Printable View
I personally feel like 6 is too low. 7 is the sweet spot for me in Ad Naus builds. I like 8 (with a singleton Tseize) in my current non-AN, PiF/Empty-main build, and that's the list I have having the most success with when I play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstalker
Is there a list combining top and LDV???Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstalker
Thx!! i guess top + LDV replace B. wish right??Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkJester
Except there aren't enough good card options in Storm to not need "significantly worse" cantrips past Brainstorms, Ponders and Probes, because Grim Tutor is inefficient, Burning Wish is underpowered and Lim Dul's Vault, Personal Tutor and Sensei's Divining Top aren't established yet. Preordain is about as good as Ponder is, and I don't think you can directly compare Preordain vs Sensei's Divining Top because there isn't a linear relationship between the number of Preordains and Sensei's Divining Tops in your deck. For instance, 1 Sensei's Divining Top is better than 1 Preordain, but 4 Preordain are better than 4 Sensei's Divining TopQuote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
I like LDV/Top, but it seems slower than the 16 cantrip version, which is kind of disconcerting.
With a "tutor" like LDV, is 16 cantrips necessary? Sure, LDV requires more...brain activity to be a competent play, but knowing the top five cards of your library is insane. Moreover, picking those 5 cards and reordering them is even crazier. Then, you have over 8 cantrips that will allow you to draw at least one of those cards, or up to all (Ad Nauseam) of those cards, and with
AN in mind, it can all be end of your opponents turn with the help of a couple rituals. Not the best idea, but drawing lots of cards in response to a discard spell that would otherwise take your only win-con is a good choice in my opinion.
-ABC
Is it only me, or does all the development, resulting as a reaction to any meta-shift, make the deck slower and slower?
It's one thing to run expensive Tutors like Grim in addition to Infernal, or getting used to cantrip for 2-3 turns into a card-configuration that can win, but SDT and LDV are significant mana-sinks and carddisadvantage and with the cutting of Ad Nauseam (which I promoted months ago), I don't feel you can make up for that Investment.
Obviously not, considering the only way you could afford to play LDV in the first place is by cutting cantrips, I think the "standard" LDV list is like 2 LDV, 2 SDT in place of the 4 Pre-Ordains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee
It doesn't make up for card disadvantage, but it does give you card quality, something vital to the life of storm. Back in the days of Mystical Tutor when I was playing D-Day FT AN hybrid (ran a full set of tops), you could run 7 discard spells and a single Chant and win a war of attrition vs. blue.dec. You can't do that with this deck, and it's because you are too busy durdling around with all those clunky cantrips to do anything other than combo off as fast as your scared little deck can manage. Doomsday went off turn 3, occasionally turn 4, and that happened more against blue than anything. Win through graveyard hate, hate bears, you name it. Any D-Day player knows that the top 5 cards of a library is all you need. I see no reason to change philosophy now, especially when your choices are smaller via a lack of mystical. In fact, LDV is basically the next best thing to Mystical, doing the exact same thing, costing only B more and giving you the next top 4 cards of your library in any order you want. Life total, shmife total, its a bargain for its plethora of uses.
EDIT: Took me long enough that I guess I should have noted that this was in response to Lemnear. FF, obv. you are correct. That's the point I was trying to make.
I agree with the obvious analogies between LDV and Mystical, however the deck back then was an Ad Nauseam deck which basically only needed the namesake card and 5 mana to work.
Imo the things greatly differ if you cut AN and make the Main-engine PIF, which still needs Rituals/cantrips/infernal in the graveyard to achieve enough stormcount + mana for being finally able to fetch ToA.
So I doubt we can make Mystical + Ad Nauseam a proper example to advocate for LDV + PIF
Well yes, obviously, but then we wouldn't be talking about AD Nauseam Tendrils, would we? That would be PiF-Tendrils; a different deck with different routes to victory.
-ABC
Indeed. Still, the current discussed standard is EtW + PIF w/o AN afaik, so I was refering to that one 'cause it was discussed here due to the lack of an own thread. Tribute to the threads-multi-layer of builds :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee
Saying that Preordain is about as good as Ponder essentially invalidates everything else you said. Also, you can't make a blanket statement that 1 Top is better than 1 Preordain. They are completely different cards, and Top costs 1 more mana to look at cards once which is a huge deal. Regarding Grim, it is still a very good card. It lets my list run 150% of the normal number of tutors and better utilize Past in Flames which is the best engine in the deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
How does saying Preordain is about as good as Ponder essentially invalidate everything else I said? I've played the 16 cantrip version of Tendrils exclusively at local tournaments for some time, and the power level of Preordain isn't far behind the power level of Ponder if you consider Ponder is only strictly better than Preordain when combined with a Fetchland. Yes, I can make a blanket statement that 1 Top is better than 1 Preordain and that 4 Preordain is better than 4 Top, because a single Top will have significantly more powerful board presence vs your more difficult match ups compared to a single Preordain, where Preordain becomes more powerful as the total number of Preordains increases because the deck can begin to chain cantrips mana efficiently while building Threshold. If I'm choosing the 9th cantrip, then I'm choosing Top over Preordain because it makes the biggest difference vs discard, where if I'm choosing to build an engine out of cantrips than Preordain is clearly better than Top because multiple Tops are redudant and a single Top is mana inefficient as a card quality engine when having 16 cantrips lets you essentially cantrip every turn anyway. I can't say a single Preordain is strictly worse than a single Top vs RUG and such, but in a metagame defined by discard I think Top clearly wins; I mean you don't exactly see anybody SBing Preordain compared to Top right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
I think the difference between Infernal Tutor and Grim Tutor is much more significant than the difference between Ponder and Preordain, it is noticeably worse in every situation that I've come across and I think that people's interest in Burning Wish, Lim Dul's Vault and Preordain speaks of people's discontent with the card. I don't fault anyone for playing it, but for me it's been rather lackluster.
My friend told me about an ant player using young pyromancer in the sideboard. The card seemed to be doing pretty well from what my friend described. Basically becomes an empty the warrens, and is a backup plan against force of stupid.
Without a fetchland, Ponder is strictly better than Preordain when you don't want any of the top 3 cards on top of your library.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
And Preordain is strictly better than Ponder when you want 1 card on top of your deck but not the other, I think it's completely situational which cantrip is actually better sans fetchlands. I'm not saying Ponder isn't better overall, but Preordain is still pretty close.Quote:
Originally Posted by spg
This is actually false. Preordain is not "strictly better" in this scenario because Ponder can see and reorder a third card than Preordain cannot see...Quote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
not really. look, to me, another tutor is just better than another cantrip. i can give you situations where grim is better than infernal or another cantrip, and i think that a lot of people dont play the card because is expensive. preordain is good, but cmon, 3 preordains and 1 grim seems (to me at least) just betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Final Fortune
There's a difference between seeing and re-ordering a third card that you'll have to draw thru' anway and sending a second card to the bottom of your deck so you wont have to draw it at all obviously, that said I usually prefer Preordain over Ponder without a fetchland because the Scry clears the top of the deck of an unwanted card before I follow up with another cantrip. The fact that I always seem to lead with Preordain makes it the preferable cantrip, I'd rather have 2xPreordain, 1xPreordain and 1xPonder or 1xPreordain and 1xBrainstorm than 2xPonder or 1xPonder and 1xBrainstorm fwiw if I'm not holding a fetchland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
Look, I get that you don't like Preordain, but functionally it does what it needs to do close enough to Ponder for me not to have to worry about the deck being strictly worse without Grim Tutor. Even if it was just equal to Ponder without a fetchland and worse than Ponder with a fetchland, that's still good enough to get played in my book.
It may very well be, I've never tried that configuration.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaberTooth
No it isn't. It gives you a slightly higher chance of hitting off the single cantrip if you're looking for a particular card. You can still draw the cards you don't want after shuffling them away. You can't after scrying them away.Quote:
Originally Posted by spg
Not arguing that Ponder isn't is better most of the time, but saying that it's always the better card to have is incorrect.
Royce is right.
I've had this argument before about ponder vs preordain, and the fact of the matter is neither is strictly better (than the other).
there are situations where both are better, and in fact if you don't want any of your top 3 cards, i would sort of argue that preordain is slightly better because it leaves 2 of the unwanted cards on the bottom of the deck while you try to continue to cantrip to cards you need.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Ponder is better than Preordain 100% of the time, but it is definitely not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Royce Walter
You are wrong to correct spg, because in his example he is right by saying that Ponder is better if you don't want any of the top 3 cards of your library. With Preordain, you MUST take the 3rd card if you don't want the first or second. With Ponder, there is a chance that you will shuffle and still get one of those cards, but there is also a good chance you won't. In that scenario Preordain 100% gives you a card you don't want...
I think that in order to believe that, you have to be thinking that the only card that matters is the card that you draw from the cantrip, and that's discounting if the card you draw from the cantrip is another selection spell, where it's obviously better to have just scryed 2 to the bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
Well the 3rd card from the top of your library has to be a constant in this scenario because we have established that it is an unwanted card. You would know that this is an unwanted card with Ponder because you see 3 cards. If you had used a Preordain, the 3rd card is still an unwanted card, but you don't know that until you draw it. Because of this, Ponder is always the better card if the top 3 cards of your deck are unwanted cards. Does that make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Royce Walter
It's pretty weak to argue that the scrying matters anyways, because that is making the assumption that you aren't going to shuffle the deck with any other effect. The effect is also minimal in terms of statistics compared to the benefits of seeing a third card with Ponder. Let's go back to the above scenario. Let's assume your deck has 50 card in it, 20 of which you don't want to see. The top 3 are unwanted cards. With the Ponder shuffle, you have a 60% chance to draw a desired card on the turn you cantrip and a 59.2% chance to draw a desired card on the following turn (assuming you actually drew a desired card the turn before. It is 61.2% if you did not). With Preordain, you have a 0% chance of drawing a desired card on the cantrip turn and a 63.8% chance of drawing a desired card on the following turn (this includes the fact that you definitely did not draw a desired card the turn before).
Since your metric appears to be "the chance of finding what I am looking for off of this cantrip", then I agree with what you're saying. I disagree that this is the best way to compare them. Especially since you sequence your cantrips such that you get to eliminate some number of unwanted cards by Preordaining before Pondering/Brainstorming. Remember in our hypothetical that our only stipulation is that the top 3 cards of our library are undesirable. So if you have another card selection spell in your hand, is Ponder still better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
To be clear I wasn't trying to argue that Ponder is strictly better than Preordain, just that there are game situations where Ponder is strictly, mathematically better than Preordain that don't involve a fetchland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Royce Walter
Although I must say that the odds of redrawing shuffled cards is an interesting point that I hadn't really thought about much before in my cantrip decisions. I like numbers, so let's be a little more specific and go through some quick math to get an idea of how it can affect us:
SITUATION #1:
You need a Lion's Eye Diamond to win the game right now, otherwise you're going down the next turn to a goblin swarm. You have only one spare blue mana to cast a cantrip, and can choose between Preordain and Ponder to make it happen. Lion's Eye Diamond is the only card that will win for you, and there are 4 left in your 40 card library. None of the 4 LEDs are in the top 3 cards of your library.
Clearly Ponder at a 10% chance is strictly better than Preordain in this situation, since you can't find the LED by definition with Preordain.
Chances with Ponder = 1 - (36/40) = 10.00%
Chances with Preordain = 1 - (38/38) = 0.00%
SITUATION #2:
Same as situation 1, except you have an additional Gitaxian Probe to see one more draw beyond your Preordain/Ponder.
Preordain is better than in situation #1 (since by definition it now has some chance of finding LED) - but the dead cards do not swing the percentage into Preordain's favor. Ponder is still better.
Chances with Ponder: 1 - (36/40) x (35/39) = 19.23%
Chances with Preordain: 1 - (38/38) x (33/37) = 10.81% (first draw is dead, second draw is 4/37 because the bottom two are known non-LED cards)
SITUATION #3:
Same as situation 1, except you have THREE Gitaxian Probes to draw the next 3 cards after resolving your Ponder/Preordain.
Still heavily in Ponder's favor, although less so than Situation #2.
Chances with Ponder: 1 - (36/40) x (35/39) x (34/38) x (33/37) = 35.55%
Chances with Preordain: 1 - (37/37) x (33/37) x (32/36) x (31/35) = 29.78%
So assuming my math is correct, the two known dead cards do not tip the scales in Preordain's favor even after a free Ancestral in this situation. In these three situations Ponder is strictly, mathematically better than Preordain. Clearly though, there are also situations where the two known dead cards vs the shuffle WOULD make Preordain a better choice - it just isn't one of these three scenarios. With this simple setup, it would take 12 Gitaxian Probes (and some extra life) before the odds swung into Preordain's favor 80.85% vs 80.80%.
These three scenarios are obviously HIGHLY simplified, but I think it can still be educational. I do think that, for example, Situation #2 above is something that could really come up for you in a match - and you should always cast Ponder based on the math. Running numbers like this becomes a lot more complex if you have other complicated cantrips involved (Ponder/Brainstorm/Preordain) with shuffles, or you're looking for multiple cards, or drawing Lotus Petals, or whatever.
Personally I'm not a fan of declaring something 'strictly' better without it being mathematically, provably better - and I'm embarrassed that I did it in my previous post. My statement of "Without a fetchland, Ponder is strictly better than Preordain when you don't want any of the top 3 cards on top of your library" is clearly incorrect. Ponder is often better in that situation, but it's not STRICTLY better. Lots to think about!
In situation #2 you listed Preordain as better. Is that a mistake?
Edited for clarity. I meant that it's better than in situation #1, but worded it horribly. Thanks for pointing that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Star|Scream
@spg: Your original statement is correct though because Preordain has 100% chance of hitting an undesirable card if the top 3 cards of your deck are undesirable, whereas Ponder has the option to see a 4th random card, meaning that there is some chance to hit a card that you need. Even with Probes, Brainstorms, whatever else, the extra card that you are seeing on your quest to find a playable card makes Ponder always better in that scenario.
I disagree. I'd rather scry 2 to the bottom before casting a Brainstorm than I would shuffle my library, draw a card, then Brainstorm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
It all depends on what you need, and when you need it exactly.
If you need one card right now, or else you just die, Ponder lets you see four cards instead of three, so it is always better.
If you have time to cantrip into new stuff, things start to change. Cantripping into one card you like, and two you don't like, is a good example of when Preordain is better. Fetch lands can help your Ponder, out of course. I add my voice to those who say that Preordain should be the first cantrip you cast. Brainstorm usually gets better when the game progresses, so Ponder fits nicely in the middle.
Like the following line of play:
Turn one: land, Preordain.
Turn two: Ponder, play fetch, fetch away irrelevant stuff, cast Duress.
Turn three: Brainstorm, play fetch, fetch away irrelevant stuff, go off (or cast second protection spell and then go off).
T2 you surely play fetch before Ponder unless you're deliberately baiting a daze or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Asthereal
That's only an example. Maybe I needed to find the fetch with my Ponder. :wink:
If my opponent plays Daze, I play the land first. If not, I sometimes keep it in hand, in order to perhaps find a different fetch land that I prefer at that moment. All depends on the situation, the opponent, cards in hand. You know. You've played this deck. :smile:
I must admit that I use cantrips to bait Daze sometimes, if I have little accelleration in hand.
That makes no sense. So you would rather definitely get a card that you don't need so that your Brainstorm does not hit the 2 cards that you put on the bottom of your deck? What if your Brainstorm then hits 2 unplayable cards anyways? What if there is at least one card in your hand that isn't that great and you draw into another? It makes no sense that you would rather have an unplayable card in your hand than a potentially very good card just so your Brainstorm has a higher percentage to hit playable cards by a couple percentage points. That logically makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Royce Walter
@Asthereal: Preordain is not necessarily better in a scenario when you cantrip into 1 card you like and 2 you don't because one of those three cards is going to be random with Preordain, and you will absolutely have to draw it. With Ponder you can weigh the importance of the one card you want over the other two cards because all three cards are known information. You can also use shuffle effects to get rid of the worst of the three or even get rid of two if you can fetch that turn. Regardless, the information is what is important. With Preordain you will still be stuck with drawing a random crd out of the top 3, and what if that card is the absolute worst one? Preordain can be a crapshoot and is so much worse than Ponder in a tuned combo deck like Storm.
In the situation where there are three cards on top of which you want one, and definitely do not want the other two, this is what happens:
Preordain either gets rid of both bad cards and draws the good one, or gets rid of one bad card, draws one good card, and then we have the (unknown) last bad card on top still. Ponder gives you the choice: have one good card and two bad ones, or shuffle and lose the one good card but draw one random card instead. Ponder gives you a dilemma, and you will definitely be uncomfortable with either choice you make, where Preordain makes you happy: you ditch the bad stuff, draw the good stuff, and IF the bad card is still on top, you will not know, because you haven't seen it yet. So Preordain is also better for your mood. :tongue:
Haha OK you can have that point. :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Asthereal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Followed by two pages of Ponder vs. Preordain debate... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Ok, time for a small report:
Another four-rounder on Mon, I was unable to chnage the deck to my liking, so I used the outdated version I'll never use again. Over twenty ppl showed up.
// Lands
4 Polluted Delta
2 Scalding Tarn
2 Bloodstained Mire
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Badlands
1 Tropical Island
1 Bayou
1 Island
//\\
// Spells
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Infernal Tutor
2 Lim-Dul's Vault
3 Duress
4 Cabal Therapy
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
1 Ad Nauseam
1 Past in Flames
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Empty the Warrens
//\\
// Sideboard
3 Chain of Vapor
3 Xantid Swarm
1 Abrupt Decay
1 Virtue's Ruin
2 Disfigure
2 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Carpet of Flowers
Round 1, Luke with Jund
g1: I won the dice roll, mulled no-lander to monstrous six that loses to any discard. (I didn't know what I stand against, though.) I GP->CT his Hymn and on my turn 2 I Ponder into AdN with double CRit and double DRit in hand. I draw lots of cards (some of them LEDs) and on my five life I finally draw LP to play the IT I had in opening hand. Crack LEDs, find ToA.
sb: in discard and removal, out some Probes and something I can't remember, maybe I switched some Duress for IoK, as the latter hits DRS?
g2: I made a mistake of fetching basic and failed to draw a black source until it was too late.
g3: I made a mistake of fetching USea and my only play before been Wasted-out was IoK.
Lovely match.
Round 2, Tom with UGBR Tempo
g1: I think I started. I was hit by discard and he Pierced my quite important Ponder, but luckily his only creature was Grim and that cantrip deathtouch flying 1/1 owl. I had three lands but only one of them was blue, so I cantripped at snail's pace. Turn before I was ready to combo, he BSed into Thoughtseize and DRS. He seized my IT/LDV, played DRS and passed. Failing to draw anything relevant, I also passed and then I lost to Goyf pretty soon after my sole blue land was wasted.
sb: in Iok, Carpets, Disfigures and Chains, out some Probes and a mix of one ofs.
g2: I had turn1 Carpet and was able to play around Pierces. I just sculpted my hand, played lands and lately killed one Shaman, woohoo! He was stuck on two lands, but had Crypt. Then he tapped for something irrelevant (I think he got his 3rd land and played Lili, but maybe it was something else, I forgot to write it down... Goyf?) and I played EOT DRit+AdN which he not surprisingly FoWed. On my turn I went LP->Carpet no. 2, move to 2nd main, add BBUU with Carpets, then Duress/IoK. LED, DRit, CRit, CT, IT, ToA. Note: if he had Surgical for my DRit, I'd maybe lost, I din't seen this play when I tried the AdN.
g3: Would you believe that 2x Spell Pierce , Thoughtseize, 2x Deathrite Shaman, Crypt, Wasteland and Clique are hard to overcome? Yep, they are; esp. when you mull to five and stuggle to cantrip into your second land. A pro tip: use some basic lands.
Round 3, Susie with Sneak Show.
Finally a matchup where it won't matter I don't use basics!
g1: I lost the dice roll and cantripped to find discard. Her turn 2 was: SOL land->S&T->SneakAtt, then LP, sac LP to Sneak Grisly, draw another LP, Sneak Emmy, gg.
sb: discard, Swarms, Chains, Carpets, out Probes, EtW and some one ofs.
g2: She opened with Leyline in her seven. I fetched Tropical and played Swarm. She thought for a while and FoWed. Her turn was Island into cantrip. I fetched USea and played Ponder, pass. She fetched Volc and cantripped. I drawn BS, played BS, played Volcanic, played Ponder which she Flustered which made me curious, but whatever and I passed with Volc, USea and Trop on my side of battlefield. She untapped, played City, played LP, played Blood Moon. Now on I durdled for a few turns and she found Sneak Attack sooner than I found any LP to even have any chance to start the combo.
Finally a matchup where it didn't matter I don't use basics!
Round 4, Jay with D&T
I considered a drop, but then I said to myself that I may play against some very small child, so why not improve my mood a bit?
g1: He won die roll and went turn 1 MoR, turn 2 Thalia, while I twiddled with cantrips. I scooped to his turn 3 Mindcensor played of Wasteland.
sb: removal and Chains instead of a mix of Probes, Therapies and Duresses
g2: I mulled to five (absolutely blank hands, I mean: really blank) and lost to Thalia, Wasteland, Canopy->Teeg, Cannonist x2. (Only after the match was over, I realized he plays several Canopies main and three Teegs sb. Must really hate combo/control).
With a quite bad 0:4 result, it was a pretty annoying tournament I dare to say.
Pros: None. Ok, I sold Mox Opal.
Cons: The whole evening? Ok, I sold that Mox Opal...
I think I'll switch back to Canada for a moment.
@bestdecksplayer
Sorry but not to play basics in this deck is completly wrong.
I think a 0:4 is diserved with wrong fetched lands etc and only 1 basic island..
You should play 1 island and 1 swamp and try again insteat of playing canadian^^
You just learning more when you try it again;)