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...). I´m 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?