~10% of storm decks, should have a comparable number of placings to ANT? Even as a plain numbers game this doesn't even make sense and even less if we automatically link the sheer number of placings to the decks actual strengh and ignore all other factors. Take lands.dec as example. You can point to the number of T8s and call it a bad deck while ignoring the sheer financial requirement to get a Tabernacle to play it.

Is it a fair base to conclude "expensive and narrow cards -> rarely played -> rare placings -> bad deck" in terms of lands.dec? It's not. But people however conclude that the low amount of people who are brave and competent enough to play a deck which deals the ultimate punishment with every mistake you make over 7+ rounds, is an automatic document of the deck being objectively bad.

Edit: It's like saying the DARK SOULS game series is worse than the ASSASSINS CREED ones just because the later sold more copies

[Lemnear]

With Cabal Ritual/Petition/PIF, you're never truly locked into using the graveyard as you have Empty the Warrens as an alternative with Wish instead of the other two options.

EDIT: Also, I've noticed recently that I feel a little foolish siding out Cabal Ritual against Delver decks for Carpets. Is carpet a slot that should change? It was a little different when we were swapping Chrome Moxens.

...and if your yard is locked down Rain boosts your mana likely better than CR to form a natural spellchain or grab and resolve your EtW through Daze and friends. ;)

On the sideboarding:
It is imo kinda foolish as the Main reason to play more rituals IS to have a better shot against Delver and friends in the first place which is the exact reason for my durdling with the 10 Rituals. It made sense to replace some of the three Moxen for higher impact manasources, but if you are basically on the same track with me and the 10 Rituals, I guess you have also these two SB slots free again.

[JDK]

I answered a hyperbole with a hyperbole. You can't compare decks performance without looking at their results in relation to their representation. You expect that TES, which is ~10% of storm decks, should have a comparable number of placings to ANT? Even as a plain numbers game this doesn't even make sense and even less if we automatically link the sheer number of placings to the decks actual strengh and ignore all other factors. Take lands.dec as example. You can point to the number of T8s and call it a bad deck while ignoring the sheer financial requirement to get a Tabernacle to play it.

Is it a fair base to conclude "expensive and narrow cards -> rarely played -> rare placings -> bad deck" in terms of lands.dec? It's not. But people however conclude that the low amount of people who are brave and competent enough to play a deck which deals the ultimate punishment with every mistake you make over 7+ rounds, is an automatic document of the deck being objectively bad.

Edit: It's like saying the DARK SOULS game series is worse than the ASSASSINS CREED ones just because the later sold more copies

Of course you have to take representation into account - but yet, you still have to think about the reasons for the lack of the same. Still, that's not the point though. You based your argumentation on "wins" and "wins / top16", which is just laughable, once you realize how small the amount of actual samples is. Please tell me you are aware of that before using another apple & orange analogy.

I am also not sure how you base your arguments on lands. The numbers clearly make it the more successful - or let's say popular, so you don't lose any hair while reading this.

Yes, Storm.dec punishes mistakes more than other decks do. This is not limited to TES, though. I'm also not sure how I should interpret the cocky part about being "brave and competent".

And if you really insist on using shitty analogies: Dark Souls has sold well, TES doesn't. Think of it as the Beyond Good & Evil or XIII (god I loved that game). Awesome, but lacking numbers (for whatever reason: better/more popular alternatives, difficulty etc).

[Plague Sliver]

Edit: It's like saying the DARK SOULS game series is worse than the ASSASSINS CREED ones just because the later sold more copies

I enjoy this analogy, because from what I've heard about Dark Souls, it's supposed to be motherlovin' hard to play/master. Kind of like TES

Due to its "fringe-ness," I've enjoyed a few wins vs. bad opponents who didn't think we could go off T1/T2 reliably, or boarded in Rest in Peace thinking it was the stone cold nuts. Well, bad players are bad players, but you get my point.

Though I've mostly been lurking in here, I've never found the level of group-think to be unbearably high. Decklists in Magic are like sports highlights - they never provide the full story on their own. I've tried to avoid looking at decklists and instead focused on discussion points, but easier said than done.

[Lemnear]

Of course you have to take representation into account - but yet, you still have to think about the reasons for the lack of the same. Still, that's not the point though. You based your argumentation on "wins" and "wins / top16", which is just laughable, once you realize how small the amount of actual samples is. Please tell me you are aware of that before using another apple & orange analogy.

As I said: It was a hyperbole is response to a hyperbole. Don't make more out if it than it was.

I am also not sure how you base your arguments on lands. The numbers clearly make it the more successful - or let's say popular, so you don't lose any hair while reading this.

Point taken. Its still far more regulary played than TES; less than D&T (which is a DtB) despite featuring pretty similar finishes. What does this tell us about the relative strengh of Lands vs. D&T? Moreover in regards to metagame and representation?

Yes, Storm.dec punishes mistakes more than other decks do. This is not limited to TES, though. I'm also not sure how I should interpret the cocky part about being "brave and competent".

Being on the edge of winning/losing with every decision you make isn't for everyone and/or for long tournaments. People understandable tend to use more forgiving decks for bigger tournaments (see SCG grinders). TES has more room for misplays than ANT due to the question, if EtW is a good/smart choice in given situations or how your odds are with Ad Nauseam. ANT uses mainly Tendrils which is pretty clear gameplay and you can calculate the outcome of PIF, unlike if you use AN as your main engine. PIF even has flashback if you fail or cast it into a counter. It IS the easier and clearer trait for playing storm, which I wanted to highlight with my bold sentence.

And if you really insist on using shitty analogies: Dark Souls has sold well, TES doesn't. Think of it as the Beyond Good & Evil or XIII (god I loved that game). Awesome, but lacking numbers (for whatever reason: better/more popular alternatives, difficulty etc).

I guess TES is not "The Elder Scrolls" in this context, but the analogy was more in terms to the fact that the casual gamplay of Assassins Creed has sold more copies than the hard-to-master Souls series, because investing time to learn a game isn't for everyone if you simply want to enjoy your freetime. I think the idea transfers pretty good to MTG in that context. BG&E & XIII were superb games, but it wasn't just about taste/sells, but about the fact that the Souls series is far from beginner friendly and the opposite of pickup & play, which sure had influence on the sold copies


Edit:

I enjoy this analogy, because from what I've heard about Dark Souls, it's supposed to be motherlovin' hard to play/master. Kind of like TES

It's not "hard" or "difficult" in a common videogame context, that you need to have the reflexes of a 14-year old Kung Fu monk to master it, it's just that the game is strictly telling you via Deathscreen a pretty simple message: "Your approach to this level/passage is wrong. It wants to be played differently". Players who constantly try to go with their head through the wall will get frustrated easily, while players who analyze the cause of their fail and try a different way the next time will be rewarded with progress in the game and experience for the future levels.

[Lemnear]

Bryant and me...

[Lemnear]

[Candlestand]

What you really do here:

[Final Fortune]

MUD and D&T have like 6% of the metagame pie together so I wouldn't call that "being a thing" we have to streamline our maindeck for. I'm puzzled about your position: Is 1 Mox vs. 0 Mox in the 60 such a big difference for you to combo off T1?

I don't have a position on cutting Chrome Mox altogether or how many should be cut, it's more a question of why are we cutting Chrome Mox and what are we cutting them for. Personally, I'm trying 3 MD Infernal Tutor, 2 Simian Spirit Guide and 1 Chrome Mox in order to keep IMS in the deck without losing resources to Imprint in my starting hand.

I have my biases like everybody else, I dislike the MD Bayou, any number of Rain of Filth, cutting Empty the Warrens from the MD, adding Dark Petition to the SB etc. (I don't know about you guys, but I SB in 1 Thoughtseize, 2 Chain of Vapour, 1 Infernal Tutor for 3 Duress, 1 Empty the Warrens vs aggro decks, so are you guys leaving Empty the Warrens in the MD and just hoping villain doesn't SB in any removal for it when they're probably playing with removal for Young Pyromancer any way?) but I'm trying to remain as objective as possible to the alternatives for the acceleration package.

[Lemnear]

What you really do here:

hahahaha

I don't have a position on cutting Chrome Mox altogether or how many should be cut, it's more a question of why are we cutting Chrome Mox and what are we cutting them for. Personally, I'm trying 3 MD Infernal Tutor, 2 Simian Spirit Guide and 1 Chrome Mox in order to keep IMS in the deck without losing resources to Imprint in my starting hand.

I have my biases like everybody else, I dislike the MD Bayou, any number of Rain of Filth, cutting Empty the Warrens from the MD, adding Dark Petition to the SB etc. (I don't know about you guys, but I SB in 1 Thoughtseize, 2 Chain of Vapour, 1 Infernal Tutor for 3 Duress, 1 Empty the Warrens vs aggro decks, so are you guys leaving Empty the Warrens in the MD and just hoping villain doesn't SB in any removal for it when they're probably playing with removal for Young Pyromancer any way?) but I'm trying to remain as objective as possible to the alternatives for the acceleration package.

I think I mentioned the "why" by pointing to the shrinking number of non-blue matchups and DTT putting our opponents far ahead, if we have to fight through countermeasures and 2-for-1 ourselves for manasources. DTT isn't a problem by itself as we "can" combo before it comes relevant, but the card gets really annoying if paired with tools to stop our T1/2 combo which have to be dismantled first. If you can't win before their turn 3 you have an uphill battle to fight and trading two cards for a mere mana is extremely bad in the face of DTT. Rain/Cabal can actually profit from you having to go for the long run for these worst case scenarios against blue decks.

Petition is just the card that allows you to keep 4 MB Infernals for reliable/quick access to AN while maintaining a way to acces AN via Wish if Goblins/PIF are neither an option. I hate to rely on discard against aggro in general, especially if it eats two lifepoints as you plain hope to hit the best in their opening grip and hope they never draw another hatebear/clock. I've burned my fingers too often with that approach and moved to a reactive one with Chains & Decays.

About which form of aggro we're talking about? Some you can efficiently blitz with EtW even postboard, while others have to many outs (Deathblade) to reliable work with Goblins. EtW is the tricky one indeed as the postboard use is highly questionable against a lot of decks and I ended up boarding it out in most postboard matches, which threw up the question, if I even NEED the card mainboard for most game 1s, where we usually fight through less countermeasures anyways. I felt and feel that EtW is the card mainly responsible for our need of additional non-land IMS', both for casting it T1/2 (as EtW is usually unreliable afterwards) and to balance out the less flipped cards off Ad Nauseam (due to having to stop @ 4 life).

[Bryant Cook]