Does Eldritch Evolution have a place in modern? Also Lupine Prototype in 8rack?
I feel like if you want to play lupine prototype in 8-rack, you're better off either splashing green and playing tarmogoyf, or running tasigur/tombstalker
8 rack plays bridge so you are better off playing bitterblossom.
Most lists, yes. If one were to include lupine prototype, it would be in a list that did not include bridge, obviously.
Does Eldritch Evolution have a place in modern? Also Lupine Prototype in 8rack?
I feel like if you want to play lupine prototype in 8-rack, you're better off either splashing green and playing tarmogoyf, or running tasigur/tombstalker
First Type 1.5 was legacy, it just wan't called that until it was overhauled in 2004, it literally says that in the paragraph after the one I quoted.
And I am telling you that you are wrong. If I say a banana is a fish, does that make it one? No, and the same applies there. Two formats with different playerbases, different metagames (and decks entirely), different rules, everything, ARE NOT THE SAME FORMAT.
Later they looked into making type 1.5 its own format and it was significantly changed and called Legacy. Obviously as time passed cards that were fine then became harder and harder to get so that definition of Legacy failed and more than likely wasn't even considered when making the Legacy we know today.
You are forcing things, and I will not allow you to do so. You will not twist the facts to fit your agenda here. There is nothing in the foundation of legacy as it is now that is related to scarcity or price: only power level.
You can argue about why you think Legacy was made or what ever. I have provided Wizards own words on the matter, if you only have your own thoughts and theories then it doesn't make sense to believe your reasons.
I have no thoughts or theories: I have FACTS. It is a fact, inarguable at that, that the metagames were different. It is a fact, inarguable at that that the rules for the format were different. It is a fact, and while this one is arguable, you can easily scrounge up old articles describing the issue, that the playerbase was different. Observing the reality as it is is not a theory. It is not a thought. It is simply collecting FACTS.
Yeah, Legacy replaced 1.5 directly, with no changes in philosophy. it is literally the same thing. I was playing during the creation of both, as were many on this thread.
If you've got stuff from 93/94 (alpha/beta/unlimited, revised, legends, antiquities, arabian nights), then that's probably where the vast, vast majority of your value is. Even a lot of junk rares and good commons from those sets are worth something (hell, Beta basic lands are worth quite a bit!) I'd start by separating that stuff from the rest. Depending on how many cards that is, you can either go through it yourself, have a MTG-knowledgable friend go through it with you, or have it appraised at a shop.
There aren't a ton of high-dollar cards for several years after fallen empires, but you never know. if that's the majority of your cards, then it's just going to be a matter of how much effort and time you want to put in vs. just having a shop appraise your stuff and make an offer.
Ha! Believe it or not, I won a legacy game a couple years ago with a no-land hand on a mull to 4, on the draw, playing zoo... with no tarmogoyfs, no chain lightnings, and only enemy-colored fetches, at that! My opponent was on merfolk, which is one of the better zoo matchups, but really it comes down to he kept a terrible hand and had even worse topdecks, while I drew 2 lands my first two turns and nothing but gas after that.
Legacy might certainly look easy if you aren't considering the thought that goes into all those plays...
I get it. I'm no pro, but I own and have played plenty of both legacy and modern. I need not be convinced of the complexity of either format, and I am not format bashing in any way whatsoever. I'm just saying, from the standpoint of a relatively infrequent and mediocre player, that I do better at legacy. One of the reasons is that, for me at least, it feels less complicated than modern. Others may feel the opposite, and that's cool... it's just an opinion.
On a separate note, delver is one of my favorite matchups for pox... It's amazing how often I can blow someone's mind by taking out every red source in their deck and stabilize at 2 life while they have multiple bolts in hand. This of course doesn't happen much against good opponents, but there you have it.
I'm not entirely sold that Modern has more complex decks, but I can agree that the synergy in certain ones can be extremely difficult to make optimal decisions with. The tradeoff is that not making the optimal decision is not as damning as it is in Legacy, which I think still remains one of the most skill intensive format in regards to technicals and raw play ability. Regardless, I think we can agree that while standard has the most competitors, it is by no means the most competitive format, as top level competitive modern and Legacy players have so many more things to play with and take into account than standard.
I think we agree on a lot.
Bottom line I think is that both modern and legacy are basically super-complicated. They are also wildly different, not just in the card pool and the decks, but also in the skill set. I see a lot of long-time legacy players who have dipped their toe into modern out of curiosity or because it's easier to find a tournament that fires every week who build something Tier 1, go like 1-4 a bunch of times in a row, and write modern off as a garbage format where luck rules all, where in reality it's just that their legacy knowledge doesn't apply and it's not enough to show up with a top deck. On the flip side, I see a lot of new legacy players build a sub-optimal deck or outright jank brew or borrow something they've never played from a friend, get turn 0'd by a TES nut draw and stomp off saying "yeah, legacy's just Herp, Derp, got force of will???"
In reality they are both extremely difficult to be good at, and it's even harder to be good at both. Add to that, a whole lot of both modern and legacy players are older and therefore have limited time to play (family, job, ect) so it's hard for someone who'd good at legacy to want to invest the time and energy getting good at modern, and vice-versa.
I'm going to come out against a lot of the legacy folks and say that my observation is that a lot of high-level modern decks require a greater depth of skill than most legacy ones. There are three reasons:
1) Modern is more synergy based and has a bazillion intra-deck interactions. Watching a really good player pilot Junk Company, Affinity, Orzhov D&T, Grixis control, or any number of other decks gives me a headache. To me, these decks are more complex to pilot than almost any legacy deck. There are triggers everywhere and sequencing is unbelievably critical. Also, you really have to know the other person's deck so you have a pretty good idea of their options. While legacy is certainly complex, I personally find the interactions to be simpler, at least once you're somewhat familiar with the format.
2) Modern's top tier has less overlap. There are a million rogue decks in legacy, but the vast majority of the field is probably Blue-based combo, blue-based delver, blue-based control, and "decks that beat blue decks" like D&T and Imperial Painter. I personally find this easier to play against than affinity, burn, jund, coco, GR tron, merfolk, kiki-chord, ect, which have surprisingly little overlap in lists.
3) Legacy's consistency makes it easier to play in my mind. It seems like delver can always brainstorm/ponder into FOW/daze, flip the delver and go. It can run on 2 mana if it has to. Modern has no brainstorm to grab what you need every time and it has no FOW to act as a free panic button. I see good players overcome this lack of consistency by knowing their deck. It's true that the best modern players will lose to variance more often than the best legacy players, but I feel that the modern player has a greater opportunity to make skill-based gains.
Standard, IMO, is just simple and boring. Super high variance and you're locked into a tiny handful of lists.
As a side note, I'd like to say I think the most skill-intensive format, by miles, is booster draft. Coincidentally, I am terrible at it.
your standard and modern environments are more competitive than your legacy one
That is the shorter, and very accurate version of what I was trying to say. Most legacy scenes really aren't that competitive (even when 75% of the room is running top tier decks), because most of the players at most shops (even legacy shops) aren't half as good as they think they are, and anyone who's somewhat decent and legacy experienced will stomp the newbies. Big events are similar, it's just that the "skilled" player at the LGS might be the "newbie" at the big event.
This is sort of how I've seen things work:
- The best legacy players are the ones who have played the most legacy for the longest amount of time.
- The best modern players are the ones who stick to a single deck every week.
- The best standard players are the ones who are both able to play competitively several days a week and willing to spend whatever they have to get the best cards the minute they come out.
On a large legacy tournament, a player can coast by because they're pitted against sun-optimal decks, or decks that what the player can afford, not the ones they want.
Seriously, look at the decklists of largish tournaments. You will see some really oddball decks and card choices. If you have an established deck, you can get very far.
Of course, it also means that you will also meet decks that you never thought you'd play against and wind up wiped out.
And I know quite a number of standard players who genuinely think that eternal players have little to know skill, so if you play even somewhat decent standard you will clean house in legacy.
Just like to say I think this is a bigger part of it than a lot of legacy players realize. I am a self-admitted mediocre player at best, but I usually do fairly well at legacy. While I'd like to say it's my mad skills, it's probably that a lot of opponents have sub-optimal lists or brews, or they are people borrowing a deck from a friend, or they're new to their deck and therefore otherwise not skilled. I usually lose to the people who play every week with the same deck. I also usually play loam pox, which can be frustrating to play against and is nothing like anything in standard or modern, and it throws people off.
In modern on the other hand, I tend to do way worse, even when I'm playing something tier 1. I think it's because there's just way more people in the room also playing Tier 1 or 2 lists and who know what they are doing.
It's not that modern is more skill-intensive, it's just that the players around me are more highly skilled.
I've been very okay with two maindeck Oblivion Rings for non-creature hate. It's slow, but decks don't really deal with it well. Anguished Unmaking was just very awkward when I ran it.
Dark Confidant is a brave call in most Soul Sisters builds. Our life gain is good, but if you topdeck a Spectral or two, you really hurt yourself. That's not even counting if you run Archangel of Thune. It's certainly liveable (decks run Batterskull and other non-sense with Bob and do fine) but it can be scary.
For sure it's a different build, and I haven't tested it yet. With black you can run souls over spectral, and I have left the angel out. Here's my first draft:
I rarely win off serra ascendant anyway, it's usually swarm + honor. Between Bob, ranger, souls, and secure the wastes I've got a surprising amount of card advantage. Charm can re-cur ascendant or martyr at instant speed.
rogue's passage is a test card also. I can not tell you the number of games I have lost because a deck like kiki-chord or junk company clogged up the board and chumped a 23/23 pridemate for like 6 turns and then combo'd out... this should help mitigate that.
The deck's converted CC is 1.26, down there with Jund, so barring some really bad luck, bob should be fine. I could see running an archangel over the 3rd ascendant or the 2nd sorin. Most of the time I'd rather cast serra ascendant late and can just grab her with ranger, so 4 is overkill.
Martyr is much worse with no squawks AND with bob, so only 1 copy. To be honest I rarely have trouble hitting 30 with just sisters anyway, and people save their removal for pridemate/ascendant, so the sisters tend to live. Having Bob as a 3rd "must kill" should help my fatties have a greater chance of surviving.
Notes:
- I wish our deck can somehow deal with enchantments... Anguished is the card, but I'm not sure if I can play it consistently. We need something that can deal with planeswalkers and enchantments main deck. I believe it would help us a lot.
- I talked to a girl today who played Soul Sisters. She was 6-0 before losing today. I, myself, have never went 3-0 with this deck. She plays the traditional build. She said, she just likes to have a 6/6 on turn 2. I don't know, maybe I'll try the traditional build again.
curious what enchantments you're having problems with? Aside from a random leyline of punishment, I can't think of any that are a big problem, especially maindeck.
Anguished unmaking is certainly playable, but if you're splashing then there's a lot more you can get from black, particularly lingering souls. Lately, I've been contemplating moving away from martyr/squawks and replacing them with dark confidant and secure the wastes.
If you're staying mono-white and need an answer to walkers & enchantments, You could probably justify a singleton oblivion ring.
Hey guys, I've been playing Soul Sisters for almost over six months now and love it so much, in fact this primer
helped me build and learn how to play it! However, I think it could definitely be a 'tier 1' deck; I was hoping for some input on my take on the only deck I even bother playing... It's a Human Tribal version that abuses the new Humans from SOI. Since the core of Soul Sisters are all Human anyway, I figured that the new Humans would fit in very snugly. There was also other Humans we already had access to, like: Thalia, Champion and Mikaeus; the deck practically built itself! This version DECIMATES Control, which Sisters historically to very poorly against. I believe this version is more competitive against lot more of the field.
An interesting take on SS. I imagine this version would get some super explosive starts, but I think it would have trouble in the mid-late game. You've cut path to exile, which means you have almost no interaction, and honor of the pure, which makes all your 1/1's pretty poor topdeck. Champion, lieutenant, and captain are also bad topdeck if you're behind. I do like Mikaeus, though as a ranger target.
Cool idea. You'd need some form of enchantment hate or you just die to leyline of the void/rest in peace/wheel of sun and moon, ect. If you're already in green for feed the clan (a reasonable choice), then back to nature is probably your best bet. Annul would hit a lot of SB grave hate too. I wonder if you need something to deal with ooze, kalitas, anafenza, ect... could be you don't because you can just out-race those cards.
Hey guys, I read the primer and everything looks pretty good but I don't see many people exploring the thopter/sword combo.
I have a list I want to present, it splashes a few black sources just for the flashback on lingering souls. The idea behind this deck is a little less stack manipulation in exchange for more value.
Most people seem to play the combo pieces in reverse order, with more copies of Foundry than Sword which I think is incorrect. I've been playing the version with more Foundry and I feel bad every time I have to pitch it to Thirst for Knowledge and I hate ever seeing more than 1 copy. In a shell with very few artifacts the Foundry itself doesn't play a role until you are ready to combo off, so in those cases the numbers of each piece doesn't matter. However, playing Lingering Souls allows Thirst to be better and the Sword to be the more useful piece until the combo is ready. We can take advantage of this by not being afraid to pitch Sword early to Thirst and by playing Thought Scour. With 4 Sword and 3 Lingering Souls, Thought Scour is going to be an instant 1cmc 2-for-1 22% of the time. Scour also makes Snapcaster better, not only by fueling the yard with instants/sorceries, but by allowing an end-step value snapcaster targeting the scour itself.
I haven't got a sideboard plan yet, but what do you guys think?
I like the idea. Some thoughts (I'm no master deck-builder, so take it for what it's worth...)
- I think you want serum visions over thought scour, since it digs farther and scouring a thopter foundry into the yard would be frustrating.
- I'm unconvinced of the power of cryptic command here. More sweepers or removal might be better.
- Some number of kitchen finks and maybe another resto could be helpful. Provides life gain, chumpers, and a bit more Plan B when the combo doesn't work.
- Spellskite should be considered, maybe even mainboard.
- With all the draw, and especially if you reduce the number of counters in favor of removal and/or dudes, you could cut a couple lands.
- academy ruins for sure.
Most lists, yes. If one were to include lupine prototype, it would be in a list that did not include bridge, obviously.
I feel like if you want to play lupine prototype in 8-rack, you're better off either splashing green and playing tarmogoyf, or running tasigur/tombstalker
Yeah, Legacy replaced 1.5 directly, with no changes in philosophy. it is literally the same thing. I was playing during the creation of both, as were many on this thread.
There aren't a ton of high-dollar cards for several years after fallen empires, but you never know. if that's the majority of your cards, then it's just going to be a matter of how much effort and time you want to put in vs. just having a shop appraise your stuff and make an offer.
Better lucky than good!
I get it. I'm no pro, but I own and have played plenty of both legacy and modern. I need not be convinced of the complexity of either format, and I am not format bashing in any way whatsoever. I'm just saying, from the standpoint of a relatively infrequent and mediocre player, that I do better at legacy. One of the reasons is that, for me at least, it feels less complicated than modern. Others may feel the opposite, and that's cool... it's just an opinion.
On a separate note, delver is one of my favorite matchups for pox... It's amazing how often I can blow someone's mind by taking out every red source in their deck and stabilize at 2 life while they have multiple bolts in hand. This of course doesn't happen much against good opponents, but there you have it.
I think we agree on a lot.
Bottom line I think is that both modern and legacy are basically super-complicated. They are also wildly different, not just in the card pool and the decks, but also in the skill set. I see a lot of long-time legacy players who have dipped their toe into modern out of curiosity or because it's easier to find a tournament that fires every week who build something Tier 1, go like 1-4 a bunch of times in a row, and write modern off as a garbage format where luck rules all, where in reality it's just that their legacy knowledge doesn't apply and it's not enough to show up with a top deck. On the flip side, I see a lot of new legacy players build a sub-optimal deck or outright jank brew or borrow something they've never played from a friend, get turn 0'd by a TES nut draw and stomp off saying "yeah, legacy's just Herp, Derp, got force of will???"
In reality they are both extremely difficult to be good at, and it's even harder to be good at both. Add to that, a whole lot of both modern and legacy players are older and therefore have limited time to play (family, job, ect) so it's hard for someone who'd good at legacy to want to invest the time and energy getting good at modern, and vice-versa.
1) Modern is more synergy based and has a bazillion intra-deck interactions. Watching a really good player pilot Junk Company, Affinity, Orzhov D&T, Grixis control, or any number of other decks gives me a headache. To me, these decks are more complex to pilot than almost any legacy deck. There are triggers everywhere and sequencing is unbelievably critical. Also, you really have to know the other person's deck so you have a pretty good idea of their options. While legacy is certainly complex, I personally find the interactions to be simpler, at least once you're somewhat familiar with the format.
2) Modern's top tier has less overlap. There are a million rogue decks in legacy, but the vast majority of the field is probably Blue-based combo, blue-based delver, blue-based control, and "decks that beat blue decks" like D&T and Imperial Painter. I personally find this easier to play against than affinity, burn, jund, coco, GR tron, merfolk, kiki-chord, ect, which have surprisingly little overlap in lists.
3) Legacy's consistency makes it easier to play in my mind. It seems like delver can always brainstorm/ponder into FOW/daze, flip the delver and go. It can run on 2 mana if it has to. Modern has no brainstorm to grab what you need every time and it has no FOW to act as a free panic button. I see good players overcome this lack of consistency by knowing their deck. It's true that the best modern players will lose to variance more often than the best legacy players, but I feel that the modern player has a greater opportunity to make skill-based gains.
Standard, IMO, is just simple and boring. Super high variance and you're locked into a tiny handful of lists.
As a side note, I'd like to say I think the most skill-intensive format, by miles, is booster draft. Coincidentally, I am terrible at it.
These are all just my opinions of course.
That is the shorter, and very accurate version of what I was trying to say. Most legacy scenes really aren't that competitive (even when 75% of the room is running top tier decks), because most of the players at most shops (even legacy shops) aren't half as good as they think they are, and anyone who's somewhat decent and legacy experienced will stomp the newbies. Big events are similar, it's just that the "skilled" player at the LGS might be the "newbie" at the big event.
This is sort of how I've seen things work:
- The best legacy players are the ones who have played the most legacy for the longest amount of time.
- The best modern players are the ones who stick to a single deck every week.
- The best standard players are the ones who are both able to play competitively several days a week and willing to spend whatever they have to get the best cards the minute they come out.
Just like to say I think this is a bigger part of it than a lot of legacy players realize. I am a self-admitted mediocre player at best, but I usually do fairly well at legacy. While I'd like to say it's my mad skills, it's probably that a lot of opponents have sub-optimal lists or brews, or they are people borrowing a deck from a friend, or they're new to their deck and therefore otherwise not skilled. I usually lose to the people who play every week with the same deck. I also usually play loam pox, which can be frustrating to play against and is nothing like anything in standard or modern, and it throws people off.
In modern on the other hand, I tend to do way worse, even when I'm playing something tier 1. I think it's because there's just way more people in the room also playing Tier 1 or 2 lists and who know what they are doing.
It's not that modern is more skill-intensive, it's just that the players around me are more highly skilled.
For sure it's a different build, and I haven't tested it yet. With black you can run souls over spectral, and I have left the angel out. Here's my first draft:
4 ajani's pridemate
3 soul warden
4 soul's attendant
4 dark confidant
3 secure the wastes
3 lingering souls
1 martyr of sands
4 ranger of eos
4 honor of the pure
2 path to exile
2 orzhov charm
1 vault of the archangel
1 swamp
4 godless shrine
2 isolated chapel
2 shambling vent
6 plains
2 rogue's passage
4 marsh flats
I rarely win off serra ascendant anyway, it's usually swarm + honor. Between Bob, ranger, souls, and secure the wastes I've got a surprising amount of card advantage. Charm can re-cur ascendant or martyr at instant speed.
rogue's passage is a test card also. I can not tell you the number of games I have lost because a deck like kiki-chord or junk company clogged up the board and chumped a 23/23 pridemate for like 6 turns and then combo'd out... this should help mitigate that.
The deck's converted CC is 1.26, down there with Jund, so barring some really bad luck, bob should be fine. I could see running an archangel over the 3rd ascendant or the 2nd sorin. Most of the time I'd rather cast serra ascendant late and can just grab her with ranger, so 4 is overkill.
Martyr is much worse with no squawks AND with bob, so only 1 copy. To be honest I rarely have trouble hitting 30 with just sisters anyway, and people save their removal for pridemate/ascendant, so the sisters tend to live. Having Bob as a 3rd "must kill" should help my fatties have a greater chance of surviving.
curious what enchantments you're having problems with? Aside from a random leyline of punishment, I can't think of any that are a big problem, especially maindeck.
Anguished unmaking is certainly playable, but if you're splashing then there's a lot more you can get from black, particularly lingering souls. Lately, I've been contemplating moving away from martyr/squawks and replacing them with dark confidant and secure the wastes.
If you're staying mono-white and need an answer to walkers & enchantments, You could probably justify a singleton oblivion ring.
An interesting take on SS. I imagine this version would get some super explosive starts, but I think it would have trouble in the mid-late game. You've cut path to exile, which means you have almost no interaction, and honor of the pure, which makes all your 1/1's pretty poor topdeck. Champion, lieutenant, and captain are also bad topdeck if you're behind. I do like Mikaeus, though as a ranger target.
I like the idea. Some thoughts (I'm no master deck-builder, so take it for what it's worth...)
- I think you want serum visions over thought scour, since it digs farther and scouring a thopter foundry into the yard would be frustrating.
- I'm unconvinced of the power of cryptic command here. More sweepers or removal might be better.
- Some number of kitchen finks and maybe another resto could be helpful. Provides life gain, chumpers, and a bit more Plan B when the combo doesn't work.
- Spellskite should be considered, maybe even mainboard.
- With all the draw, and especially if you reduce the number of counters in favor of removal and/or dudes, you could cut a couple lands.
- academy ruins for sure.