[Deck] ANT (Ad Nauseam Tendrils)

[NQN]

I can say that I love to just cast Chant effects even when I can´t go off to bait a Force or other shit and therfor I also like some additional white sources. Sometimes you have to cast double chant which needs more duals too, and Plains is just imba if you´re facing a lot of Merrows/CT (as he stated, it´s folk for him).

[Rico Suave]

Some points:

Being a good player does not mean being a good deck builder.

Being a good deck builder does not mean matching a collective hundreads of heads strong.

Good players can win tournaments with subpar lists.

---

With that said, i'm not skilled enough by far to judge whether Saito's list is the best direction for the deck or not; but the arguments against it apparently overwhelms the arguments for it (since the only argument for it is that Saito piloted it, Finkel Burn-syndrome anyone?).

While your points are certainly true in the abstract, Saito happens to be an excellent deck builder as well.

Keep in mind he is not alone either. Members of his team won Player of the Year in two consecutive years before Saito earned his. In this light, it's not hard at all to imagine Saito built his list and tested it with the help of Player of the Year caliber players.

While I am not saying his list is definitive, I am saying it should not be dismissed so lightly. I know a lot of us think we're good, and if we're given enough time and testing we can come up with the best possible decks, but sometimes it takes being humbled in a tournament by a truly great player to realize not just that they are better, but how much better they are.

Saito piloting it is a pretty damn good reason why it should be given heavy consideration.

[citanul]

I can say that I love to just cast Chant effects even when I can´t go off to bait a Force or other shit and therfor I also like some additional white sources. Sometimes you have to cast double chant which needs more duals too, and Plains is just imba if you´re facing a lot of Merrows/CT (as he stated, it´s folk for him).

That would explain the Plains but what about the Scrubland? Why not run a Tundra here?

[Eksem]

While your points are certainly true in the abstract, Saito happens to be an excellent deck builder as well.

Keep in mind he is not alone either. Members of his team won Player of the Year in two consecutive years before Saito earned his. In this light, it's not hard at all to imagine Saito built his list and tested it with the help of Player of the Year caliber players.

While I am not saying his list is definitive, I am saying it should not be dismissed so lightly. I know a lot of us think we're good, and if we're given enough time and testing we can come up with the best possible decks, but sometimes it takes being humbled in a tournament by a truly great player to realize not just that they are better, but how much better they are.

Saito piloting it is a pretty damn good reason why it should be given heavy consideration.

"Damn good" and "heavy" consideration is stretching it a bit I think, a "fair" reason and "some" consideration seems more adequate. Certainly the card choices that are new should be considered, but parts of that list rather look like old AnT-lists that the deck has evolved away from (though perhaps wrongly, I'm way too terrible a player to tell).

More important, however, is the take away. So a very good player won a very big tournament with a list that to many seem a bit subpar. Nothing strange in that. It happens a lot. But let's say that his list was the best possible for that tournament, and that he knew that before hand. Nothing strange there either. It happens a lot. But if bad players (like me) are to learn anything from those card choices, the arguments for them do have to be a bit deeper than "Saito piloted it". Of course one could rip his list right off, play with it and hopefully finding out that way if and in that case why it works, but there is no point in writing on boards unless you do at least some theorycrafting, right? :)

Certainly the arguments against are pretty strong, it seems.

I'm just a bit skeptic about "good players play good decks"-arguments, since they have a tendency to not go anywhere.

[bruno_tiete]

@citanul: adding to the point made by NQN about multiple chanting, there is also the Chantwalk factor. Sometimes you need W in their turns to chant and later B to go off. I find myself fetching Scrubland a lot against aggro or CotV decks for this reason.

The plains is good for being a basic, thus allowing you to develop resources while under nonbasic hate, mainly in the form of Wastelock, but could be out of place in a list with only 4 Chants. Also, Chrome Mox kinda helps this need for safe mana sources. It's very meta dependant.

It has happened to me fetching Plains as the only way to achieve kicked-chant against goblins in the following turn or even to grant being able to chant multiple turns until it resolves, but it's less usual that things turn out like that.

[badjuju]

@Saitou's List

Everyone just relax. That list looks just like any other standard ANT list. 6 hand disruption spells, 2 Tops over Ponder #3-4, and a green splash post-board for the CB matchup. He runs City of Traitors instead of Crystal Vein. I don't get what all the fuss is about.

I'll quote myself again for emphasis.

EDIT:
Also, any seasoned tendrils player here should know and realize that there are a ton of meta and preference slots available. This list is no exception. The Japanese have been running TES-ANT lists since the dawn of time as well (all of which have managed to get pushed aside), so something as mild as this ANT list with minor differences should not be a shocker to anyone. Play whatever you're comfortable with and whatever your results are showing and stop squabbling about the validity of placing lists. It's all relative.

[Tao]

@RicoSuave: I am more than happy that at least someone in this thread seems to be open to changes.

The thing that ticked me off and made me flame picelli so hard was that he didn't even spend a single second thinking about the list. At 1:03 lillelassie posted the the list and at 1:06 Picelli89 had already quoted lillelassie's post with the list and dismissed all diviations to the standard SB as bad. He didn't even have time to think about what he posts. I hate this attitude. Even worse was Bahamuth who stated that he knew for a fact that both MD and SB are bad. Then about 40 million lines were written about how it doesn't matter if someone is Pro or not and the list was pretty much ignored.

I just think that this is wrong. It is good to see a list made by a player as great as Saito and instead of flaming it or changing it without putting much thought into it you should test the list a couple of times and try to understand what the person who made this deck was thinking before he went to the tournament and won it.

[Dia_Bot]

I won't say the list good/bad, because I wonder what makes this list so exceptional? Is it the 2 maindeck Ad nauseams, the sideboard? Or maybe it's the fact that a pro doesn't play a "standard" list.
2 ad nauseums does grant a higher chance of drawing one and a sideboard with alot of one-offs does create a kind of flexibility. (just like G. nassif did in fact)
The fact pro's win alot is due to their understanding of the game and understanding of different situations and how to deal with it.
I think people should stop searching for a "perfect" list because there is no such thing. Test with a list you are confortable with and play alot with it, this will make you win games of magic, not the fact you play "the best" list.
but hey, that's just my humble opinion

[alderon666]

I'm rather curious to the singleton Plains. You run 7 Chants, I run 6 in my list and am quite happy with 2 Tundra instead of 1 Tundra, 1 Plains.
Also, the Scrubland. I can understand that you might want to generate black one turn and white the other but I just don't see how. You tap it during your own turn for either W for a chant or B for acceleration but none of your cards for setup are Black or White. It'll barely ever happen that you need the black the turn before you want it for white for Chant (except the one of Duress).

I notice you are running the transformational sideboard for triple Doomsday and triple group in the CB matchup. How has this been working out for you? As well as the Brainfreeze over a Grapeshot with the Helm Combo. Is this because you think you can't generate the R needed with LED or petal for your combo?

You run 8 shuffle effects (8 fetch, not counting Mystical or the likes) with 4 SDT and 4 Brainstorm. Has this caused any problems so far?

The B also is more important than the U, in this case, since a very common play is fetch for Island and play top. And the time comes in every man's life when he has to top 3 lands for BBB to cast a Doomsday. That becomes more important when you side in the 2 DD from the board.

But your point is valid, Scrubland doesn't allow you to play Chant and black spells at the same time. I just think most of the times you're set with one blue source, while B/W sources might be needed in multiples.

The Brainfreeze issue is up in the air, I have to sit down and figure out some piles that allow me to play Grapeshot with a Petal or LED mana. I don't have one figured out, hence the Brainfreeze. But the Grapeshot is strictly superior other than that. Adding red lands is out of the question.

While I love drawing fetchlands and Top, if you draw too much of them the damage can end up stacking up quickly. The best use for them is opening a non-fetch land in your starting hand with Top/BS and some fetches. Opening a grip full of fetchlands is just a waste of 1 hit point. Yeah I know, it's marginal but it's there.

[Nidd]

Well, the thing that annoyed me at that list was the absence of Chant effetcs, which IS bad against U decks if you have to go the IGG route and the CoT, which seemed to have worked out for him.

Gah, I play a list with 14 lands and 4 Ponder, I shouldn't complain about other people's lists.

[Nizmox]

I've recently acquired the cards to build Tendrils and as a new player to combo, want some opinions on where to start.

1. Should I start without Doomsday and get to grips with straight ANT first, and then add Doomsday later (if at all).
2. Looking on deckcheck, I notice alot of lists are running 4 Chant + 4 Duress rather than 4 Chant and 2 Silence... thoughts?
3. Is running multiples of Ad Nauseam and Tendrils a good idea? A number of decks seem to be running 2, but being an all or nothing deck is it really worthwhile?
4. Is it worth running top, if you're not running Doomsday or should you replace top with Ponder.

(Assume I have access to all the cards incl. sideboard options)

[emidln]

Playing Doomsday is optional. I believe it adds power and consistency to the deck, but it has a very steep learning curve and until you know how to play it very well, it's often more of a hindrance than help. That said, play Sensei's Divining Top in addition to Ponder. If I didn't play Doomsday, my list would almost certainly be this:

4 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
2 Misty Rainforest
1 Scalding Tarn
2 Underground Sea
2 Tundra
1 Tropical Island
1 Island
4 Lotus Petal
2 Chrome Mox
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
2 Cabal Ritual
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Orim's Chant
2 Silence
1 Krosan Grip
4 Mystical Tutor
3 Infernal Tutor
1 Ad Nauseam
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Tendrils of Agony

SB: 2 Krosan Grip
SB: 1 Wipe Away
SB: 2 Chain of Vapor
SB: 1 Echoing Truth
SB: 1 Slaughter Pact
SB: 1 Hurkyll's Recall
SB: 1 Angel's Grace
SB: 4 Xantid Swarm
SB: 1 Tropical Island
SB: 1 Plains

[Eksem]

I "play" (have yet to take it to a tournament) a list similar to the one above, but -1 Ponder, -2 Top, -1 Grip, +2 Cabal Rit, +1 Chain of Vapor, +1 Mox Diamond and a slightly different land configuration.

Tops are great. I don't think I would run 4, having more than 1 just sucks so much.

There are the odd occasions where I wish I had another AdN, if it get's stolen by discard or countered in a situation I had not anticipated; but this does not happen often and should be occuring less often the better I learn the deck. The downsides in life loss and drawing multiples does not seem to overweigh the upside.

The very few times that a second Tendrils of Agony would have been nice (like, I could go off now if I could just imprint this Tendrils to the Mox) does definitely not motivate having two in the deck. Running Chants does mean that you should never, ever have to fear Stifle or Mindbreak Trap, imho. After AdN resolves you should have a Chant in hand and mana for it if you haven't already resolved one before going off.

[Bahamuth]

@RicoSuave: I am more than happy that at least someone in this thread seems to be open to changes.

The thing that ticked me off and made me flame picelli so hard was that he didn't even spend a single second thinking about the list. At 1:03 lillelassie posted the the list and at 1:06 Picelli89 had already quoted lillelassie's post with the list and dismissed all diviations to the standard SB as bad. He didn't even have time to think about what he posts. I hate this attitude. Even worse was Bahamuth who stated that he knew for a fact that both MD and SB are bad. Then about 40 million lines were written about how it doesn't matter if someone is Pro or not and the list was pretty much ignored.

I just think that this is wrong. It is good to see a list made by a player as great as Saito and instead of flaming it or changing it without putting much thought into it you should test the list a couple of times and try to understand what the person who made this deck was thinking before he went to the tournament and won it.

I'm not sure how you could possibly know if me of Pecelli have thought about this list at all. I may have exaggerated saying the main- and sideboard are bad (although I belive they are). I do know for a fact that the sideboard is bad. Rebuild, Hydroblast and a 2nd Tendrills of Agony are all poor slots. I'm quite sure the mainboard is bad, but I can't prove this to you.
What's irritating me, was this post of yours.

Come ON, it is Saito, he is a better deckbuilder than you, and he won a 178 man tourney. Stop critizising his list.

This is absolutely insane, and I hope you realise by now why it is.

Emidln, do you agree speed is quite important game 1 against random decks with lists that don't play Doomsday? I've been playing 2 Top sideboard, what do you think about that?

[Rico Suave]

I'm not sure how you could possibly know if me of Pecelli have thought about this list at all. I may have exaggerated saying the main- and sideboard are bad (although I belive they are). I do know for a fact that the sideboard is bad. Rebuild, Hydroblast and a 2nd Tendrills of Agony are all poor slots. I'm quite sure the mainboard is bad, but I can't prove this to you.

While I am not a big fan of Rebuild, and Hydroblast is useful but may not be worth the space, a 2nd Tendrils isn't a poor slot in this case.

The inclusion of 4 Dark Confidant in the SB brings a lot of extra value to a 2nd Tendrils. Bob makes the Tendrils better in two ways: 1) he draws extra spells to make the Tendrils bigger, and 2) he reduces the lethal storm count by 1 with each attack. Bob brings a legitimate avenue of victory to the deck: swing a couple times, Tendrils for a bunch. Even if it's not lethal, the tremendous life-gain will buy several turns against a heavy aggressive rush, during which Bob will refuel the deck for a second go-round. In these situations, having access to a 2nd Tendrils and manually drawing it is quite useful.

EDIT - On a sidenote, a match against a G/B deck reminded me of two things:
1) It is useful to have a land that can tap underneath a Choke. A basic Swamp served me very well, so keep that in mind when constructing a mana base.
2) The 2nd Tendrils proved to be quite useful when my first was hit with Duress then hit with Tormod's Crypt. He assumed I was only running 1, but thankfully I guess I'm a bad player. ;)

[Eksem]

2) The 2nd Tendrils proved to be quite useful when my first was hit with Duress then hit with Tormod's Crypt. He assumed I was only running 1, but thankfully I guess I'm a bad player. ;)

I can see how it would be useful in that very narrow situation, but really, who boards Crypt vs AnT to begin with? And takes Tendrils with Duress? I mean, you actually having Tendrils in hand, he having Duress AND Crypt? That doesn't even happen! Even with the exact same matchup it's still like, once in a 100 games or something.

[Nidd]

Wow, so your second ToA made you win 1 game. I bet you don't count the times when you wish it were another spell, do you?

Also, I dunno, but I think that playing Bob against aggressive decks is something you shouldn't do.

[Rico Suave]

So much anger. Why do people treat a side benefit of it as if it were my main point?

No, the main point of the Bob -> Tendrils plan is to win games against CB decks. And it does win a large number of my games.

It also happens to be good in other ways.

Also, I dunno, but I think that playing Bob against aggressive decks is something you shouldn't do.

I wouldn't exactly call CB an aggressive deck, but it does have some aggressive plays.

[bruno_tiete]

So much anger. Why do people treat a side benefit of it as if it were my main point?

No, the main point of the Bob -> Tendrils plan is to win games against CB decks. And it does win a large number of my games.

It also happens to be good in other ways.



I wouldn't exactly call CB an aggressive deck, but it does have some aggressive plays.

I don't mean it in an offensive way, but people tend to keep their StoPs in against me and playing creatures of their own. This seems to make Bob a lackluster plan. How do you manage to keep it around?

[Nidd]

I wouldn't exactly call CB an aggressive deck, but it does have some aggressive plays.

I was refering to this part of your post:

2) he reduces the lethal storm count by 1 with each attack. Bob brings a legitimate avenue of victory to the deck: swing a couple times, Tendrils for a bunch. Even if it's not lethal, the tremendous life-gain will buy several turns against a heavy aggressive rush, during which Bob will refuel the deck for a second go-round. In these situations, having access to a 2nd Tendrils and manually drawing it is quite useful.

You are speaking of an aggressive rush, but you don't specify which deck you mean. When speaking of "aggressive decks", I don't think many think of Counterbalance. Zoo, Goblins and GoyfSligh would come to mind. And playing Bob against these 3 decks seems to be a bad plan, regarding the fact that they deal a lot of damage and that Bob can get a real liability. If you have a SDT in play, then it of course looks different, but I suppose dropping both SDT and Bob happens far less than Zoo playing an aggressive game.