[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)

Hanni, I've been testing your list and it is amazing! I made 1 extremely minor change though, which was to add back one AdN for the lone Pact of Negation maindeck. Maybe it's because I am just a beginner at playing this, but it felt hard to get opening hands with AdN with only 2 in the deck. 3 feels much better, but again, this may be due to my inexperience.

Chant always feels *much* stronger than Pact, and I am always glad to see it in my hand. In fact, I have been wondering when and how to Sb in Pact at all? It often is clunky and I don't feel like it helps me to remove anything from the current main for it...

1 IGG is definitely key to this deck's success, and it has helped me win at least 1/3 of my games so far. Access to the graveyard after a big AdN is so powerful it usually just wins on the spot.

Any advice on playing your build, and how you tend to sideboard in some typical matchups?

Also, what do we think about banning? Turn 1 and 2 wins have been popping up a lot... I am concerned for the future of this archetype.

I'm not running Pact in MD or SB anymore, in the B/u/w version. I still like Pact, but it just doesn't fit well into my current build.

I haven't really used the sideboard that much in testing. Disenchant(s) come in for Chalice decks, Repeal(s) come in for Counterbalance decks. That's about all I've boarded in so far, in playtesting.

As far as banning... that's not something I can determine. The card itself is broken. Drawing 10-15 cards for 3BB is very broken. However, it doesn't make Storm combo broken. It makes Storm combo alot stronger, strong enough to put Storm combo back to DtB status, but not broken. Storm combo is still kept in check by decks like UGb Thresh (the one with Thoughtseize and Counterbalance), and the like. The card could get banned, and even though I doubt it will get banned, this archtype will be obsolete without it.

As far as advice with my playing my build... umm. Basically, I try to figure out what my opponent is playing. If I don't see blue, chances are I don't need to Duress/Chant and I can just go for the turn 1-2 win. If I see blue, chances are I need to Duress/Chant at least once, so I dig for disruption before I attempt to go off. Sometimes I need to dig for as much as 4 pieces of disruption, depending on how much disruption the opponent draws.

I like to try and go off on turn 2 with 1 disruption card having been played on turn 1 or 2 most of the time, but that doesn't always happen. The deck is simple(r) to play, IMO. AN takes alot of difficult decisions out of playing Tendrils combo. Just try to precalculate the storm count before playing IGG or discontinuing the draw chain on AN and you're fine. Always play as though it's the worst case scenario against decks with blue (i.e the opponent has a grip of countermagic), relying on Duress/Chant to ensure a safe resolution.

Thanks for your thoughts, Hanni. I concur with you that pact is most probably junk in this build and needs to go. Everything that pact does, duress and chant tend to do better.

After significant testing it seems to me that Chalice = 0 is the most relevant and most problematic board disruption this deck faces. Counterbalance is often just much too slow to stop this build. Hand disruption is a problem too, but frankly not as common these days.

That being the case, I find disenchant really underwhelming. It fails to deal with multiple chalices (say for 0 and 1) and finding 1W is not always the easiest proposition with this deck. I think I will test Echoing Truth instead, and see if that shores up this weakness.

I'm using Rushing River as a 1 of in the maindeck, since with a cmc of 3, it dodges CB easier than Echoing Truth, and it can bounce 2 stax pieces (3sphere, Chalice @ 0, 1 or 2) no problem.

If you are playing white, you can always use the FT approach: tune your manabase a little bit (like add a maindeck basic plains) and play 4x Serenity sideboard. They pretty much destroy stax, like, alot.

It need not be maindeck. Taking a Vintage TPS-style approach and playing basics in the sb (like a Plains) and 4 Serenity with maybe some rushign Rivers for good measure would be enough to ensure any chalice-based deck is a bye.

I wonder if abeyance would not be by far better than duress in this deck. I mean that one of the best plays is probably to BS AN back on top library (or to tutor it up with mystical) and to start protecting during your upkeep for LEDing at this moment and then play at your draw step the AN you knew you would draw. At least, against blue decks, it should be the best protection and effectiveness. Against other decks, it may be more narrow though. It should be at least the game plan after SB.

// Lands
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
1 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
2 [ON] Flooded Strand
2 [A] Underground Sea
1 [R] Scrubland
1 [R] Tundra
1 [ON] Swamp (4)
1 [P3] Island (3)

// Spells
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [R] Dark Ritual (1)
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual (2)
4 [FNM] Brainstorm (1)
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor (1)
4 Ponder (1)
4 [4E] Ad Nauseam (5)
1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains (4)
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony (4)
4 Abeyance (2)
4 [PS] Orim's Chant (1)
1 Rushing River (3)

1,1 of average casting cost, meaning 15+ draw average off the AN.

Emidln, thanks for your suggestion! I'll be trying out Serenity right away. I was concerned about finding 1W but adding plains to the SB should definitely fix the problem.

Maveric: Your logic is interesting, but it also makes me doubt that you have given the deck much testing. Try Duress, and then try playing with Abeyance. I think you will come to see that losing a turn 1 pre-emptive strike and the knowledge of an unimpeded win will be devastating to many of your matchups.

Also, losing Infernal Tutor while keeping LED seems... suspect to say the least. I don't doubt the strength of Ponder, which I would play if I could fit. Losing Infernal means that Mystical + cantrip is your only solid possibility to find Tendrils for the win. While ponder makes that more likely to happen, you still need 2BBUU just about every time. The deck is reliable, but in my experience not *that* reliable, and under actual game conditions you may find that AdN isn't coming up with enough cards to secure you the win.

Lord_Cyrus: try my build with LED and no Infernal Tutor and you will see that Mystical + draw is surprisingly reliable. LED also works very well without Infernal Tutor using the draw step trick or simply as additional mana (yes, not paying for AdN, Crystal Vein makes AdN pretty easy to pay for) in response to AdN. One point I think is missed about Pact of Negation is that it can storm for free a lot of the time (Pacting a spell you don't need or Pacting the Pact) and you may need that storm where you would not have had the mana to cast more expensive spells.

Lord_Cyrus > I quite agree with what you say, and I have to admit too, that I have a very weak experience with tendrils decks. I'm more a fish player usually. But you know, as I said in my first post, I think that the deck I presented should be playable <after> SB. I mean that the abeyances could be in SB and either duress, pact or infernal tutor MD.

Abeyance is 2cc. The effect may be good, but the cc is not. I was running Pact of Negation before because it was 0cc. Replacing that with 2cc disruption is not what the deck wants. Not only does that slow down the decks ability to win with protection, it also raises the cc for AN. Bad idea, IMO.

Serenity, on the other hand, sounds like a very good sideboard card. The basic Plains seems highly dependant on metagame; the only deck where basic Plains and Serenity would be relevant, is against DS (I think).

I'll try a sideboard like this:

Sideboard (15)
3 Repeal
4 Serenity
1 Rushing River
1 Slaughter Pact
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Angel's Grace
4 Tormod's Crypt

Also, I disagree with running more cantrips and less tutors. You do not want to be fizzling after you cast AN because all you could draw into were black rituals and cantrips. Infernal Tutor does exactly what it needs to, both before you cast AN, and afterwards.

I don't believe you've actually tried it. Fizzles are rare. I am not attacking your choice of version but you're saying something false about the builds with no IT.

I haven't tried it, you're right... because I know my success/fizzle rate with an actual tutor (Infernal in this case), and I don't see it getting any better with cantrips in place of my tutor. In fact, thinking back on all the situations where I've relied solely upon Tutor and replacing those instances with cantrips, I know I would have fizzled quite a bit.

You know, you can't always draw 15 cards from AN. Sometimes you get smacked by aggro for a few points and can only draw 7-8 cards from AN. With 2/2 AN/IGG now, I can often go for the IGG win when my life is low instead of AN, but still. Plus, if you aren't running Infernal Tutor, IGG is pretty much worthless anyway.

It's not about me being lazy and not playtesting it. It's about applying my current playtesting information to ideas suggested, and figuring out if they would improve or weaken specific situations I've encountered. In the case of cantrips vs Infernal Tutor, I don't see more cantrips making the deck more consistent.

If for whatever reason, multiple people (5+) on the thread all say that they've playtested both Infernal Tutor and Ponder in place of Infernal Tutor, and that it made the deck faster/more consistent, I'd playtest it. For now, it seems that some people just don't like Infernal Tutor, and are trying to find cards to replace it. Since I actually do like Infernal Tutor, I haven't had a reason to playtest without them, yet.

I really like this kill setup, it keeps your CC down and allows you to play a game that isnt as vulnerable to aggro.

2 Ad nauseum
1 tendrils
2 IGG

Im LOVEING this kill setup, but could drop 1 Ad nauseum for a cantrip, also Im considering MD 3-4 EE, it enables you to destroy anything up to 3 CC if you put in 1 tundra, or just 1-2 rushing river.

My new current SB (because I think your right about the)

1 plains
2 rushing river
4 Serenity
4 slaughter pact
4 orims chant (duress/therepy main)

What does every one think about that, do we need to worry about the ichorid MU?

Actually, I've decided to revert to 3 AN 1 IGG.

You can't chain 2 IGG's together without 6 mana starting (including the LED mana, minus the cost of IT), in which case a single IGG usually storms for lethal when you can produce 6 mana.

Let's look at this turn 1 goldfish scenario to explain what I mean:

Turn 1 land, Lotus Petal, LED -> Dark Ritual, IT, pop LED: 5 mana floating, tutor for IGG. LED, Dark Ritual, IT, pop LED: 4 mana floating. Now, you can grab Tendrils for 18 (9 storm), but you can't grab the second IGG.

If this was done on turn 2 with 2 lands, then yes, a double IGG win is possible. Just as often as that situation occuring (maybe slightly less), the deck could drop another Lotus Petal or Chrome Mox (w/o imprint) for a lethal single IGG win. Actually, even more often than both of those situations, the deck could have simply went for AN instead of IGG and won instead.

The fact that IGG in hand is worthless (you want to IT/LED for it) and AN in hand is a bomb, I'd rather run a 3/1 split of AN/IGG as opposed to a 2/2 split. Minor detail, but I see it improving consistency some.

---

Undone, I'm not sure I'd run 2 Rushing River. At 3cc, 2 of them seems pretty bad with AN. I was debating if I even wanted to run 1 Rushing River in my sideboard in place of 1 Disenchant, actually. I ended up choosing Rushing River, though, for its ability to answer multiple permanents.

The Ichorid matchup should be pretty good for us if you have Chant MD. Since you can just chant in response to their 3rd Narco trigger (or 2nd, if they've got a P.Imp). Which usually means you've ended their combo. Of course, Ichorid can still go crazy on the play and combo out turn 2, but so can we, and I think it's in the storm decks' favour when you've got Chant maindecked.

As for win con, currently, I'm testing 3 AdN, 1 IGG, 1 Tendrils, with only 2 Infernal Tutors. Since I often don't want to IT->IGG, so I don't feel that I need to run a full set of Infernals. Rituals->IT->IGG loop->IT->Tendrils can also solve the "9 storm problem", you just need an extra 2 mana when comboing out, which you should have if you've casted a ritual prior to the 2 LED and it's your 2nd turn (example: tap a land, Dark Ritual, LED, LED, IT, IGG, LED, LED, IT (for another Infernal), IT, tap a land, Tendrils is 10 storm without using a second IGG).

Hey guys I just wanted to pop in and say a few things!!!! I love combo, and at heart thats what I am, a combo player. I threw together a list i saw on page six and the deck is awsome. I just have a few questions for those of you who have tested more.... No ponder? I sometimes feel like if I had more draw it would be better. ummm... how about empty the warrens? an alternate win over tendrils out of the question? I know w/ AN it makes the lethal tendrils a breeze but I really like having options when it comes to winning. and speaking of tendrils....just one? so basically any deck that can make blue sides in four extract and beats us....not likin that at all. my only other concern w/ the deck would be the mana base..... it just doesnt feel right. I like the fetches but im not sure if the 2 strand 2 mire split is right... maybe if i did run warrens but it just doesnt feel right i dunno. Please, i am not trying to be a dick, i am just trying to help make the deck a little better, and i like whats happening so far... oh I almost forgot... why not throw in a singleton doomsday and a singleton meditate and have ANOTHER OPTION TO WIN....it would dick up the average mana cost but w/ AN and IGG that would be three seperate ways to win ... and i think alot of decks wouldnt know how to handle it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanni

Actually, I've decided to revert to 3 AN 1 IGG.

---

Good to know you found this to be the right mix also, as I did a while back. It's hard to explain rationally but... 3 AdN just feels right in this build. Here is the current build I am playing, taking up on the Serenity suggestion for the side. Fetchlands have been altered to favor white a bit more in compensation:

// Lands
3 [ON] Polluted Delta
3 [ON] Flooded Strand
2 [U] Underground Sea
1 [BD] Island (3)
1 [MR] Swamp (3)
1 [U] Tundra
1 [U] Scrubland
2 [ON] Bloodstained Mire

// Spells
1 [GP] Repeal
4 [IA] Dark Ritual
4 [PS] Orim's Chant
4 [US] Duress
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
4 [MR] Chrome Mox
3 [ALA] Ad Nauseam
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
4 [DIS] Infernal Tutor
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [6E] Mystical Tutor
4 [MM] Brainstorm
1 [US] Ill-Gotten Gains

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [GP] Repeal
SB: 3 [FUT] Slaughter Pact
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt
SB: 4 [WL] Serenity
SB: 1 [RAV] Plains (3)

Repeal is terrible. Split Second cards are going to be a lot better to you because the fact that they deal 3 damage off AdN is irrelevant if your bounce is countered and you don't get to cast AdN. Why aren't you just stealing the sb from older FT lists anyway? It was developed for exactly the type of deck you're trying to play. There was a lot of discussion on how to fight stax, counterbalance, and misc other stuff. Stop reinventing the wheel -- poorly.

Alright, first off I am going from Hanni's list, as I said. He played repeal as per his decklist a few pages back, so I did too. I'll take up your suggestion to read through the old fetch tendrils lists and check out their SB tech.

But you know, you could have proposed an SB instead of being insulting. I'm a beginner at this decktype, I freely admit that. So I come here looking for help and ideas. I have no interest in one-upsmanship, just in playing and improving this deck.

Why do you play Repeal?
To draw a card is usual irrilevant because you play it when you are already sure that in the next your turn you win.
And Repeal goes under all permission against CB matchup and you can't play it against the most common hate: Chalice at 1.

Repeal is a card for Vintage.
If you want a card against CB decks without the green splash you use Wipe Away.
If you want a versatile card against hate decks you use E.Truth or Rushing River.

Anyway, I'm agree with Emidln: you can use the SB of FT.
I see that a weak point of this matchup is against aggro or fast clock decks.
More time you wait, and less effective is AN. For this reason IGG is strictly necessary.