[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils) Storm Combo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

Thanks for the updates in the opening post. Very helpful!

I'm still having issues with the Grinding Station approach. I've been playing everything between full-TES to classic ANT, but I just can't get good results with PiF + natural Storm as my only win condition.

Yesterday I played another test match against a friend of mine who's on Esper blade. I went with Grinding Station for G1 and got totally destroyed by his turn 1 DRS neutering my PiF and his multiple Thoughtseizes (naturally drawn plus recast with Snapcaster) taking every business spell out of my hand.
I boarded back into my usual list with AN, won game 2 due to him taking two mulligans.
Game 3 I opened the following hand on 6: Petal, Petal, Tutor, LED, LED, Probe. This hand is a mulligan with Grinding Station (with 3 ToA, 0 EtW), but a turn 1 kill with AN in my deck. Needless to say I turn 1'd him after Probing him and seeing that he had no Force with a comfortable Ad Nauseam with 1 floating and an open land drop.

Every time I test Grinding Station I get into situations like those. I'm probably either missing something, or it's just not my playstyle,... or it's just chance, I don't know.

I know Grinding Station is supposed to help in matchups against fair blue decks, but as soon as those decks run black as well, I feel like going without AN is a mistake. So my question is, what matchups does Grinding Station really improve after all? I know Miracles is one of them, and Jeskai Stoneblade might be another likely one. But what else? And if it's just against a few decks that it's really better while it forces you to sacrifice a substantial amount of game against other decks in the format (which at this point I am 100% sure it does), wouldn't it be better to have AN main and board into Grinding Station for G2 instead of doing it the other way around? All I'm seeing are people playing Grinding Station with AN in the side and boarding into it in the majority of their matches. Keeps me thinking 'could've had it G1 already' every time.

Thanks for your replies.

---

A lot of the successful Grinding Station build use a 2 Tendrils of Agony, 1 Empty the Wardens split rather than only Tendrils (for much the same reasons as you have experienced). With this change your hand is actually pretty decent:
-Gitaxian Probe (storm 1) (coast is clear)
-Lotus Petal (storm 2)
-Lotus Petal (storm 3)
-Lions Eye Diamond (storm 4)
-Lions Eye Diamond (storm 5)
-Sacrifice both Lotus Petals to cast Infernal Tutor, sacrificing both Lions Eye Diamonds in response for red and black (storm 6) (BBBRRR available). Tutor for another Infernal Tutor.
-Infernal Tutor (storm 7) (BBRR available). Tutor for Empty the Warrens.
-Cast Empty the Warrens for 16 goblins on turn 1. This is usually enough to win the game against most decks (some combo decks being the exception).

I am aware of that, but even disregarding the fact that my opponent did happen to have a Zealous Persecution in his hand, my question was less about finding a way to win with Grinding Station with that hand but to know what matchups except Miracles it is even advantaged over ANT. And why many people consider it correct to main Grinding Station and side into Ad Nauseam instead of doing it the other way around. My testing has shown that Ad Nauseam is needed in much more matchups than multiple storm spells, i.e. MUD, Show and Tell, Death and Taxes, Storm Mirror, Reanimator, Dredge, Infect, Esper blade, BUG Delver, Jund and more. The only matchups where Grinding Station performed better on average was non-black Delver, Miracles and UWR Blade, but those can obviously not be the only decks, or else there would be no reason to play Grinding Station at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

The only matchups where Grinding Station performed better on average was non-black Delver, Miracles and UWR Blade, but those can obviously not be the only decks, or else there would be no reason to play Grinding Station at all.

---

That's the whole point, actually. Winning those matchups is the incentive to playing that deck; I picked it up when Miracles + Jeskai Blade was 30+% of the meta alongside Delver on MTGO, for instance.

Here, this is my opinion on matchups for Grinding Station, compared to ANT (note that I don't play EtW main, so I'm probably facing even more uphill matchups, in theory, since I can't yolo EtW against black decks).

Improved matchups:
UWR Aggro/Control
RUG
Miracles
Burn (Probably, I haven't exactly tested it a ton)
Merfolk (Who cares)

Neutral/Close Matchups
Elves (Yes, they can get a bunch of DRS on the board or w/e, but that often disables AdN and the lack of g1 discard means you can just natural storm them out. I actually streamed against Elves and took game 1 against Scooze and DRS just by natural storm a couple weeks ago, for instance.)
MUD (Racing is... dubious, even with AdN main. The access to ToA naturally is surprisingly good because the Tombs and such can often bring about natural ToA kills just by running a bunch of stuff into Chalice and then resolving a Cabal Rit into ToA. Overall, the win% you lose by not having t1/t2 AdN is probably balanced by the increased ability to actually win game 1 after Chalice resolves. I still think the matchup is bad for both decks, though, just like, equally bad or w/e)
Lands (Game 1 they often dont have spheres or Chalice, so you can just build to natural storm if you cant play around Rotation into Bojuka. You can also snipe Rotations with discard off Basic Swamp, then if they go to Port your Swamp you can Rain of Filth and laugh all the way to the bank. Postboard, like Elves, you get AdN, so w/e)
Storm (Yeah, people can AdN you game 1, but having an extra Yawg Will to flop in discard fights is pretty neat. I think the matchup looks bad on paper, but is only actually bad when you open on ToA and they open on an AdN line. So, maybe its not truly "neutral", but, I dont think its a significant detraction.)
DnT (They don't main RiP, and if you do get some kinda odd all LED/Tutor draw then you can angle a cantrip line and pick up some %s there. Its even less awkward if you main EtW, obv. This one's likely the same as Storm where it seems bad, isnt as bad as it seems, but is some nebulously minor sort of worse)

Detracted Matchups
Grixis (Ehhhh, this is an odd one. If they don't know how to Thoughtseize you correctly then it's no big deal because you lose a storm but they lose 2 life. Case in point, I have a game co-commentated w/ Jona, iirc, where we get Thoughtseized/Cabal'd, the opponents looks at our hand of Petal, Rits and ToA... and then takes our LED. We end up winning that game. The scary Pyromancer + Therapy wombo combo doesn't turn up until t3, so you have ample chances to try to combo out or at least Therapy their Pyromancer. The fact they pressure you to use cards and depend on them to misplay is why this is a detracted matchup)
BUG (BUG Delver is already an awful matchup for ANT, so, ok, a bad matchup gets worse. BUG control/shardless can win off the back of Hymn against ANT just as easily, its just that Grinding Station has even lower chance to bounce back since you can't flop an AdN. Shardless still feels easy though.)
Big Creature Combo (These matchups are likely just worse. You cant race as much, so, okie doke, you got me here.)

So, there you go. Look at the matchups in your meta and pick accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

MUD, Show and Tell, Death and Taxes, Storm Mirror, Reanimator, Dredge, Infect, Esper blade, BUG Delver, Jund and more.

---

Thats for others to answer, from perspective of 2ToA/1EtW (you may call it whatever but is not grinding station in terms of gameplay lets acknowledge that):

no, no, no, complementary, no, complementary (yes if leyline or manaless), no, ?? (depends on build), no, yes ... more - list more

in other words 1-3/10 MUs where I board out 2nd PiF / would like AdN G2, G1 0-1 ... maybe the start for you is not playing 3ToA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

Detracted Matchups
Grixis (Ehhhh, this is an odd one. If they don't know how to Thoughtseize you correctly then it's no big deal because you lose a storm but they lose 2 life. Case in point, I have a game co-commentated w/ Jona, iirc, where we get Thoughtseized/Cabal'd, the opponents looks at our hand of Petal, Rits and ToA... and then takes our LED. We end up winning that game. The scary Pyromancer + Therapy wombo combo doesn't turn up until t3, so you have ample chances to try to combo out or at least Therapy their Pyromancer. The fact they pressure you to use cards and depend on them to misplay is why this is a detracted matchup)
BUG (BUG Delver is already an awful matchup for ANT, so, ok, a bad matchup gets worse. BUG control/shardless can win off the back of Hymn against ANT just as easily, its just that Grinding Station has even lower chance to bounce back since you can't flop an AdN. Shardless still feels easy though.)

---

Actually, I think both of these matchups are better with Grinding Station preboard. In the case of Grixis, most lists don't run any discard preboard, and blue decks without combo or discard are what Grinding Station preys on.
BUG is actually pretty good as well before sideboarding. They have a couple dead removal spells and not that much discard. It's not that hard to play through a single Deathrite Shaman either. It's only after sideboarding, when they get additional discard spells and stuff like Null Rod, that this really gets bad.
That being said, blue decks with discard make for all of my losses in Grand Prix, and only one of them didn't have Deathrite Shaman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

Big Creature Combo (These matchups are likely just worse. You cant race as much, so, okie doke, you got me here.)

---

This is also not entirely true. Grinding Station is better against Reanimator, but I'm quite sure you'd rather be Ad Nauseam against Show and Tell strategies.

Apart from that, Grinding Station is slightly worse against all the decks against all the decks wonderPreaux listed as neutral/close. But it's really only very slight. Grinding Station is worse at racing those decks, but it's also better at playing through something. Overall, there are a lot of matchups where you give up a little bit, but what you gain in others is huge.

I would also like to add that just because you swap Card A for Card B every time after sideboarding, it's not automatically correct to start Card B. Or less extreme, it can be correct to have a card in your sideboard that you always board in. And I actually think Storm is a very good example for that, because Past in Flames is just absurdly strong, but after sideboarding, people will be more prepared, so you will want some alternatives (Empty, Ad Nauseam, or both).

Thanks for the replies, guys. They gave me some insights into the reasoning behind going Grinding Station, though I still prefer the other approach.

Also I respect everyone's opinions, but it is unnecessary and not helpful at all to deny the fact that Ad Nauseam can speed up your deck in a considerable amount of situations (like Dark Rit, LED, Tutor or 2 LEDs plus Tutor), which will especially help win combo matchups and matchups like DnT/MUD in which you may have to win before they drop their hate permanents. (mostly addressing Sloshthedark here).


What do you do if you Probe them and see something that either kills you or locks you out of the game if they untap, but all you have to work with are two lands, a Dark Rit, an LED and an Infernal? The answer is nothing if you don't have Ad Nauseam in the deck. When I know the coast is clear, I want to kill them. Not wait until they draw something that destroys me. I'm willing to sacrifice some of my game against UWR.dec and non-black Delver in order to have a better chance to race things game 1 in my meta, because said UWR.decs and non-B Delver are basically absent. Miracles is a thing, but I'm beating them well enough with AN in my deck, considering they put zero pressure on my life points and I often have to win before Countertop goes online.

I think it's much more a matter of preference and playstyle. I don't like getting into such situations, have my opponent ask me why I didn't kill them when I had the chance, and I tell them: Well, I don't have Ad Nauseam in my deck...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

What do you do if you Probe them and see something that either kills you or locks you out of the game if they untap, but all you have to work with are two lands, a Dark Rit, an LED and an Infernal? The answer is nothing if you don't have Ad Nauseam in the deck.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfcwq44q-vA


http://hextcg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Goblin.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

Thanks for the replies, guys. They gave me some insights into the reasoning behind going Grinding Station, though I still prefer the other approach.

Also I respect everyone's opinions, but it is unnecessary and not helpful at all to deny the fact that Ad Nauseam can speed up your deck in a considerable amount of situations (like Dark Rit, LED, Tutor or 2 LEDs plus Tutor), which will especially help win combo matchups and matchups like DnT/MUD in which you may have to win before they drop their hate permanents. (mostly addressing Sloshthedark here).


What do you do if you Probe them and see something that either kills you or locks you out of the game if they untap, but all you have to work with are two lands, a Dark Rit, an LED and an Infernal? The answer is nothing if you don't have Ad Nauseam in the deck. When I know the coast is clear, I want to kill them. Not wait until they draw something that destroys me. I'm willing to sacrifice some of my game against UWR.dec and non-black Delver in order to have a better chance to race things game 1 in my meta, because said UWR.decs and non-B Delver are basically absent. Miracles is a thing, but I'm beating them well enough with AN in my deck, considering they put zero pressure on my life points and I often have to win before Countertop goes online.

I think it's much more a matter of preference and playstyle. I don't like getting into such situations, have my opponent ask me why I didn't kill them when I had the chance, and I tell them: Well, I don't have Ad Nauseam in my deck...

---

I don't think anyone is denying that AdN has its benefits but you should analyze all aspects of the card and not just focus on cherry picked scenarios where it would be preferable. Also I think you are overlooking that Empty the Warrens can achieve the same results in a lot of situations including the example you gave where you probe with only LED, DR and tutor in hand and see them sitting on some hate piece coming down next turn.

Both EtW and AdN come with uncertainty as neither guarantee a win upon resolution, each have strengths and weaknesses when compared to the other. I happen to be of the opinion that EtW is better as it:

-costs one mana less
-opens up design space in our deck in terms of CMC

AdN is usually better vs other combo decks and so it remains in my sideboard.

I think that both cards have the potential to win you the game from an early position and with non-trivial risks involved. You might empty into a board sweeper or a SFM -> Batterskull or the likes. Or you might cast AdN from 18 life and fizzle.

I'd also like to remark, and don't take this as being aimed at you as I don't know you, but I have noticed a kind of "training-wheels" bias among new storm players for AdN. Not deliberately trying to sound condescending but merely what I believe to be true. And I think it can cloud the issue for some.

lol @ CT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

(mostly addressing Sloshthedark here)

---

I think Nevishute nailed it perfectly. EtW is sufficient for me in depicted situations.

I don't think Ad Nauseam speeds up your deck just by Pif->AdN switch, unless you build around it more like there was the 2AdN +chrome mox plan in Grinding station you have just a different route to victory available.

I'm not defending 3ToA concept because I don't play it, In the 2ToA/EtW there is no change in general playstyle compared to AdN build, you can play even more aggresively (and you can shift into grinding mode if the appropriate situation/cards show up, but not as plan A), the deck gets just better in general construction and sacrifices some routes to victory in favor of other... if you don't like it there is no obligation to play this or that list, just sleeve up what plays out the best for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nevilshute

I'd also like to remark, and don't take this as being aimed at you as I don't know you, but I have noticed a kind of "training-wheels" bias among new storm players for AdN. Not deliberately trying to sound condecsending but merely what I believe to be true. And I think it can cloud the issue for some.

---

This is a totally fair point and I think you're right about new Storm players in general, though even though I only picked up the deck less than a year ago, I wouldn't put myself into that category. See, I have never copied lists online or simply listened to people and believed what they said about card choices without questioning them. I always build my own versions of decks that fit my own playstyle most and that I expect to have the best results with. And it's been working perfectly fine for me, in fact I have yet to finish outside of prizes with Storm.

When I built the deck I tested each and every card I could think of that was remotedly playable. I didn't copy any AN-based lists from a year ago and can't let go of AN due to bias (which it may look like, I imagine). But I also won't copy Grinding Station lists without questioning them just because people say it's better.

Fact is, I always keep track of how I kill my opponents during tournaments and I have been killing people with Ad Nauseam left and right, about as often as with PiF loops in total, and that is even considering that I do of course always go for the safe PiF kill when I can. This only goes to show that I find myself in situations in which I simply need AN to win pretty often in my local metagame, which is infected with fast decks, discard and graveyard hate. An easy example would be the 5th and last round of the local event I attended yesterday, when I was at 9 life game 3 with 4 cards left in my hand, opponent had 10 Islandwalking power on board and a Relic in play. Going for AN in that situation isn't what you want to be doing of course, but every other line is 100% shut off. I went for it, stopped at 5 and killed my opponent. Yes, my chance to win this was slim anyway. But with AN I had one. A 25-33% chance (which I estimated my chance to be in that spot) is better than a 0% chance in my books. I should also mention that I have practically never fizzled an AN when I chose to go for it over EtW. The only instances when I killed myself were in situations like the one above, where every other route is turned off and AN is my only shot, despite a very small chance to succeed.

EDIT: Actually, I think I confused g3 with g2, in which my opponent did have Relics. In game 3 there were no Relics, but I drew into AN naturally and killed him in the way I described above. There was no gy hate on his side, but a PiF instead of AN would not have won me the game because I had no tutors and only 1 Probe in the bin as my only business. AN was the only one-card win I could possibly have in that scenario. Winning that match put me in top 8 and the prizes again.

Another good point made earlier was that even if you board in a certain card all the time, that does not mean it has to be played in the main deck. While I agree with this to some extent, I still personally want/need AN in game 1 already too often. My winning percentage against the BUG and Esper players in my playgroup are currently well over 50% and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be as high if it wasn't for the fact that I can kill them out of nowhere from low resources in game 1 already.


tl;dr: Thanks for your inputs on the matter, very helpful. But I'll probably stick with AN maindeck.


EDIT: @ Sloshthedark: Thanks for clarifying, what you are saying makes more sense to me now. I also figured that the EtW variation of the Grinding Station list would probably suit me much better than the 3 ToA one, but I have to admit that EtW isn't really my favorite win condition outside of exactly turn 1, because too much can happen in legacy that will beat a bunch of 1/1s in play after turn 2-3. When I can get to exactly 5 mana post-Tutor, I'd rather go for a blank AN than an EtW in the dark (that is, without multiple Therapies to follow it up with). As the game progresses past turn 1-2, fizzling an AN from a high life total seems less likely to me than my opponent beating a bunch of Goblins in play, at least in my testing so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

EDIT: @ Sloshthedark: Thanks for clarifying, what you are saying makes more sense to me now. I also figured that the EtW variation of the Grinding Station list would probably suit me much better than the 3 ToA one, but I have to admit that EtW isn't really my favorite win condition outside of exactly turn 1, because too much can happen in legacy that will beat a bunch of 1/1s in play after turn 2-3. When I can get to exactly 5 mana post-Tutor, I'd rather go for a blank AN than an EtW in the dark (that is, without multiple Therapies to follow it up with). As the game progresses past turn 1-2, fizzling an AN from a high life total seems less likely to me than my opponent beating a bunch of Goblins in play, at least in my testing so far.

---

I'm not trying to persuade you to play EtW over AdN. Both things can work out fine and to each his own. But I'd like to point out that it seems to me like you are judging EtW on surface values and hearsay and that you are ignoring relevant detractions to AdN.

To start with my last point first, it's like when you say that "as the game progresses past turn 1-2, fizzling an AN from high life total seems less likely". Well if we are further into the game you are likely to have more than one land so sure I can buy that premise. But here you aren't taking into account one of the major problems with AdN which is your life total. You describe a situation where we are several turns into the game and you have a high life total. That can certainly happen but it will often not. And I'd argue that most of the times when this happens it will be against either combo or miracles. Against combo I will happily concede that AdN is preferable to EtW. Vs Miracles is another issue that we can debate at another tmie.

Also, if you aren't running AdN you can actively leverage your life total to your advantage, running cards like Thoughtseize and Grim Tutor and just more high CMC cards like several past in flames for instance and be less worried about your life total.

My second point is - and if you had tested EtW in the main deck for a prolonged period I would imagine you would have reached similar experiences - that it's a big fallacy that EtW becomes a non-card after turn 1-2. Yes it is often best on early turns (like AdN) but against delver decks it can very realistically be a trumph on later turns. I've churned out EtW wins as late as turns 6, 7 (and even rarely beyond that) vs delver decks where we dance around and they fail to apply enough pressure. A single delver that flips on turn 3, say, still needs 5+ turns to kill you on its own - and that's not counting that you can maybe baby-tendrils them to prolong the game further. My point is, that unless delver has enough creatures to race you they can basically never beat 10-14, be that on turn 1 or turn 4. With AdN you might be at 11 life on turn 4 and then AdN just becomes much riskier, whereas 12 goblins versus a single threat with you at 11 life is very likely a win. Edit: In fact vs delver, a lot of the time they will present you with one threat and try to load up their hand with counter magic. In that scenario I'd argue that EtW is often leagues ahead of AdN. Not only is your life total under enough pressure to make AdN suscpect but not enough to make them capable of beating an EtW for 10-12. No, further more, resolving a non-storm business spell is much more difficult than resolving a storm spell. This harkens back to why the "grinding station" a.k.a. multiple storm card approach, is so strong vs blue decks, and delver decks in particular.

Sure, the same can be said for AdN - that it CAN win later in the game - but it too usually becomes worse as the game goes on (except it's actually probably a better turn 2 than turn 1 play in ANT as our deck is not really built to maximize AdN with Chrome Moxes etc) as your life total is put under pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izor

This is a totally fair point and I think you're right about new Storm players in general, though even though I only picked up the deck less than a year ago, I wouldn't put myself into that category. See, I have never copied lists online or simply listened to people and believed what they said about card choices without questioning them. I always build my own versions of decks that fit my own playstyle most and that I expect to have the best results with. And it's been working perfectly fine for me, in fact I have yet to finish outside of prizes with Storm.

When I built the deck I tested each and every card I could think of that was remotedly playable. I didn't copy any AN-based lists from a year ago and can't let go of AN due to bias (which it may look like, I imagine). But I also won't copy Grinding Station lists without questioning them just because people say it's better.

---

This is a huge mistake. There is nothing worse than looking at a list and immediately changing something based on a first impression. If you copy a list, copy it. Play with it. See what works and what doesn't. Try to talk to the person that built or piloted the list to find out why they made the changes they made. See if those decisions still don't make sense.

Also, please don't talk about playstyle. There is no such thing as playstyle. There are correct plays and there are wrong plays. Playstyle is nothing more than a bias you should get rid off.

When you are learning to play Storm, I honestly believe starting with 2 Past in Flames 3 Tendrils is the best way to do so. Learn to use just these win-conditions. Then learn playing with additional engines. Martin talked about Ad Nauseam as training wheels, but I think it's more like off-road wheels that you shouldn't start using until you are already comfortable with your regular bicycle.

Just a plug in favor of EtW, it gets a lot more hate than it deserves. The fact is, it allows you to combo off in many more situations than without it, and while unimpressive in a goldfish, the recurring discard is actually ridiculous.

AdN and EtW are both unreliable, but in different ways.

How important is the badlands in the 2 Toa/1 ETW version. Can you play the bayou and mistys land base mainboard to open up slots in the sideboard?

Having played the 2 ToA, 2 PiF, 1 EtW build for the last 3 months, I think that the Badlands is a lot better than a Bayou. I'm also playing a Pyroclasm in my sideboard, but I think that when you want the green mana (Decay, Xantid Swarm) your mana often isn't under pressure (Miracles, Griselbrand decks).

Ok guys I have a little problem I'd like to hear people's opinions on. You are on the play, game 1, opponent unknown who mulled to 6, we are on a 3 ToA 2 PiF build and our opening hand is: Probe, Probe, Ponder, Dark Ritual, PiF, Delta, LED.

First off I believe it is a pretty solid keep but would like to hear opinions on that.

I lead with delta -> ponder I see: Volcanic, Probe, Misty. I rearrange incorrectly (and perhaps keep incorrectly.) And draw volcanic leaving probe to draw next.

Opponent goes plains -> Mother of Runes.

I draw my third probe, and fire one off to see if they have thalia. Probe reveals Plains, Stoneforge, Revoker, Port, Thalia. We draw Misty.

What is our play? And if any of my plays were incorrect please say so but also advise on the point I got to.

I guess you should have shuffled with ponder, assuming you fired a probe first (you had 2 in your starting hand ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alix444

Ok guys I have a little problem I'd like to hear people's opinions on. You are on the play, game 1, opponent unknown who mulled to 6, we are on a 3 ToA 2 PiF build and our opening hand is: Probe, Probe, Ponder, Dark Ritual, PiF, Delta, LED.

First off I believe it is a pretty solid keep but would like to hear opinions on that.

I lead with delta -> ponder I see: Volcanic, Probe, Misty. I rearrange incorrectly (and perhaps keep incorrectly.) And draw volcanic leaving probe to draw next.

Opponent goes plains -> Mother of Runes.

I draw my third probe, and fire one off to see if they have thalia. Probe reveals Plains, Stoneforge, Revoker, Port, Thalia. We draw Misty.

What is our play? And if any of my plays were incorrect please say so but also advise on the point I got to.

---

Yes, taking the fetchland over Volcanic basically is a free draw that you skipped leaving Volcanic on top. Here is my solution:

I would have played one Probe before playing Ponder but since I don't play this list my answer might be not optimal. Nonetheless, I would see Death and Taxes and know that I have to win on my second turn. Already with LED, Dark Ritual and Past in Flames in Hand I would then play Delta and depending on the Probe-draw (if land/if Infernal=win/if anything else) fetch for Underground Sea > Ponder to find Infernal Tutor or a combination of Tendrils and another Ritual. Shouldn't be too difficult since one Probe is still in hand and even if the Ponder shows shit I would still have my normal 2nd turn draw + Probe to draw any kind of gamewinning spells.

Delta, go on turn one and then kill them turn two if you find Infernal Tutor or Dark Ritual + Tendrils. Pretty easy.

We DTB again boys :)