@averethel and @Al_Z_Heimer, I don't really buy much into that. I've talked with him before about data gathering and whatnot, and I found that he doesn't actually track individual card performance, only the data available from the MTGO Replay Tool. Thus, lines like...
This is also the reason why Collective Brutality, while good on paper, tends to underperform.
...are based on anecdotal evidence, conjecture, and memory. Nothing actually tracked. To be fair, though, I'm also a bit dismissive because of how dismissive he was of my own work, because of the assumption that too much of my data comes from Cockatrice games, and the claim that Cockatrice isn't as reliable for good data as MTGO. You can see a comparison of win percentages comparing the two here (for matches) and here (for games). So, while I could at least respect the opinion if it were backed up by more than conjecture, I find this one to be unnecessarily dismissive, and even slightly insulting, considering the work I feel I've put in and the lack of work he presented to justify dismissing my work.
I feel like this needs to be said, and I'm not sure how to make it not sound dismissive, but this is just true: the fact that you worked hard doesn't mean that your results are correct, and the fact that the pro community doesn't have readily-presentable data to back up their conclusions doesn't mean that they are wrong. I am not trying to shut you down, but I think that it's wrong that you use links to your data as a cudgel to dismiss other people's opinions.
The fact that any of your data comes from Cockatrice is a red flag; it's pretty well known that the player quality on free platforms is a total joke compared to MTGO. Garbage in, garbage out. Another huge concern is that the entire professional community disagrees with you. When Sam Black, BBD, Justin Cohen, and the most recent Pro Tour champion all disagree with your conclusions, you can be pretty certain that you are incorrect. To wit: the entire debate surrounding Lantern at the moment is whether or not Mox Opal is too good to be legal in Modern, and the fact that you're trying to argue that it's actually bad should make you wonder whether or not you've made a serious methodological mistake.
I'm not entirely sure I would agree with this counter-argument. "under-performing" is not synonymous with "card you should cut".
For example, if all you play is against mono-colored decks, blood moon would also "under-preform".
I can actually believe that Collective Brutality would under-perform. That's why its a 1-of at most in the SB.
If you are not playing against burn... It's just another discard spell. And since we already play tons of discard and/or ways to make creatures irrelevant, most of the modes on it will be redundant the vast majority of the time. Hence leading to an under-performance of the card.
But most recent lists don't play any other way to gain life. As a result it's there as a hedge against burn that can also be used in other matchups (albeit with a significantly less impact).
EDIT: Most times when you sideboard you actually take out a mox opal...
Not uncommon at all. I don't think anyone is saying mox opal is bad... but it probably is one of the weakest cards in lantern control. And most pros that write sbing guides would agree with that... otherwise why say cut one post board?
@averethel and @Al_Z_Heimer, I don't really buy much into that. I've talked with him before about data gathering and whatnot, and I found that he doesn't actually track individual card performance, only the data available from the MTGO Replay Tool. Thus, lines like...
This is also the reason why Collective Brutality, while good on paper, tends to underperform.
...are based on anecdotal evidence, conjecture, and memory. Nothing actually tracked. To be fair, though, I'm also a bit dismissive because of how dismissive he was of my own work, because of the assumption that too much of my data comes from Cockatrice games, and the claim that Cockatrice isn't as reliable for good data as MTGO. You can see a comparison of win percentages comparing the two here (for matches) and here (for games). So, while I could at least respect the opinion if it were backed up by more than conjecture, I find this one to be unnecessarily dismissive, and even slightly insulting, considering the work I feel I've put in and the lack of work he presented to justify dismissing my work.
I feel like this needs to be said, and I'm not sure how to make it not sound dismissive, but this is just true: the fact that you worked hard doesn't mean that your results are correct, and the fact that the pro community doesn't have readily-presentable data to back up their conclusions doesn't mean that they are wrong. I am not trying to shut you down, but I think that it's wrong that you use links to your data as a cudgel to dismiss other people's opinions.
The fact that any of your data comes from Cockatrice is a red flag; it's pretty well known that the player quality on free platforms is a total joke compared to MTGO. Garbage in, garbage out. Another huge concern is that the entire professional community disagrees with you. When Sam Black, BBD, Justin Cohen, and the most recent Pro Tour champion all disagree with your conclusions, you can be pretty certain that you are incorrect. To wit: the entire debate surrounding Lantern at the moment is whether or not Mox Opal is too good to be legal in Modern, and the fact that you're trying to argue that it's actually bad should make you wonder whether or not you've made a serious methodological mistake.
I understand and respect if you disagree, and I feel like I understand where you're coming from, but there are a few problems that I see with your points.
First, concerning differences in quality of players on MTGO vs. Cockatrice. I've set it up so that the sheets compare win rates between the two, seeing as how much of the data also comes from MTGO (it's actually the single largest source of data). If we include all games, we see:
MTGO game win rate: 66.67%
Cockatrice game win rate: 69.48%
MTGO match win rate: 72.2%
Cockatrice match win rate: 75.25%
It appears that, while the win rate is higher on Cockatrice, the change is quite minimal. Now, even more interesting, if we only include recent data (data from the past three months):
MTGO game win rate: 68.1%
Cockatrice game win rate: 69.12%
MTGO match win rate: 73.91%
Cockatrice match win rate: 71.11%
It then appears that winning is actually slightly easier on MTGO than on Cockatrice Again, I can respect that you have your opinion, and that others might share it, but I would respect it much more if it were based on something other than conjecture, a bandwagon fallacy, or appeal to authority.
Now, speaking of the appeal to authority, assuming that something must be correct because people you consider authorities on the subject say it is true is exactly that. Again, I can absolutely respect when someone points out a flaw in my thinking or process. But saying I'm wrong because someone you think is right says I'm wrong, with no actual supporting, falsifiable justification...Would that change your mind, when you've gone through the process of accumulating data, filtering it, and asking others to verify it to doublecheck the work? I've repeatedly pointed out that all data can be verified, since I only include data from videos. Yet it is slightly insulting that people who insist on dismissing it refuse to do any actual work to go through the source and find real flaws.
And, as axman pointed out, I didn't say Opal was bad, just that it was underperforming with respect to other cards.
@iostream (god why did you make me #include you? :P) the arguments thnkr has made that past while with concerns to Mox Opal have less to do with removing Opal all together from the deck, and more with the debate on whether it should be a 3-of, or a 4-of in decks.
And from someone who has played Lantern a while (approaching 2 years soon) I'm kind of sitting on the fence with him. On the one hand, Opal is a great way to fix our mana, cast cards like Whir through a Blood Moon, accelerate us into an early Ensnaring Bridge, etc. However at the same time it is a card that does poor in multiples. You can't play a second Mox Opal to turn on Metalcraft for the first one. Not to mention the games where there is a Stony Silence in play. Ouch. In a lot of situations after your third turn, Opal is usually no better than if it were just a land. So with that in mind the discussion is, is it worth cutting 1 Opal from the deck and replacing it with something else?
At the moment I am personally experimenting with replacing it with 1 of two cards: Search for Azcanta and Welding Jar. On the one hand, replacing 1 Opal with a Jar fixes one of the scenarios I mentioned above, that being that you can't turn on an Opal's Metalcraft with a second copy. If that second copy were instead a Welding Jar, tada! Metalcraft! Not to mention a singleton Welding Jar might be a pretty good way to fight mainboard artifact hate (looking at you Kolaghan's Command) As for Search for Azcanta, that's basically a meta call where if you plan on facing a lot of slower, grindy decks, having a mainboard way to better search for what you need can be beneficial.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
You make very good points Ya, it correlates to cards in the opening hand. So, my approach isn't to determine if a card is necessarily good or bad, but whether it's good enough to run enough to ensure that it's in the opening hand. Of course, this does take some logical thinking to ensure that the data isn't going to steer us wrong.
For example, I'm not trying to say that Mox Opal, or Ensnaring Bridge or Pithing Needle, are bad. I mean, that doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that they are integral to the deck. However, it might be better to run fewer, so that we make room for other cards that perform much better in the opening hand. That's why I wrote that the spreadsheet that doesn't filter out data older than three months might be a bit skewed. In previous Bg builds of Lantern, we didn't have the card selection that we have now. Thus, it was much more important to get a Bridge or Needle as soon as possible. Now, however, it's not quite as important, again presumably thanks to that card selection.
I do play Witchbane Orb, I just haven't listed it on the ranking tab.
My original method for figuring out which cards to include in the deck, overall, can be seen in my much earlier work. My original approach was to use MTGGoldfish (before their data became skewed) to list top played cards in the metagame. I then crossed that against candidate cards for the deck. The whole concept of Lantern being that we want to neutralize as much of the opponent's deck as possible (using what I called the "theory of relevant interaction", which I later discovered was already known in the world of game theory as minimax and expectimax) to "prune" branches and nodes (or, choices) from an opponent's decision tree. The more metagame cards that a single candidate card neutralized, the higher it scored, and warranted inclusion into the deck. This method is a bit different than the use of my current work to determine how individual cards score when in the opening hand. That older method, in my opinion, could still work. I just stopped using and updating it once a decently successful and reliable list started to form.
I'm considering going down to 3 inquisition, 2 thoughtseize, 2 collective brutality.
Burn is the most played deck in my meta and I don't want to loose vs it... but I am nervous about playing less than 4 inqusitions (I would sideboard the 3rd thoughtseize) thoughts?
So the item of note here, is that I've cut a Mox Opal for a mainboard Search for Azcanta. This is one part meta call, and one part experiment on the discussions we have been having on here about Mox Opal. I tried this list in a competitive League on MTGO and was able to get my first ever 5-0 with it (I did not record it sadly), but that was just one league, so I am unsure whether I should just play it safe and run the 4th Opal.
Alternatively I was considering running a mainboard Welding Jar in place of Search, as it helps against mainboard artifact removal like Kolaghan's Command thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
For UW Control: This deck is relatively threat-light. Their planeswalkers/Colonnades can be answered by either Bridge or Needle. Their real threats to us are Detention Sphere, Cryptic Commands, and Snapcasters. Getting a decent lock to keep them off of Spheres and Commands is probably the most important thing here. They can also target us with Ancestral Visions to attack under Bridge. Thankfully, their clock is usually relatively slow, and they normally have to tap out, or a lot, to get their real threats active. This buys us time to sneak in discard spells and the lock.
For Jeskai Control: There are a few variants here. There's the Jeskai Geist, in which case we just assemble the lock as quickly as possible while they tap out for Geist, or use discard to make sure the lock gets into play. Whirs are extremely important here, as they can't be neutralized by Spell Queller if we pay enough for X. Postboard, Torpor Orb goes a long way.
For Jeskai Nahiri, this is a bit easier. We can Needle Nahiri, or use Cage to make her a glorified sorcery-speed draw engine. We do have to be careful about how we tap our artifacts, so that she can't exile them. Otherwise, between Bridge, Needles, Cage, and Whirs for them, it's relatively easy to shut off their main angles of attack.
For Jeskai Breach, it's a little different than Jeskai Nahiri, in that they have a secondary way to get Emrakul into play, but that also means that it's slightly easier for us to give them the wrong pieces of the combo. Thus, the approach is similar to how we deal with Jeskai Nahiri, just that our discard seems to go a longer way.
By "UR Control", do you mean Blue Moon, UR Pyromancer, or both?
You can see how I approach these matchups here. I hope this helps, and if you have any other questions, I'll try to answer them
CRUGGCCCCCCCGBGBGBCCCCCCCBBUWC MODERN – LANTERN(aka Fateseal or Barbershop) Primer–Subreddit–Facebook–Decklist–Gameplay Thnkr's Content:Gameplay–Datasheet Each eye sees a different possibility for tomorrow. CWUBBCCCCCCCBGBGBGCCCCCCCGGURC
Made a few mistakes that cost me the game in all of my loses. Oh well
How did you like the search main?
I was trying it on MTGO and it felt clunky at times... I've gone back to including it in the sb. Still trying to figure my exact list for indi next week.
I never had Search for Azcanta in any Game 1's so I can't make any judgments on how it was mainboard. So I can't really comment on whether I like it in the main or not. I still feel in the correct meta it may be the right position. Basically I would advocate for it when you know you'll play against a lot of grindy decks and you want that extra little bump for game 1.
As an added bonus from the GP, I got Zac Elsik to sign my white-bordered Lanterns, and got BBD to sign my white-bordered Codex Shredders
I can post pictures later if anyone wants to see
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I never had Search for Azcanta in any Game 1's so I can't make any judgments on how it was mainboard. So I can't really comment on whether I like it in the main or not. I still feel in the correct meta it may be the right position. Basically I would advocate for it when you know you'll play against a lot of grindy decks and you want that extra little bump for game 1.
As an added bonus from the GP, I got Zac Elsik to sign my white-bordered Lanterns, and got BBD to sign my white-bordered Codex Shredders
I can post pictures later if anyone wants to see
nice :). I went 3-2 in my second competitive league on MTGO last night (2-3 my first one).
Online does not seem favorable for lantern. There is a ton of Tron. I average at least one tron matchup per 5-round league.
I'm very curious how Jace, the Mind Sculptor slots in now that he's unbanned. Especially with Whir being the standard, allowing us to easily hit the double blue necessary.
Well on the one hand, Control match-ups just became a lot more Pithing Needle dependant. Turning off Jace's Brainstorm ability is going to help us stop our opponent from being able to get out from under our lock.
As for us on the other hand, we get a Planeswalker that can act as a mill rock for us if we want it to. In addition, the Brainstorm makes it so we can protect key cards in our hand from discard, while also making it easier for us to fully activate our Ensnaring Bridge[/card].
Consider this scenario:
You are playing against Mardu Pyromancer, and they have a board with a bunch of 1/1s from Pyromancer. You have a Jace in play, and in your hand you have a Whir, and a Bridge. You know you will need to Whir in order to grab yourself another mill rock or a lantern or something, but you will also die to the lethal attack from the 1/1s. You cast Bridge. Activate Jace's 0 ability, if you draw a land or a 1/0 cost artifact, you keep that in hand, and put the rest on top of your library, making Whir your draw for next turn. Then you empty your hand and pass turn.
Holy f%^& I am excited
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Well on the one hand, Control match-ups just became a lot more Pithing Needle dependant. Turning off Jace's Brainstorm ability is going to help us stop our opponent from being able to get out from under our lock.
As for us on the other hand, we get a Planeswalker that can act as a mill rock for us if we want it to. In addition, the Brainstorm makes it so we can protect key cards in our hand from discard, while also making it easier for us to fully activate our Ensnaring Bridge[/card].
Consider this scenario:
You are playing against Mardu Pyromancer, and they have a board with a bunch of 1/1s from Pyromancer. You have a Jace in play, and in your hand you have a Whir, and a Bridge. You know you will need to Whir in order to grab yourself another mill rock or a lantern or something, but you will also die to the lethal attack from the 1/1s. You cast Bridge. Activate Jace's 0 ability, if you draw a land or a 1/0 cost artifact, you keep that in hand, and put the rest on top of your library, making Whir your draw for next turn. Then you empty your hand and pass turn.
Holy f%^& I am excited
Jace is alot worse without fetches. But... I may still try main-decking two.
Jace is alot worse without fetches. But... I may still try main-decking two.
I agree, Jace is worse without Fetches. However we do have Whir to shuffle our library as well, so we are in a way still able to make full use of the Brainstorm + shuffle. We just have to pay mana for it is all.
And personally, I'd stick with just 1 Jace, maybe 1 in the sideboard if you really want 2. It is 4 mana after all, and if you get stuck on 3 mana it will make it hard to enable your Ensnaring Bridges.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Jace is alot worse without fetches. But... I may still try main-decking two.
I agree, Jace is worse without Fetches. However we do have Whir to shuffle our library as well, so we are in a way still able to make full use of the Brainstorm + shuffle. We just have to pay mana for it is all.
And personally, I'd stick with just 1 Jace, maybe 1 in the sideboard if you really want 2. It is 4 mana after all, and if you get stuck on 3 mana it will make it hard to enable your Ensnaring Bridges.
Well I suppose it depends on what you want. AKA would you rather play x3 whirs and x2 jaces, or x4 whirs and x1 jace. We could probably go up to 2 jaces with modification to the rest of the deck. The question becomes is that worth it.
Well I suppose it depends on what you want. AKA would you rather play x3 whirs and x2 jaces, or x4 whirs and x1 jace. We could probably go up to 2 jaces with modification to the rest of the deck. The question becomes is that worth it.
I think I'd be safe in saying it would not be worth it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Yeah I think at most 1 Jace. And you can use Lantern to shuffle if pressed. This is a fine, sweet, fair addition to the deck and format.
I cannot wait to add mine to the deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not entirely sure I would agree with this counter-argument. "under-performing" is not synonymous with "card you should cut".
For example, if all you play is against mono-colored decks, blood moon would also "under-preform".
I can actually believe that Collective Brutality would under-perform. That's why its a 1-of at most in the SB.
If you are not playing against burn... It's just another discard spell. And since we already play tons of discard and/or ways to make creatures irrelevant, most of the modes on it will be redundant the vast majority of the time. Hence leading to an under-performance of the card.
But most recent lists don't play any other way to gain life. As a result it's there as a hedge against burn that can also be used in other matchups (albeit with a significantly less impact).
EDIT: Most times when you sideboard you actually take out a mox opal...
Not uncommon at all. I don't think anyone is saying mox opal is bad... but it probably is one of the weakest cards in lantern control. And most pros that write sbing guides would agree with that... otherwise why say cut one post board?
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I understand and respect if you disagree, and I feel like I understand where you're coming from, but there are a few problems that I see with your points.
First, concerning differences in quality of players on MTGO vs. Cockatrice. I've set it up so that the sheets compare win rates between the two, seeing as how much of the data also comes from MTGO (it's actually the single largest source of data). If we include all games, we see:
MTGO game win rate: 66.67%
Cockatrice game win rate: 69.48%
MTGO match win rate: 72.2%
Cockatrice match win rate: 75.25%
It appears that, while the win rate is higher on Cockatrice, the change is quite minimal. Now, even more interesting, if we only include recent data (data from the past three months):
MTGO game win rate: 68.1%
Cockatrice game win rate: 69.12%
MTGO match win rate: 73.91%
Cockatrice match win rate: 71.11%
It then appears that winning is actually slightly easier on MTGO than on Cockatrice
Now, speaking of the appeal to authority, assuming that something must be correct because people you consider authorities on the subject say it is true is exactly that. Again, I can absolutely respect when someone points out a flaw in my thinking or process. But saying I'm wrong because someone you think is right says I'm wrong, with no actual supporting, falsifiable justification...Would that change your mind, when you've gone through the process of accumulating data, filtering it, and asking others to verify it to doublecheck the work? I've repeatedly pointed out that all data can be verified, since I only include data from videos. Yet it is slightly insulting that people who insist on dismissing it refuse to do any actual work to go through the source and find real flaws.
And, as axman pointed out, I didn't say Opal was bad, just that it was underperforming with respect to other cards.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
And from someone who has played Lantern a while (approaching 2 years soon) I'm kind of sitting on the fence with him. On the one hand, Opal is a great way to fix our mana, cast cards like Whir through a Blood Moon, accelerate us into an early Ensnaring Bridge, etc. However at the same time it is a card that does poor in multiples. You can't play a second Mox Opal to turn on Metalcraft for the first one. Not to mention the games where there is a Stony Silence in play. Ouch. In a lot of situations after your third turn, Opal is usually no better than if it were just a land. So with that in mind the discussion is, is it worth cutting 1 Opal from the deck and replacing it with something else?
At the moment I am personally experimenting with replacing it with 1 of two cards: Search for Azcanta and Welding Jar. On the one hand, replacing 1 Opal with a Jar fixes one of the scenarios I mentioned above, that being that you can't turn on an Opal's Metalcraft with a second copy. If that second copy were instead a Welding Jar, tada! Metalcraft! Not to mention a singleton Welding Jar might be a pretty good way to fight mainboard artifact hate (looking at you Kolaghan's Command) As for Search for Azcanta, that's basically a meta call where if you plan on facing a lot of slower, grindy decks, having a mainboard way to better search for what you need can be beneficial.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
For example, I'm not trying to say that Mox Opal, or Ensnaring Bridge or Pithing Needle, are bad. I mean, that doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that they are integral to the deck. However, it might be better to run fewer, so that we make room for other cards that perform much better in the opening hand. That's why I wrote that the spreadsheet that doesn't filter out data older than three months might be a bit skewed. In previous Bg builds of Lantern, we didn't have the card selection that we have now. Thus, it was much more important to get a Bridge or Needle as soon as possible. Now, however, it's not quite as important, again presumably thanks to that card selection.
I do play Witchbane Orb, I just haven't listed it on the ranking tab.
My original method for figuring out which cards to include in the deck, overall, can be seen in my much earlier work. My original approach was to use MTGGoldfish (before their data became skewed) to list top played cards in the metagame. I then crossed that against candidate cards for the deck. The whole concept of Lantern being that we want to neutralize as much of the opponent's deck as possible (using what I called the "theory of relevant interaction", which I later discovered was already known in the world of game theory as minimax and expectimax) to "prune" branches and nodes (or, choices) from an opponent's decision tree. The more metagame cards that a single candidate card neutralized, the higher it scored, and warranted inclusion into the deck. This method is a bit different than the use of my current work to determine how individual cards score when in the opening hand. That older method, in my opinion, could still work. I just stopped using and updating it once a decently successful and reliable list started to form.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Burn is the most played deck in my meta and I don't want to loose vs it... but I am nervous about playing less than 4 inqusitions (I would sideboard the 3rd thoughtseize) thoughts?
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
4x Glimmervoid
4x Spire of Industry
3x Botanical Sanctum
3x Darkslick Shores
3x Mox Opal
1x Academy Ruins
1x Inventors' Fair
1x River of Tears
1x Island
Artifacts - 22
4x Codex Shredder
4x Lantern of Insight
4x Mishra's Bauble
3x Ensnaring Bridge
2x Pithing Needle
2x Pyxis of Pandemonium
1x Grafdigger's Cage
1x Pyrite Spellbomb
1x Witchbane Orb
4x Ancient Stirrings
4x Inquisition of Kozilek
4x Whir of Invention
3x Thoughtseize
1x Abrupt Decay
1x Search for Azcanta
2x Welding Jar
1x Nature's Claim
1x Grafdigger's Cage
1x Pithing Needle
2x Collective Brutality
1x Ancient Grudge
1x Pyroclasm
1x Abrupt Decay
1x Maelstrom Pulse
2x Leyline of Sanctity
2x Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas
So the item of note here, is that I've cut a Mox Opal for a mainboard Search for Azcanta. This is one part meta call, and one part experiment on the discussions we have been having on here about Mox Opal. I tried this list in a competitive League on MTGO and was able to get my first ever 5-0 with it (I did not record it sadly), but that was just one league, so I am unsure whether I should just play it safe and run the 4th Opal.
Alternatively I was considering running a mainboard Welding Jar in place of Search, as it helps against mainboard artifact removal like Kolaghan's Command thoughts?
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
For Jeskai Control: There are a few variants here. There's the Jeskai Geist, in which case we just assemble the lock as quickly as possible while they tap out for Geist, or use discard to make sure the lock gets into play. Whirs are extremely important here, as they can't be neutralized by Spell Queller if we pay enough for X. Postboard, Torpor Orb goes a long way.
For Jeskai Nahiri, this is a bit easier. We can Needle Nahiri, or use Cage to make her a glorified sorcery-speed draw engine. We do have to be careful about how we tap our artifacts, so that she can't exile them. Otherwise, between Bridge, Needles, Cage, and Whirs for them, it's relatively easy to shut off their main angles of attack.
For Jeskai Breach, it's a little different than Jeskai Nahiri, in that they have a secondary way to get Emrakul into play, but that also means that it's slightly easier for us to give them the wrong pieces of the combo. Thus, the approach is similar to how we deal with Jeskai Nahiri, just that our discard seems to go a longer way.
By "UR Control", do you mean Blue Moon, UR Pyromancer, or both?
You can see how I approach these matchups here. I hope this helps, and if you have any other questions, I'll try to answer them
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
MODERN – LANTERN (aka Fateseal or Barbershop)
Primer – Subreddit – Facebook – Decklist – Gameplay
Thnkr's Content: Gameplay – Datasheet
Each eye sees a different possibility for tomorrow.
CWUBBCCCCCCCBGBGBGCCCCCCCGGURC
Made a few mistakes that cost me the game in all of my loses. Oh well
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
How did you like the search main?
I was trying it on MTGO and it felt clunky at times... I've gone back to including it in the sb. Still trying to figure my exact list for indi next week.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
As an added bonus from the GP, I got Zac Elsik to sign my white-bordered Lanterns, and got BBD to sign my white-bordered Codex Shredders
I can post pictures later if anyone wants to see
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
nice :). I went 3-2 in my second competitive league on MTGO last night (2-3 my first one).
Online does not seem favorable for lantern. There is a ton of Tron. I average at least one tron matchup per 5-round league.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Now what does this mean for Lantern?
Well on the one hand, Control match-ups just became a lot more Pithing Needle dependant. Turning off Jace's Brainstorm ability is going to help us stop our opponent from being able to get out from under our lock.
As for us on the other hand, we get a Planeswalker that can act as a mill rock for us if we want it to. In addition, the Brainstorm makes it so we can protect key cards in our hand from discard, while also making it easier for us to fully activate our Ensnaring Bridge[/card].
Consider this scenario:
You are playing against Mardu Pyromancer, and they have a board with a bunch of 1/1s from Pyromancer. You have a Jace in play, and in your hand you have a Whir, and a Bridge. You know you will need to Whir in order to grab yourself another mill rock or a lantern or something, but you will also die to the lethal attack from the 1/1s. You cast Bridge. Activate Jace's 0 ability, if you draw a land or a 1/0 cost artifact, you keep that in hand, and put the rest on top of your library, making Whir your draw for next turn. Then you empty your hand and pass turn.
Holy f%^& I am excited
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Jace is alot worse without fetches. But... I may still try main-decking two.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I agree, Jace is worse without Fetches. However we do have Whir to shuffle our library as well, so we are in a way still able to make full use of the Brainstorm + shuffle. We just have to pay mana for it is all.
And personally, I'd stick with just 1 Jace, maybe 1 in the sideboard if you really want 2. It is 4 mana after all, and if you get stuck on 3 mana it will make it hard to enable your Ensnaring Bridges.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Well I suppose it depends on what you want. AKA would you rather play x3 whirs and x2 jaces, or x4 whirs and x1 jace. We could probably go up to 2 jaces with modification to the rest of the deck. The question becomes is that worth it.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I think I'd be safe in saying it would not be worth it
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I cannot wait to add mine to the deck.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.