[Deck] The Tropical Storm (TTS)

[ErkBek]

It's been brought to my attention that it's been nearly 3 weeks since Part 1 went up and still no Part 2. Sigh. Part 2 was submitted almost 2 weeks ago and it's still not up. It's really frustrating. My articles are going up sporadically often times after long delays. Hopefully now that excuse of being a "new site" is wearing off this problem will go away and I'll have a weekly piece that goes up every Tuesday. Seems unlikely, but I'm trying to be optimistic.     

I'm not going to keep you guys waiting on my evolution of the deck, I'll present that now. About a week ago a started testing something that's sort of a mix between Super Long and Gush TPS. I haven't played a whole lot with it, but the games and goldfishes have been promising. Cutting off-color moxen and running Ponder in Storm combo was Super Long's innovation, but as you'll read in part 2 Super Long's inability to produce card advantage outside of its bombs is a weakness.

Gush TPS had struggled just from being clunky. I've seen people go as far as maindecking Bazaar of Bagdad to try smooth things out. Draw 7's fizzle in decks with Merchant Scrolls and people were running 2-3 Dark Rituals. The deck had issues.

When Gush was unrestricted I immediately tried it in a couple of storm shells and they all just seemed clunky. They either turned out to be fastbond.dec (builds with Scrolls) or just an inconsistent variation of Pitch Long (builds without Scrolls).

Ponder is an amazing card in Gush and storm decks, it improves more and more with the amount of broken cards you play. It digs even deeper than Brainstorm for brokenness and doesn't require a shuffle effect if you hit garbage in the top 3. Compare casting Ponder and Brainstorm when looking for a bomb:

Ponder - If there is a bomb in the top 3 cards (A, B, and C) put it in hand. Otherwise shuffle and put D in hand. Then on next 2 draw steps draw E and F.

Brainstorm - Draw A, B, and C. If there are no bombs or shuffle effects your next 2 draw steps are B and C (or cards you've already seen).

The "Brainstorm. Lose." situation occurs a little more often that you'd like in a storm deck packed with 10-12 disruption spells and 13ish lands. By no means would you cut Brainstorm, I'm just displaying the power of Ponder. Ponder is also great with Draw 7's. Digging 4 cards for 1 mana really helps prevent fizzles.

Now that you have some of the theory I used to build my newest list, here it is:

Land 13
1 Trop
3 Underground
2 Island
7 Fetches

Accel 11
1 Jet
1 Emerald (I'm not impressed with Emerald atm)
1 Sapphire
1 Mana Crypt
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
4 Dark Ritual
1 Fastbond

Control 12
4 FoW
4 Duress
2 Thoughtseize (or Xantid Swarm)
1 Hurkyl's
1 Echoing Truth

Kill 1
1 Tendrils

Draw/Fixers 13
1 Walk
4 BS
4 Ponder
4 Gush

Bombs/Tutors 10
1 MT
1 DT
1 VT
1 Iseal
1 Necro
1 Will
1 Twister
1 Tinker
1 Jar
1 Ancestral
0 Gifts
0 Bargain
0 Desire

SB
Xantid Swarms
Dark Confidants (?)
Leylines
Bounce Spells

Bargain and Desire aren't in the deck at the moment b/c of their restrictive mana cost (I only run 24 mana). Playing them against mana denial decks is rare and they they can be difficult to cast against Duress effects (either they hit your mana or the spell itself). Desire has a real lack of business spells to hit, and Bargain becomes worse in a deck that uses life as a resource whenever fastbond hits play and in a format with lots of creatures.

The deck's mana curve is extremely low, everything but tendrils costs 3 mana or less and 8 of the spells are free (FoW, Gush). This helps a lot against both Duress and Wastelands/Spheres. Gush and topdeck tutors almost always lead you into a kill that turn. Draw 7's fizzle far less since you typically see 11-13 cards after them by simply paying 1 blue mana.

4 Rituals is extremely light and the deck achieves threshold fast, it may prove necessary to add some cabal rits or possibly LED to help supplement the mana production. For now, I'm unsure about the Emerald. I need artifacts to tinker away, but emerald always seems poor when I draw it.

I haven't done a whole lot of testing with this list just yet, but the games and goldfishes thus far have been really promising. Be sure to check out part 2 of the SL primer when it gets up, it's still got a lot of great information.

[Jo84]

interesting list, but why are you running Tendrils as your one and only win condition?

[hauntedechos]

@ Eric:  I've been playing your list of Super Long to great results.  My question is, do you feel that dropping the secondary kill in this list is worth adding the 3rd colour (which in Super Long you stated you preferred the "rock solid mana base") to gain the acceleration of Fastbond, when and if it resolves?

[Liam-K]

I know this is a crosspost from my Gush TPS thread, but I *really* recommend anyone looking in this direction take my list for a spin.  It's extremely good.  We've arrived at the same disruption count, but I paired the rituals down progressively to a singleton and use more pitch counters.  The other main difference is red; I didn't have much faith testing etw but it has turned out to be HUGE.  While tendrils is usually the superior tutor target, it shores up a major weakness (spheres) and seems to win the game almost every time I draw it... and since you draw so many cards, that happens a lot.

mana

4 flooded strand
3 polluted delta
2 underground sea
2 island
1 tropical island
1 volcanic island

1 mox sapphire
1 mox jet
1 mox ruby
1 mox emerald
1 mana crypt

1 black lotus
1 lotus petal
1 dark ritual

1 fastbond



staying in the game

4 force of will
4 duress
2 misdirection
1 chain of vapor
1 echoing truth

4 brainstorm
4 gush
4 merchant scroll
1 ancestral recall
1 regrowth

1 time walk



ending the game

1 demonic tutor
1 vampiric tutor
1 mystical tutor
1 imperial seal

1 yawgmoth's will
1 timetwister
1 wheel of fortune
1 gifts ungiven
1 library of alexandria

1 tendrils of agony
1 empty the warrens


I personally like Emerald a lot.  The presence of Regrowth contributes to this, but it's more often good because it reduces the chances you cut yourself off from green by needing to fetch other colours, and it's won me the game many times when trying to go off under pressure when my land drop has been used.

[ErkBek]

@Haunted Echos: Yeah, the manabase of Super Long was nice, but I've still got 2 islands which isn't terrible. I'm only running a single Green card in fastbond, so you don't have to fetch out Trop ever unless you're casting Fastbond. You can also use Gush to protect against Wastelands if the situation arises.

@Jo84: This deck has much more of a combo feel to it than Super Long. It's much a more aggressive combo deck, yet still packs 10 spells to break through counter walls. There are a couple of reasons you'd want to run multiple kill conditions in a storm deck:

1) You really want to hit them on draw7's or randomly draw into them b/c your deck can storm up to 10 arbitrarily (past incarnations of Long could do this much better since they ran full artifact mana)

2) You worry about trapping Tendrils in a Jar hand or getting it Duressed from a Necro hand. I'm positive Menendian would agree with me that you can still win off a Jar hand even when Tendrils is RFG'd to Jar. You simply switch from a combo deck that needs to play 9 spells and a Tendrils to a combo deck that needs to resolve Time Walk and put Yawgmoth's Will on top of your deck, just for that turn (or cast Bargain or something like that).

Most people I talk with about then Necro + Tendrils problem have a problem with it because they are greedy. They want to Necro for X then ditch their Tendrils so they can have more business, but they don't realize Tendrils is business when you've got Necro in play. The Duress the Tendrils problem has never cost me a match in countless tournament games where it's come up. I've either been able to FoW the Duress or Brainstorm to hide the Tendrils. Playing an extra Tendrils is going to cost you far more games by being a dead draw than it's going to save you in a Necropotence situation.

3) You fear stuff like Extract and Hide/Seek. If you're going to play combo some things you've just got to be okay with scooping to, you can't have the fear. 

You can always board a second Tendrils.

@Liam-K: If you can make a compelling argument on why to play your list over Empty Gifts (w/ Tendrils over Meloku) I'm all ears. Empty Gifts goldfishes just as fast, but incorporates Mana Drain and Tinker Colossus. It doesn't run draw 7's because they are prone to backfire against GAT if you deck can't reliably win that turn. Really, the only reason I see to run your list over Empty Gifts is is better abuses Fastbond (which Empty Gifts does quite well as it is). Have you tried Ponder in your list? It's really good...

My list is built to use rituals since they improve overall speed, reduce reliance on fastbond, and improve draw7's. It really couldn't care less about Gush Bond, but it's nice to randomly have. My list is built to abuse Gush + topdeck tutors (for will, not fastbond) and Gush + Brainstorm to draw 5 cards for 1 blue mana when comboing.

I could see adding Red at some point and/or switching Thoughtseizes over for Misdirections they both crossed my mind when building this list. I'd rather not run Red because the 4 color manabase. Misdirection over thoughtseize is possible, Pact of Xantid could both potentially be played here.

[Liam-K]

@Liam-K: If you can make a compelling argument on why to play your list over Empty Gifts (w/ Tendrils over Meloku) I'm all ears. Empty Gifts goldfishes just as fast

I am confident saying I am reliably faster than empty gifts.  I tap all my mana every turn and am on the offensive working towards critical mass from turn 1, which allows me to leverage tempo more effectively than a deck that has non-free counters in its hand.  Coupled with my higher threat density, this means I assemble a winning hand first.  This is without getting into raw goldfishing average or factoring in how many more attacking turns empty gifts will have to take over the coarse of a sample, or the effect of the necessity to win from a stronger position when using a more disruptable win condition.

...but incorporates Mana Drain and Tinker Colossus.

I have the advantage of being a more aggressive deck.  I run game ending bombs in slots empty gifts gives to counterspells, while still packing 10 protection spells and two bounce... win is better than not lose.  I run imperial seal over tinker, which is significantly faster and cheaper without requiring a dead card or opening me up to creature hate or scroll->bounce, while serving a very similar function... tempo hit for a big early play (for ancestral) or win condition (for whatever makes me win, usually gush-able or brainstorm-able to hand immediately).  Seal is also less awkward than tinker in a great many ways, which means it's good more often.  I am more than willing to accept these benefits in trade for losing some random wins when my opening hand is way better than my opponent's.

It doesn't run draw 7's because they are prone to backfire against GAT if you deck can't reliably win that turn.

I reliably win the turn I cast a draw7.  Additionally, when I pass the turn, it's about even odds I win on my next turn (not could win, do win).  In significant percentage of games that do not fall into one of these categories, the draw7 produced a stalemate as both hands were depleted stopping each other.  They are much better in this deck than they are in long, due to fastbond, more protection, less mana sources, and a smaller chance of highly suboptimal hand configuration.

Really, the only reason I see to run your list over Empty Gifts is is better abuses Fastbond.

I really think this comment is oversimplifying far too much.  They do not play the same way, they are designed with different priorities.  I could rebutt by saying I better abuse will by finding it first and stocking my yard with more will-powering spells in the process, but I feel the difference is more subtle.  The playstyles/design theories have different priorities and approach the challenge (abuse gush/bond/will/storm) from different angles.  Frankly, Empty Gifts is much closer to combo-control than my deck, which is aggressive combo.  Those archetypes are different enough that one will always be a better meta call than the other, and ruling one out as always inferior is an error.

... my list is built to use rituals since they improve overall speed, reduce reliance on fastbond, and improve draw7's. It really couldn't care less about Gush Bond, but it's nice to randomly have. My list is built to abuse Gush + topdeck tutors (for will, not fastbond) and Gush + Brainstorm to draw 5 cards for 1 blue mana when comboing.

Before Ponder was released I tested 4 ritual configurations extensively and truly feel moving away from them vastly improved the deck.  I found very consistently that they were good in hands that made the deck look like a bad long deck and bad everywhere else.  I feel my list has strengths over long in several areas... since I abuse fastbond better my gushes are more likely acceleration.  My acceleration is card advantage, where rituals are card disadvantage.  My deck produces far less weak hands containing strong cards in suboptimal configuration.  Because of these points, I also recover from failed attempts with much more grace.  My deck also storms much more incidentally than long, which lets you often play a spell chain, attempt to finish the game at the end of it, get stopped, and still come out ahead.  That's a real combo player's dream.

I have not tested ponder.

[Ged]

Thanks Kobe for your work. 

A few questions:
1. Chalice at 1 seems extremely painful (around 25 1cc spells) for this deck, as well for Super Long. You hope you won't see chalice or think that gushes will find you 2 bounce spells in time?
2. How fast does TTS goldfish in your testing?
3. If you're playing Tinker shouldn't Colossus be at least in the sideboard?

[ErkBek]

A few questions:
1. Chalice at 1 seems extremely painful (around 25 1cc spells) for this deck, as well for Super Long. You hope you won't see chalice or think that gushes will find you 2 bounce spells in time?
2. How fast does TTS goldfish in your testing?
3. If you're playing Tinker shouldn't Colossus be at least in the sideboard?

1) Yeah, Chalice for 1 is a real beating for Ponder based storm decks. You've got a better ability to keep Chalice off the table, but that's all you can hope for. Right now Chalice isn't seeing a whole lot of play compared to in the past so you can "cheat" a little.

2) It's very hand dependent, I'm all over the map. I'd say I get about 10% turn 1 kills, 30% turn 2, 30% turn 3, 30% turn 4. Something like that.

3) I haven't really put too much thought into the sideboard yet, but yeah Tinker->Man is always an option.

----------EDIT-------------------

@Liam-K: If you can make a compelling argument on why to play your list over Empty Gifts (w/ Tendrils over Meloku) I'm all ears. Empty Gifts goldfishes just as fast

I tap all my mana every turn and am on the offensive working towards critical mass from turn 1, which allows me to leverage tempo more effectively than a deck that has non-free counters in its hand.

You see, I'm not convinced that's a good thing. Tapping out every turn to further your game plan, opposed to making your opponent win through mana drain. In Empty Gifts is you Drain anything it's a huge tempo swing in your favor, often times you drain, untap, and win. Also, a problem with "using your mana every turn, working toward a critical mass" is it opens you up to getting a spell mana drained letting your opponent go off.

...but incorporates Mana Drain and Tinker Colossus.

I have the advantage of being a more aggressive deck.  I run game ending bombs in slots empty gifts gives to counterspells, while still packing 10 protection spells and two bounce... win is better than not lose.  I run imperial seal over tinker, which is significantly faster and cheaper without requiring a dead card or opening me up to creature hate or scroll->bounce, while serving a very similar function... tempo hit for a big early play (for ancestral) or win condition (for whatever makes me win, usually gush-able or brainstorm-able to hand immediately).  Seal is also less awkward than tinker in a great many ways, which means it's good more often.  I am more than willing to accept these benefits in trade for losing some random wins when my opening hand is way better than my opponent's.

Empty Gifts doesn't run Tinker as a bomb, it runs it as a flexible kill condition so it doesn't need to chain a ton of spells together.

I reliably win the turn I cast a draw7.  Additionally, when I pass the turn, it's about even odds I win on my next turn (not could win, do win).  In significant percentage of games that do not fall into one of these categories, the draw7 produced a stalemate as both hands were depleted stopping each other.  They are much better in this deck than they are in long, due to fastbond, more protection, less mana sources, and a smaller chance of highly suboptimal hand configuration.

From reviewing the Gush TPS thread, you seem to be the only one saying this. I've played the deck and disagree with this statement. Unless you're casting a draw seven with either Fastbond on the table or large amount of mana floating you're not going to win that turn without getting lucky. Yeah, occasionally you're going to draw into Imperial Seal and then Gush into the Fastbond or Will....I've got that play too. Ponder is only going to help you convert even more draw 7's. 

  Frankly, Empty Gifts is much closer to combo-control than my deck, which is aggressive combo.  Those archetypes are different enough that one will always be a better meta call than the other, and ruling one out as always inferior is an error.

So you're not going for a combo control deck???? What?

If you think aggressive is the way to be, Ponder makes you more aggressive.

Before Ponder was released I tested 4 ritual configurations extensively and truly feel moving away from them vastly improved the deck.  I found very consistently that they were good in hands that made the deck look like a bad long deck and bad everywhere else.  I feel my list has strengths over long in several areas... since I abuse fastbond better my gushes are more likely acceleration.  My acceleration is card advantage, where rituals are card disadvantage.  My deck produces far less weak hands containing strong cards in suboptimal configuration.  Because of these points, I also recover from failed attempts with much more grace.  My deck also storms much more incidentally than long, which lets you often play a spell chain, attempt to finish the game at the end of it, get stopped, and still come out ahead.  That's a real combo player's dream.

I have not tested ponder.

The reason you didn't like playing 4 rituals is because you were running Merchant Scroll where I'm running Ponder.

Ponder is awesome.

[hauntedechos]

My 2 cents:  keep in mind that I am not a storm combo expert, nor have I been playing Storm for very long.

That said, and in keeping the content of this thread towards development of Tropical Storm ( much better sounding than Super Long Eric, thank you ), I would like to compare Super Long to Tropical Storm.  I like all the points that you made, Eric, concerning your development of Meandecks "super Long".  I asked about the addition of the 3rd colour and it's impact on stability versus what it brings to the table.  I was thinking about your response and started to think about possible plays which could utilize Fastbond and G in general.  It seems to me that Tropical Storm is an attempt to take Super Long and add G to shore up the weakness' you addressed via card advantage.  What I would like clarification about is,  when in the game state would you best seek out Fastbond to combo out, or is Fastbond used as another bomb, where as Super Long is light on bombs?  it seems to me, that dropping a Fastbond in this meta would make your opponent uncomfortable, knowing that Gush is unrestricted.  Would it be best to use Fastbond as bait? or would it be best to Duress to clear the way, then proceed to combo out, dropping Fastbond in the mix and then abuse Gush's as they pop up in the combo?  or does this deck lean slightly on Fastbong + Gush the way that Super Long leans on resolving it's few bombs?  Does the splash of Green really solve the lack of card advantage you adressed in Super Long, or does it add more answers/dimensions to the Super Long shell?

I can see the use of Regrowth as a psuedo recoup and Emerald charms and of course a means to deal with enchantments (a la Oath, leylines for a Will kill etc).  Of course the use of Xantids are beautiful, and would possibly shore up the slower clock of Super Long versus other Storm decks.

I'm with you in concerns of Mox Emerald, and suggest the use of Lotus petal as the filler as it's also an additional mana fixer, to further stabilize the mana base.

lastly, how do you feel the matchup is between Super Long (gawd I hate that name) and Tropical Storm?

Cheers
Mike.

Ps. I've been reading everything I can find written by you and would love to know where your understanding of Storm and inspiration fo innovation comes from.  please PM me any time with links to vital readings that a learning Storm player should read.

[ErkBek]

What I would like clarification about is,  when in the game state would you best seek out Fastbond to combo out, or is Fastbond used as another bomb, where as Super Long is light on bombs?  it seems to me, that dropping a Fastbond in this meta would make your opponent uncomfortable, knowing that Gush is unrestricted.  Would it be best to use Fastbond as bait? or would it be best to Duress to clear the way, then proceed to combo out, dropping Fastbond in the mix and then abuse Gush's as they pop up in the combo?  or does this deck lean slightly on Fastbong + Gush the way that Super Long leans on resolving it's few bombs?  Does the splash of Green really solve the lack of card advantage you adressed in Super Long, or does it add more answers/dimensions to the Super Long shell?

One thing I forgot to mention in my opening post was another reason I wanted Gush in Super Long was that it helps with comboing when the deck runs a really light manabase. Needed less mana to combo can help this whole card advantage problem.

Sometimes Fastbond is a bomb, sometimes it's not. It really depends on your hand. Countering Fastbond can be a lot like countering storm combo's Black Lotus or Dark Ritual. The opponent never really know if it's a bait spell or not until after the fact. You don't need Fastbond at all, it's nice to have around though.

I'm not a big fan of Regrowth in the deck, but Lotus Petal over Emerald seems worth trying.

[hauntedechos]

@eric:  I've been testing 2 Gush and Fastbond within the Super Long shell.  What I've found is that Fastbond also shores up the lost Moxen Issue.  I understand the use of Ponder over off coloured Moxen, but fastbond takes the once useless fetch and land draws from a Necro draw, and turns that into acceleration.  I've cut 1 Cabal ritual from the list in lue of this fact.  Between the Black lotus, fetches and Lotus Petal, so far, I've had no problem in getting G up when I draw/tutor a Fastbond.  I have not yet had a test match, where I've looked for the 2 Gush, as the mana acceleration from Fastbond, has been substantial enough to power out the rest of my Necro hand.  I've subsituted Timetwister and Jar for 2 Night's Whisper, and have since substitued the whispers for 2 Gush keeping the lone scroll as a tutor for both Gifts and Gush.  I don't know what this means to you, but I'm just trying to keep this thread going with ideas as this build really does seem to build on Super Long.  I find that this deck almost wants to run like Meandeck Tendrils in that, since it runs few bombs, it wants to chain spells together, rather than power out bombs, and the bombs that it does run, need the mana available (via Fastbond) to end the game.  So far it's been doing that in very limited testing. 

Let's see where you can take this Eric!!!

Cheers!
Mike.

Side note, Since Fastbond accelerates the way it does, I think I should put Jar and Stwister back in some how. =(  over sight due to rush testing due to excitement of the development of this deck.

[Liam-K]

kobefan: I don't want to thread hijack... feel free to kill this side discussion.  I'll mention that while resolving drain is a big tempo swing, simply having drain in your hand can be a tempo issue and it doesn't always pay off.  I've found that even when I do resolve drain in combo, analysis reveals the turns I opted not to cast cards in order to keep UU up seriously reduce its perceived value.  Drain is situationally great but suffers from requiring parameters outside your control to pay off, and I prefer to run cards that are always threats.  Getting your own spells drained is obviously a bad thing but free counters and duress are better at protecting your own stuff than mana drain, without being at all bad at disrupting your opponent.

Tinker being good because it's an option where you don't storm, in a storm deck that already runs etw, just highlights the differences.  I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I have a tutor and can resolve a must-counter, and wished I could go for DSC, except maybe against a game I'm losing to stax.  ETW fits the deck better than tinker and 4 win condition slots is way too many, especially when one is uncastable.  I thought people figured this out back when they learned to play gifts.

I don't think ponder would be as nice in my list as merchant scroll because I am more fastbond reliant.  I will get around to testing your list.

Our disagreement re: draw7 strength puzzles me.  The only thing I can offer is that tapping down for a turn 3 wheel with no setup probably means you either kept a bad hand or something better already failed.  Thier presence indirectly increases the value of fastbond by making it viable in hands not containing a lot of gush, nor a stocked yard.  You mention how you couldn't care less about gush/bond... this sounds familiar to my sentiment when using lists similar to yours, in which fastbond was much more situational.  Draw7s being in the deck along with 4 tutors make it always insane.

With regards to combo-control, we may have a definition issue.  My general attitude with my deck is very similar to the one I take playing pitch long (hence why I keep bringing it up) except for all the incidental card advantage and 4 duress.  I will adopt the control role when it's appropriate, but more and more I'm finding letting things resolve is more correct because I can race them or win through them... another reason I don't like mana drain much.

[ErkBek]

kobefan: I don't want to thread hijack... feel free to kill this side discussion.

I don't mind. A little magic theory never hurts.

I've found that even when I do resolve drain in combo, analysis reveals the turns I opted not to cast cards in order to keep UU up seriously reduce its perceived value.  Drain is situationally great but suffers from requiring parameters outside your control to pay off, and I prefer to run cards that are always threats.  Getting your own spells drained is obviously a bad thing but free counters and duress are better at protecting your own stuff than mana drain, without being at all bad at disrupting your opponent................I thought people figured this out back when they learned to play gifts.

You talk about Gifts as a benchmark for Combo-Control. Gifts ran Mana Drain, yes at times it was clunky, but it was pretty well known that if Gifts drains a spell of yours  and has any type of hand it's game over. Leaving Drain up and casting Merchant Scroll can be conflicting, but it's worked just fine in the past. Even if your not playing spells to further your game leaving Drain up means that your opponent isn't able to either.

Empty Gifts is different from MDG obviously. Empty Gifts can get away with spending more cards on it's kill condition since it runs 5 less mana sources and can create card advantage easily off Gifts. Empty Gifts really benefits from it's flexibility in it's kill, and it's sort of nice to just draw into 1 of them (rather than tutor up 1). I view Empty Gifts as a pile of good cards that somehow works really well if you are able to adopt to proper role depending on your hand.

Our disagreement re: draw7 strength puzzles me.  The only thing I can offer is that tapping down for a turn 3 wheel with no setup probably means you either kept a bad hand or something better already failed.  Thier presence indirectly increases the value of fastbond by making it viable in hands not containing a lot of gush, nor a stocked yard.  You mention how you couldn't care less about gush/bond... this sounds familiar to my sentiment when using lists similar to yours, in which fastbond was much more situational.  Draw7s being in the deck along with 4 tutors make it always insane.

Well obviously you can't just arbitrarily cast a draw7 and expect to win. I've never cared much for Merchant Scrolls and Draw7's in the same deck though for 2 reasons:

1) Most of the time with Scroll decks you spend your first 3-4 mana Scrolling up and casting Ancestral. If you resolve Ancestral you don't want to just ship those cards and play a Draw 7. (In Grim Long if you resolve Ancestral it's a little different because you are hitting about 50% mana which you can then use to convert your draw 7 into a win.) Now I know what you're going to say, which your deck you are casting Ancestral and developing your mana with it to help improve your draw7's. The flaw here though is that you invested 3 mana to scroll it up and cast it. With a card like Ponder you can invest 1 mana to help find a mana source that will improve your draw 7's too, by only investing 1 mana.  If you're going to send those cards packing why invest 3 mana to see 3 cards when you could spend 1 and see 4?

I know Fastbond is a card you really like to have in play when you cast a draw 7, Ponder's small mana investment and the amount of cards you see with it help you find fastbond faster.

2) Merchant Scroll is about the worst card ever to hit on a draw7 if you plan on winning that turn unless you've already assembled Gush-Bond. Ponder is an awesome card to hit on a draw7. Ponder by itself allows you to see 4 more card for only a blue mana. Through in a Gush or a Brainstorm and you're seeing up to 6 or 7 cards for only a U or UU mana investment.

Thier presence indirectly increases the value of fastbond by making it viable in hands not containing a lot of gush, nor a stocked yard.  You mention how you couldn't care less about gush/bond... this sounds familiar to my sentiment when using lists similar to yours, in which fastbond was much more situational.  Draw7s being in the deck along with 4 tutors make it always insane.

I've got this synergy too. Fastbond is always a card that's nice to see, I've still got Fastbond + Gush, Fastbond + Draw7's, and Fastbond + Will + Fetchlands. Fastbond is insane in here still, but the deck doesn't need it at all.

With regards to combo-control, we may have a definition issue.  My general attitude with my deck is very similar to the one I take playing pitch long (hence why I keep bringing it up) except for all the incidental card advantage and 4 duress.  I will adopt the control role when it's appropriate, but more and more I'm finding letting things resolve is more correct because I can race them or win through them... another reason I don't like mana drain much.

Any combo deck that can easily adopt the control role in matchups outside of the combo mirror I consider combo control.

[Liam-K]

Saying drain working in gifts is evidence it's good in gush lists is surprising, primarily because gifts actually had good things to put colourless mana into but almost as importantly because its curve and mana base were way, way more appropriate.  Merchant Scroll is a more frequent turn 1 play when you're running full artifact acceleration, getting it out of the way of turn 2 UU more often, and aside from that card you rarely had a reason to tap mainphase mana, especially in the early turns.  A big part of this was the extremely high cost of gifts + recoup + will usually forcing you to fit in an untap, which is a weakness that both enabled drain and gave its mana boost a premium value.  Drain had synergy in gifts.  A deck that is starved for colour (but has a hard time spending colourless) and bounces its own lands has pretty serious anti-synergy with drain, if you ask me.

It's also much harder to get mileage out of an untapped UU in a meta stuffed with duress and fully aware you have 2 at most.



I will concede that seeing Wheel as the only gas off an early scroll->ancestral can be really annoying.  At that point it's usually correct to adopt the control role and start looking for fastbond, which depending on the rest of your hand can work really well or not.  In regards to your other point, it seems like you may underestimate how often a draw7 hand tells you to get fastbond.  Scroll->gush can also be pretty good when a draw7 finds you a topdeck tutor... yes, ponder can do the same thing.

While you have the same draw7/gushbond synergy I do, your lack of merchant scroll makes my gushbond better.  In essence, I feel like merchant scroll will be better with fastbond in play, the first time I see one, when I have enough mana to want gifts, and when I draw yawgwill the hard way (scroll->mystical to find tendrils comes up, both from lack of tutor and lack of B) or, perhaps most importantly, whenever I want bounce (chalice=1 went from backbreaking to pestersome the minute I added etruth).  Ponder being cheaper doesn't entice me to give all that up, especially since scroll is often the only card in my hand I want to tap that emerald/ruby/crypt for anyway. 

[ErkBek]

Saying drain working in gifts is evidence it's good in gush lists is surprising, primarily because gifts actually had good things to put colourless mana into but almost as importantly because its curve and mana base were way, way more appropriate.  Merchant Scroll is a more frequent turn 1 play when you're running full artifact acceleration, getting it out of the way of turn 2 UU more often, and aside from that card you rarely had a reason to tap mainphase mana, especially in the early turns.  A big part of this was the extremely high cost of gifts + recoup + will usually forcing you to fit in an untap, which is a weakness that both enabled drain and gave its mana boost a premium value.  Drain had synergy in gifts.  A deck that is starved for colour (but has a hard time spending colourless) and bounces its own lands has pretty serious anti-synergy with drain, if you ask me.

It's also much harder to get mileage out of an untapped UU in a meta stuffed with duress and fully aware you have 2 at most.

I didn't want it to come to this, but you've got to look at results. Empty Gifts has put up great results and Gush TPS hasn't....that's not just a coincidence.

While you have the same draw7/gushbond synergy I do, your lack of merchant scroll makes my gushbond better.  In essence, I feel like merchant scroll will be better with fastbond in play

Yes, you're Gush Bond is better. My lack of reliance on Fastbond far outweighs that in my opinion.

I have a BETTER NECROPOTENCE. It sucks that you can't run storm combo's best non-Yawg Will bomb because of the restrictions Merchant Scroll has.

Scroll can find bounce and Ponder can't, I'll give you that.

[Negator13]

I'm pretty excited to see the work you're doing with this (and Liam K's work also) because I've been constantly working on and theorizing about a bazillion different builds of Gush-based, Scroll-based, and Ritual-based combo decks since Gush was unrestricted, trying to find a build that is fast enough, consistent enough, and resilient enough to suceed in this metagame. Back in the summer before I went off to college I top 8'd in a few random tournaments with my build of GPS, which was constantly evolving back then as it is now. I've tried so many different combinations of cards and strategies, pretty much changing the list almost every single day. Most of my deck building and evaluating is based on theory and goldfishing, because I don't have anyone to test with at college, but that's how I've always approached T1, especially with storm combo, and I've had a fair amount of success in tournament play.

Anyway, like Liam K I've spent a ton of time working on Scroll/Gush based combo, and I've found out a lot of things. First of all, for essentially the reasons kobefan went over, Draw 7's arent very effective in a deck with Merchant Scrolls, and without multiple Rituals. The motivation for including Draw 7's in Scroll GPS is to have a consistent and powerful route to victory other than Will, because A. you can't always find Will in time and have sufficient resources to win with it, and B. because without an alternate route to victory, graveyard hate such as Leyline or even Tormods Crypt actually really hoses you. At one point I had a build that was basically 4 Gush, 4 Scroll, 4 BS, 4 Ponder, 4 Tutors, 4 FoW, 4 Duress, Fastbond, Will, Ancestral, and Tendrils. No Draw 7's or really any other big bombs other than Will. The deck goldfished amazingly well, it was basically a slightly slower, but far more resilient and interactive, version of SX. But what I realized is that if my opponent sided in Leylines, I was up the creek without a paddle because with 4 Scrolls and no big bombs, the only way to achieve a critical mass of mana and storm is to chain Gushes into Will. If Will is disabled, there's no way to get past 2 or 3 mana or to find Tendrils without getting really lucky. So the obvious solution was to add Twister/Wheel like Liam K has done. But I've found these cards to be very wanting; even in goldfishing I fizzled out far more often than is acceptable after a Draw 7, or (and this is important to recognize) I still relied on casting YawgWill after the Draw 7 to win the game... but this is exactly what I was trying to move away from by including the Draw 7's. So the point is, Draw 7's arent nearly consistent enough with Scrolls and without Rituals, and they don't lessen your reliance on Will nearly enough.

So it was back to the drawing board... I  needed another bomb outside of Will that could win the game by itself reliably, and that wasn't dependent on the graveyard. Necropotence and Bargain are options, but their inclusion necessitates the reinclusion of 4 Rituals, which as most people have found out by now are woefully inadequate in a 4-Scroll deck (I realize kobefan's build has Rituals and no Scrolls, I'll get to that soon, I'm still talking Scroll builds here.) Anyway, I found myself trying to  fit Mind's Desire back into the deck. Back when I first started working on GPS, it had 4 Ritual and full artifact mana for acceleration, so Mind's Desire was a huge bomb in it. Over time as I decreased the Ritual count to 1, and removed the off color Moxen and Sol Ring, Desire became near-impossible to cast so I removed it. But when I saw the results for that huge tournament in Europe that ELD T2'd in, I noticed there was an interesting build of GPS in the Top 8, running full artifact acceleration along with Tolarian Academy in order to support Mind's Desire. That intrigued me, so I decided to give such a build a shot, and to my surprise it actually works quite well. I didn't like certain things about that particular list; namely it only has 7 disruption spells and some other curious choices. But I've done a fair amount of work with it and I've come to a list that is actually quite fast, powerful, disruptive, and has Mind's Desire as a very real and very effective alternative to YawgWill in the presence of graveyard hate or a quick clock that makes infinite Gushbonding impossible due to a low life total. Here it is:

2 Island
3 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
6 Fetch
1 Academy
7 SoLoMoxen
1 Mana Crypt
1 Lotus Petal
1 Dark Ritual
4 BS
4 Scroll
4 Gush
4 FoW
4 Duress
2 MisD
1 Chain of vapor
1 Hurkyl's
1 Imp. Seal
1 VT
1 MT
1 DT
1 Ancestral
1 Walk
1 YawgWill
1 Mind's Desire
1 Fastbond
1 Regrowth
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Gifts Ungiven

That's all I'll say about Scroll-based GPS; just some food for thought. I advise you guys to give this list a try, it really is quite good and I was reasonably set on it until I saw this thread. Because admittedly while I've tried 2-4 Ponder in all my various builds of GPS, I've never really thought to remove the Merchant Scrolls because I always thought of them as an integral part of the Gushbond engine. But your approach interests me greatly because it seems to incorporate the best aspects of TPS/Long and Scroll-GPS into one build, minus all the chaff.

I have a couple suggestions/questions for you that I am meanwhile looking into myself. One, how about the addition of Red for Wheel of Fortune? You could cut the 2 Thoughtseize for Ruby and WoF, cut a fetch for Volc, and have the most powerful draw 7 at your disposal (well, here Tinker/Jar is probably better because you can Gush, then in response pop Jar for an effectively Draw-9).

Second, I'm still not sold on the greatness of Ponder. Everyone is touting it in storm decks like this, but for me it just doesn't seem that great, either in theory or actual play. You usually just Ponder into like, Duress/BS/Ponder or Land/Mox/Duress or something similar, and shuffle them away and draw a card. Yeah, it's nice to clear out the top 3 if theyre not what youre looking for, but in the end it just amounts to an Obsessive Search, more often than I like. Instead of cutting bombs and mana to fit in 4 Ponder, and trying to find the remaining bombs and mana at the cost of a blue mana, might it not be better to just run more mana and bombs in the first place? You talk about cutting off color Moxen in a deck like this as if it is a good thing, but in my experience having those extra artifact accelerants is what makes Draw 7's so consistent, both to cast and to win immediately off. I know you like the whole "see 5 cards for U after a Twister" thing but really I'm just not excited about having to spend mana after going all-in in a coinflip attempt to find some gas.

I propose trying change something along these lines and seeing how it plays: -4 Ponder, -2 Thoughtseize, +1 Ruby, +1 Pearl, +1 Petal, +1 Wheel, +1 Desire, +1 Bargain. I don't know if that will be an improvement or not, and you seem to think it would be a retrogression from the "innovation" of cutting artifact mana for Ponder in the first place, but I'm just not convinced that that really is an innovation at all, at least yet.

[ErkBek]

I have a couple suggestions/questions for you that I am meanwhile looking into myself. One, how about the addition of Red for Wheel of Fortune? You could cut the 2 Thoughtseize for Ruby and WoF, cut a fetch for Volc, and have the most powerful draw 7 at your disposal (well, here Tinker/Jar is probably better because you can Gush, then in response pop Jar for an effectively Draw-9).

Yeah, this is definitely an option. If you were to add Wheel I'd probably drop a Thoughtseize for it. Not exactly sure how to fit Ruby in just yet.

Second, I'm still not sold on the greatness of Ponder. Everyone is touting it in storm decks like this, but for me it just doesn't seem that great, either in theory or actual play. You usually just Ponder into like, Duress/BS/Ponder or Land/Mox/Duress or something similar, and shuffle them away and draw a card. Yeah, it's nice to clear out the top 3 if theyre not what youre looking for, but in the end it just amounts to an Obsessive Search, more often than I like. Instead of cutting bombs and mana to fit in 4 Ponder, and trying to find the remaining bombs and mana at the cost of a blue mana, might it not be better to just run more mana and bombs in the first place? You talk about cutting off color Moxen in a deck like this as if it is a good thing, but in my experience having those extra artifact accelerants is what makes Draw 7's so consistent, both to cast and to win immediately off. I know you like the whole "see 5 cards for U after a Twister" thing but really I'm just not excited about having to spend mana after going all-in in a coinflip attempt to find some gas.

Believe in the power of Ponder. Believe.

But really, with the logic of Ponder into junk you should cut Brainstorm....since you could Brainstorm into junk too....you can Gush into it too. I look at it this way. With Ponder you can potentially see 4 cards for mana. Is there any other card in the game that does that for 1 blue mana. Card selection is always highly desired in Combo, Ponder and Brainstorm are as good as they get. With all the Shuffle effects in tutors and fetchlands

I propose trying change something along these lines and seeing how it plays: -4 Ponder, -2 Thoughtseize, +1 Ruby, +1 Pearl, +1 Petal, +1 Wheel, +1 Desire, +1 Bargain. I don't know if that will be an improvement or not, and you seem to think it would be a retrogression from the "innovation" of cutting artifact mana for Ponder in the first place, but I'm just not convinced that that really is an innovation at all, at least yet.

This is what I tried when Gush got unrestricted. I've played Gush bond in a Long shell (no scrolls, full moxen) and it was just a more inconsistent build of Pitch Long.

[Everrid1234]

Quote from: Negator13 on Yesterday at 05:35:39 PM
Second, I'm still not sold on the greatness of Ponder. Everyone is touting it in storm decks like this, but for me it just doesn't seem that great, either in theory or actual play. You usually just Ponder into like, Duress/BS/Ponder or Land/Mox/Duress or something similar, and shuffle them away and draw a card. Yeah, it's nice to clear out the top 3 if theyre not what youre looking for, but in the end it just amounts to an Obsessive Search, more often than I like. Instead of cutting bombs and mana to fit in 4 Ponder, and trying to find the remaining bombs and mana at the cost of a blue mana, might it not be better to just run more mana and bombs in the first place? You talk about cutting off color Moxen in a deck like this as if it is a good thing, but in my experience having those extra artifact accelerants is what makes Draw 7's so consistent, both to cast and to win immediately off. I know you like the whole "see 5 cards for U after a Twister" thing but really I'm just not excited about having to spend mana after going all-in in a coinflip attempt to find some gas.

I can really second this. Ponder without a shuffeling effect seems relatively weak. "Take the best card of the top 3 cards and shuffle afterwards" could be nice, but imo only if you have more than...lets say 5... bombs in the deck. I also think cutting lots of the accelerant is a modern strategy these days to squeeze in Ponder, but the strength of the deck is to play protected bombs which need lots of acceleration.

LiamK's initial build looks very solid. We could call this "Empty Gifts"    I played against Liam and the only thing this deck misses are imo maindeck Mana Drains and maybe Tinker.
Secondary win conditions or even more are very welcome for this deck. I am not sure if Tendrils is needed. You depend a bit much on the Y. Will and Fastbond with Tendrils. My suggestion would be Empty the Warrens and Tinker-->something. ETW with a Time walk also is a very strong play. If you find some protection an "I win now" isn't necessary.

[ErkBek]

. Ponder without a shuffeling effect seems relatively weak.

The same could be said about Brainstorm.

You guys are missing the point. Ponder lets you see up to 4 cards for 1 mana. Scroll -> Ancestral lets you see 3 cards for 1UU. When you're looking for bombs and trying to race an opponent, the expediency of saving 2 mana is HUGE. In a storm deck you don't want to spend your first 3 mana finding Ancestral and casting it, especially if you are just going to ditch those cards in a draw 7 hand or see infinity more cards in Necropotence.

[DoubleDrain]

Since ponder can (potentially) see 4 cards for 1 mana, and put one of them into your hand, ponder is sort of like a half price impluse with sorcery speed.

In a deck without full moxen, turn 1 Merchant Scroll becomes less frequent, so turn 1 ponder becomes a more attractive play.

Of course, decks running 4 scroll & 4 ponder may be viable, and if an optimal build exists, I wonder which will be the more frequent play (and under what circumstances): turn 1 scroll or t1 ponder?

just some random thoughts...

[diopter]

Since ponder can (potentially) see 4 cards for 1 mana, and put one of them into your hand, ponder is sort of like a half price impluse with sorcery speed.

In a deck without full moxen, turn 1 Merchant Scroll becomes less frequent, so turn 1 ponder becomes a more attractive play.

Of course, decks running 4 scroll & 4 ponder may be viable, and if an optimal build exists, I wonder which will be the more frequent play (and under what circumstances): turn 1 scroll or t1 ponder?

just some random thoughts...

I have a Doomsday build that runs 3 Ponder and the full Scroll-Gush-Fastbond engine. I don't think general Storm builds can run 4 Ponder and 4 Scroll effectively though - it's got to be specific combos like Doomsday or Flash.

[TheAlpha]

You guys are missing the point. Ponder lets you see up to 4 cards for 1 mana. Scroll -> Ancestral lets you see 3 cards for 1UU. When you're looking for bombs and trying to race an opponent, the expediency of saving 2 mana is HUGE. In a storm deck you don't want to spend your first 3 mana finding Ancestral and casting it, especially if you are just going to ditch those cards in a draw 7 hand or see infinity more cards in Necropotence.

As far as I tested Ponder (maybe about 30 games online) it turned out to be huge. Everything Kobefan said about it is totally right, I can't even think of playing less than 4.

[tomjoad]

I think we're well on the way to Ponder being like Brainstorm in the sense that any deck in a format where it's legal will start with 4 of them, then fill int he rest of the slots later. I think it's interesting that this change is being adopted first in Vintage, where similar/superior effects already exist, and is being resisted in t2 and 1.x, where this kind of effect has been missing since Masques rotated out.

[hauntedechos]

I see that there isn't as much talk about this build as Super Long has gathered, it's too bad really.  This deck has a tonne of card drawing that Super Long wishes it had.  Don't get it twisted, I'm not saying that Tropical Storm is better than Super Long (well aside from the name it isn't), I'm just saying it addresses the issue that everyone has encountered with Super Long.

Many people feel that Super Long is streaky and further account this to the lack of drawing or card advantage that most Long builds try to win through.  The draw 7's don't really do much for yeah which makes it feel less than a Long deck and sometimes you just can't seem to get anything going.  With tropical  Storm, you have the additional Ponder and the addition of four Gush and a Fastbond.  This deck doesnt' lean on Fastbond like you would think/want to.  As Eric has stated, it "couldn't care less" but at the same time, when you draw into it or open with it, it's not something I'd kick outta bed.  I've found that early game it's been like having full moxen on the table, provided I have one fetch (for the Tropical) and a couple lands.  I've talked to a few people and they all seem to agree that mana acceleration is some good.  Sure this takes off some life from yeah, but casting a Ponder or Brainstorm after that is a good start.

Fastbond can also be used to bait out a counter if you are really trying to resolve a Necro or Will; since the deck doesn't lean on the card, it's not hurting you any to have it countered.  Many opponents are very aware of fastbond = Gush time = card advantage = losing and would be inclined to shut off that kind of mana acceleration which will lead to card advantage.

While Gushing w/o Fastbond may seem scary to some, including myself.  I find that it's not the worst thing to pitch to Fow / MisD, specially since I'd rather hold onto Ponders and Brainstorms to dig for the bomb that wins and pitching counters to counters always makes me wince.

Having Fastbond and Gushes while going off is like wiping your ass with silk, I love it.  It further reduces the need for Will to Storm your opponent out, makes a Will kill even more insane to drop and really gives you a huge amount of breathing room in terms of mana useage.  Basicly it's like everything in GAT, except your not going to cunning Wish for Beserk and attack, it's much more elegant in a storm deck.

Lastly Fastbond can also make draw 7's less terrible than what they are in Super Long, because now there are more draw spells to help chain it all together, and Fastbond aids with the mana issues.

What about the light Ritual count?  I'm not a fan of the light count and I'm looking to try and fit one in.  Like Super Long, the deck needs these rituals to get going and further to power out bombs later on.  While no one really wants to pay one more for a dark ritual, they become huge when trying to start your winning turn.  Casting Necro or Will with BB floating is some good, and certainly are not the only situations where having access to BBBBB is appealing.  On the other hand, to rewind a little, there are times when paying that extra mana for a dark ritual is not as bad as all that, because you may have necro in hand or demonic and duress  or duress, thoughtseize, and vamp tutor.  All in all I want to see at least 1 Cabal therapy make it's way into the mainboard.

Well I hope this gets some constructive discussion going about the deck.  Personally I think that comparing deck a to deck b kills threads and would really like to see some brainstorming on this deck come about.  I'm sure Eric has taken the time to give something to the Vintage community and it would be nice to try and refine the deck.

just my two cents

Michael

[ErkBek]

LSV and Webster took 1st and 3rd with TTS in CA.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?board=43.0

[Ged]

If I'm not mistaken, the changes were -1 Thoughtseize, -1 Sol Ring, +1 Darksteel Colossus, +1 Lotus Petal.

I've played the deck a little, and like it quite a bit more than SuperLong. Gushes help immensely when you need that one mana more or are stuck in a stalemate. Sometimes, just sometimes, it feels a bit light on bombs (compared to my favourite GWS long).
Eric, what do you think about Websters and LSV changes (and sideboards, which are different), and do you think 2 bounce spells are needed for game 1?

[LSV]

After playing Super Long in 3 events and Tropical Storm in one, I have come to a few conclusions about the deck.

Ponder, as many have previously stated, is just awesome. I wouldn't think of cutting any, and it replaces the need for Merchant Scroll quite nicely.

I have become less and less impressed with Draw-7s. The first tournament I played Super Long /w red, and had Wheel and Twister. Especially with less off color Moxen and Rituals, I prefer to set up a win with Ponder and Brainstorm then Draw 7 and potentially fail to win that turn. I think Twister is worth keeping, but I wouldn't run any more than that, and side it out often enough.

The DSC we added ultimately proved unnecessary, although the Platinum Angel in the SB was handy enough. I think running the just 1 Tendrils main is probably ok, as I never killed with DSC and didnt have too much trouble finding the Tendrils. SBing in a 2nd one was pretty nice, as I had people side in Leyline of the Void, and the one Tendrils without Will can be a bit dicey.

The Confidants in the Sideboard were very nice, as they force blue-based decks to keep in removal or die to the card advantage.

I normally wouldn't advocate 2 Blue Blasts, but RG beats and Goblins are fairly popular at out local events. The 4th Bob and the 2nd Hurkyl's are probably what I would put in that spot instead.

I liked the list, and would probably play the same one again with -1 DSC, although im not entirely sure what I would add instead. A second Thoughtseize might be the best, at least until we are allowed to play a 5th Ponder.

[ErkBek]

Eric, what do you think about Websters and LSV changes (and sideboards, which are different), and do you think 2 bounce spells are needed for game 1?

I don't think you need a DSC to tinker for game 1. 2 Bounce spells seems like the safe thing to do since you bend over to Chalice at 1 and Spheres. I'd run something like Web's board in a normal metagame.

I have become less and less impressed with Draw-7s. The first tournament I played Super Long /w red, and had Wheel and Twister. Especially with less off color Moxen and Rituals, I prefer to set up a win with Ponder and Brainstorm then Draw 7 and potentially fail to win that turn. I think Twister is worth keeping, but I wouldn't run any more than that, and side it out often enough.............I liked the list, and would probably play the same one again with -1 DSC, although im not entirely sure what I would add instead. A second Thoughtseize might be the best, at least until we are allowed to play a 5th Ponder.

You'd leave in Jar right?

I'd say DSC for the 2nd Thoughtseize or a single Cabal Ritual would be nice to have.

[LotusHead]

LSV and Webster took 1st and 3rd with TTS in CA.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?board=43.0

of the top 4, two were URW Bomberman (Austin's build and Daniel's build of Austin's Build) and two were Webster/LSV TTS.

Had it been not mirror matches in top 4, but TTS vs Bomberman, TTS would likely have won, based on TTS brokenness (and Storm Shells in general, but mostly on the strength of the players Web and LSV).

Anyways, it could have very likly been a TTS clean sweep of top 2.

(side note: Web's opening hand vs Austin game one would have probably beaten anyone with any hand on the draw...).
Hmmm... Guess I'll post in Bomberthread now...

[ErkBek]

Anyways, it could have very likly been a TTS clean sweep of top 2.

TTS' only loses on the day were in the mirror. Web's only loss was to LSV in the swiss, and LSV's only loss was to web in the semi's.