Printable View
I'm not too worry about the new hatebear, we have the tools for defeating it, pyroclasm, DREADS OF NIGHTS :laugh:, massacres, chain of vapors, cabal therapies, etc (g1 well be harder of course, but in g2 our weapons will be ready for killing spirits and witches like thalia)... on the other hand I'm more worried about the rusing success of reanimator and team america, in my point of view these are two of our worst pairings (togheter with chalices and trinisphere decks)
I do not see the problem with this card to be honest.
Sure, it disables all cantrips in a very efficient way, but the decks who can play this card do already pack efficient hatebears against ANT (and combo-decks in general). Against DnT the mana was already very tight so that digging was sometimes impossible.
After all having no cantrips is not nearly as backbreaking as Thalia, because you can still go of with your cards already in hand and none of the storm engines are effected.
By the way, Ponder is still a bad Index, which may or may not be enough to win the game/find a sweeper.
It slows the deck by a turn I guess, but we can still dig for answers. It's not as bad as Chains. The card can be quite problematic tho if combined with discard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
It doesn't seem that bad, we have Dread of Night and we can either MD or SB Thoughtseize while still being able to cast one to two cantrips before it resolves. At best, I might be less thrilled to play the 16 cantrip version.
Spirit of the Labrynth is probably going to cause much more trouble for delver decks. It is probably going to make dark depths a better deck because its more difficult matches can be defeated by death and taxes. This card would pose a problem for ANT if duress is played instead of thoughtseize. As long as you are practiced and efficient with the deck thoughtseize should be more of an asset than a drawback. As stated before dread of night and pyroclasm are also good options. Pyroclasm and massacre are probably really good to have in the s/b especially because of all the meddling mages.
I'm just going to switch up to a Burning Wish build, put a Massacre in my sideboard, and call it day. No reason to freak out about yet another hate bear. Particularly considering that you can reasonably just kill them when they play this (with the right hand). I'm still more afraid of facing Thalia.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtos84
Agree with this. This is another hatebear that death and taxes can throw at us... At 2 comic this means we'll get our first (and second if on the play) turn to cantrip, discard them or just straight up win. If their turn-2 move is SotL then chances are we are done cantripping and can just win on the untap. Thalia, and canonist are still worse creatures for us by a distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by emidln
Like someone else mentioned I'm more worried for the fair brainstorm decks that aim to have game past turn 3-4
I ended up moving Ad Naus to the board, replacing it and Grim Tutor with two Burning Wishes. Pryoclasm, Massacre, Thoughtseize, and Warrens are my only targets, and it's been fine so far.
So yeah, it's not like we're not already equipped to fight Hate Cat.
Curious if you would even consider IGG, as it provides the only Storm-building Sorcery that you can find in a pinch.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregtron
Burning Wish is about the only card I would consider adding to Ant's main 60. The reason I started using Grim Tutor in its place is because Grim Tutor ends up winning more games than Burning Wish can save. Wish can also cost us a game if we do not have Led in hand when we have an infernal tutor. Because quite a few of our wins come through rituals and deck searching as opposed to drawing, the spirit card is not that much of an issue. Most of the time I beat D&T on turns one or two before a Thalia is dropped. Game one is normally not that much of a fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by emidln
Ad Nauseum probably accounts for 60% of my wins at least. I would think it would be really difficult to win matches without it in the main deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregtron
I run IGG in the board. It's not uncommon to BW for it to IGG loop off of LEDs if I don't have enough Rituals in the yard for PiF, and I board it in for PiF in matches where I have to fight Deathrite and other pin-point-type graveyard hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koby
Even when I was main-decking it, Ad Naus was a much, much smaller percentage of my wins than you. I don't know if it's a fundamental difference in the way we play or build our decks or a metgame thing, but I kept casting Ad Naus and losing. Now I just bring it in when I absolutely have to have it, for example against non-blue Hymn decks, Thalias, and non-blue combo. I'm much happier this way, but I don't think there's, you know, a "right" call on where you keep it in your 75.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtos84
I love Burning Wish. The flexibility that even one or two copies gives you is phenomenal: ways to address Teeg and other Hate Bears in game 1, the 7th or 8th duress-effect if you're in a pinch, and an army of 1/1 goblins at your beck and call.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtos84
Ad Nauseum definitely belongs in the main deck. The key to ANT is playing it over and over, and then just keep playing it because you will discover lines of play you did not know about. Play style may have something to do with what cards different ANT players use. I personally stick with one main deck tendrils of agony for the win condition because of the consistency it provides. That said, I do not think many ANT players learn to play the deck without all types of alternative spells that allow for more frequent, less than lethal tendrils or an empty the warrens. When I decided to give ANT a shot, I had experimented with four burning wishes in the past. I new I wasn't doing everything right, so I played only this deck for two weeks straight. I was nearly proficient with it, and decided it was much better than I gave it credit for. After that I continued playing it, and I still pick up new interactions.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregtron
You have been playing this deck for two weeks? Wow, you have to have to greatest expertise in playing this deck of all players here. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by jtos84
-_-Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
Some of the people here make me feel like a nub, and I played DDFT for a year before switching to ANT in 2011.
I think you drew that conclusion on your own. I was telling the other person that to begin to understand the interactions and lines of play I put my other decks down, and I only played ANT for two weeks straight. I think that was in 2012. If you have some expertise to share I am all ears. I love to pick up new plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
We are sharing our expertise, it just so happens to conflict with what you know and prefer about ANT. We were all involved in a pretty huge discussion regarding the merits of cutting Ad Naus from the maindeck in the old ANT thread - if you're looking for the underlying logic, I suggest you go back there and read up to prevent us from re-inventing the wheel. There's also a lot of great discussion and testing results from around the same time that weighed the number of burning wishes, grim tutor, and even lim dul's vault to compensate for cutting the card.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtos84
I don't know why everything turns into an immediate argument in forums. I normally do not go back and read very far unless I know something has changed. It has been years since I have heard of anyone playing without Ad Nauseum in the main deck. I just read that someone was wanting to cut it from the main. Are there any tournament results to back up this theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by gregtron
It seems fairly risky to cut the Ad Nauseum because of the amount of deathrite shamans. It can also be difficult to consistently fix your mana base to consistently rely on Past in Flames. I'm not saying the strategy cannot work, and I have not looked at the lists yet, but I would assume it would accommodate more red for the Burning Wishes into Empty the Warrens which is not a bad idea.
The 5th place deck at the BoM ran a list with no AN in the main (http://mtgpulse.com/event/14791#210124). I've run with AN in the side for a while to some success, but has since then gone back to putting it in the main. Replacing AN with EtW gives you more turn 1 and 2 wins than AN does. It felt like it made the deck quite a bit more explosive. In the end for me personally, I missed AN too much for those times where it's your only real out. I've opted to run both AN and EtW main deck now and am currently quite happy with how the deck performs even if AN is more spikey now :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jtos84