[Free Article] So Many Insane Plays - Ad Nauseam Combo

[Mr. Type 4]

Hello, I had a few questions about this deck.  First, have you tried running 5C lands rather than fetch lands, specifically Gem Stone Mine?  Also, how about Burning Wish?  You could throw it in there rather than the fourth Tendrils or Nauseam.  Also, how about Personal Tutor since it is now unrestricted?  Finally, the deck could use a little more draw.  How about the prospect of using off color moxen?  I think it would help with the deck.  The off-color moxen plus 1-2 Chrome Mox.

Ad Nauseaum is an instant, so Personal Tutor or Burnig Wish aren't going to do it. 

[Harlequin]

1)  his understanding of Ad Nauseam as superior to cards like Null Profusion only because it is an Instant is a clear misconception that could be resolved by playing only a few games with this deck.   It is nothing like Null Profusion.   

Null Profusion was an exaggeration, not a true suggestion.  Perhapse a better comparision would be how you think Ad Nauseam stacks up against Doomsday.  Consider the two scenarios:

Mana, Mana, Rit, Pact, Chrome+imprint,  Ad N. ->  So you burn your whole hand to cast Ad N.  They drain, you Pact back.  If they have a 2nd disruption card, you probably will die to pact.  If they don't - you win handly.

Mana, Mana, Rit, Pact, Cantrip (mox+top, or Streetwraith),  Doomsday -> Burn your hand to cast Doomsday, trip into the win, they drain your recall off the top you pact back.  If they have a 2nd disruption peice they win.  If they don't - you win handly. 

[Rush]

That was pointed out to me the first time I tried it.

[BruiZar]

1)  his understanding of Ad Nauseam as superior to cards like Null Profusion only because it is an Instant is a clear misconception that could be resolved by playing only a few games with this deck.   It is nothing like Null Profusion.   

Null Profusion was an exaggeration, not a true suggestion.  Perhapse a better comparision would be how you think Ad Nauseam stacks up against Doomsday.  Consider the two scenarios:

Mana, Mana, Rit, Pact, Chrome+imprint,  Ad N. ->  So you burn your whole hand to cast Ad N.  They drain, you Pact back.  If they have a 2nd disruption card, you probably will die to pact.  If they don't - you win handly.

Mana, Mana, Rit, Pact, Cantrip (mox+top, or Streetwraith),  Doomsday -> Burn your hand to cast Doomsday, trip into the win, they drain your recall off the top you pact back.  If they have a 2nd disruption peice they win.  If they don't - you win handly. 

I don't think this is a fair comparison. In the first scenario you assume a chrome mox. You should aim to play chrome moxen off ad nauseam to fuel the combo without mana floating. Also, more often than not the first turn is a duress or thoughtseize, not an ad nauseam, so you'd pick out the doomsday and they couldn't drain it unless they use pact in which case Doomsday would die.

[BruiZar]

In my testing I have been running 4 pact 4 duress.  There are certainly situations where one or the other is preferable but in actual use I've found they weigh in rather equally.  However the 0cc during Nauseam is a very real factor outside of that comparison that weighs in on behalf of the pact.  Pact also has the pitchlong effect of protecting land, ritual.  It's also not irrelevant that 2 rituals off 1 permanent source can afford Nauseam but not back it up with Duress.

It's true that they push you away from end step plays, but generally if I can afford to cast nauseam and figure it'll resolve, I just do it.  I'm very confident I'll find the mana I want and even with nothing floating, usually more confident my chances of losing to no free B source are lower than my chances of winning shrink by giving my opponent another turn.  If I'm baiting a counter, I can do it on the end step without blowing a Pact then just have my Pact to counter their next force.  Plus that play costs too many rituals to come up more than once in a while.

I don't really think Ad Nauseam being an instant is that much of a deal. Can't play tendrils in your opponents turn and if you're casting it by tapping out in your turn, more often than not resolving means winning because you get so much free mana (rits/moxen/moxen/vault/crypt/land). Ofcourse its obvious that if you play ad nauseam during your end step, you're going to win the next turn, but in that case you might as well have played it before you passed the turn to your opponent. Essentially, if you can cast it but didn't, you're giving a turn away which is wrong with a combo deck.

[Harlequin]

1)  his understanding of Ad Nauseam as superior to cards like Null Profusion only because it is an Instant is a clear misconception that could be resolved by playing only a few games with this deck.   It is nothing like Null Profusion.   

Null Profusion was an exaggeration, not a true suggestion.  Perhapse a better comparision would be how you think Ad Nauseam stacks up against Doomsday.  Consider the two scenarios:

Mana, Mana, Rit, Pact, Chrome+imprint,  Ad N. ->  So you burn your whole hand to cast Ad N.  They drain, you Pact back.  If they have a 2nd disruption card, you probably will die to pact.  If they don't - you win handly.

Mana, Mana, Rit, Pact, Cantrip (mox+top, or Streetwraith),  Doomsday -> Burn your hand to cast Doomsday, trip into the win, they drain your recall off the top you pact back.  If they have a 2nd disruption peice they win.  If they don't - you win handly. 

I don't think this is a fair comparison. In the first scenario you assume a chrome mox. You should aim to play chrome moxen off ad nauseam to fuel the combo without mana floating. Also, more often than not the first turn is a duress or thoughtseize, not an ad nauseam, so you'd pick out the doomsday and they couldn't drain it unless they use pact in which case Doomsday would die.

I think it's completely fair.  First of all, I didn't say this was a first turn scenario.  In fact I pictured this as more of a turn 2-3 against contro. Duresses and off color mox have ready flown, maybe your first bomb was countered.  And you are in a situation where your relevant cards are: Land Drop, Rit, X, a (+b) -- Where you basically have 1 mana already in play.

In the first example X = Ad Nauseam, a = chrome mox or another mana source, and b= the card you would need if a = chrome mox. 
In the 2nd example, X = Doomsday, a = cantrip like Street wraith, and b = an off color mox if a = top. 
In both scenarios X is being cast durring your main, and it is being protected by Pact.  "a" enables you to go off this turn... be it the extra in-turn cantrip needed to win same-turn with Dday; or the extra mana you would need to win via Ad N.

As I see it, Doomsday would be the favorable win, because it takes randomness out of the equation.  With Ad if you've taken a goyf hit, and maybe cast Thoughtsieze or vamp, and then off Ad N turn: Tendrils, Yawg, Ad N, Cabal Rit, Ad N.  Without hitting chrome mox, you lose.  Sure its a low probability you will lose - but with Doomsday is nearly impossible.  Also taking an analysis of what "a" needs to be to support your combo, in example 1 its more mana.  So this means if you draw a hand with "a"x3, and no other bombs - its a throw back.  Where in the doomsday deck, if yo uhave "a"x3 you have a hand with 3 cantrips and no bombs.  Which may not be a great 7-hand, but is certainly better than "burn for 12 go."

[Smmenen]

1)  his understanding of Ad Nauseam as superior to cards like Null Profusion only because it is an Instant is a clear misconception that could be resolved by playing only a few games with this deck.   It is nothing like Null Profusion.   

Null Profusion was an exaggeration, not a true suggestion.  Perhapse a better comparision would be how you think Ad Nauseam stacks up against Doomsday. 

I understood your point, I was trying to show that Ad Nauseam is not like the set of "high investment" cards you point to.    There is a mountain of "would-be" combo engines.  Ad Nauseam is not among them. It is the real deal.   One of the big differences, just to point out a few, is that cards like Doomsday are "all-in."  If Ad Nauseam resolves, you are all in, but you aren't vulnerable like you are with Dday.  Also, there is a huge difference in mana cost between 5 and 6.   5 is generally a sweet spot for Dark Ritual decks as you can Ritual it out with just a Ritual, two lands, and a Mox.   6cc generally requires two Rituals or a super artifact accellerant like Black Lotus.

[Rush]

Out of the first post I wrote on this forum, the only part I stick to is dropping the Fetchlands.  It's really not worth it in my testing.  Instead, I run all moxen, including the off-color moxen and Gemstone Mine.  I've found it more helpful to not lose life when using Mines then the thinning that comes from using Fetchlands.

[Harlequin]

But if you back it up with Pact, you -are- all in.  Which is what the bulk of my original question/comment was about.  It was more a question of how often do you find that Pact forces you to be all in durring your mainphase, and as a comment on that - how is that any better than say doomsday.

[Lou]

Out of the first post I wrote on this forum, the only part I stick to is dropping the Fetchlands.  It's really not worth it in my testing.  Instead, I run all moxen, including the off-color moxen and Gemstone Mine.  I've found it more helpful to not lose life when using Mines then the thinning that comes from using Fetchlands.

Fetch lands aren't used for thinning purposes. They are to find you basic lands so you aren't dead to Wasteland. Gemstone Mine is a terrible idea because it doesn't help in any way at all. The one point life loss is insignificant most of the time.

[Smmenen]

But if you back it up with Pact, you -are- all in.  Which is what the bulk of my original question/comment was about.  It was more a question of how often do you find that Pact forces you to be all in durring your mainphase, and as a comment on that - how is that any better than say doomsday.

Did you notice that I don't run Pact, and that throughout this thread I have repeatedly argued *against* pact?   I strongly suggest the configuration of 8 Duress effects and 3-4 Chain of Vapor.

[Liam-K]

But if you back it up with Pact, you -are- all in.  Which is what the bulk of my original question/comment was about.  It was more a question of how often do you find that Pact forces you to be all in durring your mainphase, and as a comment on that - how is that any better than say doomsday.

So you blow 2 disposable accelerants and your only gas card on the second turn, counter their drain, and lose to the force.  You went second so you have 2, maybe 3 cards left in hand.  If you'd used FoW or Misdirection instead of Pact, that'd be 1 or 2.  Your only hope at this point is to topdeck and pray for timetwister.  Your opponent has 5 drain mana next turn.  Do you really need the Pact trigger to lose this game?

Yes, duress would have clued you in to wait and topdeck for a second disruption spell.  Playing draw-go against drain with a deck that doesn't have a draw engine sounds like a plan, yo.  I'll take the Pact advantages of free to nauseam, 10x better on the first turn and not costing the third B out of a ritual over this dubious arguement.

Besides we side in xantid in this match.

[Jay]

Why no mox diamond?  It helps on turn one if you happen to draw extra land, and it really helps after AdN resolves.  It's better mana fix than chrome, doesn't imprint a card you might actually use, and hits the graveyard to synergize with cabal.  I admit with the low land count I wouldn't want to see more than one, but I do run one in my version.

And what about cabal therapy vs thoughtseize?  With such a high average mana cost (your version has 10% higher costs than the spooky version, and I've killed myself with AdN using that version), thoughtseizes look painful.  With cabal therapy, you can usually name force of will and have a decent chance of pushing your combo through.  At the least, you get to see their hand.

For anyone who's been arguing for repeal or against chain of vapor, chain of vapor definitely seems to be the correct choice.  This deck is really tight on mana, and needs to save all that it can for combo pieces, not board removal.  Sure, you can bounce 0 drops with repeal, but what about the rest?  I could see you dropping a 2nd land and bouncing a sphere or resistance for 1U with chain, but not coming up with the 3U to bounce it with repeal.  And I've got some use out of drawing a card with repeal during the play testing, but it's not necessary.  After AdN resolves, this deck has plenty of ways to pull a tutor'd card.  I just don't know if 4 is necessary.  You usually only need to see 1, and after some testing, I believe 3 is the correct number.

Do you need 2 islands in this version?  You could drop one for a tolarian academy which will usually give you 2-3 U's.

I'm going to do more play testing of this version, but so far I'm having a harder time getting it to work than the ICBM version (which is surprisingly almost identical to the version I came up with after tweaking the list ix-ir posted a few weeks ago).  It's hard enough to get a lot of draws from AdN when you run it as a 4 of, but even harder when you run 4 tendrils.  There were a couple times I tapped out to cast AdN and only managed to draw 7-8 cards before taking lethal damage, and I didn't have the mana to ramp up and do anything before that happened.  I guess there is the advantage of being able to cast 2 in the same turn, but I rarely see enough mana to do that.  I don't even know why ICBM runs 3... I usually do fine with 2.  Once AdN resolves, I almost always see either a tutor or a tendrils with the 10-15 or more cards that I draw.

[Liam-K]

wait, there's no academy in steve's list?  That's a DEFINITE error.

[Jay]

I'm going to ask a silly question.  Is Xantid Swarm really that good?  And if green is already in there, would it be a good idea to run goyf for fish?  What about a single gaea's blessing for painter?  I'm not even sure... does it turn the win into a draw?

And what about red instead of green?  When I was first putting my deck together, I was trying to decide whether or not to splash red.  I decided the main deck choices didn't justify it, but being able to sideboard in cards like pyroblast, REB, rack and ruin, pyroclasm, and Empty the Warrens might make it worth it.  Unless green is better.  From what I've seen, Xantid Swarm alone makes green a better choice, but I wonder if anyone else has considered red.

[Lou]

wait, there's no academy in steve's list?  That's a DEFINITE error.

How is that an error? When do you need multiple blue mana? Not an error. Assuming you have to Tolarian Academy and probably not testing is a DEFINITE error.

[Jay]

You mean when do you want 2-3 U's instead of 1?  How about always?  With this low land count there are times you'll tap out to cast Ad Naus without making your land drop, but end up with a few artifacts on the board.  You tap tolarian academy to play multiple spells like mystical tutor, ancestral recall, and chain of vapor so you can use your chrome moxen and lotus (if any) on your black mana.  You can also use the extra U's for the colorless in spells like Yawgmoth's Will and Tendrils.  I tried running the deck without Tolarian Academy when testing it one night to make room for a 4th underground sea and immediately realized it was an 'error'.

[Liam-K]

wait, there's no academy in steve's list?  That's a DEFINITE error.

How is that an error? When do you need multiple blue mana? Not an error. Assuming you have to Tolarian Academy and probably not testing is a DEFINITE error.

Academy has been great for me in the testing I probably haven't done, actually.  The deck runs 12+ artifact accelerants, making academy really good.  If 4 of those are chrome mox, 7 potentially tap for B, plus the deck also runs 6-8 ritual effects so the chances you need two B-generating lands to get BB are very low.  Your chances of getting colourscrewed on land don't change at all if you go from 2 to 1 island, except where the extra U from academy opens up additional lines of play improving things.  And there is always use for the extra mana.

edit: inflammatory statement removed but... c'mon, man, that was pretty insulting

[MagicIsCardboardCrack]

Was this decklist completely abandoned? I've seen a ton of lists floating around, but personally, through playtesting, I really like the consistency of this list. The only change that I have seen that I find interesting, is the "trimming the fat" version of this deck that cuts (i beleive) -1 Chain of Vapor, -2 Cabal Ritual, and -1 Tendrils of Agony for 4 Dark Confidants. I haven't tried that change but it sparks my interest. My only concern about that idea is I find my self often trying to go for the kill ASAP and confidants, i feel like, are more of a "this game may play out a bit of turns", kind of cards.

[Smmenen]

I developed this decklist before Jeremy Seroogy published his list or even played his in tournament, much as i did with the Tez lists I published long before Shards was even legal.   I just didn't have an opportunity to publish it until long afterward due to other articles I had written which were in the pipeline first.  I still think that my list is the baseline for any good Ad Naus list, and even Jeremy's list has gotten closer to mine.   

My approach was simple: try to build the absolute strongest list I could. 

Travis's modification of using 4 Bobs does not seem like a bad idea at all.   

The only reason I haven't been playing or testing this deck more is because I feel that TPS is superior as a combo deck, but it's definitely slower than Ad Nauseam. 

[SiegeX]

My approach was simple: try to build the absolute strongest list I could. 
Travis's modification of using 4 Bobs does not seem like a bad idea at all.   

So Steve, now that some time has gone by, would you still stick to your original list and keep the 4-of's or do you think some can be cut back to 3's?

Also, something I wanted to mention about Chrome Mox that might not be readily apparent is that you can play it without imprinting anything to build your storm count; this is contrary to how Mox Diamond works which doesn't even come into play unless a land hits the GY.

So you could so something clever like this -->  Chrome Mox imprinting nothing,  Chain of vapor it, repeat loop X times, Chrome Mox imprinting random card for mana.

[Webster]

Also, something I wanted to mention about Chrome Mox that might not be readily apparent is that you can play it without imprinting anything to build your storm count; this is contrary to how Mox Diamond works which doesn't even come into play unless a land hits the GY.

Playing mox diamond boosts storm regardless of whether it comes into play or not.

[Liam-K]

It isn't as easily recycled with bounce cards when you want to cast it more than once this turn, but that's an extremely minor consideration even with the high frequency of bounce plays you make with the deck. 

The land base is just too light for mox diamond to be a good idea, straight out.  Mox diamond generates no mana, only gives you a land drop.  With one land in hand it does nothing.  With two lands in hand the 1 turn of Exploration frequently does nothing.  And it opens you up further to manabase disruption by stripping mana out of your hand and potentially costing you the chance to put a basic land into play.

[SiegeX]

Actually it was I who half misspoke about mox diamond not adding to storm, although I was correct about the fundamental difference in that chrome actually does come into play ready to be bounced whereas diamond does not.