[Article] TES vs. ANT

[Bryant Cook]

New article is up: http://www.theepicstorm.com/tes-vs-ant/

[Zombie]

You might have wanted to emphasize why ANT does what it does as well - you touched upon the grinding, but didn't highlight the deterministic nature of their kills or just the raw power of Cabal Ritual. But right now the article touches on what TES does and why TES does what it does and what ANT does. The motivation is largely absent.

[Bryant Cook]

You might have wanted to emphasize why ANT does what it does as well - you touched upon the grinding, but didn't highlight the deterministic nature of their kills or just the raw power of Cabal Ritual. But right now the article touches on what TES does and why TES does what it does and what ANT does. The motivation is largely absent.

I feel as you don't need to spell out every single detail, especially things that are obvious when talking about using PIF as a kill condition or "Natural Storm". It's assumed that the person can figure out if they've won.

[bjholmes3]

Good article, I'll be glad if this makes any sort of dent in the nonsensical platitudes I hear about this subject every day. This article is meant to be from the point of view of the TES player, and I don't feel it necessary to go into extreme detail of ANT's intricacies, as the important comparative strengths and weaknesses were explained quite adequately.

[Bryant Cook]

Good article, I'll be glad if this makes any sort of dent in the nonsensical platitudes I hear about this subject every day. This article is meant to be from the point of view of the TES player, and I don't feel it necessary to go into extreme detail of ANT's intricacies, as the important comparative strengths and weaknesses were explained quite adequately.

Thanks, not everyone gets this. Some serious hate from ANT players on Reddit so far!

[bjholmes3]

That's just reddit. Haters comment, others don't.

[nevilshute]

Nice with some more storm-content Bryant. One point that I'd like to make is in regards to your assessment that TES has a leg-up over ANT vs Omni due to TES "being faster". I think this is only a half-truth as TES' speed is often tied to Empty the Warrens wins. Those wins ALWAYS give your opponent at least one more turn and often two more turns.

I'm one of the ANT-players that has played with Empty the Warrens in the main deck for the last year and half or so and am a big proponent of the card but I usually side it out and replace it with Ad Nauseam against nearly all combo opponents.

Also a general point of critique is, that it feels a bit like you are trying to write an objective piece (an analysis on where the two storm decks differ and where each of them have their strengths and weaknesses) but it ends up feeling very much subjective. I mean, you are the strongest proponent of TES on the face of the earth and we all know that - for whatever reason - the proponents of these two decks most of the time act like they are in trench warfare against each other. So most of the article ends up feeling like you telling the reader "ANT okay. TES better". You list your reasons, that the format is faster than before, that Grixis Delver is the delver deck of choice but I feel like you are bending the truth to fit your arguments. Grixis being the delver deck of choice feels a lot better to me as an ANT player than when BUG was the delver deck of choice because most Grixis decks don't seem to be playing discard before board and even then they are favoring Cabal Therapy which usually takes a Young Pyromancer to be truly devistating which means turns 3, 4 and beyond.

Also, just generally, I have a hard time seeing (but will concede that I am biased here too) how anybody would feel more comfortable playing TES over ANT vs Delver. TES is (even if the vulnerabilities have lessed through time) more vulnerable to Wastelands, playing fewer basic(s), playing fewer lands and having to split up business and - more importantly imo - acceleration into two colors. Also, the Grinding Station version of ANT feels particularily strong vs Delver due to 3 storm cards and 2 Past in Flames means being able to really stretch their main source of interaction.

My feeling is, that TES is better than ANT at playing against non-blue decks due to its earlier fundamental turn. My impression of TES (from playing it only a limited amount of time, mind you) is also that it is the more difficult of the two decks to play. Burning Wish just opens up a can of worms, it feels like, and I have great deal of respect for people like you that master it. There is another reason why it feels more difficult, I think, and that is that a mana-base of fewer lands, chrome moxen and a reliance on both red and black rituals (and tutors) mean that - at least for an inexperienced pilot - it is easy to paint yourself into a corner and the margin for error feels smaller.

Now that is certainly not a detraction from the deck, just an observation.

Anyway, thanks for the article :smile:

[Bryant Cook]

Nice with some more storm-content Bryant. One point that I'd like to make is in regards to your assessment that TES has a leg-up over ANT vs Omni due to TES "being faster". I think this is only a half-truth as TES' speed is often tied to Empty the Warrens wins. Those wins ALWAYS give your opponent at least one more turn and often two more turns.

I'm one of the ANT-players that has played with Empty the Warrens in the main deck for the last year and half or so and am a big proponent of the card but I usually side it out and replace it with Ad Nauseam against nearly all combo opponents.

Also a general point of critique is, that it feels a bit like you are trying to write an objective piece (an analysis on where the two storm decks differ and where each of them have their strengths and weaknesses) but it ends up feeling very much subjective. I mean, you are the strongest proponent of TES on the face of the earth and we all know that - for whatever reason - the proponents of these two decks most of the time act like they are in trench warfare against each other. So most of the article ends up feeling like you telling the reader "ANT okay. TES better". You list your reasons, that the format is faster than before, that Grixis Delver is the delver deck of choice but I feel like you are bending the truth to fit your arguments. Grixis being the delver deck of choice feels a lot better to me as an ANT player than when BUG was the delver deck of choice because most Grixis decks don't seem to be playing discard before board and even then they are favoring Cabal Therapy which usually takes a Young Pyromancer to be truly devistating which means turns 3, 4 and beyond.

Also, just generally, I have a hard time seeing (but will concede that I am biased here too) how anybody would feel more comfortable playing TES over ANT vs Delver. TES is (even if the vulnerabilities have lessed through time) more vulnerable to Wastelands, playing fewer basic(s), playing fewer lands and having to split up business and - more importantly imo - acceleration into two colors. Also, the Grinding Station version of ANT feels particularily strong vs Delver due to 3 storm cards and 2 Past in Flames means being able to really stretch their main source of interaction.

My feeling is, that TES is better than ANT at playing against non-blue decks due to its earlier fundamental turn. My impression of TES (from playing it only a limited amount of time, mind you) is also that it is the more difficult of the two decks to play. Burning Wish just opens up a can of worms, it feels like, and I have great deal of respect for people like you that master it. There is another reason why it feels more difficult, I think, and that is that a mana-base of fewer lands, chrome moxen and a reliance on both red and black rituals (and tutors) mean that - at least for an inexperienced pilot - it is easy to paint yourself into a corner and the margin for error feels smaller.

Now that is certainly not a detraction from the deck, just an observation.

Anyway, thanks for the article :smile:


The difference in a lot of games is simply your opponent having the mana to hold up both Flusterstorm and Spell Pierce/interaction. Where often, they leave windows of opportunity by tapping out for a turn to cast something. It's far better to put 14 goblins on the table than attempt to win through more countermagic/hate. By giving your opponent a turn without combo-ing, the top of their deck could easily be Null Rod/Cannonist or Counterbalance. Sometimes it's just better to make Goblins than wait.

It appears as you're blaming personal play skill and difficulty on why you think ANT is better than TES. When that should never be the choice between any two decks, the highest level magic players I know don't blame their deck for when they can't figure out how they lost or when they make a mistake - it's on them. Play tighter and better magic, TES rewards you for playing extremely tight and not making small errors. I don't need to worry about, "ANT is more forgiving" as I aim for not making play mistakes ever - tons of testing, cockatrice and goldfishing helps here as well!

[nevilshute]

My musings on TES being more difficult to pilot properly should not be taken as why I think ANT is the better deck - something which btw I didn't say. I think it is stronger vs. delver - especially when also running Empty the Warrens. But I am willing to concede that this is just my feelings/impressions and that they are not gospel.

On that, and as you might be able to infer, I am definitely in favor of "just making goblins" a lot of the time, but I like being able to do that with ANT and still have the battering-ram power of double Past in Flames + multiple tendrils for when games go longer.

You don't seem to comment on my first point? That TES being faster vs. Omni (and other combo decks in general) is only a half truth as against these exact opponents Empty the Warrens is not great.

[Bryant Cook]

You don't seem to comment on my first point? That TES being faster vs. Omni (and other combo decks in general) is only a half truth as against these exact opponents Empty the Warrens is not great.

You mean how TES can easily resolve Ad Nauseam without the fear of death and winning? ;p

I wouldn't call it a half truth as Goblins beats most of the decks in the format and can often beat omni (they're a turn 3 deck most of the time).

[rufus]

As someone who doesn't really understand the difference between TES and ANT this article confused me. I may well have come in with misconceptions, so that could easily be a good thing, but I feel like I understand things less after reading the article than before.

There's a lot of overlap between TES and ANT, which makes the distinction a bit more subtle, but in my mind, TES is more of a "tutor" deck, and ANT is more of a "chain" deck. The "chain storm" concept is epitomized by things like time spiral decks - the deck accesses cards in bulk, but when you start to go off, it's not always clear what the line of play will be. In contrast, a "tutor storm" approach tries to win by accessing specific cards - typically, when you start to go off, you want to have a specific line of play in mind. In my mind, The phrase "tutor chain" deck suggests lines of play that involve tutoring for tutors in order to pad storm count, and AFAICT neither of the decks strives to do that.

Of course every deck wants both card quantity and card quality, but the dichotomy between quality first and quantity first can explain why chrome mox (which costs more in card quantity than quality) appeals to one approach more than the other.

I really don't understand what the inset tables are supposed to communicate. Some kind of legend or a better tie-in to the text could be very helpful. In an article that's somehow trying to contrast ANT and TES, it doesn't seem to make sense to highlight the fact that both decks play the same number of a particular card, so why is Infernal Tutor in the table, and at the top of the list? And, in the second table, what's the distinction between "natural storm" and "empty the warrens" - naively, it seems like a deck could build natural storm count and then cast EtW as a win con. (Ostensibly, the non EtW lines on the table represent immediate storm wins by way of Tendrils of Agony but IMO that's not clear at all.)

[Bryant Cook]

As someone who doesn't really understand the difference between TES and ANT this article confused me. I may well have come in with misconceptions, so that could easily be a good thing, but I feel like I understand things less after reading the article than before.

There's a lot of overlap between TES and ANT, which makes the distinction a bit more subtle, but in my mind, TES is more of a "tutor" deck, and ANT is more of a "chain" deck. The "chain storm" concept is epitomized by things like time spiral decks - the deck accesses cards in bulk, but when you start to go off, it's not always clear what the line of play will be. In contrast, a "tutor storm" approach tries to win by accessing specific cards - typically, when you start to go off, you want to have a specific line of play in mind. In my mind, The phrase "tutor chain" deck suggests lines of play that involve tutoring for tutors in order to pad storm count, and AFAICT neither of the decks strives to do that.

Of course every deck wants both card quantity and card quality, but the dichotomy between quality first and quantity first can explain why chrome mox (which costs more in card quantity than quality) appeals to one approach more than the other.

I really don't understand what the inset tables are supposed to communicate. Some kind of legend or a better tie-in to the text could be very helpful. In an article that's somehow trying to contrast ANT and TES, it doesn't seem to make sense to highlight the fact that both decks play the same number of a particular card, so why is Infernal Tutor in the table, and at the top of the list? And, in the second table, what's the distinction between "natural storm" and "empty the warrens" - naively, it seems like a deck could build natural storm count and then cast EtW as a win con. (Ostensibly, the non EtW lines on the table represent immediate storm wins by way of Tendrils of Agony but IMO that's not clear at all.)


A decent amount of ANT's wins come from tutoring for a tutor to increase storm. Thats what most storm players in the community refer to as a "Tutor Chain".

As far as natural storm goes, its meant to be a storm kill that was made without an engine (Ad Nauseam/Past in Flames) that is typically Tendrils of Agony.

The issues you're having are from being unfamiliar with the concepts themselves rather than my article from what I can tell, perhaps I should've explained more clearly for people with a lesser understanding.

[bakofried]

You mean how TES can easily resolve Ad Nauseam without the fear of death and winning? ;p

I wouldn't call it a half truth as Goblins beats most of the decks in the format and can often beat omni (they're a turn 3 deck most of the time).

For a moment I thought you were endorsing Goblins (the deck) and was elated. Then I was sad.

[Zombie]

For a moment I thought you were endorsing Goblins (the deck) and was elated. Then I was sad.

4 color Goblins is a good deck.