PDA

View Full Version : [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hanni
09-19-2008, 03:00 AM
This is my current decklist, as of 10/2/08:

B/u/w ANT

// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
2 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
2 [ON] Flooded Strand
2 [A] Underground Sea
1 [R] Scrubland
1 [R] Tundra
1 [ON] Swamp (4)
1 [P3] Island (3)

// Spells
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [R] Dark Ritual
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
4 [FNM] Brainstorm
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
3 [4E] Ad Nauseam
1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
4 [7E] Duress
4 [PS] Orim's Chant
1 [PS] Rushing River

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [A] Plains (1)
SB: 4 [GP] Repeal
SB: 4 [6E] Serenity
SB: 1 [4E] Swords to Plowshares
SB: 1 [FUT] Slaughter Pact
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

The information below is the original post from 9/19/08:

Since there is alot of dicussion about the card Ad Nauseam, since most of the decks being presented in the brainstorming thread do not fit directly into the FT, TES, or SI threads, and since there are so many different ideas going on in that thread, I've decided to create a thread specifically for variations resembling mine.

First, just to start this off, is a list:

B/u ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Underground Sea
2 Swamp

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Ad Nauseam
2 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Pact of Negation

The deck can easily splash a 3rd color if it needs to... like green for Krosan Grip or red for Red Elemental Blast. The B/u list above is a nice starting shell to work with. Once I (we) figure out exactly what the deck wants/needs, we can work on splashing colors and/or making adjustments. I also don't have a sideboard built yet for the same reasons.

This thread is for archtypes of storm combo specifically building around Ad Nauseam (without molding prexisting combo decks around the card). This thread is also for builds more closely resembling the list(s) in the opening post... builds with 8 0cc creatures and Culling/Diabolic, for example, should probably go in a different thread.

The general construction of the decklist above includes: 14 lands, 20 accelerants, 4 Brainstorm, 8 tutors, 4 engine cards, 2 win conditions, and 8 protection spells.

I'll go through some card breakdowns:

14 lands may be too much but I feel comfortable with 14 lands and 8 shuffle effects. I can see the deck dropping to 12 lands if it really needed to.

Chrome Mox and Lotus Petal should be unquestionable given that 0cc artifact mana is very strong with AdN.

Dark Ritual and Cabal Ritual produce alot of black mana, which is exactly what AdN + Tendrils wants. It is arguable that Rite of Flame could replace Cabal Ritual in a red splash, though I'd still favor Cabal Ritual because I think black mana is more valuable.

LED/Infernal Tutor is very strong. They accelerate very well into AdN, as well as after AdN resolves. Sometimes they may be dead if you have AdN already in hand... even if you do, you still have other cards to win the game for you, and LED/IT is still a strong backup plan if it gets countered or after AdN resolves.

Mystical Tutor is the strongest tutor the deck has access to, IMO. "U: search for protection, AdN, Dark Ritual, whatever you need" is exactly what the deck wants. It is basically a 1cc setup spell that enables the next turn win.

We're already in blue, Brainstorm with fetchlands is far too strong to not be included. Taking a page out of FT, Brainstorm + 8 fetchlands is really strong.

4 Ad Nauseams shouldn't be questioned. The deck wins when it resolves AdN and always wants to see AdN. Multiple AdN's is only bad if the first AdN resolves, which is irrelevant anyway.

An interesting thing that you'll notice is Pact of Negation replacing Orim's Chant. With AdN replacing IGG, the deck doesn't need to rely on the protection from Chant (to make the engine good). AdN wins once resolved and Pact makes sure AdN resolves.

Pact of Negation is very strong. The deck plays setup cards like Mystical Tutor, which usually don't get countered, and then plays AdN on the following turn. Since AdN wins when resolved, the deck only worries about resolving AdN. Pact does this perfectly for 0 mana. This can quicken the win by a full turn with little consequence.

Duress sets up the protection wall; Duress lets you know whether or not you can win [through Pact] in games where you slowplay (Landstill or Threshold).

Mystical Tutor enables consistent Duress + Pact.

Duress + Pact has been extremely strong in testing.

----

The deck can easily cut the lands down to 12 and Tendrils down to 1 to fit more cards... I'm just not sure what cards it needs right now. I think 1 IGG, 1 EtW, 1 bounce spell, and several other cards are worth tying out.

The deck can also splash for a 3rd color, whichever color would benefit the deck most (mainly via sideboard options). A 3rd (or more) color splashes are welcome. I figured B/u was a very solid starting point for working with the archtype.

I'll add more content to the OP as more content comes in.

For now, my current deviation from the starting list I posted is:

B/U/r ANT

// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
4 [R] Underground Sea
1 [R] Badlands
1 [CST] Swamp (1)

// Spells
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [R] Dark Ritual
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
4 [FNM] Brainstorm
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
4 [4E] Ad Nauseam
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
1 [TSP] Empty the Warrens
4 [7E] Duress
4 [FUT] Pact of Negation

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains
SB: 4 [GP] Leyline of the Void
SB: 4 [RAV] Dark Confidant
SB: 1 [ON] Chain of Vapor
SB: 1 [TSP] Wipe Away
SB: 4 [4E] Red Elemental Blast

This will most likely change... I'm simply showing what new development I'm working on right now.

Benie Bederios
09-19-2008, 06:38 AM
Hi,

Some things I like to point out.

1: Your manabase. It looks quite unfocussed. You don't need the full complement of Fetchlands. 6 fetchlands with Brainstorm is enought. You don't need to use deckthinning, because additional lands are zero damage of AN, and fetchlands do damage you. I would also play at least an Island. The fist turns you want to Brainstorm/ Mystical Tutor. If you can fetch an Island turn one you can better deal with Magus or Wasteland. On top of that your rituals produce B. So after you used AN a single black mana is enough, but sometimes you need more U( for Mystical Tutor+Brainstorm or something)I would play 14 lands something like this.

4 Polluted Delta
1 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained Mire
3 Underground Sea
3 Island
2 Swamp

11 lands produce B turn land and 12 U. 7 swamps and 8 Islands.

2: I would play another wincondtion other than AN, and the choice would be Ill-Gotten Gains. It ups the turn 1 kills a little and wins without damaging your lifetotal, which might be important against fast decks. You could probably remove a AN or Tendrils for it.

3: Pact of Negation is nice but doesnt combo well with Lion's Eye Diamond. Has it ever come up in testing?

BB

Hanni
09-19-2008, 06:49 AM
With the second list I posted, the B/u/r version, some of your concerns are addressed, Benie Bederios.

I think 8 fetchlands is fine... even without fetching, it provides protection against Wasteland and makes grabbing the land you want more consistent. A 1-of Island isn't necessarily a bad idea though, I could drop 1 Undergound Sea for 1 Island without much problem. I usually don't put more than 3 lands into play (the usual is 2), so at worst I'm seeing 3 life loss from fetchlands, which isn't that bad.

Saying that more lands are good with AdN is wrong: you're not worried about how many cards AdN draws, you're only worried about hitting the right cards to win. All an extra land does is cause a dead flip, since it's going to be a dead card in hand. 0 life loss, 0 relevant card drawn.

I do agree that deck thinning is irrelevant, since again, it doesn't matter if you do or don't draw lands with AdN. That's not why I'm running fetchlands, though.

The deck does have another win condition in Empty the Warrens, which also happens to be strong against countermagic (except Stifle). The deck can easily generate 5-6 storm to make a turn 1-3 EtW lethal without relying on AnD. IGG is susceptible to countermagic moreso than EtW, which is why I prefer to run EtW over IGG maindeck. I do run 1 IGG sideboard though, along with 4 Leylines.

I've yet to have an issue with Pact of Negation, honestly. It does what it's intended to do. It has no less negative synergy with LED than FoW would. Pact sits in hand to protect casting AdN. The 0 mana cost is one of the main reasons I use the card... if it cost 1 mana, I'd run Red Elemental Blast, Orim's Chant, or even Thoughtseize in its place.

If I need proactive disruption before I cast AdN (like in a situation where I would need to resolve LED/IT to grab EtW), I still have Duress.

The fact that Mystical Tutor can grab both Duress/Pact prior to going off makes the protection very consistent.

---

So I'll try cutting 1 Underground Sea for 1 Island in my B/u/r list and see how it goes.

On a sidenote, this deck can be called ANT for short, since that's easier than AdN-T. ANT fits right in with the other easy acronyms like FT, TES, and SI. Could a mod rename the thread to ANT instead of AdN-T, please?

Gocho
09-19-2008, 07:32 AM
Some players in the Spanish Inquisition Thread are working in a version witch 0cc creatures (robots or kobolds), Culling the Weak, Diabolic Intent and Rainbow Lands.

Perhaps you can take ideas from it.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6099&page=18

4eak
09-19-2008, 07:58 AM
-B/U/r is probably going to be the right set of colors. Red has EtW, Burning Wish, REB, Shusher, and mana acceleration (if we chose to use it). The deck needs answers to hate, and red can do that.

-8 Fetches are fine. Guaranteeing shuffle with Brainstorm is too important. It opens the third color up very consistently too. It avoids waste. The lifeloss is not as relevant as many might think.

-AnD-T decks can afford to be heavy on land. This seems like an important part of AnD, as it gives you options that most TPS decks can't afford. Land is consistent, reusable, uncounterable mana-production. The only reason not to have too many lands in AnD-T is because it minimizes your business spells in hand pre-AnD. The more protection we choose to run, the more land we should run in this deck. Also, Brainstorm mitigates a high-land count.

-I love mystical tutor in this deck. Remember that you can run 1-of's-- even 1-of protection spells too. A single FoW, for example, may have a place in the deck.




peace,
4eak

Boogy_Boy
09-19-2008, 08:10 AM
I love mystical tutor in this deck. Remember that you can run 1-of's-- even 1-of protection spells too. A single FoW, for example, may have a place in the deck.

Why tutor for FoW when u can tutor for Pact of Negation? If you don't have AdN in hand, u'd obviously tutor for it. If you do have it in hand, you obviously use the counter to protect your AdN.

If your AdN resolves, you win anyway.

FoW also have the potential to lose you 5 "business cards" if you flip it up first when you cast AdN.


Btw. I wouldn't worry too much about breaking AdN... But i'll leave that discussion some where else. (Can we have a thread dedicated on whether it'll be banned or not? Later on, we can see who's right who's wrong just for fun).

Hopo
09-19-2008, 08:17 AM
Saying that more lands are good with AdN is wrong: you're not worried about how many cards AdN draws, you're only worried about hitting the right cards to win. All an extra land does is cause a dead flip, since it's going to be a dead card in hand. 0 life loss, 0 relevant card drawn.


Could this warrant a spot or few for Mox Diamonds? That way you can turn dead land-draws into storm and rainbow mana. Chrome Mox is strictly better before Ad Nauseam with this low land count, still, but Mox Diamonds could make your AdN draws a bit better.

Hanni
09-19-2008, 08:20 AM
With a 14 land manabase, Mox Diamond is going to be worthless before you cast AdN. Mox Diamond is only useful after you've cast AdN, at which point it doesn't matter anyways because you won. I've only fizzled after resolving AdN in a couple goldfishes out of about a hundred. It's not worth running Mox Diamond.

You draw alot of cards with AdN and you don't need most of them. Pitching excess Duress/Pacts/etc is usually not a problem for Chrome Mox after you resolve AdN. Chrome Mox is strictly better than Mox Diamond and the deck does not need any additional acceleration (especially not Mox Diamond, anyway). 20 accelerants have been plenty for me in testing.

Hopo
09-19-2008, 08:48 AM
With a 14 land manabase, Mox Diamond is going to be worthless before you cast AdN. Mox Diamond is only useful after you've cast AdN, at which point it doesn't matter anyways because you won.

If that is the case, I hear you. How many cards you draw by average from Ad Nauseam with this list?
And do you always cast it during your own turn?

Hanni
09-19-2008, 09:00 AM
How many cards you draw by average from Ad Nauseam with this list?

It's completely random everytime I cast it. Sometimes I can draw 20 cards, sometimes I just hit double AdN for 10 lifeloss and can only draw 5 cards. It also depends on what my current life total is at, as well. If I have 18-20 life, I can easily draw 10-15 cards. If I'm at around 12 life or so, I can usually go for 7-12 cards.

Regardless, there are very few times where I cast Ad Nauseam and fizzle.

So far in testing, I've cast Ad Nauseam in my mainphase everytime. Casting it on the opponent's end of turn invalidates Pact of Negation as protection. The storm count generated in the mainphase is also relevant quite often. Honestly, the card would be more broken as a Sorcery since it would make Burning Wish > Mystical Tutor.

4eak
09-19-2008, 09:21 AM
@Boogy_Boy


My main point is that 4x Mystical is very powerful because it allows you to run singletons. I used FoW just as an example--not because I'm saying it absolutely must be in this deck. My exact words were:


I love mystical tutor in this deck. Remember that you can run 1-of's-- even 1-of protection spells too. A single FoW, for example, may have a place in the deck.

It was merely an example, so please keep that under consideration.


As to your specific criticism of FoW:

The idea of running FoW in a Tendrils combo deck, even with a card like AdN or Confidant, is not an uncommon idea. Vintage in particular does this all the time, and I suspect that as TPS begins to speed up in Legacy you'll see more reasons to play protection like FoW in storm combo. This deck doesn't always win on first turn, and sometimes the unique protection that FoW can offer is necessary and difficult to substitute.

While I definitely think PoN deserves to be in this deck, that doesn't mean a single FoW is out of the question. FoW is versatile where PoN is not; you can choose to play control for a single turn where PoN can't. Duress, in large part, does mitigate the possible losses of Pacting into a control deck, but there are still cases where FoW would be very useful where PoN wouldn't.

For example, Combo vs. Combo, there are times when Duress isn't as strong as a counter. PoN, unfortunately, is a counter used in win-now situations exclusively, and it doesn't play control. I look at PoN as very specific offensive PRO-active disruption on the stack, and sometimes the deck could use a single defensive turn. FoW can do things that PoN can't. Remember that Duress doesn't kill Brainstorm protected hands, and it is here that FoW does what few cards can.

I certainly don't mean to say FoW must be in the deck, but it could be an appropriate card in the right metagame.

Mystical makes for versatile decks and versatile sideboards (FoW was just one of many possible cards it could grab).



peace,
4eak

Boogy_Boy
09-19-2008, 09:51 AM
Sometimes they may be dead if you have AdN already in hand... even if you do, you still have other cards to win the game for you, and LED/IT is still a strong backup plan if it gets countered or after AdN resolves.

Have you guys thought about Inferno Tutoring AdN before you play it? You do remember there's the first part to Inferno Tutor? :p
Pulling out another AdN means 1 less chance to run into it. If you Inferno Tutor for a AdN you already have in hand turn 2, you will combo off much more safely turn 3.

Also, if you have problem with drawing only 3 cards with AdN, maybe 1 angel's grace MD? It can cancel the effect for Pact of Negation too. lol. So guess it's like a poor-man's version of FoW.
Thought it might be a "win more"


@ 4eak
icic. my mistake.

Hopo
09-19-2008, 10:01 AM
I like the idea of starting the combo with Angel's Grace instead of Orim's Chant: draw your whole deck and win. It still requires the Duress, Chant or Pact, though, and Angel's Grace is somewhat useless before the combo. Hopefully.

Hanni
09-19-2008, 10:20 AM
I can see a 1-of Angel's Grace be good at allowing the deck to go off with an EtW win that was protected via Pact of Negation. Not really sure it's worth splashing white for, though. I think Orim's Chant seems more relevant, since it has synergy with the IGG in the sideboard.

Going 4 colors is pushing it, IMO. At that point, with only 14 lands, going Rainbow would be more stable... which in turn makes Brainstorm bad, which I don't think is worth it.

The bigger question is: what is the best third color splash?

---

For right now I'm starting my testing with red. I think EtW is extremely valuable to the deck. Going for the uncounterable win, especially when you can't reach a lethal storm count for Tendrils for whatever reason, can win games. Many decks in the format can't answer 10-12 1/1 tokens early in the game when they aren't prepared for it.

I have not yet tried the Red Elemental Blasts out of the board yet to determine if they are worth going red for or not. My guess right now is yes, since they can replace Pact of Negation against Counterbalance decks... you will usually play a little slower in these matchups anyway and REB can counter Counterbalance. It's also just as good at resolving AdN as Pact of Negation is, although harder on the manabase.

Shattering Spree is another good red card, useful against Dragon Stompy, Stax, etc. Chalice is the most problematic card for this deck when resolved on turn 1 for 0, and Spree answers multiple Chalices and Trinispheres, too. The lack of red mana production in the maindeck does worry me about the card though. 1 red mana source and 4 Lotus Petals does not seem like enough to support big Spree's... though adding some Rite of Flame's could easily fix that.

Is Rite of Flame worth splashing, maybe as a 2/2 split with Cabal Ritual? I believe that needs to be determined with playtesting. The deck easily hits BB consistently right now and 2 Rites could easily make REB's and Spree's more playable.

I'm going to try dropping 2 Cabal Rituals for 2 Rite of Flames and dropping 1 Chain of Vapor from the sideboard for 1 Shattering Spree and see if it still runs effectively (without using the sideboard).

4eak
09-19-2008, 10:47 AM
If you wanted to splash for a single fourth color, namely white, we might try this:

4 Polluted Delta
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Underground Sea
1 Badlands
1 Scrubland
1 Swamp
1 Island

I'm not convinced that white really brings enough to the deck though.


The bigger question is: what is the best third color splash?

Red.



peace,
4eak

BreathWeapon
09-19-2008, 10:50 AM
Pact of Negation isn't good, it's 5cc, it doesn't protect Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond and it doesn't stop Counterbalance. You're better off running either 8 discard, 8 Abeyance/Orim's Chant or a mix.

Red is the best splash, Empty the Warrens, Vexing Shusher and Red Elemental Blast are better than either Orim's Chant or Krosan Grip.

Don't cut Cabal Ritual for Rite of Flame, especially for less than 4 Rite of Flame.

Run 1 Empty the Warrens MD.

Illissius
09-19-2008, 10:55 AM
Pact of Negation's mana cost and converted mana cost are both 0.

undone
09-19-2008, 11:08 AM
The point of it is though, you can play pact OR LED+ Infernal.

You cant play both in the same deck efficiently.

I personaly perfer the pact/cullings version with no ITs you get to play 8 copys and have 8 disruption the rest is mana so you always get there when you draw it..

LED is good, dont get me wrong, but you want to keep your CC down...

Hanni
09-19-2008, 11:11 AM
Pact of Negation isn't good, it's 5cc, it doesn't protect Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond and it doesn't stop Counterbalance. You're better off running either 8 discard, 8 Abeyance/Orim's Chant or a mix.

Red is the best splash, Empty the Warrens, Vexing Shusher and Red Elemental Blast are better than either Orim's Chant or Krosan Grip.

Don't cut Cabal Ritual for Rite of Flame, especially for less than 4 Rite of Flame.

Run 1 Empty the Warrens MD.

Eh?

Pact of Negation is 0cc.

I'm not worried about Counterbalance maindeck. It's not dominant enough in the metagame and this deck can usually resolve Ad Nauseam through countermagic before CounterTop goes online. Chalice is more devastating IMO, and REB doesn't answer that. The fact that Pact of Negation costs 0 instead of R is very relevant, IMO.

You'll also notice the REB's in the board.

Vexing Shusher is not as good as Krosan Grip. It eats removal (yes, some decks leave in some removal), it's mana intensive, and it cannot be tutored by Mystical Tutor.

I do run 1 EtW maindeck in the red splash, obviously.

You are right about 2 Rite of Flames being moronic though, but I'm not really sure how to buff up the red mana sources to make REB's and Spree's better. I don't want to go with SSG's because being 3cc is not worth it.

---

I'm going to try this and see how it works:

// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
3 [A] Underground Sea
2 [B] Badlands
1 [ON] Swamp (4)

// Spells
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [R] Dark Ritual
4 [CS] Rite of Flame
4 [FNM] Brainstorm
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
4 [4E] Ad Nauseam
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
1 [TSP] Empty the Warrens
4 [7E] Duress
4 [U] Red Elemental Blast

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains
SB: 4 [GP] Leyline of the Void
SB: 1 [TSP] Wipe Away
SB: 1 [GP] Shattering Spree
SB: 4 [FUT] Pact of Negation
SB: 4 [TO] Cabal Ritual

However, I'm pretty sure maindeck Cabal Ritual and Pact of Negation with IS the better maindeck configuration.

Brehn
09-19-2008, 11:15 AM
Pact of Negation isn't good, it's 5cc,


If you have 5 mana after casting IT and popping LED, why wouldn't Pact of Negation protect it?


Step 1: Learn the rules
Step 2: Build a deck
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit

Don't switch Step 2 and Step 1.

Edit:


Was learn the rules directed towards me?

To both of you.


Cause... last time I checked

Check again.

The_Red_Panda
09-19-2008, 11:27 AM
In order to do the IT/LED trick you have to pop the LED before you pass priority, so when your opponent has a chance to counter it you have 0 cards in hand. You cant drop IT, give your opponent a chance to counter, and THEN pop LED. You have to do both at once, and then give the other guy a chance to counter, meaning that if you IT and pop LED, your pact is in the graveyard, and you don't have any way to protect IT (assuming you haven't already duressed).

The ???? Profit thing is a Slashdot reference.

undone
09-19-2008, 11:28 AM
I dont know how many time I need to shout it.

PACT OF NEGATION ISNT LEDS FRIEND THEY HATE EACH OTHER.

Pact cannot protect "IT, sac LED" this is why its BAAAAAAD together.

Hanni
09-19-2008, 11:29 AM
I was high when I included that in my text but in playtesting I haven't actually done that. Disregard and carry on.

BreathWeapon
09-19-2008, 12:02 PM
@ Brehn, stop being a troll.

@ Hanni, what I meant was Pact of Negation is 5cc if you plan on using Pact of Negation to protect Ad Nauseam EOT or you have to stop, pass, untap and win or you have to stop Counterbalance.

Pact of Negation doesn't protect Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond into Tendrils of Agony from Stifle, and it doesn't protect Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond into Ad Nauseam from counters. Just using discard to protect both Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond into Ad Nauseam from counters and Ad Nauseam into Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond -> Tendrils of Agony from Stifle is more efficient.

I never said Vexing Shusher was better than Krosan Grip, it doesn't even make sense to compare the two because Vexing Shusher and Krosan Grip are both green. I meant the aggregate of Empty the Warrens, Red Elemental Blast, Pyro Blast and Vexing Shusher were more valuable than the aggregate of Krosan Grip and Vexing Shusher

You need to be real, real concerned with Counterbalance, designing a combo deck that gold fishes over unprepared opponents isn't as important as designing a combo deck that can stand up to Threshold.

Brehn
09-19-2008, 12:16 PM
@ Brehn, stop being a troll.

I love you too.


@ Hanni, what I meant was Pact of Negation is 5cc if you plan on using Pact of Negation to protect Ad Nauseam EOT or you have to stop, pass, untap and win or you have to stop Counterbalance.

1. It's still not correct that Pact of Negation is "5cc" (i. e. "has a converted mana cost of 5")
2. Hanni never planned using Ad Nauseam EOT and has realized that

Casting it on the opponent's end of turn invalidates Pact of Negation as protection.
before you've posted your incorrect statement which "meant" something different than you've written.

Maybe the next time you could write what you "mean" to avoid such a confusion?

/troll

Hanni
09-19-2008, 12:31 PM
I tried the 4 Rite of Flame 4 REB list and it is just not as consistent as the 4 Cabal Ritual 4 Pact of Negation list.

I'd still run REB in the sideboard against decks running Counterbalance. The fetchland manabase should be able to consistently make R when you need it to postboard, but don't plan on casting double REB with any consistency.

BreathWeapon
09-19-2008, 12:33 PM
I love you too.



1. It's still not correct that Pact of Negation is "5cc" (i. e. "has a converted mana cost of 5")
2. Hanni never planned using Ad Nauseam EOT and has realized that

before you've posted your incorrect statement which "meant" something different than you've written.

Maybe the next time you could write what you "meant" to avoid such a confusion?

/troll

Except using Ad Nauseam EOT does come up when you have storm and need mana, so Pact of Negation not being able to protect Ad Nauseam EOT for less than 5 mana on the following turn is relevant, and not being able to stop, pass and untap for less than 5 mana is the main point. Excuse me for giving people enough credit to figure out I was referencing the upkeep instead of the actual cc, I didn't think it'd be that hard to figure out you'd have to either pay for the card or die on the following turn when it's written into the text.

@Hanni, yeah Cabal Ritual is just better than Rite of Flame. I don't think Blasts are good in the main but that doesn't mean Pact of Negation belongs in the main either. I'd just run 4 Thought Seize and 4 Duress if you want 8 disruption pieces, discard seems like the way to go because Orim's Chant adding + W on the combo turn really gums up the works.

The_Red_Panda
09-19-2008, 02:42 PM
I dont know how many time I need to shout it.

PACT OF NEGATION ISNT LEDS FRIEND THEY HATE EACH OTHER.

Pact cannot protect "IT, sac LED" this is why its BAAAAAAD together.

Capslock is really annoying. Seriously. Just stop holding down shift when you type things. Your meaning doesn't come across any more clearly just because all your letters are capitalized, and if you're looking to add emphasis, bolding text or putting text in italics is a lot nicer both in connotation, and in physical form.




Except using Ad Nauseam EOT does come up when you have storm and need mana, so Pact of Negation not being able to protect Ad Nauseam EOT for less than 5 mana on the following turn is relevant, and not being able to stop, pass and untap for less than 5 mana is the main point.


I think the real reason not to use Pact is that it gets pitched when you go for IT/LED, which is still what any good AdN deck will be doing a % of the time. What I would like to see in these lists are more duress effects.

On a side note, what does everyone think of 4x Duress, and 4x Chant main? The chants might be easier on the lifetotals than thoughtsieze, and going with gold lands instead of fetches duals really shouldn't be a problem.


You need to be real, real concerned with Counterbalance, designing a combo deck that gold fishes over unprepared opponents isn't as important as designing a combo deck that can stand up to Threshold.

I probably haven't tested the Combo v. Threshold matchup enough to be able to claim this fully, but wouldn't 8 duress effects be enough to ensure counterbalance doesn't hit the table before you win? It seems as if this deck is fast enough to just win before they can resolve the card, barring the land top land counterbalance hand, and that should probably be solved by throwing duress effects at your opponent.

Hanni
09-19-2008, 02:54 PM
Although this is probably retarded, I just realized that the B/u version could actually run Counterbalance. The deck should be able to easily support UU with minor modifications.

Drop the IT/LED combo for 4 Top 4 Counterbalance, and voila. The deck is no longer as fast or as explosive, but the deck abuses Counterbalance with Brainstorm, Mystical Tutor, and Top, and curves out almost perfectly for it.

B/U Counterbalance ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
2 Bloodstained Mire
2 Flooded Strand
4 Underground Sea
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Ad Nauseam
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
4 Daze
4 Duress
1 Wipe Away
1 Tendrils of Agony

Honestly not sure right now whether it's any good... the abudance of 2cc stuff makes AdN a bit weaker, though the deck might be able to cut 1-2 AdN's, I dunno. The decklist is definitely interesting. Whether or not it's worth it or not is undetermined at this point.

blacklotus3636
09-19-2008, 05:25 PM
At first I thought ad nauseum would be one of the few decks in legacy that could use pact of negation but as always any combo deck that uses LED can't really use pact effectively. I think a combination of therapy + duress/thoughtseize would probably be best because it works with LED, before and after ad-nauseum. I was also thinking of an off the wall idea of putting 4 birds of paradise and 4 orcish lumberjack in to accelerate the deck plus once they have served thier purpose you can sacrifice them to therapy, diabolic intent and culling the weak. I admit its strange but an idea all the same

blacklotus3636
09-19-2008, 05:38 PM
Quote: Today, 05:56 PM
Pulp_Fiction
This message has been deleted by Pulp_Fiction. Reason: I will not post in threads where someone suggests Counterbalance in a combo deck

Is it just me or is this the wrong attitude when discussing ideas. I'll grant you that it might not be the most inspired thing anyone has suggested but how many times do crazy ideas end up doing something creative and interesting. Food chain in goblins, patriachs bidding in goblins, furnace dragon in affinity's sideboard. There have also been several cards people dismissed initially as unplayable like force of will and bazaar of baghdad. My point is that things are in a constant state of flux and you never know when a crazy idea will pan out:)

Dark_Cynic87
09-19-2008, 06:58 PM
Drop the IT/LED combo for 4 Top 4 Counterbalance, and voila. The deck is no longer as fast or as explosive, but the deck abuses Counterbalance with Brainstorm, Mystical Tutor, and Top, and curves out almost perfectly for it.



The reason CounterTop isn't run in combo lists is because it doesn't protect from Force of Will, not to mention that it has no clock. No clock other than a combo is weaker vs. their Counterbalance + their FoW + their clock.

as for a list, I do like the route you are going with this, but a few things:

-3 AdN
+3 Cunning Wish

I'd give that a try. Honestly, I would. Hitting Cunning Wish instead of AdN gives you 2 more life to work with each time, and is a valuable card AFTER you play AdN, whereas additional AdNs are absolutely dead cards, not to mention it gives you a bit of flexibility with fighting hate (for instance, you could grab a PoN from your sideboard instead of running them MD; Chant, Angel's Grace for when you NEED to win or for saving yourself for a turn from a Pact if you DO decide to run it, hell, you could even run a 1-of FoW in your SB just as a wish target). and you can wish EoT for AdN instead of Sorcery-Speed Tutoring for it. It's an instant also, which means you can leave go at the end of opponent's Turn Wish into it.
B/U Counterbalance ANT

Lands (15)
4 Polluted Delta
1 Bloodstained Mire
3 Flooded Strand
3 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Badlands
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (45)
3 Chrome Mox
3 LED
4 Lotus Petal
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
2 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
3 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Mystical Tutor
3 Cunning Wish
2 Lim-Dul's Vault
1 Infernal Tutor
4 Duress
1 Wipe Away
2 IGG
1 Tendrils of Agony

SB-15
1 AdN
1 Cabal Ritual
1 Wipe Away
1 Rebuild
1 Rushing River
2 Pyroblast
1 Extirpate
1 PoN
1 FoW
2 Shusher (?)
1 Echoing Truth
2x ???

The idea is that you can use AdN as a suprise factor/draw-4, using the IGG kill mostly. When graveyard hate is present, you can simply wish for AdM and go off that way. This has the feel of TES in my opinion in that it uses red accel. and wishes, as well as a Draw-4 (in this case, a draw-X). I suppose that you could put a D. Returns in the SB as well, but I don't know how that would be better than an AdN.

Maybe?

LMK how you see it.

Hanni
09-19-2008, 08:17 PM
I'm not saying that the Counterbalance route is good, I'm saying that it is interesting and probably deserves a little testing on my end.


The reason CounterTop isn't run in combo lists is because it doesn't protect from Force of Will, not to mention that it has no clock. No clock other than a combo is weaker vs. their Counterbalance + their FoW + their clock.


If I have Counterbalance out, Mystical Tutor putting AdN on top actually does stop an opponent's FoW.

Cunning Wish lacks synergy with Counterbalance, though. If I was going to run additional tutoring, it would be with Lim-Dul's Vault. Although Cunning Wish can be versatile, setting up the maindeck draw seems really strong. The lifeloss of LDV is still too restrictive to run alongside AdN, though.

The deck could even run 4 Tombstalker and 4 FoW postboard as a transformational sideboard. Between all of the fetchlands and accel, casting turn 2-3 Tombstalker's shouldn't be a problem. Just an idea. The deck can also run 4 LED 4 IT postboard to come out for Counterbalance and in against decks like Goblins and Dragon Stompy.

---

I'm obviously not giving up on the B/U/r IT/LED build, as in testing that list has already proven to be very powerful. I am going to spend the next time I get to playtest on the Counterbalance version, though, just to see if it's worth it or not. At the very least it looks very fun.

BreathWeapon
09-20-2008, 12:56 AM
I think I've just got there,

4 Ad Nauseam
4 Infernal Tutor
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Serum Visions
4 Thought Seize
4 Duress
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
4 Underground Sea
2 Island
1 Swamp

I know it looks retarded, but the idea is you use Brainstorm, Ponder and Serum Visions as one big engine to filter thru' your deck while either building Threshold for Cabal Ritual or stacking Ad Nauseam on top of your deck for Lion's Eye Diamond. You've got 0 outs against permanent based hate but you've got 8 discard spells for permanent based hate, so you just disrupt, draw, draw, draw and then go off.

It's rough, but you're about guaranteed to hit 3 land drops and Threshold on turn three and it's ridiculously consistent.

DeathwingZERO
09-20-2008, 04:40 AM
Two things:

1)Why are people so hellbent on not wanting to cast AdN on the opponents end step? In most cases this would be useful, you are playing up against decks either packing FoW or counterspells that actually cost them mana. Very few people are going to be able to CounterTop into FoW to stop you, and in nearly all cases, past turn 2-3, it's going to take a single ritual to power out.

2) Why are people advocating 4 LED's in a deck set to abuse a card drawing spell? There are two times in this counter infested meta that I'd ever be willing to crack LED:

1- I've ripped their hand of countermagic, or
2- I'm going to combo off in Ichorid (and even there I hate LED).

The deck doesn't need LED as an acceleration tool. You'll get plenty of use out of Petal, Moxen (either or), and rituals, LED is just asking for trouble on resolving critical spells. With the exception of Tendrils or AdN itself, everything in the deck is practically 0-2 mana, and a single AnD resolution should put you well above needed cards & mana to reach a lethal Tendrils.

Dark_Cynic87
09-20-2008, 06:16 AM
I HATE the idea of playing >1 AdN in any deck. Why? It knocks 1/4 of your life down, and it's a dead draw. I'd rather tutor into it than anything. I can't see any way to go off with it EoT other than wishing into it. While that's possible, that requires 8 mana, and you aren't actually going off, you just used a draw-X to set up your win the NEXT turn.

BTW, you better have some sort of removal that's tutorable--Teeg pwns you.

IDK, I can't figure this out for the life of me...It seems useable, but I can't see a scenario atm outside of TES that it screams "My Milkshake and all that, wot wot".

Pce,

--DC

Boogy_Boy
09-20-2008, 06:16 AM
Except using Ad Nauseam EOT does come up when you have storm and need mana, so Pact of Negation not being able to protect Ad Nauseam EOT for less than 5 mana on the following turn is relevant, and not being able to stop, pass and untap for less than 5 mana is the main point. Excuse me for giving people enough credit to figure out I was referencing the upkeep instead of the actual cc, I didn't think it'd be that hard to figure out you'd have to either pay for the card or die on the following turn when it's written into the text.


Which is why I have been saying Angel's Grace MD.

me: EoT AdN (God. since when has MtG got so much abbreviation O.o).
opponent: counterspell
me: Pact of Negation.
me: Draw half my library because AdN is seriously broken. If lucky, play EtW?

Untap. Upkeep. Pact upkeep goes on tack. Cast Angel's Grace.
Swing with EtW token ftw or play the 30 or so cards in your hand? Or you could do both and put them at -40 life????

Just to clarify. Not saying Angel's Grace is a must. I just thought this scenario is pretty "cool".

Dark_Cynic87
09-20-2008, 06:24 AM
If lucky = your opponent not noticing that EtW is a sorcery, then sure...

In other words, that won't work. Just wait until your 1st main phase to combo off.

I think Angel's Grace is a must. Somehow it just makes damn sense to draw your whole fucking library save one card for next turn's draw. If you are going to do it, do it like a combo player--all the fucking way.

Pce,

--DC

BreathWeapon
09-20-2008, 10:32 AM
Two things:

1)Why are people so hellbent on not wanting to cast AdN on the opponents end step? In most cases this would be useful, you are playing up against decks either packing FoW or counterspells that actually cost them mana. Very few people are going to be able to CounterTop into FoW to stop you, and in nearly all cases, past turn 2-3, it's going to take a single ritual to power out.

2) Why are people advocating 4 LED's in a deck set to abuse a card drawing spell? There are two times in this counter infested meta that I'd ever be willing to crack LED:

1- I've ripped their hand of countermagic, or
2- I'm going to combo off in Ichorid (and even there I hate LED).

The deck doesn't need LED as an acceleration tool. You'll get plenty of use out of Petal, Moxen (either or), and rituals, LED is just asking for trouble on resolving critical spells. With the exception of Tendrils or AdN itself, everything in the deck is practically 0-2 mana, and a single AnD resolution should put you well above needed cards & mana to reach a lethal Tendrils.

1) Because casting Ad Nauseam EOT sacrifices all of the storm.
2) Because Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond into Ad Nauseam is the nuts and Ad Nauseam into Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond is convenient.

LOL @ AdN not needing LED, you obviously haven't played with this card, AdN needs LED like a junky needs a fix.

Dark_Cynic87
09-20-2008, 11:46 AM
1) Because casting Ad Nauseam EOT sacrifices all of the storm.
2) Because Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond into Ad Nauseam is the nuts and Ad Nauseam into Infernal Tutor + Lion's Eye Diamond is convenient.

LOL @ AdN not needing LED, you obviously haven't played with this card, AdN needs LED like a junky needs a fix.

1.) I find this laughable. I fail to see how drawing X spells off of one card during an EoT step sacrifices all of the storm.

2.) Seems true.

I'm not sure it needs it QUITE that bad, but...whatever. Its a little situational and dependant upon what you drew.

Pce,

--DC

BreathWeapon
09-20-2008, 12:30 PM
1.) I find this laughable. I fail to see how drawing X spells off of one card during an EoT step sacrifices all of the storm.

2.) Seems true.

I'm not sure it needs it QUITE that bad, but...whatever. Its a little situational and dependant upon what you drew.

Pce,

--DC

Casting Ad Nauseam EOT costs you the storm from the acceleration and the storm from Ad Nauseam, it's not irrelevant, which is the reason the decks are designed to cast Ad Nauseam on your main phase.

Lord_Cyrus
09-20-2008, 01:49 PM
It's obviously sub-optimal to try for AdN during your opponent's turn, when you don't have your entire arsenal at your disposal, including all your sorceries and Pact o' N. However, since resolving AdN at any reasonable size will probably win you the game on your next mainphase regardless, it would seem smart to cast it in response to certain plays your opponent might make, particularly if you have already cast a profitable duress and know that he has a good chance of finding more disruption.

Situations I can think of, off the top of my head, where casting AdN on opponent's turn could be profitable:

:1: Landstill casts Standstill or FoF

:2: VoroshStill or similar control deck casts Intuition

:3: In a post-board game, Trinisphere is cast and you are holding multiple Dark Rits which are about to become worthless, but you have some chance to draw an out from AdN


In all these cases, the point is only to cast it as an instant when the situation forces you to. In this regard I believe Ad Nauseam decks can offer a substantial advantage over IGG based storm, in that they have more options to try to force a win.

ixid
09-21-2008, 02:18 AM
The Sickness

1 Swamp
1 Island
4 Underground Sea
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
4 Lotus Petal
4 Chrome Mox
3 Mox Diamond
4 Pact of Negation
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Duress
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Intuition
3 Tendrils of Agony
4 Ad Nauseam

So, similar to what has been discussed. I quickly ditched LED and Infernal Tutor, I'm not sure why some of you seem so set on them, they will hurt you a lot of the time when you have one and not the other. Ad Nauseam is an easy card to go broken, you don't need to add other combo requirements. This version is very simple - lots of tutoring, lots of 0 CC and Intuition. Intuition's a very solid setup card for this deck, Intuition for 3 Ad Nauseam and you've reduced the average damage of each card drawn by 0.3 (to 0.82 per card from 1.12). Intuition also seems like a reasonable choice as it's immune to Spellsnare and will often dodge Counterbalance. This lets you draw aggressively and ensures that Ad Nauseam is a win. Once you've cast Ad Nauseam then Intuition gets Tendrils along with the 3 Tendrils (and often as not you'd be able to Mystical + Brainstorm) ensuring you hit one somehow. The build is designed to comfortably go off with no spare mana after casting Ad Nauseam, even with the low CC I think this needs the storm count of casting Ad Nauseam on the turn you go off. The deck should probably run 1 Wipe Away maindeck, not sure what I'd remove for it yet and in the sideboard I'd run Volcanic Islands, Pyroblast and Daze (possibly).

Cunning Wish is a bad idea, I don't think we'd even be discussing Ad Nauseam if it cost 5BBU. The damage it does to you isn't that terrifying, if you're worried about low probability events then don't play combo. The average CC is close to 1 (or under if you cast Intuition for AdN) making Ad Nauseam better than Yawgmoth's Bargain.

Multiple Tendrils have been quite useful in my brief testing. The deck can still do a weak double Tendrils plan if necessary and often you'll be able to do a giant double Tendrils from Ad Nauseam making Stifle ineffective.

Dark_Cynic87
09-21-2008, 06:16 AM
Cunning Wish: 2U

Intuition: 2U

Cunning Wish: Less damage, before you cast adn.

Intuition: "finds" your kill-spell, used after you cast adn.

I don't see much difference in the two, other than Intuition opening you up to Extirpate on you Win-Con.

Mox diamond is crap in these lists. 14 lands? Sure. 14 lands and 4 Chrome Mox? Absolutely. 14 lands, 4 Chrome Mox and 3 Mox Diamonds? No.

A Mox diamond before AdN is crap.

Pce,

--DC

badjuju
09-21-2008, 07:23 AM
@Mystical Tutor

I'm not the biggest fan of the card, but I think it works appropriately here. If you aren't going for pure speed, it's best to optimize for protection and toolbox answers while building up for the win.

@Counterbalance

It's an idea, but I think it's pushing the boundaries too far. You want to inhibit your opponent enough so that you can go off without problems, but you don't want to start sticking cards in that veer you off from your original game plan.

@LED/IT

I don't think you can ditch these. Even if they don't work synergistically with some of the cards in the deck, any combo player here can attest to the stupid brokenness that these partners in crime create on a regular basis. One thing you don't want to do is put all your eggs in one basket by removing these engines.


I'm also a fan of going toolbox with the deck, and I think Hanni's BUr deck is going in the right direction. I'm also not sure if we should cut iggy - why possibly gamble with AdN when you can just confirm a win with the loop (assuming you have the right cards, obviously)?

BreathWeapon
09-21-2008, 11:26 AM
I agree M.Tutor is a reasonable choice because it stacks AdN for cantrip + LED. Mental Note has faired well in testing for people focusing on Threshold and Cabal Ritual, altho' it requires an IGG MD, and I'd imagine Strategic Planning would also be a possible choice.

Hit Threshold, resolve Cabal Ritual = win seems to be the best approach I've found.

ixid
09-21-2008, 12:32 PM
Dark_Cynic87: You've missed some details in your Cunning Wish vs Intuition. Intuition is also used to find AdN and means you're effectively running 8 AdN vs 5 in a Cunning Wish build. The average CC of your AdN will be 6.5 with Intuition vs 7.4 with 4 Cunning Wish and 1 AdN. Cunning Wish adds nothing to Threshold, Intuition adds 3 cards. Cunning wish wastes sideboard space. Cunning Wish can't tutor for Tendrils so is a dead card when you go off.

Ups, I noticed you're not running any main so the average cost of getting one is 8. Your deck's not really an Ad Nauseam deck at all is it? That makes Mystical Tutors much weaker in your deck not to run even one, I don't think you've realised just how powerful Ad Nauseam is. 5 mana + 1 card and win the game. Rite of Flame is really clunky, I'm not sure why you're running it especially when you only run 2 Cabal Ritual which is a much better card. It's not worth adding red to the deck to run a bad accelerant.

Mox Diamond's run well for me and gives sufficient options for getting mana after going off. It is probably the weakest slot but it's better than you're giving it credit for, you need a high % of 0 cost mana available once you go off and it's castable before going off surprisingly often. What would you suggest in its place? 1 more land and 2 Thoughtseize or 2 Daze is tempting.

Infernal Tutor will leave you stranded when you have no LED as it can't directly tutor and you can't empty your hand when you need AdN. LED alone makes Pact useless (replacing Pact with Thoughtseize fights against the deck's most important resource). Together they're not even that good, you only need to fit 5 mana with an AdN in hand.

4eak
09-22-2008, 01:03 AM
Everytime I resolve Ad Nauseam I feel like I'm cheating (I think it is going to be banned /shrug). After playtesting, I have to say, this is a Turn 2 deck on average. Mystical tutor is the starter to the AdN engine in this deck. AdN is a straight one-card combo.

As pointed out, this deck really wants to cast AdN during the main to guarantee resources and storm count to cast for lethal. Although, I often cast it during my draw phase from floated LED mana from my upkeep. This deck has to generate immense amounts of mana as early as possible, and after that, it doesn't matter nearly as much. AdN's hunger for mana makes it difficult to protect without watering the deck down to the point that you aren't consistently able to cast it on 1st or 2nd turn.

I've seen two options with this deck (much like Flash). You can go for speed or you can go for a disruptive combo approach. Going for speed is great because it actually dodges a lot of hate, but it of course is easy to disrupt on its own if you don't go off 1st turn. Playing some combo protection has more implications to this deck in that it not only slows the deck down, but it decreases your likelihood of drawing a game-winning stream of cards from AdN and casting AdN early enough.

Slow playing control has not been to my advantage with this deck either. Chalice and CB were game breakers once in play too. Having no defensive counters hurts this deck's attempt to play protection effectively.


I've tried:

4x Duress
4x Pact of Negation

and

4x Duress
2x Thoughtseize
1x Pact of Negation

and

1x Bayou
1x Crop Rotation
1x Boseiju

and

1x Angel's Grace
3x Orim's Chant
1x Scrubland
1x Plains

I even tried shushers and bounce in the main. I often wished I just had mana-acceleration in hand instead of these cards. So, I wanted to try a break-neck speed version of the deck, foregoing protection, and just going for the win.

Here is the deck I've arrived at so far:


Lands: 12x
1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta

Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x LED
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual
3x ESG
3x Summoner's Pact

Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
4x Infernal Tutor

Win-Stuff: 6
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Ill-Gotten Gains
4x Ad Nauseam


The deck is consistent, and very fast. ESG/Pact has been fantastic. You only pact when you are casting AdN that turn anyways. The deck packs a bit less land because...I don't get to drop as many land as more disruptive versions of this deck.

I wouldn't mind losing the Ponder's for other cards so much. They can't put AdN on top of the library as effectively as Mystical and Brainstorm. A singleton Pact wasn't bad either. Street Wraith's were lackluster (even with 4x Mystical in the deck). I wish I could run Mystical's 5-8.




peace,
4eak

Hanni
09-22-2008, 02:37 AM
I don't really like Intuition because it cannot grab 1-of's. I agree that being out of Counterbalance range against Thresh decks is good, but I usually try to race CounterTop. 3cc for a tutor slows the deck down alot, which is bad against everything not CounterTop. Intuition, IMO, is better as an engine card for decks like Intuition Thresh, ITF, Tezzeret Stax, etc, and not as a single card tutor.

-----

Building the deck without protection makes it alot like Belcher, except I actually play 4 Red Elemental Blasts in Belcher lists that I play. Opting to go for first turn kills from more acceleration is also a good way to build ANT but you still need 4 Duress.

Of course, going for turn 1-2 kills is going to be vulnerable against FoW and/or going second against all kinds of relevant hate.

A speed build isn't necessarily a bad route though, and does warrant some discussion. If you think about it like Belcher, it's basically a better Belcher since it's no longer as dependant on EtW wins. Tendrils is alot harder to disrupt than EtW. Duress is stronger than REB, IMO, since it lets you know if you can go off or not.

I don't think ESG + Pact is how I'd want to accelerate the deck, honestly. That opens you up to FoW worse than usual now because if they Daze/FoW you're AdN, you lose the game. Quickening the clock to turn 1 kills like Belcher, you're just as vulnerable to turn 1 countermagic. ESG is 3cc, so on its own its not good for the decks curve.

I'm not sure what accelerants I would replace them with, though. I already tried 4 Rite of Flames and those were lackluster.

-----

I still prefer Pact of Negation though, since it enables the deck to play through countermagic like FoW, and costs 0 mana. I've had protected turn 1 kills with Pact of Negation before, though usually the deck goldfishes turn 2 with protection. The only times I cannot combo off before turn 4 with protection are against decks like MUC, which just keep hitting you with a constant stream of disruption. However, decks like that do not have a good clock so you can easily switch into control role with Duress + Pact of Negation.

The deck can run Thoughtseize or Cabal Therapy in replacement for Pact of Negation, but the lifeloss of Thoughtseize is relevant and Cabal Therapy is hit or miss without also playing Duress. Cabal Therapy is good in the SI manplan versions, but those versions trade up combo consistency for 0cc creatures.

Red Elemental Blast and Daze still suffer from the same problems as Pact of Negation, as far as being reactive and not working well with IT/LED. I like REB in matchups where I can afford to slowplay against blue decks and the opponent doesn't have Wasteland. Daze has the problem if being ineffective if the opponent's isn't tapped out, as well as set the deck back in land drops.

I think both REB and Daze are both strong contenders for the Pact of Negation spots and are all probably metagame choices. REB has advantages against Counterbalance decks, where Daze has advantages against Chalice-based decks, where Pact of Negation has advantages against FoW (while being 0cc).

I'd definitely run both REB (if you splash for red) and Daze in the sideboard, at least.

-----

Anyway, this is my current list:

B/U/r ANT

// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
2 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
2 [ON] Flooded Strand
3 [A] Underground Sea
1 [R] Volcanic Island
1 [ON] Swamp (4)
1 [P3] Island (3)

// Spells
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [R] Dark Ritual
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
4 [FNM] Brainstorm
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
4 [4E] Ad Nauseam
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
1 [TSP] Empty the Warrens
4 [7E] Duress
4 [FUT] Pact of Negation

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains
SB: 4 [NE] Daze
SB: 3 [U] Red Elemental Blast
SB: 1 [GP] Shattering Spree
SB: 1 [TSP] Wipe Away
SB: 1 [FUT] Slaughter Pact
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

jegger
09-22-2008, 05:56 AM
I've posted some decklists and considerations about this new card in the topics of TES and FT, but without success. Anyway I consider this card the future of storm combo, with this deck I beat for example a deck that usually is a nightmare of TES and FT like thresh UGB.

@Hanni: I see that your list is very similar to the mine. The core is every time the same (chrome, mystical, rituals, bla bla bla), but I'm trying 3 different version of the deck: one for each colour I use as splash.

The UBg version with the only 1 green card in Sb: K.Grip usually against Counterbalance. I think that this is a version oriented against Counterbalance decks in a meta full of them.
The UBw version for Orim as protection in a meta full of Spell Snare and Stifle and Serenity against Stax.
The Ubr version very similar to your list for many cards in Sb: ReB, EtW and Pyroclasm.

I don't see in your list a bouncer maindeck and I also see that you ignore the matchup against decks use Chalice + Trini. I use E.Truth in 1 single copy in the maindeck plus in Sb Serenity in the white version and in all others versions I use a mix of Rebuild and Hurkyl's Recall. Shattering Spree can't be enough, also with only 1 red land we can't destroy Chalice at 1 with Spree. We can't be a bye fo Stax and Dragon Stompy decks!

I also don't use EtW maindeck, there is an evident antisynergy between this card and PoN. And also, EtW is another card with an high CC: another antisynergy with Ad Nauseum. For these reasons I have only a copy in Sb against Extirpate decks and Discard matchups.
Again, I use PoN in Sb. I like it, but I don't want 4 dead copies in many matchups and again another antisynergy with LED. I prefer to keep them in SB.

I'm also trying Sensei maindeck to give to the deck more fluency. Sensei gives also an opportunity to do some tricks to win against blue based decks without protection.
I don't use 4 copies of Ad Nauseum. I want to reduce the possibilities to take too much dmg.

Ah, for last: I use a 1x of IGG. Against decks like Burn or GoyfSligh with an elevate quantity of burn spells the win condition with Ad Nauseum can be very risky and I don't want to lose because with Ad Nauseum I go 7 lifes and then my opponent kills me with Bolt+Fireblast. For this reason I use IGG.

Hanni
09-22-2008, 06:22 AM
1 Tormod's Crypt in my sideboard can be dropped for 1 Echoing Truth, then. Or 1 Shattering Spree can be dropped for 1 Echoing Truth.

Benie Bederios
09-22-2008, 07:18 AM
I also don't use EtW maindeck, there is an evident antisynergy between this card and PoN. And also, EtW is another card with an high CC: another antisynergy with Ad Nauseum. For these reasons I have only a copy in Sb against Extirpate decks and Discard matchups.
Again, I use PoN in Sb. I like it, but I don't want 4 dead copies in many matchups and again another antisynergy with LED. I prefer to keep them in SB.

Another point is that ADN bites chunks away from your lifetotal, so Churning out gobbo's when your life is at 4/5 isn't that powerfull. With the low R-mana count, it's also hard to get a couple of tokens out turn 1.

BB

Hanni
09-22-2008, 08:56 AM
Why? Even at 4-5 life, if you AdN into EtW, you're going to be getting 20+ Goblins, so unless the opponent has burn (2 burn spells in this case), they are going to die via Goblin beats. The only time casting EtW after AdN is bad is when you use Pact in that turn and cannot pay 3UU next turn (which you usually can since you usually put so many 0cc mana producers into play, especially LED).

EtW gives the deck an out if the deck doesn't have enough/sufficient disruption, since EtW itself can only be countered by Stifle (when you don't go for the AdN + Tendrils win). It's also nice to grab when the deck cannot produce enough mana/storm after IT/LED. I've been pleased with it so far.

-----

This isn't in response to anyones post, just some info about the deck I'd like to toss out there.

Dreadstalker with 4 Sinkhole, 4 Wasteland, and 4 Stifle to attack the manabase, 4 Thoughtseize, Daze, 4 Force of Will, 4 Spell Snare, and 4 Counterbalance + 4 Top, is a very bad matchup.

Playing around Chalice is very possible. Game 1 it gets set to 1, which can easily be played around via IT/LED and/or 0cc mana + Cabal Ritual + AdN (in hand). Game 2, Chalice at 0 is harder, but still manageable. The deck can Dark Ritual/Cabal Ritual into AdN on the opponent's EOT with 1-3 (blue) mana open to cast Mystical Tutor/Echoing Truth/Wipe Away (tutor grabbing ET), or the deck can go off if it draws into Tendrils (or EtW if it has access to R) and enough Rituals.

Counterbalance is easy to race unless they hit you with a ton of other disruption, then it becomes problematic. Blind CB isn't so bad, but if they manage to get CounterTop, the decks only out is to topdeck into Wipe Away. Luckily, I've only had a few games where the opponent is actually able to assemble CounterTop before the deck goes off with protection, especially postboard with REB's.

Benie Bederios
09-22-2008, 09:52 AM
Why? Even at 4-5 life, if you AdN into EtW, you're going to be getting 20+ Goblins, so unless the opponent has burn (2 burn spells in this case), they are going to die via Goblin beats. The only time casting EtW after AdN is bad is when you use Pact in that turn and cannot pay 3UU next turn (which you usually can since you usually put so many 0cc mana producers into play, especially LED).

EtW gives the deck an out if the deck doesn't have enough/sufficient disruption, since EtW itself can only be countered by Stifle (when you don't go for the AdN + Tendrils win). It's also nice to grab when the deck cannot produce enough mana/storm after IT/LED. I've been pleased with it so far.


In your example, Tendrils is better than EtW. It doesn't give your opponent a turn to deal with the tokens( Engineered Deed, blockers/attackers, removal.) EtW is powerfull in TES and Becher, because those decks can produce quite some red on turn 1. FT and SI doesn't run them, because they deal quite some damage to themself and can't produce some tokens( between 8 and 12) turn 1.

Alot of decks can deal with goblin tokens now adays.

If you can't get enough storm, you could use IGGy to gain extra storm.

BB

Hanni
09-22-2008, 10:01 AM
Post AdN, your opponent more than likely will not be able to resolve EE or Deed or whatever, so that's irrelevant.

You are missing the point about EtW though; its good when you can't resolve AdN. With IGG, you open yourself up to countermagic like FoW. With EtW, you simply drop 12 1/1's on turn 2 when you cannot protect an AdN and the opponent hopefully cannot answer it (usually done in game 1).

I think EtW > IGG maindeck, unless you plan on splashing white for Orim's Chant. In which case, you'd have to drop Pact (which is arguably better) and you'd lose the red splash (REB's arguably better than Chant too).

Postboard, the deck can drop the EtW for sideboard cards if it's a bad card vs the opponent. The ability to turn 1 EOT Mystical into an EtW ftw is strong against alot of decks, though.

----

On a sidenote, I'm considering dropping Wipe Away for Repeal. The 3cc of Repeal should dodge Counterbalance and it answers Chalice @ 0 for only 1cc. The biggest thing about it, though, is that it only requires a single blue mana, which is highly relevant. The ability to draw a card is a nice additional bonus, too.

ixid
09-22-2008, 10:50 AM
I've tried exactly that build with Infernal Tutors, LED and one Tendrils; what I do not understand is how you go off reliably. Are you drawing into Mystical/Brainstorm + 2 blue, Infernal + LED or Tendrils/EtW every time?

Hanni
09-22-2008, 10:53 AM
After you cast AdN, it's not that difficult to draw into either IT/LED, Mystical/Brainstorm, or Tendrils/EtW. You draw at least 10 cards on average, which is more than enough to assemble those 2 card combos and have the mana to cast them. Especially on good flips where you hit 15 cards, the deck has very few problems going off. The deck fizzles occasionally, though most combo decks do that sometimes.

-----

On a sidenote, I found Daze lackluster postboard for Chalice. The opponent sets Chalice @ 0 and is therefore able to pay for Daze. Those will get dropped and I'll work on finding a replacement sideboard card.

BreathWeapon
09-22-2008, 11:45 AM
Although, I often cast it during my draw phase from floated LED mana from my upkeep.

peace,
4eak

Quoted for emphasis, using Ad Nauseam's Instant speed to cast it during the draw step instead of the main phase is broken, and not enough people seem to be aware of how to use Ad Nauseam and LED together (I didn't even consider it until I re-read the rules for LED)

Just cut Serum Visions for Mystical Tutor in the list above, and it's good to go.

ixid
09-22-2008, 12:42 PM
I just realised this trick while goldfishing with LED in hand and Nauseam/Brainstorm or Mystical Tutor, LED is definitely correct given this and once you run LED then Infernal Tutor's probably correct. If LED is correct though I find it harder to agree with Pact of Negation, what's the point of running it? It will not protect Ad Nauseam if you go off with LED and once you've gone off you can Duress/Thoughtseize out Stifles.

What do people think of Angel's Grace as a sideboard plan? Vs something like Goyf-Sligh where you may not have enough life to go off. Perhaps even as a one of main-deck to give you an out when the deck's slower.

So from Breathweapon's list I'd run something like:
-4 Ponder
-4 Serum Visions
-1 Thoughtseize
+4 Mystical Tutor
+4 Chrome Mox
+1 Wipe Away or Angel's Grace with a Scrubland or Tundra in place of a basic

Maybe an unusual idea - what about ditching Cabal Ritual?

Apex
09-22-2008, 12:45 PM
I'm liking BreathWeapon's list (the -Serum Vision +Mystical Tutor one) for goldfishing, and when I try to push it, I can usually get a turn 2 kill, and the other half of the time, it's turn 3. I don't think in the past 10 hands or so I've ever went to turn 4. Maybe I need to goldfish more to actually conclude that.

Anyway, the draw step kill is particularly nice with LED (you have tons of ways of setting up the draw step Ad Nauseam, from Brainstorm, Ponder, Mystical), and the occasional Infernal/LED into Ad Nauseam -> kill is helpful at times.

Though I'm not sure what happens when you factor in your opponent with all the FoW, Daze, and even stuff like Lightning Bolt or Fire/Ice. How low in life do you go? Also, I'm finding Thoughtseize to be a drag after me AdNing into the lows (Thoughtseize is essentially 3 life if you want to cast it), and I generally can only cast 1 Duress/Thoughtseize half the time from turn 1-2, and then I would need additional Duress/Thoughtseize to get rid of the assumed Stifle (or other random anti storm hate). Would Cabal Therapy be a better alternative as the Duress 5-8?

Another problem with going off very early (turn 2) is the fact that it's also hard to make blue mana after AdN (unless you hit lotus petals). At times I wished there was a Chromatic Sphere/Star in there to switch around mana.

rufus
09-22-2008, 01:06 PM
....
Another problem with going off very early (turn 2) is the fact that it's also hard to make blue mana after AdN (unless you hit lotus petals). At times I wished there was a Chromatic Sphere/Star in there to switch around mana.

Duress > Thoughtseize in an AdNauseam deck.

Depending on circumstances you could also feed a blue card to a Chrome Mox. With 4 Chrome moxes and 8+ blue cards, that should be a decent supplement to the Lotus Petals.

You could put PoN in the sideboard as a 3-of, although this deck has a hard time with burn in general.

Apex
09-22-2008, 01:23 PM
I realize that Duress > Thoughtseize, that's why I was searching for an alternative, and I was wondering if Therapy was a better choice.

Thanks for the Chrome Mox suggestion, seems pretty solid, though I don't know if I want to play 4 of those.

My current list that I'm testing:

lands (I am playing 2 Chrome Moxens, so I decided to cut one land and play 14, will test more)
1 Island
1 Swamp
8 Fetch
4 Sea

Acceleration:
4 LED
4 Lotus Petal
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Dark Ritual
2 Chrome Mox

Disruption
4 Duress
3 Cabal Therapy

Setup:
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor

Win con:
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils

Right now it seems pretty solid gold fishing (better than before at solving blue mana problem, no uncastable Thoughtseize after Ad Nauseam), but I'm gonna work on some of the resiliency issues.

Anusien
09-22-2008, 01:56 PM
I can believe Ad Naseum being awesome when you start at 20 life. I'm questioning how awesome it is when you have an opponent. How many games do you win at greater than:
2 life?
3 life?
5 life?

In other words, would an opposing turn 1 creature or a Lightning Bolt stop your plans cold?

BreathWeapon
09-22-2008, 02:50 PM
I can believe Ad Naseum being awesome when you start at 20 life. I'm questioning how awesome it is when you have an opponent. How many games do you win at greater than:
2 life?
3 life?
5 life?

In other words, would an opposing turn 1 creature or a Lightning Bolt stop your plans cold?

The cut off is appr. 10, but it's not difficult to just pack Orim's Chants and run IGG, considering how ridiculous M.Tutor -> AdN and sacrificing LED during your upkeep is, you may not even need to run more than 1 AdN.

Apex
09-22-2008, 04:33 PM
I think I have made some progress, it tests well in goldfishing so far.

I tried and applied the "Doomsday" philosophy with Ad Nauseam, that is, AdN/DDay are both setup cards that should win you the game when you resolve it. You cast DDay with some mana floated and you proceed to win, same with Ad Nauseam, except with Lotus Petal/Chrome Moxen/the LED upkeep -> draw trick, you often just need to resolve AdN, and the 10-12 cards you draw should allow you to win, don't need to setup a specific pile like DDay. Therefore, I went and cut all of the Infernal Tutors (like a few posters above had done).

During goldfishing, I was often quite unhappy with how I couldn't grab my singleton wincon (Tendrils) with Infernal Tutor unless I had LED in hand, and all of my other tutors all costed blue, which makes the Mystical -> Brainstorm/Ponder for Tendrils costs at least UU, and often more if I need to chain Brainstorm/Ponder into a Mystical (which sucks hardcore if I comboed early, since I would then need 1 or 2 additional Lotus Petals). So I added 2 Chrome Moxens, which has been performing OK.

So now the problem lies in resolving AdN. Again, I took the FT approach and added some SDT's for more card selection power. I'm playing close to a full set of fetches anyway, might as well use the top. So far I'm testing 2, but I might have to find room for more (I think maybe 4 top/2 ponder is better than 4 ponder/2 top, or maybe a 3/3 split, who knows). I also added 4 Orim's Chants to the main, replacing the Thoughtseize/Cabal Therapy slot for better protection against things in general.

The list looks like this right now, maybe a singleton Ill-Gotten Gains is needed, maybe not, more goldfishing needs to be done. But right now, if you resolve AdN, you should win. Resolving AdN also happens most frequently on turn 3, so I'm happy with the speed.

list:
1 [UNH] Swamp
1 [B] Tundra
1 [B] Scrubland
3 [ON] Flooded Strand
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
1 [UNH] Island
4 [B] Underground Sea

2 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [B] Dark Ritual
4 [US] Duress
4 [MI] Mystical Tutor
4 [MM] Brainstorm
4 [LRW] Ponder
4 [PS] Orim's Chant
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
3 [UNH] Ad Nauseam
3 [CHK] Sensei's Divining Top

Edit: this list kinda looks like the newer FT list if you squint your eyes. I think it has potential. Also, I hate Cabal Ritual. With a passion.

deadlock
09-22-2008, 05:18 PM
There far too many untested lists floating around in this thread. To just comment the last one: I think you are overlooking the main reason to run SDT, which is in fact DD. So without it i rather would try something like Mental Note.

If you want to keep the FT approach you might wanna try a single AN in a list WITH Doomsday or you start from scratch and look for cards that synergize with it, which is only warranted if the card proves to be powerful enough to build a deck around and even if yes than i wouldnt solely rely on it.

Personal i like the concept to build threshold asap for Cabal Ritual via Mental Note and Intuition.
Intution for three AN looks good, because you pull out additional copies and lower the average cmc of your deck. On the other hand Intuition was dismissed for Tendrils decks a long time ago.

BreathWeapon
09-22-2008, 05:20 PM
Yeah, Ad Nauseam is just worse than Doomsday in FT, you can't take as much damage with Ad Nauseam as you can with Doomsday and you can't Mystical Tutor for Infernal Contract either. There's just no point in using a more expensive, more life dependent card unless you're pushing the speed of the deck.

I'd recommend,

1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Ill Gotten Gains
1 Ad Nauseam
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
1 Wipe Away
4 Orim's Chant
4 Duress
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
3 Underground Sea
3 Tundra
1 Island

All you really need is a single AdN, the card is just so broken with Infernal Tutor and Mystical Tutor, there's no point in aiming for a 5cc hard cast.

I think I'd run that over TES, FT or SI, it's straight up sick how Stifle means jack shit now.

Brehn
09-22-2008, 05:25 PM
it's straight up sick how Stifle means jack shit now.

Your manabase would like to have a word with you :]

What's up with that singleton Empty the Warrens? Just because it's 6 mana instead of 7? I think you're opening yourself up to hate.

Apex
09-22-2008, 05:28 PM
FT pretty much relies on DDay setup, and only in rare occasions does it go the IT->IGG route, since right now, FT runs only 5 actual rituals. I'm proposing the same setup (cast AdN, do some stuff with the cards AdN gives you win), except that without the inclusion of Infernal Tutors, I don't think IGG as a singleton helps that much, that's why I didn't include an alternative wincon.

SDT was just a way to achieve the Brainstorm/Ponder effect without using blue mana, which is pretty huge since after AdN you will have an excess of black mana that you can sink, but hardly any blue, that's why the 2 Chrome Moxens are there too. Too bad SDT sucks as a 4 of with so little lands. I'm gonna goldfish it at 2 some more.

A single AdN in FT lists kinda sucks, really. Alot of people already mentioned that in various FT threads on here and the stormboard. That's why there is this thread, for breaking AdN.

As for testing lists, Shards isn't even finished being spoiled yet, there are like 50 more cards to go. We can only goldfish, and right now, with the last 20 or so hands, it's been goldfishing pretty consistently.

The debate right now then becomes Infernal Tutor or no? I'm thinking no, but then again, this version runs alot more rituals, so maybe Infernal Tutor isn't such a bad idea. Though it sucks alot after an AdN. Gonna excessively goldfish some more.

BreathWeapon
09-22-2008, 05:35 PM
Your manabase would like to have a word with you :]

What's up with that singleton Empty the Warrens? Just because it's 6 mana instead of 7? I think you're opening yourself up to hate.

You got me there, but if the opponent has to Stifle fetchlands instead of Stifling win conditions, then I'm satisfied with Stifle being demoted to a Sinkhole instead of a Mindtwist. I don't want to have to deal with Meddling Mage on Tendrils of Agony, if all Empty the Warrens does is force Meddling Mage to name another card, it's doing its job. Essentially, Ad Nauseam and Empty the Warrens forces the opponent's disruption to pick sub-optimal targets, which is very useful.

@Apex

Believe me, I tried what you're trying, and it sucked. You can subtract Ill Gotten Gains and Empty the Warrens for Ad Nauseams in the list I posted, but I'm about positive that's an optimal AdN shell.

A testing partner just MDs the 4 AdNs and SBs the non-Tendrils singletons, and that may well be the best approach.

Peter_Rotten
09-22-2008, 05:41 PM
In my testing, I've found EtW to rather sub-par since it rarely can be safely used in conjunction with AdN. I'm often at such low life, I can't afford to pass the turn; I need to win now.

BreathWeapon
09-22-2008, 05:47 PM
In my testing, I've found EtW to rather sub-par since it rarely can be safely used in conjunction with AdN. I'm often at such low life, I can't afford to pass the turn; I need to win now.

Oh, I agree ETW sucks, but it's a lesser of 2 evils when choosing between tutoring for bounce, waiting to draw bounce, casting bounce and passing and just going off and Duressing their hand before dropping Goblins on the board.

I'd straight up cut the card if there were no Meddling Mages to be found.

rufus
09-22-2008, 06:47 PM
I realize that Duress > Thoughtseize, that's why I was searching for an alternative, and I was wondering if Therapy was a better choice.

Cabal Therapy is probably better than Thoughtseize. Especially since Duress lets you look at the opponents hand so that Cabal won't miss.

Raven's Crime could be interesting since it allows you to pump lands into your storm count. The downside is that it's not that effective as a disruption card.

On that theme, Scroll Rack could be better than SDT - since it's basically a junior tutor with the hand of doom you get from Ad Nauseam.

4eak
09-23-2008, 08:58 AM
I haven't posted in a bit on this deck (I've been playtesting). Here are my results with the following speedy list:

Lands: 12x
1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta

Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x LED
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual
3x ESG
3x Summoner's Pact

Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
4x Infernal Tutor

Win-Stuff: 6
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Ill-Gotten Gains
4x Ad Nauseam


Out of close to 400 goldfishes, here are the winning turn percentages:

Turn 1= 15% (11% w/7-card hands, 4% w/6-card hands)
Turn 2= 72% (53% w/7-card hands, 19% w/6-card hands)
Turn 3= 12% (7% w/7-card hands, 5% w/6-card hands)
Turn 4+ = 1%

The deck is clearly a turn 2 deck. I'm sure I didn't play perfectly, and mulliganing becomes an art with the deck (I create percentage rules for Brainstorm/Ponder hands to determine if they are keepable). I don't know if this is good enough to not play protection.

Other comments:

-Adding Duress, Thoughtseize, Pact of Negation, Orim's Chant, etc. really does slow this deck down. In goldfishing, a protected version of the combo became closer to a turn 3 deck than a turn 2 deck.

-In the games I've played, I must admit that burn and very fast early damage was devastating to the viability of AdN. This deck, unfortunately, can't wait very long to go off because it can't afford to take a lot of damage and remain very consistent.

-Keeping the deck U/B has made for a very consistent mana-base.


Just a few late responses:

@ Hanni


you still need 4 Duress

Not convinced of that just yet. But, Duress would be the first piece of protection I'd play. Orim's would probably be second. Thoughtseize hurts, and PoN just wasn't hot.


I don't think ESG + Pact is how I'd want to accelerate the deck, honestly. That opens you up to FoW worse than usual now because if they Daze/FoW you're AdN, you lose the game. Quickening the clock to turn 1 kills like Belcher, you're just as vulnerable to turn 1 countermagic. ESG is 3cc, so on its own its not good for the decks curve

This deck goes for the throat. If you blow your load, and you fizzle or get countered out, then you are screwed no matter what. You are going to lose if you don't succeed when you attempt to go off. Pact's upkeep trigger is pointless in this deck. Its drawback is meaningless. You either won, or you fizzled and you lost anyways.

ESG+Pact is great. Test it and then come back and tell me otherwise.


@ BreathWeapon


Quoted for emphasis, using Ad Nauseam's Instant speed to cast it during the draw step instead of the main phase is broken, and not enough people seem to be aware of how to use Ad Nauseam and LED together (I didn't even consider it until I re-read the rules for LED)

This is the reason I went for a straight up speed combo. I use this so often, and I so commonly use Mystical on T1, which takes up my Duress mana, that I all too often have just been better off not running protection.



peace,
4eak

troopatroop
09-23-2008, 11:56 AM
This deck goes for the throat. If you blow your load, and you fizzle or get countered out, then you are screwed no matter what. You are going to lose if you don't succeed when you attempt to go off. Pact's upkeep trigger is pointless in this deck. Its drawback is meaningless. You either won, or you fizzled and you lost anyways.

ESG+Pact is great. Test it and then come back and tell me otherwise.

I agree with him. ESG-Pact is awful. What's so precious about that single green mana, and why play a 3cc card to bolt you post Ad Nauseum? I'd rather play disruption, So I don't lose to a single Force of Will, something that your list could take a hint from. How can you deny the power of Duress and PoN in actual gameplay? Of course they'll slow down the goldfish. That's what protection cards do, but we're building a deck to win actual games of magic. You sat down and played a whole bunch of games with that list. Good job. It's irrelevant. Take it to a tournament and you'll lose to blue consistently.

undone
09-23-2008, 12:19 PM
Im playing breath whepons first posted list with these changes

-4 thoughtseize (it just doesnt work here)
-4 Serum visions
+1 IGG
+4 mystical tutor
+3 cabal therepy

The list goldfishes really well, but I realized something that absoultely SUCKS in testing. If I draw tendrils (like raw draw) LED is a dead card, which is NOT GOOD. 1 IGG is an easy fix and lets you go for the loop vs burn and such (So you dont have to do ad nauseum) It fixes all the red matches, by itself (I Kept having trouble with the "Bolt you, bolt bolt you" when on the draw starts putting me at 10) 1 IGG fixes this because they cant beat the iggy start often.

Also from straight up testing therepy is strictly better then thoughtseize if you know what you want, starting off with brainstorm is a good if they dont in responce, nameing force is also good, it mainly lets you see your problematic cards in hands.

Things @ Breathwhepon

Have you considered cutting 1 adnauseum, and 2 bad disruption for 3 intutition.

The other question is could you consider cutting 2 bad disruption for 1 slaughter pact (mage/teeg) and 1 wipe away/rebuild/any bounce spell. Im thinking that E truth, or something would be a good bounce spell as its cheep, the best one barring the 2 cards Im REALLY scared of is repeal, it bounces every thing but chalice @1, and 3 sphear.

Im begining to think 1 vendicate would actualy be a good inclusion but thats just rambling and food for thought.

I understand not dropping an ad nauseum(That card has such good creepy art...) but As we were saying when we tested it, do you really need 7-8 disruption????? isnt say 5-6 fine.

I also have the question of "Where can we add chrome mox" We were unacceptably unhappy with out it. We need 4 slots for that card.

BreathWeapon
09-23-2008, 12:24 PM
@People

Pact of Negation is not an option in a deck that's using bother Infernal Tutor and Mystical Tutor with Lion's Eye Diamond to cast Ad Nauseam.

@4eak

You need disruption, slowing the aggro-control opponent down is the same thing as speeding the Storm player up, and turn 3 wins still get the job done vs aggro.

I don't care for Chrome Mox, I'd rather hit land drops thru' turn 3 99% of the time.

Edit @ Undone

Scroll up the page, and you'll see my "up to date" list, I added Ill Gotten Gains and the second win condition for similar reason and I cut Thought Seize for those exact reasons but I've found Chrome Mox to be really bad.

I go back and forth on the second win condition, the bounce and a disruption slot for more Ad Nauseams, but I suppose there's nothing about 8 disruption spells that's set in stone other than being super useful.

You'll just have to weight the utility of one card vs another and judge for yourself.

undone
09-23-2008, 12:29 PM
BreathWeapon
Im not advocating cutting lands, Im advocating cutting either 2-3 disruption and 1 cabal ritual, or just putting 3 in the deck, You NEEED UU most of the time, this helps you get the second blue.

BreathWeapon
09-23-2008, 12:51 PM
BreathWeapon
Im not advocating cutting lands, Im advocating cutting either 2-3 disruption and 1 cabal ritual, or just putting 3 in the deck, You NEEED UU most of the time, this helps you get the second blue.

What's the reasoning for UU, M.Tutor + Cantrip for Tendrils on the back end? Most of the time, I'm just re-casting the Infernal Tutor and Lion's Eye Diamond chain for the Tendrils, the problem with Chrome Mox is that it just eats all of the cards you need to set up.

I'll look into it, but I wouldn't run Chrome Mox unless I was forced to run Chrome Mox, it's just not good.

4eak
09-23-2008, 12:56 PM
@ troopatroop


I agree with him. ESG-Pact is awful. What's so precious about that single green mana, and why play a 3cc card to bolt you post Ad Nauseum?

Awful at what? ESG-Pact is not awful at what it does. 1-mana per card is perfectly acceptable. And, there isn't a ton of difference in life totals between running Duress+PoN or Duress+Thoughtseize vs. S-Pact+ESG, especially when you are pacting ESG's out of the deck. You haven't done your math. To answer your question directly: I was trying ESG-Pact out to see how fast and consistent the deck could play because perhaps it actually would be worth playing the version in the first match.



I'd rather play disruption

You've missed my argument entirely. I'm clearly open to the possibility that a disruptive version will be the best version. My argument for ESG+Pact has literally nothing to do with a version of this deck that plays disruption in the main. My argument for ESG+Pact has everything to do with the value of its mana acceleration as opposed to other options to the pure-speed combo version of this deck (something that would only be found in the first game of a match).

In a deck looking to speed its way into the win, playing without disruption in the first game of a match, ESG-Pact does a fine job. My argument is that if you are trying to play the speedy version of this deck, then ESG-Pact is a viable mana accelerant for the last slots. If you want to prove me wrong, then start from the premise that we are evaluating the pure-speed combo version of the deck, and then show me the better cards. I'm not saying the pure-speed combo is the correct choice, nor am I saying that ESG+Pact is absolute the best choice for that version, but both are definitely something we should consider.



So I don't lose to a single Force of Will, something that your list could take a hint from.

There is only a 40% chance to open with FoW (not including a 2nd blue card), which is a chance we should be willing to consider, especially when my opponent doesn't know what I'm playing in the first game.

More importantly: The deck can side in control.

Additionally, IGG can play around countermagic to some extent. It can take more than 1 counter to stop this deck.



How can you deny the power of Duress and PoN in actual gameplay?

I don't deny they are powerful cards. I've played duress in TPS for a very long time in vintage. I know the card is outright amazing. I didn't say the deck shouldn't run them. I had the cards in my sideboard for the matches I did play, and they were there for the 2nd/3rd games.

How can you deny that we shouldn't at least even consider the unprotected but fastest and most consistent version of the deck pre-board?

Lastly, PoN really isn't that hot in this deck. LED is just too important.



That's what protection cards do, but we're building a deck to win actual games of magic.

Yeah, thanks for trolling.

Please read what I've written. I not only said I goldfished, but I also said I played actual games. I fully realize the implications of goldfishing. Goldfishing is actually somewhat relevant to a deck that generally isn't even looking to interact in the first game of a match.

For the record: this version won plenty of games, even against decks with FoW. It is blazing fast, and it is designed to win the first game of a match, not the post-board games. The truth is that if you don't mulligan into 1st turn FoW as a control player, then you are very likely to lose to this deck.



You sat down and played a whole bunch of games with that list. Good job. It's irrelevant. Take it to a tournament and you'll lose to blue consistently.

More trolling.

Perhaps it isn't the best version of the deck (and I'm certainly not claiming it to be). But, my work was hardly irrelevant, and we did play the deck against several blue-based control decks (and won many matches).

Knowing how fast the deck can goldfish the 1st match is a very reasonable question to try to answer.


@ BreathWeapon


You need disruption, slowing the aggro-control opponent down is the same thing as speeding the Storm player up, and turn 3 wins still get the job done vs aggro.

I assume you've read what I wrote above. In any case, I agree that the deck absolutely must run protection in games 2 and 3. I'm still not convinced of it in game 1, but I'm not against the idea at all.

-Also, Duressing aggro-control in the first match isn't exactly the same as speeding up the storm player. It is close, but there are many cases where this just isn't true. Duress isn't always a timewalk, and in many cases I've found avoiding their control through speed to be the better answer (try it out if you don't believe me).

-Turn 3 wins against aggro, depending on the aggro deck, really might not be a good idea. That does come from testing too. Some aggro decks can win on turn 3, but more importantly, taking any lifeloss from your opponent devalues Ad Nauseam and destabilizes the combo. We cannot forget that each passing turn and each point of damage this deck takes has more implications that it does for most combo decks. Ad Nauseum is not a card with which we can easily slow play or remain in the control position for more than a turn or two at best.



peace,
4eak

BreathWeapon
09-23-2008, 01:48 PM
@4eak

I haven't tried meshing cantrips with speed, but when I tried AdN in Pact SI and Kobold SI it just never seemed to be consistent enough to get the job done before the disruption mattered.

Look at it from this extreme,

1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Ill Gotten Gains
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Ad Nauseam
4 Infernal Contract
4 Cruel Bargain
4 Xantid Swarm
4 Summoner's Pact
4 Elvish Spirit Guide
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Culling the Weak
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Chrome Mox
4 Polluted Delta
1 Bayou
1 Dryad Arbor

4eak
09-23-2008, 03:00 PM
@ BreathWeapon


I haven't tried meshing cantrips with speed, but when I tried AdN in Pact SI and Kobold SI it just never seemed to be consistent enough to get the job done before the disruption mattered...Look at it from this extreme

Hmm...Does that deck actually goldfish faster? I don't know. Mystical tutor (with Brainstorm/Ponder) and a higher land count really has been very important to the deck. That list looks much less stable. AdN is probably the only spell I want to be casting that costs me life.

I can definitely see why you would be hesitant to run a list without protection in the main (I didn't like the idea when I started building decks with AdN either).

Hear me out:

The addition of AdN adds an enormous amount of speed to the TPS archetype, and none of us have tested the card enough to know exactly how TPS should evolve.

I'm not convinced that the pure-speed combo is the best choice, even pre-board. But, none of us could answer either way without at least testing it more extensively. Yes, you've done some testing on it, but how do you know you had an optimal list? Seriously, making an optimal list of the pure-speed combo is difficult to do.

Some of the fundamental questions we must ask about Ad Nauseam include:

-How fast is AnD tendrils?
-What is the cost of adding disruption?

Those are difficult to answer without having done some testing on the many variations of the pure-speed combo. Unfortunately, with the exception of Hanni, most have passed the pure-speed combo off without giving good reasons or evidence. I don't find that acceptable.

Essentially, there is a threshold percentage of turn 1 and 2 wins that would make all of us play a combo deck with no protection. We really couldn't say either way whether AdN decks could cross that threshold for us or not. With so little time and testing behind the Ad Nauseam card, and in order to be fair in our assessment, we have to make sure we are using optimal versions of the pure-speed combo to see if the deck would cross that threshold and to have decent numbers with which to compare to versions packing disruption.

By not putting disruption in the main, I'm not doing the equivalent of putting Counterbalance/Top in WW. We have reasonable questions that needed better answers than:


So I don't lose to a single Force of Will, something that your list could take a hint from. How can you deny the power of Duress and PoN in actual gameplay? Of course they'll slow down the goldfish. That's what protection cards do, but we're building a deck to win actual games of magic.

I tested and provided relevant numbers to a relevant set of questions about a very new card that we don't entirely understand. Perhaps I still haven't answered the question thoroughly enough; I don't know. And, perhaps, I've proven that the deck needs protection; for many, the results might be enough to rule the pure-speed combo strategy out. No matter how you cut it; I think it was valuable to consider and test the pure-speed combo.

In the end, even for those who started their development of the deck with disruption (and I did too if you read back at my original posts), there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with optimizing a more aggressive list to make sure we aren't wrong about the strategy for the 1st game of this deck.




peace,
4eak

Zinch
09-23-2008, 03:35 PM
I haven't tested this deck at all, but I know a deck that sacrifices defenses for speed: Belcher (it can goldfish reliably on the second turn), and this deck are not performing very well lately, so I doubt that the pure-speed route is the way to go.

BreathWeapon
09-23-2008, 03:53 PM
@ BreathWeapon

Those are difficult to answer without having done some testing on the many variations of the pure-speed combo. Unfortunately, with the exception of Hanni, most have passed the pure-speed combo off without giving good reasons or evidence. I don't find that acceptable.

Essentially, there is a threshold percentage of turn 1 and 2 wins that would make all of us play a combo deck with no protection. We really couldn't say either way whether AdN decks could cross that threshold for us or not. With so little time and testing behind the Ad Nauseam card, and in order to be fair in our assessment, we have to make sure we are using optimal versions of the pure-speed combo to see if the deck would cross that threshold and to have decent numbers with which to compare to versions packing disruption.

In the end, even for those who started their development of the deck with disruption (and I did too if you read back at my original posts), there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with optimizing a more aggressive list to make sure we aren't wrong about the strategy for the 1st game of this deck.

peace,
4eak

Here's the problem, Belcher and SI existed before Ad Nauseam and Belcher and SI are faster than Ad Nauseam, and neither of those decks have proven to be competitive despite their gold fish and with/with out disruption.

Your reasoning is flawed, there isn't a turn 1/2 gold fish % that'd cause me to pick up a combo deck, what you're looking for is the right combination of speed, consistency, disruption and resiliency, and pushing a combo deck too far in one direction never seems to work out.

jericohs@cottage
09-23-2008, 03:58 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other comments directed to everyone in the post...
seems like everyone is arguing for the same reason...they're having a problem with LED. Drop LED, This is NOT TEPS
- drop the lion's eye diamonds entirely from the package

- run a few (0) cc creatures (8 perhaps) and Culling the weak to replace the LEDs

- run 4 x pact of negation

- run 4 x chrome mox (need i mention that you don't have to target any card??? Just imprint nothing and +1 Storm Count

BreathWeapon
09-23-2008, 04:09 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other comments directed to everyone in the post...
seems like everyone is arguing for the same reason...they're having a problem with LED. Drop LED, This is NOT TEPS
- drop the lion's eye diamonds entirely from the package

- run a few (0) cc creatures (8 perhaps) and Culling the weak to replace the LEDs

- run 4 x pact of negation

- run 4 x chrome mox (need i mention that you don't have to target any card??? Just imprint nothing and +1 Storm Count

This is a level, right?

jericohs@cottage
09-23-2008, 04:25 PM
Yeah the original post was better i find....

with the (0cc) creatures and culling the weak.

What us old timers used to call "Spanish Inquisition"

It had the lowest curve for a combo deck....everything was practically 0,1 cc
except for your business spells


Plus, if we're going to name the deck ANT (it might as well feature ornithopters and phyrexian walkers or kobolds) hehe

ixid
09-23-2008, 04:30 PM
Just for the sake of argument and testing an extreme - and yes Lion's Eye Diamond and Pact of Negation isn't perfect, Thoughtseize may be better but you will understand why:

19 Land
1 Swamp
2 Island
4 Underground Sea
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
4 Crystal Vein

16 Accelerants
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Chrome Mox
4 Dark Ritual

8 Protection
4 Pact of Negation
4 Duress

12 Search/draw
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Mystical Tutor

5 Combo
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Ad Nauseam

Total CC: 44
Max going off CC: 39
Max average going off CC: 0.66 (ish)

Once you go off you have one fewer Ad Nauseam in your deck to draw. With such a low draw cost the life limitation is reduced and Mystical/Ponder/Brainstorm for Tendrils becomes more reliable. An advantage of this build is that you can put Lotus Petals and Lion's Eye Diamonds into play in case you topdeck an Ad Nauseam (Ponder/Mystical/Brainstorm make happen a lot) as the draw is cheap enough to build up storm most of the time.

I gold-fished 20 hands and found the deck to be reliable without Infernal Tutor, the normal pattern is turn 2 disruption with a turn 3 win. No mulligans, one fizzle, one turn 4 win. The deck is practically immune to Stifle as are most Ad Nauseam decks, has great ability to power over the top of Daze and has no 2 CC targets for Spell Snare leaving Force of Will, Counter Spell and Counterbalance as the significant threats. Thoughtseize/Duress can be a pain but the deck can be surprisingly redundant with no single card loss from a hand preventing you winning, especially when you drop all the artifact acceleration straight away and Ad Nauseam in your draw step after Mystical/Ponder/Brainstorm sets it up. I've also played the deck quite a lot against Worlds Threshold builds with Counterbalance/FOW/Daze/Thoughtseize and a version with Spell snare but no Counterbalance. The optimal strategy seems to be to disrupt once and go off as fast as possible. The matchup isn't great but this and Landstill are likely to be the hardest matches.

undone
09-23-2008, 04:44 PM
Side board for the UB splash white splash ANT.

SB
4 EE (Deals with LOTS of troublesome hate, downside=slow upside= sweeping answer)
1 Cabal therapy
2 Vendicate (tutorable)
4 E tutor (discard)
4 other
Ideas?

rufus
09-23-2008, 04:56 PM
Side board for the UB splash white splash ANT.

SB
...
Ideas?

Angel's Grace (full draw)
Orim's Chant (protection)

4eak
09-24-2008, 01:48 AM
@ BreathWeapon

Let me preface what I'm about to say: I definitely respect the knowledge, experience and advice that many posters bring to this thread, including you BreathWeapon. I wouldn't take the time to post something unless I thought it was reasonable, constructive and added to knowledge of the deck or format. I believe you post with a similar approach. I'm taking your comments seriously, and I appreciate your relevant and respectful replies.



Your reasoning is flawed, there isn't a turn 1/2 gold fish % that'd cause me to pick up a combo deck

I've won too many vintage tournaments with Meandeck Tendrils, a deck that often plays zero protection in the main, to be told that FoW (or other pieces of disruption) makes pure-speed combo an invalid option. High enough Turn 1/2 win percentages can overcome the odds of eating early 1st game disruption. I think you overestimate the odds of being hit with FoW in the first two turns of the 1st match (whereby they haven't a clue what I'm playing). (And, in case you might ask: we can play around Stifle/Daze/Spellsnare/Top-less Counterbalance)

To give you an extreme (as you gave me); would you really turn down a deck that had a 100% chance for a turn 1 win just because it didn't have protection/disruption? I doubt it. What about 99%? Probably not. Continue that line of questioning (pardon the expression) Ad nauseam, and then draw your line. The point is that there is a threshold of turn 1/2 win percentages whereby pure-speed combo is viable in the 1st game of a match.

The fact is that Ad Nauseam does have something to gain by going off as early as possible. Your opponent is least likely to see playable disruption and you are least likely to be taking damage which might prevent you from casting a viable Ad Nauseam. Avoiding these two problems by winning early has merit.

Of course, I'm not saying pure-speed combo is the answer (I've said this many times). I'm only saying it is worth consideration--did you not also try unprotected versions of the deck? Combo decks are notorious for avoiding interaction; it is reasonable to push the boundaries (after all, we are testing the card). Lastly, there have been several combo decks in the history of magic that have performed well even without protection, and it seems reasonable in this circumstance to take a closer look at the pure-speed combo.



peace,
4eak

Hanni
09-24-2008, 08:48 AM
Here's a couple of other interesting routes:

B/u/w ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Flooded Strand
2 Underground Sea
1 Scrubland
1 Tundra
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Orim's Chant

This opens the sideboard up to some strong artifact/enchantment destroyers, too (Dismantling Blow seems pretty strong vs Counterbalance). I'm actually thinking this version might be better than the B/U/r version because it's more stable. I need to do actual testing to confirm this.

Anywhere, here's another list, this one has FoW in it:

B/U ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
4 Underground Sea
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor
1 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Force of Will

Even with the 5cc FoW, the deck still has 6 total 5cc spells, the same as my B/U/r version. 16 blue spells should be enough to support FoW, given all the draw/tutor the deck has. This version is very vulnerable though, with only 1 AdN. I don't think this list is very good, but the idea has merit, IMO.

herbig
09-24-2008, 10:01 AM
I've won too many vintage tournaments with Meandeck Tendrils...

Come come now. 10 player tournaments vs. Raging Sligh and ElfBall don't count.

Has no one even suggested calling this deck Nausea? Old timers like us remember that monstrosity with misty eyes. It's high time the name actually received a real deck to go with it.

And what the hell is Spanish Inquisition? I always thought that was borderline Thunder Bluff as well. People play that?

All these lists have far too few Gemstone Mines, in my opinion. My super secret tech I'll save for Worlds 2009, assuming it's still legal by then.

Hanni
09-24-2008, 11:41 AM
What do you want to cast with Gemstone Mine, though? Gemstone Mine opens the deck up to Wasteland. Losing fetchlands for Brainstorm is huge, and Brainstorm is extremely strong in the deck. Being able to run both REB and Krosan Grip does sound good, but I don't think it's worth losing Brainstorm and manabase stability.

I just want to say that the B/u/w version I posted has been sick nasty pwnage in playtesting. It's definitely my favorite version now. 4 Chant 1 IGG is better than 4 PoN 1 Etw, IMO. White also offers better sideboard cards than red, IMO.

BreathWeapon
09-24-2008, 12:37 PM
Here's a couple of other interesting routes:

B/u/w ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Flooded Strand
2 Underground Sea
1 Scrubland
1 Tundra
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Orim's Chant

This opens the sideboard up to some strong artifact/enchantment destroyers, too (Dismantling Blow seems pretty strong vs Counterbalance). I'm actually thinking this version might be better than the B/U/r version because it's more stable. I need to do actual testing to confirm this.



Running 4 Ad Nauseam and not running 4 Ponder is counter intuitive, what makes 4 Ad Nauseam good is being able to Brainstorm or Ponder into it, put it back on top, and sacrifice LED during your upkeep. Chrome Mox is a terrible card, it does nothing but imprint other mana sources or imprint cantrips/tutors that could have found other mana source and reduces Threshold.

Hanni
09-24-2008, 12:47 PM
More often I power out AdN without LED than I do with LED, since 4 LED is only 1/5 of my acceleration base. Ponder might be able to dig for AdN a little, but it's not AdN. Running 4 AdN instead of Ponder means I see AdN more often, which is what I want to see.

Chrome Mox is a necessary evil. After you resolve AdN, unless you excess mana floating, you usually need some combination of Petal/Mox in order to cast rituals and/or tutors. 0cc artifact mana is pretty important for not fizzling after you resolve AdN.

I disagree with your assesment of Chrome Mox; alot of times, Mox imprints cards that are worthless at the time (like excess Duress/tutors/etc). The argument of Mox being card disadvantage is valid, the argument of it not promoting Threshold is valid, but Chrome Mox is still a necessary evil. Unless, of course, you want to fizzle more often (after casting AdN) or slow down the fundamental turn (before casting AdN).

ixid
09-24-2008, 01:19 PM
Breath Weapon goldfish some hands perhaps and show what mana you have, all of the variations I've tested would often fizzle without the Chrome Moxes in addition to Lotus Petals as the deck often goes off with 5 mana and has to draw into more. As to Chrome Mox hurting threshold - cut Cabal Ritual, it's not very good in this deck. How often are you able to hit threshold by turn 2 or 3 anyway? Hitting it once you've gone off is much less relevant, there is sufficient mana to win without Cabal Ritual after going off (although again without Chrome Mox how are you hitting 2 mana reliably after going off?). I find Crystal Vein better than Cabal Ritual.

I do agree with your assessment of Ponder (which is why I cut Infernal Tutor), seeing up to 4 cards for 1 mana and a shuffle if you want it is very useful in this deck.

Both cuts leading to the CC: to get the most out of Ad Nauseam you should aim for a low average casting cost. The low CC build can draw one and a half times as many cards safely with a given life total as the Orim's Chant build, avg CC after AdN: 0.66 vs 1.

Hanni
09-24-2008, 01:25 PM
I think Cabal Ritual is pretty good. Even if it only makes +1 mana, it's still doing what it's intended to do. I get 5 mana from it often enough that it's worth it.

I think the core 20 accelerants are perfect. It's good to question things and test with and without things, but all of the playtesting I've done with the core 20 so far indicates, to me, that the configuration of accelerants is correct.

rufus
09-24-2008, 01:26 PM
It may be possible to run Green acceleration with ESG/S-Pact/Crop Rotation/Phyrexian Tower/Lake of the Dead, but that really wants some 0 cc critters.

Apex
09-24-2008, 02:26 PM
I mentioned the Chrome Mox thing some pages ago too, and it also DOES suck as a 4 of. In most of my goldfishings, the amount of time I REALLY needed a Chrome Mox to combo prior to AdN was almost non-existent, which is why I proposed a 2 Chrome Mox inclusion as opposed to the full set of 4. Since you only really wanted to see it after AdN to ensure that you don't fizzle, 4 Lotus Petal and 2 Chrome Mox should mean that your expected value of seeing 0cc mana sources after you cast an AdN and drew a bunch of card is 2 (this is a rough calculation that takes into account the amount of card selection you get with Brainstorm/Ponder/Mystical/Fetches), which is just enough for the usual double U needed to Mystical+Ponder/Brainstorm into a Tendrils.

As for Cabal Ritual, I've announced my hate of it a long time ago. I wish we didn't have to run it, but I just can't find anything better.

BreathWeapon
09-24-2008, 02:44 PM
I mentioned the Chrome Mox thing some pages ago too, and it also DOES suck as a 4 of. In most of my goldfishings, the amount of time I REALLY needed a Chrome Mox to combo prior to AdN was almost non-existent, which is why I proposed a 2 Chrome Mox inclusion as opposed to the full set of 4. Since you only really wanted to see it after AdN to ensure that you don't fizzle, 4 Lotus Petal and 2 Chrome Mox should mean that your expected value of seeing 0cc mana sources after you cast an AdN and drew a bunch of card is 2 (this is a rough calculation that takes into account the amount of card selection you get with Brainstorm/Ponder/Mystical/Fetches), which is just enough for the usual double U needed to Mystical+Ponder/Brainstorm into a Tendrils.

As for Cabal Ritual, I've announced my hate of it a long time ago. I wish we didn't have to run it, but I just can't find anything better.

Agreed, Chrome Mox is a card that's bad pre-combo and good post-combo, I'd rather just wait another turn to go off or go off with Ill Gotten Gains depending on how the deck is built.

I don't M.Tutor + Cantrip for Tendrils tho', I IT + LED for most of the games, even dropping LED + Land and discarding to 7 can still win.

I think you guys are too reliant on Ad Nauseam, I'm just using it as a singleton to break Mystical Tutor, it's really all you need IMO.

Hanni
09-24-2008, 07:43 PM
Well, I've been running AN as a 4-of because I like seeing one in hand. Not having to tutor for it is nice and can be acceled as early as turn 1. Turn 1 Duress turn 2 AN is strong.

However, I can see benefits of running only 2. You can draw more cards (i.e less life loss) and it frees up space in the maindeck. Since the B/u/w version runs 1 IGG instead of 1 EtW, the deck essentially has 3 engine cards with only 2 AN anyway.

With the extra 2 cards free'd up in the maindeck, I can fit 1 Repeal and 1 Pact of Negation.

I'm going to try that and see if it playtests better.

Repeal is extremely strong at answering both Chalice/Counterbalance. 1cc to bounce Chalice @ 0 and 3cc to bounce Counterbalance. The cantrip is just an awesome bonus.

Here's the current list I'm running now:

// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
2 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
2 [ON] Flooded Strand
2 [A] Underground Sea
1 [R] Scrubland
1 [R] Tundra
1 [ON] Swamp (4)
1 [P3] Island (3)

// Spells
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [R] Dark Ritual
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
4 [FNM] Brainstorm
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
2 [4E] Ad Nauseam
1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
4 [7E] Duress
4 [PS] Orim's Chant
1 [FUT] Pact of Negation
1 [GP] Repeal

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [FUT] Pact of Negation
SB: 3 [GP] Repeal
SB: 1 [NE] Massacre
SB: 1 [FUT] Slaughter Pact
SB: 1 [4E] Swords to Plowshares
SB: 1 [AT] Disenchant
SB: 1 [IN] Dismantling Blow
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

I think the B/u/w version is the best that I've playtested with, so far. I hope these minor changes make it even better.

I think ANT is the best storm combo deck in the format.

More to come with more playtesting.

odabella
09-24-2008, 07:55 PM
.... I've also been running 1 Massacre in the sideboard for Mage/Teeg.

More to come with more playtesting.

Massacre has CC4. How can you use it against Teeg?:confused:

Hanni
09-24-2008, 08:27 PM
Massacre has CC4. How can you use it against Teeg?

Good point. I'll drop it for something else, then.

mans0011
09-24-2008, 09:55 PM
Good point. I'll drop it for something else, then.

Infest?

Noman Peopled
09-25-2008, 02:48 AM
Slaughter Pact?

I have done some testing with a more BUR version with Rite of Flame instead of IT/LED. Also, LED does nothing after AD if you don't draw a Petal or Chrome Mox and don't happen to be floating mana. Actually, with just eight cards producing mana for free, I have found that the deck craps out on me surprisingly often. Summoner/ESG doesn't help either.
(More red mana also meant Burning Wish as a win condition, meaning I'd have to produce 3RBB to win.)
Therefore, I added Mox Diamonds, which solved the problem. But also produced a new one. With quite a few artifacts and relatively few lands, Mox Diamond was a dead draw pre-AD very often. One that can't be pitched to Chrome, no less. At least it can produce stomr for 0. Sigh.
Needless to say, without IT the deck has to play 3-4 ADs and possibly Lim-Dl's Vault.

I have also done some testing with IT/LED and I didn't like it. Infernal Tutor is awesome, as is the power of LED, but again, LED would often be worthless post-AD because I needed mana but couldn't afford to pitch my hand. It als meant that if I want to get the one use out of the card that can't be filled by others and still go off with protection, I'd have to play a discard spell turn one and go IT/LED the second which strikes me as inconsistent (considering you also have to have other mana to go off; also, Pact won't work so you'd essentially need six mana to go off protected turn two after Mystical/Bstorm/Ponder turn one).
Whenever I drew LED without the IT, it sucked for me, though I admit I didn't catch the trick with floating mana in my upkeep.
What I really like about the LED version, though, is that it can comfortably reduce the number of ADs and has better access to one-ofs.

I'm actually considering playing a version with more land (including Vein or City) and Mox Diamonds because Diamonds just always provide the mana you need, while Chrome often gave me the choice between tutoring for a win and having the right mana for it.

I also like Angel's Grace as a one-of, since it's one of the deck's few outs against being burned and makes it possible to go off a second time should you fizzle for whatever reason. I'm worried that it might be one of those cute cards that are extremely useful in very highly specific situations only.

What do you guys think about Xantids vs. Chant? I like how the Swarm allows you to go of without needeing six mana but it has to be in your starting hand and is not tutorable.



In any case, I think we can all agree that Ad Nauseam is the best cad printed for Legacy since Tarmogoyf :D

Dark_Cynic87
09-25-2008, 04:14 AM
I like Slaughter Pact best, as you pay no life when you AdN into it. Sadly, Teeg screws up the AdN-ing into it as AdN costs 5cmc. Herm. Pyroclasm comes to mind, as does Sudden/Shock.

There's Pyrite Spellbomb, which acts as a cantrip when necessary...Or you could simply pimp-slap them, go turn 1 land, chant, petal, DRit, DRit, AdN, petal, mox, LED, LED, Infernal Tutor, Tendrils . That would be better. And, as a plus, you would win.

Pce,

--DC

Noman Peopled
09-25-2008, 04:24 AM
I like Slaughter Pact best, as you pay no life when you AdN into it. Sadly, Teeg screws up the AdN-ing into it as AdN costs 5cmc. Herm.
That's true for any solution.


There's Pyrite Spellbomb, which acts as a cantrip when necessary...Or you could simply pimp-slap them, go turn 1 land, chant, petal, DRit, DRit, AdN, petal, mox, LED, LED, Infernal Tutor, Tendrils . That would be better. And, as a plus, you would win.
I'm liking Spellbomb because it can draw into the Mystical target. It can, however, not be tutored by same, which is an especially big issue because Teeg stops the combo dead and leaves you digging for answers. Similar for Mage and Canonist (which will see play in decks that can slap it down t1, no less).
As for your second suggestion, I like it but it won't always happen and if you're going second and haven't gone of t1, that Teeg is gonna be there already (and first turn's cantrip digs for FoW).

BreathWeapon
09-25-2008, 11:17 AM
Ok, people keep saying their fizzling with out Chrome Mox, which makes me think you're playing the deck wrong. Are you guys just trying to force AdN thru' by casting it on turn 2 during your main phase, or are you playing LED, passing the turn, EOT M.Tutoring for AdN and then going off on your upkeep with a third land drop coming?

AdN is not a turn 2 combo deck, that's why there's 8 pieces of disruption. There shouldn't be any rush, Tarmogoyf doesn't swing until turn 3 and Goblins just gets the IT->IGG->Tendrils chain to the face.

Hanni
09-25-2008, 11:33 AM
If I can go off on turn 2 with protection, why should I wait until turn 3? Alot of times, going off early like that races certain disruption spells. For example, Counterbalance.

I've gone off on turn 2 after being hit by both Thoughtseize and Hymn from the opponent. The great thing about the deck is its ability to just force an AN through and win. Duress + Chant is pretty good at drawing out FoW and friends.

So again I ask; if I can go off on turn 2, especially after casting Duress/Chant, or I know my opponent isn't playing blue, why shouldn't I? Because I need to make a 3rd land drop? I'd rather run Chrome Mox. Chrome Mox has tested great for me since I started testing ANT, I'm sorry that it hasn't tested well for you.

You can run something else if they don't work for you, but convincing me of the same is unlikely.

jericohs@cottage
09-25-2008, 01:39 PM
I mentioned the Chrome Mox thing some pages ago too, and it also DOES suck as a 4 of. In most of my goldfishings, the amount of time I REALLY needed a Chrome Mox to combo prior to AdN was almost non-existent, which is why I proposed a 2 Chrome Mox inclusion as opposed to the full set of 4. Since you only really wanted to see it after AdN to ensure that you don't fizzle, 4 Lotus Petal and 2 Chrome Mox should mean that your expected value of seeing 0cc mana sources after you cast an AdN and drew a bunch of card is 2 (this is a rough calculation that takes into account the amount of card selection you get with Brainstorm/Ponder/Mystical/Fetches), which is just enough for the usual double U needed to Mystical+Ponder/Brainstorm into a Tendrils.

As for Cabal Ritual, I've announced my hate of it a long time ago. I wish we didn't have to run it, but I just can't find anything better.

3 things have come out of this entire post...

1. chrome mox sux: To which my reply is, you suck. You don't have to imprint a single thing to play chrome mox (notice you may). Resulting in +1 storm count. You don't need to lose a permanent. It does help out the deck immensely in my play testing where just as people mentioned as your drawing from AdN you drop every 0cc for storm and it can also prevent you from fizzling post Nauseum.

2. I hate what LED is doing to this deck. It's making it a machine gun. You shoot lots of rounds but don't hit the broad side of a barn door. Don't put your eggs in one basket. AdN is already terribly fast, imo we should sculpt our hands before commiting.

3. You can replace LED with Culling the Weak and 0cc Ornithopters and Phyrexian Walkers.

- 4 LED
- 4 Cabal Ritual
+ 3 Culling the Weak (produces 4 B mana for 1 at the cost of a 0cc which by the way ups your storm count +2)
+ 4 Ornithopter
+ 1 Phyrexian Walker or Shield Sphere


PS. Another thing, this configuration let's you go off on turn two, i'd even run a full 8 (0cc) creatures and 4 Culling the Weak... Why do we want to go off on turn 2. Cause Everything short of FOW can be played. If we go off turn 2 on the draw. They litterally can do nothing. No teeg, no counterbalance, no counterspell, no....

Only daze, PoN or FOW can stop us.

Noman Peopled
09-25-2008, 02:05 PM
And Chalice @ zero as well as Chrome Mox/land into Canonist (it remains to be seen how often that'll happen). Discard can hurt as well.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with you that turn 2 wins are an important weapon against many types of disruption.

I strongly doubt that 5 0CC critters are enough to enable Culling, though. It's also just as much of a two-card "combo" as IT/LED is and while it only requires B, it also only produces mana and storm (as opposed to tutoring for a win condition).

Zinch
09-25-2008, 02:16 PM
Ok, people keep saying their fizzling with out Chrome Mox, which makes me think you're playing the deck wrong. Are you guys just trying to force AdN thru' by casting it on turn 2 during your main phase, or are you playing LED, passing the turn, EOT M.Tutoring for AdN and then going off on your upkeep with a third land drop coming?

AdN is not a turn 2 combo deck, that's why there's 8 pieces of disruption. There shouldn't be any rush, Tarmogoyf doesn't swing until turn 3 and Goblins just gets the IT->IGG->Tendrils chain to the face.

Yes, you can go in the 3rd turn after 3 bolts, or you can go on 3rd turn after a counterbalance, or you can go 3rd turn against a trinisphere...
If we are testing this deck is because it can be the most reliable deck winning on 2nd turn (it doesn't imply that playing the deck you MUST go for the combo on 2nd turn, only that it is posible in a certain degree). To win on the third turn there's already FT and TES that are very reliable, but that suffer from that: normaly they can't win before hate comes to the table.

Hanni
09-25-2008, 02:32 PM
Culling/Intent with 0cc artifact guys is not the route this deck is going, though. Making the deck like SI dilutes the deck, IMO. IT/LED is extremely strong at both generating mana and tutoring for what the deck needs.

People, please read through the thread first. This thread is not to discuss the SI version of the deck; IBA's thread called Les Mise is for discussing SI versions of AN. This thread is for versions not running 0cc creatures.

You either choose IT/LED (8 spots) or (12) 0cc Creatures/Culling/Intent (20 spots). The benefit to going the SI route is; Cabal Therapy is a strong disruption tool, and the deck can sometimes goldfish faster.

The drawback to SI is; the deck is diluted with with 0cc creatures. IT/LED only takes up 8 spots, making room for other spells. SI is also reliant on playing alot of 2 card combos, reducing deck consistency. Being more vulnerable to Chalice @ 0 is also a huge drawback in deck design for SI.

I've also never had the types of problems with Cabal Ritual that others seem to be having. I run 20 accelerants so even the single black that it makes ramps me up with everything else and casts AN. The deck can hit Threshold often enough, especially against hate.

Honestly, what other accelerants are even good beyond the 20 I'm currently running?

Maybe in a Burning Wish -> EtW version of AN, Rite of Flame could replace Cabal Ritual. Pact + ESG make the deck like Belcher, but they don't really replace Cabal Ritual in a Belcher shell. That's about it, though.

Costing 2cc actually helps the deck by reducing dependancy on 1cc spells for Chalice @ 1, which is the usual first turn play for decks with Chalice in game 1. The slight increase in cc for AN doesn't really hurt much when the whole deck is 0cc and 1cc besides 8 2cc cards, 2 4cc cards, and 2 5cc cards.

Apex
09-25-2008, 03:42 PM
1. chrome mox sux: To which my reply is, you suck. You don't have to imprint a single thing to play chrome mox (notice you may). Resulting in +1 storm count. You don't need to lose a permanent. It does help out the deck immensely in my play testing where just as people mentioned as your drawing from AdN you drop every 0cc for storm and it can also prevent you from fizzling post Nauseum.

Yeah.....you don't get the idea about why I included Chrome Mox right? I know about the imprint trick, I've been playing combo for a while now. The +1 storm count is not that important of an issue, particularly since if you resolve AdN, you should never fizzle because you couldn't get to 9 storm counts. I've never fizzled on storm count before if I've resolved an Ad Nauseam. I've fizzled before because I didn't have the blue mana to cast Mystical Tutor/Ponder/Brainstorm into Tendrils. Chrome Mox is used to generate the necessary blue mana after you attempt to combo out early, since I don't always guarantee that I can draw Infernal+LED (even off Ad Nauseam) to find Tendrils. Mystical/Ponder/Brainstorm gives redundancy in finding your win con.

So.....you suck :rolleyes:?


PS. Another thing, this configuration let's you go off on turn two, i'd even run a full 8 (0cc) creatures and 4 Culling the Weak... Why do we want to go off on turn 2. Cause Everything short of FOW can be played. If we go off turn 2 on the draw. They litterally can do nothing. No teeg, no counterbalance, no counterspell, no.....[/QUOTE]

You can already go off on turn 2 without needing to use tall men, since upkeep Ritual, crack LED -> a Mystical Tutored AdN allows you to go off turn 2, or double Dark Ritual, or D.Ritual, Cabal, tap a land, or D. Ritual, Lotus Petal, land, or etc, etc.....Don't know how you can increase that dramatically with tall men that it's worth sacrificing 12 more slots for.

BreathWeapon
09-25-2008, 03:55 PM
Yes, you can go in the 3rd turn after 3 bolts, or you can go on 3rd turn after a counterbalance, or you can go 3rd turn against a trinisphere...
If we are testing this deck is because it can be the most reliable deck winning on 2nd turn (it doesn't imply that playing the deck you MUST go for the combo on 2nd turn, only that it is posible in a certain degree). To win on the third turn there's already FT and TES that are very reliable, but that suffer from that: normaly they can't win before hate comes to the table.

I call BS on this, we aren't testing Ad Nauseam because its the most consistent source of turn 2 wins, it's still less consistent than SI, TES and Belcher at that rate. We're testing Ad Nauseam because it turns Mystical Tutor into a mini-Infernal Tutor and it eliminates the weaknesses to graveyard hate and Stifle.

LoL @ 3 Lightning Bolts, "oh noes," I have to win thru' IGG...

bruno_tiete
09-25-2008, 04:42 PM
I know its kind of unpolite to ask a one-liner without testing things, but I interested in the deck and still had no time work on it.

Hanni, have you considered wishing for Grapeshot? Maybe with one MD and one SB, the deck could set a kill using red mana, Teeg-proof.

On the IT/LED vs critters/Culling the Weak, I think there is need for further breakdown on characteristics. These are the points I can infer from reading or playing other decks. Anyone feel free to correct/add stuff.

IT/LED
Pros
- +1 mana;
- Fixes mana color;
- Tutors for anything;
- 8 slots;

Cons
- Requires topdeck setup;
- Invalidates PoN;
- All-in approach;
- Worse after AN.

Critters/Culling/Intent
Pros
- +4 mana (i.e. pays for AN for itself);
- Allows PoN for protection;
- "Rewards" you for playing Xantid Swarm;

Cons
- over 100 slots. Or maybe 15 of them;
- makes you depend on a few 2-card combos, likely increasing fizzle rate.

I must be missing important aspects of it...

Hanni
09-25-2008, 05:10 PM
I'd just like to say that I decided to drop the 1 Pact of Negation for 1 IGG. With only 2 AN's, I haven't been able to go off on turn 2 as often. With only 1 IGG in the deck, sometimes the deck can't do a big enough loop to Tendrils for lethal.

2 AN/2 IGG diversify's the decks engine cards. There are pros and cons to both engines; I think running both rather than 1 or the other is much better overall. IGG makes it less likely to fizzle after resolving an AN, too.

badjuju
09-25-2008, 05:49 PM
I'd just like to say that I decided to drop the 1 Pact of Negation for 1 IGG. With only 2 AN's, I haven't been able to go off on turn 2 as often. With only 1 IGG in the deck, sometimes the deck can't do a big enough loop to Tendrils for lethal.

2 AN/2 IGG diversify's the decks engine cards. There are pros and cons to both engines; I think running both rather than 1 or the other is much better overall. IGG makes it less likely to fizzle after resolving an AN, too.

Agreed.
Like I've said before, cutting out IGG was never a good idea because you're basically slicing off a leg from the deck. Sure it can hop on one leg, but wouldn't you rather have it running full force with both engines?

I also agree with BreathWeapon's statement. AdN in ANT isn't engineered for pure speed, it's the fact that you can use such a safe spell to win that makes the card so appealing.

Hanni
09-25-2008, 06:55 PM
AN in ANT isn't engineered for speed; that's just a side effect of the card being so powerful. It's not like I'm dropping disruption for a quicker goldfish; I can go off on turn 2 after casting Duress/Chant.

If the deck could go off after casting Duress/Chant on turn 1, I'd go off on turn 1 instead. This deck isn't being built for speed, but it is quite capable of going off early.

Belcher has alot of tournament data supporting that fast kills dodge alot of hate, so why not run 8 protection spells while trying to go off as fast as Belcher? I've only had a couple of turn 1 wins, so obviously we cannot do that consistently.

Turn 2-3 is the usual timeframe (with protection spells). Turn 4+ wins I usually count as losses in most playtesting (regardless if the deck can still win by going off on like turn 6).

Lord_Cyrus
09-25-2008, 06:58 PM
Hanni, I've been testing your list and it is amazing! I made 1 extremely minor change though, which was to add back one AdN for the lone Pact of Negation maindeck. Maybe it's because I am just a beginner at playing this, but it felt hard to get opening hands with AdN with only 2 in the deck. 3 feels much better, but again, this may be due to my inexperience.

Chant always feels *much* stronger than Pact, and I am always glad to see it in my hand. In fact, I have been wondering when and how to Sb in Pact at all? It often is clunky and I don't feel like it helps me to remove anything from the current main for it...

1 IGG is definitely key to this deck's success, and it has helped me win at least 1/3 of my games so far. Access to the graveyard after a big AdN is so powerful it usually just wins on the spot.

Any advice on playing your build, and how you tend to sideboard in some typical matchups?

Also, what do we think about banning? Turn 1 and 2 wins have been popping up a lot... I am concerned for the future of this archetype.

Hanni
09-26-2008, 08:55 AM
I'm not running Pact in MD or SB anymore, in the B/u/w version. I still like Pact, but it just doesn't fit well into my current build.

I haven't really used the sideboard that much in testing. Disenchant(s) come in for Chalice decks, Repeal(s) come in for Counterbalance decks. That's about all I've boarded in so far, in playtesting.

As far as banning... that's not something I can determine. The card itself is broken. Drawing 10-15 cards for 3BB is very broken. However, it doesn't make Storm combo broken. It makes Storm combo alot stronger, strong enough to put Storm combo back to DtB status, but not broken. Storm combo is still kept in check by decks like UGb Thresh (the one with Thoughtseize and Counterbalance), and the like. The card could get banned, and even though I doubt it will get banned, this archtype will be obsolete without it.

As far as advice with my playing my build... umm. Basically, I try to figure out what my opponent is playing. If I don't see blue, chances are I don't need to Duress/Chant and I can just go for the turn 1-2 win. If I see blue, chances are I need to Duress/Chant at least once, so I dig for disruption before I attempt to go off. Sometimes I need to dig for as much as 4 pieces of disruption, depending on how much disruption the opponent draws.

I like to try and go off on turn 2 with 1 disruption card having been played on turn 1 or 2 most of the time, but that doesn't always happen. The deck is simple(r) to play, IMO. AN takes alot of difficult decisions out of playing Tendrils combo. Just try to precalculate the storm count before playing IGG or discontinuing the draw chain on AN and you're fine. Always play as though it's the worst case scenario against decks with blue (i.e the opponent has a grip of countermagic), relying on Duress/Chant to ensure a safe resolution.

Lord_Cyrus
09-26-2008, 12:15 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, Hanni. I concur with you that pact is most probably junk in this build and needs to go. Everything that pact does, duress and chant tend to do better.

After significant testing it seems to me that Chalice = 0 is the most relevant and most problematic board disruption this deck faces. Counterbalance is often just much too slow to stop this build. Hand disruption is a problem too, but frankly not as common these days.

That being the case, I find disenchant really underwhelming. It fails to deal with multiple chalices (say for 0 and 1) and finding 1W is not always the easiest proposition with this deck. I think I will test Echoing Truth instead, and see if that shores up this weakness.

Apex
09-26-2008, 02:29 PM
I'm using Rushing River as a 1 of in the maindeck, since with a cmc of 3, it dodges CB easier than Echoing Truth, and it can bounce 2 stax pieces (3sphere, Chalice @ 0, 1 or 2) no problem.

If you are playing white, you can always use the FT approach: tune your manabase a little bit (like add a maindeck basic plains) and play 4x Serenity sideboard. They pretty much destroy stax, like, alot.

emidln
09-26-2008, 03:16 PM
It need not be maindeck. Taking a Vintage TPS-style approach and playing basics in the sb (like a Plains) and 4 Serenity with maybe some rushign Rivers for good measure would be enough to ensure any chalice-based deck is a bye.

Maveric78f
09-26-2008, 05:41 PM
I wonder if abeyance would not be by far better than duress in this deck. I mean that one of the best plays is probably to BS AN back on top library (or to tutor it up with mystical) and to start protecting during your upkeep for LEDing at this moment and then play at your draw step the AN you knew you would draw. At least, against blue decks, it should be the best protection and effectiveness. Against other decks, it may be more narrow though. It should be at least the game plan after SB.

// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
1 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
2 [ON] Flooded Strand
2 [A] Underground Sea
1 [R] Scrubland
1 [R] Tundra
1 [ON] Swamp (4)
1 [P3] Island (3)

// Spells
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [R] Dark Ritual (1)
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual (2)
4 [FNM] Brainstorm (1)
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor (1)
4 Ponder (1)
4 [4E] Ad Nauseam (5)
1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains (4)
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony (4)
4 Abeyance (2)
4 [PS] Orim's Chant (1)
1 Rushing River (3)

1,1 of average casting cost, meaning 15+ draw average off the AN.

Lord_Cyrus
09-26-2008, 07:34 PM
Emidln, thanks for your suggestion! I'll be trying out Serenity right away. I was concerned about finding 1W but adding plains to the SB should definitely fix the problem.

Maveric: Your logic is interesting, but it also makes me doubt that you have given the deck much testing. Try Duress, and then try playing with Abeyance. I think you will come to see that losing a turn 1 pre-emptive strike and the knowledge of an unimpeded win will be devastating to many of your matchups.

Also, losing Infernal Tutor while keeping LED seems... suspect to say the least. I don't doubt the strength of Ponder, which I would play if I could fit. Losing Infernal means that Mystical + cantrip is your only solid possibility to find Tendrils for the win. While ponder makes that more likely to happen, you still need 2BBUU just about every time. The deck is reliable, but in my experience not *that* reliable, and under actual game conditions you may find that AdN isn't coming up with enough cards to secure you the win.

ixid
09-27-2008, 01:24 AM
Lord_Cyrus: try my build with LED and no Infernal Tutor and you will see that Mystical + draw is surprisingly reliable. LED also works very well without Infernal Tutor using the draw step trick or simply as additional mana (yes, not paying for AdN, Crystal Vein makes AdN pretty easy to pay for) in response to AdN. One point I think is missed about Pact of Negation is that it can storm for free a lot of the time (Pacting a spell you don't need or Pacting the Pact) and you may need that storm where you would not have had the mana to cast more expensive spells.

Maveric78f
09-27-2008, 05:29 AM
Lord_Cyrus > I quite agree with what you say, and I have to admit too, that I have a very weak experience with tendrils decks. I'm more a fish player usually. But you know, as I said in my first post, I think that the deck I presented should be playable <after> SB. I mean that the abeyances could be in SB and either duress, pact or infernal tutor MD.

Hanni
09-27-2008, 08:44 AM
Abeyance is 2cc. The effect may be good, but the cc is not. I was running Pact of Negation before because it was 0cc. Replacing that with 2cc disruption is not what the deck wants. Not only does that slow down the decks ability to win with protection, it also raises the cc for AN. Bad idea, IMO.

Serenity, on the other hand, sounds like a very good sideboard card. The basic Plains seems highly dependant on metagame; the only deck where basic Plains and Serenity would be relevant, is against DS (I think).

I'll try a sideboard like this:

Sideboard (15)
3 Repeal
4 Serenity
1 Rushing River
1 Slaughter Pact
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Angel's Grace
4 Tormod's Crypt

Also, I disagree with running more cantrips and less tutors. You do not want to be fizzling after you cast AN because all you could draw into were black rituals and cantrips. Infernal Tutor does exactly what it needs to, both before you cast AN, and afterwards.

ixid
09-27-2008, 08:50 AM
I don't believe you've actually tried it. Fizzles are rare. I am not attacking your choice of version but you're saying something false about the builds with no IT.

Hanni
09-27-2008, 08:57 AM
I haven't tried it, you're right... because I know my success/fizzle rate with an actual tutor (Infernal in this case), and I don't see it getting any better with cantrips in place of my tutor. In fact, thinking back on all the situations where I've relied solely upon Tutor and replacing those instances with cantrips, I know I would have fizzled quite a bit.

You know, you can't always draw 15 cards from AN. Sometimes you get smacked by aggro for a few points and can only draw 7-8 cards from AN. With 2/2 AN/IGG now, I can often go for the IGG win when my life is low instead of AN, but still. Plus, if you aren't running Infernal Tutor, IGG is pretty much worthless anyway.

It's not about me being lazy and not playtesting it. It's about applying my current playtesting information to ideas suggested, and figuring out if they would improve or weaken specific situations I've encountered. In the case of cantrips vs Infernal Tutor, I don't see more cantrips making the deck more consistent.

If for whatever reason, multiple people (5+) on the thread all say that they've playtested both Infernal Tutor and Ponder in place of Infernal Tutor, and that it made the deck faster/more consistent, I'd playtest it. For now, it seems that some people just don't like Infernal Tutor, and are trying to find cards to replace it. Since I actually do like Infernal Tutor, I haven't had a reason to playtest without them, yet.

undone
09-27-2008, 09:39 AM
I really like this kill setup, it keeps your CC down and allows you to play a game that isnt as vulnerable to aggro.

2 Ad nauseum
1 tendrils
2 IGG

Im LOVEING this kill setup, but could drop 1 Ad nauseum for a cantrip, also Im considering MD 3-4 EE, it enables you to destroy anything up to 3 CC if you put in 1 tundra, or just 1-2 rushing river.

My new current SB (because I think your right about the)

1 plains
2 rushing river
4 Serenity
4 slaughter pact
4 orims chant (duress/therepy main)

What does every one think about that, do we need to worry about the ichorid MU?

Hanni
09-27-2008, 10:26 AM
Actually, I've decided to revert to 3 AN 1 IGG.

You can't chain 2 IGG's together without 6 mana starting (including the LED mana, minus the cost of IT), in which case a single IGG usually storms for lethal when you can produce 6 mana.

Let's look at this turn 1 goldfish scenario to explain what I mean:

Turn 1 land, Lotus Petal, LED -> Dark Ritual, IT, pop LED: 5 mana floating, tutor for IGG. LED, Dark Ritual, IT, pop LED: 4 mana floating. Now, you can grab Tendrils for 18 (9 storm), but you can't grab the second IGG.

If this was done on turn 2 with 2 lands, then yes, a double IGG win is possible. Just as often as that situation occuring (maybe slightly less), the deck could drop another Lotus Petal or Chrome Mox (w/o imprint) for a lethal single IGG win. Actually, even more often than both of those situations, the deck could have simply went for AN instead of IGG and won instead.

The fact that IGG in hand is worthless (you want to IT/LED for it) and AN in hand is a bomb, I'd rather run a 3/1 split of AN/IGG as opposed to a 2/2 split. Minor detail, but I see it improving consistency some.

---

Undone, I'm not sure I'd run 2 Rushing River. At 3cc, 2 of them seems pretty bad with AN. I was debating if I even wanted to run 1 Rushing River in my sideboard in place of 1 Disenchant, actually. I ended up choosing Rushing River, though, for its ability to answer multiple permanents.

Apex
09-27-2008, 11:41 AM
The Ichorid matchup should be pretty good for us if you have Chant MD. Since you can just chant in response to their 3rd Narco trigger (or 2nd, if they've got a P.Imp). Which usually means you've ended their combo. Of course, Ichorid can still go crazy on the play and combo out turn 2, but so can we, and I think it's in the storm decks' favour when you've got Chant maindecked.

As for win con, currently, I'm testing 3 AdN, 1 IGG, 1 Tendrils, with only 2 Infernal Tutors. Since I often don't want to IT->IGG, so I don't feel that I need to run a full set of Infernals. Rituals->IT->IGG loop->IT->Tendrils can also solve the "9 storm problem", you just need an extra 2 mana when comboing out, which you should have if you've casted a ritual prior to the 2 LED and it's your 2nd turn (example: tap a land, Dark Ritual, LED, LED, IT, IGG, LED, LED, IT (for another Infernal), IT, tap a land, Tendrils is 10 storm without using a second IGG).

Twoshirty
09-27-2008, 01:02 PM
Hey guys I just wanted to pop in and say a few things!!!! I love combo, and at heart thats what I am, a combo player. I threw together a list i saw on page six and the deck is awsome. I just have a few questions for those of you who have tested more.... No ponder? I sometimes feel like if I had more draw it would be better. ummm... how about empty the warrens? an alternate win over tendrils out of the question? I know w/ AN it makes the lethal tendrils a breeze but I really like having options when it comes to winning. and speaking of tendrils....just one? so basically any deck that can make blue sides in four extract and beats us....not likin that at all. my only other concern w/ the deck would be the mana base..... it just doesnt feel right. I like the fetches but im not sure if the 2 strand 2 mire split is right... maybe if i did run warrens but it just doesnt feel right i dunno. Please, i am not trying to be a dick, i am just trying to help make the deck a little better, and i like whats happening so far... oh I almost forgot... why not throw in a singleton doomsday and a singleton meditate and have ANOTHER OPTION TO WIN....it would dick up the average mana cost but w/ AN and IGG that would be three seperate ways to win ... and i think alot of decks wouldnt know how to handle it...

Lord_Cyrus
09-27-2008, 01:31 PM
Actually, I've decided to revert to 3 AN 1 IGG.

Good to know you found this to be the right mix also, as I did a while back. It's hard to explain rationally but... 3 AdN just feels right in this build. Here is the current build I am playing, taking up on the Serenity suggestion for the side. Fetchlands have been altered to favor white a bit more in compensation:

// Lands
3 [ON] Polluted Delta
3 [ON] Flooded Strand
2 [U] Underground Sea
1 [BD] Island (3)
1 [MR] Swamp (3)
1 [U] Tundra
1 [U] Scrubland
2 [ON] Bloodstained Mire

// Spells
1 [GP] Repeal
4 [IA] Dark Ritual
4 [PS] Orim's Chant
4 [US] Duress
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
3 [ALA] Ad Nauseam
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor
4 [MM] Brainstorm
1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [GP] Repeal
SB: 3 [FUT] Slaughter Pact
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt
SB: 4 [WL] Serenity
SB: 1 [RAV] Plains (3)

emidln
09-27-2008, 11:41 PM
Repeal is terrible. Split Second cards are going to be a lot better to you because the fact that they deal 3 damage off AdN is irrelevant if your bounce is countered and you don't get to cast AdN. Why aren't you just stealing the sb from older FT lists anyway? It was developed for exactly the type of deck you're trying to play. There was a lot of discussion on how to fight stax, counterbalance, and misc other stuff. Stop reinventing the wheel -- poorly.

Lord_Cyrus
09-28-2008, 12:35 AM
Alright, first off I am going from Hanni's list, as I said. He played repeal as per his decklist a few pages back, so I did too. I'll take up your suggestion to read through the old fetch tendrils lists and check out their SB tech.

But you know, you could have proposed an SB instead of being insulting. I'm a beginner at this decktype, I freely admit that. So I come here looking for help and ideas. I have no interest in one-upsmanship, just in playing and improving this deck.

jegger
09-28-2008, 08:12 AM
Why do you play Repeal?
To draw a card is usual irrilevant because you play it when you are already sure that in the next your turn you win.
And Repeal goes under all permission against CB matchup and you can't play it against the most common hate: Chalice at 1.

Repeal is a card for Vintage.
If you want a card against CB decks without the green splash you use Wipe Away.
If you want a versatile card against hate decks you use E.Truth or Rushing River.

Anyway, I'm agree with Emidln: you can use the SB of FT.
I see that a weak point of this matchup is against aggro or fast clock decks.
More time you wait, and less effective is AN. For this reason IGG is strictly necessary.

Willoe
09-28-2008, 09:07 AM
How about Regress? Dodges Counterbalance (somewhat) and is a hell lot easier to cast than Wipe Away, although Wipe Away is one billion times more certain of resolving.

Hanni
09-28-2008, 10:40 AM
Hey guys I just wanted to pop in and say a few things!!!! I love combo, and at heart thats what I am, a combo player. I threw together a list i saw on page six and the deck is awsome. I just have a few questions for those of you who have tested more.... No ponder? I sometimes feel like if I had more draw it would be better. ummm... how about empty the warrens? an alternate win over tendrils out of the question? I know w/ AN it makes the lethal tendrils a breeze but I really like having options when it comes to winning. and speaking of tendrils....just one? so basically any deck that can make blue sides in four extract and beats us....not likin that at all. my only other concern w/ the deck would be the mana base..... it just doesnt feel right. I like the fetches but im not sure if the 2 strand 2 mire split is right... maybe if i did run warrens but it just doesnt feel right i dunno. Please, i am not trying to be a dick, i am just trying to help make the deck a little better, and i like whats happening so far... oh I almost forgot... why not throw in a singleton doomsday and a singleton meditate and have ANOTHER OPTION TO WIN....it would dick up the average mana cost but w/ AN and IGG that would be three seperate ways to win ... and i think alot of decks wouldnt know how to handle it...

If you like Ponder, find a way to fit it in. My decklist is not the only viable one.

If you read through earlier pages in the thread, I already tested B/u/r list with EtW. The deck is/was very solid, and is definitely another viable option. I've converted to B/u/w for now because I've found it more consistent and resilient.

No one that I know of runs Extract. Earwig Squad maybe, but that's going to wreck the deck even if the deck runs 3 Tendrils. If you fear Extract/Earwig Squad, run a list with Rite of Flame and Burning Wish.

I haven't had any issues with my B/u/w manabase. If you don't like it, construct it the way that you feel more comfortable. Not a big deal, really.

Doomsday and Meditate are bad in this deck. Neither one is synergistic with AN, and Doomsday would require other cards to be added to the deck (like Top). IGG is much better, IMO. 3 seperate ways to win is unecessary.


Repeal is terrible. Split Second cards are going to be a lot better to you because the fact that they deal 3 damage off AdN is irrelevant if your bounce is countered and you don't get to cast AdN. Why aren't you just stealing the sb from older FT lists anyway? It was developed for exactly the type of deck you're trying to play. There was a lot of discussion on how to fight stax, counterbalance, and misc other stuff. Stop reinventing the wheel -- poorly.


Except Wipe Away is terrible with my manabase. My playtesting with the deck so far has shown me that producing UU is too inconsistent. With 14 lands, splashing a 4th color for Krosan Grip doesn't seem like the greatest idea either. This isn't FT so the deck cannot be treated like FT. FT has enough lands to support UU and a 4th color splash, but this comes at a cost: FT has an average goldfish of turn 4, this deck has an average goldfish of turn 2. That changes the dynamics of alot of things, including sideboard answers.

Lifeloss IS relevant with AN. Being unable to do anything because of Counterbalance is going to be just as bad as fizzling with AN. Again, this isn't FT.

Sideboards from older FT lists? Do you expect me to go dig through pages and pages of the FT thread so I can copy your old sideboard? LOL. Reinventing the wheel poorly? You're a funny guy.


Why do you play Repeal?
To draw a card is usual irrilevant because you play it when you are already sure that in the next your turn you win.
And Repeal goes under all permission against CB matchup and you can't play it against the most common hate: Chalice at 1.

Repeal is a card for Vintage.
If you want a card against CB decks without the green splash you use Wipe Away.
If you want a versatile card against hate decks you use E.Truth or Rushing River.

Anyway, I'm agree with Emidln: you can use the SB of FT.
I see that a weak point of this matchup is against aggro or fast clock decks.
More time you wait, and less effective is AN. For this reason IGG is strictly necessary.

Most people don't understand this at first, so I'll explain it. The only way to find the 1-of maindeck Repeal (consistently) is to Mystical Tutor for it, which incidentally, is impossible to do under Chalice @ 1.

So basically, unless the deck dilutes itself by playing 4 bounce/destroy spells maindeck, you just go off through Chalice @ 1 without bouncing it. Going off through Chalice @ 1 is not as hard as you may think.

Game 2, the opponent will drop Chalice @ 0 first, but I have sideboard hate that answers both Chalice @ 0 and Chalice @ 1 anyway.

The fact that Repeal has a cmc of 1 for AN, and also draws a card, makes it the best maindeck 1-of, IMO.

The fact that Repeal can be countered by FoW/Daze doesn't necessarily matter. Most often, the opponent has already spent those on Duress/Chant/AN, which is why they were able to get to the point where they now have Counterbalance in play. So when you do bounce it, they are most likely out of countermagic.

This isn't FT. FT is slow, goldfishing on turn 4. ANT is fast, goldfishing on turn 2. FT is required to answer CounterTop because of this, whereas it's much less relevant for ANT. Split Second is a necessity to FT because of this. That does not automatically make it a necessity to ANT.

I've beat Counterbalance Thresh multiple times in testing by simply casting turn 1 Duress grabbing their FoW and going off turn 2 to before Counterbalance comes down.

I'm not saying split second bounce/destroy is not better. I'm saying that it's not feasible in here without bastardizing the manabase. I'm saying it's not as mandatory in here, as opposed to FT, because the deck is more resilient to Counterbalance.

-----

Now, despite what I've said about FT, Split Second, and the 4th color splash, this deck can become more like FT. In other words, the deck can drop 4 Cabal Ritual and 2 AN for 4 Ponder and 2 more lands, splashing the 4th color (green) for Krosan Grip.

Whether or not turn 3-4 goldfishes w/ maindeck Krosan Grip is better or worse than turn 1-2 goldfishes with maindeck Repeal would need to be determined. However, making said changes may only slow the deck down to turn 2-3 goldfishes (I don't know as I haven't tested).

Looking strictly at tournament resuts, I'd say turn 1-2 wins are better than turn 3-4 wins (Belcher has more Top 8's than FT). However, that is not necessarily applied to ANT.

Personally, I prefer sticking to 3 colors and running more accel.

However, it seems that many of you want to play Ponder. Krosan Grip is obviously better than Repeal at answering Counterbalance. So if you want to build/play the deck like FT, go ahead. Let me know your results.

BreathWeapon
09-28-2008, 12:09 PM
@Hanni, I think you're really underestimating just how awesome Ponder is when you're running multiple AdNs, anything that sets up AdN for a T2 or T3 LED activation is the nuts. Using Ponder doesn't turn the deck into FT any more than it turns the deck into TES, AdN and LED just abuses cantrips in their own right.

The whole bounce argument is pointless, you cast M.Tutor in response to C.balance resolving so you can find Wipe Away and cast it thru' a C.balance activation or a counter (later on). Again it has nothing to do with FT, it's just common sense to have bounce in the deck for the absolute worse case scenarios or to not have bounce in the deck at all.

Emidlin is right, Repeal is stupid, losing game 1s to random Teegs is unacceptable.

emidln
09-28-2008, 12:19 PM
I'd like to note that the lists of FT I'm talking about (Street Wraith lists that were derived from my original Grim Iggy deck) very much goldfished on turn 2. They still required split-second removal for CB because decks that play CB don't let you goldfish on turn 2 because they play Force of Will, Daze, Spell Snare, and sometimes even Counterspell. If you think you're going to be able to walk through a tournament goldfishing the CB decks, you're going to be in for a very rude surprise.

The whole reason I began to slow FT down was because beating aggro even on turn 3-4 is acceptable and it was easier to deal with the control decks when you had a consistent manabase and a lot of cantrips to find stuff like Duress, Krosan Grip, and Orim's Chant. The major problem I see with this deck is that you have three gears: 6th gear with AdN, 5th gear with Infernal Tutor->IGG, and 2nd Gear with Chant + Infernal Tutor loop. Only one of those is going to be a viable option against Threshold.

Hanni
09-28-2008, 12:22 PM
Well, I'll try some other bounce options, then, including Wipe Away (again). I was having problems with Wipe Away in the B/u/r build... I don't see it being any better in the B/u/w build, but I'll try it again.

Maindeck Rushing River makes more sense than maindeck Wipe Away, though, since the manabase is likely to be under attack against decks with Chalice (DS, for example).

1 3cc bounce spell isn't going to hurt the deck. 4 will, though.


The whole reason I began to slow FT down was because beating aggro even on turn 3-4 is acceptable and it was easier to deal with the control decks when you had a consistent manabase and a lot of cantrips to find stuff like Duress, Krosan Grip, and Orim's Chant. The major problem I see with this deck is that you have three gears: 6th gear with AdN, 5th gear with Infernal Tutor->IGG, and 2nd Gear with Chant + Infernal Tutor loop. Only one of those is going to be a viable option against Threshold.

In FT, that is the case, but that is not necessarily the case here. FT is vulnerable because of IGG and Doomsday. Therefore, it must resolve a Chant before it can go off (with IGG) if the opponent has any amount of (free) countermagic in the graveyard. Doomsday is also vulnerable, since opposing countermagic on the Draw 4 (or even Top) causes you to fizzle and lose. I'm also under the impression that Doomsday wins on the following turn after it is cast, giving the opponent an additional draw step, correct? If the opponent counters AN, ANT simply finds and casts another one until one finally resolves.

Needing specific cards, like Chant, requires slowing the deck (FT) down in order to win through hate. AN is a completely different animal; that FoW that my turn 1 Duress discarded isn't going to come back to the opponent's hand after I cast AN on turn 2. Maybe FT has a hard time racing Counterbalance because of FoW/Daze, but ANT is different. I've raced Counterbalance multiple times in playtesting, usually using only 1 Duress/Chant to get rid of the 1 countermagic spell in the opponent's hand.

Like I said, tournament results speak for themselves. Belcher is a turn 1-2 combo deck with lots of Top 8's. AN is far more resilient to hate than Belcher is and can go off on turn 1-2 just as consistently. The average win is usually turn 2-3 with 1 protection spell, but the deck can speed up/slow down if it needs to race/fight hate cards. Therefore, arguing that slowing the deck down like FT, to make the deck better, is questionable at best.

I also completely disagree with you about ANT vs Threshold. In my playtesting, there is more than 1 viable option. If I Duress my opponent on turn 1 and he doesn't have anything else to stop me, casting AN turn 2 wins games. If I resolve Chant and can produce enough storm count, IGG is a perfectly acceptable route. Blind IT/LED is obviously a dumb move if you know you are playing against blue... but if Duress shows you're good to go, or Chant resolves, IT/LED is also perfectly acceptable against Threshold. The fact that ANT is less disruptable and less dependant on protection spells gives it more gears than FT, IMO.

I think ANT will obsolete most existing combo decks in the format once it becomes (close to) fully optimized. Just my personal opinion, though.

BreathWeapon
09-28-2008, 01:53 PM
FT doesn't pass the turn that often after DDAY unless you're really aggro with DDAY, you'd probably learn how to play Storm combo better if you'd pick up FT and get a feel for the "slow rolls" since a lot of it applies to AdN.

Hanni
09-28-2008, 02:01 PM
FT doesn't pass the turn that often after DDAY unless you're really aggro with DDAY, you'd probably learn how to play Storm combo better if you'd pick up FT and get a feel for the "slow rolls" since a lot of it applies to AdN.

What are you trying to say? That I'm bad at playing this deck?

Also, this deck is not the same as FT.

Why should I play FT to get better at playing ANT when I can play ANT to get better at playing ANT?

BreathWeapon
09-28-2008, 05:18 PM
What are you trying to say? That I'm bad at playing this deck?

Also, this deck is not the same as FT.

Why should I play FT to get better at playing ANT when I can play ANT to get better at playing ANT?

No antipathy intended, knowing each other Storm deck inside and out helps you play your Storm deck. I learned a lot from picking up FT and forcing myself to play Storm combo the way other people were playing it, and those lessons lead me to the first versions of AdN.dec that didn't suck.

If you took the time, you'd learn a lot from just scrolling thru' FT's thread and looking at MD and SB configurations as well as comparing how the decks set up and go off. Being able to make a comparison between multiple Storm decks will help you out a lot more than playing the same Storm deck over and over, especially when it's an un-tuned Storm deck.

Saying this isn't FT really isn't useful, of course it's not FT, but Emidlin and I both have a ton of experience with Storm combo across the boards and see where one idea can work and another idea can't work. I think if you bridged the gap, you'd be able to see where certain things merge between the decks a lot better.

Hanni
09-28-2008, 10:33 PM
No antipathy intended, knowing each other Storm deck inside and out helps you play your Storm deck. I learned a lot from picking up FT and forcing myself to play Storm combo the way other people were playing it, and those lessons lead me to the first versions of AdN.dec that didn't suck.

Maybe I just don't understand the way you speak. I'm pretty sure my starting shell for ANT on page one, the B/U base, was a very strong starting shell to start ANT with. It's very customizable, especially for color splashes.

I remember you advocating both 4 FoW and 4 EtW in your first versions. When you say that your versions didn't suck, it sounds like your saying mine sucked. That's how it is interpreted, regardless of the way you meant it. I'm pretty sure that 4 FoW and 4 EtW is pretty horrible with AN.

I like to look around the other combo threads sometimes, but most of what could/would impact this deck, I've already questioned or tried. Some things obviously don't work. The types of draw, tutor, and other shit for each storm combo deck varies based on the mechanics. I mean, it's not like there is thousands of viable combo cards. Very few existing combo decks are making much use of AN because they aren't designed around it, therefore its going to require some fresh ideas rather than trying to port everything.

I'm not saying that running Ponder is bad. I don't run it because it slows the deck down more than it really needs to be slowed, at least the way I play the deck, with my playtesting of the deck. I've never wished that an ANT in hand was a Ponder, and I like how Cabal Ritual accelerates earlier ANT's, where Ponder would slow that down. Call this playstyle difference if you want, I don't think the deck is strictly better either way.

There's never going to be 1 version of ANT. ANT is so customizable that it can be alot of different variations. Color splashes alone change the deck drastically.

For example, B/R/x would be interesting like this:

4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Ad Nauseam
4 Burning Wish

I still like my B/u/r version too. Others like playing Kobolds, others like playing Ponder. It's not a big deal, really.


If you took the time, you'd learn a lot from just scrolling thru' FT's thread and looking at MD and SB configurations as well as comparing how the decks set up and go off. Being able to make a comparison between multiple Storm decks will help you out a lot more than playing the same Storm deck over and over, especially when it's an un-tuned Storm deck.


I'm sure I could go read through many pages of the thread to get a few things here and there, but why do I need to do that when I can just look at some decklists for a basic understanding, and then playtest the hell out of a different combo deck (ANT). ANT requires some different cards and designing, so trying to port ideas doesn't always work. Don't think I haven't tried different variations of this deck in playtesting. Just because I don't have a list posted for it, doesn't mean I haven't playtested with cards like Ponder already.

Rather than questioning my deckbuilding skill, why don't you just offer suggestions to other readers to improve the deck? What you are doing right now is just wasting readers time, IMO. This seems more like PM material to me, and I'd just read it and delete it as spam, rather than have to reply to it in a thread.


Saying this isn't FT really isn't useful, of course it's not FT, but Emidlin and I both have a ton of experience with Storm combo across the boards and see where one idea can work and another idea can't work. I think if you bridged the gap, you'd be able to see where certain things merge between the decks a lot better.

So again, because I wasn't taken in by FT, makes me unqualified to build ANT? You assume I haven't played TES, Belcher, SI, and other combo decks before? I've got alot of shit built on MWS that I play with, and that includes combo. Just because I haven't voiced much in certain threads doesn't mean I haven't played the deck. Quit assuming. One does not need to improve innovation to know how to play the deck. I've been playing Legacy for several years now, I've been around. If you're just trying to flop your e-peen around, go do that somewhere else. It's doing nothing for innovation in this thread.


Saying this isn't FT really isn't useful, of course it's not FT, but Emidlin and I both have a ton of experience with Storm combo across the boards and see where one idea can work and another idea can't work. I think if you bridged the gap, you'd be able to see where certain things merge between the decks a lot better.

What do I need to take from FT to make me better at building ANT? Split second bounce? Ponder? I mean, FT isn't even running AN. Completely different design. If you are implying that FT is a difficult to pilot combo deck and that practicing FT will make me better at piloting combo, I agree. ANT is a very easy combo deck to play, though. Simply playing ANT alot has been making me better and better at playing ANT though, while learning specific plays relevant to ANT.

Belcher has more Top 8's because it's easy to play. ANT will probably be similar. Luckily, this might actually make combo more relevant in the metagame. Like I said, until ANT gets banned, I think it's going to obsolete other existing storm combo decks once it gets close to optimized.

I'm very satisfied with my B/u/w build right now.

BreathWeapon
09-29-2008, 12:32 AM
I wasn't implying you were a bad player or a bad deck builder, I was implying you'd be able to learn more from testing other Storm decks first and then take what you've learned and re-evaluate your approach to Ad Nauseam. It's general advice I'd give to any one, especially any one questioning removal slots or SB options and reinventing the wheel.

Stop reading into shit that isn't there.

Hanni
09-29-2008, 01:15 AM
I guess stuffing 4 3cc bounce spells is going to be better than 4 1cc bounce spells against Counterbalance, since split second at the cost of castability and life loss is strictly better. I'll quit reinventing the wheel and just port stuff over without questioning it.

I'm running 1 Rushing River maindeck now because it's castable through Counterbalance and can handle multiple permanents. 2U is much easier to cast than 1UU, so I find it stronger as maindeck countermagic. 1 3cc bounce spell isn't so bad. Postboard though, even the 4 Serenity eats at lifetotal being 2cc; fortunately, most Chalice decks don't run countermagic, so IGG is viable and disregards life total. This is relevant against DS. I realize this was in FT, which is why I've been running it in the white build.

I run 4 Repeal as my answer to Thresh, they won't always be able to counter it because of previous cards cast burning up their countermagic. Even if they can, 4 in the deck is fine. Even bouncing Goyf early on to buy time to build up to going off against aggro/control, Repeal is awesome because it is only 1cc to AN (better than IGG vs Thresh), and it cantrips. The ability to cantrip from bounce is pretty good, since it fullfills multiple functions for the deck. Right now, I'm not convinced that split second bounce/destroy is better against Counterbalance in ANT than Repeal. Maybe I'm a noob on this and I'll learn the hard way, but Repeal has been testing wonderfully for me ever since I started playing them.

Postboard, the deck has Slaughter Pact/StP for Teeg/Mage/Dreadnought.


Stop reading into shit that isn't there.

If you would just delete stupidness like "learned a lot from picking up FT and forcing myself to play Storm combo the way other people were playing it, and those lessons lead me to the first versions of AdN.dec that didn't suck," I'd be more inclined to delete some of my post. Telling me to play FT so I get better at storm combo has nothing to do with ANT either, so you could delete that too and put it in a PM next time.

-----

The deck could also borrow Top from FT. Brainstorm + Top is pretty much the namesake from FT... solid card. There is a better card that combo's with Top than Doomsday (IMO), and that is Counterbalance. In a B/U based list, with the curve so perfectly shaped for Counterbalance, that sounds solid against a Thresh metagame. Drop Chant (and IGG) for Counterbalance and you're good to go... not tutorable with Mystical, but running 4 with Top/Brainstorm should find it often enough.

Taking a page from Hulk Flash, Mystical + Counterbalance is very strong. Much less explosive, but definitely plans to beat hate. Top is also really good at drawing the card that was Mystical'd for. Synergies all around.

I sketched that out before but it was dismissed for some reason. I'd take Top from FT to run Counterbalance, though. Going B/U heavy opens up the deck for Wipe Away, since the manabase can support UU. IGG is worse without Chant, and B/U doesn't have EtW. I think Doomsday would be a good addition to that. This can be problematic, but CounterTop can make IGG work in the rare cases you would need to use it (vs Extirpate, Burn, etc). It's worth the tradeoff in some cases.

B/U Counterbalance ANT

Lands (16)
4 Polluted Delta
2 Bloodstained Mire
2 Flooded Strand
4 Underground Sea
2 Swamp
2 Island

Spells (44)
4 Lotus Petal
2 Chrome Mox
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
1 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Mysitcal Tutor
2 Ad Nauseam
1 Doomsday
1 Meditate
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
4 Daze
3 Duress
1 Echoing Truth/Wipe Away
1 Tendrils of Agony

I suppose with 16 lands, the deck could get away with splashing a 3rd color, this was just a basic framework for further innovation. I don't understand why it was dismissed so quickly, though? Counterbalance is a little slow, but it can always be dropped for other sideboard cards in games 2 and 3. It also throws the opponent off gaurd if they try to play around Counterbalance in games 2 and 3.

The only problem this list has is too much high cc stuff. Counterbalance, Daze, Cabal Ritual, and Echoing Truth at 2cc is necessary for Counterbalance. Lowering the number of AN's helps, and Doomsday is less than IGG (when you're going the AN route, not the Doomsday route).

Daze is a very strong disruption card to run, since it answers opposing Counterbalances. Free countermagic is extremely good at answering all kinds of hate, including FoW. Countermagic itself is flawed with LED, but it can still help to resolve AN many other times. Minor disynergies are made up for from other synergies, I think.

That above decklist is obviously unrefined, since I've been working on B/u/w ANT for the meantime... but I still think that route is very interesting. It's worth playtesting with for a little while when I get time to, at least. I'm sure by running Doomsday, I'm missing out on some tech from FT that would benefit the deck, I'm not denying that.

I'm thinking a possible Doomsday pile for the deck right now would be:

Top in play
Daze in hand

Meditate
Dark Ritual
Dark Ritual
Top
Tendrils

Accelerating into Doomsday and casting Meditate on that turn and going off, with Daze, can generate 10 storm. Requires a few other factors to work, but Counterbalance can buy that kinda time and it's only a backup plan to AN. Pretty solid, IMO.

deadlock
09-29-2008, 03:41 AM
People shouldnt try to squezze in CB into every deck. i give you reasons and compare it to the in my opinion best CB deck out there: ITF.

-Being able to deal with threats that slip through. I know that you play combo and that you want to win, not dealing with threats, but why play CB at all then?
You cant really setup behind a CB, because if something slipped through it beats you down, CB only slows you here (fiddle around with Top and BS to counter something instead of goint for the throat). You can get away with it in a combo heavy meta / format, because your enemy will play setup spells as well and wont bother to put down a Goyf or something.
ITF has STP and sweepers in emergency if a anything gets through.

-Playing the right curve, what makes CB really powerful in ITF is that it can counter stuff at cmc 3 consistently. Granted that it may be enough to hit stuff at cmc 1 and 2 though, which would put you on par with UGW Balanced ThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh.

-You cant compare this to "Not by Sadin himself build Flash deck", it was a good metagame call to play this configuration, aiming at the Flash mirror to outcontroll the opponent and dont go for the pure speed like the others did.
If at all CB fits into a combo controll deck like Previous Level Doomsday and even there its doubtful imo (i like this name over FT, its implying that you play the controll version not the speedy one with Street Wraith and more accel).

Did i miss something? :confused:

Hanni
09-29-2008, 03:57 AM
You're only sacrificing a few mana acceleration spells to fit Counterbalance. It's just a larger disruption package. By no means does the deck have to drop Counterbalance to win. The deck can easily goldfish turn 2-3 like normal AN when it doesn't go for the CounterTop plan to fight hate. It still has enough accel and enough tutors. Top doesn't necessarily slow the deck down too badly in the face of hate, either.

Again, this is just a slightly tested list. I just think that, since the deck can run Counterbalance in a combo deck (like Hulk Flash did), and synergies abound with Mystical Tutor, that it's worth trying. I'm not saying it's going to be spectacular or anything. Again though, as soon as I suggest it, it gets quickly dismissed. Sad face.

Goblin Snowman
09-29-2008, 07:24 PM
I feel that this is one of the strongest combo decks in Legacy currently - As such, I took it against a fairly tuned WUBG Threshold List, postboard, to see how well it would fare against a fairly hateful deck. Over roughly fifteen games, we concluded an almost even matchup between the two decks. I felt that some preliminary testing would help legitimize the deck. For reference, the lists used;


Threshold (Postboard Testing)
17 Land (Standard Setup)

4x Dark Confidant
4x Tarmogoyf
3x Gaddok Teeg
1x Nimble Mongoose
4x Ponder
4x Brainstorm
1x Portent
4x Force of Will
4x Counterbalance
3x Daze
4x Extripate
3x Top
4x Thoughtseize

Ants!
4x Duress
3x Thoughseize - While the lifeloss is significant, seven maindeck 1cc Discard spells greatly aids in your Threshold, Landstill, Dragon Stompy, Sui-Varient, and many other matches.
1x Chain of Vapor - This was effective at bouncing multiple permanents in order to generate a lethal Tendrils after ANT had been Extripated. I would consider increasing this over the Echoing Truth.
1x Echoing Truth
1x Rushing River - The ability to remove both Counterbalance and Mage/Teeg, or Chalice/Trinisphere is more important than immunity to Force of Will. Hell, half the time, if they force my bounce, I'm happy with it.

4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder - While this card is much debated, I feel that it is much better than Inferal Tutor. Infernal Tutor is rarely good outside without Lion's Eye Diamond, which I have also cut when I removed the Ill-Gotten Gains package. While this does increase my vulnerability to Meddling Mage and Extripate, it increases my ability to sculpt my hand specificly for the deck I'm playing against.
4x Mystical Tutor
4x Ad Nauseam - One could drop one of these for Ill-Gotten Gains, if you choose to leave in the Infernal Tutor and Lion's Eye Diamond setup.
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual - In the late game, they are capable of powering out an Ad Nauseam by themselves. I would play them in almost any build, but if you can give me a legitimate reason to drop them for a random obscure card, I would be fine with it.
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
3x Tendrils of Agony - I was forced into doing several Mini-Tendrils post Extripate or if I was playing against a Countertop repeatedly. This number is very subject to change.

Land - 16 land might feel heavy, but being able to ramp up to a hardcast AdN is sexy. Also, it improves game against Moon effects, control, really anything that has the game go longer than turn 4.
4x Underground Sea
4x Polluted Delta
3x Bloodstained Mire
3x Swamp
2x Island

Hesitant Sideboard
4x Pact of Negation
1x Thoughtseize
3x Massacre - It's free against White Goblins (which is still played randomly in MN....whatever), kills off Landstill's Magi, and is useful depending on what other strange decks/board choices you might run into (Glowrider, True Believer, Gaddok Teeg, Meddling Mage, Ethersworn Canonist, and other things you might think of.)
3x Hydroblast - Dragon Stompy, TES, Goblins, Burn (Which seems like a terrible match, as we're dependent on having a fairly high life total while comboing, Imperial Painter)
4x Graveyard Hate (Crypt, Jailer, whatever) - Ichorid is one of the few combo decks that is fairly immune to the 8 discard spells between main and side. Being able to stop them for 2 turns would be hot. Also, there's not a whole lot else I see you needing to board against. I guess Needle is also a fine call here, depending on metagame.

In addition to the "speed build", I realized it is entirely possible to run a very high casting cost card control deck, such as Landstill, by simply adding in Angel's Grace prior to using ANT. I'll continue testing when I have time using both builds, and will try and get a solid 10 preboard games and 20 postboard games recorded later tonight against Threshold. Keep the thoughts coming before this gets banned!

ixid
09-29-2008, 09:21 PM
Goblin Snowman that's very close to what I'm running now although you're pre-boarding pretty heavily for a Threshold environment, I just have 1 MD bounce and 1 Tendrils. I'm running Crystal Vein in place of Cabal Ritual and 4 LED (3 Chrome Mox in my list) as they're such a useful mana source even without Infernal Tutor (which I've gone back and retested and it keeps sucking for me).

Crystal Vein powers out a lot of turn 2 wins where a Cabal Ritual wouldn't have (U. Sea + Dark Ritual + Crystal Vein + Ad Nauseum) assuming you don't have an additional land in hand. It also gives you a lot of mana, uncounterable, for going off without any accelerants.

I'm not sure of the usefulness of Wipe Away - you still need to clear out counters before going off. Repeal seems more interesting at the moment and can buy time just bouncing a Tarmogoyf where the drawn card matters as well as burning you for less off AdN.

Goblin Snowman
09-29-2008, 09:59 PM
Goblin Snowman that's very close to what I'm running now although you're pre-boarding pretty heavily for a Threshold environment, I just have 1 MD bounce and 1 Tendrils. I'm running Crystal Vein in place of Cabal Ritual and 4 LED (3 Chrome Mox in my list) as they're such a useful mana source even without Infernal Tutor (which I've gone back and retested and it keeps sucking for me).

I took what I decided was the worst possible matchup (a very heavily prepared Black Threshold List with Gaddok Teeg/Meddling Mage) and built my deck around how to beat it. From my experience, even with this anti-Threshold build, you have no right to go losing to Dragon Stompy, Landstill, or any of the other decks that might give you trouble. I still usually pull 2-3 turn wins (almost always backed up by a Duress or Thoughtseize), but I retain the ability to build an insanely good hand against any deck without a clock or IWIN Button (getting a hand with two Ad Nauseam and 2-3 discard against Landstill, getting a hand with Rushing River + Chain of Vapor for EOT against Chalice of the Void.dec, or what have you). Also, in Minnesota, there is almost no ITF, meaning I can get away with neglecting that matchup (and I'm fairly sure the 7 discard would help a good deal there).

I'm torn on Lion's Eye Diamond. Infernal Tutor is inferior to other options around for tutoring, and is only useful in this deck with Lion's Eye, and doing that really can bite you in the ass if you get disrupted. Lion's Eye turns off Pact of Negation from the board.....I have very little trouble getting to Ad Nauseam mana without it, and it seems far to situational to drop anything else for it.



Crystal Vein powers out a lot of turn 2 wins where a Cabal Ritual wouldn't have (U. Sea + Dark Ritual + Crystal Vein + Ad Nauseum) assuming you don't have an additional land in hand. It also gives you a lot of mana, uncounterable, for going off without any accelerants.

Yeah, but the lack of colored mana early in a deck that has 15 or less land and relies on cantrips smells fishy. Also, Cabal Ritual is insane later on in the game, as it powers out an Ad Nauseam by itself when you're using more than one at the end of the opponant's turn to bait counters. I know, late game should never be gotten to, but shit happens like turn one Thoughseize, turn two Counterbalance.



I'm not sure of the usefulness of Wipe Away - you still need to clear out counters before going off. Repeal seems more interesting at the moment and can buy time just bouncing a Tarmogoyf where the drawn card matters as well as burning you for less off AdN.

Rushing River is better as you can use it to generate three storm by bouncing your own Lotus Petals and Moxen. Chain of Vapor also allows for a rather large amount of potential mana generation when combined with several Moxen and a large hand size. I have not tested Repeal as I am unsure about the usefulness of a random draw versus 1cc or the ability to bounce more than one hate piece. Rushing Rivering away a Trinisphere and Chalice, or a Counterbalance and Meddling Mage can be the difference between losing and winning a game.

Ironstickman
09-30-2008, 10:51 AM
Hi,
I' ve been thinking some time about Nauseaum variants. First of all:

Combo & Search/

4 x Ad Nauseaum
4 x Mystical Tutor
4 x Brainstorm

Wincon/

4 x Burning Wish

Protection/

4 x Duress
4 x Pact of Negation

Accel/

4 x Dark Ritual
4 x Rite of Flame
3 x Cabal Ritual
3 x Manamorphose

4 x Lotus Petal
4 x Chrome Mox

Lands/

3 x Polluted Delta
3 x Bloodstained Mire
2 x Volcanic Island
3 x Underground Sea
1 x Badlands
1 x Island
1 x Swamp

Sideboard/

3 x Shattering Spree
3 x Deathmark
2 x Tendrils of Agony
1 x Empty the Warrens
2 x Rushing River
1 x Pyroclasm/ Cave-In
2 x Echoing Truth
1 x Hurky's Recall/Rebuild

So basically, running wish will:
1) help you get a wincon faster (4 copies + mystical and cantrip)
2) Dig substancially more with Nauseaum (since it's just 2CMC)

At the cost of: two mana

More observations:

Nauseaum should be played on your turn to make pacts effective.
The deck becomes quite vulnerable to extirpate since you are only comboing with Nauseaum-Wish----Tendrils.
Pre-Nauseaum
Mystical is great; it gets Nauseaum/Accel/Wish/Pact/Sideboard tools. Brainstorm is complementary.
Post Nauseaum cards:
lotus and mox are necessary to set up after you draw half the deck
Manamorphose: Quite arguable, Ponder can be played here, but manamorphose enables you to finally combo when you just have one mana producer (e.g lotus petal) filtering for black or blue to play remanent cantrips + rits.
It (almost) NEVER fizzles. You can reveal more cards so creating storm is even easier.
The sideboard is quite unfocused. Deathmark (wishable) is just interesting for dealing with Teeg/Mage (so is the black Pact).

Sure someone else has made the point about burning wish before, but I'm unsure if anyone proposed a list.

Any Ideas? Suggestions? Opinions?

How would you fit 2 bouncers mainboard for instance ? (regarding the list)

Maveric78f
10-01-2008, 05:31 AM
Just a simple question. How good are your testings? I've been really disappointed by all the variants I tried with many disruptions, mainly because I could combo against aggro (or worse aggro-combo) only at a point where I was already between 10 and 15 life, and I fizzled quite a lot here after. I wonder, if the right direction to go is not a quick combo route, with only 4-6 disruption, but that could go off very often on turn 1 or 2.

Apex
10-01-2008, 01:15 PM
I've never had a problem comboing out against quick aggro. I usually just go for the IGGY loop against stuff like Affinity/Burn/Berserk+dudes. IggyPop (and some of the older FT lists) straight up eats aggro, so I don't know why this wouldn't be the same if you just go that direction. Dredge may be a problem, but with 4 maindeck Orim's Chant, fighting dredge is alot easier (response to Narco trigger, chant you?).

Ad Nauseam is usually reserved for the more controllish decks that rely on Tarmogoyf + another dude, backed up by counters and disruption. You get alot more turns to setup a Stifle-proof win con.

Maveric78f
10-01-2008, 04:20 PM
I've never had a problem comboing out against quick aggro. I usually just go for the IGGY loop against stuff like Affinity/Burn/Berserk+dudes. IggyPop (and some of the older FT lists) straight up eats aggro, so I don't know why this wouldn't be the same if you just go that direction. Dredge may be a problem, but with 4 maindeck Orim's Chant, fighting dredge is alot easier (response to Narco trigger, chant you?).

Ad Nauseam is usually reserved for the more controllish decks that rely on Tarmogoyf + another dude, backed up by counters and disruption. You get alot more turns to setup a Stifle-proof win con.

I definitely agree with what you say. I used to try ANT in a ponder setting, which required always 3/4 turns to be online. I used to play without LED and IT, as well as IGG obviously.

Today, I tested quite a lot a new version with LED and IT, my random spells being:
2*AN
1*Tendril
1*IGG
1*Infernal Contract
1*Repeal

In such a shell, pact of negation is a bad disrupt, duress and chant are far better, because you want to use LED at its best.

This list is good because it dodges discard and stifle effects. It just has to deal with counterspells, and it does well with duress and chant. It can also be fast and kill turn 2/3 like IGG used to do. It's also possible to do the LED upkeep trick quite fast, and I love it. It dodges discard because it plays 8 cards that enables it to set its topdeck and it plays 26 permanents providing mana.

Boogy_Boy
10-02-2008, 05:48 AM
B/U/r ANT

// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
4 [R] Underground Sea
1 [R] Badlands
1 [CST] Swamp (1)

// Spells
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [R] Dark Ritual
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
4 [FNM] Brainstorm
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
4 [4E] Ad Nauseam
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
1 [TSP] Empty the Warrens
4 [7E] Duress
4 [FUT] Pact of Negation

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains
SB: 4 [GP] Leyline of the Void
SB: 4 [RAV] Dark Confidant
SB: 1 [ON] Chain of Vapor
SB: 1 [TSP] Wipe Away
SB: 4 [4E] Red Elemental Blast

This will most likely change... I'm simply showing what new development I'm working on right now.

Hey Hanni, isn't it time to update the OPost? There are a few changes that most of the people in the thread agrees and isn't reflected in that list yet? (like 1 IGG MD?)

Hanni
10-02-2008, 01:00 PM
What do you guys want to see in the OP? Not everyone agrees on card choices and not everyone agrees with the correct color splash.

Some people play Ponder, some people don't play Chrome Mox or Infernal Tutor, etc.

Some people play B/u/r, some people play B/u/w (like me), etc. Some people don't even run fetchlands and are playing 5c with Gemstone/City.

If I had some more input on how to update the OP, I'd be happy to do so. For right now, I don't think ANT is developed enough to make too many clearcut choices.

Maveric78f
10-02-2008, 01:38 PM
I have new stuff to discuss.

I play the following MD list. Not very original, except maybe for its low count of key spells (understand high CC spells). I'm very happy with that part, I even sometimes SB out 1 AN or 1 IGG, or even both. Here is the list, but actually, there is not much to debate in this list. As I play LED, pact is subpar compared to duress and chant, but I still play 1 to be tutored with mystical if needed. I don't have goldfish stats, but I think that it can go off on turn 2.5 in average with no protection, and 3 or 3.5 with a protection during the same turn as we combo.

Lands 14:
1 swamp
1 island
1 scrubland
1 tundra
4 underground sea
4 polluted delta
2 flooded strand

Stormy Mana 20:
4 chrome mox
4 lotus petal
4 LED
4 DR
4 cabal ritual

Tutors/manipulation 12:
4 BS
4 mystical
4 IT

Disrupt 10:
4 duress
4 chant
1 repeal
1 pact of negation

Key spells 4:
2 AN
1 tendrill
1 IGG

My SB used to be filled with slaughter pacts, tormod crypts and bounces. But it appeared to me that in some MUs, like against discard, burn, ichorid, aggro or even chalice decks, the MD disruption was ok but often weak. Actually, against these decks, you would basically want to accelerate the combo and have more bouncers, give up the 9 disruption MD spells for 3+ other bouncers and 6 - combo accelerators. I try for the moment 3 mox diamond and 3 gemstone cavern, maybe the best proportion is 2+3 or 2+4, since mox diamond helps to get rid of multiple gemstone caverns.
As a summary, I found that my SB was not really relevant. For instance, tormod is good against ichorid, but accelerating the combo is good too and it's more often usefull.

So now my SB for testings is the following one, and that's what I'd want to debate (do you have better ideas basically?):
3 gemstone cavern
3 mox diamond
2 wipe away
2 repeal
3 slaughter pact
2 tormod's crypt

Another concern is that extirpate could be better than tormod, because it could be entered against very heavy blue control decks, to get rid of counterspells/forces.

4eak
10-03-2008, 07:07 AM
@ Maveric78f


I play the following MD list.

-I appreciate your heavy use of protection. If you play protection at all, then you better do it right. You want to see it pretty much every game (otherwise, why play protection in the first place?).

-The deck still lacks answers even given those protection choices. I believe the protected versions of this deck will continue to evolve towards TES, primarily for the use of Burning Wish. The deck will probably become B/U/r/w because it offers the most versatile answers.

-PoN, while it can be Mystical'd, is just not worth the slot when you play Duress+Chant in the main. Not only is it dangerous in a deck that doesn't choose to go all in, and rather opts to play control elements, but it has serious synergy problems. Instead you could just mystical for a different piece of protection that doesn't have the danger or synergy problems.

-Repeal is an excellent choice, and it is a much better topdeck than other bounces. However, if I'm going to MD bounce, I'm doing so because I have a very strong need, and want to practically guarantee that it will do its job. Wipe Away fits the role of that bounce slot more effectively. Despite its double U cost, if you choose to run bounce, you should really be using Wipe Away.

-I'm glad someone is mentioning the matchups that our protection spells hinder us. And, you are right, you need to accelerate (go for speed) against most of those decks.

-For the sake of acceleration, Mox Diamond/Caverns is simply not going to be as effective as ESG. Diamond/Caverns are way too conditional and really just in the wrong deck. Test the ESG. Unconditional, uncounterable, colorless mana that the opponent doesn't know you have is actually strong. ESG is useful pre and post AdN, and the life cost is very minimal.

-2x AdN is appealing when you start flipping cards. However, the right number is still 4x. It is a card you want to see everytime, and it is perfectly fine in multiples, especially against control. Running 4x AdN means you can save Mystical for other things too. Against decks you want to race, 4x is clearly preferred, and against control decks 4x is very strong because you can bait.

-Your decks highlights one of the choices we have to make: Ponder vs. Protection. If you run protection, then Ponder needs to come out of this deck.


I don't have goldfish stats, but I think that it can go off on turn 2.5 in average with no protection, and 3 or 3.5 with a protection during the same turn as we combo.

I run a protected version within 3 cards of your deck, and I know that the average unprotected kill is closer to turn 3.0 when you include mulligans.




peace,
4eak

Pelikanudo
10-03-2008, 08:41 AM
Hello , I have some questions to everybody :
About Lion Eye Diamond, is the best way to get mana in a combo deck based on the idea of playing A.Nauseam ? because they both cards have counter effects : I mean LED discard your hand , A.N fill your hand, how do you procceed to get the goal of casting A.N with LED, because before you should have played any defense spell ,

has anybody tryed the package of 4 chrome moxen, 4 Mox diamond and artifacts bouncers like the old vintage style?

Hopo
10-03-2008, 09:14 AM
Hello , I have some questions to everybody :
About Lion Eye Diamond, is the best way to get mana in a combo deck based on the idea of playing A.Nauseam ? because they both cards have counter effects : I mean LED discard your hand , A.N fill your hand, how do you procceed to get the goal of casting A.N with LED, because before you should have played any defense spell ,?

Some people play with LEDs because it makes easy to go with IGG loops and play AdN in your draw step with LED mana for speedy approach. Others play without it for many reasons, like playing Pact of Negation. Choose, test, make conclusions to which group you belong to. I don't think there are decks that use only Ad Nauseam as an engine. Usually IGG or something else is there to give outs for example to decks that deal damage to you and you can't reliably expect to draw lots of cards with AdN. In those decks, LED + Infernal Tutor is awesome storm enabler.


has anybody tryed the package of 4 chrome moxen, 4 Mox diamond and artifacts bouncers like the old vintage style?

If you draw 10+ cards in a turn, you shouldn't need Retract tricks. My opinion is that it's a bad idea.

Maveric78f
10-03-2008, 10:39 AM
-The deck still lacks answers even given those protection choices. I believe the protected versions of this deck will continue to evolve towards TES, primarily for the use of Burning Wish. The deck will probably become B/U/r/w because it offers the most versatile answers.
I don't get the use of burning wish. It does not search for AN, and bouncers make the job. The only reason why it could be good is to have the alternative of EtW.


-PoN, while it can be Mystical'd, is just not worth the slot when you play Duress+Chant in the main. Not only is it dangerous in a deck that doesn't choose to go all in, and rather opts to play control elements, but it has serious synergy problems. Instead you could just mystical for a different piece of protection that doesn't have the danger or synergy problems.
The thing is that PoN costs 1 less than duress or chant. And that changes everything when you have the following hand:
land+DR+cabal/mox/metal+AN+mystical+random

With PoN in your deck, you can go mystical for it and combo protected on your next turn.


-Repeal is an excellent choice, and it is a much better topdeck than other bounces. However, if I'm going to MD bounce, I'm doing so because I have a very strong need, and want to practically guarantee that it will do its job. Wipe Away fits the role of that bounce slot more effectively. Despite its double U cost, if you choose to run bounce, you should really be using Wipe Away.
Repeal is a MD slot, and that's why I want to be able to "cycle" it. In SB, I play stronger bouncers such as wipe away, or rushing river.


-I'm glad someone is mentioning the matchups that our protection spells hinder us. And, you are right, you need to accelerate (go for speed) against most of those decks.

-For the sake of acceleration, Mox Diamond/Caverns is simply not going to be as effective as ESG. Diamond/Caverns are way too conditional and really just in the wrong deck. Test the ESG. Unconditional, uncounterable, colorless mana that the opponent doesn't know you have is actually strong. ESG is useful pre and post AdN, and the life cost is very minimal.
The main problem with diamond/cavern is that you eventually have 14 cards of your deck that are direct card disadvantage (4*chrome, 3*diamond, 3*cavern and 4*mystical).
But, they are very good for the following reasons : you won't need to lose 10-15 life through an AN in order to combo anymore. Against the decks I target, I can just wait 1 turn more but still combo, because I lose less on AN.

I'm considering to play city of traitors instead of caverns, as I really don't need to fiw my color base after such a SB (no more white spells and mox diamonds entering).


-2x AdN is appealing when you start flipping cards. However, the right number is still 4x. It is a card you want to see everytime, and it is perfectly fine in multiples, especially against control. Running 4x AdN means you can save Mystical for other things too. Against decks you want to race, 4x is clearly preferred, and against control decks 4x is very strong because you can bait.
I understand why you want 4 AN in a deck where you want to combo on first or second turn. But that's not my case, and I take really care of the CC of the spells I play. Moreover, another point that is very important is that I very often combo by playing chant, emptying my hand, play IT for AN and play AN. That's another reason why I try to play very few IGG/tendrils/AN. I'm aware it's also a good argument against my PoN singleton. Actually, it's the best, from my testing. But in this case, I would never consider it against another high CC spell.


I run a protected version within 3 cards of your deck, and I know that the average unprotected kill is closer to turn 3.0 when you include mulligans.
You mean that only 3 cards differ?
Ok, maybe I'm too enthousiastic. I have to say, that I rarely mulligan, because, I'm still too young with this deck and because I'm rarely disappointed with a 4 lands hand. I'll kill later, but it's not really a problem.


peace2,

Mav

4eak
10-03-2008, 01:29 PM
@ Maveric78f


I don't get the use of burning wish. It does not search for AN, and bouncers make the job. The only reason why it could be good is to have the alternative of EtW.

Burning Wish is both an offensive and defensive tool. The card clearly isn't IT (searching for AdN), but rather, it offers diverse win conditions (not just EtW, but also Tendrils and IGG) and enables you to win in the face of control. BW is not an "all-in" card, and a protected version of ANT need that against a well-developed metagame that is prepared to handle combo. BW let's you tutor for important cards without blowing your hand to get it.

Go try Cook's AnD-TES list. It is definitely slower than what you and I are playing at the moment, but it has better answers and options.


Repeal is a MD slot, and that's why I want to be able to "cycle" it. In SB, I play stronger bouncers such as wipe away, or rushing river.

I question running bounce at all in the main in your case. Run bounce because it really, really matters that you resolve it, or just play without it. A resolved Counterbalance is the prime example of why we should run MD bounce, and Wipe Away is an actual solution while Repeal is unlikely to be one.


I understand why you want 4 AN in a deck where you want to combo on first or second turn. But that's not my case, and I take really care of the CC of the spells I play.

I definitely care about my average CC cost (I'm sure you're not implying that I don't). The costs of running the additional AdN's is worth the reward. You don't run multiple AdN just because it gives you higher early game wins; you play them in multiples because it really does play very well against control--and that is the match that we are really concerned about.

If you played Ponder in addition to your other CQ effects, then I'd be more willing to agree with you. But, since you don't, running your primary game winning spell at 4x doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do.

Look at this way, against:

Combo or Aggro: You want to win as early as possible. Multiple AdN's are fairly key to making sure that happens.

Control: You want to disrupt->bomb them. It isn't like our disruption is fool-proof though. Good control players can play against duress/chant effects (and even PoN), and you'll still need to chain bombs against them until one sticks. In conjunction with your disruption and IGG, using 4x AdN means you can afford to have two or three bombs not resolve. Additionally, it isn't like your lifetotal is really taking major lifetotal hits against most control decks, and so your CC curve isn't going to be going into the danger zone nearly as often. You can afford the 4x AdN here as well.


You mean that only 3 cards differ?

Yes.

-1x Repeal
-1x Duress
-1x Underground sea
+1x Wipe Away
+2x AdN

After testing PoN a good deal (even as singleton like you did-check out a few pages back), I looked for other answers. I arrived, as many did, at Duress/Chant too. Our protected version of ANT seems like a natural evolution given our test results. And, as I said before, I suspect that the next natural evolution of protected ANT will be moving towards TES because Burning Wish, while slow, is necessary against metagames that are even decently prepared for combo.


I have to say, that I rarely mulligan

You should probably be mulliganing about 25% of your hands. I hate doing it, but it is a necessary process.

I think many of us don't remember how often our deck wasn't performing well until we sit down and put our records on paper.



peace,
4eak

Hanni
10-03-2008, 02:00 PM
Burning Wish is another possible route, dropping IT for it. The problem is that losing IT weakens IGG. At that point, it's probably better to just drop IGG for EtW (kinda like my old B/u/r, which probably would have evolved to dropping IT for BW anyway). I'd also drop Cabal Ritual for Rite of Flame, as I proposed and suggested a while back for Burning Wish ANT lists.

I do not think Burning Wish is an evolution of B/u/w ANT lists but I do think it is an evolution of B/u/r ANT lists. That's just my opinion, though, and is subject to being wrong.


I question running bounce at all in the main in your case. Run bounce because it really, really matters that you resolve it, or just play without it. A resolved Counterbalance is the prime example of why we should run MD bounce, and Wipe Away is an actual solution while Repeal is unlikely to be one.


At least in my testing, Repeal is usually fine against Counterbalance. In most games, if the opponent is able to resolve Counterbalance, it is because he has already used/lost countermagic(s) in order to get to that point. Most of the time, the opponent's hand is void of protection after it does resolve Counterbalance, where Repeal being cmc 3 to bounce Counterbalance dodges Counterbalances and effectively bounces it. This is not always the case, but my testing has shown this to be the case a large majority of the time.

Counterbalance is only 1 problematic permanent though, and should not be the only thing looked at when considering a maindeck bounce spell. With UU in the casting cost, Wipe Away is extremely difficult to cast against decks with Chalice, where split second is usually irrelevant. It is my personal opinion that Chalice is much more problematic than Counterbalance. Therefore, I'd prefer to have a better Chalice answer than a better Counterbalance answer.

The problem with maindeck Repeal, though, is that it does not answer Gaddock Teeg. If I'm going to run maindeck bounce, I want it to be able to answer everything. For this reason, I run 1 maindeck Rushing River.

In my sideboard, I run 3-4 Repeal for Counterbalance decks and 3-4 Serenity for Chalice decks, with 1 Slaughter Pact and 1 StP for Teeg/Mage. So far, with Rushing River maindeck and these spells sideboard, testing has been doing very well. Further testing needs to be implented, I agree. For now, I like this configuration. The reason I don't like multiple Wipe Away sideboard, for now, is because bringing in 4 3cc bounce spells is just killer on the curve for AN. Maybe a 3/1 split of Repeal/Wipe Away could be good... it's something that needs to be determined. Even Serenity, at 2cc, is a bit steep. Luckily, in the matchups where Serenity comes in against, going for an IGG win instead of AN is usually viable to negate lifeloss (highly relevant against Dragon Stompy, for example).

I also agree about running AN... multiples are always good. However, I've come to like my 3/1 AN/IGG configuration for the meantime. 4/1 is a good configuration too, and is something I could come back to in the future. I tried 2/1 and 2/2 before... and I would never go back to only 2 AN's again. 3 is the minimum, IMO.


You should probably be mulliganing about 25% of your hands. I hate doing it, but it is a necessary process.


I mulligan alot less often than this. Most of my starting 7's are keepers. When I do need to mulligan though, it's usually bad... i.e, I don't mulligan to 6 (because the 6 card hand also sucks), I usually end up with a 4 or 5 card hand.

EDIT:

As far as the red splash goes, this is what I would try (start with) for B/u/r:

B/u/r ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Flooded Strand
2 Underground Sea
1 Badlands
1 Volcanic Island
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Burning Wish
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Red Elemental Blast
1 Rushing River

Sideboard (15)
1 Mountain
1 Thoughtseize (or a different sorcery speed protection spell)
4 Repeal
4 Shattering Spree
1 Slaughter Pact
1 Chain Lightning (or sorcery speed black removal)
1-2 Empty the Warrens
X Tormod's Crypt/Extirpate

Maveric78f
10-03-2008, 04:11 PM
I was looking for another B mana provider, and I ended on this one: rain of filth.

It's rarely useless (it almost always provides BB for B), bad in multiple, but I play only 1.

Edit: it gets easily the threshold for the cabal rituals

blacklotus3636
10-03-2008, 05:15 PM
Since I think its fairly obvious that this deck stomps most control and aggro matchups I thought it best to test against blue based aggro control. I decided to test against the nightmare matchup as much as I could. I chose faerie stompy because it can play chalices and threats backed up by force faster than pretty much any other deck in the metagame. It should be a tougher matchup than threshold because threshold doesn't play chalice main and its threats are never as big in the early turns where it really counts. Its also much easier to deal with counterspells than it is to deal with fast lock permenants like chalice. Here is my list:

4 dark ritual
4 cabal ritual
4 lotus petal
4 chrome mox
4 lions eye diamond
4 flooded strand
4 polluted delta
4 underground sea
2 tundra
4 mystical tutor
4 infernal tutor
4 duress
4 orim's chant
4 echoing truth
4 ad nauseam
2 tendrils

I found in testing that the curve is extremely well suited to battling a resolved chalice because you have 12 0cc cards, 16 1cc cards and 12 2cc cards. Its still tough but you can play around it relatively well as long as multiple chalices don't hit.
I put echoing truth in because I got tired of being so vulnerable to cards like chalice. Being able to effectively answer any resolved permenant with ease is like playing a whole new deck. It also has a side advantage of being able to slow down the opponents clock to buy some time and in some rare situations I use it post AN on my moxes to generate extra storm. I initially tried repeal but the fact that it can't get rid of a chalice at 1 is terrible, besides echoing truth gets rid of all chalices not just one. I have recently considered hurkyl's recall which is a bit narrower than echoing truth but much better at generating storm count and getting rid of opposing artifacts. I haven't tested it but I think I feel safer knowing I can deal with any permenant rather than just artifacts.
I went back and forth about whether or not to include LED and infernal tutor but the fact of the matter is that both the cards are more useful than they seem. LED has been good a generating mana in response to AN as well as making infernal tutor into a demonic tutor post AN and you can mystical for a AN during your upkeep, chant them and then crack LED during your draw step to AN. Infernal tutor has been good without LED to find a backup AN or more mana without an LED on the table so I have been pleased but IT+LED has allowed for so many insane starts that I feel its a must.
In testing, its proved to be an obviously tough matchup but as always who went first makes the biggest difference. If stompy goes first they can drop a turn 1 chalice for 0 or 1 which could devastate a good portion of your hand and or draw but if ANT goes first you have the opportunity to time walk them with chant, duress away chalice/force or mystical for anything you need to combo next turn or tutor up an answer to chalice. Of course force is somewhat of an issue but being able to mystical for protection, infernal for an extra AN copy or just play protection in your hand somewhat neuturs force. The worst situation is double force because most of the time if you duress/chant and it gets forced you can combo out and win but when that second force comes out its game over. There have been many games I have won with a chalice still on the board because once AN resolves you can find an answer or just play around it and tendrils. Its important to remember though that multiple chalices are bad and so are multiple forces but you can deal with multiples of either much easier than you can force+chalice and usually being able to protect chalice allows them enough time to win. A fun trick I learned is that if they try to play a chalice for 2 while they have a chalice for 1 in play you can bounce the chalice for one in response and lock them out of playing another chalice for 1 because of chalice for 2.
Its still a horrible matchup but you can make it competitive if you are a better player or if you get lucky.
The one thing I might change is 1 IGG main. Being able to generate the extra storm to tendrils out without AN can be a lifesaver when you are low on life or storm. I'm not sure what I would take out because I think the list is so solid the way it is.

Ironstickman
10-03-2008, 09:35 PM
@Hanni
Are LED's optimal in the BUr version? I start to see they really are.
It is probably more efficient in terms of life than cabal/manamorphose (you'll draw more, improve chances against aggro) )
but when you finish off via burning you'll be left unprotected (unless duress)

I guess the blast are there basically because they deal with balance while pact doesn't.They are, however, not that great at protecting AN ( R cost).

I agree: rushing river is the bouncer to play since it can handle resolved trinishpere's and chalice at the same time (I'd add 1 or 2 more Sb) .

E.explosives can be another resilient tool in the sideboard against chalices and counterbalance. Note you won't take damage from it with AD.

Deathmark is your black sorcery removal, kills mage/canonist/teeg or beaters in case of need

Apex
10-03-2008, 10:14 PM
I just bought my set of Ad Nauseams today, so I'm gonna shuffle up and test with real cards now (sometimes I just hate proxied cards, so much).

I guess I'll run it through a gauntlet of cookie cutter lists (Eva Green, Tempo Thresh, Dredge, i.e. whatever my friend has built at this moment), I'll see how it goes. I'm thinking the tempo thresh matchup is going to suck somewhat, even without CBTop.

Whatever, I'll see.

blacklotus3636
10-03-2008, 11:58 PM
@Hanni
I agree: rushing river is the bouncer to play since it can handle resolved trinishpere's and chalice at the same time (I'd add 1 or 2 more Sb) .

E.explosives can be another resilient tool in the sideboard against chalices and counterbalance. Note you won't take damage from it with AD.



Three mana for a tutor is too much so it would be way too expensive to pay three for bounce. I have personally preferred echoing truth because it gets rid of any number of troublesome permenants especially multiple chalices. I didn't think about explosives though. I think its an interesting idea since you will be using blue and black mana on echoing truth anyway and it is possible to make 3 different colors. It also doesn't cost you any life but thats not a huge issue. Probably the 2 biggest drawbacks is that you have to pay so much to use it and it can be stopped by a chalice or counterbalance because its casting cost is so low. Two mana for bounce is the perfect number because its not cheap enough to get countered by an early chalice but is still cheap enough to use. Just my thoughts

4eak
10-04-2008, 01:33 AM
@ Hanni


Burning Wish is another possible route, dropping IT for it.

IT cannot come out of this deck. IT is even stronger than Mystical Tutor (ouch, did I just f'in say that?) in Legacy Storm. If we had to make room for it in our CQ slots, then I would drop Mystical Tutor for Burning Wish.

Mystical tutor is a card that belongs in an 'all-in' deck or a deck that plays a unique bomb (Ancestral Recall, toolbox, etc.) in the main itself. If you play protected combo, then against many matchups you'll find that card advantage matters too much to run Mystical Tutor.



I do not think Burning Wish is an evolution of B/u/w ANT lists but I do think it is an evolution of B/u/r ANT lists.

Perhaps you are right, I don't know. I was thinking more along the lines of both decks being melted together. I'm pretty convinced that we'll be moving towards a B/U/r/w list, and a 5-color mana base to support it (sadly).



In most games, if the opponent is able to resolve Counterbalance, it is because he has already used/lost countermagic(s) in order to get to that point.

CB is a general 3rd or 4th turn play in most decks (it can be 2nd turn, but that is less common). Finding bounce before or as it comes into play is the only time that I could agree that Repeal is likely to resolve. Once a CB is in play, you'll find it much harder to even find your bounce card, let alone resolve it. CB timewalks the control deck into more permission, and that is the problem in my experience.

There are many cases where Split Second can guarantee one or two timewalks for me, and I would not have played bounce in that circumstance unless I knew it would work. Wipe Away answers a whole lot that other bounce just doesn't.

Don't get me wrong, I think Repeal is a beautiful card. It isn't a bad card at all in this deck, but it just doesn't guarantee that I can answer CB (which is a major concern for me).


With UU in the casting cost, Wipe Away is extremely difficult to cast against decks with Chalice, where split second is usually irrelevant.

As long as you play around Wasteland, I really don't have that difficult a time casting Wipe Away as opposed to Repeal.

Clearly, Repeal is preferred for cycling (when you don't have need for bounce) and Chalice (a serious problem for us). But, your singleton bounce needs to answer as many of the major threats to this deck as possible. I find Repeal fails where Wipe Away doesn't.


The problem with maindeck Repeal, though, is that it does not answer Gaddock Teeg. If I'm going to run maindeck bounce, I want it to be able to answer everything. For this reason, I run 1 maindeck Rushing River.

Rushing River's ability to handle 2 perms at once has been relevant. It is the only other bounce card that I have found worthy of the bounce slot. It has a distinct advantage over Wipe Away against Chalice/Sphere.dec.

If you play against a lot of CB, then I still think Wipe Away is the correct card. If you play against a lot Stax, then Rushing River is the correct card.



3 is the minimum, IMO.

I'll agree that 3 AdN is the bare minimum. Sometimes it is hard to find room for the last one.



I mulligan alot less often than this. Most of my starting 7's are keepers.

Determining the rules for mulliganing for a particular deck is not something I want to do off anecdotal experience usually.

Catalogue your hands and your testing. You'll be able to look back and say whether you should have mulliganed many hands, even the ones that turned out to win (against the odds). You'll also have hard evidence about how much you actually mulligan.

Especially in the case of building a deck, many of us don't have enough experience with 6-card hands to know their exact value. You'd be lucky to have 100 games under your belt with 6-card hands is what it sounds like.

Test your deck with just 6-card hands; in this way you'll have hard numbers for what your average 6-card hand will play like, and in many cases you'll find the average value of the 6-card hand will be higher than some of your 7-card hands.

The majority of the time this deck is obvious and intuitive, but there are still circumstances in which we need better evidence as to why we should make a particular choice. In order to combat some of the more complex choices, including mulligans, I think we should keep a list of card statistics with us while we test. You can determine the probability of drawing any card or function at a glance, and that really helps when evaluating whether you should keep a hand or how you should play some of your more complicated hands. For example, when I look at a hand, I want to know the value of Brainstorm or my next draw. I need to know the odds of drawing a mana-source or grabbing a tutor in the next two turns. You'd be surprised how many times we might keep hands that only have a 30% chance to draw what we need to make it viable.




peace,
4eak

Maveric78f
10-04-2008, 06:07 AM
blacklotus3636:

- You don't need 2 tendrils if you play IGG.
- I don't understand why you play 4 echoing truth. There are a lot of better bounces among repeal (good for storm, cycles), rushing river (double effect), chain of vapor (good for storm), wipe away (split second).
- brainstorm is strongly missing from your list. It's very good to settle your handle for infernal tutor, when you have a lot of mana but no LED.

For the story yesterday, I've won against a blue deck with counterbalance and arcane laboratory in play: end of opponent's turn, I wipe away arcane lab, which enables me to see that his topdeck is 2CC (he had only 1 plains untapped, as he just played the counterbalance). Then, at my upkeep I search for AN with mystical. I double DR into AN, no FoW, I draw no DR from AN but enough 0CC to play repeal on counterbalance and save 2 manas for cabal ritual.

blacklotus3636
10-04-2008, 12:54 PM
blacklotus3636:

- You don't need 2 tendrils if you play IGG.
- I don't understand why you play 4 echoing truth. There are a lot of better bounces among repeal (good for storm, cycles), rushing river (double effect), chain of vapor (good for storm), wipe away (split second).
- brainstorm is strongly missing from your list. It's very good to settle your handle for infernal tutor, when you have a lot of mana but no LED.

For the story yesterday, I've won against a blue deck with counterbalance and arcane laboratory in play: end of opponent's turn, I wipe away arcane lab, which enables me to see that his topdeck is 2CC (he had only 1 plains untapped, as he just played the counterbalance). Then, at my upkeep I search for AN with mystical. I double DR into AN, no FoW, I draw no DR from AN but enough 0CC to play repeal on counterbalance and save 2 manas for cabal ritual.

I play 2 tendrils because sometimes I have to pop an LED with IT on the stack. I understand your reasoning for playing IGG in place of the second but I'm not sure what card to take out of my list for it but I'll try to find a way to fit it in. On the bounce issue I agree that repeal, and chain of vapor seem better but in testing those cards I found that its inability to answer a chalice at 1 is a huge problem. Besides those cards can't answer multiples of the same permenant. I know it sounds stupid but if your bounce is too cheap an early chalice will be able to stop it and chalice is the most maindecked and sideboarded card to stop combo with the possible exception of counterbalance. I know if I were running almost any deck that was having problems with combo 4 chalice would be in my sideboard so your ability to handle that card is absolutely crucial.
As for brainstorm, I used to run it but this deck needs very specific cards at certain times and whenever I cast brainstorm I needed something specific and when I didn't get it it always slowed me down. I have found the current tutor package to be just what I need. I would ask that you try it and see if you like it:)

Apex
10-04-2008, 05:32 PM
You know what sucks hard? Fish decks. Who the hell maindecks Gaddock Teeg anyway :angryangry:

My friend was like "oh, test against this new deck I just made, it's pretty cool." I'm like "no, just play tempo thresh." and he was like "just play against this a couple of times".

So I caved in and got my skull bashed in by Gaddock Teeg and friends (of course backuped by FoW and Thoughtseize and stuff) all 5 preboarded games.

So I am going to go tweak, but just dropping in and saying that FoW+Thoughtseize+Teeg sucks hardcore. Mage doesn't even suck that hard, at least Mage naming Tendrils allow me the chance of Ad Nauseaming into a bajillion cards to find that bounce (and naming Ad Nauseam allows me to go IGG), but Teeg shuts down like all of the engines.

The Rack
10-04-2008, 05:59 PM
I think I just played you on MWS, and I was playing BWG Funkbrew. From my point of view you should've tutor'd for Rushing River and waited till you could have gone off that same turn. Teeg wrecks this matchup which I know realize coupled with thoguhtseize and therapy. Has there been ay testing for smother in the maindeck, or something like that?

thefreakaccident
10-04-2008, 06:06 PM
I think I just played you on MWS, and I was playing BWG Funkbrew. From my point of view you should've tutor'd for Rushing River and waited till you could have gone off that same turn. Teeg wrecks this matchup which I know realize coupled with thoguhtseize and therapy. Has there been ay testing for smother in the maindeck, or something like that?



Slaughter pact

Apex
10-04-2008, 08:51 PM
I think I just played you on MWS, and I was playing BWG Funkbrew. From my point of view you should've tutor'd for Rushing River and waited till you could have gone off that same turn. Teeg wrecks this matchup which I know realize coupled with thoguhtseize and therapy. Has there been ay testing for smother in the maindeck, or something like that?

Lol, you are not the first person to rape me with teeg, that was me playing with my friend in real life.

Unless....of course, you ARE my friend in real life, coming back on mws to kick me some more with teeg?

J.K. We did play on mws for sure, and it just reassured me that Teeg rapes my deck. I actually saw both rushing river and a tutor in the first game with ponder, but you had me dead in 1 turn, so I couldn't have drawn both and go for the EOT rushing river, untap IGG route. The second game was pretty much a kick in the junk with 1 Therapy, 2 Extirpates and Glittering Wish for Teeg.

blacklotus3636
10-04-2008, 11:39 PM
If someone is playing extirpate, teeg, cabal therapy and glittering wish to get all the other goodies just accept that combo will always have a hard time with that kind of deck. It is not typical to find a deck that is so tough on combo because combo is usually very underplayed, at least in my meta. What is more likely and more played is blue based aggro control like thresh and friends. Its a rough matchup but counters and effecient threats are much easier to deal with than the situation you mention. So don't lose too much sleep over it:P

4eak
10-05-2008, 01:15 AM
I ran two more tests of the pure-speed version of the deck. If you are interested in the results, then read on. If you aren't actually interested, and you haven't anything relevant to say to which I haven't responded pages ago, then please don't bother replying and just do your own testing and post your own results.

Additionally, for those who choose to continue reading but refuse to actually test the pure-speed combo because you don't find it worth trying (indicating somehow that you know without real testing that this version is useless), let me pre-emptively explain that you may still find these results significant, even if they aren't perfectly relevant to you. Most versions of the deck are within a handful of cards away from being identical, and the results may still give you a starting place.


For reference:

Lands: 12x
1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta

Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x LED
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual
3x ESG
3x Summoner's Pact

Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
4x Infernal Tutor

Win-Stuff: 6
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Ill-Gotten Gains
4x Ad Nauseam


Test 1

I've been very interested to know what my average lifeloss was per game. Specifically, I wanted to know what was the average minimum lifeloss with the fastest possible win. Usually I draw to my 5 life limit, check to see if I have the win in hand, and if I don't I'll draw until I have my missing piece(s). But, what if I was really pressed to make sure I played as efficiently as possible, then what was the best I could do without limiting the speed of the deck?

My rules for this test were simple:

-A win is a 9-Storm Tendrils (even if I may only need 8 in some games) or equivalent double Tendrils
-Take the first win that shows in the cards, even if it costs more life.
-Draw the least number of cards necessary for winning.
-Use IGG route when it costs less life and is atleast equally as likely to win as AdN (not that AdN + IGG are mutually exclusive)

After a ton of goldfishing (yeah, I know that isn't the same as testing in a game...but goldfishing is universal, while testing a gauntlet is very metagame specific and it tests opponent skill--I'm limiting variables here), here are the results with my pure-speed list:


-8.65 life spent per average game.
-Averaged 9.7 cards per AnD.
-IGG used in 12% of the games.


All three stats are lower than many protected versions because this is a pure-speed combo. This could easily be 2 more life spent, and 11-12 cards per game in versions running protection.

The surprising aspect of this test would be that while the deck has an average CC cost of 1.15 per card, when I am conserving life, I spend 0.89 life per card. My explanation for why this has occured:

-I used the IGG route many times (often it was the path of least resistance), which usually takes up only 1-2 life.

-I am very careful in the use of Brainstorm and/or Shuffling effects to control my lifetotals (when possible).

-The use of Summoner's Pact + tutoring lowers the CC curve of the deck.


As most already know, but I wish to emphasize, IGG games can be won with almost zero life loss (although, with fetchlands that isn't usually the case), but requires enough setup that it isn't something that this deck can rely upon with any consistency. IGG is merely one more option in this deck. I'd need Burning Wish to say it was a consistent option.


Test 2

I've forgotton one portion of my win percentage testing. My last set of tests analyzed a 7-card hand, mulligan rates to 6-card hands, and the win-percentages at 6 cards. I never go below 6-cards because in almost all cases -1 card = -1 turn for this deck, but mainly that the deck can win with 6 cards in 1st and 2nd turns, it really is very, very unlikely to do so with 5 or less.

My previous test assumed that I was going first, which is only true half the time. Essentially, I needed results for how the deck performed on the draw. In this test I drew a 7-card hand, checked for mulligan, then drew the 8th (as you would in a normal game).

On the Draw results:

T1= 48%
T2= 34%
T3= 6%
T4+Fizzle= 1%
Mulligans= 11%


A few comments:

-Clearly T1 on the draw is much more likely than on the play. The 8th card was very powerful (and practically a timewalk if I am undisrupted).

-The mulligan rate is much lower when I am on the draw. Some hands that should be mulliganed on the play are not mulled on the draw.

-I was very surprised to see so few T3 wins. The deck either did its thing in T1 or T2, or it just didn't.

-Fizzles required drawing 2 AdN + IGG or ToA with almost nothing else. They are extremely rare, but they do happen.

-IT became a stronger card than Mystical on the draw, while Mystical is a stronger card on the play.


Assuming a 50/50 chance of being on the Draw or on the play, when I integrate win percentages of playing 'on the draw' and 'on the play' (yes, in a vacuum of non-interactive combo-heaven goldfishing with the least amount of variables to analyze), my end result win percentages with the deck are:

T1= 32% (32.325%)
T2= 57% (56.96%)
T3= 10% (9.66%)
T4+Fizzle= 1% (1.055%)


In gameplay, AdN is stronger the earlier you use it. You avoid disruption and your less likely to have taken any lifeloss that would inhibit your use of AdN. This deck maximally abuses that fact, and it takes that idea to the Nth degree. I still don't want to lose to a deck I know is packing FoW or drops a T1 sphere, but I race a good deal of it.

Additionally, I've had similar percentage wins running a singleton protection spell and won against otherwise unwinnable circumstances. Wipe Away, and surprisingly PoN (which I don't advocate in other builds) have been very strong tutor targets. I must note that you do take a hit in the above percentages to use a tutored/cantripped protection spell, but it costs very little to the deck when you have merely a singleton. There isn't the same buildup of synergy loss when you run multiple protection spells. Specifically, the loss in win percentages is not linear as you add protection spells--you lose more and more percentage points with each additional non-combo card. The first protection spell added has the least effect on your chances to win early, and it is definitely the strongest addition as you can usually only tutor for one.

I have to admit, I enjoy how non-interactive this deck can be. I race so much hate, and in the first game of a match, I'm playing better-than-ichorid (the 1st game I consider to be its strongest and least interactive). The 2nd/3rd games, of course, are sided properly for hate. It definitely takes some balls to play this against a field with blue and discard (as is usually the case when you play combo against control), but it is quite winnable.



peace,
4eak

Noman Peopled
10-05-2008, 09:14 AM
-8.65 life spent per average game.
-Averaged 9.7 cards per AnD.
-IGG used in 12% of the games.
Does the average include the games you goldfished with IGG? If so, do you have the percentages with AdN wins only? I think those would be more valuable to know.

I just may have to get that fourth AdN ...

4eak
10-05-2008, 11:15 AM
@ Noman Peopled


Does the average include the games you goldfished with IGG?

Yes.


If so, do you have the percentages with AdN wins only?

9.65 life was spent per average game where AdN was casted and IGG was not.


I think those would be more valuable to know.

Perhaps. I chose just to show the average of the deck as a whole because it gives me a general idea of how we can expect the deck to play out. We can't rely upon IGG, but as a second engine, it makes the deck more resilient and less reliant upon AdN. I believe it should be included in the averages.

You should know that the some test cases included odd plays such as: casting lethal tendrils with no IGG or AdN, casting IGG into a necessary AdN, and casting AdN into a necessary IGG. Isolating the value of AdN outside the context of IGG isn't all that easy.

I think my favorite test case was being short on mana post AdN, having both IGG and Tendrils in hand, and being forced to double C-mox blues spells to brainstorm Tendrils on top, cast a second brainstorm, ESG, pop LED in response for black, and draw my Tendrils to cast a 9-storm Tendrils exactly.

Perhaps evaluating AdN by itself probably isn't a broad enough question when we ask how the deck performs, on average, with regards to lifetotals.



peace,
4eak

Hanni
10-05-2008, 01:25 PM
I haven't played against BWG Funkbrew specifically, but I disagree about how bad those sort of matchups are. In my testing, opposing discard has not been an issue. I've gone off on turn 2 before, on the draw, with the opponent going turn 1 Thoughtseize, turn 2 Hymn to Tourach. Brainstorm and Mystical Tutor make the deck pretty resilient to discard effects.

Gaddock Teeg, on the other hand, is a problem permanent just like Counterbalance or Chalice. The difference, though, is that the deck can use Mystical Tutor to grab the necessary bounce/destroy spell, and is then able to cast said spell. Gaddock Teeg beats for 2, which is relevant, but I find it less problematic than Chalice and Counterbalance.

Between discard effects and Gaddock Teeg, the matchup is obviously going to be difficult. However, the matchup is far from "rape." I'd much rather play against a deck with discard and Gaddock Teeg than a deck with blue (with or without Counterbalance).

Blue is much harder to play against, because the deck cannot race disruption when the opponent has FoW. It's easy to race Gaddock Teeg, it's impossible to race FoW (and to a lesser extent, Daze).

4eak
10-05-2008, 01:43 PM
@ Hanni

I totally agree with what you say about the Funkbrew matchup and discard. It isn't game breaking against us (even if it does suck).


Blue is much harder to play against, because the deck cannot race disruption when the opponent has FoW. It's easy to race Gaddock Teeg, it's impossible to race FoW (and to a lesser extent, Daze).

I disagree just slightly about your position on our blue-based matchup. While blue is definitely much harder to play against than Funkbrew, it is not the case that ANT can't race FoW. The odds of seeing FoW+blue card in a functional hand is overstated. Although, if I had to go against either Teeg or FoW, I'd go against Teeg any day of the week.


peace,
4eak

Hanni
10-05-2008, 01:50 PM
I disagree just slightly about your position on our blue-based matchup. While blue is definitely much harder to play against than Funkbrew, it is not the case that ANT can't race FoW. The odds of seeing FoW+blue card in a functional hand is overstated.

While it may be overstated, it's still relevant. I would not attempt to combo off on turn 1 against an opponent playing blue (in versions with protection). If my opponent is playing blue, I'm playing protection before I try to go off.

The thing I like most about AN is that it's a bomb. Even if it gets countered, the deck can cast another one. Between protection and multiple AN's, one will eventually resolve against blue (unless the deck is MUC, or I die from Goyf beats first against Thresh).

4eak
10-05-2008, 02:18 PM
@ Hanni

Yes. You said it well. FoW is definitely relevant, and even if it isn't going to be seen in the majority of games, we have to be more careful about playing around FoW than other forms of disruption. I would rarely race decks packing FoW without protection in a protected version of this deck. However, I would still consider racing even with 10 protection spells in my deck in some cases.

For example, if I had the turn 1 win, and it was the 1st game, and I didn't have protection or mystical/brainstorm/ponder, then I would probably go ahead and try for the turn 1 win--this scenario is only a 5% chance at best in protected versions of the deck.



peace,
4eak

Hanni
10-05-2008, 02:28 PM
For example, if I had the turn 1 win, and it was the 1st game, and I didn't have protection or mystical/brainstorm/ponder, then I would probably go ahead and try for the turn 1 win--this scenario is only a 5% chance at best in protected versions of the deck.


This is different. If it's the first game and you're on the play, you won't know whether or not the opponent is playing blue.

If it's the first game, the opponent doesn't know that you're playing combo, and probably hasn't kept a strong anti-combo hand (i.e they probably don't have FoW).

If I know that the opponent is playing blue (if I'm on the draw), I won't chance going all in on turn 1 in game 1. That's likely a playstyle difference between you and I.

4eak
10-05-2008, 02:50 PM
That's likely a playstyle difference between you and I.

Fair enough. I was just pointing out that your original statement seemed a bit exaggerated--it is definitely possible to race FoW. You might not choose to do it, but it is not an impossible or even unlikely proposal to race decks that pack FoW.

I would like to emphasize something you said a bit ago, because I definitely agree with it:


The thing I like most about AN is that it's a bomb. Even if it gets countered, the deck can cast another one.

It is because of this and the lower probability of my opponent keeping a viable FoW-based hand that I am willing to take the racing risk.



peace,
4eak

blacklotus3636
10-05-2008, 03:46 PM
I ran two more tests of the pure-speed version of the deck. If you are interested in the results, then read on. If you aren't actually interested, and you haven't anything relevant to say to which I haven't responded pages ago, then please don't bother replying and just do your own testing and post your own results.

Additionally, for those who choose to continue reading but refuse to actually test the pure-speed combo because you don't find it worth trying (indicating somehow that you know without real testing that this version is useless), let me pre-emptively explain that you may still find these results significant, even if they aren't perfectly relevant to you. Most versions of the deck are within a handful of cards away from being identical, and the results may still give you a starting place.


For reference:

Lands: 12x
1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta

Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x LED
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual
3x ESG
3x Summoner's Pact

Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
4x Infernal Tutor

Win-Stuff: 6
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Ill-Gotten Gains
4x Ad Nauseam


Test 1

I've been very interested to know what my average lifeloss was per game. Specifically, I wanted to know what was the average minimum lifeloss with the fastest possible win. Usually I draw to my 5 life limit, check to see if I have the win in hand, and if I don't I'll draw until I have my missing piece(s). But, what if I was really pressed to make sure I played as efficiently as possible, then what was the best I could do without limiting the speed of the deck?

My rules for this test were simple:

-A win is a 9-Storm Tendrils (even if I may only need 8 in some games) or equivalent double Tendrils
-Take the first win that shows in the cards, even if it costs more life.
-Draw the least number of cards necessary for winning.
-Use IGG route when it costs less life and is atleast equally as likely to win as AdN (not that AdN + IGG are mutually exclusive)

After a ton of goldfishing (yeah, I know that isn't the same as testing in a game...but goldfishing is universal, while testing a gauntlet is very metagame specific and it tests opponent skill--I'm limiting variables here), here are the results with my pure-speed list:


-8.65 life spent per average game.
-Averaged 9.7 cards per AnD.
-IGG used in 12% of the games.


All three stats are lower than many protected versions because this is a pure-speed combo. This could easily be 2 more life spent, and 11-12 cards per game in versions running protection.

The surprising aspect of this test would be that while the deck has an average CC cost of 1.15 per card, when I am conserving life, I spend 0.89 life per card. My explanation for why this has occured:

-I used the IGG route many times (often it was the path of least resistance), which usually takes up only 1-2 life.

-I am very careful in the use of Brainstorm and/or Shuffling effects to control my lifetotals (when possible).

-The use of Summoner's Pact + tutoring lowers the CC curve of the deck.


As most already know, but I wish to emphasize, IGG games can be won with almost zero life loss (although, with fetchlands that isn't usually the case), but requires enough setup that it isn't something that this deck can rely upon with any consistency. IGG is merely one more option in this deck. I'd need Burning Wish to say it was a consistent option.


Test 2

I've forgotton one portion of my win percentage testing. My last set of tests analyzed a 7-card hand, mulligan rates to 6-card hands, and the win-percentages at 6 cards. I never go below 6-cards because in almost all cases -1 card = -1 turn for this deck, but mainly that the deck can win with 6 cards in 1st and 2nd turns, it really is very, very unlikely to do so with 5 or less.

My previous test assumed that I was going first, which is only true half the time. Essentially, I needed results for how the deck performed on the draw. In this test I drew a 7-card hand, checked for mulligan, then drew the 8th (as you would in a normal game).

On the Draw results:

T1= 48%
T2= 34%
T3= 6%
T4+Fizzle= 1%
Mulligans= 11%


A few comments:

-Clearly T1 on the draw is much more likely than on the play. The 8th card was very powerful (and practically a timewalk if I am undisrupted).

-The mulligan rate is much lower when I am on the draw. Some hands that should be mulliganed on the play are not mulled on the draw.

-I was very surprised to see so few T3 wins. The deck either did its thing in T1 or T2, or it just didn't.

-Fizzles required drawing 2 AdN + IGG or ToA with almost nothing else. They are extremely rare, but they do happen.

-IT became a stronger card than Mystical on the draw, while Mystical is a stronger card on the play.


Assuming a 50/50 chance of being on the Draw or on the play, when I integrate win percentages of playing 'on the draw' and 'on the play' (yes, in a vacuum of non-interactive combo-heaven goldfishing with the least amount of variables to analyze), my end result win percentages with the deck are:

T1= 32% (32.325%)
T2= 57% (56.96%)
T3= 10% (9.66%)
T4+Fizzle= 1% (1.055%)


In gameplay, AdN is stronger the earlier you use it. You avoid disruption and your less likely to have taken any lifeloss that would inhibit your use of AdN. This deck maximally abuses that fact, and it takes that idea to the Nth degree. I still don't want to lose to a deck I know is packing FoW or drops a T1 sphere, but I race a good deal of it.

Additionally, I've had similar percentage wins running a singleton protection spell and won against otherwise unwinnable circumstances. Wipe Away, and surprisingly PoN (which I don't advocate in other builds) have been very strong tutor targets. I must note that you do take a hit in the above percentages to use a tutored/cantripped protection spell, but it costs very little to the deck when you have merely a singleton. There isn't the same buildup of synergy loss when you run multiple protection spells. Specifically, the loss in win percentages is not linear as you add protection spells--you lose more and more percentage points with each additional non-combo card. The first protection spell added has the least effect on your chances to win early, and it is definitely the strongest addition as you can usually only tutor for one.

I have to admit, I enjoy how non-interactive this deck can be. I race so much hate, and in the first game of a match, I'm playing better-than-ichorid (the 1st game I consider to be its strongest and least interactive). The 2nd/3rd games, of course, are sided properly for hate. It definitely takes some balls to play this against a field with blue and discard (as is usually the case when you play combo against control), but it is quite winnable.



peace,
4eak

Instead of just say why I disagreed I decided to test my version of the deck in goldfishing and found that your numbers as far as speed are very close to mine. If you want to go off without protection you can do it reliably on turn 1 or 2 so why would you run a "pure speed" version without protection when you can go about the same speed if you push it and go about a turn slower with protection. I think the flexiblity of going faster without protection and going slower with it is where its true strength lies and allows it outs against almost any matchup. The problem isn't speed, its speed plus protection against the chalices, forces and teegs of the world.

4eak
10-05-2008, 10:48 PM
@ blacklotus3636


Instead of just say why I disagreed I decided to test my version of the deck in goldfishing and found that your numbers as far as speed are very close to mine.

I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. If you wouldn't mind, tell me exactly what you disagree with?

Just incase you haven't read my previous responses, here is something I said earlier that may help give you context as to what I've posted:


Of course, I'm not saying pure-speed combo is the answer (I've said this many times). I'm only saying it is worth consideration--did you not also try unprotected versions of the deck? Combo decks are notorious for avoiding interaction; it is reasonable to push the boundaries (after all, we are testing the card).

My only claim is that the pure-speed combo deserves a real look, and that there are good reasons to play it in game 1 (which I believe you've neglected). There is nothing inherently wrong or misguided with choosing to test the pure-speed combo. Furthermore, it gives us numbers to work with as we continue to build the deck; what I've said is significant, even if it isn't perfectly relevant to you.

Moving onto the rest of your post, I'm glad to see you've done some testing. You are talking about this list, right?


4 dark ritual
4 cabal ritual
4 lotus petal
4 chrome mox
4 lions eye diamond
4 flooded strand
4 polluted delta
4 underground sea
2 tundra
4 mystical tutor
4 infernal tutor
4 duress
4 orim's chant
4 echoing truth
4 ad nauseam
2 tendrils


I already have a few disagreements about how you built this deck as a protected version (which is something I've tested quite a bit myself).

May I ask what your exact numbers were? How many games did you goldfish?

I play protected ANT as well. My testing shows very different results. Removing 10 to 12 cards of the combo from a 60 card deck has a good deal more effect on goldfishing unprotected wins than you imply. Your list should be showing fairly different (not similar) T1 and T2 rates (like, not even within 10-15%).


If you want to go off without protection you can do it reliably on turn 1 or 2 so why would you run a "pure speed" version without protection when you can go about the same speed if you push it and go about a turn slower with protection.

Only the pure-speed version can do so reliably on turn 1 and turn 2 in great numbers. Your deck is at best a 2.5 turn deck with no disruption (which isn't similar at all)-- In fact, you should be roughly a full turn behind the speed version with no disruption. Removing roughly 20% of the deck to play non-combo pieces has real implications.

Furthermore, my testing doesn't show you can reliably go off with protection a turn slower than the stats I've posted. Force yourself to Duress atleast once or Orim's before you go off, and you won't be a seeing just a 1 turn difference.


I think the flexiblity of going faster without protection and going slower with it is where its true strength lies and allows it outs against almost any matchup.

You've missed the point. The first game is where I can win with no interaction, and the element of surprise is a real factor. You might be flexible, but it is at the cost of 1.5 to 2 turns. I side in protection. I still have flexibility, I just choose not to exercise it as much in game 1.


The problem isn't speed, its speed plus protection against the chalices, forces and teegs of the world.

Every problem can be boiled down to time. I'll just have to disagree with you. I think speed does matter, and it enables the deck to be completely non-interactive in so many cases that it otherwise couldn't.

That doesn't make the pure-speed version the correct mainboard build, and I'm certainly not saying it is.

The pure-speed versions gives us a base with which to judge the value of the cards. What is the fastest the deck can be? What happens as I remove a combo-piece and add 1 protection spell at a time?

Combo decks are about non-interactive wins, and the 1st game of a match is supposed to goto the combo deck. Playing for pure-speed in game 1 allows you to avoid a huge amount of disruption. Not only does your opponent not see it coming (and is rarely prepared for it), but you avoid a huge number of disruption spells by just winning before they become castable.

I really would play a single Wipe Away (and maybe a single PoN in this version). I like having outs too. That doesn't mean that 10-12 protection spells in the main are necessary, nor does it mean that the pure-speed strategy isn't viable in the first game.



peace,
4eak

undone
10-05-2008, 11:26 PM
I have a question what about -6 ESG effect and +4 duress + 2 X where X is whatever.

4eak
10-05-2008, 11:42 PM
@ undone


I have a question what about -6 ESG effect and +4 duress + 2 X where X is whatever.

I think if you run more than a singleton for tutoring, then you should probably goto 10 protection spells (including non-card disadvantage tutoring like Burning Wish).

There isn't a whole lot of point to running more than 1 or 2 specific tutor targets and less than 8 or 9 disruption spells because if you are planning to play disruption pre-combo, then you better be running enough of them to consistently see protection before you combo. Otherwise you'll be spending time searching for protection before you combo off.

6 is either too much or too little depending on the strategy you choose to use.

peace,
4eak

troopatroop
10-05-2008, 11:58 PM
@ undone



I think if you run more than a singleton for tutoring, then you should probably goto 10 protection spells (including non-card disadvantage tutoring like Burning Wish).

There isn't a whole lot of point to running more than 1 or 2 specific tutor targets and less than 8 or 9 disruption spells because if you are planning to play disruption pre-combo, then you better be running enough of them to consistently see protection before you combo. Otherwise you'll be spending time searching for protection before you combo off.

6 is either too much or too little depending on the strategy you choose to use.

peace,
4eak

Or you could just have the protection when you draw it, and when you don't draw it, have more gas. If I don't draw protection spells in my opening grip, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to be searching for them. Often, it means that I have a handful of accelerants, and I'll win turn 1-2, which is usually good enough against anything that isn't blue. Playing Duress and Chant in the maindeck doesn't bar you into using them every game.

Although I agree that playing 6 protection spells is too little. I'd cut the Ponders for more Chants, a Bounce spell, and a Singleton PoN. I like beating blue.

undone
10-06-2008, 12:48 AM
I am running 5 MD protection

4 duress 1 rushing river

Duress deals with the 1 force, everything else gets played around and the bounce is for the D stompy in my metagame in case im not turn 1ing, I mystic for it, it also helps in the counterbalance matchup, Therapy in the side helps too. Heres my list currently

4 IT
4 Mystical
4 Brainstorm
4 ponder

4 Cabal ritual
4 Dark ritual
4 LED
4 Lotus pedal
4 Chrome mox

3 Ad nauseum
1 Tendrils
1 IGG

4 Duress
1 Rushing river

7 U/x fetches
4 underground sea
3 island

The swamp MD is kinda unneeded, the 1MD bounce spell makes the stompy matchup an basicaly auto win on the play, and the MD discard drasticaly improves the blue X matchup, and post board I board in 4 therapy.

SB
4 Extirpate
4 Therapy
3 Hurklys recall
1 IGG (for discard MUs so you can loop easier)
1 Ad nasueum (for the blue matchup to force one through)
1 Angels grace
1 Tundra (for those annoying burn matchups..)

blacklotus3636
10-06-2008, 12:53 AM
You are making it sound like you can race the entire format to the point where you can combo out before anything can threaten you. This assertion is just flatly untrue even in game 1. Force is by far the most played blue card out there and is played by thresh which should be played in great numbers in most areas. I understand you are trying to use the "pure speed" version as a baseline of how fast you can make the deck but I tested 20 games in goldfish with my list and I can go off turn 1 and 2 pretty easily unprotected. If you look at our lists side by side you see that we run almost the exact same amount of mana sources, the only difference is you run ESG which is unnecessary to me. Here take a look:

My list:

4 dark ritual
4 cabal ritual
4 lotus petal
4 chrome mox
4 lions eye diamond
4 flooded strand
4 polluted delta
4 underground sea
2 tundra
4 mystical tutor
4 infernal tutor
4 duress
4 orim's chant
4 echoing truth
4 ad nauseam
2 tendrils

Your list:

1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta

Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x LED
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual
3x ESG
3x Summoner's Pact

Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
4x Infernal Tutor

Win-Stuff: 6
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Ill-Gotten Gains
4x Ad Nauseam

I have already agreed that a single IGG needs to find a way into my deck but I'm still unsure what to cut for it. You play 4 more mana sources than me, ponder and brainstorm. In my testing playing brainstorm and ponder actually slowed me down because blue mana was so hard to come by and I always wished it was a tutor to get me something I need in order to win.
In theory having 12 protection spells should slow the deck down alot but it usually isn't a problem because of the amount of mana acceleration you already run. Just test it out and you'll see what I mean.

4eak
10-06-2008, 01:37 AM
@ troopatroop


Or you could just have the protection when you draw it, and when you don't draw it, have more gas.

Well, yeah, you could do that. The main point, however, is that this is a weaker strategy than playing either pure-speed (with a singleton tutor if you want) or playing an actual protected strategy. If the deck played for more consistent card advantage (outside of AdN), like A-call, then I might be more willing to say the 6-protection spell setup would be acceptable.


@ blacklotus3636

Your reply doesn't seem to indicate that you realize I heavily test a protected list as well. For reference, here is my protected ANT list:

Lands: 13
1x Swamp
1x Island
1x Scrubland
1x Tundra
3x Underground sea
4x Polluted delta
2x Flooded strand

Mana Acceleration: 20
4x Chrome mox
4x Lotus petal
4x LED
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual

Tutors/manipulation: 12
4x Brainstorm
4x Mystical Tutor
4x IT

Protection: 9
4x Duress (or -1 Duress, +1 PoN)
4x Orim's Chant
1x Wipe Away

Win-Stuff: 6
4x Ad Nauseam
1x Tendrils
1x IGG


I'm definitely not against the idea of playing protected ANT. I test it a lot, and there are cases in both directions that the protected version would have won a game where the pure-speed would not, and vice versa.


You are making it sound like you can race the entire format to the point where you can combo out before anything can threaten you.

In large part, yes, you can race a good deal of hate. Don't exaggerate my argument though. It is obviously the case that playing faster avoids disruption and lifeloss, and winning early has proven a viable option in testing.

Some of you might not like the odds because you don't get to leverage your control skills against your blue-based opponent (and I sympathize), and you don't like choking on an FoW (again, I sympathize), but that doesn't mean racing won't win you tons of games that the protected version just wouldn't have won because it is a turn and a half slower, and it doesn't mean that the pure-speed combo is obsolete.

So you don't want to really just play the odds and say, I win X% games here and here, and I lose Y% games here and here, the odds are still in my favor game 1. So what? That doesn't invalidate the viability of the strategy, it just means you prefer a different tactic.

I sympathize with you. My original designs for the deck included protection (look at my first posts in this thread). And, I still test the protected versions. It doesn't mean the pure-speed build or strategy isn't worth trying.



Force is by far the most played blue card out there and is played by thresh which should be played in great numbers in most areas.

The odds of seeing FoW+blue card in a functional hand is overstated. You should definitely be worried about the card, but it is not the end of the game when you see one, and you still win the majority of your game 1's against decks packing FoW without using protection.



I tested 20 games in goldfish with my list and I can go off turn 1 and 2 pretty easily unprotected.

Don't hear me saying you can't go off on T1 and T2 with your deck; I know it can. The word "easily" isn't appropriate though because it makes it sound like you have a good probability of doing it, which you don't.

20 probably isn't a large enough sample to know your averages, but, it is likely to give you a good idea of the deck in general.



I have already agreed that a single IGG needs to find a way into my deck but I'm still unsure what to cut for it. You play 4 more mana sources than me, ponder and brainstorm. In my testing playing brainstorm and ponder actually slowed me down because blue mana was so hard to come by and I always wished it was a tutor to get me something I need in order to win.

As to your decklist, not running Brainstorm is a patent mistake. I can see arguments for not running Ponder (specifically for protection), but not running Brainstorm is just incorrect.

And, before you ask, yes, I've tested some without brainstorm. The card belongs.



Just test it out and you'll see what I mean.

Fair enough. I will. I can't guarantee I will play your deck as well as you do, but I will do my best.

I believe I have tested versions (and continue to do so) with a very similar strategy to yours, but I don't think you have really tested versions with a similar approach or game-1-plan as the pure-speed version.

I can only ask the same of you, please test out the pure-speed version (add a protection tutor target if you want) and then come back to say otherwise.




peace,
4eak

ixid
10-06-2008, 02:50 AM
that the protected version just wouldn't have won because it is a turn and a half slower

I understand your point of view and am not disagreeing with your path but one and a half turns? The protected versions are very solidly turn 3 for me with more turn 1/2 wins than 4+ wins, are you really saying your average turn is 1.5?

4eak
10-06-2008, 03:36 AM
I understand your point of view and am not disagreeing with your path but one and a half turns? The protected versions are very solidly turn 3 for me with more turn 1/2 wins than 4+ wins, are you really saying your average turn is 1.5?

Yes, the pure-speed deck averages a win by turn 1.5-1.75.

Protected versions can improve their ratio by willingly playing the combo without protection in a significant portion of their games (sometimes you don't have a protection piece, or you can only choose one or the other, etc.), and some may find this to be the best way to play (I know there are cases where I'd be willing to do it). In that case, as troopa' put it, "you could just have the protection when you draw it, and when you don't draw it, have more gas."

Almost guaranteeing protection takes a bit more effort though. If you force yourself to play protection before comboing off (and keep records of it), you'll see that the margin widens quite a bit.

The protection strategy assumes that it will be winning aggro/combo matches long before AdN becomes destabilized through lifeloss, remaining undisrupted by discard, and pre-emptively answering blue in the main. And, for the most part, I believe this is true of protected ANT decks. However, in my testing, the lifecost averages of successful AdN's rise as you water the deck down for protection, and AdN can become an unstable engine by turn 3 against many aggressive decks (some aggro decks can even win by turn 3). Additionally, short term disruption cards like Discard, Chalice, Teeg, and E-Canon are more likely to be casted and slow the protected version down long enough to buy aggro decks enough time to invalidate the use of AdN. While we do have IGG, it is not something that can be done with any real consistency.

The pure-speed strategy almost guarantees a win against aggro (and the protection really doesn't), and is less hindered by discard because of its redundancy. Several disruption pieces are often completely avoided because of the odds of winning so early. Short-term disruption strategies (which are eventually answered, but perhaps not before it is too late) are weaker against the pure-speed strategy; additionally disruption pieces that require bounce are actually most likely answered in a pure-speed build as it runs more card quality than another other build. The notable exception would a build that runs 4x bounce like blacklotus3636. Singletons of protection are quite powerful in the pure-speed strategy, and the deck definitely has the most to gain from the 1st protection/bounce spell as there are serious diminishing returns to any further development of protection functions until you hit a certain threshold whereby your deck plays a fundamentally different role.

Here is my basic rule of thumb: Combo belongs in an aggro-heavy meta (at least heavier than usual), and if you aren't there, then you should probably consider another archetype altogether. But, AdN is a strong card, and it can definitely win blue-matches (with and without protection in game 1). I doubt that combo is actually viable in a Legacy metagame that really prepares for it though. Combo winters are just unlikely until your combombs just overwhelm the control cards available to a format, and I definitely don't see that happening in Legacy.

I'd play combo because it is not expected, not because a metagame can't prepare for it.



peace,
4eak

Pelikanudo
10-06-2008, 08:03 AM
@4eak
What does ESG in your Fast-List mean ?
.

do you think A.N will be banned for Legacy ?

I dont think so by a single statement :
one of the 3 most spells played is FoW ,A.D has no synergy with this card kind of card by its cost therefore if we Legacy players start to play A.N we will reduce the number of FoWs played .the A.N card even clean the format Agree?

And what about the side because having a 50% first turn win The side is quite important, could you tell me
which cards will you fit in and how will you side vs the most meta match ups?



Thanks

Gocho
10-06-2008, 08:29 AM
ESG = Elvish Spirit Guide

Summon pact + ESG = 1 free mana, storm count +1

4eak
10-06-2008, 10:12 AM
@ Pelikanudo


What does ESG in your Fast-List mean ?

It is the controversial mana-accelerant I use in the deck (I've honestly not found a better choice; it fills a niche).


do you think A.N will be banned for Legacy ?

I think it is too powerful for the format myself. The instant speed is what puts the card over the top. If they made it a sorcery I would say otherwise. The card encourages non-interactive play, and frankly, that isn't very fun for your opponent.

Combo can be answered by the format though, so it isn't like we are going to have a combo winter.

To answer your question directly, I think it is possible that AdN could be banned, but I suspect that if combo became too prevalent, and WoTC had to ban any one card, it would be LED.


one of the 3 most spells played is FoW ,A.D has no synergy with this card kind of card by its cost therefore if we Legacy players start to play A.N we will reduce the number of FoWs played

We most likely will not see FoW in ANT (although, a singleton is always possible), but I highly doubt any deck will ever reduce the number of FoW's we see in Legacy. In fact, FoW might become even more popular, especially if combo became a more mainstream (DTB and what-not) archetype. FoW is probably the strongest card available against ANT, and I doubt ANT's existence would ever lower the number of FoW's played in the format.


The side is quite important, could you tell me
which cards will you fit in and how will you side vs the most meta match ups?

ESG/Pact/Ponder are the cards you take out for the sideboard.

You'll side in protection. Duress/PoN are my usual choices (I'm considering tampering with the main's mana base to just run my preferred Orim's Chant or an REB). Bounce is also a strong choice against permanent based disruption strategies (obviously). I keep a single Wipe Away, a Rushing River, and 2-3 repeals. If I only have one bounce in the deck, then it is Wipe Away. If I need bounce I'll usually bring them all in.


peace,
4eak

Pelikanudo
10-07-2008, 06:50 AM
@ 4eak

Well I'm fallen in love with your deck my friend I've tryed it in MW and I've won 7 games from 10 in first turn yeah and in 2nd game you have 15 cards to face hace, well if WoTc decides to ban A.N or LED is because of the development of your deck , I've seen numerous decks about A.N and yours is the fastest and most solid .
I remember the list D.Gearheart made around A.N trying to fit it into Solidarity , the fastest win he got was 3rd turn....
Congratulations.
Could you tell me which is your side please and more detailed how to side vs the different threats and decks in the current format , I'm mainly interested in :
- 3shold
- 3shold (with c.b )
- Dreadnoutgh (also with c.b)
- Landstill
thanks

EDIT :I have some noob questions :
How exactly LED works in order to pay a part of the converted mana cost of Ad Nauseam?
does LED + Dark+ A.N provides a 1st turn win?
and LED+LED+A.N?
Infernal tutor+Elvish Spirit Guide+ LED + Dark ritual is a win too ritgh?
How does IGG and LED works?

4eak
10-07-2008, 01:36 PM
@ Pelikanudo

LED forces you to discard your hand. LED is generally used when you have no hand (or nothing worth keeping) and in response to big spells.


LED is used in 4 circumstances:

1.) LED/IT -- Spend your hand, cast IT, and in response pop LED to go hellbent on IT.

2.) LED to cast Draw phase AdN -- When you will have 5 mana available (and less than 8 or off color) because of LED, and you know you will be drawing AdN, you can play your instant mana spells during your upkeep and pop your LED, float the mana into your draw phase (no mana burn check), draw and then cast AdN. This is very common when you have Brainstorm and Mystical Tutor.

3.) IGG will often target LED/Dark Rit/IT to generate the maximum amount of mana post-IGG

4.) Popping LED in response to AdN can jump-start your mana-supply. Depending upon the circumstances, you may wish to just save your LED and pop it in response to an IT to grab ToA/IGG/Rit. I prefer to use it pre-AdN resolution usually because if I had both ToA and IGG in hand, my LED becomes useless. In this deck, it takes mana to make mana, and popping LED in response to AdN is a powerful play. Don't be scared to pop for blue!

As to winning combinations of cards, here is a quick way to evaluate hands.

Mana:

Lotus petal = +1 mana
LED = +3 mana (must meet above conditions to be popped)
Dark Ritual = +2 mana
Cabal Ritual = +1 mana (rarely thresholded in this version, but if you have threshold, it is +3)
ESG = +1 colorless mana
Summoner's Pact = +1 colorless mana (only on the turn in which you intend to win)
Land = +1 mana (clearly, one per turn)
Chrome mox = +1 mana with a conditional color (requires an extra card, so make a check for a card that you can actually imprint)


Casting Storm Engines:

1.) AdN = 5 mana (3BB)

This is the usual route to victory. Add up your mana and consider the conditions for playing the cards, and you should have no problem figuring out whether you can cast AdN.

2.) IT->AdN = 7 mana (4BBB)

LED is often used in this example, especially since generating the 7 mana is difficult to do on first turn without it.

If you open a 7-mana hand with IT in it, and it makes the color requirements (not usually the problem), then you can cast AdN.

3.) IGG -- this card goes all over the place. It is really the only card that requires thought. This is your 'oh-shit' card, and it plays several roles. It is often used at low life totals.

Storm generation usually includes the use of IT+IGG. For example:

IT->IGG->IT->Tendrils w/LED+DRit = 7 mana (3BBBB) for 7 Storm

IGG is also used to force discards, deal with low storm circumstances where you have ToA in hand and no brainstorm, or retrieving ToA from the graveyard.




peace,
4eak

troopatroop
10-07-2008, 01:43 PM
@ PelikanudoI think it is too powerful for the format myself. The instant speed is what puts the card over the top. If they made it a sorcery I would say otherwise. The card encourages non-interactive play, and frankly, that isn't very fun for your opponent.

What about it being an instant makes it unfair? The 10-15 cards are still drawn if it's a sorcery, and I find myself using it in my mainphase most of the time. Also, you're missing the potential interaction with Burning Wish, that would make the deck even stronger. Probably alot stronger.

4eak
10-07-2008, 02:13 PM
@ troopatroop


What about it being an instant makes it unfair? The 10-15 cards are still drawn if it's a sorcery, and I find myself using it in my mainphase most of the time.

I said it was too powerful and unfun, and that being instant speed pushed it over the top. If it weren't instant speed, I don't think it would be as strong.

First, floating LED mana during your upkeep (or even in response to a cantrip after mystical or brainstorm) to draw and play AdN is a fairly common play. This would not be possible if it was a sorcery. The deck's mana-base is just too consistent when it can play its engine at instant speed.

Additionally, even alongside protection, against strong control decks where you can be forced to chain-bomb them in what can be longer games, sometimes you will cast AdN during their End step, tapping them out and blowing their control cards. I've even AdN'd in response to win conditions (as they usually tap out partially for it).


Also, you're missing the potential interaction with Burning Wish, that would make the deck even stronger. Probably alot stronger.

That is ironic because I've been testing Burning Wish as a support card for the protected version of this deck, and many times have I wished that AdN was a sorcery. However, this would be at the expense of LED and anti-control AdN plays, which is something I consider even more broken.

Certainly, if AdN were a sorcery, then it would gain strength from being able to Burning Wish for it. I don't think that strength would match the gains from instant speed.

But, hey, I could be wrong. My end point is that I think the card avoids interaction too much, and it can be a very unfun card to play against. It certainly isn't Yawgmoth's Will or Bargain, but it is still just a bit too good.



peace,
4eak

blacklotus3636
10-07-2008, 07:26 PM
Its interesting to me that combo can never be good. In most people's minds it is either unplayable or broken. At first I thought it was busted too but after testing with it I found it to be just really good. The fact that a deck has to be built around it to make it good means that you aren't going to see it put into every deck. Its definately a turn 2-3 deck with protection which definately speeds up the format at least 1 turn but I think once the format is prepared for it you'll see it drop off unless its banned altogether.

As for the deck I'm not sure about brainstorm. I feel the mana, protection and tutors work well and although brainstorm may be strong it does not find you a bomb like mystical and infernal tutor do. When I test, all I want is mana and a business spell+protection and brainstorm is not really a business spell. It can do neat tricks with LED but it doesn't really do much unless you already have a business spell. It helps sculpt your hand but all you want is AN so you can win. Just my thoughts

undone
10-07-2008, 11:21 PM
Heres my new list, It is testing well (not perfect but very well) vs red tempo thresh and dreadstill, as well as UWb cunning landstill. (i have also played red matchups and such as well and so on) It appears to have even to favorable matchups in all these games (possibly his failure to understand the lack of value on stifle in this game)

4 Cabal ritual
4 Dark ritual
4 LED
4 Lotus pedal
3 Chrome mox

4 IT
4 Mystical tutor
4 ponder
4 Brainstorm

4 Duress
1 Cabal therapy
1 Rushing river

3 Ad nauseum
1 IGG
1 tendrils

4 underground sea
2 island
1 swamp
7 fetches

SB
4 EE
4 Slaughter pact
3 Cabal therapy
1 tundra
1 Angels grace
2 other (bounce spells perferably)

EE is just so good.... Try it, the threats it doesnt handle in terms of disruption is teeg, and thats about it...

lolosoon
10-08-2008, 04:07 AM
SB
4 EE

EE is just so good.... Try it, the threats it doesnt handle in terms of disruption is teeg, and thats about it...
Hmmm, just to quibble over this : chalice @0 can't be handled neither by EE with your current manabase, can it ?

And if StaX or Chalice-Stompy decks are present is your meta, Serenity -even if a bit slower and less versatile- would be probably better than EE.

Pelikanudo
10-08-2008, 04:24 AM
I've seen in some topics that you can anounce the A.Nauseam spell and the pop LED in order to pay the mana cost of A.N Can you do ..
a) play D.Ritual ->3 pool
b) play LED , I anounce I'm playing A.N spell and play it having 1 mana in pool and with no hand ?

Tosh
10-08-2008, 04:28 AM
I've seen in some topics that you can anounce the A.Nauseam spell and the pop LED in order to pay the mana cost of A.N Can you do ..
a) play D.Ritual ->3 pool
b) play LED , I anounce I'm playing A.N spell and play it having 1 mana in pool and with no hand ?

That does not work because of the wording on LED:

Sacrifice Lion's Eye Diamond, Discard your hand: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool. Play this ability only any time you could play an instant.
The bolded portion means that you cannot play the ability after the declaration of a spell and before paying it's mana costs since you cannot play instants at that time.

Pelikanudo
10-08-2008, 04:37 AM
That does not work because of the wording on LED:

The bolded portion means that you cannot play the ability after the declaration of a spell and before paying it's mana costs since you cannot play instants at that time.

therefore there is no way in normal situations to play A.N with the mana of LED
I mean LED doesnt help to get a 1st turn win unless you have infernal tutor in hand ritgh?

4eak
10-08-2008, 05:42 AM
I mean LED doesnt help to get a 1st turn win unless you have infernal tutor in hand ritgh?

There are many ways in which to win on first turn while using LED. Sometimes it is used directly to cast AdN during the draw phase, othertimes in response to AdN, and often in conjunction with tutors or cantrips. Post-AdN, LED is still very important too.

LED is doing most of its work on T2, but it will still be a powerful card even on 1st turn.


peace,
4eak

Zinch
10-08-2008, 05:47 AM
There are many ways in which to win on first turn while using LED. Sometimes it is used directly to cast AdN during the draw phase, othertimes in response to AdN, and often in conjunction with tutors or cantrips. Post-AdN, LED is still very important too.

LED is doing most of its work on T2, but it will still be a powerful card even on 1st turn.


peace,
4eak

You cannot cast AdN during your first draw phase using LED...

4eak
10-08-2008, 07:28 AM
You cannot cast AdN during your first draw phase using LED...

Oops. I stand corrected. Let me retract that statement! =)

My point was that it has more value to first turn wins than just through IT or even directly casting AdN.


peace,
4eak

Pelikanudo
10-08-2008, 08:06 AM
There are many ways in which to win on first turn while using LED. Sometimes it is used directly to cast AdN during the draw phase, othertimes in response to AdN, and often in conjunction with tutors or cantrips. Post-AdN, LED is still very important too.

LED is doing most of its work on T2, but it will still be a powerful card even on 1st turn.


peace,
4eak


My doubts are invading me .....

therefore the only way to get mana from LED to cast A.N is knowing youre goint to draw A.N , This is not a 1st turn win.
I ask if you can cast A.N with + 3more mana open from a played D.Ritual + popped LED in anyway.

Maveric78f
10-08-2008, 08:53 AM
My doubts are invading me .....

therefore the only way to get mana from LED to cast A.N is knowing youre goint to draw A.N , This is not a 1st turn win.
I ask if you can cast A.N with + 3more mana open from a played D.Ritual + popped LED in anyway.

Most of all you need LED in play...

Noman Peopled
10-08-2008, 11:05 AM
therefore the only way to get mana from LED to cast A.N is knowing youre goint to draw A.N , This is not a 1st turn win.
I ask if you can cast A.N with + 3more mana open from a played D.Ritual + popped LED in anyway.
I'm not sure if I understand your post correctly but ...
The most likely way to win first turn via LED is land, Ritual, Ritual/Chrome Mox/Petal/CRitual, LED, Infernal Tutor->AdN.
It's also possible, though unlikely, to go land, Mystical-AdN, Petal, LED, another Petal, Ritual, Brainstorm. (The first Mystical can be a Brainstorm if you have no other play and get lucky.)
If somehow you can generate enough storm and have the win in your hand, you can also go land, Ritual, Petal/CRitual, LED, IT->IGG (getting Ritual, Petal, and Tendrils). This needs another two spells - if those two spells produce at least two additional mana, you go off without Tendrils, as you can IT for it post-IGG. If you drew two LEDs and can cast IT, you win as well.
The chances for these plays rise on the draw, obv.
You cannot ever win with land, Ritual, LED, AdN because of LED's errata. You have to sacrifice it in response to a spell you play, most likely Brainstorm, Ad Nauseam, or IT. You simply can't play a spell in your hand with LED mana (unless it has madness).
(And a good thing that is, else LED would be banned with absolute certainty.)

That said the first-turn win is decidedly less likely without LED because it's harder to a) go hellbent, b) produce enough mana, and c) tutor for AnD/IGG without ITutor (which despite being an okay setup spell kind of depends on LED).
Obviously, the above synergies (and more, like the draw step trick) still work perfectly turn 2 which is perfectly acceptable for a deck playing Duress.
It also makes it easier to use the IGG alternative and to find your win post-AdN via IT or even Brainstorm in a pinch, and cast AnD with mana floating.

That said I don't think it's necessarily the way to go, especially in disruption-heavy lists. It is only really good with IT and Mystical Tutor/Bstorm - the draw step trick, however, leaves you open to countermagic and Chant. If this is a big issue in your metagame I'd strongly consider playing another deck, though.
In my experience with other decks, LED has a tendency to be completely busted half the time and sitting around doing nothing the other - it's come up in testing too, though far less often with AnT than, say, my Dredge deck (or Belcher, for that matter).
Still, in the deck's current incarnation, the LED/IT version is what I'll be bringing to a real tournament. The synergies are more numerous here than in other LED decks I've played.

// gah. Had to apply a few errata ...

Pelikanudo
10-08-2008, 11:10 AM
4 Eak Q: If I have a Balance and one other card in my hand and use Lion's Eye Diamond to cast Balance, will Balance treat my hand as though it has one card or zero cards?

A: You can't use Lion's Eye Diamond to cast a spell from your hand. You can only play the Diamond's ability when you could play an instant. When the ability resolves (immediately, because it is a mana ability) you have to discard your hand.

because of this statement I can Affirm that LED doesnt help to get a first turn win which is what we intend to do with the deck Ritgfh? , I agree is good with I.Tutor and with burning and with mystical tutor but can't give us mana in first turn to cast A.N therefore if we are suposed when we play A.N we will win we really don't mind which cards will be drawn . Simple .

what about the Retract /Hurkills effect + Permanent_Artifacts_which_give_more_mana_than_its_cost synergy ?
Do you really think the .T + LED is the quieckest way?
do you really think LED helps to our 1st turn win?

Noman Peopled
10-08-2008, 11:36 AM
4 Eak Q: If I have a Balance and one other card in my hand and use Lion's Eye Diamond to cast Balance, will Balance treat my hand as though it has one card or zero cards?

A: You can't use Lion's Eye Diamond to cast a spell from your hand. You can only play the Diamond's ability when you could play an instant. When the ability resolves (immediately, because it is a mana ability) you have to discard your hand.

You play a land and tap it.
You play Dark Ritual and get BBB.
You play any other card that produces one mana. (4 mana in your pool.)
You play LED.
You play Infernal Tutor (2 mana in your pool).
In response to the tutor, you sacrifice LED. You discard your hand and get 3 mana. Infernal Tutor is still on the stack and can not be taken from there any other way than by being countered or resolving. (Five mana in your pool.)
Assuming the tutor isn't countered, it resolves. You get Ad Nauseam. (Still 5 mana.)
You play Ad Nauseam.

In other words, no, LED can never, ever, win you the game if you don't also have IT or five mana without LED. It does, however, pay for Ad Nauseam when you do have IT.
But it is still at the very least a solid inclusion that has been tested and used to no end in other decks with a similar strategy.


because of this statement I can Affirm that LED doesnt help to get a first turn win which is what we intend to do with the deck Ritgfh? , I agree is good with I.Tutor and with burning and with mystical tutor but can't give us mana in first turn to cast A.N therefore if we are suposed when we play A.N we will win we really don't mind which cards will be drawn . Simple .
The goal is to win. The speed can get us there, sure. It is conceivable to build an AdN deck without LEDs and more rituals that would indeed be faster. It would, however, most likely lose IT and thus lose consistency because we can't really use other tutors (Spoils and Plunge are out, Cunning Wish and Lim-Dl's Vault would negate the speed the deck would be trying to accomplish).
Note that LED's relevance is not at all limited to the first turn, in fact the possibility of a turn two win is much greater with it, too (hide AnD from your hand with Bstorm or get it with Mystical).
We also do not always win the game when we play AdN. Sometimes you just get unlucky and draw another AdN and no mana to continue. Or lots of mana but no way to get Tendrils. LED in response to AdN is a very solid option here, as well as LED in response to a post-AdN IT. I would much prefer Mox Diamond when going off but it has just underperformed for me in any other capacity.


what about the Retract /Hurkills effect + Permanent_Artifacts_which_give_more_mana_than_its_cost synergy ?
Do you really think the .T + LED is the quieckest way?
do you really think LED helps to our 1st turn win?
Moxen are very awkward to bounce and Petal is useless. Unless you envision this as a storm engine, it won't help much at all (and even then it's problematic as it won't add to your mana without serious cda and needs lots of artifacts which you may or may not have access to depending on luck and, more importantly, hate).

Pelikanudo
10-08-2008, 12:59 PM
I'm working on a list based on 4eak list trying to cut LED- I.T synergy and trying to get the most speed withouth this synergy,there it goes:
Lands: 12x
1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta

Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x Mox diamond 4x LED
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual
3x ESG
3x Summoner's Pact

Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
4x Retract // the quickest art. bouncer4x Infernal Tutor

Win-Stuff: 6
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Ill-Gotten Gains // I'm not sure now about this maybe Recall...
4x Ad Nauseam

4eak
10-08-2008, 01:41 PM
@ Pelikanudo


My doubts are invading me .....

Read the post directly above where you said this.


therefore the only way to get mana from LED to cast A.N is knowing youre goint to draw A.N , This is not a 1st turn win.

I did not lie. It is possible to win on first turn using LED to pay for AdN's cost. I quickly spoke about the draw phase, and I retracted that (it is the common play on 2nd turn though).

Take this hand:
LED, LED, Mystical, Brainstorm, Land, Mox, Blue spell.

or hands that looked like they weren't first turn hands can become 1st turn hands, using LED to cast AdN:

LED, ESG, ESG, Lotus Petal, Ponder, Brainstorm, Land

These plays are not likely ones, but they exist. LED is very powerful (and important) for T1 wins; even if the card is just not used in the way you want it to be used.

Please note: LED does not require IT. I'd play the card even if IT didn't exist. I'd remove AdN's before I'd remove LED's.


because of this statement I can Affirm that LED doesnt help to get a first turn win which is what we intend to do with the deck Ritgfh? ,

No. LED adds vital, colored mana in many circumstances, and it is useful not just in conjunction with IT or Mystical. By removing LED from this deck, there are many, many games you will not win that you otherwise could, that includes 1st and 2nd turn kills.


I'm working on a list based on 4eak list trying to cut LED- I.T synergy and trying to get the most speed withouth this synergy,there it goes:

Let's be honest here; you didn't even know how LED worked. How do you expect to start making decklists when you haven't had the opportunity to gain experience and knowledge about an obvious must-play card in a storm deck?

Removing LED is 100% a mistake. Pure and simple.

Go play a hundred games and then maybe you can start tweaking the deck.

Lastly, I think you've misunderstood the win percentages. 57% of your games are still won on 2nd turn. This is a turn 1.5 deck played almost perfectly; it is not a turn 1 deck. You sound way too disappointed when you don't win on 1st turn "7 out of 10" games.



peace,
4eak

Aj-capra
10-08-2008, 01:56 PM
Isn't good to play Lim-Dl's Vault ??

You can tidy your cards for Ad Nauseum and tidy five cards with lower casting cost or tidy your spells for storming easy!!!

I think is very very good play it.

Ps : Sorry for my language :(

Noman Peopled
10-08-2008, 03:03 PM
Although I love Lim-Dl's Vault with a passion, I don't think it belongs. The deck already has eight tutors and eight cards that give you cda (without taking LED into account).
It also loses you life, which is not too bad if you're using it as a Mystical but severely limit its ability to stack the library, which it doesn't do that well in the first place.
And it costs two mana, which is very expensive for a deck such as this, especially when other cards fill that role cheaper or without lifeloss and cda. Paying two mana for a card that will often fail to impact your game until t3 won't cut it imo.

I guess you could try it as an additional black card/consistency measure in a combo meta but first you'd have to find one of those and then justify making your deck slower in such an environment.
@ Unmask: //edit: aargh dammit, wanted to delete this passage but there was a respons already. Foiled by my own stupidity again. Unmask sucks.

Aj-capra
10-08-2008, 03:53 PM
A little analysis:

- Shattering Spree = isn't good because you play only one/two red lands.
- Rebuild = is good because istant and tutorable with mystical tutor
- Hurkyl's Recall = is good because istant and tutorable with mystical tutor
- Rack and Ruin = I think is good only versus chalice

- Duress = essential
- Thoughtseize = good versus teeg
- Cabal = isn't good
- Unmask = a good idea and + 1 storm count, but can you remove dark ritual o cabal ritual??

- Burning Wish = isn't a good idea because infernal tutor is essential
- Mystical Tutor = essential

- Pact of negation = is bad because with empty is a dead card.
- Orim = is more good than duress if you play IGG.

- Braistorm and Ponder = essential

- Defense Grid = for me is a possible card to play in SB, but brainstorm will be a sorcery :(

- Esg + green pact = 6 cards for + 1 mana and + 1 storming, very very bad for me. Six slots...

undone
10-08-2008, 04:26 PM
- Unmask = a good idea and + 1 storm count, but can you remove dark ritual o cabal ritual??

This card costs 4 and doesnt do anything important that duress doesnt...


- Burning Wish = isn't a good idea because infernal tutor is essential

How is demonic tutor not good X.X


- Cabal = isn't good

Waaaah, after duress or right before you go off its another duress.

Also as to my list a couple pages back, I have come to REALLY like 5-7 discard because it lets you be immune to stifle and still fast.

Pelikanudo
10-09-2008, 06:55 AM
@ Pelikanudo



Read the post directly above where you said this.



I did not lie. It is possible to win on first turn using LED to pay for AdN's cost. I quickly spoke about the draw phase, and I retracted that (it is the common play on 2nd turn though).

Take this hand:
LED, LED, Mystical, Brainstorm, Land, Mox, Blue spell.

or hands that looked like they weren't first turn hands can become 1st turn hands, using LED to cast AdN:

LED, ESG, ESG, Lotus Petal, Ponder, Brainstorm, Land

These plays are not likely ones, but they exist. LED is very powerful (and important) for T1 wins; even if the card is just not used in the way you want it to be used.

Please note: LED does not require IT. I'd play the card even if IT didn't exist. I'd remove AdN's before I'd remove LED's.



No. LED adds vital, colored mana in many circumstances, and it is useful not just in conjunction with IT or Mystical. By removing LED from this deck, there are many, many games you will not win that you otherwise could, that includes 1st and 2nd turn kills.



Let's be honest here; you didn't even know how LED worked. How do you expect to start making decklists when you haven't had the opportunity to gain experience and knowledge about an obvious must-play card in a storm deck?

Removing LED is 100% a mistake. Pure and simple.

Go play a hundred games and then maybe you can start tweaking the deck.

Lastly, I think you've misunderstood the win percentages. 57% of your games are still won on 2nd turn. This is a turn 1.5 deck played almost perfectly; it is not a turn 1 deck. You sound way too disappointed when you don't win on 1st turn "7 out of 10" games.



peace,
4eak

I do understand everything even the theory of Relativity , how could you think LED functioning I don't understand, man I'm programmer...,
I think you all TEPS players are focused on the idea that LED is the key and I demnstrated with a deck with no LED can perfectly get the 3rd turn win but of course with A.N ,
I mean of course we are trying to get the most speed but we both know that Fows and Stifles will ruin us the day , first of all you have to build the quickest deck and once you have probed its strength you'll add defense,
well

a) LED doesnt help to get a 1st turn win
b) LED Need to be casted in conjunction to I.T
c) LED obligates you to discard your hand and therefore If you put some kind of defense THIS KIND of defense MUST be PROACTIVE which is something I dislike and I miss from Solidarity
d) MAINLY becasue LED doesnt help to cast a A.N unless you have Mystical or I.T

Another point is that I recognize I didnt know the possibilities of LED but I investigated about it, tested it and my conclusions are INMUTABLE :
you really do not mind which cards you re going to draw with A.N you really MIND how you re going to cast A.N and the spells to protect it . Simple .

this is my last development of a deck with LED and trying to get the quickest victory, the difference betwwen this deck and yours is simple :
1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta

Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x Mox diamond

4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual


4x Pact of negation // this defense wil be turned in to 3 ESG 3 Pacts + 2 Retract But definately
// I prefer defense
4x Duresses

Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
2x Retract
1x Tendrils
1x Hurkills R
4x Ad Nauseam
Its worth it to try this build it gets a 3rd turn win withouth discarding our hand

You know which cards you could add to this deck in the side? SpellSnare which is fundamental nowadays to handle the meta, disrupt, (with changing mana colors) REB, orims, stifles


to mine you would be able to add reactive defense otherwise to yours you won't be able

Noman Peopled
10-09-2008, 10:31 AM
a) LED doesnt help to get a 1st turn win
Yes it does. (As has been explained.)

b) LED Need to be casted in conjunction to I.T
No it doesn't, except for the first-turn win. (As has been explained.)

c) LED obligates you to discard your hand and therefore If you put some kind of defense THIS KIND of defense MUST be PROACTIVE which is something I dislike and I miss from Solidarity
Okay, valid point here. Much as I like Pact of Negation, counters is still the only thing it protects you from. I definitely think that LED >>> Pact outside of heavily blue metagames where you shouldn't be playing combo anyway - or play a slow version (possibly) where Pact sucks anyway.

d) MAINLY becasue LED doesnt help to cast a A.N unless you have Mystical or I.T
It does many other things beside casting AdN though. (As has been explained.)


Another point is that I recognize I didnt know the possibilities of LED but I investigated about it, tested it and my conclusions are INMUTABLE :
you really do not mind which cards you re going to draw with A.N you really MIND how you re going to cast A.N and the spells to protect it . Simple .
Words like "immutable" have no place in a strategy discussion.
Oh, and you should care what you draw with AdN. After all, you have to win with that and it's not a 100% win. And we do mind how we're going to cast AdN. Mystical Tutor and IT are two 4-ofs that synergize heavily with LED, while AdN is a 3-of or 4-of that synergizes with LED if you can reach five mana by other means. We're able to use LED to cast AdN two times out of three in principle, and it's far from useless in the other third.
I fail to see why reactive control is so important outside of blue matchups that we would ditch a card whose bustedness has been proven time and time again.



@ deck: I have tested Diamond as a four-of, a three-of, than a two-of, then dropped them. Beside being good post-AdN, what does it do? It seems like "producing mana post-AdN" and "sometimes, if I want to win turn 2, and happen to have drawn three lands in my 12-land deck, it's a better Chrome Mox" isn't all that hot. That's what my testing led me to believe, anyway (and I had 16 land at the time).
You might wanna try BWish/Rites instead of Tendrils/ESG/SPact if you're playing Diamonds anyway.

If your deck goldfishes t3, it's not really faster as other versions here.

Please explain to me what Retract does beside being another spell that's good only when you have cast AdN already. It doesn't seem consistent with your assessment that "we don't care what we draw, only how to play AdN".

Spell Snare is a good idea. Hm, Cbalance, Chalice, Teeg/Canonist/Mage. All of those aren't instant speed so you could easily include it in a deck with LED.

undone
10-09-2008, 10:31 AM
Its worth it to try this build it gets a 3rd turn win withouth discarding our hand

Or, you could win first turn with duress backup because of LED. IGG loops can only be used with cabal rituals and LEDs because you need 2 +3s.

Seriously LED is our black lotus, you wouldnt advocate cutting black lotus from vintage combo because "You have to sacrafice it" or cutting demonic tutor. Pact of negation sucks plain and simple, more discard is just better, and LED > pact any day of the week.

Please do not debate LED is good, thats like saying FOW is bad because its card disadvantage, and brainstom is bad because it costs mana and doesnt directly do anything but sorting.

troopatroop
10-09-2008, 11:31 AM
LED is one of the best cards in the deck, and format. You're not going to convince us not to play it, because it's just that good. You're really only convincing us that you're bad at this game.

I would suggest "Les Mise" (Farther down in the New and Developmental) if you don't want to play LED. It's also much simpler to pilot, and just as fast.

blacklotus3636
10-09-2008, 03:26 PM
I tried several versions of this deck and the ones without LED just sucked. Honestly there is not a better tutor suit than mystical tutor+infernal tutor and both have great synergy with LED. The tempo advantage LED gives you is unparalled in this format. I understand wanting to play pact of negation but LED is just better. You gain a little speed with pact but the speed you get from LED is much more. As for disruption tools, proactive disruption like duress is amazing because it takes out things that might hurt us and gives us a roadmap of what will happen in the future

AnwarA101
10-09-2008, 04:16 PM
Isn't this deck very similar to Fetchland Tendrils. The only thing that I see is different is Chrome Mox and Duress.

undone
10-09-2008, 05:30 PM
Similar as in strictly better.

No offence but you can add the doomsday stuff in and this is strictly better then FT.


Isn't this deck very similar to Fetchland Tendrils. The only thing that I see is different is Chrome Mox and Duress.

Also the differance is that this deck is better in the combo mirror, the blue matchups and the black matchup.

We had a theretical idea in testing, involving the "Worst case" so what we did was pit the deck vs non blue god hands on the draw, from 5 bolt effects and 2 lands, to swamp rit hymn duress to Mana mox teeg.

It put the matches at between even and favorable for this deck. This is just unfair.

The card is broken if your deck has an average CC of 1 or less, over powered if its between 1 and 2, so so if its between 2-3 and horrid if your average CC is higher. This deck (or at least mine) is between .98 and 1.08 depending on exact card choice which means it might not be broken. But it boarders on it.

jegger
10-09-2008, 06:52 PM
Results are arriving. Go, go AN (http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=Magic-League+Legacy+Trial+08%2F10%2F07).

Anyway horrible list with merchant OMG scroll and mox diamond (are you serious?) plus a sideboard that seems mounted 5 minutes before the tournament.

Ah this list needs LED, like all others storm as TES or FT. 4x. This is an axiom.

Hanni
10-09-2008, 07:14 PM
Isn't this deck very similar to Fetchland Tendrils. The only thing that I see is different is Chrome Mox and Duress.

Except I'm not running Ponder or Sensei's Divining Top, and rather than relying on a very disruptable win with IGG or Doomsday, the deck casts a 5cc spell that draws 10-15 cards and wins from there. The fact that the deck can cast multiple AN's until one finally resolves and wins gives it more resiliency than any other storm combo deck in the format.

Obviously both FT and ANT play accelerants and tutors to win with a lethal Tendrils, but the fact that this deck abuses a 5cc draw 15 rather than a 3cc stack 5 does make a difference.

The deck is also functionally different in that it has to run Chrome Mox, and that it is required to consider the cc and lifeloss that spells cost, which does add some design constraints.

Another big thing is that this deck goldfishes faster than FT. The average goldfish for FT is around 3.5, where the average goldfish for ANT is around 2.5, and I'm counting protected wins for both decks.

Lastly (at least of what I can think of for now), the deck is much easier to pilot than FT and is alot more forgiving of play mistakes (kinda like Belcher). This in itself is probably the most important factor, since the difficulty of a [combo] deck is a huge issue. I believe the primary reason that Belcher has more Top 8's than both TES and FT is for this very reason, and ANT is likely going to parallel Belcher in this area.

Other than that, yes, they are somewhat similar in concept.


Results are arriving. Go, go AN.

Anyway horrible list with merchant OMG scroll and mox diamond (are you serious?) plus a sideboard that seems mounted 5 minutes before the tournament.

Ah this list needs LED, like all others storm as TES or FT. 4x. This is an axiom.

That list is horrible. I'm suprised he won with it, though it just goes to show that Ad Nauseam is so strong that even subpar decklists running Ad Nauseam can do well.

I can't wait to see the results this deck is going to put up once people start playing the B/u/w version often enough.

Honestly, to everyone that thinks the card is overhyped, that couldn't be further from the truth. The ability to draw 10-15 cards (I've drawn over 20 before) from one 5cc instant is just rediculous. It doesn't make storm combo broken, but the card itself is broken, and the card makes storm combo much stronger overall.

badjuju
10-09-2008, 07:20 PM
Results are arriving. Go, go AN (http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=Magic-League+Legacy+Trial+08%2F10%2F07).

Anyway horrible list with merchant OMG scroll and mox diamond (are you serious?) plus a sideboard that seems mounted 5 minutes before the tournament.

Ah this list needs LED, like all others storm as TES or FT. 4x. This is an axiom.

I guess the list doesn't necessarily need a third splash?

I'm not sure about Merchant Scroll, but I can definitely see Mox Diamond. Like honestly, if any of you have goldfished multiple variants of this deck, you'll know that finding the initial mana source is the thing you want most when going off after casting an AdN (irrelevant if you cracked LED in response, but you won't always have that play). I'd probably consider putting in another 4 protection spells over Merchant Scroll (probably Cabal Therapy or Thoughtseize - maybe even a toolbox suite like Repeal/Wipe Away, Pact of Negation, Rebuild, whatever) and finding some way to squeeze in IT #4 and an IGGY. IGGY loop is still way too good to pass up imo.

EDIT: the four cards could easily be splash white for Orim's Chant + a Tundra.

Noman Peopled
10-09-2008, 07:25 PM
No IGG either.
Some weird splits, too. Four Scrolls (with nothing but Mystical to tutor for preboard) over a playset of IT and the third/fourth AdN. I can live with Diamond in lists that are heavy on land but the 3/3 split should be 4/2 at most in a list with 15 land.
No consistent pre-board disruption ... seems a valid choice to me, but Merchant Scroll dosn't jive with the speed theory.
Maybe he didn't have all the cards? If so, I completely sympathize.

Anyway, good to see the deck get some real action, and an event with 47 people isn't exactly a backwater Legacy FNM wannabe where entering guarantees T8.
Is there a way to find out what he was paired against? There are some fast combos as well as aggro-control lists in there that look like they could have posed problems.

//edit:
Honestly, to everyone that thinks the card is overhyped, that couldn't be further from the truth. The ability to draw 10-15 cards (I've drawn over 20 before) from one 5cc instant is just rediculous. It doesn't make storm combo broken, but the card itself is broken, and the card makes storm combo much stronger overall.
qft. Just two days or some such ago I saw it likened to Moonlight Bargain of all things.

AnwarA101
10-09-2008, 07:38 PM
Except I'm not running Ponder or Sensei's Divining Top, and rather than relying on a very disruptable win with IGG or Doomsday, the deck casts a 5cc spell that draws 10-15 cards and wins from there. The fact that the deck can cast multiple AN's until one finally resolves and wins gives it more resiliency than any other storm combo deck in the format.

Obviously both FT and ANT play accelerants and tutors to win with a lethal Tendrils, but the fact that this deck abuses a 5cc draw 15 rather than a 3cc stack 5 does make a difference.

The deck is also functionally different in that it has to run Chrome Mox, and that it is required to consider the cc and lifeloss that spells cost, which does add some design constraints.

Another big thing is that this deck goldfishes faster than FT. The average goldfish for FT is around 3.5, where the average goldfish for ANT is around 2.5, and I'm counting protected wins for both decks.

Lastly (at least of what I can think of for now), the deck is much easier to pilot than FT and is alot more forgiving of play mistakes (kinda like Belcher). This in itself is probably the most important factor, since the difficulty of a [combo] deck is a huge issue. I believe the primary reason that Belcher has more Top 8's than both TES and FT is for this very reason, and ANT is likely going to parallel Belcher in this area.

Other than that, yes, they are somewhat similar in concept.


But wouldn't any reasonable evolution of FT include Ad Nauseam? That is what I'm getting at. Including Chrome Mox makes sense since you are trying to get more initial mana sources after playing Ad Nauseam, but you are basically playing the same deck. Sure you get rid of the Draw 4s and Doomsday for Ad Nauseam, but that doesn't make this deck much different than FT.

badjuju
10-09-2008, 07:43 PM
//edit:
qft. Just two days or some such ago I saw it likened to Moonlight Bargain of all things.

They obviously haven't tried the card. Do they not understand that the average CC of most storm combo decks in legacy is like 1.55 or something ridiculously low like that?

lol:laugh:

Noman Peopled
10-09-2008, 07:46 PM
But wouldn't any reasonable evolution of FT include Ad Nauseam? That is what I'm getting at. Including Chrome Mox makes sense since you are trying to get more initial mana sources after playing Ad Nauseam, but you are basically playing the same deck. Sure you get rid of the Draw 4s and Doomsday for Ad Nauseam, but that doesn't make this deck much different than FT.
Well yeah, but what of it? In exchange for a few design constraints, it loses graveyard susceptibility and doesn't need to stop recurring counterspells.
It's not a completely original list, but storm combos will by necessity resemble each other to a certain extent. This one happens to fall into the "get an enabler card" category. Which isn't that categorically different from the "have redundant win conditions" or "play draw to maintain mana production and storm" categories.


They obviously haven't tried the card. Do they not understand that the average CC of most storm combo decks in legacy is like 1.55 or something ridiculously low like that?

lol:laugh:
Well, it was in response to Anwar Ahmad's article about Ad Nauseam and he said he'd tested it ... (//edit: the poster, not the writer)

Hanni
10-09-2008, 07:50 PM
I see where you are going with that train of thought Anwar, and I agree. I believe ANT is the evolution of FT. In fact, I think ANT is the evolution of all storm combo involving Tendrils of Agony.

The fact that the deck can go a 5c TES approach or a 3c w/ fetchland FT approach makes the deck very customizable, but still very much ANT.

Again, my other points still stand. FT in its current incarnation is much different than ANT in its current incarnation, and is thusly a different storm combo deck.

Emidlin (sp?) already said himself that Ad Nauseam has no place in FT, so therefore the logical conclusion is that ANT is a seperate deck, regardless if it is an evolution of FT or not. To be quite honest, FT was an evolution of IGGy Pop anyway, so it's a rather moot point.

Again, I do agree with you on your train of thought though: this deck (ANT) is the evolution of Tendrils storm combo.


Well, it was in response to Anwar Ahmad's article about Ad Nauseam and he said he'd tested it ...

Anwar has an article on Ad Nauseam? Link please?

AnwarA101
10-09-2008, 08:06 PM
I see where you are going with that train of thought Anwar, and I agree. I believe ANT is the evolution of FT. In fact, I think ANT is the evolution of all storm combo involving Tendrils of Agony.

The fact that the deck can go a 5c TES approach or a 3c w/ fetchland FT approach makes the deck very customizable, but still very much ANT.

Again, my other points still stand. FT in its current incarnation is much different than ANT in its current incarnation, and is thusly a different storm combo deck.

Emidlin (sp?) already said himself that Ad Nauseam has no place in FT, so therefore the logical conclusion is that ANT is a seperate deck, regardless if it is an evolution of FT or not. To be quite honest, FT was an evolution of IGGy Pop anyway, so it's a rather moot point.

Again, I do agree with you on your train of thought though: this deck (ANT) is the evolution of Tendrils storm combo.



Anwar has an article on Ad Nauseam? Link please?


My article can be found here -

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16526.html

My point is only that all these decks will drift towards Ad Nauseam because there is no reason not too.

In reality, Iggy Pop existed when Intuition for 3 IGG was the best plan. Then red rituals came out and ETW then you could play something like Epic Storm. FT was just an evolution of Iggy Pop away from the Intuition, IGG plan instead it still had IGG but instead it went with Draw 4s and more recently Doomsday. Now we have Ad Nauseam and combo decks will incorporate this card.

badjuju
10-09-2008, 08:34 PM
I see where you are going with that train of thought Anwar, and I agree. I believe ANT is the evolution of FT. In fact, I think ANT is the evolution of all storm combo involving Tendrils of Agony.

The fact that the deck can go a 5c TES approach or a 3c w/ fetchland FT approach makes the deck very customizable, but still very much ANT.

Again, my other points still stand. FT in its current incarnation is much different than ANT in its current incarnation, and is thusly a different storm combo deck.

Emidlin (sp?) already said himself that Ad Nauseam has no place in FT, so therefore the logical conclusion is that ANT is a seperate deck, regardless if it is an evolution of FT or not. To be quite honest, FT was an evolution of IGGy Pop anyway, so it's a rather moot point.

Again, I do agree with you on your train of thought though: this deck (ANT) is the evolution of Tendrils storm combo.



Anwar has an article on Ad Nauseam? Link please?

I've been goldfishing TES with AdN a lot, and I must say that there's much more pain in that deck than there is with ANT. What you gain though is a lot more engines to win with and a pretty complete disruption / sideboard package. One card that I miss in particular is, believe it or not, Mystical Tutor. The tutor may be a blow to tempo, but I feel like it not only serves as the ultimate toolbox card for this storm deck, but reduces the number of AdN/Tendrils required in the deck, thus reducing the amount of pain when casting AdN.

I'm not sure what I would change out of TES, but what, in your guys' opinion, would a 5C ANT deck look like? Or would it just pretty much be TES with AdN?

Hanni
10-09-2008, 08:49 PM
5c ANT

Lands (10)
4 City of Brass
4 Gemstone Mine
1 Forbidden Orchard
1 Undiscovered Paradise

Spells (50)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Burning Wish
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Orim's Chant
1 Krosan Grip / Rushing River

Not sure about the sideboard, but basically a whole bunch of 5c goodies. I'd still prefer a 14 land manabase, cutting the Cabal Rituals, but I'm not sure what combination of lands I would really want. Obviously, EtW in the sideboard.

Without IT, I wouldn't include IGG, since it's pretty bad without it (no pun intended).

badjuju
10-09-2008, 08:55 PM
5c ANT

Lands (10)
4 City of Brass
4 Gemstone Caverns
1 Forbidden Orchard
1 Undiscovered Paradise

Spells (50)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Burning Wish
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Orim's Chant
1 Krosan Grip / Rushing River

Not sure about the sideboard, but basically a whole bunch of 5c goodies. I'd still prefer a 14 land manabase, cutting the Cabal Rituals, but I'm not sure what combination of lands I would really want. Obviously, EtW in the sideboard.

Without IT, I wouldn't include IGG, since it's pretty bad without it (no pun intended).

Looks solid for the most part, but yea...the first thing I noticed was no LED/IT/IGG. I'm a pretty big fan of that package, but I'll have to try this list out to see whether or not I really need it. But then again, running 4x AdN and 4x Mystical Tutor - your probably don't need many other avenues to win by. If anything, I'd still be worried about cutting LED because it still works great with Burning Wish, Mystical Tutor and AdN. Although by cutting SSG and IT, the CC drops considerably making the deck much less painful than TES - good stuff.

Hanni
10-09-2008, 09:37 PM
Incidentally, LED is supposed to be in there and I just forgot to add it. If you count the cards, it's 4 short. I'll fix it.

AnwarA101
10-09-2008, 10:08 PM
5c ANT

Lands (10)
4 City of Brass
4 Gemstone Caverns
1 Forbidden Orchard
1 Undiscovered Paradise

Spells (50)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Burning Wish
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Orim's Chant
1 Krosan Grip / Rushing River

Not sure about the sideboard, but basically a whole bunch of 5c goodies. I'd still prefer a 14 land manabase, cutting the Cabal Rituals, but I'm not sure what combination of lands I would really want. Obviously, EtW in the sideboard.

Without IT, I wouldn't include IGG, since it's pretty bad without it (no pun intended).

This is TES. I think you mean Gemstone Mine not Gemstone Caverns. At this point we are only really debating Infernal Tutor or Mystical Tutor and whether to include Rite of Flame or Cabal Ritual. All the other cards are basically the same.

Hanni
10-09-2008, 10:15 PM
Right. If the deck goes 5c, it's going to resemble TES very closely.

However, he asked me for a 5c list, not whether or not I think 5c is better. Personally, I think B/u/w is the stronger color combination for the deck.

However, I haven't done extensive testing with a 5c version. My extensive testing has only been done for the original B/u version, the B/u/r version (which didn't include Rite of Flame or Burning Wish), and the B/u/w version.

I did do a little bit of testing with the B/u Counterbalance version, as well as the B/u/r version with Rite of Flame and Burning Wish. However, my testing for those decks has not been extensive.

If someone would like to test both my B/u/w current version and a 5c list and compare them, I would appreciate it.

For right now, I'm sticking by B/u/w as being the strongest list for ANT.

Oh, and yea, my bad on the Gemstone Caverns, I meant to say Mine. I'll fix that.