Printable View
As an aggroplayer, you should know how much removal is played these days. The Rock for example, will even postboard have 4 Deed and some vindicates left. Countertop will try to board out StP's when possible, but probably has Explosives in either main- or sideboard. Tempothreshold of course has still burn left. It's not that players activily keep removal in, but that it is still left!Quote:
Originally Posted by JudasKilled
And guess what happens G3, when you just won a game on Xantid Swarm?..
Anyone will bring in removal g3 when you lost to a creature g2.Quote:
Originally Posted by JudasKilled
As I never won a game on the back of xantid swarm nor EVER was happy to draw it I cutted it completly. I did the same thing with the DD-Pack as after I play five tournaments with it I used it !0! times and still top8ed all of them (except the last one, where I was unable to draw any FastMana and even lost to goblins...). Iīm going back to a faster ANT build with 3-4 tops MD and probably 3-4 Grips in the sideboard.
This thread has been interesting to examine, particularly the discussion regarding Rico Suave's post.
First, I'm surprised that someone would dismiss Dark Confidant while embracing Xantid Swarm in the same breath. As a control player (Dreadstill), I'm far more concerned with Dark Confidant than with Xantid Swarm. Swarm, as far as I'm concerned, introduces nothing new to the ANT player's situation. I'm fully expecting to be bombarded by Orim's Chants during the game. Fortunately, my best weapon against ANT, Counterbalance, cares nothing about Chant.
On the other hand, the best factor in my favor as a Control player in the matchup is inevitability. If I can drag the matchup out, and make the game go longer, things increasingly turn in my favor. More time means I can get in more damage to diminish Ad Nauseum's potency. More time means I can establish my control engine better, and get Counterbalance online. And Dark Confidant can disrupt my plan of dragging out the game. If ANT is outdrawing me, then time is no longer something I can leverage to my advantage. It gives the ANT player a chance to get ahead and utilize what would normally be a factor in my favor.
Now, as for experience. Of course experience matters. Of course having a good understanding matters. You, as a reader, are more likely to listen to someone who's proven that he knows what he is doing. And likewise, one who has shown himself to do well can speak with more authority than one who has not.
Now, on the matter of Top. It's a great card to be sure. It makes the cut in my Dreadstill deck. If you want to use Doomsday, then by all means it's a fine card to use. If your plan is to drag the game out, it makes subsequent draws better. Though, if your plan against Zoo is winning on the second turn, it won't do much for you. The longer the game goes, the better Top is than Ponder.
The only reason for Doomsday is for the following situation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf_Ascetic
1) You are at low life
2) Your opponent has available disruption in the grave (so no IGG)
3) You are unable to chant the opponent to make IGG good
4) You have a cantrip available
5) You are unable to produce lethal storm -> Tendrils
6) You are able to produce enough storm with DD to win
6 conditions to make this useful? That is very restrictive.
The unfortunate part is that DD/Meditate eat up slots in the deck that would otherwise go to disruption. By playing DD, you are less likely to set up a Chant -> IGG. By playing DD, you are running more Tops instead of Ponders, so your AN is slower. Your other engines become worse by including DD, so of course DD would look better than it really is in such a deck.
And even then, this won't factor in the number of games lost due to drawing Meditate and having it be useless. Or the times where you'll draw DD and it won't do anything for you. Or the times you will be at low life and lose anyway because you still have to be at 8 life to cast a DD and survive a single Bolt against Zoo.
In regards to Top, trust me I love the card. I play a number of other decks that I have Tops without including a single Ponder, and it can be extremely difficult to justify that even in a control deck. In this deck though, Ponder #4 is better than Top #1. You must strongly consider that the only reason to play this deck is for its incredible ability to generate tempo, and Ponder is strictly better in terms of this.
This isn't to say that Top couldn't find ~2 slots in the deck, as I've said before. It shouldn't be in the place of Ponder though.
Doomsday is better than Ad Nauseam anytime you can cast it at 2 or more life and you have a cantrip + an additional 2-3 mana. It's always better than Ad Nauseam if you have the choice between the two because Doomsday is a guaranteed win, whereas there is a slight chance of Ad Nauseam fizzling.
Why is Meditate useless when you draw it? I cast the card quite a bit and am always very happy with drawing four cards. When I don't want to draw it, I can either ignore it like I might ignore a second Ad Nauseam or I can Brainstorm it away.
Back when I had this deck (kind of) built, I used to run straight ANT. Then I opted for a hybrid build with Doomsday. I then dropped the Ad Nauseam and relegated it to the SB to focus on Doomsday. Try playing with it and learning the stacks. The number of shitty situations where you can still find a way to win is amazing.
Ad Nauseam adds so much speed, no doubt about that. But combo should focus on shoring up bad MU's... And that's against anything with blue. Doomsday combo does a much better job fighting through countermagic than AdN combo.
Ok sure the removal heavy decks like loam and eva green will still have removal.....but lets be honest your match up is allready superior enough not 2 matter. If they seize and hymm sure you lose but ultimetly the deck doesnt put up great numbers and should be a tiny portion of the meta. Besides naya what really runs more then a cpl explosives and maybe plows? nothing and there boarding that stuff out 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf_Ascetic
Xantid swarm is amasing in vintage because no on runs CB in legacy it doesnt stop there most gamebreaking counter engine you worry about....so I agree its crap.
Here are the conditions you set forth:Quote:
Originally Posted by emidln
1) 2 or more life
2) Must have a cantrip
3) Must have an additional 2-3 mana.
Now consider this:
You have 3 land and SDT on the board.
Your hand is Doomsday and 2 Lotus Petal.
Your opponent is threatening to win next turn with Marit Lage, and you must generate 9 storm for a lethal Tendrils this turn or lose.
After satisfying every condition you set forth, you should be able to explain why Doomsday is a guaranteed win here and how Ad Nauseam is inferior because it might fizzle.
False.Quote:
Originally Posted by JudasKilled
EE is always kept in, as it is a relevant card at stopping ANT. It can blow up Chrome Mox, stray Lotus Petal and LED, and EtW (although that's not played in almost every build now).
No one would side out EE against you.
Building the exact scenario when Ad Nauseam is definetly better than Doomsday won't help the discussion. You're definetly most likely to have some more cards (even if useless), or being at 2 life or so (when Ad Nauseam is useless almost as much as Doomsday), or the opponent not being at 20 due to fetches/thoughtseizes/confidant etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
Let's take something simple. It's g2 against a nonblue deck. You have a Top in play along with 2 lands. You draw Doomsday for your turn and your hand is now DD, LED, 2x Dark Ritual. Your opponent has Gaddock Teeg in play.
I believe the decision between playing DD or not is directly tied to SDT: if you want to play 4 Tops then you should add DD, as it improves the flexibility of the deck a lot.
Point 1) is like emindl said, not valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
Ponder 3) is not valid also, if you knew more off the exact lists, you'll notice that DD lists run 6 tot 7 chant effects mainboard. It makes IGG even better.
6) Not a point, When resolving DD storm is no issue anymore.
Point 5 doesn't make any sense, what are you trying to say here? That including DD reduces your chance of a simple win?
You're obviously inexpierenced with DD. If you had done more reading and testing, you would know that DD generaly costs no more mana than an Ad Nauseam does.
Running DD is a very minimal investment, in four slots:
1 DD
2 Meditate
3 en 4 SD Top.
(Jup, I'm advocating a 7 chant non-DDANT list with two tops here, but that's not the point..)
They aren't useless cards. Even Meditate is fine to cast.
When sideboarding, DD even more shines. Piles that win through Teeg or Chalices are no exeption, you just have to know your game.
What are you trying to say here? Summing up some situations where you can win on Ad but not on DD? If so, let me be the first to explain that we actually still run Ad Nauseam, but when possible, we prefer to use another more certain way to win.
I suggest you sleeve a DD-deck up, and just mark the card you would replace from your DD package. When casting DD, just ask yourself "hm, did I rather want a ponder here?".
Neither will making false statements, like the person I was responding to.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenOne
If you want a full history of the game, here you go.Quote:
You're definetly most likely to have some more cards (even if useless), or being at 2 life or so (when Ad Nauseam is useless almost as much as Doomsday), or the opponent not being at 20 due to fetches/thoughtseizes/confidant etc.
The opening 7 was crap, so a mull to 6 leaving:
Land, Land, Top, AN, Doomsday, Ritual
Not the best hand, but safer than going to 5.
First turn Land, Top, go.
2nd turn upkeep Top (seeing IT, Petal, Chrome), draw Petal, land, go. EOT Fetch + Top, seeing non-fetchland, BS, and Petal.
3rd turn draw BS, land, go.
On opponent's 3rd turn he plays Hexmage + Depths. EOT I Ritual -> AN, which eats Force, then draw Petal, arriving at the situation described above. The opponent, in this example, was at 17 life from 1 Force and 2 fetches, thus requiring 9 storm.
You'll notice that this hand has no protection, so it went for Ritual -> AN during the opponent's end step, which was countered. It's a shame that Doomsday builds run DD/Meditate in place of where the other build runs 2 disruption, which would have guaranteed an easy victory otherwise.
This game illustrates something else though. As you can see, it is terrible drawing 2 different engine cards, because the deck needs to devote it's 1-shot acceleration into one or the other, and it cannot afford to fuel 2 different engines if one gets countered. All the other cards in the deck are basically 1 mana, with the exception of Infernal Tutor, and are very functional without relying on the 1-shot acceleration.
I have mentioned it before, but I'll say it again: Doomsday takes a much bigger toll on the deck than anybody has admitted in this thread. Everyone thinks that running a Meditate/DD, and throwing in Tops is enough and everything else remains the same.
It doesn't remain the same.
We can come up with situations all day. Frankly I don't want to go down this path.Quote:
Let's take something simple. It's g2 against a nonblue deck. You have a Top in play along with 2 lands. You draw Doomsday for your turn and your hand is now DD, LED, 2x Dark Ritual. Your opponent has Gaddock Teeg in play.
If you were running a deck without Doomsday, that DD slot would otherwise be Duress which would (post-SB) be removal for that Teeg.
All you need to do is use Top (or Ponder) to find a single Mystical, Infernal, AN, or IGG to seal the game and win. That is 10 outs in 3 cards, and they have no Teeg so there is no disruption and no pressure at all.
Now DD will directly lead to a win at the moment, which makes it superior than AN in this same situation, but that doesn't prevent the deck from winning even if you're at 2 life. While DD is superior in this situation, it doesn't change the fact the deck would likely win regardless.
This is true. If you play 4 Top, I'd argue it's necessary to run DD, as the pitfalls of SDT in this deck are literally the difference between whether your opponent gets another attack phase or not. As such, the SDT using deck *will* run into issues with its life total far more often than a list without SDT, and in those situations it is necessary to play DD.Quote:
I believe the decision between playing DD or not is directly tied to SDT: if you want to play 4 Tops then you should add DD, as it improves the flexibility of the deck a lot.
The problem is it's just circular logic. You can't justify the use of SDT because DD is in the deck, and then justify the use of DD because SDT is in the deck.
*If* SDT is optimal as a 4 of by its own merit, then we have a different story.
EDIT
@ Elf:
I'm only going to say this once:Quote:
What are you trying to say here? Summing up some situations where you can win on Ad but not on DD? If so, let me be the first to explain that we actually still run Ad Nauseam, but when possible, we prefer to use another more certain way to win.
I suggest you sleeve a DD-deck up, and just mark the card you would replace from your DD package. When casting DD, just ask yourself "hm, did I rather want a ponder here?".
Do not assume I have never played a DD deck, as the builds I've used are card for card what has already been posted in this thread.
I was saying in that post that his statement was false and I showed one of dozens of situations why it is false. If that is not OK with you then what is?
You're either wrong or mean thoughtseize or I don't understand the context the sentence is in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
Post-SB he sides out duress for bounce/removal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelis
The DD builds allows you to filter your deck and build hands that wins through various kind of disruptions. That filtering is complemented by the fact that you only need 2 life to go off with DD.
When you're playing Ad Nauseam you're forced to go off fast because your life total is of utter importance. If you don't have protection to go off before your life total drops too much you have to take a shot.
That is the big difference between the two deck. With DD you can cast Chant/Protection until it sticks and then going off is a simple matter of going through the motions. With Ad Nauseam as your life total drops your chances of winning drop dramatically, and while it's a faster deck against blue deck packing Brainstorm/Stifle/FoW/Daze sometimes things come to a point where you just can't win anymore.
Looking at your game situation, this is what I came up with:
Taking Lotus Petal over Infernal Tutor was a play mistake. Your turn two should have been draw Infernal Tutor because Lotus Petal is...fucking worthless. Turn 3 Infernal revealing Dark Ritual, pass. I mean, I guess you can blame Doomsday because you suck at playing storm, but whatever.
Assuming you, you know, play correctly, this is how you win:
Turn 3: Infernal Tutor for Dark Ritual.
Turn 4:
Hand is: Dark Rit, Dark Rit, Lotus Petal (drawn this turn), Brainstorm (which you talk about in your game situation, but conveniently leave out when you told me what I had to work with), Doomsday, and Ad Nauseam
Board is: Three lands (which I assume can make UUB or UWB), SDT
***Storm Count, Mana After Spell) Spell***
1 Storm, BBBLL) Dark Ritual (if they force you drop Petal and win with AdN)
2 Storm, BBBBBLL) Dark Ritual (if they force you drop Petal and win with AdN)
3 Storm, BBLL) Doomsday for Meditate, Orim's Chant, Lion's Eye Diamond Dark Ritual, Tendrils of Agony (if they force here, you just win the game by playing Petal, Ad Nauseam)
4 Storm, BBL) Brainstorm drawing Meditate, Orim's Chant, Lion's Eye Diamond putting back Ad Nauseam and then Meditate (Meditate is on top of your library) (If they force here, you top into Meditate and just win)
5 Storm, BB) Orim's Chant (they have to force here +1 storm)
7 Storm, BB) Lion's Eye Diamond
8 Storm, BBP) Lotus Petal
*break LED for UUU* (8 Storm, BBUUUP)
9 Storm, BBP) Meditate (tapping SDT to get it)
10 Storm, BBBBP) Dark Ritual
11 Storm, BBBB) Sensei's Divining Top
*Play Tendrils of Agony with 11 Storm*
Pile:
Meditate
Chant
Lion's Eye Diamond
Dark Ritual
Tendrils of Agony
Of course, if you play it properly, you get a free shuffle effect with SDT and more mana on your combo turn so it might not even be this complicated. Strange how playing correctly makes combo easier right?
I guess the moral of this story is that you, like most people, don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf_Ascetic
Well, any well-developed meta has quite some Gaddock Teegs in the sideboard; if it's not against combo, it's against control decks with EE, Elsepth and Force of Will. So yeah, running into Gaddock Teeg is a situation you have to keep in mind. I know situations in tournaments where a certain Rock player lost against the ANT player because he went off using DD. It happens, it steals games. If you know how, it's very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
@emidln if you wouldn't mind could you post your decklist?
@Emidln: What does your example do against the FoW he mentioned? What if he just forces the DD instead of the Chant lateron?
nqn
Quote:
Originally Posted by NQN
At any time before resolving Doomsday, an enemy Force of Will on one of your spells causes you to play Lotus Petal and then Ad Nauseam. Any time after Doomsday resolves, you can top into SDT and cast Meditate (if they want to force Brainstorm for instance).Quote:
Originally Posted by emidln
I'm assuming we're just playing the standard hybrid list of:
15 Fetches/Blue Duals/Island
4 Lotus Petal
2 Chrome Mox
4 Dark Rit
4 LED
2 Cabal Rit
4 Brainstorm
2-3 Ponder
4 SDT
6 Silence/Chant
0-1 KGrip
4 Mystical
3 Infernal
1 AdN
1 DD
1 Med
1 IGG
1 Tendrils
I did not remember the exact history as it blurred with other games, so I apologize for that. It was the best I could do from memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by emidln
However I do remember having 3 land in play that game and the scenario I gave you only had you drawing 2 land. Looking it over, it's obvious that I didn't draw a Brainstorm on the 3rd turn. It was clearly a land to because otherwise I would have missed the 3rd land drop.
A simple mistake.
Either way, the deck would be short against the Force.
As for something else, I may disagree with you, but I will attack the cards and the interaction of them in the deck. Inciting a flame-war various times through your post is unnecessary, immature, and irrelevant to the validity of the card itself. In short: grow up.
I agree, Doomsday can steal games that would be otherwise unwinnable.Quote:
Well, any well-developed meta has quite some Gaddock Teegs in the sideboard; if it's not against combo, it's against control decks with EE, Elsepth and Force of Will. So yeah, running into Gaddock Teeg is a situation you have to keep in mind. I know situations in tournaments where a certain Rock player lost against the ANT player because he went off using DD. It happens, it steals games. If you know how, it's very good.
However, I've already covered this before. Doomsday will also lose games for you too, even if only because of the other cards you're running (like 4 Top) without actually seeing Doomsday.
Well, no. If you have Brainstorm, you're not short against Force. I was actually assuming the discrepancy was due to you being on the draw and not mentioning that you found a third land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
If you didn't have a third land, you should Brainstorm main phase with the hope of hitting a mana source/chant effect and then Infernal Tutor into Dark Ritual to setup your third turn. If you have a third land, you get to double up Dark Rit then look again after a shuffle possibly finding more mana or protection.
I'm still not even sure why you'd play so poorly in your original scenario. EOT Dark Rit, Ad Nauseam is a lot worse than mainphase Ad Nauseam. You already had one Lotus Petal so you should be fine on mana assuming at least 6 0cc initial mana sources in the deck (5 remaining). By passing the turn, you're trying to trade extra initial mana sources against their possibly drawing/finding Force of Will, Counterbalance, or other hate. This is a mistake compounding the mistake of taking Lotus Petal.
Learn to play the deck. There is absolutely no excuse for someone giving advice about a deck to make decisions that poorly and then document those bad decisions so as to propagate their own bad habits. Drawing Lotus Petal is simply awful.Quote:
As for something else, I may disagree with you, but I will attack the cards and the interaction of them in the deck. Inciting a flame-war various times through your post is unnecessary, immature, and irrelevant to the validity of the card itself. In short: grow up.
tldr; if you don't want to be treated like a scrub, don't post scrubby plays
I have very modest experience with storm combo, but I fail to see how Top is a bad card that will lose you games. If you need to go off RIGHT NOW, Top admittedly isn't doing a lot for you, but in all other scenarios, Top gives you some of the best card selection in the game when coupled with shuffle effects. At worst, it turns into another card. It helps you recover quicker from a disadvantageous position when you need protection AND accel, or accel x2, or accel AND tutor - in these situations Top can save you an entire turn.
Again, I don't have a ton of experience with storm combo, but I do have a good deal of experience with SDT, to the extent that I'm so accustomed to seeing 4-7 cards a turn, that seeing only 1 a turn seems incredibly sub-optimal.
Exactly. Please don't quote Rico Suave in the future, he is on my ignore list because everytime I read something he posts, I feel my IQ points dropping and I have already drank quite a few of those away so I have to make them last!
But in the interest of fairness, there is genuinely no good reason to not run Top in ANT. The arguments of: it slows the deck down, it makes it clunky, or I can't play it right, are not very valid. It adds consistency, helps in the control matchups, WORKS MORE THAN ONCE (unlike Ponder), and allows you to play Doomsday which is the most versatile combo card on legacy.
I understand a lot of people can't play it right, and that is fine, but even if you aren't running DD then you can still run Top in ANT, it is damn good, I promise. I have no idea why you would not play it, Ponder is inferior, let me set up a scenario. Your opening hand is: Top, Sea, fetch, Dark Ritual, 2 Petal, Cabal Ritual. You can keep that and reliably find something. Now imagine that scenario except swap Top for Ponder. You are now reliant on the top 3 cards of you library to do something, if you don't find something you are now in topdeck mode.
Now I can already see the arguments against this which are non-sensical and circular: Ponder speeds the deck up (by a turn at most), that scenario is not likely (play combo more than once), Top isn't needed (figured I would throw that in there cause it confuses me and makes no sense), and I can't play Doomsday. Ok, the last one is valid but take some time to learn it. Read emidln's articles and start practicing, you have to be willing to put in the time though to make it work, otherwise you are never going to understand it. DD is well worth knowing how to play and greatly beneficial in the blue matchups, and if you have to ask why, I would highly suggest looking back at the thread on pages 30 and up, it has been discussed in depth.
Although this is a valid argument you could just run Angel's Grace and the result would be the same, and Angel's Grace just takes one slot and is a whopping 5 Mana cheaper than the Doomsday Meditate engine thus not bolting you twice during an Ad Nauseam. By the way I don't like the card I am just showing a different way of achieving this.Quote:
Originally Posted by alderon666
This is just ignorant, let's turn this argument around, what you're basically saying is that all those thousands of players that don't play Doomsday are bad players or inexperienced ones. All those old vintage players including me who has played Storm combo since the mechanic was printed is just stupid and do not know how to play magic and our knowledge is not worth a dime since we have not come to the same conclusion as six or seven of the writers on this forum. I am not saying that your conclusions or your results with the deck is a fallacy but as much as those who do not play DDANT has to respect your knowledge you just have to accept that not everyone is getting the same conclusions as you, and it do not have to be because of inexperience with the deck or with lack of play skillQuote:
Originally Posted by Elf_Ascetic
This is Actually true but just dismissing everyone elses test result by stating they do not have as much experience as you have with the deck is just hindering discussion, I bet you do not have any clue about how much experience Rico Suave or any other of the new additions to this thread has with the deck, and thus you can't just dismiss their results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf_Ascetic
. If I had more time I would add more to the discussion but right now I have to sleep.
So, have you or have you not played with Doomsday? Because frankly, if you're a storm combo player and you've taken the time to learn the stacks, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't at least see its merits. You might not include it in your deck because of personal preference, but surely you wouldn't dismiss it if you've actually played with the card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wave
I tried really hard to win with DD. I really tried to get situations where it wins me the game and Igg does not. I got 1. The Opponent dropped turn 2 Nought+Crypt and I immediatly won with DD on turn 3 but that was really the only game out of ~200 where DD shined.
As I know how hard it is to get into an archetype and how often newcomers doesnīt understand whatīs truly important, I REALLY want to like Doomsday after all...But for now I canīt as I just NEVER need it :cry:
I will read the DD-Stacks (again) in christmas holidays and then try even harder to find a game where I need it. Iīm gonna let you know if it happened in 2009 ;)
PS:200,yay :P
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by NQN
I've only been playing DD for about a month but I find myself using it quite often. If you have a Top out, it's almost like a no-brainer since most of the time you can just cast DD and crack LED in response for UUU to pay for the Meditate. And if you're against things without counterspells and you have extra mana or cards in hand, you can do even more dumb things than that. So in essence, all you need is that BBBXXU and you rack up a free 7+ storm count without the risk of your opponent IGG-ing anything back. You can do the same with a Chanted IGG, but that requires you to have a certain hand (generally with LED or at least a bunch of expendable spells so you can go hellbent). With DD if you have Brainstorm/Top in play you can just go for it, given you have enough mana. This doesn't even count the hands where you have extra cards in hand and can DD -> IGG loop for 10+ easily against anything that doesn't pack counterspells or after a resolved Chant. And then of course there are the post-board piles. Honestly, they're not hard to remember if you just glance over the DD piles and play your matchups. It'll all start to make sense and the piles become quicker and quicker to assemble.
I know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not to include the Doomsday package, but from my point of view you sacrifice two slots of consistency for a powerful alternate engine. Even if you don't know the difficult tricks with the DD pile, it's still a 100% safe plan when you go off versus casting Ad Nauseum, which always has the chance to fizzle. But I'm just wasting my breath here, as it's all been said before. I've tried both out, and I find myself missing DD in straight ANT. Whether or not you think that engine is relevant is up to you, but I've personally found it worthwhile.
Unfortunately, it seems that you're still unable to avoid acting like a child. I'm not going to let myself get into a fool's argument, as you obviously have the experience there, but I will make a point that is on your level and maybe it will hit home.Quote:
Originally Posted by emidln
If you want to get personal, then let's take a look at recent events.
The top8 at the St. Louis tournament was:
43 land x 2
Aggro Loam x2
Merfolk x2
Zoo
CB
My first reaction was "nobody played combo at this event?"
Then I saw you were there, and failed by killing yourself with Doomsday. Of course you are quick to tell others to "learn to play" but does the word hypocrite mean anything to you? At least you should give more than just a little extra thought to the idea of DD being too difficult for you to play (as it clearly was too difficult for you).
Pearls before swine, as they say.
Wow. You're seriously telling him that? So the only reason you can think of why he didnt make Top 8 in that event was because he can't properly play Doomsday?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
Actually I am playing the combo every now and then and I played it a whole 6 month a while ago so I know the merits of the combo, and I actually never dismissed the combo, what I am saying is that you cannot dismiss some ones experience right away every time since you do not know the experience of the player, people have done it recurringly in this thread and that is hindering to the discussion. Right now your biggest argument against not playing the combo is play it or you are a bad player, if you have not come to the same conclusion that it beats everything, then you are a bad player. Many of the arguments brought forward against the combo have their merits but you have just met them with, you are a bad player or a bad DD player. I think the combo is good and it solve a lot of situations that the Ad Nauseam and Ill-gotten gains package can't, but it is not the super solution to everything that has been stated in this thread, as an example the package is actually worse against the combo matchup. That is not a small feat since the meta (at least here) consists of at least a fourth of combo decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by kicks_422
You're having a worse combomatchup with a deck with 6-7 chants and 4 tops?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wave
Oh come on, don't be this dense. He was mocking Em's silly 'I'm so fucking awesome with deck' attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by kicks_422
Sorry if this post is not about the diatribe hybrid vs standard.
I take away the dust from the top af my ant deck and I'm starting to play it again. I'm looking for new cards to try.
Has anyone tried Carpet of Flowers in the green splash? If yes, with what response? I'm thinking about it in a meta with many tempo decks.
Carpet of Flowers is really awesome against blue (especially Tempo-Decks) cause it crushes their mana-denial plan und you can simply set up your game plan by out-controlling them with Chants, Top and DD. At the moment I'm testing it in the SB Xantid Swarm slot, due to all my opponent keeping creature removal against me; it's usually a non-wasteable land that provides whichever mana you need; I really love that card.
After looking at the storm piles I'm notincing typically you have you already have roughly 5 spells played before you make a pile since the majority of piles storm for 4-6. Can someone give me a basic rundown of what would go on before making a DD pile. Thanks
What? Was that a counter argument? Do you think the 6-7 Chant package is a secret tech of Doomsday combo? Regular ANT is playing the same package of disruption, why is this a counter argument? The Doomsday list is packing four Tops and they are at least a turn slower than Ponder which is maxed out in the regular ANT list, and the Doomsday package can't go off until turn 3 and there's the small possibility that a package consisting of 6 mana might make you fizzle during the much faster ANT comboing. That's why the DD lists is worse against combo, that extra turn the tops takes make you vulnerable against Aluren, Enchantress, Painter Grindstone and Ichorid since their combo turn is turn two or three, the ANT matchup is also getting worse since they are a turn faster and also belcher (although Belcher is also hard for the ANT deck)Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf_Ascetic
Statistically, you are as likely to be able to combo with Doomsday on turn 2 as you are with Infernal Tutor (assuming you played the same number of them). The cheaper mana cost of Doomsday 4-6 on turn 2 is comparable with Infernal Tutor's 7-8 mana when you factor in the additional cantrips necessary for Doomsday to work. If you count pass the turn piles, you are a lot more likely to combo with Doomsday on turn 1 or 2 than Infernal Tutor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wave
Have you ever actually lost a match to Enchantress? I don't know that I have ever done that playing anything derived from FT and I've been playing the deck for a long time. That deck is glacially slow and has...6 relevant cards, all of which can be bounced or removed unless they have 2 copies of a 4-of in play to protect them.
Trying to blindly go off turn 2 in the ANT mirror is a good way to Hymn/Mind Twist yourself at the cost of W for the opponent. Doing it against a deck that can not only have 6-7 chants, but also filter Mysticals into Chants with SDT is asking to lose. The biggest problem enemy combo decks face is that 6-7 ANT in general can win by turn 3 while finding/casting a lot of Orim's Chant effects. It was what made Extirpate and Abeyance good in the mirror previously, and has elevated Xantid Swarm in the mirror now. Belcher has to go off turn 1 on the play and win with belcher or it risks seeing its Belcher bounced and/or coming under fire of chant effects whenever it tries to cast rituals.
The last time I checked, the defense to Aluren was Mystical->KGrip and laugh at them when they can't deal with SDT hiding your KGrip. You have forever and a day to win that matchup.