[Free Article] Focus on Legacy - Ad Nauseam Doomsday Hybrid

[JACO]

In my latest article on Eternal Central I break down Ad Nauseam Doomsday Hybrid, which I feel is currently the strongest iteration of Storm in Legacy:
Forcus on Legacy - Ad Nauseam Doomsday Hybrid (http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=77)

I delve into talking about some specific card choices and building the deck, and then look at playing against the most common matchups. Please check it out and let me know what you liked, what you didn't like, and what you'd like to read more of next time. Thanks for reading!

[alderon666]

I liked the article, the only problem is: it's not about Doomsday!

Everybody knows how storm works, almost no one knows how Doomsday works. Listing the piles ain't gonna help that much.

On the other hand, the list he posted is actually pretty good IMHO (although I'm biased, because I play almost the same exact list). And the analysis are OK too. Although he probably should've explained why he has a Bayou on the side instead of a second Tropical, which is fetchable by all of his fetches opposed to Bayou that can get fetched by only half of them. The reason is that sometimes you have an Island in hand and you need G on turn 1 and B on turn 2, especially with the second Doomsday coming in game 3. IDK if you noticed but Doomsday costs BBB and is pretty hard to cast without a ritual.

I like how he puts the Orim's Chant vs Discard, I have the exact same opinion. I just love it how it invalidates Stifle and Spell Snare completely and solves situations like opponent with FoW, FoW, blue card like a champ. Any card taken from that hand with discard leaves the opponent with an active FoW, but with a Chant he's left with an unknown card in hand. Normally that's much less dangerous.

[Piceli89]

Good article, or at least good attempt to describe DDANT. But, as Alderon said, instead of explaining all the possible card choices and giving two links, you should have pictured at least some of the most basic DD piles (I'm referring to the Meditate, Petal LED, LED, Tendrils w/ SDT in play one).
But i feel something in your sb plans is slightly wrong. For example, i would never play a Bayou over a Trop, since blue is the most precious colour when building the combo hand. The only non-U land I'd personally play in DDANT is Scrubland , because you can fetch out the tryad USea, Tundra and Scrubland in order to be able to cast double chant or to cast double Dark Ritual in case one dazes or one gets countered.
Furthermore, I would drop Rushing River in favor of another bouncer or the third Krosan Grip, in case you play Wipe Away maindeck (which should be the correct choice since more and more Zoo lists are pacing Gaddock Teeg and it's just ridicolous to lose game 1 from Zoo). Counterbalance is the real bastard, and Rushing River is easily Pierced, Dazed or FoWed, while Krosan Grip is a Yes or No.
Also, when boarding in the DD plan, I find myself more comfortable playing 3 Doomsdays instead of 2, beause that becomes the main engine of the deck, with a lesser window in IT+Igg. Another card I would side out against Daze U based aggro-controls is Cabal Ritual, since it's more likely to give problems if casted, requires 2 IMSs if not chained from another Dark Ritual, and is more easy to be dazed or pierced.

NEVER, I say NEVER side out a LED. It's too crucial for the success of the combo, as it's our best acceleration, allowing both DD and Infernal tutor shenanigans to happen.

One last thing, which can be a strictly personal issue, is not to classify Extirpate as rubbish. I think that the use of this card in DDANT can be justified for several reason (although I recognize Extirpate is a terrible card on its own):
-It provides information about the opponent's hand, which is crucial;
-It's a uncounterable pseudo Duress-effect, golden when the game goes to the long distace, the opponent has cantripped several times and you are fond of the fact that he's holding double FoW to stop your combo. Here you can bluff by chanting him once, Extirpating the trouble spell, and go off. Or Extirpating something in EOT, see hand, regulate your own one and go off.
-It's a way to scramble the cmc on the top of CB, in case he has a land and you're holding a shitton of LEDs and Petals.
-It foils enemy Mystical Tutors, ad can be really sweet against the rising Reanimators when they're going to pick Iona which would mean serious problems if you have a non-colour-diversified hand or you lack Wipe Away/Slaughter Pact.
-It pitches the right colour on a Mox.
-It's a potential card to side in against Ichorid, since it can slow them down a bit or get rid of the only really card that can give issues, Cabal Therapy. Of course here Extirpate is not crucial, but I think it can be easily sided in replacing slow stuff like Wipe Away.

Anyways, good job in picturing the Legacy's best combo deck.

[emidln]

I've mentioned this in the past, but the reason to play Bayou over Trop#2 is that you will often find yourself wanting to cast Xantid Swarm one turn and Dark Ritual the next (now that you are protected). This issue comes up often enough to make Bayou a necessity.

[JACO]

I liked the article, the only problem is: it's not about Doomsday!

Everybody knows how storm works, almost no one knows how Doomsday works. Listing the piles ain't gonna help that much.Well honestly emidlin and co have done all the work on explaining Doomsday, and I think me just rehasing it isn't going to get anywhere. The point with Doomsday is that it provides another avenue of attack, and isn't necessarily about the sample 5 card pile that I could provide.


On the other hand, the list he posted is actually pretty good IMHO (although I'm biased, because I play almost the same exact list). And the analysis are OK too. Although he probably should've explained why he has a Bayou on the side instead of a second Tropical, which is fetchable by all of his fetches opposed to Bayou that can get fetched by only half of them. The reason is that sometimes you have an Island in hand and you need G on turn 1 and B on turn 2, especially with the second Doomsday coming in game 3. IDK if you noticed but Doomsday costs BBB and is pretty hard to cast without a ritual.Correct!


Good article, or at least good attempt to describe DDANT. But, as Alderon said, instead of explaining all the possible card choices and giving two links, you should have pictured at least some of the most basic DD piles (I'm referring to the Meditate, Petal LED, LED, Tendrils w/ SDT in play one).
But i feel something in your sb plans is slightly wrong. For example, i would never play a Bayou over a Trop, since blue is the most precious colour when building the combo hand. The only non-U land I'd personally play in DDANT is Scrubland , because you can fetch out the tryad USea, Tundra and Scrubland in order to be able to cast double chant or to cast double Dark Ritual in case one dazes or one gets countered.I don't know if you saw, but I already play Tropical Island main, and sideboarding another Green source would be better off as Bayou for the reasons elucidated by emidlin and others. You want to be able to fetch for any different combination of colors with the fetchlands provided.


Furthermore, I would drop Rushing River in favor of another bouncer or the third Krosan Grip, in case you play Wipe Away maindeck (which should be the correct choice since more and more Zoo lists are pacing Gaddock Teeg and it's just ridicolous to lose game 1 from Zoo).Rushing River is actually insane, as it allows you to deal with the double hate-bear draw by Zoo, or the Meddling Mage + Counterbalance draw by a Blue player. I don't need more than 3 split second removal spells.


NEVER, I say NEVER side out a LED. It's too crucial for the success of the combo, as it's our best acceleration, allowing both DD and Infernal tutor shenanigans to happen.I don't mind boarding out an LED personally, as with the mana provided by Carpet of Flowers this often easily makes up for LED and more, providing you mana turn after turn for the investment of a single Green mana.


One last thing, which can be a strictly personal issue, is not to classify Extirpate as rubbish. I think that the use of this card in DDANT can be justified for several reason (although I recognize Extirpate is a terrible card on its own):...reasons.I used to play a couple of Extirpates in the sideboard, and while they're ok for the reasons you listed, they just don't seem to be worthy of slots over something like Carpet of Flowers, or even Dark Confidant. It's a matter of sideboard space, and while it would be awesome to have a 25 card sideboard we only have 15, and I don't have room for Extirpate when there are more important answers to play.

Thanks for all of your comments. Keep them coming!

[emidln]

Against Zoo, Lotus Petal is more valuable than Chrome Mox and I would reverse those in the sideboard plan. The card disadvantage is particularly troubling given that your best Doomsday piles against aggro involve 1-2 extra cards in hand in addition to SDT or Brainstorm. I'd also consider bringing in Bayou for either Plains due to white mana being relatively useless in this matchup or Chrome Mox (for the reasons listed before).

Further, an alternate sideboard plan would be to do something like this:

-1 Plains
-1 Wipe Away/Krosan Grip
-1 Silence

+1 Chain of Vapor
+1 Slaughter Pact
+1 Rushing River

The idea here is that if Zoo doesn't have interaction on turn 2 via Teeg/Canonist, they are likely tapping out. This provides easy wins via Ad Nauseam, even if you are around 14-15 life. Siding out the 16th land against aggro is something that I often do since you're primarily looking for manabase stability provided by land drops against disruptive black decks and blue control decks. You also keep your same base average CMC with this board plan. The risk here is that Zoo gets the quick start and you end up with a dead Ad Nauseam in hand. I think the power available to punish them if they don't have their best play outweighs the potential for a dead card stuck in your hand while you're trying to set up Doomsday or IGG.

Overall, I think the article was well-written and I'm happy to see exposure for the deck. I hope this helps with the sideboarding questions people constantly throw at the ANT threads around the 'net.

[alderon666]

I still like Deathmark better than Slaughter Pact. The Deathmark can be used to kill a Goyf when the Zoo players doesn't get any hatebears, that way you get yourself some life points for 1 mana/1 card.

[Rico Suave]

Well written. The article was to the point, instructive, and highlights a deck that is very powerful but does not seem to get much attention in articles. For this I am happy to see an article of ANT of any variety.

It was also nice to see a sideboarding guideline for a deck that is arguably the most difficult deck with which to sideboard. Most people trying to pick up the deck simply have no clue what to SB in and out. In comparison, a deck like Zoo is relatively straight forward; take out the 4 worst cards and put in the 4 best cards without much if any loss in performance. ANT however, more than any other deck in the format, is a full 75 card list. With so much tutoring and so much deck manipulation, the deck simply sees more cards in any given game. As such each card in the deck, and each card taken in and out during SB'ing, has a much more profound impact on the deck's performance.

With that being said, I do have two criticisms. They both are based on the notion that proper reasoning includes both the pros and cons of any particular choice. I did not feel that these two points had the full picture explained in the article:

1) Doomsday. You did a good job explaining the reason to use Doomsday, however I didn't see much concrete explanation why not to use Doomsday. In fact, the only explanation why people don't run Doomsday is this:

"A lot of people seem to be hesitant to include Doomsday or look at it as a viable alternative in Storm decks because they either don’t feel comfortable or knowledgeable enough to abuse it."

Given that the two ANT decks which made top 8 at the GP Madrid event did not run Doomsday, and both pilots have taken first at previous large-scale tournaments with ANT, it seems evident there are reasons beyond the ones you describe for why Doomsday is not included. It would have been nice to see a more thorough explanation of this in the article.

2) Duress vs. Chant. As you said, the debate about which to use could go on forever. There was something misleading that is worth noting in my opinion:

"The debates about which disruption cards you choose can go on forever, but Orim’s Chant provides an ultimate finality if resolved, and if you resolve one before attempting to combo off you should win 95% of your game or more. The same cannot be said for Duress, as the opponent with other non-Force of Will spells can still interact with you, which you want to ultimately avoid."

It is true that Chant should win 95% of the time if it resolves...assuming your opponent has no dangerous permanents on the board. Chant itself does very little in regards to stopping dangerous permanents from hitting, nor does it do anything after they have resolved. On the other hand, Duress does a pretty good job of keeping cards like Counterbalance off the table. While I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong, it is as simple as I mentioned before. It is misleading. With so many dangerous permanents running throughout the metagame, I don't think it's as simple as you described it.

Nevertheless, my other criticisms are relatively minor and not worth an argument. Good job on a fine piece, sir.

[alderon666]

Straight Ad Nauseam decks win more because they are played more. If you test several matchups against different decks and tell me that ANT > DDANT then I'll believe you, but based solely on results from big tournments I won't. Just check the analysis from an SCG article where the results from 5ks showed goblins 4-3 against ANT. We all know that the goblin matchup as close to a bye as it gets.

While Duress is good against Runed Halo, Pyrostatic Pillar and the sorts, it is not that good against our nemesis: Counterbalance. That is because of a small card called Brainstorm. I'm not saying Orim's Chant is any good against it, but Duress isn't the ultimate answer either.

[Rico Suave]

Straight Ad Nauseam decks win more because they are played more. If you test several matchups against different decks and tell me that ANT > DDANT then I'll believe you, but based solely on results from big tournments I won't. Just check the analysis from an SCG article where the results from 5ks showed goblins 4-3 against ANT. We all know that the goblin matchup as close to a bye as it gets.

While Duress is good against Runed Halo, Pyrostatic Pillar and the sorts, it is not that good against our nemesis: Counterbalance. That is because of a small card called Brainstorm. I'm not saying Orim's Chant is any good against it, but Duress isn't the ultimate answer either.

This still doesn't account for it. Put simply, you don't get into the top 8 of GP Madrid unless you're a great player with a great deck. As mentioned before, the two ANT pilots in the top 8 of GP Madrid did not run Doomsday. And both of them have won previous large-scale tournaments with the deck. Yet, despite their skill and experience, they chose not to play Doomsday.

Why?

The only reasons the article demonstrates why not to run Doomsday are due to inexperience, lack of knowledge, or discomfort. I don't think any of these reasons apply to someone like Saito who is worlds beyond anybody posting in this forum.

The only conclusion is that there are other reasons not mentioned in the article. It would have been nice to see them.

As for Duress vs. Chant, like it has been said before the argument for either one could go on forever. The point I was trying to make is that the argument in favor of Duress was extremely lacking, and the argument in favor of Chant was misleading. That is all.

[alderon666]

This still doesn't account for it. Put simply, you don't get into the top 8 of GP Madrid unless you're a great player with a great deck. As mentioned before, the two ANT pilots in the top 8 of GP Madrid did not run Doomsday. And both of them have won previous large-scale tournaments with the deck. Yet, despite their skill and experience, they chose not to play Doomsday.

Why?

The only reasons the article demonstrates why not to run Doomsday are due to inexperience, lack of knowledge, or discomfort. I don't think any of these reasons apply to someone like Saito who is worlds beyond anybody posting in this forum.

The only conclusion is that there are other reasons not mentioned in the article. It would have been nice to see them.

As for Duress vs. Chant, like it has been said before the argument for either one could go on forever. The point I was trying to make is that the argument in favor of Duress was extremely lacking, and the argument in favor of Chant was misleading. That is all.

Therefore, as the ANT deck with Chants won the tournment (the deck won, the player that lost it) we can conclude that Chant > Discard... My point is results, as strange as it sounds, don't mean optimal builds. Intensive testing does.

The real problem with saying "Saito didn't play, why should I?" is that players tend to play builds that they are confortable with. Saitou likes to be aggressive and go balls to the wall Nauseam, ditching Ill-gotten Gains completely and focusing on discard effects. I like playing the game at a slower pace exhausting my opponent resources until I have a clear window to go off.

Apologise my heresy, my I really don't think Saitou's list is any good. I think he got that far because he's a good player and of course some luck, but not because he had the best build of Ad Nauseam.

In the end, I don't even know why I am having this discussion. Because I don't even believe there's an optimal build for ANT. I like building complicated piles with Doomsday, winning the game at 2 life and just having an out for when Zoo hit me for 10 by turn 2 (Lynx fetch, Bolt, Bolt). But if I notice that ANT is that much better than DDANT I'll drop DD, same for Chant vs Duress... but I just don't see it.

[Rico Suave]

You've missed the point entirely.

It is irrelevant what the optimal build is. What matters is that an article explaining the deck did not include both sides of the argument. It was incomplete.

Is that clear?

[Catitas]

Hi guys i'm playing with this list but sometimes i don't now how to sideboard against some decks.
I would like to know what to side in and out thanks.

instant [19]
1 Ad Nauseam
4 Brainstorm
3 Cabal Ritual
1 Chain of Vapor
4 Dark Ritual
1 Meditate
4 Orim's Chant

sorcery [12]
4 Doomsday
4 Duress
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
3 Infernal Tutor
1 Tendrils of Agony

artifact [13]
1 Helm of Awakening
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Sensei's Divining Top

land [16]
2 Flooded Strand
1 Island
2 Marsh Flats
4 Polluted Delta
1 Scrubland
2 Swamp
1 Tundra
3 Underground Sea
60 cards

Sideboard:
4 Dark Confidant
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
2 Hurkyl's Recall
2 Wipe Away
3 Leyline of the Void
1 Helm of Obedience
1 Pithing Needle
1 Shelldock Isle
15 cards

[Aggro_zombies]

You've missed the point entirely.

It is irrelevant what the optimal build is. What matters is that an article explaining the deck did not include both sides of the argument. It was incomplete.

Is that clear?
One could also say that your argument is misleading, however.

The ANT builds at GP Madrid had access to Mystical Tutor for AdN. That meant they could consistently find and play a single (or one of two) copy of their namesake card as a powerful way to refuel for roughly the same amount of life. If you had asked, "Why AdN over Doomsday?" at the time, the answer almost certainly would have been, "AdN is easier to play over a very long tournament because it requires fewer decisions and less thinking than Doomsday on average."

However, now that Mystical Tutor is no longer with us, Doomsday has a more obvious plus in that it is an extremely powerful tutor that basically guarantees you reach lethal storm (as well as setting up alternate kills like Emrakul). However, the issue of mental exhaustion is still a real one: most people will become tired over a GP-length tournament (8-9 rounds day one, maybe the same on day two), and Doomsday requires more mental resources than AdN does.

Granted, you could simply memorize the piles, in which case it takes about the same amount of effort as does AdN (which asks you if you've got enough to stop, if you need to keep going, life management, etc.). However, most people are much less familiar with Doomsday piles than AdN because the latter has been a force in the format for much longer, and more potential combo players have been exposed to it. In that sense, yes, I think familiarity does explain it. You're assuming players have perfect information and therefore would make completely rational choices, but that doesn't happen in economics and it doesn't happen in Magic. Otherwise, why is TES drawing more players right now than Doomsday builds despite Doomsday builds being more powerful in the abstract? Why do people still play decks like SI and Belcher despite the fact that they are worse than more stable, streamlined combo builds? And so on.

Not everyone browses the internet for information on combo decks, and those that do are usually looking to netdeck and then get tips on how to play the lists they've found. There isn't a lot of talk about Doomsday on the wider Legacy forum community, and most potential combo players are more likely to stumble upon the TES thread first - and they're not likely to get much help with Doomsday builds there.

I mean, if you're not willing to accept that people don't know Doomsday as well as they know AdN as the explanation, then the other big plausible one is that Doomsday is just bad since it hasn't won anything major.

[Rico Suave]

One could also say that your argument is misleading, however.


There was no argument. My point was that the article showed only the benefits of playing Doomsday and did not demonstrate any of the negatives. It was a criticism of the writing, and I felt the article could be made more complete by including the pros and cons of a controversial card.

JACO's writing *has* improved, and I enjoyed the Landstill pieces.

If you want to talk about the viability of Doomsday, I'm afraid I wasn't discussing that.

[Catitas]

hi guys i would like to know wath is better to have in sb (Dark Confident or Xantid Swarm)?

[Catitas]

Hi guys i’m playing with this list and it looks very strong. Give your opinion about it thanks

instant [16]
1 Ad Nauseam
4 Brainstorm
3 Cabal Ritual
4 Dark Ritual
1 Meditate
3 Orim’s Chant

sorcery [16]
4 Doomsday
3 Duress
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
3 Infernal Tutor
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Ponder

artifact [12]
4 Lion’s Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Sensei’s Divining Top

land [16]
2 Flooded Strand
1 Island
2 Marsh Flats
4 Polluted Delta
1 Scrubland
2 Swamp
2 Tundra
2 Underground Sea
60 cards

Sideboard:
3 Xantid Swarm
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 Hurkyl’s Recall
1 Wipe Away
1 Slaughter Pact
3 Carpet of Flowers
1 Shelldock Isle
1 Krosan Grip
1 Echoing Truth
1 Rebuild
1 Cloud Faries
15 cards

[conboy31]

Instead of asking for comments on your list, you might be better off defending your choices that diverge from a top performing AdnDD list. Also, specifically noting metagame choices.

As for the article, good job and it is useful to have links to notable resources within the text. I will bookmark it for sure.