MTG LEGACY GENERAL

>>48572675
I don't really like chalice decks, partially because I'm a dedicated DDFT player, and partially because they seem like meathead decks. But mono-red sneak n breach seems pretty cool.

File: 95.jpg (68KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 312x445px

>>48572675
It does make me a little tookus troubled desu.

>>48572926
Fair enough, I just really enjoy shutting down a lot of decks, had a game where my opponent conceded after a T1 chalice on 1, revealing a hand of DRS, 2 Brainstorm, some fetches and a Delver, was pretty funny.

Here's a question:
Against combo decks like Belcher, Oops, TES and ANT do I put the T1 on the play Chalice on 1 or 0? How about on T1 on the draw after they played a Petal or something? I want to shut out rituals but if they can get to 5 and Ad Naus then they can win off Moxes.

>>48573100
Chalice for 1 blocks more, i.e. dark rit, cantrips, cabal therapy, brainstorm. Depending on the ANT deck, chalice for 1 is much more devestating. Dropping chalice for 1 against a lot of decks wins you the game

>>48573100
I think chalice on 2 is most effective vs storm generally, but you can't play chalice on 2 turn 1 most of the time. In general I think chalice on 1 buys you time, and chalice on 2 shit's them out. Vs belcher. Chalice on 1 seems bad. There are some many ways they can get around chalice on any number, but 1 only hits rite of flame and maybe tinder wall, maybe probe if they play either. 0 seems better

>>48572675
Fuck DnT man. Fuck mother of runes. i just want to abrupt decay some thalias.

File: purest waifu.jpg (387KB, 1728x972px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1728x972px

>>48577955
>i just want to abrupt decay some thalias.
good luck, i'm behind seven eldrazi displacers

>>48577955
>EMA draft
>other guy has Mom out
>play red honden
>ping Mom to tap her down every upkeep forever
Good times.

>>48574144
Against Storm, my order is 1-0-2 unless they already have LED in play. Chalice 0 makes Infernal not work.

>>48572675
Chalice decks are great, fuck blue decks

Can anyone tell me more about the lore from Legends? What is Karakas? What is Hammerheim? Who is Axelrod Gunnarson

>>48580474
Most of the characters are just the developers old DnD characters they used to play.

File: 06838e66162e6faa8e4ecd8e70e10e10ec62f171_hq.jpg (26KB, 350x268px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 350x268px

I've been trying 4x lotus petal instead of 4x LED in dredge and I'm not sure which one is better. I feel like both are about as fast, but lotus petal version has harder time with 1st turn hands, but is a lot more consistent on second turn.

Any thoughts on this?

>>48582184
I like the Petal sideboard package a lot. LED is what fuels your actual broken draws though.

>>48573100
As Belcher I usually laugh off Chalice for 1, either a Thorn/Trini or Chalice on 0 is much better (shuts down Petals and LEDs vs just rite of flames and tinder walls, petals are usually the starters which are harder to come by), the former's better of the two since it's really hard to get going when most of your rituals don't net mana anymore, to push through you need something like Guides into 2 Seething Songs and ETW or several turns of dropping Chrome Moxen with a land in play so you cast Belcher or so.

>>48582214
Chalice 0 shuts off chrome mox, I believe 20% of Belcher is 0 vs 12.5% 1. I think the correct Chalice order is definitely 0-2-1 vs Belcher

>>48582184
You play both. Land+petal+LED -> faithless looting into breakthrough crack LED looting again is usually lights out vs anyone g1. Some people mainboard petals with a DR target (Griselbrand/Iona/FKZ) in combo metas, but petal also helps vs Daze.

>>48582287
If we live in christmasland, sure. But as I was saying, it feels like running LED only to get the best out of faithless looting seems a bit inconsistent compared to land + petal.

I also have issue with sideboarding. I never know what to sideboard out. It's easy to find cards to put in, but the packet is so tight, that usually there isn't anything I want to side out. Is there any tutorials on this?

>>48582365
LEDs are not just for Looting, it's your best discard outlet and works fine with any loot spell when you have dredgers in hand, especially g1 when you're not dodging cages and RIPs. If you run Street Wraiths you can do neat tricks like Cycle crack LED get stinkweed/thug back into your hand and cast it. Petals are just extra speed for turns 1-2, they're not mutually exclusive with LED in any sense. There are some sideboard guides on mtgsource dredge thread, rule of thumb if you bring in anti-hate like decay you shave a bit of everything (1 thug, 1 ichorid, 1 narco, 1 LED and/or breakthrough), vs combo you side out 2-3 Ichorids for Petals if they're in your side along with your DR+bullet since they're too slow vs SNT/Reanimator/TES/Belcher etc.

>>48582365
LED + Breakthrough or Looting + LED isn't Christmasland, it's a pretty common opener and how you get t1's.

Sideboarding is tough, if your build is grindy you can trim on the DR package, 1 or 2 thugs, or 1 ichorid. Realistically, if they RIP you, you won't recover. Leyline or Cage are more beatable.

>>48582416
I did some research and they seemed to do -4 LEDs against control / FoW type decks and -4 ichorids against control decks. Have to keep that in mind.

Ok, last question. Is it just personal preference on using ancient grudge or nature's claim? I currently have both + abrupt decay in sideboard (which is a mess at the moment) and I feel like I should be running either one or another.

>>48582440
Oh, I'm not saying that's a christmas land, I'm saying land + petal + LED + cycles necessary + dredgers is a christmas land. It's like you need to get straight 6 in poker with 7 cards. And I agree, on literal RiP.

>>48582467
Grudge is anti chalice/cage, claim is anti leyline/cage. They do have different applications, and you likely don't need to take all of them in at once

Reminder the true way to beat RiP is packing decays and other enchant removal, and OTK them.

>inb4 what if they can apply pressure
then you lose, but you'd lose anyway because rip is near bmoon tier broken.

>>48582467
I'd run 3-4 decays (sometimes hard to cast but should be doable with 13-15 lands and 3 Petals) for everything that's not Leyline and 3-4 Chain of Vapor for Leyline, the latter mostly sees play from Aggro Loam and Eldrazi, no one hardcasts it ever so chain is just better claim there. 1 Grudge can do work vs Eldrazi and Painter since you can flash it for 1, hardcasting it from your hand to get cage and eating a FoW is not the reason to run it. Claim is just worse Decay since it slows your Ichorid beatdown plan and usually just gets countered or Chalice'd. Joseph Moreno ran/maybe still runs 1 Memory's Journey vs Surgical Extraction (usually the only grave hate combo piles run, especially omnishow with its wishboard) and it can also mess up opposing Reanimator/Dredge/ANT Past in Flames and so on.

>>48583058
Hmm, I suppose that makes sense. Haven't seen leylines locally, so I never saw any need for it. Thanks for everyone for the advice. I will still keep trying Lotus petal version, maybe I have to revert back to LED.

Modernfag here, how is Tezzerator in legacy? I want to get into a modern deck that can transition into legacy easily, that isn't burn or stompy.

>>48583186
It sees little play, but it is a fine deck. Very adaptable to meta changes, but you will need a good read on your meta and know how to beat those decks to do well.

>>48583186
tezz isn't really a modern deck tho. I'd recommend infect for easy modern to legacy transition.

>>48583186
It's really fun, has a good plan vs a lot of decks with Transmute for silver bullets and can win a lot of matchups just off a chalice on 1. here's my list http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/legacy-tezzerator-4/

I've noticed some Grxis Tezz lists splashing red for Dack, could Daretti and a one-of Wurmcoil/Sundering Titan/Mindslaver work instead? With all the sol lands and artifact ramp it doesn't seem too far-fetched to me, but I'm still new to the format so I'd like opinions before I test it out.

>>48572675
Burn and Dragon Stompy are my favorite decks.
Red Mage for life.

>>48572675
>pay to win general
But why

File: Dredge nazies fighting the eldrazi menace.png (391KB, 468x640px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 468x640px

>>48585522
Join us in our glorious fight against the jewish menace anon!
Their lands cannot hurt us!

>>48585437
>Playing badeldrazi
but why

One reason to play dstompy instead of eldrazi. Go ahead, you can't.

>>48572675

>chalice

i bet you have fun with stasis too

>>48585546
blood moon/magus of the moon

File: 1200.jpg (58KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 312x445px

>>48585541
>Their lands cannot hurt us

I wish I could justify getting into Legacy. It's a super fun format, but everyone in my area is broke as fuck so it'd be a waste of money to get into it.

>>48585638
>It's a super fun format
what part of throwing money into each-other's face is 'fun'?

>>48585721
Probably the part where there's literally dozens of viable decks?

>>48585721
Playing with classic magic cards?

File: Karen.jpg (307KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1920x1080px

>>48585638
just play pauper.

it's basically legacy-lite.

>>48585800
I can't play Miracles or Stoneblade or Shardless BUG in Pauper tho

>>48585751
>dozens of viable decks
'viable' doesn't mean you won't be defeated by retarded strategies from expensive and anti-fun cards.

File: karen question.png (258KB, 549x560px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 549x560px

>>48585811
>complain about budget
>wants to play the expensive lists

>>48585880
I did not complain about budget. I said I'd love to play legacy, but the OTHER PLAYERS in my group are broke as fuck, so they'd be building budget shit that I'd obliterate with Miracles or BUG, which are the decks I want to play, and that would be fun for nobody.

>>48585866
Are you just baiting for (You)s? Why are you even in this thread if you're just going to complain about the format?
Also, MTG in general has gotten ridiculously expensive, this isn't an issue exclusive to Legacy.

>>48585902
Honestly I feel like Modern is worse. For the cost of some of the high-end Modern decks you could buy most of a Legacy deck, and at least your Legacy deck isn't gonna get banned 6 months later.

>>48585902
In any other format you have a chance of winning with cheap cards, because there is not 'optimal way' of winning. Legacy is just two guys trying to use as much expensive strategies as they can to defeat his opponent by turn 1-5.

>>48585988
Please list at least 3 remotely viable "cheap card" decks for Standard and Modern.

I'm convinced you are a troll. I'm not giving you my (You)s.

>>48585811
you can play pau-blade and bug trinket, tho. they're p close actually. (un)fortunately no miracles analogue.

>>48586001
mass land destruction is cheap. Or you can just be a bigger douchebag and destroy/remove everything with a black/white deck. It's far from expensive and can work. Expensive decks normally try variety. A cheap one with annoyances can win. If you don't want to be too much of an asshole, there are some other alternative strategies to win like Helix pinnacle. Shitting mana every turn is not particularly hard, and if your opponent takes too long/is controlled long enough, you win.

Standard is more problematic to say because it always changes, but in tournaments you can see some variety.

>>48586188
So, instead of providing me with actual, viable, results-obtaining decklists, you just listed THEORETICAL budget decks that could POSSIBLY win occasionally.

Nobody's saying expensive shit is unbeatable, and obviously even the best deck in the universe can get manascrewed and lose to a turn 1 Rampaging Goblin, because variance is baked into the game by design. But cards aren't good because they're expensive, they're expensive because they're good. They're highly demanded. A 10 dollar budget version of a 500 dollar deck is just not going to have the same winrate because it's using objectively worse cards.

>>48586188
damn bro, those decks are sweet. I'm sure I'll top 8 every event now.

>>48585800
I have a pauper deck, because pauper is the only format you can play Affinity in.

>>48586188
>if your opponent takes too long/is controlled long enough, you win.
you can say that about any deck.

>>48586209
>actual, viable, results-obtaining decklists
you really want me to waste my time making a decklist just to prove you wrong? Have you never played against mass land destruction? or against an annoying kid destroying all your stuff? how new are you?

Anyway, the issue with expensive decks in legacy is that you only oppose a threat with an equally expensive deck. Any other strategy have no place in it. Of course i'm not talking about a small possibility of "oh, he got no lands in 5 turns"; a cheap deck in any other format have a GOOD chance of winning if made properly annoying while in legacy he will lose by turn 1-2 by retardedly expensive cards.

http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/jund-just-wants-to-have-fun/

for kitchen tables. any way i could make it more fun?

>>48586409
Yes, it would be a waste of your time, because you'd only prove yourself wrong.

>>48586409
>Any other strategy have no place in it.
May I offer you some national socialism?

>>48586409
>"expensive"
>"expensive"
>"expensive"
being NEET must suck, huh

also
>he's never heard of metakillers

Go back to standard or modern. Some people like to play with power, and I've seen more homebrew Legacy decks do well at tournaments than homebrews in any other competitive format. I even won a small tourney playing D-Rit and other accelerants into heavy discard, fat demons, and Obliterator against Maverick and DnT. It was flukey but it worked.

File: 1443570099642.jpg (42KB, 599x461px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 599x461px

>>48586581
> I've seen more homebrew Legacy decks do well at tournaments than homebrews in any other competitive format
Let me guess: with even more expensive cards.

>>48586504
pic related.

>>48586629
So you're saying you can't put together a good MLD decklist?

>>48586654
i'm saying demmanding an entire decklist because you won't accept any other way to prove a point is nonsense.

Honestly, you never played against someone just trying to fuck with the game and destroying everything?

>>48572675
Holy shit

>>48586629
I don't think my mono-black removal and discard deck was anywhere near as expensive as the decks I played. I went 3-1, lost to Dredge. The most expensive cards in my list were Obliterators and Cabal Therapies. It was mainly meant to take down the local meta, and it did pretty well at that.

T1: Swamp, Dark Ritual -> Hypnotic Specter. T2: Swamp, Cabal Therapy naming Swords to Plowshares or whatever removal ; Attack with Specter ; Culling the Weak on their turn into Phyrexian Obliterator.

Rest of the game was spent dropping Dismembers and Cabal Therapies.

>>48586409
If you're gonna bitch about "nurr expensive nurr" and insist that a budget list can put up similar results, then yes I expect you to nut up or shut up. Either give me a list that gets results, or quit claiming you've got a bridge to sell.

>>48586703
I have played against that player, and I've been that player. Those decks are annoying, but they don't win.

>>48586703
When you're claiming "Legacy sucks because you can build good budget decks in other formats", and someone challenges you to prove that claim, your options are "nut up" or "shut up". I can CLAIM that Ava Devine is sucking my cock right now, but unless I provide proof everyone will rightfully mock and disbelieve me.

Legacy burn is relatively cheap and can do things.

Fish, too. I mean, they're not top decks, but they're not meme decks either.

>>48586879
>but they don't win
c'mon, don't lie.

>>48586890
he wants me to prove Solely by showing a decklist, something that by the way doesn't accomplishes nothing to prove about it's effectiveness. You can demmand proof, but you cannot demmand a specific kind of proof. I presented the annoying types of decks that we all know of; we all have played against (if you played magic long enough) and know how they are. There are varieties, but all of them work well to have some good fighting chance.

>>48587000
> but you cannot demmand a specific kind of proof.
Yes I fucking can. I did not say "show me a deck that can BEAT Miracles", because a deck of 56 Mountains and 4 Raging Goblins can theoretically win through variance alone.

I said "show me a budget deck which can consistently do well against a meta of non-budget decks in Standard and Modern", which was YOUR claim. YOU claimed that Legacy is the only format where 'cheaper' decks can't do well. So I demanded that you put your metaphorical money where your very literal mouth is.

>>48586928
>4x Wasteland
>4x Cavern of Souls
>4x Aether Vial
>4x Force of Will
Real budget deck there pal

>>48587000
>c'mon, don't lie.
who's lying? If those annoying decks won more than they lost, they'd be getting consistent results. Winning one out of 20 games against a real deck does not make you some genius deckbuilder, it means you got lucky. The true mark of a good deck is CONSISTENT results.

>>48586741
This, dank meme-tier decks can still win if people aren't ready.


Dredge is the maximum exponent of this bullshit (which is jokingly called a nazi deck because it comes out of nowhere, wins or splats like a bitch, also it's cheap and takes down very expensive decks).

>>48587094
It also automatically loses game 2 and 3 if they have any anti-Dredge sideboard, which makes it a really big meta call.

>>48587000
You presented nothing, though. And the basic ideas you spoke of are not winning decks.

>>48587112
And the big problem: even if they WERE winning decks, they'd be improved with good cards. I can build a "budget" version of a good deck and put up okay results, but the deck would be objectively, unarguably better with more expensive, better versions of the budget choices.

>>48587109
It's a deck designed to shit on specific metas.

IE metas were people don't pack much dredge hate.

>>48587066
The key word is relatively. I mean, compare $600 to $3000 -- in the same way you can say $200 is a budget Modern deck.

If you want to play on a shoestring budget, either don't compete in tournaments (you don't sound like a tournament player to begin with; just proxy up for your casual play), or play a cheaper format. Like, say, Pauper.

>>48587223
Dude, I'm the one saying "waaaah it's too expensive" is stupid, and demanding that the guy decrying expensive decks as just dick-waving actually put up a list.

I fully 100% agree that if you're playing on a shoestring budget, you either need to accept that it'll only get you so far against people not affected by that handicap, or stick to the kitchen table.

>>48585193
You could, but you want to run more mana and more CIP abilities. I've seen him played alongside Ichor Wellspring for massive value

>>48586741
>not taking a force of will to the face
That says something about your local group.

>>48586629
People do realize roguedecks do better in legacy than in any other format? The reason for this is that meta is usually so diverse that there will be always shit decks which can beat some of tier decks as one deck cannot be good against everything. 15 card sideboard is way too small to cover everything.

>>48586409
>the issue with expensive decks in legacy is that you only oppose a threat with an equally expensive deck. Any other strategy have no place in it

Before everyone jumped on the Eldrazi train and spiked the prices Eldrazi Stompy was around $900 and utterly murdered most other decks. It still does, if you go for a slightly more nuanced build, but for a while you could utterly wipe a Legacy tournament with a deck cheaper than almost all of the Modern tier 1 and 2 decks.

>>48587223
>200
>budget memedern
Yes, and budget memedern will make you lose harder than a 600 euros legacy deck.

Does not make up for the fact mtg is expensive as fuck

>>48587043
1. There is no way to show you how 'well' a specific deck can be, and how much is enough for you. As i said, this kind of proof would ebllbe meaningless. Even if i dis build a decklist and showed to you, you could just deny it is good based on subjectivity
2. Everyone played against the type of deck i'm proposing, unless you didn't play magic enough. The real question here is if YOU never played against mass land destruction or other annoying removals. If you did, you would know they can consistently win if the game doesnt end in 1-2 turns like in legacy, or have superior expensive counters.

>>48587250
Ahh. I didn't read the half of your post that wasn't addressed to me, so I'd assumed you were him, as you'd probably divined.

My bad.

>>48587360
>If you did, you would know they can consistently win if the game doesnt end in 1-2 turns like in legacy
MLD is utter dogshit.
Also
>games end in 1-2 turns
Confirmed memedernette

Complaining about cost in a thread about any sort of hobby is basically trolling.

>>48587066
1 every 20 games is an exageration. Lets say 1 every 5 and we get close. They do have a chance if build properly, and can even win completely all the games if you're not prepared. But when you put, like, x4 force of will in your deck you're kind if already prepared for this shit.

>>48587300
I did not say that budget decks will compete on the same ground as fully fleshed out decks; I am also not the guy claiming that budget MLD meme decks have hopes of topping events.

MTG is indeed expensive as fuck. Never said otherwise.

>>48587411
MLD decks are shit, will always be.

But a budget legacy deck is better than a budget modern deck, by far.

Hell, you can always play ghetto 12 post.

>>48587112
>the Basic ideas you spoke of are not winning decks
Potentially, yes. They can win consistently. I'm not saying 100% of the time here. But i assume that if you ever played against something like that outside of legacy, you know you shouldnt underestimate it. There are few responses to a guy destroying your lands that you would normally prepare for.

>>48587360
Have you even played legacy, wtf. Games can end quickly in legacy, true, but I'm quite sure the average in game length in legacy is longer than in modern.

>>48587464
I play modern and standard. You are wrong.

>>48587360
Anyone that has played against MLD knows the deck is nothing more than an annoyance.
You are the one that hasn't played enough Magic.

>>48587382
If your deck in legacy can't end the game in turn 1-2 (as in: securing victory), you're doing it wrong.

>>48587464
>They can win consistently
But why don't they? Do you really think that your theoretical musings on a format have more bearing and experience than pro players who actually TEST decks to see what works?

It's an argument usually used against people who spit out "netdecking" like a four-letter word, but I'll use it against you here: Any deck idea you've come up with was almost certainly conceived, tested, and discarded in a fraction of the time by dozens of pros already.

>>48587529
That must be why the only decks in Legacy are hyperfragile combo decks. It's a good thing there's no control decks that use Entreat the Angels or something like that as a wincon, or decks that cast a 3-cost spell with cascade as a skeleton for the deck, or combo decks that mostly use a 3 cost sorcery, or aggro decks that have a critical mass of 2-drop creatures fueled by a 1-drop artifact.

Nope, Legacy's nothing but turn 2 hypercombo.

>>48587529
didn't know DnT wins the game turn 1.
guess it would be tier 3 if it didn't, right?

>>48587497
Fun fact: you're not the only one to have experiente with that.

>>48587574
>>48587585
To be fair they do say 'secure victory'. Legacy games often take a while to close out but you normally know pretty early who has the game.

>>48587585
Miracles and Omnitell and Stoneblade and Maverick and Belcher and Storm and Dredge and Merfolk and Shardless all win on turn 1 too, apparently!

>>48587528
>getting your land destroyed in turn 2 is 'just an annoyance'

>>48587544
Pro's don't test for legacy. SCG grinders don't test for legacy. If you take something like Tezz, Stompy or anything that attacks the very predictable metagame you can take down those events.

>>48587607
How convenient, you use some nebulous "secure victory" definition shit so that you're right in a way we can't dispute.

>>48587612
Belcher can consistently win turn 1 though

File: LandsProper 001 (Large).jpg (751KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 2304x1728px

I win turn 1 all the time with this.

>>48587632
That's not me, I'm >>48587295

>>48587620
>getting your land destroyed turn 2 ends the game

>>48587492
A good deck in legacy ends it in turn 1-2. Perhaps an exageration on my part, but lets say 1-5. If your deck can't do it in legacy, you're either doing it wrong or too poor to do it.

>>48587625
We're not talking Legacy, Sunny Jim. The claim was that Legacy is a shitty format because a budget deck can't do well in it like it can in Modern or Standard.

When challenged, you gave bullshit excuses as to why you couldn't be bothered to produce one of these mystical 'consistently good' Standard or Modern lists.

Then you say that these lists COULD win consistently, and when you were asked why nobody's built these meta-attacking decks, you said that pros don't test for Legacy (they fucking do if it's a Legacy GP, moron), which is both inaccurate and has no bearing on the current discussion.

So, again: if these theoretical land destruction decks and other 'rogue elements' have all the potential to be taking down GPs on a pocketmoney budget, why do they not fucking exist anywhere but your fantasy world where up is down, down is left, left is Asians, and Asians are bad at DDR?

>>48587670
Only fucking combo wins 1-2.
Normally t3

Why do people who never play legacy insist that they have this knowledge of the format claim to have they have this insight into how it REALLY works

>>48587544
Of course pro players wont use those shitty decks. Again, i'm NOT saying they are particularly good, but they do have a chance of winning outside of legacy.

>>48587620
>Getting your land destroyed on turn 2 when you already have a Tarmogoyf out and your opponent doesn't in any way advance their own board state is somehow a game-ender for you

>>48587670
there's a huge difference between turns 1-2 and turns 1-5. it's not just "a bit of exageration".

>>48587612
Belcher and dredge win turn 1 you idort

>>48587707
THEN
WHY
DON'T
THEY

Why doesn't an FNM Hero take these hypothetical decks to a GP and put up good results? Why doesn't a grinder on a budget hone a 100 dollar list to perfection and win his way onto the Pro Tour with it?

Why does this hypothetical deck only exist in your fucking head, yet you insist it's real?

>>48587620
Unless you're playing greed.dek, it is just an annoyance.

>>48587632
'Secure victory' looks obvious enough. "Zug zuan", you know where the game will lead from that point or only a miracle would save your opponent.

>>48587760
Must be why so many Legacy games end with someone scooping on turn 2 because they know they can't win.

>>48587669
>getting your first, second and third land destroyed doesnt end the game
So.. You never played against land destruction?

>>48587692
How many decks have 100% penetration? I only know legacy, and that "Pro" players don't do as well as Legacy players. They all play wonky versions of the "best" deck. I've seen a lot of brewa get far, but when only one person is playing slivers, top 32 is very good.

>>48587719
Smallpox

>>48587770
as per a lot of Magic, the reason people don't scoop earlier is because they care about winning and maybe, just maybe, their opponent will fuck up bad.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3198x1744px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3198x1744px

Finally got around to building DDFT fampai. I've been sitting on the pieces for so long like wow.
There's another two Burning Wish, 3 Abrupt Decays, and the rest of the working sideboard in the mail, so I moved in a few board cards for now.

I know there's another anon or two who plays DDFT. Would you care to share your lists/sideboards?

>>48587772
So exactly what deck is this that can consistently play a turn 1, turn 2, and turn 3 land destruction spell while also somehow moving towards winning the game instead of just stopping the opponent?

>>48587719
That implies:
1- your deck is Green
2- you played tarmogoif on turn 1
3- he can't take down your goyf with simple destruction
4- you have goyfs

If all that happened, congratulations, you won. That's not my point tough.

>>48587670
Oh fuck off. There is just too many ways for decks to come back into game, that I can't take you seriously as a magic player anymore.

>>48587760
If you secure a victory on T2 you're playing vs a subhuman

>>48587722
I was considering more of a 'secure victory' thing by turn 1-2, with it ending in about 5. But truth be said, some decks can manage to end it in turn 1-2 in legacy. Also, 'having a huge difference' is the same as 'exagerarion'.

>>48587772
no it doesn't. what's your win condition? is your deck only lands and land destruction? you are only delaying the other player without doing anything that will win you the game. eventually you will run out of cards and your opponent will start deploying threats. what do you do then? Stone Rain their creatures?

>>48587735
Those decks are unreliable to win tournaments. Saying that they can win tournaments was never my point.

>>48587874
even then, there are many legacy decks that are reactive and don't secure their victory that early.

>>48587404
Provide one _good_ reason why Wizards shouldn't reprints staples and offer them at a price that can compete with Chinese fakes.

>>48587829
It's obviously delver deck. Turn 1 wasteland, turn 2 stifle.

>>48587878
Its called pox. It runs one nether shadow and just struggles with combo.

>>48587890
you were asked to give examples of viable decks. when people say "viable" they usually mean "decks that have proven themselves efficient in competitive enviroments".

>>48587910
Lands. Turn 1 exploration, wasteland. Turn 2 loam, wasteland. Rinse and repeat.

>>48587922
>Pox
>MLD

>>48587659
What the fuck am I looking at. It looks like Lands without a win con.

>>48587829
You basically turn your opponent's lands into artifacts with liquimetal coating and destroys them. There is artifacts destruction costing 1 mana, and plenty of creatures that destroy artifacts when entering the battlefield. Cheap strategy, but wins.

>>48587829
Not sure about Legacy. But in Modern, it looks something like this.
>Forest, Arbor Elf
>Utopia Sprawl, land, Stone Rain your first land drop
>Land/Sprawl, Goblin Dark-Dwellers, recur Stone Rain on your second Land drop
>Play one of 9 other land destruction spells in my deck on your third land drop
Here's my list: http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/21-05-16-gruul-land-destruction/

File: nephat.png (490KB, 600x850px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 600x850px

>>48587961
2 Factories and a Tarpit. Or just watching them concede.

It's an old list, before the Depths/Stage combo became common.

My most recent Lands list runs though.

>>48588007
>but wins.
how?

>>48587864
If you get the right card in the next 2-3 turns, yes, anything is possible. But we're not diacussing miracles.

>>48587878
>what's your win conditional
Damage by enemies that destroy lands when entering the battlefield.

>>48587941
1- competitive enviroment =\= tournament
2- we were diacussing suficient possibility to win, not necessarily 1-1 win/lose.

>>48587842
And you're implying that YOUR deck has some mythical suite of 1-mana LD spells that don't fuck your own lands up, some more 2 drop LD to hit their 2nd and 3 drops, and also somehow you're dropping your own threats while doing all of this AND having enough mana left over and cards in hand to answer early aggressive threats (because those are so rare in Legacy, right?)

>>48588099
all creatures that destroy lands when they ETB cost at least 4 mana and are no bigger than 3/3.
your deck sucks senpai just admit it.

>>48588063
"And plenty of CREATURES that destroy land.."

>>48587890
Yes, it was. Nobody was ever saying a budget deck can't occasionally beat a real one, because variance exists. Hell, 59 mountains and a Raging Goblin could occasionally beat any deck in Modern given the right luck.

We were saying that budget decks are inherently worse than the decks not held back by that same handicap, and you insisted that these budget decks could theoretically be viable, in a hobby where "viable" means "could do okay at a tournament".

If you actually thought we were arguing that a 1000 dollar deck is inherently unbeatable, then you are dumber than snake mittens.

>>48588007
So you spend your first turn doing nothing, your second turn playing an artifact that has zero impact on the board, and then starting on turn 3 you can blow up ONE of their lands per turn, assuming you have artifact removal in hand.

Meanwhile they spent their turns 1-3 actually landing threats, so even if you keep them " stuck" on 2 lands for the rest of the game they beat you to death with their actual board presence.

>>48588149
>competitive enviroment =\= tournament

>>48588157
>And you're implying that YOUR deck has some mythical suite of 1-mana LD spells that don't fuck your own lands up
turn 1: land, birds of paradise
turn 2: land, liquimetal coating, Smelt

oh.. so hard.

>>48588235
Oh, we're playing Magical Christmasland?

My turn 1 was Delver, and I revealed a Lightning Bolt on my upkeep. I drop a Mountain, hit your Bird, and then begin beating you to death with my 3/2.

>>48588164
>cost at least 4 mana
Yeah, that's a continuation of the 'destroy land strategy' since turn 1-2-3. Your point is?

>>48588235
>birds of paradise
I thought we were talking about cheap decks?

>>48588235
.........So 2 shit cards to make an effect with 3mana that can be done ideally by one land or card? You do know that making a deck full of shit cards isn't going to make a good deck, no matter how much synergy it has.

>>48588263
how do you destroy their lands turn 1 again?

>>48588179
>Yes, it was
go back, and read what i said. Did i even mention 'tournament'?


>Nobody was ever saying a budget deck can't occasionally beat a real one
i kind of said it, when fighting against legacy. My entire point was that money wins the game in legacy if you perfected your deck, but the same cannot be said in other formats, where a cheap deck have more chances of winning than hoping for a miracle.

>>48588263
The point is that you're proposing a "strategy" where you have a relevant LD spell every single turn, AND you hit your land drops every turn, AND your opponent did nothing turn 1.

You're constructing a perfect Magical Christmasland where your deck always has all the answers and your opponent is a gibbering moron. ANY deck could win under those conditions you absolute assclown.

>>48588202
>you spend your first turn doing nothing
land, and birds of paradise.

>your second turn playing an artifact that has zero impact
another land, artifact, tap, and cast smelt on opponent's land.

>>48588314
> where a cheap deck have more chances of winning
Again, what is your definition of "winning" here? Winning a single game out of like, 10, 15? Good for you, nobody gives a shit. Having a less than 10% winrate means the deck is absolute trash. The fact that 10% winrate for a 10 dollar deck in Standard is higher than a 5% winrate for the same deck in Legacy means fucking nothing.

If your definition of "Winning" is "performing adequately in an actual event", even then the decks aren't better.

>>48588340
So, what happens when you don't have those specific 3 cards and the lands you need to cast them in your opening hand? What happens when your opponent's turn 1 play is a Mental Misstep or a Dismember on your Birds? What happens when your opponent landed a turn 1 creature?

>>48588260
My point was the possibility, man.

>>48588271
it's cheap, but it can go cheaper. It can literally be any creature or card that add.s 1 mana for 1 mana.

>>48588325
Just drop it, this is degenerated. Only thing completeing this nonsense is "lol, I was trolling".

Just for the record; Acting retard =/= trolling. Or supposedly it can be equivalent, but in either case you are a fucking dimwit.

>>48588314
Jesus. Roguedecks have better chance in legacy compared to roguedecks in modern. Usually the basis for roguedecks are pretty established tho.

>>48588340
If your opponent destroys your liquidmetal coating, what do you do then?

>>48588374
Possibility doesn't mean shit when your entire deck falls apart outside of that christmasland.

>>48588374
56 forests and 4 wood elementals can possibly win a game. I guess that means it's viable.

>>48588272
>can be done ideally by one land or card
not in turn 2 or without losing a land yourself. This is, over everything else, safe and fast. The only risk is Not having the cards in your hand on the beginning. Anyway, there are others you can use in place to make it more likely to happen. I'm not saying it's perfect, or that it will win every time. My point is that it does have a good chance of winning.

>>48588376
I'm a dimwit for saying that this "I ALWAYS HAVE THE PERFECT HAND TO SLIGHTLY HINDER YOUR FIRST 3 TURNS!" bullshit is stupid? I don't follow that logic.

>>48588385
No see that's not possible because in addition to the Birds, Smelt, 2 lands, and Coating, he also had 2 Force of Will, and then drew a blue spell last turn, so he can counter your removal.

>>48588295
I said turn 2

>>48588440
So they go Turn 1 Delver and you lose.

>>48588418
>My point is that it does have a good chance of winning.
No, it doesn't. You need a VERY specific hand to not just get run over by whatever 2 drop they play, and even then your perfect god hand is just DELAYING your opponent. Other decks have "perfect god hands" that literally win on turn 1. Yours just puts you in a slightly better position for an uphill battle for the rest of the game.

>>48588325
>you have a relevant LD spell every single turn
if you make your deck around it, of course you will have it.

>hit your land drops every turn
literally only need 4-5 lands for the deck to run. Unless getting mana screwed, nothing will go wrong.

>AND your opponent did nothing turn 1
if you're not playing legacy, he won't do anything relevant in turn 1.

And again: my point is NOT that you will win every game with this combo, but it will win some games even against an expensive deck. Except in legacy, when they will force-of-will teh fuck out of you and then win in turn 2.

>Legacy general has turned into a shitfest because of 1 autist that clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
Why even give him attention?
Anyway, putting thia thread back in track:
I'm thinking about using Kozilek's Return in Burn's sideboard for the D&T matchup. I realize Volcanic Fallout hits face and is better against Delver decks, but I just fucking hate Mom.
Thoughts?

>>48588529
>if you make your deck around it, of course you will have it.
No you won't. Sometimes you'll draw a bunch of your 3 drop LD spells in your opening grip. It happens.

>Literally only need 4-5 lands for the deck to run
So you're hitting every land drop for 5 turns, and you have a relevant spell to cast every turn for 5 turns, with no dead cards. That's statistically VERY unlikely.

>if you're not playing legacy, he won't do anything relevant in turn 1
So we're ignoring the Modern decks that have turn 1 plays, or are you playing this Smelt/Birds of Paradise/Liquimetal Coating bullshit in Standard?

>>48588362
>What happens when your opponent's turn 1 play is a Mental Misstep or a Dismember on your Birds? What happens when your opponent landed a turn 1 creature
you put other cards in their place? or you lose. My point was never that you will win most of the games anyway, just that you have a chance. If they did came with destruction in their hands, something else they will be lacking and will give you more turns to rebuild your strategy on the battlefield. Destroying only one creature of yours won't win the game as much as destroying only one land.

>>48588347
my point was close to, let's say, 20% chance in modern/standard and 1% in legacy, cuz money. A 20% i will consider 'possibility to win', and 1% i will not, there is just no competition. That's why i said legacy is basically people throwing money into each-other's faces until they win with anti-fun strategies.

>>48588385
You cast another when you have it on your hand, or use other land destructions. If you don't, you lose. Again, my point is not that you will Always win, but that you have a good chance.

>>48588558
Which hate bear is really bothering you?

>>48588663
And you'd be wrong. You seem to have it in your head that people use expensive cards because they're expensive. That's not what it is. They use the best cards, which are expensive due to low supply and high demand.

But please, continue your Sour Grapes bullshit where you insist it's a "terrible unfun" format just because you're broke as a joke.

>>48588408
just because my point was the possibility, it doesn't mean Any possibility. As i said more than once, we're not looking for miracles here, but a deck that can consistently win (as i said before: about 20% of the games is a reasonable number). In legacy, however, that number goes down to less than 1% because money demmands optimal decks for every situation and not less than 4 force of wills.

>>48588663
give me a deck list. I'll go on Cockatrice right now and play 100 games of Modern and post my winrate.

>>48588699
He said it in the post, Mom's saving things from his Volcanic Fallouts, but wouldn't work on a Kozi's Return.

>>48588731
Winning 1 in 5 games is not "consistently winning". Do you not know what that word means?

>>48588469
my point was the good possibility of winning.

>>48588487
>You need a VERY specific hand
when you have plenty of cards with the same effect, that hand is easy

>even then your perfect god hand is just DELAYING your opponent
it's actually reliable once you get liquimetal on the battlefield. There are plenty of artifact destruction cards, including creatures.

>Other decks have "perfect god hands" that literally win on turn 1
you do realize that's my point. This is what happens often in legacy.

>>48588739
Burn vs DnT, burn should be the aggressor. I'm wondering which bear he needs to kill, wiping all but one of their creatures seems good enough.

>>48588795
>when you have plenty of cards with the same effect, that hand is easy
So how many 1-mana dorks that make any color do you have? How many repeatable Liquimetal Coating type effects do you have? How many 1 mana artifact removal spells do you have? Do you not think that you'll end up with a hand full of Birds and no combo? Or that you'll get your Coatings and no removal? Or removal and no Coatings? No, you'll somehow always get Birds/Coating/Two lands/3 Smelt every game?

>it's actually reliable once you get liquimetal on the battlefield. There are plenty of artifact destruction cards, including creatures.
Until you run out of Smelt effects for even one turn and they get a creature out. But somehow despite playing 2 cards every turn, you're not going to end up in topdeck mode or run out of gas only drawing 1 a turn.

>you do realize that's my point. This is what happens often in legacy.
It's what happens SOMETIMES, with SOME decks in Legacy. Your "god hand" makes it difficult for them to win, and you think that's enough to be a "good possibility of winning"?

>>48588582
>It happens
yea, and mulligan exists. And it may come a shit hand again, and you may even lose. But it is a reasonable chance of winning.

>you're hitting every land drop for 5 turns
no need to hit land each turn. And your opponent won't either which means you get to keep your spells. Also, some of those spells are creature spells, which can even be used time and time again to destroy artifacts/lands.

> we're ignoring the Modern decks that have turn 1 plays
in Modern people will hardly do anything relevant in turn 1, as i said. At least comparing to legacy, where people actually win the game in turn-1. That said, it is rare in modern for people to have some kind of counter in turn 1.

>>48587907
I don't think there should be a reserve list. But if you sell a "collectible" card game, you can't print Chronicles style runs. It makes it no longer collectible.

>>48588886
>But it is a reasonable chance of winning.
>citation needed

>no need to hit land each turn. And your opponent won't either which means you get to keep your spells. Also, some of those spells are creature spells, which can even be used time and time again to destroy artifacts/lands.
So you're "not needing to hit land each turn", but talking about creatures that hit lands, all of which cost 4 or more, meaning you have to hit at least 3 land drops with your perfect draw.

I'm done arguing with you. You keep insisting this perfect narrative where you get your shitty "combo" online on turn 2 happens every game and your opponent will never have an answer or an early threat, so why bother?

>>48588702
my point is that they can afford and use those broken cards that are valid in legacy and banned in other formats because guess what: they're broken. And that way, people who don't have acces to those cards will never be able to win. There is a barrier here, don't even try to deny it. It just doesn't exist in other formats.

>>48588988
Yeah, they're banned in Modern for being broken.

Has nothing to do with the fact that Modern is "From 8th/Mirrodin onwards". That's like saying Snapcaster Mage is "banned in Standard". It's not banned, it's just not legal you stupid fucking mong.

>>48588734
Interesting. It's not particularly hard to find a decklist for this, so you might try it out. Liquimetal, mass land destruction deck. See if you can find some lists and try it out.

>>48588755
actually if EVERY 5 games you win 1, that is consistent.

>>48589040
No, it's not. Decks with under a 50% winrate are fucking trash in any serious setting, and you expect me to believe one that can't win HALF that many games is 'consistent' or 'reliable' or 'good'? If all you can win is 1 in every 5 games, your deck is shit.

>>48589057
I think you need to learn what "consistent" means. If I get paid every 2 weeks, that's consistent. If I win every fifth game, that's consistent.

>>48588840
> how many 1-mana dorks that make any color do you have
doesn't need to be 'any color'. There are plenty of 1 mana, add: 1 cards; some of them aren't even creatures if you want variety.

>How many repeatable Liquimetal Coating type effects do you have
not many, but you can use other forms of land destruction.

>How many 1 mana artifact removal spells do you have
oh, there's enough of those, believe me.

>Do you not think that you'll end up with a hand full of Birds and no combo
do you not think i will mulligan? do you not think i could get those cards in 1-2 turns and my opponent might not have creatures in play turn 1-2 either? and again, worst that could happen is to lose a couple of games. +- 20% of winning sounds about right.

>Until you run out of Smelt effects
dude, that's what the deck does, why would you run out of this? It's like telling a blue counterspell deck "bro, but what if you run out of counterspells?"

Also, getting one creature out means nothing with cards like Acidic Slime in play.

>>48588933
>meaning you have to hit at least 3 land drops with your perfect draw
as i said: my opponent won't necessarily drop 3 lands so i won't necessarily be hitting 3 lands, and i doubt he will do anything reliable with just 1 land even if left on the battlefield.

>your shitty "combo" online on turn 2 happens every game
do you even read what we're discussing? i will say it again: i'm NOT proposing a deck that will win every time, or even win most of the time for that matter. I'm proposing a reasonable amount of winning (1 out of 5 games, perhaps).

>>48589005
>From 8th/Mirrodin onwards
forgot: "because we fucked up before that"

>>48589057
>Decks with under a 50% winrate are fucking trash in any serious setting
well, i never argued that it wasn't trash. But yeah, 'winning every time' 1 game in 5 is what consistent means. But perhaps consistent is not the best word since every even 1 game in 1000 would be consistent. 'Reliable', however, is a better word to describe it. You sit on the table to play against someone that has a far better deck than you. If the odds are 1 out of 5, that's actually a game i look forward to play. I know i have a chance, and since we normally play 3 games, perhaps i can even win one, who know? maybe 2. So you don't actually need 50% winrate to have Fun.

I'm pretty sure "broken" only literally applies to a handful of cards and is otherwise code for "thing I don't like."

>>48589266
1 out of 5 games is not a 'reasonable amount of winning'. If your winrate is lower than coinflip, your deck sucks.

>>48589500
Exactly. See
>>48582846

File: teferi's response.jpg (31KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 223x310px

What if I told you that there is a blue instant draw two cards that also counters Wasteland?

>>48587670
I've won turn 5 in *standard*.

>>48589345
>forgot: "because we fucked up before that"

No, Mirrodin was busted overpowered compared to everything since Exodus/Urza's.

Hey guys are there any enchantments or artifacts that enables a creature to deal combat damage to each player or opponent?

>>48590539
>Each player or opponent
>In a format played primarily 1v1
You're either in the wrong thread or onto something amusing, what have you got in mind?

>>48590539
Blade of Selves is the closest I can think of, but you should probably ask in the EDH thread.

>>48590717
>>You're either in the wrong thread or onto something amusing, what have you got in mind?
I may be in the wrong thread, I wasn't sure where to ask. I am mainly asking for the "whenever a creature deals combat damage to a player ..." cards. I originally thought of double striking and was wondering if there are other options.

>>48590877
There are cards that create extra combat steps, and cards that force all possible blockers to block, I assume you have Jitte in mind.

>>48590877
Use the following database.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Advanced.aspx

>>48588558
Sudden shock has always seemed better to me