[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils) Storm Combo

[Togores]

this man speaks my language

Good Magic is good Magic ;)

[FlyingDelver]

If your hand is something like: Delta + undergound you can fetch for island and then deploy underground. Problem is that a wasteland will cut you of a color. So its better to fetch for underground and risk on him having double wasteland. Because here just one wrecks your mana.


I like badlands if you play 3 MD red cards. Also depends if you SB in green cards against wasteland. If your gonna side RED/Green cards agaisnt wasteland decks you should only SB in cards from the color you have 2 duals.

That makes sense concerning preserving both colours, but I always hesitate to do that since I often don't want to let them wasteland anything. Lands are essentially +1 Mana which can be needed later. But maybe the colours are more important.

Against delver decks I dont side in green cards so that would fit according to your rule. I only side in Fluster and Push/Pyroclasm (depedning on which kind of delver). On the other side I usually don't have red cards to side in since I run EMtpy maindeck.

[wonderPreaux]

Don't get me wrong; I don't think double-Petition is the standard (I haven't run that configuration in probably a year). I'm trying to figure out why people are choosing to run a bunch of singletons and not to run duplicates of business spells, and (perhaps paltry) experience tells me that I'd rather commit to a specific business package—either to increase speed (double-Petition) or to have a contingency plan against countermagic and discard (double-PiF). There are other issues with cards like Empty the Warrens, but I'm leaving those aside for now.

WonderPreaux, I totally hear where you're coming from. I just don't understand why that approach outperforms ones that put a greater emphasis on consistency. Like, how often is drawing a second Past in Flames a problem, compared to situations in which you can't find one to save your life? How often is drawing an Empty better than just drawing a Petition (or, for that matter, a Grim Tutor)?

And if we're 'boarding out business cards regularly because they don't work in a large number of matchups, why maindeck them in the first place? 'Boarding out Preordain, for instance, makes sense, but that's already an extremely low-impact card. It won't change our overarching strategy, but shifting cards like Petition, Past in Flames, or Empty the Warrens will. I often do that, but I don't get why we'd go into a match un-pre-boarded when we can start with an edge using configurations we know are universally strong and consistent.

I hope I'm not coming across as a butt. I just don't get it, and I haven't played any games that make me want to decrease consistency to increase theoretical versatility.

The Short Answer
Theoretical versatility can add value in game 1 situations, where the configuration of your main pays the biggest dividends. Moreover, I place a lot of emphasis on making sure I can take the game 1 before opponent's can swing their deck config towards combating combo. Double Petition/PiF is consistent at the Tutor Chains/PiF loops, for sure, but opening up value by having access to EtW against Prison/Tempo and Ad Nauseam against Combo/BGx gives you ways to win when the PiF/Tutor scenarios are challenged. You can trim the fat for g2/3, and be confident you're not gonna miss your shot at scooping up the "easy" game 1 because you didn't have the right tools for it.

When Miracles was all over the place a couple years ago (I was playing it 1+ times in a 4-round daily), I was running 2 PiF and 2-3 ToA, because a focused build made a lot of sense in a centralized meta, so it's not as though I can't see the value in focused builds. Currently, though, I see the meta as very open; there's a solid Chalice aggro deck, a UBRg tempo-midrange spectrum, UW control decks, combo, etc. Moreover, Surgical Extraction and DRS show up in a lot of lists, and you can be pressured before you hit Threshold (where the utility to just go off at 6 mana is better), so just trying to ramp up a lot of mana around turn 3 for loops and chains can get you caught out. Overall, I see the comparison as something like: you have a d-6 with all the sides marked 3, I have one numbered 1-6, so I can get a range close to yours (2-4), I might miss every so often with the wrong business spell or no Tutor (1), but then I have more business spells for situations you can't touch, and that can get me wins (5-6). If the meta (that I perceive) was different, I'd probably be on your side of things, but I like the "broad" suite of win conditions in an open meta.

The Long Answer

I just don't understand why that approach outperforms ones that put a greater emphasis on consistency.

Okay, so we've got my approach (we'll call it the "4-for-4", because it plays all the flex cards we're discussing) and yours (we'll call it the "double-double", because the first name already sounded like a fast-food thing), and I'm gonna try and make the case for why the former outperforms the latter. So, first, I should probably make my claim on what "outperform" means: when I say "outperform", I mean it will give you the best chance of winning matches in the metagame you're bringing it to. I think, in a pool of builds, one might "outperform" the rest at one event, and then be the bottom of the heap at another, it's meta-dependent.

From there, I have my thesis statement: the changes involved in moving from "double-double" to "4-for-4" improve my chances of winning matches in the metagame I bring it to. This is where I have to slide in my caveat for the rest of the examination: I play online, the mtgo meta is what I'm involved in (http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE), you may be playing in some other meta that's totally different. Given the relative openness of the observed/stat-based meta, I don't think I could justify not having an open suite of business spells, I think the variance involved is eclipsed by the value it adds to all my other Tutors.

The changes we're making are only a couple of slots, and I think the permutations of changes suit an open meta. Consider the following decklist:
15 Lands (8 fetch, 2 basic, 2 Sea, 2 U/x Duals, 1 B/x Dual - flavor these last 3 depending on your SB choices, Chrome Mox is also a card)
8 Mana Rocks
8 B-Based Rituals
20 Discard/Cantrips (Depending on your preferred amount of Duress/Therapy/Preordain, Rain of Filth is also a card)
4 Infernal
1 Dark Petition
1 PiF
1 ToA
2 Flex Slots

We're discussing the two flex slots, and our choices aren't even the only options available; you can run a little heavier on Preordains, some people like extra Tendrils of Agony, I've done 14 land mains, Burning Wish, etc. That said, I think the use of EtW and Ad Nauseam adds more value to your overall ability to win matches than the 6th tutor and 2nd Past in Flames. To expand on this:

Duplicate PiF can be very awkward: Multiple PiF does very little for you, whereas the PiF paired with EtW can at least give you a huge board to muscle you past things like Griselbrand or Batterskull that you might otherwise not beat. Also, a whole lot of mana and a PiF can't necessarily win a game (unless you hit well off cantrips), whereas a whole lot of mana into EtW or Ad Nauseam can.

I'd rather commit to a specific business package—either to increase speed (double-Petition) or to have a contingency plan against countermagic and discard (double-PiF).

EtW can increase your speed as much as your nth Petition, in fact, the 6-mana line can make you faster by virtue of lowering your threshold to combo. Moreover, the presence of DRS/Surgical in the 75 of many UB/Xx decks means your 2xPiF could have a hard time winning you games, whereas using an Ad Nauseam as a Wheel of Fortune or something like that is really useful in some matchups.

And if we're 'boarding out business cards regularly because they don't work in a large number of matchups, why maindeck them in the first place? ... I don't get why we'd go into a match un-pre-boarded when we can start with an edge using configurations we know are universally strong and consistent.

There's a bit to de-tangle here, but it's a lot of good discussion to have. EtW and Ad Nauseam don't have a "large number" of matchups where they don't work any more than a 2nd PiF does. PiF is really awkward against DRS/BGx, and the 2nd copy is likely close to as good/less good than Ad Nauseam against combo, for instance. By that same token, I wouldn't necessarily want to have Ad Nauseam against UR Delver or EtW against control etc.

As for why you'd main deck them, I do it for the Tutors. Having the "4-for-4" config means my 5 tutors can pull 4 different business spells: ToA, EtW, Ad Nauseam, and PiF. You're giving up half that coverage to get a 6th tutor and some value from a 2nd PiF. Idk how good the marginal value of Dark Petition #2 is, in the first place, as Dark Petition's clunky up-front cost makes it difficult to use them for utility, like an Infernal, and EtW is conveniently really good in all the tempo matchups where Dark Petition is awkward. Moreover, in a lot of speed-centric matchups ,where you'd want the extra % from a 6th tutor, EtW and Ad Nauseam are great ways to go off and win. I think giving up the small percentage gain towards having a tutor is worth it to practically double the utility of all my other tutors and give me some sweet naturally-drawn business spells.

With regards to pre-boarding, pre-boarding requires centralization. If you look at the format data I linked, what little centralization is there is centered on Grixis, which can hit you on all angles, and some UW/UB control that packs DRS/Surgical, the rest is some big smorgasbord of decks. I'm having trouble thinking of a meta where being slanted so heavily to PiF is giving you better overall odds on winning game 1s, but, again, I already conceded above that I don't know your meta. If your tourneys are basically Stoneblade and Burn all day, or something like that, then I can see where you're coming from, for instance.

Lastly, the consistency is something your build does have, but strength is debatable, and this is really the crux of it. Usually, you trade power for consistency when you're designing a deck, and that's why I feel the main thing I can do to sway you is point out that the "double-double" is not universally strong. It's consistent, because it carries redundant proportions of a narrow range of tools, but when that range can't get you a win, you have no strength. When you only have 6 mana to go off before Chalice or Hymn, but have no EtW main, how strong are you feeling? When you're sitting on LEDs, but DRS sniped all your spells or a Surgical is waiting, you need to top Tutor into Ad Nauseam or lose. You can also salvage wins with business spells that aren't your first choice, I've beaten sneak & show with goblins, I've beaten RUG with Ad Nauseam; sometimes you've got to play to your outs, and it works. Your build, on the other hand, loses straight-forwardly if you can't hit your range of plays. I don't think PiF is so much more degenerate than EtW and Ad Nauseam that your overall expected value on wide-open game 1s improves by forgoing the latter two to buff your odds on the former.

In conclusion, open metas mean you may want to consider a wider array of broken Magic cards.

[l4544]

Okay so, probably a really stupid idea, but any thoughts on running some flavor of sneak/show out of the board?

Some Benefits:
Blanks Grave Hate
Dodges Canonist/Rule of Law Effects
Much better against tax effects
Much better against a resolved Chalice
Capitalizes on opp. show and tells by jamming our own emrakul
Hardcasting griselbrand off a few rits is not unreasonable
Blanks Goblin hate


In theory most of our standard boards are assorted reactive answers, switching our combo beats most of the common hate though, so we no longer need those answers. (Usually. Something like faster combo is likely a problem, but it's not like we devote that many slots to that on average) (I'd start with something like 4 Emrakul, 2-3 Griselbrand, 4 Show, 3 Sneak, and 1-2 normal slots for slight tweaking when the mb storm plan is good/better).

Again, it's probably idiotic, but the idea is stuck in my head, and I don't have show and tell stuff to try it out myself.

[mistercakes]

Okay so, probably a really stupid idea, but any thoughts on running some flavor of sneak/show out of the board?

Some Benefits:
Blanks Grave Hate
Dodges Canonist/Rule of Law Effects
Much better against tax effects
Much better against a resolved Chalice
Capitalizes on opp. show and tells by jamming our own emrakul
Hardcasting griselbrand off a few rits is not unreasonable
Blanks Goblin hate


In theory most of our standard boards are assorted reactive answers, switching our combo beats most of the common hate though, so we no longer need those answers. (Usually. Something like faster combo is likely a problem, but it's not like we devote that many slots to that on average) (I'd start with something like 4 Emrakul, 2-3 Griselbrand, 4 Show, 3 Sneak, and 1-2 normal slots for slight tweaking when the mb storm plan is good/better).

Again, it's probably idiotic, but the idea is stuck in my head, and I don't have show and tell stuff to try it out myself.

sneak and show tends to be good because it protects itself with counterspells as well. i suppose you can try with discard, but i don't think it's great to slam down a griselbrand and have to pass the turn with no counterspells available.

[CabalTherapy]

Okay so, probably a really stupid idea, [...]?

Yes, it is.

A deck that has to switch its strategy postboard is simply bad. If you want to do that you may check out the TinFins thread.

[Ronald Deuce]

WonderPreaux, thanks a lot for the detailed explanation!

FYI, my current maindeck business is 2x PiF and singletons AdN, Tendrils, Petition.

I can certainly understand the appeal of running a maindeck Empty the Warrens if we're most worried about stuff like Eldrazi or D&T. I also see why it makes sense to have access to the broadest suite of answers for game 1, but I feel like the counterpoint is that oftentimes we'll be stuck with subpar cards when we're flying blind and end up in a matchup where those cards are dead. So I don't necessarily see the appeal of that build over one with doubles; sure, sometimes you end up with two Past in Flames—potentially useful against heavy countermagic if we've developed our board—but we're equally likely to start with a dead or suboptimal business card in the other configuration. Empty the Warrens, specifically, is the most temperamental of our wins, which is why I don't maindeck it. (In my experience, AnT has the added problem of producing fewer goblins on average than Charbelcher or producing them a turn or two later, meaning we can get raced comparatively easily or the card stops being relevant. I'm interested to hear whether other people have noticed this.)

My only other point of contention is that I don't think we should be running a fifth tutor unless we've already doubled up on a different piece of business or we're going for (imo) maximal flexibility with six tutors. The fifth tutor is likely the weakest piece of business, flexible though it is—Petition gets savaged by gaveyard hate and folds hard to countermagic, and I've said plenty about my problems with Grim throughout the thread. I'm reluctantly testing a singleton Petition again, simply to up my threat density, but I'm debating whether it's any better than adding Empty, which I already don't really like.

I will concede that we're mostly talking about game 1 and that keeping Empty, Ad Nauseam, and a second PiF in the 75 is crucial. I guess my opinion boils down to this: our best wincon (aside from Tendrils, obv.) is Past in Flames, and our weakest is Empty the Warrens. PiF is relevant from turn 1 and doesn't lose its potency except in the face of sideboard hate, and it's usually the go-to tutor card and the business card I'm happiest to draw. I've also never heard of anyone's succeeding by 'boarding out all their PiF, anecdotal though that is.

One other thing: useful as Empty and Past in Flames might be in concert against a lifelinker, I find that oftentimes a second Tendrils is more useful, especially when our opponent takes 8 from Reanimate. I don't agree that big-mana plus Empty or AdN is better than big-mana plus Past in Flames, though PiF does rely on our having blue mana and expended cantrips.

We may have to agree to disagree, but thanks again! I really appreciate having discussions like this.

I4544, I would find that plan stronger if it didn't necessitate a) finding both a Show and Tell/Snack Attack and a dude (our deck's not built for that, imo), and b) junking so much of our sideboard to fit it in. I've seen some AnT and Doomsday lists splash white for Monastery Mentor, which might work better for all the situations you mentioned except against Canonist or an opposing Show and Tell. CabalTherapy's right, though. I've only had success with transformational sideboards in All Spells, and I might be one of the only people who still consider that a legitimate deck.

[quadich]

Hi guys,

So i have been testing around a lot with friends for an upcoming tournament and since announcing storm triggers is the only true way to play magic i am pretty much set on casting tendrils.

This is my list (for reference):

Instants [13]
1 Ad Nauseam
4 Brainstorm
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Dark Ritual
Sorceries [24]
1 Dark Petition
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Past in Flames
1 Tendrils of Agony
2 Preordain
3 Cabal Therapy
3 Duress
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Ponder
Artifacts [8]
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
Lands [15]
1 Badlands
1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Volcanic Island
2 Bloodstained Mire
2 Underground Sea
3 Scalding Tarn
4 Polluted Delta

Sideboard
1 Cabal Therapy
1 Chain of Vapor
2 Dark Confidant
1 Defense Grid
2 Echoing Truth
1 Engineered Explosives
2 Fatal Push
1 Flusterstorm
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Karakas
2 Surgical Extraction

I am expecting people to play a lot of delver and an above average amount of 4c pile. Thus far the list has not been doing too well against Delver(maybe 45/55 to 40/60 overall) (I usually board in cabal therapy and defense grid). I feel the overall issue is the lack of surplus tendrils and maybe Pif (although i personally feel that playing 2 PiF is only really great when you have the ground seal postboard).

I was figuring that a grinding station like build would be the way to go. I have also been looking at the list that 42AD has been playing for the challenge last month and have liked the general concept of it. Although i am sceptical with running 4 deathrites postboard^^.

So i was wondering how you veterans would attempt to build this deck in a meta with an above average amount of delver.

[Hrothgar]

What do you think about this?

[ScottW]

What do you think about this?

I think it has some interesting application and the tension between protecting your gy and then having to exile for the draw is pretty neat. Without this potential draw back, I'd be more interested. Regardless, too bad about the "duck tales" art.

[Mastikor]

Well it's directly comparable to Ground Seal. This costs 1 less mana but doesn't cantrip. Secondary ability seems quite irrelevant. It's probably better then GS, since it stops DRS faster (or saves you a Petal on turn1).

[PirateKing]

Playing Grixis I felt left out from all the Ground Seal discussion. I haven't really missed Abrupt Decay in the printing of Abrade, and now it seems I've less and less of a reason to splash back to Green. I will definitely be trying a few copies in my side.

[ashent]

I'm new to this deck but part of why I really want my copies of Abrupt Decay is for Leovold.

When I want him gone, I want him gone. Not casting Abrade and getting the Abrade forced..

[ScottW]

I'm new to this deck but part of why I really want my copies of Abrupt Decay is for Leovold.

When I want him gone, I want him gone. Not casting Abrade and getting the Abrade forced..

Splashing G seems like such a small cost unless you don't own the duals. I'm not sure what being just grixis improves so much that you'd be willing to not have a few AD sideboard.

Also, I'm 5-0 against grixis delver now (edit: to clarify, in 2018). The majority of my opponents have had both CT and stifle and the majority of my matches end with me at 1 life. Stifle is so bad against storm...

[Ronald Deuce]

Finally took the deck out for a spin today after a long hiatus. Went 1–1–1, lol. Beat Stoneblade, lost to Eldrazi (surprise, surprise!), tied with 4c Leo.

A couple of things I noticed:

—Abrupt Decay is always, always, always difficult to cast. Not because of our colors, but because we still need to have enough mana open for an immediate followup, and oftentimes that just isn't in the cards (heheey!). It was good against Leo, the Card, but it didn't feel like it was that great in the matchup otherwise. As had been my experience last time I played the deck, it's terrible against Eldrazi.

[EDIT: Ashent, there's always Rending Volley.]

—Ground Seal seems good, but I still wonder whether there's something we can do that would be better. It feels extremely durdly, even though shutting off Snaps and Deathrite is really good.

—61 cards is a real setup. Can't say I'm a convert yet (we still dilute our chances of finding LED with that setup, and there's no comparable card we can fall back on), but I didn't have mana problems at all (screw or flood) and had no trouble finding what I needed with a fifth tutor and a ninth ritual. Data's limited—today was the first time I tried it—but I'm definitely interested in experimenting further.

[ashent]

—61 cards is a real setup. Can't say I'm a convert yet (we still dilute our chances of finding LED with that setup, and there's no comparable card we can fall back on), but I didn't have mana problems at all (screw or flood) and had no trouble finding what I needed with a fifth tutor and a ninth ritual. Data's limited—today was the first time I tried it—but I'm definitely interested in experimenting further.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this set up - what is the 9th ritual?

[thefringthing]

Presumably Rain of Filth?

[ashent]

Makes sense.

I went to 2x PIF recently. I gotta say I'm a little confused about when it is useful because I understand the theory of it, but seem to have it in my opening hand more often and am upset about it than I find myself in the grindy midgame it's for.

[Ronald Deuce]

I went to 2x PIF recently. I gotta say I'm a little confused about when it is useful because I understand the theory of it, but seem to have it in my opening hand more often and am upset about it than I find myself in the grindy midgame it's for.

Just to clarify, do you mean that you're drawing both copies in your opener, or that you're drawing one copy of Past in Flames?

One is fine. It takes time to get accustomed to it, but generally I've found that if we have time to dig up enough mana and a tutor, we're in good shape against Deathrite, countermagic, and discard if we have access to Past in Flames. It's definitely slower than our other business, but it provides a huge boost to resiliency against most things. Generally, drawing two Past in Flames is bad, but there are times when it can be useful, especially against hands like "three Force of Will, two Brainstorm, two Flusterstorm."

Don't underestimate the potential of Past in Flames to find you a win if you've got 2 or more cantrips in your graveyard.

FYI, TheFringThing was correct; I run Rain of Filth. I'm no pro, but I like it a lot. This deck regularly needs ≥2 rituals to work properly (i.e., 2–3 rituals per tutor/Ad Nauseam/whatever). In short games Rain is essentially a black Rite of Flame, and in long games it turns our mana up to eleven. Builds Threshold, too.

[Dr_D]

—61 cards is a real setup. Can't say I'm a convert yet (we still dilute our chances of finding LED with that setup, and there's no comparable card we can fall back on), but I didn't have mana problems at all (screw or flood) and had no trouble finding what I needed with a fifth tutor and a ninth ritual. Data's limited—today was the first time I tried it—but I'm definitely interested in experimenting further.

You spent a good portion of the last page ranting about how inconsistent it is to be running singletons of each business spell over double petition or double PiF, doesn't 61 cards also make the deck less consistent from a numbers perspective?