[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils) Storm Combo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloshthedark

3, BS was the first line of the reply quote - BS->LP, DR,IT ... so far I played Volc, LED, he asked me for exact wording on LED, played 2nd LED, BSed - he had no response... I know the guy is unsure in the MU thus totaly unpredictable, I was able to make him 2x FoW really weak traps G1 and win but I think he'd Daze the BS if he had 1

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

Against Infect, I'd probably just go Volc, Brainstorm if I were feeling frisky, but in the abstract it's super brutal if we get dazed there. Is it possible that it's just safer to volc, probe, see what we have to play around, and work from there? If you see the coast is clear on the probe and draw the Lotus Petal, you can just Brainstorm with lotus petal for daze and put back the ad naus, pass the turn, they can't kill you next turn (right? unless they have like, what, invigorate, mutagenic growth, and two berserks?), then you go and can DR, LED, LED, IT, Ad Naus and win from there?

---

originally I wanted to find out whether I made a mistake or not by not GP first, I was thinking about what if I draw 2nd LED during his turn already and I felt biased afterwards due to it maybe leading myself into a bad play... what actually happened is interesting:

so I played 2x LED, BSed .. put back TOA under AdN... at this point I'm sure he doesn't have a Daze... so I can beat FoW by LP->DR and then GP into AdN if it gets FoWed... I mean who wouldn't FoW DR... he doesn't... so does that mean he has SE? has nothing? saved the FoW due to played LED suspecting PiF? ... I decided to just GP ... because if he has FoW I do run into a wall headfirst, if he has SE, I can -> PiF - if he gets my IT I can AdN by DR if he gets DR I can double IT CR and AdN...

GP reveals Land, something, BS+FoW... I decide to IT for IT with spare mana to shuffle away the ToA , he FoWs it :D ... a do not draw a B source next 4Turns and die

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloshthedark

...

---

interesting. in that scenario i would not have played both LEDs just petal into D.R. EDIT: D.R. instead of B.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelikanudo

interesting. in that scenario i would not have played both LEDs just petal into D.R. EDIT: D.R. instead of B.S.

---

you do not know about the DR+LP yet, by playing out the LED I tried to play around the Daze if he doesnt Daze the BS

hope you guys will be good @OvinoXI, because I will suck for sure XD. Happy storming!

Hi Everyone,
Does anyone have the data on what % of the time the average ANT goldfishes turn 2-3? This question is of course for a Tendrils kill. I know there's variation depending on your business, etc. but I'd appreciate any framework / starting point (and imagine it's slight). I've been tracking my %rate and want to compare to see if I'm missing certain lines, or better yet how often. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottW

Hi Everyone,
Does anyone have the data on what % of the time the average ANT goldfishes turn 2-3? This question is of course for a Tendrils kill. I know there's variation depending on your business, etc. but I'd appreciate any framework / starting point (and imagine it's slight). I've been tracking my %rate and want to compare to see if I'm missing certain lines, or better yet how often. Thanks!

---

if it's any good for you - Scherer list (14L, 2P, 2DP, 1SDT, AdN, 6D) it's the fastest and most reliable

7 card 100xgoldfish T5=fail (I also have 6 and 8 cards but only 30 each)

T1 5,00% 5,00%
T2 36,00% 41,00%
T3 38,00% 79,00%
T4 15,00% 94,00%
T5 6,00% 100,00%
----------
avg turn 2,810
till T4 2,670
----------
Mode of kill:
Pif 28%
Pif in hand 15%
Pif blind 3%
Pif+ToA in hand 5%
Pif+ToA both in hand 1%
Chain 8%
Adn in hand 13%
Adn 21%
----------
PiF 52%
AdN 34%
----------
AdN->kill (1,0)
T1 2 2 50,00%
T2 7 6 53,85%
T3 8 5 61,54%
T4 1 1 50,00%

avg = 56,25%
-----------
Bonus - if DP was a GT, each instance in a single goldfish counts (sorry for shit formating)

DPused DP>GT GT>DP
3 0 2
15 5 1
23 7 2
10 4 2
1 0 1
52 30,77% 15,38%




I have similar stuff for my list (160G) TES (150G) JamieW's old 4Predordain list (77G)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloshthedark

if it's any good for you - Scherer list (14L, 2P, 2DP, 1SDT, AdN, 6D) it's the fastest and most reliable

---

I've heard this is the best goldfish but that doesn't interest me. I assume the below list is not from this build?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloshthedark

7 card 100xgoldfish T5=fail (I also have 6 and 8 cards but only 30 each)

T1 5,00% 5,00%
T2 36,00% 41,00%
T3 38,00% 79,00%
T4 15,00% 94,00%
T5 6,00% 100,00%
----------
avg turn 2,810
till T4 2,670
----------
Mode of kill:
Pif 28%
Pif in hand 15%
Pif blind 3%
Pif+ToA in hand 5%
Pif+ToA both in hand 1%
Chain 8%
Adn in hand 13%
Adn 21%
----------
PiF 52%
AdN 34%
----------
AdN->kill (1,0)
T1 2 2 50,00%
T2 7 6 53,85%
T3 8 5 61,54%
T4 1 1 50,00%

avg = 56,25%
-----------

---

So, PIF kill is 52%, AdN kill is 34%, and Tutor Chain is 8%; what's the remaining 6%? Also, your average for AdN (56.25%) must be from an average 18 life total give or take fetch, GP. Very useful!

Is the "blind" PIF an indeterminate kill where you need some business via cantrips?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloshthedark

Bonus - if DP was a GT, each instance in a single goldfish counts (sorry for shit formating)

DPused DP>GT GT>DP
3 0 2
15 5 1
23 7 2
10 4 2
1 0 1
52 30,77% 15,38%

---

Unfortunately, I don't get this formatting but am rather interested as I use GT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloshthedark

I have similar stuff for my list (160G)

---

Please send me a PM or post this.
Interesting model for percentages in goldfishing -- thanks a lot!!

should have specified the model, it was a late night post for me:
- try to kill ASAP (just casting AdN is a kill in the %, success rate is the other table - this one is VERY rough, you'd need x runs in that spot to get really a realistical opinion, shouldn't have even listed that)
- EVERY 7 with a land is mandatory to play out (yes 6discard+Island is a keep aswell as 7 lands), nolanders are subject to judgement generaly multiprobes and LP+BS is played out, in this instance 3 hands weren't palyed out
- EtW for X racing T2 SFM->BSK =kill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottW

I've heard this is the best goldfish but that doesn't interest me. I assume the below list is not from this build?

So, PIF kill is 52%, AdN kill is 34%, and Tutor Chain is 8%; what's the remaining 6%? Also, your average for AdN (56.25%) must be from an average 18 life total give or take fetch, GP. Very useful!

Is the "blind" PIF an indeterminate kill where you need some business via cantrips?

Unfortunately, I don't get this formatting but am rather interested as I use GT.

Please send me a PM or post this.
Interesting model for percentages in goldfishing -- thanks a lot!!

---

to your points
- Yes it's my goldfish for Scherers older list
- 6% is the fail rate, couldn't kill T4
- yes it's casting PiF with no ToA or IT in known cards in a reasonable gamestate (this is a vague definition and it should have a failrate similar to AdN but doesn't for whatever reason... GP, BS, Ponder would be a reasobale gamestate to me)
- simple - 1st is number of times DP was mandatory to use in the goldfish in Tx in order to get a kill, 2nd no. of times DP kills but GT not if the card could be either, 3rd no. of times GT kills but DP, if 2DP were used during a single goldfish each instance is there... so in the end DP was used 52 times in 100 goldfishes, 31% of its uses were done because it was DP not GT, 15% the other way around, 54% was irrelevant


My list:
7cards (161G same method, 60G - 1layout method) combined (221G):
9,05% 9,05%
27,60% 36,65%
35,75% 72,40%
15,84% 88,24%
11,76% 100,00%
avg 2,937
T4 avg 2,662

PIF 73,29% (for 160G)
EtW 9,94% (for 160G)
Double ToA/Chain 4,96% (might be slightly underrepresented) (for 160G)

8 cards (60G)
15,00% 15,00%
36,67% 51,67%
33,33% 85,00%
8,33% 93,33%
6,67% 100,00%
avg 2,550
T4 avg 2,375

6 cards (30G)
3,33% 3,33%
13,33% 16,67%
30,00% 46,67%
26,67% 73,33%
26,67% 100,00%
avg 3,600
T4 avg 3,091

4 preordain AdN list (old JamieW list) (77G)
2,60% 2,60%
33,77% 36,36%
32,47% 68,83%
19,48% 88,31%
11,69% 100,00%
avg 3,039
T4 avg 2,779

PiF 41,56%
Adn 33,77%
chain 12,99%

TES (do not remember exact date, more aggresive gameplay) (150G)
13,33% 13,33%
32,00% 45,33%
24,67% 70,00%
12,67% 82,67%
17,33% 100,00%
avg 2,887
T4 2,444

Adn 55,33% (0/1 rate not kept at that time)
EtW 22,00%
Pif 4,67%

========
BONUS (for fun, less focus, low G count - the fail rate is weird)
========

GP Madrid 2010 list Saito (40G)
12,50% 12,50%
30,00% 42,50%
32,50% 75,00%
7,50% 82,50%
17,50% 100,00%
avg 2,875
T4 avg 2,424

Mystical Tutor involved 62,50%
AdN 67,50% (100% killrate)
Iggy 10%
Chain/Double ToA 2,50%


GP Madrid 2010 list Do Anh (31G)
12,90% 12,90%
22,58% 35,48%
54,84% 90,32%
6,45% 96,77%
3,23% 100,00%
avg 2,645
T4 avg 2,567

Mystical Tutor involved 45,16%
AdN 87,10% (96,30% killrate) avg dmg<12
Iggy 6,45%

New to the thread, but a short-time lurker:

What about slower lists like Togores's with 0 dp 2 pif or a Grinding Station list?

0 dp \ 2 pif is just better. but not slower.
I do think is not more than 5% slower in the average kills per turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matsi883

New to the thread, but a short-time lurker:

What about slower lists like Togores's with 0 dp 2 pif or a Grinding Station list?

---

there is not enough structural difference that would produce significant/reliable % unless done many many times... what I posted has to be interpreted very critically with number of G done, I'd call it a general benchmarking (which results seem to follow common assumptions) rather than precise analysis (on the other hand I thought Scherer list was too good in first 50G so done another 50G with the same result so it's not completely random)... put short there is no point in doing that, it's too time consuming and will just be some semi random numbers in between these ... btw. I have done this with the layout method comparing 2PIF 2Toa 2SDT GT 61cards (My list) vs. Adn 2Preordain 4LP in 60G the difference in Tx was around 2% each, avg T4 was 0,019 difference...

regarding Grinding station there is no point for me, lacking a fast win option it will just be the slowest, in RL it's played very differently to what is primary interest of the test was - agresive use of resources to kill asap

but you're welcome to do it :wink:
if you do, please post your results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Togores

0 dp \ 2 pif is just better. but not slower.
I do think is not more than 5% slower in the average kills per turn.

---

5% can be a lot
if it wasn't apparent - faster in goldfish doesn't necessarily mean better in gameplay (outside pure race scenarios of course) ... which is he no.1 argument against DP in general

I don't have statistical data for this (haven't bothered, and I'd butcher the math anyway), but double-Petition is noticeably faster, both in goldfishing and in actual play. With that said, it's a lot less resilient to countermagic and is much less likely to win by any lines except tutor-into-PiF. Now that's the "best" line we can take because it's a sure kill if we pull it off, but chaining cantrips from the 'yard, tutoring and sacrificing LED with a PiF in hand for backup, and rebuilding after a tutor gets countered almost never happened when I was playing that configuration. I also folded to a single Force a whole lot more than I do now, which—loath though I am to admit it—still can happen, especially if we get stuck with a stinker of a hand.

I wasn't as experienced with the deck at the time, and that probably impacted the way I was mulliganing, cantripping, and seeing the way to victory (or failing to see it!), but I think having a much greater chance of cantripping into business, sandbagging a Past in Flames to get around Force (or whatever) on Infernal Tutor, and rebuilding after a nasty bout of countermagic are a lot more important than a large number of T1–2 kills.

For a lot of matchups I don't feel like a second PiF ends up being necessary, and those are usually the ones in which I bring in Empty the Warrens. Stuff like Eldrazi, D&T, and Mav, which often won't let us count to ten but also has little or no countermagic/sweepers and comparatively few onboard creatures.

Who knows? Maybe I'm doing it wrong. I have a somewhat tangential question for everybody, which relates to PiF-cantrip chains. Is there a good rule of thumb for determining when we're likely to find what we need with this line? Mine has essentially been, if there's more than two non-Probe cantrips and the mana to cast them, we should go for it. Feels risky with only two cantrips or with Probes and 0-2 other cantrips.

[EDIT: I also still flub it occasionally with only 3 non-Probe cantrips. Wondering whether the threshold (lol) is closer to 4.]

Just wanted to chime in with my experiences re: goldfish speed.

I have tracked a lot of games (both goldfishing and actual gameplay, but let's focus on goldfishing here). Sample size per list is in the 200-500 games range.
The hard drive I had all my data on died though, so I can't give you exact numbers.

The kill speed for the Scherer list is close to what Slosh posted, but obviously slightly better, given that he played out ridiculous hands (although I actually played out my Ad Nauseams).

T1 is somewhere in the 5-10 % range.
T2 is around 45-50%.
T3 is 80%.

Not entirely sure about this anymore, but I think I arrived at an 80% chance to win with Ad Nauseam from like 12 life, pretty sure that was with Mox (Mox makes a huge difference). Petition also makes Ad Nauseam much better.
I was surprised about this at first, but after thinking it through, it makes perfect sense:
Ad Nauseam is way more consistent with the 2 Petition list. You go above 11 life much less often, but you also have much fewer wins from low life totals. Wish I still had exact numbers for this.

When it comes to beating one piece of countermagic, there's not really a difference between 2 Petition and 2 Past in Flames lists. Both kinds of lists mostly kill on turn three, the Ad Nauseam list is a tad faster because it has more explosive draws.

The difference only starts to show when you have to beat two pieces of countermagic; here the 2 Past in Flames lists actually become faster because they have so many extra lines available, especially ones that kill through countermagic.

Also, many of you seem to underestimate the differences between US and EU metagames (and Magic Online, for what it's worth).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Alexander

I was surprised about this at first, but after thinking it through, it makes perfect sense:
Ad Nauseam is way more consistent with the 2 Petition list. You go above 11 life much less often, but you also have much fewer wins from low life totals. Wish I still had exact numbers for this.

---

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. Would you mind clarifying?

My impression of AdN in a double-Petition list was that it was easier to find (and thus easier to cast) than it was in double-PiF lists, but I felt like the resulting Ad Nauseas were generally more temperamental because of the double-5-cost setup. Of course, having six tutors (two of which don't require LED to work) was also an improvement over 4-5 when barfing cards; we'd take a bigger hit up-front for the Petition, but it'd increase our odds of drawing into it earlier and avoiding getting nickeled-and-dimed by cantrips and redundant discards. Did you notice that to be the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Alexander

Also, many of you seem to underestimate the differences between US and EU metagames (and Magic Online, for what it's worth).

---

I'm exclusively a paper Magician, and I live in U-S-and-A. I'm interested to hear a bit more about these differences and how they impact 'boarding strategies and cantrip/mulligan theory, especially because I find myself wondering whether my (rather microcosmic) metagame resembles one or more of these broader metas. One thing that's a bit difficult to sort in the thread is which strategies and ideas make sense in smaller metagames and which ones are more geared toward ≥8-round slugfests I can't often attend (Vermont's pretty out-of-the-way). I may have said it before, but there's quite a bit of D&T, Berserk Poison, and Delver where I am, and there's comparatively little Miracles, Lands, Punishing Fire, etc. (That's one of the reasons I've been an advocate of pushing for quick combos; we don't get a lot of time if we know our opponents know what we're playing and they just mulligan into Thalias. The smallness of the meta is one reason I don't play Dredge very much anymore; the cat's out of the bag, and Crypt is free.)

Thanks in advance for letting me know!

Just want to pop in to say Daze Main is absolutely fine. I went 2-1-1 and then 4-0 with 3 maindeck Dazes. My single loss was probably just variance. I kept a double cantrip hand against a really budget burn player. Cantripped into nothing and just lost. Then I mulled to 5 game 2 and lost. I have to say, losing to Rakdos Cackler feels terrible. Drew against a really slow player on Grixis Delver. She had no pressure during the last 5 turns, and my hand would have led me to natural tendrils.

Regarding Daze, I still haven't countered anything relevant, but I also haven't lost a game because of it. I did win a game because my Infect opponent probed a Daze, though. He played around it during my entire combo turn and lost, even though I Brainstormed it away. I played 1 PIF 1 DP 1 AN, 6 discard. Basically Pdingo's list -1 Etw +1 Dp. I never want to cast Empty against my local meta.

Cool same here i will keep the daze's
I'm like 25-8 now with my list the loses are really just to mulligan 5 or less or stompy decks lile eldrazi or even bader thalia stompy..
The only thing is i changed is the empy main with a second pif again:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .Ix

Just want to pop in to say Daze Main is absolutely fine. . . . Regarding Daze, I still haven't countered anything relevant, but I also haven't lost a game because of it. I did win a game because my Infect opponent probed a Daze, though. He played around it during my entire combo turn and lost, even though I Brainstormed it away.

---

Do you think Daze is better than what you had in the slot before? What were you running that you replaced with the Dazes?

@Ronald Reduce

I know you are asking .Ix.
The first Card i cutted to zero was Rain of Filth. I mean it's a really bad ritual or a really good ritual.
The Second was the Top. I really like top but he's slow and specially in the Mirror and Miracle he's really good but daze can be also really good there;)
The last one was Preordain. This is the only card i see sometimes in my hand for the Consistency. But i mean it's just a 1off Cantrip anyway so i don't care that much.

greets Dingo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pdingo

Cool same here i will keep the daze's
I'm like 25-8 now with my list the loses are really just to mulligan 5 or less or stompy decks lile eldrazi or even bader thalia stompy..
The only thing is i changed is the empy main with a second pif again:)

---

Yes I tried that too, but with two fewer cantrips I believe the deck needs a raw boost in Tutor percentage. I don't know if that's correct, though. My meta isn't grindy so I don't get a lot out of 2 PIFs.

@Ronald Deuce, what Pdingo said.

Well top is not really a cantrip and preordain is just 1 cantrip.. i never had problems with finding a tutor:)
I also see the Pif as a possible tutor..i mean when tutor not get discarded we have him in hand. If he get discarded pif is very strong:)