[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)

[rufus]

....
Another problem with going off very early (turn 2) is the fact that it's also hard to make blue mana after AdN (unless you hit lotus petals). At times I wished there was a Chromatic Sphere/Star in there to switch around mana.

Duress > Thoughtseize in an AdNauseam deck.

Depending on circumstances you could also feed a blue card to a Chrome Mox. With 4 Chrome moxes and 8+ blue cards, that should be a decent supplement to the Lotus Petals.

You could put PoN in the sideboard as a 3-of, although this deck has a hard time with burn in general.

[Apex]

I realize that Duress > Thoughtseize, that's why I was searching for an alternative, and I was wondering if Therapy was a better choice.

Thanks for the Chrome Mox suggestion, seems pretty solid, though I don't know if I want to play 4 of those.

My current list that I'm testing:

lands (I am playing 2 Chrome Moxens, so I decided to cut one land and play 14, will test more)
1 Island
1 Swamp
8 Fetch
4 Sea

Acceleration:
4 LED
4 Lotus Petal
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Dark Ritual
2 Chrome Mox

Disruption
4 Duress
3 Cabal Therapy

Setup:
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor

Win con:
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils

Right now it seems pretty solid gold fishing (better than before at solving blue mana problem, no uncastable Thoughtseize after Ad Nauseam), but I'm gonna work on some of the resiliency issues.

[Anusien]

I can believe Ad Naseum being awesome when you start at 20 life. I'm questioning how awesome it is when you have an opponent. How many games do you win at greater than:
2 life?
3 life?
5 life?

In other words, would an opposing turn 1 creature or a Lightning Bolt stop your plans cold?

[BreathWeapon]

I can believe Ad Naseum being awesome when you start at 20 life. I'm questioning how awesome it is when you have an opponent. How many games do you win at greater than:
2 life?
3 life?
5 life?

In other words, would an opposing turn 1 creature or a Lightning Bolt stop your plans cold?

The cut off is appr. 10, but it's not difficult to just pack Orim's Chants and run IGG, considering how ridiculous M.Tutor -> AdN and sacrificing LED during your upkeep is, you may not even need to run more than 1 AdN.

[Apex]

I think I have made some progress, it tests well in goldfishing so far.

I tried and applied the "Doomsday" philosophy with Ad Nauseam, that is, AdN/DDay are both setup cards that should win you the game when you resolve it. You cast DDay with some mana floated and you proceed to win, same with Ad Nauseam, except with Lotus Petal/Chrome Moxen/the LED upkeep -> draw trick, you often just need to resolve AdN, and the 10-12 cards you draw should allow you to win, don't need to setup a specific pile like DDay. Therefore, I went and cut all of the Infernal Tutors (like a few posters above had done).

During goldfishing, I was often quite unhappy with how I couldn't grab my singleton wincon (Tendrils) with Infernal Tutor unless I had LED in hand, and all of my other tutors all costed blue, which makes the Mystical -> Brainstorm/Ponder for Tendrils costs at least UU, and often more if I need to chain Brainstorm/Ponder into a Mystical (which sucks hardcore if I comboed early, since I would then need 1 or 2 additional Lotus Petals). So I added 2 Chrome Moxens, which has been performing OK.

So now the problem lies in resolving AdN. Again, I took the FT approach and added some SDT's for more card selection power. I'm playing close to a full set of fetches anyway, might as well use the top. So far I'm testing 2, but I might have to find room for more (I think maybe 4 top/2 ponder is better than 4 ponder/2 top, or maybe a 3/3 split, who knows). I also added 4 Orim's Chants to the main, replacing the Thoughtseize/Cabal Therapy slot for better protection against things in general.

The list looks like this right now, maybe a singleton Ill-Gotten Gains is needed, maybe not, more goldfishing needs to be done. But right now, if you resolve AdN, you should win. Resolving AdN also happens most frequently on turn 3, so I'm happy with the speed.

list:
1 [UNH] Swamp
1 [B] Tundra
1 [B] Scrubland
3 [ON] Flooded Strand
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
1 [UNH] Island
4 [B] Underground Sea

2 [MR] Chrome Mox
4 [TE] Lotus Petal
4 [MI] Lion's Eye Diamond
4 [B] Dark Ritual
4 [US] Duress
4 [MI] Mystical Tutor
4 [MM] Brainstorm
4 [LRW] Ponder
4 [PS] Orim's Chant
4 [TO] Cabal Ritual
1 [SC] Tendrils of Agony
3 [UNH] Ad Nauseam
3 [CHK] Sensei's Divining Top

Edit: this list kinda looks like the newer FT list if you squint your eyes. I think it has potential. Also, I hate Cabal Ritual. With a passion.

[deadlock]

There far too many untested lists floating around in this thread. To just comment the last one: I think you are overlooking the main reason to run SDT, which is in fact DD. So without it i rather would try something like Mental Note.

If you want to keep the FT approach you might wanna try a single AN in a list WITH Doomsday or you start from scratch and look for cards that synergize with it, which is only warranted if the card proves to be powerful enough to build a deck around and even if yes than i wouldnt solely rely on it.

Personal i like the concept to build threshold asap for Cabal Ritual via Mental Note and Intuition.
Intution for three AN looks good, because you pull out additional copies and lower the average cmc of your deck. On the other hand Intuition was dismissed for Tendrils decks a long time ago.

[BreathWeapon]

Yeah, Ad Nauseam is just worse than Doomsday in FT, you can't take as much damage with Ad Nauseam as you can with Doomsday and you can't Mystical Tutor for Infernal Contract either. There's just no point in using a more expensive, more life dependent card unless you're pushing the speed of the deck.

I'd recommend,

1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Ill Gotten Gains
1 Ad Nauseam
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
1 Wipe Away
4 Orim's Chant
4 Duress
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
3 Underground Sea
3 Tundra
1 Island

All you really need is a single AdN, the card is just so broken with Infernal Tutor and Mystical Tutor, there's no point in aiming for a 5cc hard cast.

I think I'd run that over TES, FT or SI, it's straight up sick how Stifle means jack shit now.

[Brehn]

it's straight up sick how Stifle means jack shit now.

Your manabase would like to have a word with you :]

What's up with that singleton Empty the Warrens? Just because it's 6 mana instead of 7? I think you're opening yourself up to hate.

[Apex]

FT pretty much relies on DDay setup, and only in rare occasions does it go the IT->IGG route, since right now, FT runs only 5 actual rituals. I'm proposing the same setup (cast AdN, do some stuff with the cards AdN gives you win), except that without the inclusion of Infernal Tutors, I don't think IGG as a singleton helps that much, that's why I didn't include an alternative wincon.

SDT was just a way to achieve the Brainstorm/Ponder effect without using blue mana, which is pretty huge since after AdN you will have an excess of black mana that you can sink, but hardly any blue, that's why the 2 Chrome Moxens are there too. Too bad SDT sucks as a 4 of with so little lands. I'm gonna goldfish it at 2 some more.

A single AdN in FT lists kinda sucks, really. Alot of people already mentioned that in various FT threads on here and the stormboard. That's why there is this thread, for breaking AdN.

As for testing lists, Shards isn't even finished being spoiled yet, there are like 50 more cards to go. We can only goldfish, and right now, with the last 20 or so hands, it's been goldfishing pretty consistently.

The debate right now then becomes Infernal Tutor or no? I'm thinking no, but then again, this version runs alot more rituals, so maybe Infernal Tutor isn't such a bad idea. Though it sucks alot after an AdN. Gonna excessively goldfish some more.

[BreathWeapon]

Your manabase would like to have a word with you :]

What's up with that singleton Empty the Warrens? Just because it's 6 mana instead of 7? I think you're opening yourself up to hate.

You got me there, but if the opponent has to Stifle fetchlands instead of Stifling win conditions, then I'm satisfied with Stifle being demoted to a Sinkhole instead of a Mindtwist. I don't want to have to deal with Meddling Mage on Tendrils of Agony, if all Empty the Warrens does is force Meddling Mage to name another card, it's doing its job. Essentially, Ad Nauseam and Empty the Warrens forces the opponent's disruption to pick sub-optimal targets, which is very useful.

@Apex

Believe me, I tried what you're trying, and it sucked. You can subtract Ill Gotten Gains and Empty the Warrens for Ad Nauseams in the list I posted, but I'm about positive that's an optimal AdN shell.

A testing partner just MDs the 4 AdNs and SBs the non-Tendrils singletons, and that may well be the best approach.

[Peter_Rotten]

In my testing, I've found EtW to rather sub-par since it rarely can be safely used in conjunction with AdN. I'm often at such low life, I can't afford to pass the turn; I need to win now.

[BreathWeapon]

In my testing, I've found EtW to rather sub-par since it rarely can be safely used in conjunction with AdN. I'm often at such low life, I can't afford to pass the turn; I need to win now.

Oh, I agree ETW sucks, but it's a lesser of 2 evils when choosing between tutoring for bounce, waiting to draw bounce, casting bounce and passing and just going off and Duressing their hand before dropping Goblins on the board.

I'd straight up cut the card if there were no Meddling Mages to be found.

[rufus]

I realize that Duress > Thoughtseize, that's why I was searching for an alternative, and I was wondering if Therapy was a better choice.

Cabal Therapy is probably better than Thoughtseize. Especially since Duress lets you look at the opponents hand so that Cabal won't miss.

Raven's Crime could be interesting since it allows you to pump lands into your storm count. The downside is that it's not that effective as a disruption card.

On that theme, Scroll Rack could be better than SDT - since it's basically a junior tutor with the hand of doom you get from Ad Nauseam.

[4eak]

I haven't posted in a bit on this deck (I've been playtesting). Here are my results with the following speedy list:

Lands: 12x
1x Swamp
1x Island
4x Underground Sea
2x Flooded Strand
4x Polluted Delta

Mana Accel: 26
4x Lotus Petal
4x Chrome Mox
4x LED
4x Dark Ritual
4x Cabal Ritual
3x ESG
3x Summoner's Pact

Card Quality: 16
4x Brainstorm
4x Ponder
4x Mystical Tutor
4x Infernal Tutor

Win-Stuff: 6
1x Tendrils of Agony
1x Ill-Gotten Gains
4x Ad Nauseam


Out of close to 400 goldfishes, here are the winning turn percentages:

Turn 1= 15% (11% w/7-card hands, 4% w/6-card hands)
Turn 2= 72% (53% w/7-card hands, 19% w/6-card hands)
Turn 3= 12% (7% w/7-card hands, 5% w/6-card hands)
Turn 4+ = 1%

The deck is clearly a turn 2 deck. I'm sure I didn't play perfectly, and mulliganing becomes an art with the deck (I create percentage rules for Brainstorm/Ponder hands to determine if they are keepable). I don't know if this is good enough to not play protection.

Other comments:

-Adding Duress, Thoughtseize, Pact of Negation, Orim's Chant, etc. really does slow this deck down. In goldfishing, a protected version of the combo became closer to a turn 3 deck than a turn 2 deck.

-In the games I've played, I must admit that burn and very fast early damage was devastating to the viability of AdN. This deck, unfortunately, can't wait very long to go off because it can't afford to take a lot of damage and remain very consistent.

-Keeping the deck U/B has made for a very consistent mana-base.


Just a few late responses:

@ Hanni

you still need 4 Duress

Not convinced of that just yet. But, Duress would be the first piece of protection I'd play. Orim's would probably be second. Thoughtseize hurts, and PoN just wasn't hot.

I don't think ESG + Pact is how I'd want to accelerate the deck, honestly. That opens you up to FoW worse than usual now because if they Daze/FoW you're AdN, you lose the game. Quickening the clock to turn 1 kills like Belcher, you're just as vulnerable to turn 1 countermagic. ESG is 3cc, so on its own its not good for the decks curve

This deck goes for the throat. If you blow your load, and you fizzle or get countered out, then you are screwed no matter what. You are going to lose if you don't succeed when you attempt to go off. Pact's upkeep trigger is pointless in this deck. Its drawback is meaningless. You either won, or you fizzled and you lost anyways.

ESG+Pact is great. Test it and then come back and tell me otherwise.


@ BreathWeapon

Quoted for emphasis, using Ad Nauseam's Instant speed to cast it during the draw step instead of the main phase is broken, and not enough people seem to be aware of how to use Ad Nauseam and LED together (I didn't even consider it until I re-read the rules for LED)

This is the reason I went for a straight up speed combo. I use this so often, and I so commonly use Mystical on T1, which takes up my Duress mana, that I all too often have just been better off not running protection.



peace,
4eak

[troopatroop]

This deck goes for the throat. If you blow your load, and you fizzle or get countered out, then you are screwed no matter what. You are going to lose if you don't succeed when you attempt to go off. Pact's upkeep trigger is pointless in this deck. Its drawback is meaningless. You either won, or you fizzled and you lost anyways.

ESG+Pact is great. Test it and then come back and tell me otherwise.

I agree with him. ESG-Pact is awful. What's so precious about that single green mana, and why play a 3cc card to bolt you post Ad Nauseum? I'd rather play disruption, So I don't lose to a single Force of Will, something that your list could take a hint from. How can you deny the power of Duress and PoN in actual gameplay? Of course they'll slow down the goldfish. That's what protection cards do, but we're building a deck to win actual games of magic. You sat down and played a whole bunch of games with that list. Good job. It's irrelevant. Take it to a tournament and you'll lose to blue consistently.

[undone]

Im playing breath whepons first posted list with these changes

-4 thoughtseize (it just doesnt work here)
-4 Serum visions
+1 IGG
+4 mystical tutor
+3 cabal therepy

The list goldfishes really well, but I realized something that absoultely SUCKS in testing. If I draw tendrils (like raw draw) LED is a dead card, which is NOT GOOD. 1 IGG is an easy fix and lets you go for the loop vs burn and such (So you dont have to do ad nauseum) It fixes all the red matches, by itself (I Kept having trouble with the "Bolt you, bolt bolt you" when on the draw starts putting me at 10) 1 IGG fixes this because they cant beat the iggy start often.

Also from straight up testing therepy is strictly better then thoughtseize if you know what you want, starting off with brainstorm is a good if they dont in responce, nameing force is also good, it mainly lets you see your problematic cards in hands.

Things @ Breathwhepon

Have you considered cutting 1 adnauseum, and 2 bad disruption for 3 intutition.

The other question is could you consider cutting 2 bad disruption for 1 slaughter pact (mage/teeg) and 1 wipe away/rebuild/any bounce spell. Im thinking that E truth, or something would be a good bounce spell as its cheep, the best one barring the 2 cards Im REALLY scared of is repeal, it bounces every thing but chalice @1, and 3 sphear.

Im begining to think 1 vendicate would actualy be a good inclusion but thats just rambling and food for thought.

I understand not dropping an ad nauseum(That card has such good creepy art...) but As we were saying when we tested it, do you really need 7-8 disruption????? isnt say 5-6 fine.

I also have the question of "Where can we add chrome mox" We were unacceptably unhappy with out it. We need 4 slots for that card.

[BreathWeapon]

@People

Pact of Negation is not an option in a deck that's using bother Infernal Tutor and Mystical Tutor with Lion's Eye Diamond to cast Ad Nauseam.

@4eak

You need disruption, slowing the aggro-control opponent down is the same thing as speeding the Storm player up, and turn 3 wins still get the job done vs aggro.

I don't care for Chrome Mox, I'd rather hit land drops thru' turn 3 99% of the time.

Edit @ Undone

Scroll up the page, and you'll see my "up to date" list, I added Ill Gotten Gains and the second win condition for similar reason and I cut Thought Seize for those exact reasons but I've found Chrome Mox to be really bad.

I go back and forth on the second win condition, the bounce and a disruption slot for more Ad Nauseams, but I suppose there's nothing about 8 disruption spells that's set in stone other than being super useful.

You'll just have to weight the utility of one card vs another and judge for yourself.

[undone]

BreathWeapon
Im not advocating cutting lands, Im advocating cutting either 2-3 disruption and 1 cabal ritual, or just putting 3 in the deck, You NEEED UU most of the time, this helps you get the second blue.

[BreathWeapon]

BreathWeapon
Im not advocating cutting lands, Im advocating cutting either 2-3 disruption and 1 cabal ritual, or just putting 3 in the deck, You NEEED UU most of the time, this helps you get the second blue.

What's the reasoning for UU, M.Tutor + Cantrip for Tendrils on the back end? Most of the time, I'm just re-casting the Infernal Tutor and Lion's Eye Diamond chain for the Tendrils, the problem with Chrome Mox is that it just eats all of the cards you need to set up.

I'll look into it, but I wouldn't run Chrome Mox unless I was forced to run Chrome Mox, it's just not good.

[4eak]

@ troopatroop

I agree with him. ESG-Pact is awful. What's so precious about that single green mana, and why play a 3cc card to bolt you post Ad Nauseum?

Awful at what? ESG-Pact is not awful at what it does. 1-mana per card is perfectly acceptable. And, there isn't a ton of difference in life totals between running Duress+PoN or Duress+Thoughtseize vs. S-Pact+ESG, especially when you are pacting ESG's out of the deck. You haven't done your math. To answer your question directly: I was trying ESG-Pact out to see how fast and consistent the deck could play because perhaps it actually would be worth playing the version in the first match.

I'd rather play disruption

You've missed my argument entirely. I'm clearly open to the possibility that a disruptive version will be the best version. My argument for ESG+Pact has literally nothing to do with a version of this deck that plays disruption in the main. My argument for ESG+Pact has everything to do with the value of its mana acceleration as opposed to other options to the pure-speed combo version of this deck (something that would only be found in the first game of a match).

In a deck looking to speed its way into the win, playing without disruption in the first game of a match, ESG-Pact does a fine job. My argument is that if you are trying to play the speedy version of this deck, then ESG-Pact is a viable mana accelerant for the last slots. If you want to prove me wrong, then start from the premise that we are evaluating the pure-speed combo version of the deck, and then show me the better cards. I'm not saying the pure-speed combo is the correct choice, nor am I saying that ESG+Pact is absolute the best choice for that version, but both are definitely something we should consider.

So I don't lose to a single Force of Will, something that your list could take a hint from.

There is only a 40% chance to open with FoW (not including a 2nd blue card), which is a chance we should be willing to consider, especially when my opponent doesn't know what I'm playing in the first game.

More importantly: The deck can side in control.

Additionally, IGG can play around countermagic to some extent. It can take more than 1 counter to stop this deck.

How can you deny the power of Duress and PoN in actual gameplay?

I don't deny they are powerful cards. I've played duress in TPS for a very long time in vintage. I know the card is outright amazing. I didn't say the deck shouldn't run them. I had the cards in my sideboard for the matches I did play, and they were there for the 2nd/3rd games.

How can you deny that we shouldn't at least even consider the unprotected but fastest and most consistent version of the deck pre-board?

Lastly, PoN really isn't that hot in this deck. LED is just too important.

That's what protection cards do, but we're building a deck to win actual games of magic.

Yeah, thanks for trolling.

Please read what I've written. I not only said I goldfished, but I also said I played actual games. I fully realize the implications of goldfishing. Goldfishing is actually somewhat relevant to a deck that generally isn't even looking to interact in the first game of a match.

For the record: this version won plenty of games, even against decks with FoW. It is blazing fast, and it is designed to win the first game of a match, not the post-board games. The truth is that if you don't mulligan into 1st turn FoW as a control player, then you are very likely to lose to this deck.

You sat down and played a whole bunch of games with that list. Good job. It's irrelevant. Take it to a tournament and you'll lose to blue consistently.

More trolling.

Perhaps it isn't the best version of the deck (and I'm certainly not claiming it to be). But, my work was hardly irrelevant, and we did play the deck against several blue-based control decks (and won many matches).

Knowing how fast the deck can goldfish the 1st match is a very reasonable question to try to answer.


@ BreathWeapon

You need disruption, slowing the aggro-control opponent down is the same thing as speeding the Storm player up, and turn 3 wins still get the job done vs aggro.

I assume you've read what I wrote above. In any case, I agree that the deck absolutely must run protection in games 2 and 3. I'm still not convinced of it in game 1, but I'm not against the idea at all.

-Also, Duressing aggro-control in the first match isn't exactly the same as speeding up the storm player. It is close, but there are many cases where this just isn't true. Duress isn't always a timewalk, and in many cases I've found avoiding their control through speed to be the better answer (try it out if you don't believe me).

-Turn 3 wins against aggro, depending on the aggro deck, really might not be a good idea. That does come from testing too. Some aggro decks can win on turn 3, but more importantly, taking any lifeloss from your opponent devalues Ad Nauseam and destabilizes the combo. We cannot forget that each passing turn and each point of damage this deck takes has more implications that it does for most combo decks. Ad Nauseum is not a card with which we can easily slow play or remain in the control position for more than a turn or two at best.



peace,
4eak