[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)

Some thoughts from the worst combo player in the room:

• More death and taxes means I might start considering dread of night again
• These deathblade and shardless decks don't handle leyline of sanctity very well at all. Fitting in 3-4 board might be really good or just laughable. Clearly better in doomsday
• A lot of the top decks have both hand disruption and some number of counters, sometimes with clique/GY interaction to stop threshold.
• Those that don't fit the above bulletpoint are doing unfar things, or have hatebears, or are RUG
• Do I actually need abrupt decay much right now?
• 3/4 last SCGs had UB tezz around. Chalice plus possible trinisphere not likely to see in Philly, but don't be unprepared.
• Extraction still relatively prevalent
• Merfolk seems pretty good if you don't mind batterskull

Sample board:
4 leyline of Sanctity
2 Abrupt Decay
3 Dread of night
3 Chain of vapor
3 I dunno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tammit67

Some thoughts from the worst combo player in the room:

• More death and taxes means I might start considering dread of night again
• These deathblade and shardless decks don't handle leyline of sanctity very well at all. Fitting in 3-4 board might be really good or just laughable. Clearly better in doomsday
• A lot of the top decks have both hand disruption and some number of counters, sometimes with clique/GY interaction to stop threshold.
• Those that don't fit the above bulletpoint are doing unfar things, or have hatebears, or are RUG
• Do I actually need abrupt decay much right now?
• 3/4 last SCGs had UB tezz around. Chalice plus possible trinisphere not likely to see in Philly, but don't be unprepared.
• Extraction still relatively prevalent
• Merfolk seems pretty good if you don't mind batterskull

---

> More D&T? Yes, bring in Dread of Night :) Meta choice!
> Just a thing, Leyline makes your Ad Nauseam's pretty miserable. Sure it's awesome but has a combo player you don't really want them. At the best, play TES with Silence. Also, you don't want to mulligan looking for a Leyline.
> It's more difficult than normal but you can do well against threshold (mainly Deathrite). You have Decays if you think it really matters but you can play relatively easy against it ;) Practice!
> Depends on the metagame. Decay for me has been awesome but I really don't want the 4 copies. I'm running 3 at the moment.
> Chalice? A really small percentage. I do not worry about him... Sure it's a big deal but not very many chalices for you do worry about.
> Extraction is always bad. Play carefully...
> Merfolk is an easy matchup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gedaco

> More D&T? Yes, bring in Dread of Night :) Meta choice!
> Just a thing, Leyline makes your Ad Nauseam's pretty miserable. Sure it's awesome but has a combo player you don't really want them. At the best, play TES with Silence. Also, you don't want to mulligan looking for a Leyline.
> It's more difficult than normal but you can do well against threshold (mainly Deathrite). You have Decays if you think it really matters but you can play relatively easy against it ;) Practice!
> Depends on the metagame. Decay for me has been awesome but I really don't want the 4 copies. I'm running 3 at the moment.
> Chalice? A really small percentage. I do not worry about him... Sure it's a big deal but not very many chalices for you do worry about.
> Extraction is always bad. Play carefully...
> Merfolk is an easy matchup

---

You'd board out ad naus when leylines come in. Mulliganing aggressively to them seems fine if it shuts off most if not all the interaction your opponents have.

It was just musings on Ant and the meta in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tammit67

You'd board out ad naus when leylines come in. Mulliganing aggressively to them seems fine if it shuts off most if not all the interaction your opponents have.

It was just musings on Ant and the meta in general.

---

*I don't see too much DnT, but if people play it (or Mav) then you should probably play DoN's.
*I played Leylines in the board at GP Strasbourg (anticipated loads of Bx discard and UBx ANT), wasn't too impressed.
*Clique on its own is usually not the worst. If they just play it drawstep/EoT it's a bad discard spell+clock and if they wait you can circumvent it by playing Led,Tutor and then respond to the tutor with rituals maintaining priority.
*Merfolk is a bit on the rise and there is still a lot of SnT. I like Xantid Swarm at the moment. Since I'd have green anyways I'll be playing 2-3 Decays even if there isn't too much CB. There are Chalice decks and it's still a fine card versus random permanent hate.

Question.

The SCG players that do well with ANT keep playing 2 gemstone mine main. Is this a good call, or are they just playing follow the leader?

Depends on your List and playstile. If you want to be more straightforward TES-like T1-2 cantrip, T2-3 go Off with protection you should run it. If you want to play more Controlling , searchinh for Protection and buisness until you Need to go Off - dont ever Touch it.
In my Opinion Matches where the First playstile is better ar better matchups in general, so if you want to be prepare against "worse" matchups (wich you should, because then you nearly habe nö Bad matchups anymore), Play a List without.
Big exception: MUD
If youre Meta is Full of that (where you Need to go Off fast and what is a Bad matchup) gemstone mines are fine.
But you shouldnt Play Combo in that Meta generally^^

Except from
That Fetches and Basics won't get wasted, Fetches and make your cantrips better... I dont think its ever worth Running them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Star|Scream

Question.

The SCG players that do well with ANT keep playing 2 gemstone mine main. Is this a good call, or are they just playing follow the leader?

---

The latter, but most magic deck lists you can see around follow this priciple.

Greetings,

Iñaki.-

My current list:

Grim Flames

4 Lotus petal
4 Lion's eye Diamond
4 Dark ritual
4 Cabal ritual

2 Cabal therapy
1 Thoughtseize
4 Duress

4 Gitaxian probe
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
1 Preordain

4 Infernal tutor
2 Grim Tutor

1 Past in flames
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Tendrils of agony

2 Underground sea
1 Volcanic island
2 Island
1 Swamp
4 Polluted Delta
5 Blue Fetches

SB:
1 Tropical Island
4 Xantid Swarm
3 Abrupt Decay
2 Dread of Night
2 Deathmark
1 Echoing Truth
1 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Thoughtseize

I am still standing by the position that Ad Nauseam isn't very good, and Empty the Warrens is a better secondary win-con to Past in Flames. If this is truly a Past in Flames combo deck like many have acknowledged, why not make it as good as possible at doing what it does best? The 2 Grim Tutors help a LOT. As for my SB, I have the Swarms primarily for S+T. I don't particularly like them, but they are the best way to fight S+T decks, especially with the threat of Leyline of Sanctity. Deathmark has become good because it hits both Meddling Mage and Deathrite Shaman, and the Meddling Mage SB package in Deathblade Esper has become extremely popular in the States.

This deck is very good. I may be taking it to the SCG Invitational next month, but there's still some time to decide. I know that removing Ad Nauseam is daunting, but I am 100% on board for doing it.

Your list needs more Therapy. Not playing 4 Therapy in this deck should be a felony. 4 Therapy 3 Duress is a-ok, especially when you can use (and probably kinda need) those Therapies to protect your EtWs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

Your list needs more Therapy. Not playing 4 Therapy in this deck should be a felony. 4 Therapy 3 Duress is a-ok, especially when you can use (and probably kinda need) those Therapies to protect your EtWs.

---

Therapy is certainly sick with Empty the Warrens. No one ever sees it coming. Duress and Thoughtseize are more consistent in an actual tournament in my opinion. Also in this metagame you often want to hit discard turn 1 rather than hold onto a Therapy for Force protection turn 3. I think I just like being conservative, as I initially had 4 Therapy, then went down to 3, then added the Thoughtseize and went down to 2. 3 could be correct, but 4 will put you in awkward situations in certain matchups.

Hello all, I'm a big fan of ANT and been playing Adam Prosak's list online quite a bit. My success rate has been decent but I feel like there are just some matchups and even specific cards that I'm just dead to. Most of this stems probably from the fact that the deck doesn't have any maindeck answers to permanents or spells on the stack.

For example a Thalia or Gaddock Teeg turn two usually means auto-game over. An active Liliana or Jace can also be trouble since the deck doesn't have any way to generate raw card advantage to force through. An explosive or even a half way decent start from a re-animator or Oops All Spells deck can be difficult if not possible to come back from. Somewhat surprisingly I've been able to fight through Chalice on zero and on one (although not in the same game).

It seems too much to ask for the maindeck discard to always fight back on these fronts esp since Duress cannot target a Thalia or Teeg. Boarding in a lot of perm-hate post-board makes the deck feel clunky and slow and not trying to fight on our own terms (i.e. the speed of combo). Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7

This deck is very good. I may be taking it to the SCG Invitational next month, but there's still some time to decide. I know that removing Ad Nauseam is daunting, but I am 100% on board for doing it.

---

Sounds daunting to me, I'd really like to see the 2nd past in flames over the 2nd grim or the empty main (move to board over a swarm perhaps?).

Ugh, thoughtseize. If it works i guess :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

It seems too much to ask for the maindeck discard to always fight back on these fronts esp since Duress cannot target a Thalia or Teeg. Boarding in a lot of perm-hate post-board makes the deck feel clunky and slow and not trying to fight on our own terms (i.e. the speed of combo). Any thoughts?

---

If you expect hatebears, board out the discard that can't hit them and work from there. It shouldn't feel that much different, except you might draw decay when you could have drawn a lotus petal. What are your board plans in these matchups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tammit67

Sounds daunting to me, I'd really like to see the 2nd past in flames over the 2nd grim or the empty main (move to board over a swarm perhaps?).

Ugh, thoughtseize. If it works i guess :)



If you expect hatebears, board out the discard that can't hit them and work from there. It shouldn't feel that much different, except you might draw decay when you could have drawn a lotus petal. What are your board plans in these matchups?

---

Typically bringing in 2-3 Abrupt Decays, 2-3 Chains and Vapor and 0-1 Karakas. Usually subbing out a combination of discard (although not all for fear of Mindbreaks or even Surgicals), a Petal, a Preordain, and/or Probe(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

Hello all, I'm a big fan of ANT and been playing Adam Prosak's list online quite a bit. My success rate has been decent but I feel like there are just some matchups and even specific cards that I'm just dead to. Most of this stems probably from the fact that the deck doesn't have any maindeck answers to permanents or spells on the stack.

For example a Thalia or Gaddock Teeg turn two usually means auto-game over. An active Liliana or Jace can also be trouble since the deck doesn't have any way to generate raw card advantage to force through. An explosive or even a half way decent start from a re-animator or Oops All Spells deck can be difficult if not possible to come back from. Somewhat surprisingly I've been able to fight through Chalice on zero and on one (although not in the same game).

It seems too much to ask for the maindeck discard to always fight back on these fronts esp since Duress cannot target a Thalia or Teeg. Boarding in a lot of perm-hate post-board makes the deck feel clunky and slow and not trying to fight on our own terms (i.e. the speed of combo). Any thoughts?

---

This is why I recommend burning wish and playing 4 therapies main.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7

I am still standing by the position that Ad Nauseam isn't very good, and Empty the Warrens is a better secondary win-con to Past in Flames. If this is truly a Past in Flames combo deck like many have acknowledged, why not make it as good as possible at doing what it does best? The 2 Grim Tutors help a LOT. As for my SB, I have the Swarms primarily for S+T. I don't particularly like them, but they are the best way to fight S+T decks, especially with the threat of Leyline of Sanctity. Deathmark has become good because it hits both Meddling Mage and Deathrite Shaman, and the Meddling Mage SB package in Deathblade Esper has become extremely popular in the States.

This deck is very good. I may be taking it to the SCG Invitational next month, but there's still some time to decide. I know that removing Ad Nauseam is daunting, but I am 100% on board for doing it.

---

I know we've talked about this before like 5 or 10 pages ago, but why would 2 Grim Tutors be better than the Grinding Station shell? See here: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...inding-Station

If you want to just have infinite business to beat counterspells and whatnot, it seems better to just play more Past in Flames. The card's sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

Hello all, I'm a big fan of ANT and been playing Adam Prosak's list online quite a bit. My success rate has been decent but I feel like there are just some matchups and even specific cards that I'm just dead to. Most of this stems probably from the fact that the deck doesn't have any maindeck answers to permanents or spells on the stack.

For example a Thalia or Gaddock Teeg turn two usually means auto-game over. An active Liliana or Jace can also be trouble since the deck doesn't have any way to generate raw card advantage to force through. An explosive or even a half way decent start from a re-animator or Oops All Spells deck can be difficult if not possible to come back from. Somewhat surprisingly I've been able to fight through Chalice on zero and on one (although not in the same game).

It seems too much to ask for the maindeck discard to always fight back on these fronts esp since Duress cannot target a Thalia or Teeg. Boarding in a lot of perm-hate post-board makes the deck feel clunky and slow and not trying to fight on our own terms (i.e. the speed of combo). Any thoughts?

---

ANT is a surprisingly fragile deck to maindeck hate permanents. It's possible to fight through Chalice on 1 or Thalia with +3s like Cabal Ritual and LED, but Teeg is a lock, multiple Chalices is a lock, and Lili is difficult. Its only real plan is to discard them or go off sooner, but ANT really is a turn 3 combo deck so that's a little suspect. I agree with your feelings about boarding just making the deck clunky - it's hard to board in more than 4 cards or so, and it's hard to cut anything but protection packages that are less effective.

Reanimator has always been ANT's nightmare matchup. It's a faster combo deck with Force of Wills. ANT can't really even afford the sideboard space or deck space to bring in enough hate. As far as fighting Liliana, you best bet is to drop all artifact mana on the table, build up your manabase, and try to set up for Past in Flames. If they have Deathrite Shaman as well, you're going to have a hard time.

So I feel like all these are problems that TES is much better at dealing with, but honestly it's pretty pointless to argue that opinion - it happens every few pages. I'd just urge you to take a look over at the TES thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phazonmuant

I know we've talked about this before like 5 or 10 pages ago, but why would 2 Grim Tutors be better than the Grinding Station shell? See here: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...inding-Station

If you want to just have infinite business to beat counterspells and whatnot, it seems better to just play more Past in Flames. The card's sick.

---

When you draw the Past in Flames, you need Rituals as well as a win-con (tutor or Tendrils). When you simply have the tutor, it acts as the entire engine by itself. This is the biggest difference between Grinding Station and my list. I would argue that my list has a more consistent kill because you don't need Tendrils + PiF, you just need a tutor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

Hello all, I'm a big fan of ANT and been playing Adam Prosak's list online quite a bit. My success rate has been decent but I feel like there are just some matchups and even specific cards that I'm just dead to. Most of this stems probably from the fact that the deck doesn't have any maindeck answers to permanents or spells on the stack.

For example a Thalia or Gaddock Teeg turn two usually means auto-game over. An active Liliana or Jace can also be trouble since the deck doesn't have any way to generate raw card advantage to force through. An explosive or even a half way decent start from a re-animator or Oops All Spells deck can be difficult if not possible to come back from. Somewhat surprisingly I've been able to fight through Chalice on zero and on one (although not in the same game).

It seems too much to ask for the maindeck discard to always fight back on these fronts esp since Duress cannot target a Thalia or Teeg. Boarding in a lot of perm-hate post-board makes the deck feel clunky and slow and not trying to fight on our own terms (i.e. the speed of combo). Any thoughts?

---

I always thought the current ANT lists are super ignorant in the fact that they lose to a lot of cards game 1 against non-blue decks. Hypothetically, you can fight through a Chalice on 1 with multiple Cabal / LED / Petal, but realistically you'll have to dig and cantrip.. etc. Losses to Teeg immediately.

I'd like to go back to more of Timo's Burning ANT list from GP Ghent. Burning Wish allows you to have more options and have an out to maindecked hate like the above, losing to a turn 1-3 hatebear is the worst feeling when you're playing combo. Having access to Empty the Warrens is actually a good way to fight through discard (since you can just forget 3-4 storm count and go off a few turns early). Pyroclasm is big game against many of the meta's decks, even fair decks like Stoneblade to buy time. The deck may be a little more clunky due to multiple redundant tutors (which we can add more cantrips to mediate this), but at least you don't lose to Surgical Extraction / Extirpate and maindeck permanent-based hate. For reference, see below.

John Gatza's (t16). Burning ANT - SCG Philadelphia

Instant [13]
1 Ad Nauseam
4 Brainstorm
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Dark Ritual
Sorcery [24]
3 Burning Wish
4 Cabal Therapy
3 Duress
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Infernal Tutor
1 Past in Flames
4 Ponder
1 Tendrils of Agony
Artifact [8]
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
Land [15]
1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Badlands
2 Bloodstained Mire
4 Polluted Delta
2 Scalding Tarn
1 Tropical Island
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
60 cards

Sideboard:
3 Dark Confidant
3 Abrupt Decay
2 Chain of Vapor
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Past in Flames
1 Pyroclasm
1 Shattering Spree
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Thoughtseize
15 cards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessenator

I'd like to go back to more of Timo's Burning ANT list from GP Ghent. Burning Wish allows you to have more options and have an out to maindecked hate like the above, losing to a turn 1-3 hatebear is the worst feeling when you're playing combo. Having access to Empty the Warrens is actually a good way to fight through discard (since you can just forget 3-4 storm count and go off a few turns early). Pyroclasm is big game against many of the meta's decks, even fair decks like Stoneblade to buy time. The deck may be a little more clunky due to multiple redundant tutors (which we can add more cantrips to mediate this), but at least you don't lose to Surgical Extraction / Extirpate and maindeck permanent-based hate. For reference, see below.

---

Seriously not trolling here - why would you play Burning Wish in the ANT shell rather than TES? The reasons I've heard ANT is superior: more consistent manabase, more consistent draws because of so many cantrips, has a real sideboard, and has more powerful mana producers and storm engines (Cabal Rit and Past in Flames maindeck). Burning Wish opposes all of those plans. Now that Abrupt Decay is de rigueur required in storm combo, there's not a whole lot of difference between 6 rainbow lands over 5 colors and 4 colors with fetch/dual manabase. You have to cut cantrips to add Burning Wish - something that I'm obviously not opposed to, but I believe that if you do so, you should take it to the logical extension of making the deck as fast as possible to capitalize on a higher probability of having business in your opener. Burning Wish dilutes the sideboard and not having Silence makes insane TES storm engines like IGG and Diminishing Returns pretty bad. And finally, Burning Wish exiling itself really doesn't help with either Cabal Ritual or Past in Flames.

It seems like Burning Wish ANT plays to all the weaknesses of both strategies rather than the strengths.
Maybe I'm wrong in this, but my feeling is that the Prosak-ANT lists lose to their opponents while TES loses to itself. In other words, Prosak-ANT is very consistent at winning through a very small subset of things, but loses to a larger variety of hate. TES is more resilient...if it gets a decent draw.

I've been having some success swapping out the Ad Nauseum for an Empty the Warrens maindeck. I like how it gives the deck an alternative way to win and doesn't rely unnecessarily on getting all the way there to finish off the opponent. Storming for 4-6 is acceptable and can stall out the game somewhat so that Tendrils can finish off the job, or the other way around if life is low due to some early pressure and Ad Nauseum wouldn't be a viable option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phazonmuant

Seriously not trolling here - why would you play Burning Wish in the ANT shell rather than TES? The reasons I've heard ANT is superior: more consistent manabase, more consistent draws because of so many cantrips, has a real sideboard, and has more powerful mana producers and storm engines (Cabal Rit and Past in Flames maindeck). Burning Wish opposes all of those plans. Now that Abrupt Decay is de rigueur required in storm combo, there's not a whole lot of difference between 6 rainbow lands over 5 colors and 4 colors with fetch/dual manabase. You have to cut cantrips to add Burning Wish - something that I'm obviously not opposed to, but I believe that if you do so, you should take it to the logical extension of making the deck as fast as possible to capitalize on a higher probability of having business in your opener. Burning Wish dilutes the sideboard and not having Silence makes insane TES storm engines like IGG and Diminishing Returns pretty bad. And finally, Burning Wish exiling itself really doesn't help with either Cabal Ritual or Past in Flames.

It seems like Burning Wish ANT plays to all the weaknesses of both strategies rather than the strengths.
Maybe I'm wrong in this, but my feeling is that the Prosak-ANT lists lose to their opponents while TES loses to itself. In other words, Prosak-ANT is very consistent at winning through a very small subset of things, but loses to a larger variety of hate. TES is more resilient...if it gets a decent draw.

---

I've had I mana issues at all with my build of ANT and the extra tutors aren't any more clunky than the 8 in TES, I feel like you haven't tested burning ANT at all. I switched over from TES which I have played for quite a while because on the SCG circuit every other round you play against a blue deck with discard which TES can have huge issues with. In terms of a sideboard I have my Bobs and my anti-hate and the only other thing I might want is hate against reanimator.

Edit- everyone trying to cut Ad Nauseam from the deck for empty is an idiot. Yes AN is awful in this deck for the most part but we need an alternative to PIF when we need to be faster like in combo mirrors or can't use our graveyard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatz

I've had I mana issues at all with my build of ANT and the extra tutors aren't any more clunky than the 8 in TES, I feel like you haven't tested burning ANT at all. I switched over from TES which I have played for quite a while because on the SCG circuit every other round you play against a blue deck with discard which TES can have huge issues with. In terms of a sideboard I have my Bobs and my anti-hate and the only other thing I might want is hate against reanimator.

Edit- everyone trying to cut Ad Nauseam from the deck for empty is an idiot. Yes AN is awful in this deck for the most part but we need an alternative to PIF when we need to be faster like in combo mirrors or can't use our graveyard.

---

Well consider me an idiot for at least trying to test out EtW instead of Ad Nauseum. Yes there are situations where AN is preferable. However in combo mirrors, if you have the mana to cast an early Ad Nauseum, you probably have the mana to just finish the job with PiF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatz

I've had I mana issues at all with my build of ANT and the extra tutors aren't any more clunky than the 8 in TES, I feel like you haven't tested burning ANT at all. I switched over from TES which I have played for quite a while because on the SCG circuit every other round you play against a blue deck with discard which TES can have huge issues with. In terms of a sideboard I have my Bobs and my anti-hate and the only other thing I might want is hate against reanimator.

Edit- everyone trying to cut Ad Nauseam from the deck for empty is an idiot. Yes AN is awful in this deck for the most part but we need an alternative to PIF when we need to be faster like in combo mirrors or can't use our graveyard.

---

I have, I've played Burning ANT in at least one SCG Open (like a year ago). I've also seen a couple friends play it at my local store. I mean, obviously we have a different opinion on the deck, but I'm not coming out of nowhere with this.

As far as blue decks with discard, I'm really not sure how any of ANT, TNT or TES are uniquely equipped to deal with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

Well consider me an idiot for at least trying to test out EtW instead of Ad Nauseum. Yes there are situations where AN is preferable. However in combo mirrors, if you have the mana to cast an early Ad Nauseum, you probably have the mana to just finish the job with PiF.

---

This is just not true, a lot of hands with either based on LED or just all one color mana can't ever use PIF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phazonmuant

I have, I've played Burning ANT in at least one SCG Open (like a year ago). I've also seen a couple friends play it at my local store. I mean, obviously we have a different opinion on the deck, but I'm not coming out of nowhere with this.

As far as blue decks with discard, I'm really not sure how any of ANT, TNT or TES are uniquely equipped to deal with that.

---

The biggest draw is the ability to play Dark Confidant, easily my favorite SB card. The more powerful ritual, more stable manabase and maindeck PIF all help me go off with fewer cards in hand and play a longer game than a deck playing 12 lands and chrome mox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatz

This is just not true, a lot of hands with either based on LED or just all one color mana can't ever use PIF.

---

Sure the cases where you have only artifact mana or only rituals with no red source requires the use of Ad Nauseum if you need to go off immediately. But with 12 'trips and multiple fetches, is this that frequent a case?

I try to avoid casting ad nauseam but it is way to powerful of a tool to not include. Empty is simply weak in this deck, I only put it in my SB to hedge against things like leyline. We usually want to sculpt for a few turns and then go for a hard kill, if you want to empty on turn one play TES.
Also having only one storm engine, especially one based on the graveyard, in the main deck seems loose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatz

I try to avoid casting ad nauseam but it is way to powerful of a tool to not include. Empty is simply weak in this deck, I only put it in my SB to hedge against things like leyline. We usually want to sculpt for a few turns and then go for a hard kill, if you want to empty on turn one play TES.
Also having only one storm engine, especially one based on the graveyard, in the main deck seems loose.

---

Absolutely have to agree with everything you just said.

davelin, If you look in my signature, there's a link to an excel worksheet for storm that will help you get a feel for how many cards you can typically draw off of Ad Nauseam given a certain life total. Of course there's no substitute for playtesting, but I thought it was kinda neat to see numerically the differences between the builds as far as Ad Nauseam is concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phazonmuant

Absolutely have to agree with everything you just said.

davelin, If you look in my signature, there's a link to an excel worksheet for storm that will help you get a feel for how many cards you can typically draw off of Ad Nauseam given a certain life total. Of course there's no substitute for playtesting, but I thought it was kinda neat to see numerically the differences between the builds as far as Ad Nauseam is concerned.

---

I think I'm going to add SAINT to the sheet just for laughs when i get home from work

Right, I've been away from this forum for quite some time, but it doesn't seem like anything has changed considering any form of ad nauseam kind of decks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phazonmuant

Absolutely have to agree with everything you just said.

davelin, If you look in my signature, there's a link to an excel worksheet for storm that will help you get a feel for how many cards you can typically draw off of Ad Nauseam given a certain life total. Of course there's no substitute for playtesting, but I thought it was kinda neat to see numerically the differences between the builds as far as Ad Nauseam is concerned.

---

Thanks for the link! I'm also primarily interested in things like for each decklist how to they perform in speed, consistency and resiliency. I'm currently in the midst of goldfishing Prosak-ANT at least 100 times to collect some data on this. I'll share my results if anyone is interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

Thanks for the link! I'm also primarily interested in things like for each decklist how to they perform in speed, consistency and resiliency. I'm currently in the midst of goldfishing Prosak-ANT at least 100 times to collect some data on this. I'll share my results if anyone is interested.

---

I do not doubt that Prosak's ANT is good. It had a lot of Top8. But I don't get the rainbow lands and the 6 discard spells.

Wouldn't it be more benificial to cut one Gemstone Mine for another Scalding Tarn, which would make cantrips better? I don't like these rainbow lands except for their use in TES and Dredge. You can't fetch them and they are not Wasteland-proof. In most of the cases I am playing against wasteland, I fetch for the needed mana in my comboturn. This is not possible with Gemstone Mine. To get similar effects I need it on my hand and I will need guaranteed landdrops before.

I would cut the second Gemstone Mine entirely for more discard, using 4 Cabal Therapy and 3 Duress, with the 4th Duress in my sb. In my opinion seven discard spells is the right number most of the time. I like the 4th Therapy over the 4th Duress, because you have more targets with the Therapy. With 4 Probes and 3 Duress you will have almost always the information to hit with your Therapies.

Greetings Mindlash

Edit: 14 Lands was enough for me with the full amount of cantrips at hand. With Tropical Island I have a 15th land in my sb.

Good is not the word I would use for Prosak's list, I'd probably go with sub-optimal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatz

Good is not the word I would use for Prosak's list, I'd probably go with sub-optimal.

---

Well ok...it performed well / good was what I meant :-)
I like the version I play a lot more :-P

I am interested what people think about the slight tweaks that I posted.
I can post the list with sideboard if that helps...but sideboards are often too metadependant :)

Greetings Mindlash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatz

Good is not the word I would use for Prosak's list, I'd probably go with sub-optimal.

---

Jay_Gatz, in what matchups do you find yourself SBing in the Confidants? I'm guessing more grindy, mid-rangy matchups?

Bob is so much worse than it used to be. The matchups where you are boarding it in still have Jaces, and if your plan is to grind out the game for a few turns, then you just lose. I tested this endlessly with an Esper player, and it was just not good.

In response to the Empty the Warrens comments: obviously TES can Empty better, but it's not your main engine if you are playing it in this deck. There are many matchups and situations where you can make Goblins turn 1 or 2 but you will lose the grindy game if you try going for the Tendrils plan. It gives the deck more options in these tough situations. Also, just because TES can do something better doesn't mean that you can't play it as a secondary win-con. Your Ad Nauseams are exactly the same. TES can Ad Nauseam better, so why play them? This is a Past in Flames deck, and the debate between Ad Nauseam and Empty is reasonable. Also, If you opt for Empty over AN, it affects more than only those 2 lines; for example, I imagine most AN players don't run 2 Grim Tutors, correct? Well already the Empty list with 2 Grim Tutors is more effective at the Past in Flames kill. When I played AN I would use it once in a 15-round GP, as you rarely NEED to go for this variance-based win-con when you have Past in Flames in the deck. Prosak said the exact same thing. He usually only uses AN once in an entire tournament. I think you are doing it wrong if you are relying on AN often...

Is jace supposed to be good against Bob? I feel like you are playing the matchup wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatz

Is jace supposed to be good against Bob? I feel like you are playing the matchup wrong.

---

Yes you will unnecessarily lose many games to otherwise irrelevant slow cards like Jace if you board in Dark Confidants. If they aren't trumping your Bob with something more relevant to the game, then you will easily win anyways. Believe me, I remember when Dark Confidant used to be a great SB plan in Storm. Times have changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7

Yes you will unnecessarily lose many games to otherwise irrelevant slow cards like Jace if you board in Dark Confidants. If they aren't trumping your Bob with something more relevant to the game, then you will easily win anyways. Believe me, I remember when Dark Confidant used to be a great SB plan in Storm. Times have changed.

---

Maybe it depends on what shell of ANT you're running? Case in point I've played about 10 or so games with Burning ANT after over a hundred with Prosak-ANT. Granted I'll admit I'm still learning the deck but here are my general observations -

- Burning ANT seems to be more grindy and built for the longer game. Yes it obviously can win early as well but the 4 Preordains in Prosak-ANT makes a big different IMO. Smoother draws, easier mana requirements, etc. With Prosak I can reliably PiF -> Tendrils around turn 4-5

- Re: mana requirements. Burning ANT now requires red to be available earlier than usual. Yes all of the fetches can be used to get red mana, but blue and black is required first and it's very possible to get choked off

- Burning ANT is more resilient since it doesn't auto-lose pre-SB to cards like Teeg or even Thalia.

Just some general observations. I'm hoping I can combine some of two and come up with something as consistent as Prosak but as resilient as Burning without sacrificing too much speed.

Playing preordain instead of action spells doesn't increase the speed of the deck at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatz

Playing preordain instead of action spells doesn't increase the speed of the deck at all.

---

I respectively disagree. ANT can easily go off turn 2 or 3 with a combination of rits, artifact mana and an infernal tutor and additional cantrips helps immensely getting there. Burning Wish cannot dig or replace one of these parts, the best it can achieve is generate 10-12 goblin tokens.

Say it's turn three and you have Infernal Tutor, 2 rits, 2 petals and two lands in play. The game is over, you've won. Replace any of these instead with Burning wish and you can only just EtW for a bunch. Again maybe it's my unfamiliarity with the deck but I don't see how it's just as fast as Prosak-ANT and more resilient at the same time.

I didn't replace any of the core cards in the deck with wishes. I opted not to play the redundant and subpar cantrip that is preordain.