I've done the Goblin token thing. Mind tricks in general are pretty funny. I know there was a player with a white deck who had one Mana Tithe in his sideboard and left that on top to "accidentally" show it to his opponents. All of his opponents played game two as if he had Mana Tithe. But let's get back on track.Originally Posted by citanul
@lordofthepit - I bought one of those blocks of mini dice (like 36 of them?). They can be used for tons of stuff like Vial, Jitte, etc. And often I share them with my opponent. I've found that pencil and paper work best for storm though. You can very quickly jot down mana by color and tally up storm. It just takes a lot of room. I do most of it in my head now though, and once you get more experience in Magic, I'm sure you can too.
@xTrainx - There are a ton of DD stacks that you can do depending on what you have. And actually, emidlin has the link for it on his sig. It's pretty useful.
You shouldn't show your dice until they have already figured out what you are playing. There aren't many decks that play Polluted Delta/Flooded Strand into Underground Sea, but you might as well make your opponent think you are playing Reanimator, Faeries or some Counterbalance deck. When comboing off the dice is mostly to help the opponent understand what's going on, since you should think your line of play through in your head before doing anything. The storm count/mana you achieve in the end should come as no surprise.Here's a pretty trivial logistical question: how do you guys keep track of mana and storm count? I'm thinking of using dice the next time I play, but I don't want to give away that I'm playing storm. Do you just keep everything away until you're ready to "go off"? Or do people already know you guys as "the combo guy"?
When it comes to Jedi mind tricks, my playmat now features illustrations of Counterbalance + Top!
I only bring blank pads of paper, a pen, my playmat, and cards with me to each round. Unfortunately for me, my playmat is a giant artist-drawn Street Wraith with pink highlights with the letters E M I D L N at the top of my playmatt facing my opponent. Most people I've played against in the last year know me from that or from the fact that I haven't shown up to a 30+ player event without combo in legacy or vintage in a long time.
Further, when comboing, I keep track of mana in pool with one B, U, R, G, W, or C per mana of that type on my page of paper and cross them out when I've used them. I use hash marks grouped into fives to count my storm.
BZK! - Storm Boards
Been there, tried that, still casting Doomsday.
Drawing my deck for 0 mana since 2013.
Do those "tricks" really work oput for you? Maybe I´m just the worst combo player on earth but I need quite some time to determine the best line of play and count my storm/mana before actually comboeing off. Most of the time, people realize what I´m playing way before I even start the combo.
And for the question itself: I don´t use dice to keep track of the storm count, I usually write it down. There have been some times where my opponent asked in the middle of my combo, how many spells it have been so far. It really is important to have a sheet where you can review it, not a dice which could easily be misplaced/switched/whatever...
I am in the same boat as you. I use pen and paper always. And I so often have to stop and count in my head and that definitely may tip off the opponent. The good news is, usually by the time you're doing that sort of counting, that means you're already awfully close to going off.
Here's a thought. Has anyone tried counting storm and mana on games 2 and 3 to give the illusion of "going off" without actually having the key puzzle pieces? For example, could I try playing a spell, write down the storm count, and then play LED or Top with the hopes they waste a counter on it? Do you think it's feasible?
Another question: has anyone ever faked having a Tendrils left in their deck (after revealing one through AN, for example), but did so convincingly enough so that the opponent scooped and you didn't have to show the Tendrils? I've heard stories of this kind of stuff. Seems really loose to me, but does it actually work?
I even got so far to get someone to scoop to me resolving Infernal Tutor even though I was still holding a card in my hand. Believe me, people can be convinced of anything, just don't cheat.Another question: has anyone ever faked having a Tendrils left in their deck (after revealing one through AN, for example), but did so convincingly enough so that the opponent scooped and you didn't have to show the Tendrils? I've heard stories of this kind of stuff. Seems really loose to me, but does it actually work?
It's practice I guess. If you play your deck enough you'll know what you need to do things and don't even have to count anymore.I am in the same boat as you. I use pen and paper always. And I so often have to stop and count in my head and that definitely may tip off the opponent. The good news is, usually by the time you're doing that sort of counting, that means you're already awfully close to going off.
Using Pen and Paper looks good but I usually just use Dice to indicate it to my opponent. Also make sure that for the next match you use a blank piece of paper instead of a paper with BBBUUW written all over it.
I play a variety of decks so that no one can ever know immediately what I'm playing. I just grab a handful of assorted dice at the beginning of every match. But I usually don't use dice for storm and mana. I've usually spent so long planning it out in my head that I don't need to. I make it clear to my opponent, but I don't waste mental energy on changing dice that I already know in my head.
To reply to lordofthe pit:
I don't typically keep track, but I do watch my opponent. If I am trying to go off, I ask if they want to keep notes if they don't seem used to the decktype. Just break down your cards to an easy reverse mental count. Unless they're flashing life gain at you, count down from 10 with every 2 life they lose. Add if you think a copy can get countered. I think it's easier to count storm down than up as the game goes mentally... but when you go off, go up instead of down. Organize your mana sources in hand by amount of net mana generated (1 for petal, 3 for LED, 1 for Infernal Tutor (into LED). When you think Cabal can make net 3 instead of net 1 mana, just shift it in your hand. Do a check if you have threshold before casting Cabal. And go step by step procedurally whenever you pass priority so that they can interject if they have something. The only time I've ever gone to time playing a storm deck was playing against a Rock deck that made me discard my hand... and somehow, his Dark Confidant was unlucky and Bob, Thoughtseizes, and fetchlands outraced him faster than Bob raced me (Orim's Chant kept him from attacking/casting a flipped Tombstalker).
The only time I would write storm count/mana down is when I cast Diminishing Returns. I actually write names of spells cast/sources of mana rather than just storm count when I do that to avoid issues with an opponent if they think I'm cheating.
This does work, more often than you'd think. I've never done it with ANT, as I've never played it, but I've done it with Enchantress before, and with Solidarity. With Enchantress, I've convinced my opponent to scoop to a Confinement lock when I had no actual win conditions left in the deck because of his maindeck Relic. With Solidarity, I've had my opponent scoop several times after I make ungodly amounts of mana, but with no actual card draw left in my hand. They just see you doing lots of stuff and assume you're going to win.
I usually have a sheet of paper with me to protocol the lifetotals. And, you know, there's enough space to note your manapool and stormcount as well. it's pretty easy, just write it down. :-)
Team SPOD
<Der_imaginäre_Freund> props:
Adan for being the NQG God (drawer)
So looking at the ANT that took home the gold in Atlanta this weekend (and the other ANT in the top 16), they both seemed much more focused and one-dimensional than I expected. After reading all through this thread, I was expecting them to have 1 AdN, a Doomsday package, maybe even Burning Wishes and/or a transformative sideboard. Instead there was just streamlining and redundancy...2 AdN, 2 Tendrils, 3-4 of all the rest. Nothing even remotely approaching the more complicated decks on here placed in the top 16 (and no other versions of a storm deck).
Is this a sign that ANT with a focus on the AN win is better/more consistent than DDANT? Is it just that regular ANT is more prevalent than DDANT so it's more likely to get a someone in the top? Does this result change anyone's opinions about the right way to build ANT?
Just looking for what significance, if any, the vets here find in the results.
Honestly, I think the straight ad nauseam build is quicker, and more broken, which results in a better deck. The only matchup I've found Doomsday to be worth running was Countertop, and they won most of the time anyway
Last edited by honestabe; 05-05-2010 at 11:23 PM.
As many before me pointed out, winning a tournament, despites how big it is, does not qualify version X o a certain archetype better than version Y. This emerged from several discussions, and can be applied in here too.
In this case, all I can say is that Doomsday ANT is far more difficult to pilot, because it involves a decision tree that's far wider than the Saitoish's one. The lack of results in big tournaments may be caused by the fact that most of the people are not very confident with it and so they prefer to bring the "simple" version, or just that the usual netdeckers see that a Pro built that and so they think it is the ultimate shit. Or maybe, just for a coincidence, no one of the good Doomsday Storm Combo players in here or there in the world attended a great event (even if i recall 2 DDANT being in top of a 100+ dutch tournament, it was Matelm and Bahamuth, weren't they?).
On a personal note, I think you can win a tournament just going Ad Nauseam-style, seeing the tremendous number of people who do not know how to fight this deck.
-----------------------------------------------------
Avatar of kicks_422's creation and property
I think you (and by extension everyone who agrees with your sentiment) is looking at it the wrong way. Zoo wins games, matches and tournaments because it's brutally consistent. 90% of the time, your starting 6 or 7 will goldfish by turn 5. Even against countermagic, discard, removal or whatever, Zoo delivers by dropping threat after threat quickly and consistently. Saito ANT is the Zoo of storm combo. Doomsday builds are insanely difficult to pilot, have a decision tree more complicated than a doctoral thesis and are typically built to be meta-dependent. A deck that exhausts its pilot and gets too wrapped up in its own complexity can't reasonably expect to win more than the occasional tournament here or there.
When 4 or 5 color ANT-something hybrids were in vogue and Orim's Chant was the protection of choice, storm combo was tough but beatable. It seems abundantly clear that storm combo got too complicated for its own good. Saito ANT says, "I'm going to resolve Ad Nauseam and I'm going to do it turn 2 or 3 with Duress backup" and most of the time, it does. I get that DD piles can fight through triple force Force, quadruple Pierce, active countertop and six Mindbreak Traps played after a resolved Counterspell-Fork-Twincast, given perfect play and a little bit of luck, but Saito ANT just sticks to its plan of using the fastest, most brutal engine since Necropotence and it does it well. I think there's a lot to be said for a deck that can very quickly, very consistently land a game-winning bomb through 1-2 hate pieces. It doesn't take nearly as much thought or effort to pilot, it usually goes off before your opponent can do anything about it (barring a truly perfect hand) and if you stop it, you've probably spent your entire hand doing so, except the entire ANT deck is programmed to go off again, while you've only got 5 or 6 relevant counters left in the 50 cards you haven't seen yet.
Yes, if Deep Blue was programmed for Magic, it could probably win every tournament with some ultra-techy DD pile. That said, Magic is played by people who over time get tired and make mistakes against opponents who do the same. Saito ANT removes a lot of the difficulty of DD piles, hybrid storm and NLS shenanigans for just the stone-cold nuts with a handful of in-color protection. That kind of absolutely brutal consistency (the Zoo kind, that could put a monkey in the top 8) combined with the power of legacy-legal Ad Nauseam storm combo (unrestricted BS, LED & Lotus Petal) makes it in my opinion the undisupted best combo in Legacy right now. Maybe the results are just a byproduct of the fact, rather than any kind of proof in the first place.
Great success!
Among straight ANT builds (not Doomsday hybrids), why is the Saito version considered superior to a more traditional build like Do Anh's, who actually beat him head to head?
The main differences I see are 1) dropping the white splash, replacing Chants with Thoughtseize, 2) replacing the IGG with a second Ad Nauseam, and 3) including a second copy of Tendrils of Agony. It seems that it's better geared towards control decks for these reasons, while having worse Ad Nauseams (due to the higher average casting cost), but it loses the Chants against the mirror and IGG against aggro. It seems more of a metagame call to me, but why is his deck getting discussed so much more? Is it inherently superior in some way, or is it just more interesting/revolutionary?
I normally don't bother posting, but I'll toss in my two cents.
@lordofthepit:
The builds packing 7-8 Duress effects are stronger against most of the blue based decks in the format right now. The strategy of quickly stripping hard counters then pushing for the win is better against CounterTop/most tempo decks than tryng to resolve a Chant (which also stretches the manabase). Discard is also stronger vs. Reanimator. A list playing Chant would really only be better against the mirror and maybe some slow control deck (Landstill, perhaps).
@the DD hybrid discussion
I have extensively (thousands of games) tested Tendrils based combo over the last two years. While I'm currently no longer playing ANT (Ive moved on to what I feel is a stronger combo deck) I will say that if I had to bring a list to a tournament it would be very similar to Saito's build (different sideboard and maybe maindeck pyroblasts). This isn't becuase of the rediculous complexity of the DD hybrids, but becuase I feel straight ANT is a better choice in the current metagame.
The Doomsday hybrids are without doubt more versatile and more powerful. They are better against decks not playing Islands and have mostly even to favorable match ups against the blue decks. However, I have not had any significant trouble beating non-blue (80% in my favor isn't much different from 95%) and I generally beat most of the blue decks just the same.
I admit that I'd rather have DD against Tempo thresh, but that deck isn't common enough anymore for me to care. I feel that a tuned straight ANT list performs better against CounterTop and about the same against the non-Canadian Thresh tempo decks (unfortunately, it is fairly difficult to generate any real win percentage as games hinge greatly upon exact deck lists and play skill of the opponent). Now, the Doomsday builds do have the option of bringing in extra Doomsdays + removal + whatever else, but I find this taking up a lot of sideboard space just to get a better match up percentage than straight ANT lists. (note: including Emrakul could change my overall opinion, but Im no longer playing ANT)
In the end, both decks beat most of the metagame fairly easily when run correctly. I think I perform better against CounterTop with my own straight ANT list than with DD hybrids - and this is enough for me as I feel confident beating anything else in Legacy.
People win with ANT for the same reason they lose with Dredge, a strong, consistent deck that doesn't require critical thinking is easier to play than a strong, consistent deck that requires critical thinking and mediocre players will prefer a deck that prevents them from losing from their own mistakes instead of rewards them for their own skill. I'd say DDANT has appr. 5% better match up vs. CB, but the number of people who can realize it while not reducing their over all match up % vs. the rest of the field thru' screwing up the basics is a hand full of people
Im considering move to a combo deck, I was considering ANT, however you mention a more powerful deck. Might I ask what you believe it to be?
What are the critical life totals for this deck in terms of opponents? As in, "Ad Naus from 17 I've never failed, but Ad Naus from 8 never wins."
Level 2 Judge
Owner, Tales of Adventure Comics and Games, Coopersburg, PA
Life Total alone is an awful metric. I've lost from 20 and won from 4 with Ad Nauseam. What actually matters is how likely you are to see the initial mana and/or rituals and/or win conditions you need given your present resources including your ability to survive another turn at a high enough life with the chance they might draw relevant disruption.
Going off at 20 with no Lotus Petals left in the deck because you cast Ad Nauseam off land drop + 4 petals turn one is sketchy at best with 3 Chrome Mox left in the deck.
What you should be asking is how many initial mana sources, rituals, win conditions, and life points do I need to be left in my deck to win the game at least X% of the time with Y mana floating.
BZK! - Storm Boards
Been there, tried that, still casting Doomsday.
Drawing my deck for 0 mana since 2013.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
