Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
4 Eak Q: If I have a Balance and one other card in my hand and use Lion's Eye Diamond to cast Balance, will Balance treat my hand as though it has one card or zero cards?
A: You can't use Lion's Eye Diamond to cast a spell from your hand. You can only play the Diamond's ability when you could play an instant. When the ability resolves (immediately, because it is a mana ability) you have to discard your hand.
because of this statement I can Affirm that LED doesn´t help to get a first turn win which is what we intend to do with the deck Ritgfh? , I agree is good with I.Tutor and with burning and with mystical tutor but can't give us mana in first turn to cast A.N therefore if we are suposed when we play A.N we will win we really don't mind which cards will be drawn . Simple .
what about the Retract /Hurkills effect + Permanent_Artifacts_which_give_more_mana_than_its_cost synergy ?
Do you really think the Í.T + LED is the quieckest way?
do you really think LED helps to our 1st turn win?
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pelikanudo
4 Eak Q: If I have a Balance and one other card in my hand and use Lion's Eye Diamond to cast Balance, will Balance treat my hand as though it has one card or zero cards?
A: You can't use Lion's Eye Diamond to cast a spell from your hand. You can only play the Diamond's ability when you could play an instant. When the ability resolves (immediately, because it is a mana ability) you have to discard your hand.
You play a land and tap it.
You play Dark Ritual and get BBB.
You play any other card that produces one mana. (4 mana in your pool.)
You play LED.
You play Infernal Tutor (2 mana in your pool).
In response to the tutor, you sacrifice LED. You discard your hand and get 3 mana. Infernal Tutor is still on the stack and can not be taken from there any other way than by being countered or resolving. (Five mana in your pool.)
Assuming the tutor isn't countered, it resolves. You get Ad Nauseam. (Still 5 mana.)
You play Ad Nauseam.
In other words, no, LED can never, ever, win you the game if you don't also have IT or five mana without LED. It does, however, pay for Ad Nauseam when you do have IT.
But it is still at the very least a solid inclusion that has been tested and used to no end in other decks with a similar strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
because of this statement I can Affirm that LED doesn´t help to get a first turn win which is what we intend to do with the deck Ritgfh? , I agree is good with I.Tutor and with burning and with mystical tutor but can't give us mana in first turn to cast A.N therefore if we are suposed when we play A.N we will win we really don't mind which cards will be drawn . Simple .
The goal is to win. The speed can get us there, sure. It is conceivable to build an AdN deck without LEDs and more rituals that would indeed be faster. It would, however, most likely lose IT and thus lose consistency because we can't really use other tutors (Spoils and Plunge are out, Cunning Wish and Lim-Dûl's Vault would negate the speed the deck would be trying to accomplish).
Note that LED's relevance is not at all limited to the first turn, in fact the possibility of a turn two win is much greater with it, too (hide AnD from your hand with Bstorm or get it with Mystical).
We also do not always win the game when we play AdN. Sometimes you just get unlucky and draw another AdN and no mana to continue. Or lots of mana but no way to get Tendrils. LED in response to AdN is a very solid option here, as well as LED in response to a post-AdN IT. I would much prefer Mox Diamond when going off but it has just underperformed for me in any other capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelikanudo
what about the Retract /Hurkills effect + Permanent_Artifacts_which_give_more_mana_than_its_cost synergy ?
Do you really think the Í.T + LED is the quieckest way?
do you really think LED helps to our 1st turn win?
Moxen are very awkward to bounce and Petal is useless. Unless you envision this as a storm engine, it won't help much at all (and even then it's problematic as it won't add to your mana without serious cda and needs lots of artifacts which you may or may not have access to depending on luck and, more importantly, hate).
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
I'm working on a list based on 4eak list trying to cut LED- I.T synergy and trying to get the most speed withouth this synergy,there it goes:
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 Mox diamond 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 Retract // the quickest art. bouncer4x Infernal Tutor
Win-Stuff: 6
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Ill-Gotten Gains // I'm not sure now about this maybe Recall...
4x Ad Nauseam
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
@ Pelikanudo
Quote:
My doubts are invading me .....
Read the post directly above where you said this.
Quote:
therefore the only way to get mana from LED to cast A.N is knowing youre goint to draw A.N , This is not a 1st turn win.
I did not lie. It is possible to win on first turn using LED to pay for AdN's cost. I quickly spoke about the draw phase, and I retracted that (it is the common play on 2nd turn though).
Take this hand:
LED, LED, Mystical, Brainstorm, Land, Mox, Blue spell.
or hands that looked like they weren't first turn hands can become 1st turn hands, using LED to cast AdN:
LED, ESG, ESG, Lotus Petal, Ponder, Brainstorm, Land
These plays are not likely ones, but they exist. LED is very powerful (and important) for T1 wins; even if the card is just not used in the way you want it to be used.
Please note: LED does not require IT. I'd play the card even if IT didn't exist. I'd remove AdN's before I'd remove LED's.
Quote:
because of this statement I can Affirm that LED doesn´t help to get a first turn win which is what we intend to do with the deck Ritgfh? ,
No. LED adds vital, colored mana in many circumstances, and it is useful not just in conjunction with IT or Mystical. By removing LED from this deck, there are many, many games you will not win that you otherwise could, that includes 1st and 2nd turn kills.
Quote:
I'm working on a list based on 4eak list trying to cut LED- I.T synergy and trying to get the most speed withouth this synergy,there it goes:
Let's be honest here; you didn't even know how LED worked. How do you expect to start making decklists when you haven't had the opportunity to gain experience and knowledge about an obvious must-play card in a storm deck?
Removing LED is 100% a mistake. Pure and simple.
Go play a hundred games and then maybe you can start tweaking the deck.
Lastly, I think you've misunderstood the win percentages. 57% of your games are still won on 2nd turn. This is a turn 1.5 deck played almost perfectly; it is not a turn 1 deck. You sound way too disappointed when you don't win on 1st turn "7 out of 10" games.
peace,
4eak
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Isn't good to play Lim-Dûl's Vault ??
You can tidy your cards for Ad Nauseum and tidy five cards with lower casting cost or tidy your spells for storming easy!!!
I think is very very good play it.
Ps : Sorry for my language :(
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Although I love Lim-Dûl's Vault with a passion, I don't think it belongs. The deck already has eight tutors and eight cards that give you cda (without taking LED into account).
It also loses you life, which is not too bad if you're using it as a Mystical but severely limit its ability to stack the library, which it doesn't do that well in the first place.
And it costs two mana, which is very expensive for a deck such as this, especially when other cards fill that role cheaper or without lifeloss and cda. Paying two mana for a card that will often fail to impact your game until t3 won't cut it imo.
I guess you could try it as an additional black card/consistency measure in a combo meta but first you'd have to find one of those and then justify making your deck slower in such an environment.
@ Unmask: //edit: aargh dammit, wanted to delete this passage but there was a respons already. Foiled by my own stupidity again. Unmask sucks.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
A little analysis:
- Shattering Spree = isn't good because you play only one/two red lands.
- Rebuild = is good because istant and tutorable with mystical tutor
- Hurkyl's Recall = is good because istant and tutorable with mystical tutor
- Rack and Ruin = I think is good only versus chalice
- Duress = essential
- Thoughtseize = good versus teeg
- Cabal = isn't good
- Unmask = a good idea and + 1 storm count, but can you remove dark ritual o cabal ritual??
- Burning Wish = isn't a good idea because infernal tutor is essential
- Mystical Tutor = essential
- Pact of negation = is bad because with empty is a dead card.
- Orim = is more good than duress if you play IGG.
- Braistorm and Ponder = essential
- Defense Grid = for me is a possible card to play in SB, but brainstorm will be a sorcery :(
- Esg + green pact = 6 cards for + 1 mana and + 1 storming, very very bad for me. Six slots...
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Quote:
- Unmask = a good idea and + 1 storm count, but can you remove dark ritual o cabal ritual??
This card costs 4 and doesnt do anything important that duress doesnt...
Quote:
- Burning Wish = isn't a good idea because infernal tutor is essential
How is demonic tutor not good X.X
Quote:
- Cabal = isn't good
Waaaah, after duress or right before you go off its another duress.
Also as to my list a couple pages back, I have come to REALLY like 5-7 discard because it lets you be immune to stifle and still fast.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
4eak
@ Pelikanudo
Read the post directly above where you said this.
I did not lie. It is possible to win on first turn using LED to pay for AdN's cost. I quickly spoke about the draw phase, and I retracted that (it is the common play on 2nd turn though).
Take this hand:
LED, LED, Mystical, Brainstorm, Land, Mox, Blue spell.
or hands that looked like they weren't first turn hands can become 1st turn hands, using LED to cast AdN:
LED, ESG, ESG, Lotus Petal, Ponder, Brainstorm, Land
These plays are not likely ones, but they exist. LED is very powerful (and important) for T1 wins; even if the card is just not used in the way you want it to be used.
Please note: LED does not require IT. I'd play the card even if IT didn't exist. I'd remove AdN's before I'd remove LED's.
No. LED adds vital, colored mana in many circumstances, and it is useful not just in conjunction with IT or Mystical. By removing LED from this deck, there are many, many games you will not win that you otherwise could, that includes 1st and 2nd turn kills.
Let's be honest here; you didn't even know how LED worked. How do you expect to start making decklists when you haven't had the opportunity to gain experience and knowledge about an obvious must-play card in a storm deck?
Removing LED is 100% a mistake. Pure and simple.
Go play a hundred games and then maybe you can start tweaking the deck.
Lastly, I think you've misunderstood the win percentages. 57% of your games are still won on 2nd turn. This is a turn 1.5 deck played almost perfectly; it is not a turn 1 deck. You sound way too disappointed when you don't win on 1st turn "7 out of 10" games.
peace,
4eak
I do understand everything even the theory of Relativity , how could you think LED functioning I don't understand, man I'm programmer...,
I think you all TEPS players are focused on the idea that LED is the key and I demnstrated with a deck with no LED can perfectly get the 3rd turn win but of course with A.N ,
I mean of course we are trying to get the most speed but we both know that Fows and Stifles will ruin us the day , first of all you have to build the quickest deck and once you have probed its strength you'll add defense,
well
a) LED doesnt help to get a 1st turn win
b) LED Need to be casted in conjunction to I.T
c) LED obligates you to discard your hand and therefore If you put some kind of defense THIS KIND of defense MUST be PROACTIVE which is something I dislike and I miss from Solidarity
d) MAINLY becasue LED doesnt help to cast a A.N unless you have Mystical or I.T
Another point is that I recognize I didnt know the possibilities of LED but I investigated about it, tested it and my conclusions are INMUTABLE :
you really do not mind which cards you re going to draw with A.N you really MIND how you re going to cast A.N and the spells to protect it . Simple .
this is my last development of a deck with LED and trying to get the quickest victory, the difference betwwen this deck and yours is simple :
1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta
Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x Mox diamond
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual
4x Pact of negation // this defense wil be turned in to 3 ESG 3 Pacts + 2 Retract But definately
// I prefer defense
4x Duresses
Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
2x Retract
1x Tendrils
1x Hurkills R
4x Ad Nauseam
Its worth it to try this build it gets a 3rd turn win withouth discarding our hand
You know which cards you could add to this deck in the side? SpellSnare which is fundamental nowadays to handle the meta, disrupt, (with changing mana colors) REB, orims, stifles
to mine you would be able to add reactive defense otherwise to yours you won't be able
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pelikanudo
a) LED doesnt help to get a 1st turn win
Yes it does. (As has been explained.)
Quote:
b) LED Need to be casted in conjunction to I.T
No it doesn't, except for the first-turn win. (As has been explained.)
Quote:
c) LED obligates you to discard your hand and therefore If you put some kind of defense THIS KIND of defense MUST be PROACTIVE which is something I dislike and I miss from Solidarity
Okay, valid point here. Much as I like Pact of Negation, counters is still the only thing it protects you from. I definitely think that LED >>> Pact outside of heavily blue metagames where you shouldn't be playing combo anyway - or play a slow version (possibly) where Pact sucks anyway.
Quote:
d) MAINLY becasue LED doesnt help to cast a A.N unless you have Mystical or I.T
It does many other things beside casting AdN though. (As has been explained.)
Quote:
Another point is that I recognize I didnt know the possibilities of LED but I investigated about it, tested it and my conclusions are INMUTABLE :
you really do not mind which cards you re going to draw with A.N you really MIND how you re going to cast A.N and the spells to protect it . Simple .
Words like "immutable" have no place in a strategy discussion.
Oh, and you should care what you draw with AdN. After all, you have to win with that and it's not a 100% win. And we do mind how we're going to cast AdN. Mystical Tutor and IT are two 4-ofs that synergize heavily with LED, while AdN is a 3-of or 4-of that synergizes with LED if you can reach five mana by other means. We're able to use LED to cast AdN two times out of three in principle, and it's far from useless in the other third.
I fail to see why reactive control is so important outside of blue matchups that we would ditch a card whose bustedness has been proven time and time again.
@ deck: I have tested Diamond as a four-of, a three-of, than a two-of, then dropped them. Beside being good post-AdN, what does it do? It seems like "producing mana post-AdN" and "sometimes, if I want to win turn 2, and happen to have drawn three lands in my 12-land deck, it's a better Chrome Mox" isn't all that hot. That's what my testing led me to believe, anyway (and I had 16 land at the time).
You might wanna try BWish/Rites instead of Tendrils/ESG/SPact if you're playing Diamonds anyway.
If your deck goldfishes t3, it's not really faster as other versions here.
Please explain to me what Retract does beside being another spell that's good only when you have cast AdN already. It doesn't seem consistent with your assessment that "we don't care what we draw, only how to play AdN".
Spell Snare is a good idea. Hm, Cbalance, Chalice, Teeg/Canonist/Mage. All of those aren't instant speed so you could easily include it in a deck with LED.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Quote:
Its worth it to try this build it gets a 3rd turn win withouth discarding our hand
Or, you could win first turn with duress backup because of LED. IGG loops can only be used with cabal rituals and LEDs because you need 2 +3s.
Seriously LED is our black lotus, you wouldnt advocate cutting black lotus from vintage combo because "You have to sacrafice it" or cutting demonic tutor. Pact of negation sucks plain and simple, more discard is just better, and LED > pact any day of the week.
Please do not debate LED is good, thats like saying FOW is bad because its card disadvantage, and brainstom is bad because it costs mana and doesnt directly do anything but sorting.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
LED is one of the best cards in the deck, and format. You're not going to convince us not to play it, because it's just that good. You're really only convincing us that you're bad at this game.
I would suggest "Les Mise" (Farther down in the New and Developmental) if you don't want to play LED. It's also much simpler to pilot, and just as fast.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
I tried several versions of this deck and the ones without LED just sucked. Honestly there is not a better tutor suit than mystical tutor+infernal tutor and both have great synergy with LED. The tempo advantage LED gives you is unparalled in this format. I understand wanting to play pact of negation but LED is just better. You gain a little speed with pact but the speed you get from LED is much more. As for disruption tools, proactive disruption like duress is amazing because it takes out things that might hurt us and gives us a roadmap of what will happen in the future
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Isn't this deck very similar to Fetchland Tendrils. The only thing that I see is different is Chrome Mox and Duress.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Similar as in strictly better.
No offence but you can add the doomsday stuff in and this is strictly better then FT.
Quote:
Isn't this deck very similar to Fetchland Tendrils. The only thing that I see is different is Chrome Mox and Duress.
Also the differance is that this deck is better in the combo mirror, the blue matchups and the black matchup.
We had a theretical idea in testing, involving the "Worst case" so what we did was pit the deck vs non blue god hands on the draw, from 5 bolt effects and 2 lands, to swamp rit hymn duress to Mana mox teeg.
It put the matches at between even and favorable for this deck. This is just unfair.
The card is broken if your deck has an average CC of 1 or less, over powered if its between 1 and 2, so so if its between 2-3 and horrid if your average CC is higher. This deck (or at least mine) is between .98 and 1.08 depending on exact card choice which means it might not be broken. But it boarders on it.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Results are arriving. Go, go AN.
Anyway horrible list with merchant OMG scroll and mox diamond (are you serious?) plus a sideboard that seems mounted 5 minutes before the tournament.
Ah this list needs LED, like all others storm as TES or FT. 4x. This is an axiom.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Quote:
Isn't this deck very similar to Fetchland Tendrils. The only thing that I see is different is Chrome Mox and Duress.
Except I'm not running Ponder or Sensei's Divining Top, and rather than relying on a very disruptable win with IGG or Doomsday, the deck casts a 5cc spell that draws 10-15 cards and wins from there. The fact that the deck can cast multiple AN's until one finally resolves and wins gives it more resiliency than any other storm combo deck in the format.
Obviously both FT and ANT play accelerants and tutors to win with a lethal Tendrils, but the fact that this deck abuses a 5cc draw 15 rather than a 3cc stack 5 does make a difference.
The deck is also functionally different in that it has to run Chrome Mox, and that it is required to consider the cc and lifeloss that spells cost, which does add some design constraints.
Another big thing is that this deck goldfishes faster than FT. The average goldfish for FT is around 3.5, where the average goldfish for ANT is around 2.5, and I'm counting protected wins for both decks.
Lastly (at least of what I can think of for now), the deck is much easier to pilot than FT and is alot more forgiving of play mistakes (kinda like Belcher). This in itself is probably the most important factor, since the difficulty of a [combo] deck is a huge issue. I believe the primary reason that Belcher has more Top 8's than both TES and FT is for this very reason, and ANT is likely going to parallel Belcher in this area.
Other than that, yes, they are somewhat similar in concept.
Quote:
Results are arriving. Go, go AN.
Anyway horrible list with merchant OMG scroll and mox diamond (are you serious?) plus a sideboard that seems mounted 5 minutes before the tournament.
Ah this list needs LED, like all others storm as TES or FT. 4x. This is an axiom.
That list is horrible. I'm suprised he won with it, though it just goes to show that Ad Nauseam is so strong that even subpar decklists running Ad Nauseam can do well.
I can't wait to see the results this deck is going to put up once people start playing the B/u/w version often enough.
Honestly, to everyone that thinks the card is overhyped, that couldn't be further from the truth. The ability to draw 10-15 cards (I've drawn over 20 before) from one 5cc instant is just rediculous. It doesn't make storm combo broken, but the card itself is broken, and the card makes storm combo much stronger overall.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jegger
Results are arriving. Go, go
AN.
Anyway horrible list with merchant OMG scroll and mox diamond (are you serious?) plus a sideboard that seems mounted 5 minutes before the tournament.
Ah this list needs LED, like all others storm as TES or FT. 4x. This is an axiom.
I guess the list doesn't necessarily need a third splash?
I'm not sure about Merchant Scroll, but I can definitely see Mox Diamond. Like honestly, if any of you have goldfished multiple variants of this deck, you'll know that finding the initial mana source is the thing you want most when going off after casting an AdN (irrelevant if you cracked LED in response, but you won't always have that play). I'd probably consider putting in another 4 protection spells over Merchant Scroll (probably Cabal Therapy or Thoughtseize - maybe even a toolbox suite like Repeal/Wipe Away, Pact of Negation, Rebuild, whatever) and finding some way to squeeze in IT #4 and an IGGY. IGGY loop is still way too good to pass up imo.
EDIT: the four cards could easily be splash white for Orim's Chant + a Tundra.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
No IGG either.
Some weird splits, too. Four Scrolls (with nothing but Mystical to tutor for preboard) over a playset of IT and the third/fourth AdN. I can live with Diamond in lists that are heavy on land but the 3/3 split should be 4/2 at most in a list with 15 land.
No consistent pre-board disruption ... seems a valid choice to me, but Merchant Scroll dosn't jive with the speed theory.
Maybe he didn't have all the cards? If so, I completely sympathize.
Anyway, good to see the deck get some real action, and an event with 47 people isn't exactly a backwater Legacy FNM wannabe where entering guarantees T8.
Is there a way to find out what he was paired against? There are some fast combos as well as aggro-control lists in there that look like they could have posed problems.
//edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hanni
Honestly, to everyone that thinks the card is overhyped, that couldn't be further from the truth. The ability to draw 10-15 cards (I've drawn over 20 before) from one 5cc instant is just rediculous. It doesn't make storm combo broken, but the card itself is broken, and the card makes storm combo much stronger overall.
qft. Just two days or some such ago I saw it likened to Moonlight Bargain of all things.
Re: [Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hanni
Except I'm not running Ponder or Sensei's Divining Top, and rather than relying on a very disruptable win with IGG or Doomsday, the deck casts a 5cc spell that draws 10-15 cards and wins from there. The fact that the deck can cast multiple AN's until one finally resolves and wins gives it more resiliency than any other storm combo deck in the format.
Obviously both FT and ANT play accelerants and tutors to win with a lethal Tendrils, but the fact that this deck abuses a 5cc draw 15 rather than a 3cc stack 5 does make a difference.
The deck is also functionally different in that it has to run Chrome Mox, and that it is required to consider the cc and lifeloss that spells cost, which does add some design constraints.
Another big thing is that this deck goldfishes faster than FT. The average goldfish for FT is around 3.5, where the average goldfish for ANT is around 2.5, and I'm counting protected wins for both decks.
Lastly (at least of what I can think of for now), the deck is much easier to pilot than FT and is alot more forgiving of play mistakes (kinda like Belcher). This in itself is probably the most important factor, since the difficulty of a [combo] deck is a huge issue. I believe the primary reason that Belcher has more Top 8's than both TES and FT is for this very reason, and ANT is likely going to parallel Belcher in this area.
Other than that, yes, they are somewhat similar in concept.
But wouldn't any reasonable evolution of FT include Ad Nauseam? That is what I'm getting at. Including Chrome Mox makes sense since you are trying to get more initial mana sources after playing Ad Nauseam, but you are basically playing the same deck. Sure you get rid of the Draw 4s and Doomsday for Ad Nauseam, but that doesn't make this deck much different than FT.
