[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rack

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

-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 ...

@ Noman Peopled

Quote:

---

Does the average include the games you goldfished with IGG?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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).

@ 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).

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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).

@ 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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

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.

@ blacklotus3636

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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%).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

I have a question what about -6 ESG effect and +4 duress + 2 X where X is whatever.

@ undone

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

@ 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.

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..)

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.

@ troopatroop

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?