[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)

[BreathWeapon]

@4eak

I haven't tried meshing cantrips with speed, but when I tried AdN in Pact SI and Kobold SI it just never seemed to be consistent enough to get the job done before the disruption mattered.

Look at it from this extreme,

1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Ill Gotten Gains
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Ad Nauseam
4 Infernal Contract
4 Cruel Bargain
4 Xantid Swarm
4 Summoner's Pact
4 Elvish Spirit Guide
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Culling the Weak
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Chrome Mox
4 Polluted Delta
1 Bayou
1 Dryad Arbor

[4eak]

@ BreathWeapon

I haven't tried meshing cantrips with speed, but when I tried AdN in Pact SI and Kobold SI it just never seemed to be consistent enough to get the job done before the disruption mattered...Look at it from this extreme

Hmm...Does that deck actually goldfish faster? I don't know. Mystical tutor (with Brainstorm/Ponder) and a higher land count really has been very important to the deck. That list looks much less stable. AdN is probably the only spell I want to be casting that costs me life.

I can definitely see why you would be hesitant to run a list without protection in the main (I didn't like the idea when I started building decks with AdN either).

Hear me out:

The addition of AdN adds an enormous amount of speed to the TPS archetype, and none of us have tested the card enough to know exactly how TPS should evolve.

I'm not convinced that the pure-speed combo is the best choice, even pre-board. But, none of us could answer either way without at least testing it more extensively. Yes, you've done some testing on it, but how do you know you had an optimal list? Seriously, making an optimal list of the pure-speed combo is difficult to do.

Some of the fundamental questions we must ask about Ad Nauseam include:

-How fast is AnD tendrils?
-What is the cost of adding disruption?

Those are difficult to answer without having done some testing on the many variations of the pure-speed combo. Unfortunately, with the exception of Hanni, most have passed the pure-speed combo off without giving good reasons or evidence. I don't find that acceptable.

Essentially, there is a threshold percentage of turn 1 and 2 wins that would make all of us play a combo deck with no protection. We really couldn't say either way whether AdN decks could cross that threshold for us or not. With so little time and testing behind the Ad Nauseam card, and in order to be fair in our assessment, we have to make sure we are using optimal versions of the pure-speed combo to see if the deck would cross that threshold and to have decent numbers with which to compare to versions packing disruption.

By not putting disruption in the main, I'm not doing the equivalent of putting Counterbalance/Top in WW. We have reasonable questions that needed better answers than:

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.

I tested and provided relevant numbers to a relevant set of questions about a very new card that we don't entirely understand. Perhaps I still haven't answered the question thoroughly enough; I don't know. And, perhaps, I've proven that the deck needs protection; for many, the results might be enough to rule the pure-speed combo strategy out. No matter how you cut it; I think it was valuable to consider and test the pure-speed combo.

In the end, even for those who started their development of the deck with disruption (and I did too if you read back at my original posts), there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with optimizing a more aggressive list to make sure we aren't wrong about the strategy for the 1st game of this deck.




peace,
4eak

[Zinch]

I haven't tested this deck at all, but I know a deck that sacrifices defenses for speed: Belcher (it can goldfish reliably on the second turn), and this deck are not performing very well lately, so I doubt that the pure-speed route is the way to go.

[BreathWeapon]

@ BreathWeapon

Those are difficult to answer without having done some testing on the many variations of the pure-speed combo. Unfortunately, with the exception of Hanni, most have passed the pure-speed combo off without giving good reasons or evidence. I don't find that acceptable.

Essentially, there is a threshold percentage of turn 1 and 2 wins that would make all of us play a combo deck with no protection. We really couldn't say either way whether AdN decks could cross that threshold for us or not. With so little time and testing behind the Ad Nauseam card, and in order to be fair in our assessment, we have to make sure we are using optimal versions of the pure-speed combo to see if the deck would cross that threshold and to have decent numbers with which to compare to versions packing disruption.

In the end, even for those who started their development of the deck with disruption (and I did too if you read back at my original posts), there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with optimizing a more aggressive list to make sure we aren't wrong about the strategy for the 1st game of this deck.

peace,
4eak

Here's the problem, Belcher and SI existed before Ad Nauseam and Belcher and SI are faster than Ad Nauseam, and neither of those decks have proven to be competitive despite their gold fish and with/with out disruption.

Your reasoning is flawed, there isn't a turn 1/2 gold fish % that'd cause me to pick up a combo deck, what you're looking for is the right combination of speed, consistency, disruption and resiliency, and pushing a combo deck too far in one direction never seems to work out.

[jericohs@cottage]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other comments directed to everyone in the post...
seems like everyone is arguing for the same reason...they're having a problem with LED. Drop LED, This is NOT TEPS
- drop the lion's eye diamonds entirely from the package

- run a few (0) cc creatures (8 perhaps) and Culling the weak to replace the LEDs

- run 4 x pact of negation

- run 4 x chrome mox (need i mention that you don't have to target any card??? Just imprint nothing and +1 Storm Count

[BreathWeapon]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other comments directed to everyone in the post...
seems like everyone is arguing for the same reason...they're having a problem with LED. Drop LED, This is NOT TEPS
- drop the lion's eye diamonds entirely from the package

- run a few (0) cc creatures (8 perhaps) and Culling the weak to replace the LEDs

- run 4 x pact of negation

- run 4 x chrome mox (need i mention that you don't have to target any card??? Just imprint nothing and +1 Storm Count

This is a level, right?

[jericohs@cottage]

Yeah the original post was better i find....

with the (0cc) creatures and culling the weak.

What us old timers used to call "Spanish Inquisition"

It had the lowest curve for a combo deck....everything was practically 0,1 cc
except for your business spells


Plus, if we're going to name the deck ANT (it might as well feature ornithopters and phyrexian walkers or kobolds) hehe

[ixid]

Just for the sake of argument and testing an extreme - and yes Lion's Eye Diamond and Pact of Negation isn't perfect, Thoughtseize may be better but you will understand why:

19 Land
1 Swamp
2 Island
4 Underground Sea
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
4 Crystal Vein

16 Accelerants
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Chrome Mox
4 Dark Ritual

8 Protection
4 Pact of Negation
4 Duress

12 Search/draw
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Mystical Tutor

5 Combo
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Ad Nauseam

Total CC: 44
Max going off CC: 39
Max average going off CC: 0.66 (ish)

Once you go off you have one fewer Ad Nauseam in your deck to draw. With such a low draw cost the life limitation is reduced and Mystical/Ponder/Brainstorm for Tendrils becomes more reliable. An advantage of this build is that you can put Lotus Petals and Lion's Eye Diamonds into play in case you topdeck an Ad Nauseam (Ponder/Mystical/Brainstorm make happen a lot) as the draw is cheap enough to build up storm most of the time.

I gold-fished 20 hands and found the deck to be reliable without Infernal Tutor, the normal pattern is turn 2 disruption with a turn 3 win. No mulligans, one fizzle, one turn 4 win. The deck is practically immune to Stifle as are most Ad Nauseam decks, has great ability to power over the top of Daze and has no 2 CC targets for Spell Snare leaving Force of Will, Counter Spell and Counterbalance as the significant threats. Thoughtseize/Duress can be a pain but the deck can be surprisingly redundant with no single card loss from a hand preventing you winning, especially when you drop all the artifact acceleration straight away and Ad Nauseam in your draw step after Mystical/Ponder/Brainstorm sets it up. I've also played the deck quite a lot against Worlds Threshold builds with Counterbalance/FOW/Daze/Thoughtseize and a version with Spell snare but no Counterbalance. The optimal strategy seems to be to disrupt once and go off as fast as possible. The matchup isn't great but this and Landstill are likely to be the hardest matches.

[undone]

Side board for the UB splash white splash ANT.

SB
4 EE (Deals with LOTS of troublesome hate, downside=slow upside= sweeping answer)
1 Cabal therapy
2 Vendicate (tutorable)
4 E tutor (discard)
4 other
Ideas?

[rufus]

Side board for the UB splash white splash ANT.

SB
...
Ideas?

Angel's Grace (full draw)
Orim's Chant (protection)

[4eak]

@ BreathWeapon

Let me preface what I'm about to say: I definitely respect the knowledge, experience and advice that many posters bring to this thread, including you BreathWeapon. I wouldn't take the time to post something unless I thought it was reasonable, constructive and added to knowledge of the deck or format. I believe you post with a similar approach. I'm taking your comments seriously, and I appreciate your relevant and respectful replies.

Your reasoning is flawed, there isn't a turn 1/2 gold fish % that'd cause me to pick up a combo deck

I've won too many vintage tournaments with Meandeck Tendrils, a deck that often plays zero protection in the main, to be told that FoW (or other pieces of disruption) makes pure-speed combo an invalid option. High enough Turn 1/2 win percentages can overcome the odds of eating early 1st game disruption. I think you overestimate the odds of being hit with FoW in the first two turns of the 1st match (whereby they haven't a clue what I'm playing). (And, in case you might ask: we can play around Stifle/Daze/Spellsnare/Top-less Counterbalance)

To give you an extreme (as you gave me); would you really turn down a deck that had a 100% chance for a turn 1 win just because it didn't have protection/disruption? I doubt it. What about 99%? Probably not. Continue that line of questioning (pardon the expression) Ad nauseam, and then draw your line. The point is that there is a threshold of turn 1/2 win percentages whereby pure-speed combo is viable in the 1st game of a match.

The fact is that Ad Nauseam does have something to gain by going off as early as possible. Your opponent is least likely to see playable disruption and you are least likely to be taking damage which might prevent you from casting a viable Ad Nauseam. Avoiding these two problems by winning early has merit.

Of course, I'm not saying pure-speed combo is the answer (I've said this many times). I'm only saying it is worth consideration--did you not also try unprotected versions of the deck? Combo decks are notorious for avoiding interaction; it is reasonable to push the boundaries (after all, we are testing the card). Lastly, there have been several combo decks in the history of magic that have performed well even without protection, and it seems reasonable in this circumstance to take a closer look at the pure-speed combo.



peace,
4eak

[Hanni]

Here's a couple of other interesting routes:

B/u/w ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Flooded Strand
2 Underground Sea
1 Scrubland
1 Tundra
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Orim's Chant

This opens the sideboard up to some strong artifact/enchantment destroyers, too (Dismantling Blow seems pretty strong vs Counterbalance). I'm actually thinking this version might be better than the B/U/r version because it's more stable. I need to do actual testing to confirm this.

Anywhere, here's another list, this one has FoW in it:

B/U ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
4 Underground Sea
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor
1 Ad Nauseam
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Force of Will

Even with the 5cc FoW, the deck still has 6 total 5cc spells, the same as my B/U/r version. 16 blue spells should be enough to support FoW, given all the draw/tutor the deck has. This version is very vulnerable though, with only 1 AdN. I don't think this list is very good, but the idea has merit, IMO.

[herbig]

I've won too many vintage tournaments with Meandeck Tendrils...

Come come now. 10 player tournaments vs. Raging Sligh and ElfBall don't count.

Has no one even suggested calling this deck Nausea? Old timers like us remember that monstrosity with misty eyes. It's high time the name actually received a real deck to go with it.

And what the hell is Spanish Inquisition? I always thought that was borderline Thunder Bluff as well. People play that?

All these lists have far too few Gemstone Mines, in my opinion. My super secret tech I'll save for Worlds 2009, assuming it's still legal by then.

[Hanni]

What do you want to cast with Gemstone Mine, though? Gemstone Mine opens the deck up to Wasteland. Losing fetchlands for Brainstorm is huge, and Brainstorm is extremely strong in the deck. Being able to run both REB and Krosan Grip does sound good, but I don't think it's worth losing Brainstorm and manabase stability.

I just want to say that the B/u/w version I posted has been sick nasty pwnage in playtesting. It's definitely my favorite version now. 4 Chant 1 IGG is better than 4 PoN 1 Etw, IMO. White also offers better sideboard cards than red, IMO.

[BreathWeapon]

Here's a couple of other interesting routes:

B/u/w ANT

Lands (14)
4 Polluted Delta
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Flooded Strand
2 Underground Sea
1 Scrubland
1 Tundra
1 Swamp
1 Island

Spells (46)
4 Chrome Mox
4 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Ad Nauseam
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Tendrils of Agony
4 Duress
4 Orim's Chant

This opens the sideboard up to some strong artifact/enchantment destroyers, too (Dismantling Blow seems pretty strong vs Counterbalance). I'm actually thinking this version might be better than the B/U/r version because it's more stable. I need to do actual testing to confirm this.

Running 4 Ad Nauseam and not running 4 Ponder is counter intuitive, what makes 4 Ad Nauseam good is being able to Brainstorm or Ponder into it, put it back on top, and sacrifice LED during your upkeep. Chrome Mox is a terrible card, it does nothing but imprint other mana sources or imprint cantrips/tutors that could have found other mana source and reduces Threshold.

[Hanni]

More often I power out AdN without LED than I do with LED, since 4 LED is only 1/5 of my acceleration base. Ponder might be able to dig for AdN a little, but it's not AdN. Running 4 AdN instead of Ponder means I see AdN more often, which is what I want to see.

Chrome Mox is a necessary evil. After you resolve AdN, unless you excess mana floating, you usually need some combination of Petal/Mox in order to cast rituals and/or tutors. 0cc artifact mana is pretty important for not fizzling after you resolve AdN.

I disagree with your assesment of Chrome Mox; alot of times, Mox imprints cards that are worthless at the time (like excess Duress/tutors/etc). The argument of Mox being card disadvantage is valid, the argument of it not promoting Threshold is valid, but Chrome Mox is still a necessary evil. Unless, of course, you want to fizzle more often (after casting AdN) or slow down the fundamental turn (before casting AdN).

[ixid]

Breath Weapon goldfish some hands perhaps and show what mana you have, all of the variations I've tested would often fizzle without the Chrome Moxes in addition to Lotus Petals as the deck often goes off with 5 mana and has to draw into more. As to Chrome Mox hurting threshold - cut Cabal Ritual, it's not very good in this deck. How often are you able to hit threshold by turn 2 or 3 anyway? Hitting it once you've gone off is much less relevant, there is sufficient mana to win without Cabal Ritual after going off (although again without Chrome Mox how are you hitting 2 mana reliably after going off?). I find Crystal Vein better than Cabal Ritual.

I do agree with your assessment of Ponder (which is why I cut Infernal Tutor), seeing up to 4 cards for 1 mana and a shuffle if you want it is very useful in this deck.

Both cuts leading to the CC: to get the most out of Ad Nauseam you should aim for a low average casting cost. The low CC build can draw one and a half times as many cards safely with a given life total as the Orim's Chant build, avg CC after AdN: 0.66 vs 1.

[Hanni]

I think Cabal Ritual is pretty good. Even if it only makes +1 mana, it's still doing what it's intended to do. I get 5 mana from it often enough that it's worth it.

I think the core 20 accelerants are perfect. It's good to question things and test with and without things, but all of the playtesting I've done with the core 20 so far indicates, to me, that the configuration of accelerants is correct.

[rufus]

It may be possible to run Green acceleration with ESG/S-Pact/Crop Rotation/Phyrexian Tower/Lake of the Dead, but that really wants some 0 cc critters.

[Apex]

I mentioned the Chrome Mox thing some pages ago too, and it also DOES suck as a 4 of. In most of my goldfishings, the amount of time I REALLY needed a Chrome Mox to combo prior to AdN was almost non-existent, which is why I proposed a 2 Chrome Mox inclusion as opposed to the full set of 4. Since you only really wanted to see it after AdN to ensure that you don't fizzle, 4 Lotus Petal and 2 Chrome Mox should mean that your expected value of seeing 0cc mana sources after you cast an AdN and drew a bunch of card is 2 (this is a rough calculation that takes into account the amount of card selection you get with Brainstorm/Ponder/Mystical/Fetches), which is just enough for the usual double U needed to Mystical+Ponder/Brainstorm into a Tendrils.

As for Cabal Ritual, I've announced my hate of it a long time ago. I wish we didn't have to run it, but I just can't find anything better.