Angel handels a full board where chalice handle a full hand.
For example vs infect, bogles, affinity an angel is most of the time better than a chlaice.
But...i recently cutted my angel aswell. Still mixed feelings about it. so far in 4 rounds it was twice irrelevant, once would havr angel been better and once my wce was better.
I have also debated cutting Angel, but, as others have noted, there are matchups where a resolved Angel is game. I have played those matches where I resolve the Angel and the opponent scoops on the spot.
I have also played matches where a resolved Chalice ends the game on the spot. I've also had games where Chalice is quite weak.
If you look at these UTron decklists, you'll notice a significant number of 1 offs because there are so many matchups where these 1 offs can just end the game. Conversely, there are many matchups where these 1 offs are useless. In those matchups, the artifacts serve as discard fodder for Thirst to generate significant card advantage over the opponent.
You can look at things like Angel and Chalice and debate it back and forth until the cows come home because each has amazing utility in certain matchups and is just garbage in others. At the end of the day, both are great in the main board for fulfilling the mission of UTron.
To read this thread, one would believe that Magic is coming to an end at any moment...
Interest in hobbies ebbs and flows. Certainly there has been quite a bit flowing away from MTG at this point in time, as sets have become poorer quality (on many different fronts) and the player numbers hit an all time high a few years ago. However, relatively speaking, things haven't been poor for a "long" time and there is plenty of opportunity to 'right the ship'.
The reinstatement of the Modern Pro Tour, the improvement of the transparency in the ban/unban decisions, the creation of a new online client are all potentially very positive things.
All of the speculative downside people are talking about with the creation of Arena and the possible elimination of MTGO is simply that, speculative.
It appears that GP and regional event numbers are still quite good. Decklists are quite diverse, with many different types of decks making appearances in the top 8 lists. Etc. etc.
At the end of the game, I always shake hands, give a smile, and comment on how much I admire the oppressiveness of the Lantern lock. My rant was more at the fact that the Lantern players I have played act all apologetic, like a bad puppy, because they know their deck is meant to be oppressive and so on and so forth. I'd rather have you own it and show me the power of your deck.
I don't care one way or the other about Lantern, but I really dislike this idea that Lantern is somehow uniquely "oppressive," or worse (as suggested earlier), "not real Magic." One of the main points of giant, nonrotating formats is to play a diverse selection of offbeat strategies and wild interactions. THAT is Magic. In fact, that combination of cards to create something new and interesting is Magic at its core. Lantern is no more/less Magic than any other deck that accomplishes this. Players who dislike that should not play Modern. Of course, if Lantern is creating logistical issues (it isn't), then that is another issue. But no one is really making that argument in a serious way; it's just "Lantern feels mean to me!" and variants thereof.
I agree wholeheartedly and think we're talking around each other a bit here. I don't believe the deck is oppressive in an un-fun, un-magic way, or that it's strategy is antithetical to the concept of Magic. It's a deck that is meant to stop the opponent from acting and win by completely imprisoning the opponent, stopping them from acting in any meaningful way, essentially. I am totally fine with that strategy, concept, play style, etc.
It is 1 of a myriad of ways to "play" the game. My gripe is with people that offer faux apologies about the manner in which their deck operates. I most often see this with Lantern players because it is the most commonly played and strongest "prison" style deck and it's sole purpose and, often, only win con is complete imprisonment of the opponent that eventually mills the opponent to death. It's a long, slow affair.
If you make a deck, own it. Own the strategy. Likewise, realize that I and others will make you play your deck to ultimate end and don't be upset that you have to go through the long, drawn out process of doing so, when you created a deck with such a slow clock.
That's all I'm getting at. I love the concept and strategy. Like I said, I'm building into a lantern deck, albeit, slowly, because I think it's a cool concept. Just don't apologize for the fact that your deck operates the way it does, when you're the one who built it.
I once asked a Lantern player, half jokingly, "Look, I understand that you hate yourself, and I'm fine with that, but why do you have to bring me into it?"
At FNM, I'll probably scoop against Lantern. At a tournament? Playing that out, since it only takes a single screw up for me to be able to just kill them.
Like sure, I understand that. I understand the idea behind trying to edge out that small percent chance that the Lantern player screws up and you win.
Hell here is one mistake I made in my early days of playing the deck that my one friend to this day still won't let me forget.
I was playing against Burn, we're on game 3 and I'm at 3 life. I have 3 Codex Shredders and a Pyxis in play as well as an Ensnaring Bridge and my opponent has an Eidolon on the battlefield. I put blinders on basically, trying to just reflex mill every burn spell I saw on the top of his deck. In the process I used my Pyxis to exile the Leyline of Sanctity on top of my deck which would have given my opponent exactly 0 ways to win the game from that point. My opponent then ended up getting a burn spell through my mill effects and beat me.
So yeah, a Lantern player CAN make a mistake that will cost them the game. And if you think it is possible for you to win the game, then by all means, lets play it out and see what happens.
HOWEVER
What I will absolutely not tolerate is the kind of behaviour I see at every Comp REL tournament I have been in. That attitude of, "I know I can't win this game, but I'd rather give the Lantern player a draw than a win." The attitude where I have to call a Judge for slow play, because even though I am only letting my opponent draw lands, he still sits and considers his hand for 45 seconds to a minute every turn. The attitude where because they have a completely stupid, and extremely childish hatred for this deck. Which they (in my opinion) only have because they can't bother, or are unable, to grasp the inner workings of it and realize how exactly it wins games. The attitude where they need to try and not only make their Lantern opponent miserable, but make them feel like they deserve to be miserable.
People say they hate big mana decks like Tron.
People say they hate uninteractive combo like Storm.
People say they hate mindless aggro like Affinity.
But none of those players have their opponents try to make them feel emotionally ashamed for their deck choices.
Rant Ended
So in conclusion:
1. If you choose to play out a game with a person playing Lantern Control, do it because you actually think there is a chance you can win.
2. When you are done the game, be gracious in defeat or victory and congratulate your opponent on a game well played, without any snide remarks on the deck that happen to be playing.
3. Try not to make your opponent feel like they need to be completely miserable because they chose to play Lantern Control.
Agree, that there should be no animosity. I don't make them play it out and then rub their nose in it like a bad puppy that crapped on the floor. I don't comment on it, along the lines of, "I know you have the lock, but I'm not going to concede to prove a point..." I play the game out because, in some of my decks, I certainly do have a variety of answers we might run into.
At the end of the game, I always shake hands, give a smile, and comment on how much I admire the oppressiveness of the Lantern lock. My rant was more at the fact that the Lantern players I have played act all apologetic, like a bad puppy, because they know their deck is meant to be oppressive and so on and so forth. I'd rather have you own it and show me the power of your deck.
I think the bigger problem with Lantern is the player of the deck. The faux apologies over playing a deck they know is oppressive, in the sense that it prevents the opponent from doing anything, when fully executed. Which is then met with incredulity when I make you play out the game, which inevitably results in going to time and a draw.
"What? You have the lock? Okay, prove it by milling me out and actually winning."
Sorry, but I'm not going to scoop and let you get away with not playing the game out. Going to a draw is just fine with me. You chose the deck and now you'd better play out the game, using the strategy your deck was designed to execute. I don't want to hear the stupid apologies about how your deck operates or your whining when I don't scoop to your lock. You built the deck and chose to play it, so play it.
I think lantern is a cool deck and one that I am passively building towards. When you're playing lantern though, just own that your goal is to deny the opponent the ability to "play" magic.
/Rant
I started this comment by creating a snide, recreation of your post, only from the Lantern player's point of view. But that gets us nowhere. So instead I will ask a simple question.
Why would you refuse to concede to Lantern?
If you were playing against Burn and you were at 2 life with your opponent having an Eidolon of the Great Revel in play, would you concede if you knew you had no life gain and your only way to get rid of Eidolon was a spell that cost 3 or less?
If you were playing against GDS and you were facing a Death's Shadow that would kill you in 2 turns and you knew you had no cards left in your deck to kill it, would you concede?
When your opponent plays a Spaceshift with 8 lands in play do you make them play it out, or do you concede to save time?
If your answer if no to all of the above, then we have no problems. If you are willing to fully play out every single scenario in which your chances of winning the game are virtually or literally 0%, then sure. Make Lantern mill you out, I have no problems with you.
However if you said yes to any of the above, then I need to wonder why you have this stupid vendetta against Lantern Control. And I'm not trying to single you out, a lot of people are like this. But you're the one who made the rant post.
There are a few differences in those scenarios from the lantern one, but, ultimately, my answer is, "yes". I want to see the game played out and for there to be finality to it, regardless of the inevitability. However, in the scenarios you provided, you're looking at a 1 - 2 turn clock. I'm unlikely to draw any answers in that time and, if I don't, big whoop, it took 30 seconds to get through those turns.
In the lantern example, you could set the lock up and there could be 40 turns left.
Also, the fundamental strategy, as noted by other subsequent posts, of Lantern is to deny the opponent the ability to do anything, while milling them to death. That's what you signed up for as the Lantern player and that's what you'll do to get the win. The other examples you provided are nothing like that. The most similar may be the Valakut example, in that it's a linear combo that doesn't really care what the other player is doing, it just needs to get to a certain board and hand state to create a winning combo / lock. Once that state is created, the game is over in 1 - 2 turns and yes, I will sill have them play it out because mistakes do happen. They may miss a trigger, they may sequence wrong, etc. etc.
Perfect example is Storm. I've had storm players start going off and where other people would have scooped, I let them go. They then screwed up their sequencing and combo, resulting in a fizzle. I then turned the game and won.
So, yes, I have players play out the win, even if a lock or combo is created because I want to see their deck fully engaged and I want to make sure they actually know how to play their deck. The deck they created and desired to play.
I play U-Tron. When I create a Mindslaver lock, I let the other player know and give them option to scoop, play through, and to ask questions/talk through the scenario. If they opt to play through, we do and I look for other ways to make the game end quicker while I engage the lock, if I can.
Lantern doesn't have that option. I have not run across a single lantern deck that, once the lock is established, that has any other win con than just milling.
Modern is the best format right now, it has everything they envisioned, multiple decks, different archetypes, open to brewers etc.
Modern, in terms of openness and deck choices is amazing at the moment. There are viable aggro, control, midrange and combo decks, which is great. It is (and always has been) by far my favorite format.
What bothers me a bit about the format is the amount of decks that feel "dumb" to play against, like Tron or Dredge. I want to make meaningful decisions in my games, not hope that my opponent won't be able to goldfish quickly enough or that I draw my sideboard cards. I like games that are a back-and-forth battle and have many moments where you need to stop to think for a bit before you make your next move, and there are too many decks where such situations are rare, at least for my taste.
Also, I feel like Lantern is the best deck right now. Sure, it's hard to play and interesting to play against if you can interact with it in some way - but I know how miserable it can make people feel, since I sometimes play with it myself. What bothers me about it is the "Rule-Changing" aspect of Ensnaring Bridge: "What, you play creatures? pfff. Those don't work any more! What are you even doing?". It's like playing a different game, even though people came to play magic.
I think the bigger problem with Lantern is the player of the deck. The faux apologies over playing a deck they know is oppressive, in the sense that it prevents the opponent from doing anything, when fully executed. Which is then met with incredulity when I make you play out the game, which inevitably results in going to time and a draw.
"What? You have the lock? Okay, prove it by milling me out and actually winning."
Sorry, but I'm not going to scoop and let you get away with not playing the game out. Going to a draw is just fine with me. You chose the deck and now you'd better play out the game, using the strategy your deck was designed to execute. I don't want to hear the stupid apologies about how your deck operates or your whining when I don't scoop to your lock. You built the deck and chose to play it, so play it.
I think lantern is a cool deck and one that I am passively building towards. When you're playing lantern though, just own that your goal is to deny the opponent the ability to "play" magic.
/Rant
In regards to the Modern meta, I agree, there are numerous viable strategies. Meaning, there are many decks that have an opportunity to win a given tournament. I personally like that. Yes, sideboarding is harder, because you have a more diverse threat pool to guard against, which in turn creates the feeling of a "matchup lottery", but that's part of the fun. Finding sideboard cards that are wide enough to deal with the diverse threats that exist in the overall meta. It means the deck tinkering is never really complete.
I can't speak to Living End, but v Dredge, necessary. If they can't operate out of the GY, they're unlikely to fire at all, since you'll keep the land situation so low for them. My buddy plays Dredge and post sideboard, if there's GY hate available, it wreaks havoc on his plans. It's a rough matchup in general, because our strategy plays into exactly what they want, making the GY hate necessary. A Surgical or 2 isn't going to get you there, which is why you need something like a Spellbomb to clear the whole yard.
I've just picked up the cards for the decks this week and I am looking to play it in two tourneys this weekend. Right now I've just build the Tom Ross list from his article a couple months back. I think I like it as a starting point and would not want to change to much. I am considering changing the sideboard a little bit though. I don't really think leyline is enough to fix our graveyard matchups (living end, dredge), nor do I expect those matchups to be popular. I also feel I might need a little bit of crutch for the aggro matchups until I've gotten more experience with the deck. So therefore I'm considering adding a third Bontu's, a night of souls betrayal and maybe two surgicals to still have some form of graveyard hate. Any thoughts on this? Or should I just forego the yard hate entirely? I'm usually the dredge player myself and I'm not expecting any others at this tournament. Mostly expecting storm, UW control, some Shadow and some flavours of tron.
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
Current Sideboard
1 Asylum Visitor
2 Death's Shadow
4 Leyline of the Void
1 Fatal Push
1 Shadow of Doubt
2 Bontu's Last Reckoning
4 Delirium Skeins
I would dump the Shadow of Doubt for the 3rd Bontu's, personally. Night of Souls' Betrayal is a sweet card, just not in the deck. The CMC is too high for where you'll be. Getting to 4 mana can be troublesome, some matches, which is what makes Leyline a bit dangerous as well. If you don't have it in the opening hand, getting it on the board will be rough. Several lists have moved to Surgicals, as you suggested, and Nihil Spellbomb. My personal preference is for a split of those 2 cards, instead of the Leylines.
Otherwise, I think you're at a good starting point and will just need practice with the deck, understanding what to take, sequencing/timing, etc. Good luck!
I think the point is, fabricate has been discussed ad naseum on here and the general conclusion is, it's an unnecessary addition because the mages (trinket, treasure, etc) offer the tutor ability you need + a creature body. Thus, in this deck they are better and fulfill the role you're using fabricate for.
For generating card advantage, fabricate is also overshadowed completely by tons of other options.
Therefore, devoting space to fabricate is a suboptimal choice because it is occupying space that is needed by other cards, while fulfilling a role that is accomplished more efficiently by a number of other cards.
I went 3-1 overall for the evening (6-3 for games).
Match 1 - Goat Tribal (2 - 0)
- Game 1: He got mana screwed, not that it would have mattered much... He sat on 1 mana for about 4 turns, allowing me to get a Mindslaver off T4 without any concern. From there, I landed big creature threats and lit up the board.
- Game 2: He had better luck with his mana, but I ran into a bunch of board removal and counter. The board stayed empty, but for his few enchantments that he couldn't get to run with me not allowing creatures to enter or stay on the field on his side.
There wasn't much takeaway from this Match, as his kitchen table Goat Tribal deck was no match for the machine...
Match 2 - Grixis Drelver (0 - 2)
- Game 1: He seemed to have a perfect hand and draw scheme going, meanwhile I had a few different issues with missing land drops and not finding the cards I wanted for the lands I did have.
- Game 2: He had a fairly slow start, not really starting to ramp until T3. This gave me the time I needed to have my counter engine online and I kept the game tight and flowing in a controlled state. Unfortunately, I made a terribly huge misplay, to cap off a few smaller misplays, and lost the game/match. With lethal on board and the appropriate bounce spells/counters in hand, I sequenced the attack and bounce incorrectly, allowing him to counter swing for lethal. A head shaking/bashing misplay on multiple turns leading up to that loss. I deserved it.
Side In - Dismember (2), Hangarback Walker, Sundering Titan, Tectonic Edge
Side Out - Gifts Ungiven, Platinum Angel, Gemstone Caverns, Spell Burst, Torrential Gearhulk
This match should have gone to Game 3, but I lost Game 2. The match felt fairly even overall, if not slightly in my favor, after sideboarding.
Match 3 - Merfolk (3 - 1)
- Game 1: A very tight game. I was able to survive the initial Merfolk flood, getting Tron online by T4. From there, I overloaded a Rift and kept his side of the board fairly clean, until I ran out of bounce, counter, and didn't hit any of my draw engines. I was just barely able to get in for lethal.
- Game 2: I YOLO'ed an Ugin T4, while he only had 1 mana open, right into a Ceremonious Rejection... From there, I again made a few blunders, akin to the prior Delver match, involving a Gifts Ungiven, Engineered Explosives, and so on. Ultimately, he eked out a victory.
- Game 3: I ran out a Platinum Angel T3, while he was completely tapped out. This was swiftly met with, "Whelp, that's game. I have no way to deal with that." He went on to explain he sided-out his only answer to a resolved Angel, hoping I wouldn't hit it. Quickest game I've ever played on Tron...
Side In - Hangarback Walker, Dismember (2), Tectonic Edge
Side Out - Gifts Ungiven, Spell Burst, Mindslaver, Gemstone Caverns
This was a better matchup than I anticipated. It felt far more even/favorable than I would have imagined.
Match 4 - Merfolk (Homebrew) (2 - 0)
- Game 1: He couldn't generate near enough threats to make me concerned and I just went in with creature beats.
- Game 2: Again, he couldn't generate near enough threats. With 2 Mindslavers in hand and not enough for the lock, I started the chain, hoping to run into a draw that would get me the land I needed. Activated Mindslaver 1, drew into the land I needed, and started the lock with Mindslaver 2. Enter the humorous exchange of, "So, you're just going to continue to control my turn over and over?" "Correct. I'll control you on a loop until you either mill yourself with turns or I find a way to kill you with your own deck..." "Oh...okay..." I waited a second, expecting a scoop, but no dice! As it was getting late and I had creature threats in hand, I locked him out for 2 more turns, until the board and his hand were at a point that I could YOLO beats without concern.
Again, not much takeaway from this matchup, as his homebrew deck wasn't any concern... Not exactly sure how he pulled off 2 wins with this deck in the first place.
Overall takeaways:
1) I had toyed around with Search for Azcanta against my buddy who plays Free Win Red and UW Control/Poly. Against those 2 grindy control decks, the card was amazing. Versus the decks I played at the LGS, I'm glad I removed it from the deck. There was absolutely no need or desire for that card against the creature based decks I faced. This will remain out of the deck and may only enter as a SB addition in the future.
2) Creature removal felt decent, but I wanted more board wipe. In the delver matchup, post side-board, I felt that I had the appropriate amount of bounce, removal, and wipe, for the most part. Another EE would have been good, but that's likely due to me completely dorking up that play sequence in the first place. Against Merfolk though, I would have definitely appreciated another EE. I'm going to throw an EE in the side. My personal feeling is that small creature aggro decks are the most difficult matchups (Affinity, Merfolk, Elves, etc.). I'd rather dump the Hurkyl's Recall for another EE to deal with those matchups.
3) Chalice of the Void...where were you?!?! Do you know how many 1 CMC cards Delver has in the deck? A metric s-ton. Do you know how many 2 drops Merfolk has in the deck? Same answer. I would very much liked to have actually seen a Chalice during either of those games. A single copy wasn't cutting it. Whether to run 2 MB or mix it up, I'm unsure at this point, but I definitely think that at least 2 should be in the deck.
4) Gifts Ungiven was underwhelming. I've played with Epiphany at the Drownyard as well and I'm not a fan of my opponent choosing the cards, but Gifts definitely felt like a crappier choice of those 2 cards. With Epiphany, I at least get to make the piles, but my card choice is potentially limited by not being able to search, but rather flip over cards from the top. Nonetheless, I never found myself hoping for either card to appear or missing that Gifts didn't appear or that Epiphany wasn't in the deck. The number of draw engines and tutors without either Epiphany or Gifts in the deck feels just fine.
5) Spatial Contortion MB was actually a surprising improvement (though maybe not surprising given the matchups). Having the spot removal MB that can also double as a Wurmcoil buff was a welcome addition. Previously I did not play it MB, but kept it in the side with 2 x Dismember, opting for more bounce and counter options in the MB. I think I'll continue with it MB to see how it fares for a greater variety of matchups.
I also removed the solemn. I realize he's great value, but I've never been happy or excited that i drew him. I see shok has also removed solemn in his latest lists.
Haven't read through the forum, but would it be okay to get rid of small pox. Add ensnaring bridge. And splash green for ancient stirrings.helos you find your lock and kill. And than we have a green splash for decay, pulse . I'm fairly new to the deck. But since ancient stirrings is just crazy, I was wondering if it fit.
Smallpox is such an integral part to the deck, in my opinion. It's a 3 for one, in that it destroys a land, kills a creature, and takes a card from their hand (yes, a point of life too). It keeps all of their resources and threats low in every state of play. It almost seems like heresy to cut it.
Other, potentially better targets would probably be Wrench Mind and some of your creature removal package, if you're looking to avoid creature threats through Ensnaring Bridge, rather than removal.
The problem that many people, I think, see and experience with Bridge is that you put too much reliance on it protecting you, weakening your survivability if you fail to find or protect it. Game 2, many people board in Artifact hate to deal with The Rack, making Bridge even more susceptible too. Which is why Tom Ross and other top 8 8Rack decks don't run Bridge.
However, give it a shot and it may work for you in a brew that not many have tried or at least haven't reported results about.
What does everyone thing of 3 Dark confidant in SB? Against trobulesome decks that are hard to discard like any variants of Tron. And also Lantern control, considering its rise in popularity. Opponents will side out most of the creature removal, making bob stick to the board. Plus it acts as an wincon against lantern with no bridges postboard.
Asylum Visitor fills that roll, arguably better than Bob, and was in the SCG Classic decks of the 8rack players that were in the Top8
I have also debated cutting Angel, but, as others have noted, there are matchups where a resolved Angel is game. I have played those matches where I resolve the Angel and the opponent scoops on the spot.
I have also played matches where a resolved Chalice ends the game on the spot. I've also had games where Chalice is quite weak.
If you look at these UTron decklists, you'll notice a significant number of 1 offs because there are so many matchups where these 1 offs can just end the game. Conversely, there are many matchups where these 1 offs are useless. In those matchups, the artifacts serve as discard fodder for Thirst to generate significant card advantage over the opponent.
You can look at things like Angel and Chalice and debate it back and forth until the cows come home because each has amazing utility in certain matchups and is just garbage in others. At the end of the day, both are great in the main board for fulfilling the mission of UTron.
Interest in hobbies ebbs and flows. Certainly there has been quite a bit flowing away from MTG at this point in time, as sets have become poorer quality (on many different fronts) and the player numbers hit an all time high a few years ago. However, relatively speaking, things haven't been poor for a "long" time and there is plenty of opportunity to 'right the ship'.
The reinstatement of the Modern Pro Tour, the improvement of the transparency in the ban/unban decisions, the creation of a new online client are all potentially very positive things.
All of the speculative downside people are talking about with the creation of Arena and the possible elimination of MTGO is simply that, speculative.
It appears that GP and regional event numbers are still quite good. Decklists are quite diverse, with many different types of decks making appearances in the top 8 lists. Etc. etc.
The sky really isn't on fire just yet fellas.
I agree wholeheartedly and think we're talking around each other a bit here. I don't believe the deck is oppressive in an un-fun, un-magic way, or that it's strategy is antithetical to the concept of Magic. It's a deck that is meant to stop the opponent from acting and win by completely imprisoning the opponent, stopping them from acting in any meaningful way, essentially. I am totally fine with that strategy, concept, play style, etc.
It is 1 of a myriad of ways to "play" the game. My gripe is with people that offer faux apologies about the manner in which their deck operates. I most often see this with Lantern players because it is the most commonly played and strongest "prison" style deck and it's sole purpose and, often, only win con is complete imprisonment of the opponent that eventually mills the opponent to death. It's a long, slow affair.
If you make a deck, own it. Own the strategy. Likewise, realize that I and others will make you play your deck to ultimate end and don't be upset that you have to go through the long, drawn out process of doing so, when you created a deck with such a slow clock.
That's all I'm getting at. I love the concept and strategy. Like I said, I'm building into a lantern deck, albeit, slowly, because I think it's a cool concept. Just don't apologize for the fact that your deck operates the way it does, when you're the one who built it.
Agree, that there should be no animosity. I don't make them play it out and then rub their nose in it like a bad puppy that crapped on the floor. I don't comment on it, along the lines of, "I know you have the lock, but I'm not going to concede to prove a point..." I play the game out because, in some of my decks, I certainly do have a variety of answers we might run into.
At the end of the game, I always shake hands, give a smile, and comment on how much I admire the oppressiveness of the Lantern lock. My rant was more at the fact that the Lantern players I have played act all apologetic, like a bad puppy, because they know their deck is meant to be oppressive and so on and so forth. I'd rather have you own it and show me the power of your deck.
There are a few differences in those scenarios from the lantern one, but, ultimately, my answer is, "yes". I want to see the game played out and for there to be finality to it, regardless of the inevitability. However, in the scenarios you provided, you're looking at a 1 - 2 turn clock. I'm unlikely to draw any answers in that time and, if I don't, big whoop, it took 30 seconds to get through those turns.
In the lantern example, you could set the lock up and there could be 40 turns left.
Also, the fundamental strategy, as noted by other subsequent posts, of Lantern is to deny the opponent the ability to do anything, while milling them to death. That's what you signed up for as the Lantern player and that's what you'll do to get the win. The other examples you provided are nothing like that. The most similar may be the Valakut example, in that it's a linear combo that doesn't really care what the other player is doing, it just needs to get to a certain board and hand state to create a winning combo / lock. Once that state is created, the game is over in 1 - 2 turns and yes, I will sill have them play it out because mistakes do happen. They may miss a trigger, they may sequence wrong, etc. etc.
Perfect example is Storm. I've had storm players start going off and where other people would have scooped, I let them go. They then screwed up their sequencing and combo, resulting in a fizzle. I then turned the game and won.
So, yes, I have players play out the win, even if a lock or combo is created because I want to see their deck fully engaged and I want to make sure they actually know how to play their deck. The deck they created and desired to play.
I play U-Tron. When I create a Mindslaver lock, I let the other player know and give them option to scoop, play through, and to ask questions/talk through the scenario. If they opt to play through, we do and I look for other ways to make the game end quicker while I engage the lock, if I can.
Lantern doesn't have that option. I have not run across a single lantern deck that, once the lock is established, that has any other win con than just milling.
I think the bigger problem with Lantern is the player of the deck. The faux apologies over playing a deck they know is oppressive, in the sense that it prevents the opponent from doing anything, when fully executed. Which is then met with incredulity when I make you play out the game, which inevitably results in going to time and a draw.
"What? You have the lock? Okay, prove it by milling me out and actually winning."
Sorry, but I'm not going to scoop and let you get away with not playing the game out. Going to a draw is just fine with me. You chose the deck and now you'd better play out the game, using the strategy your deck was designed to execute. I don't want to hear the stupid apologies about how your deck operates or your whining when I don't scoop to your lock. You built the deck and chose to play it, so play it.
I think lantern is a cool deck and one that I am passively building towards. When you're playing lantern though, just own that your goal is to deny the opponent the ability to "play" magic.
/Rant
In regards to the Modern meta, I agree, there are numerous viable strategies. Meaning, there are many decks that have an opportunity to win a given tournament. I personally like that. Yes, sideboarding is harder, because you have a more diverse threat pool to guard against, which in turn creates the feeling of a "matchup lottery", but that's part of the fun. Finding sideboard cards that are wide enough to deal with the diverse threats that exist in the overall meta. It means the deck tinkering is never really complete.
I would dump the Shadow of Doubt for the 3rd Bontu's, personally. Night of Souls' Betrayal is a sweet card, just not in the deck. The CMC is too high for where you'll be. Getting to 4 mana can be troublesome, some matches, which is what makes Leyline a bit dangerous as well. If you don't have it in the opening hand, getting it on the board will be rough. Several lists have moved to Surgicals, as you suggested, and Nihil Spellbomb. My personal preference is for a split of those 2 cards, instead of the Leylines.
Otherwise, I think you're at a good starting point and will just need practice with the deck, understanding what to take, sequencing/timing, etc. Good luck!
For generating card advantage, fabricate is also overshadowed completely by tons of other options.
Therefore, devoting space to fabricate is a suboptimal choice because it is occupying space that is needed by other cards, while fulfilling a role that is accomplished more efficiently by a number of other cards.
Way too high on the mana curve, but a cool card.
1 Platinum Angel
1 Snapcaster Mage
1 Solemn Simulacrum
1 Torrential Gearhulk
1 Treasure Mage
1 Trinket Mage
1 Walking Ballista
2 Wurmcoil Engine
Instants (18):
4 Condescend
1 Cyclonic Rift
1 Gifts Ungiven
2 Remand
2 Repeal
2 Spatial Contortion
1 Spell Burst
1 Supreme Will
4 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Chalice of the Void
1 Engineered Explosives
4 Expedition Map
1 Mindslaver
1 Oblivion Stone
Planeswalkers (1):
1 Ugin, the Spirit Dragon
Lands (24):
1 Academy Ruins
1 Field of Ruin
1 Gemstone Caverns
6 Island
1 Oboro, Palace in the Coulds
1 River of Tears
1 Tolaria West
4 Urza's Mine
4 Urza's Power Plan
4 Urza's Tower
1 Hangarback Walker
1 Sundering Titan
2 Dismember
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Negate
1 Spell Snare
1 Squelch
2 Summary Dismissal
2 Grafdigger's Cage
1 Mindslaver
1 Gemstone Caverns
1 Tectonic Edge
I went 3-1 overall for the evening (6-3 for games).
Match 1 - Goat Tribal (2 - 0)
- Game 1: He got mana screwed, not that it would have mattered much... He sat on 1 mana for about 4 turns, allowing me to get a Mindslaver off T4 without any concern. From there, I landed big creature threats and lit up the board.
- Game 2: He had better luck with his mana, but I ran into a bunch of board removal and counter. The board stayed empty, but for his few enchantments that he couldn't get to run with me not allowing creatures to enter or stay on the field on his side.
There wasn't much takeaway from this Match, as his kitchen table Goat Tribal deck was no match for the machine...
Match 2 - Grixis Drelver (0 - 2)
- Game 1: He seemed to have a perfect hand and draw scheme going, meanwhile I had a few different issues with missing land drops and not finding the cards I wanted for the lands I did have.
- Game 2: He had a fairly slow start, not really starting to ramp until T3. This gave me the time I needed to have my counter engine online and I kept the game tight and flowing in a controlled state. Unfortunately, I made a terribly huge misplay, to cap off a few smaller misplays, and lost the game/match. With lethal on board and the appropriate bounce spells/counters in hand, I sequenced the attack and bounce incorrectly, allowing him to counter swing for lethal. A head shaking/bashing misplay on multiple turns leading up to that loss. I deserved it.
Side In - Dismember (2), Hangarback Walker, Sundering Titan, Tectonic Edge
Side Out - Gifts Ungiven, Platinum Angel, Gemstone Caverns, Spell Burst, Torrential Gearhulk
This match should have gone to Game 3, but I lost Game 2. The match felt fairly even overall, if not slightly in my favor, after sideboarding.
Match 3 - Merfolk (3 - 1)
- Game 1: A very tight game. I was able to survive the initial Merfolk flood, getting Tron online by T4. From there, I overloaded a Rift and kept his side of the board fairly clean, until I ran out of bounce, counter, and didn't hit any of my draw engines. I was just barely able to get in for lethal.
- Game 2: I YOLO'ed an Ugin T4, while he only had 1 mana open, right into a Ceremonious Rejection... From there, I again made a few blunders, akin to the prior Delver match, involving a Gifts Ungiven, Engineered Explosives, and so on. Ultimately, he eked out a victory.
- Game 3: I ran out a Platinum Angel T3, while he was completely tapped out. This was swiftly met with, "Whelp, that's game. I have no way to deal with that." He went on to explain he sided-out his only answer to a resolved Angel, hoping I wouldn't hit it. Quickest game I've ever played on Tron...
Side In - Hangarback Walker, Dismember (2), Tectonic Edge
Side Out - Gifts Ungiven, Spell Burst, Mindslaver, Gemstone Caverns
This was a better matchup than I anticipated. It felt far more even/favorable than I would have imagined.
Match 4 - Merfolk (Homebrew) (2 - 0)
- Game 1: He couldn't generate near enough threats to make me concerned and I just went in with creature beats.
- Game 2: Again, he couldn't generate near enough threats. With 2 Mindslavers in hand and not enough for the lock, I started the chain, hoping to run into a draw that would get me the land I needed. Activated Mindslaver 1, drew into the land I needed, and started the lock with Mindslaver 2. Enter the humorous exchange of, "So, you're just going to continue to control my turn over and over?" "Correct. I'll control you on a loop until you either mill yourself with turns or I find a way to kill you with your own deck..." "Oh...okay..." I waited a second, expecting a scoop, but no dice! As it was getting late and I had creature threats in hand, I locked him out for 2 more turns, until the board and his hand were at a point that I could YOLO beats without concern.
Again, not much takeaway from this matchup, as his homebrew deck wasn't any concern... Not exactly sure how he pulled off 2 wins with this deck in the first place.
Overall takeaways:
1) I had toyed around with Search for Azcanta against my buddy who plays Free Win Red and UW Control/Poly. Against those 2 grindy control decks, the card was amazing. Versus the decks I played at the LGS, I'm glad I removed it from the deck. There was absolutely no need or desire for that card against the creature based decks I faced. This will remain out of the deck and may only enter as a SB addition in the future.
2) Creature removal felt decent, but I wanted more board wipe. In the delver matchup, post side-board, I felt that I had the appropriate amount of bounce, removal, and wipe, for the most part. Another EE would have been good, but that's likely due to me completely dorking up that play sequence in the first place. Against Merfolk though, I would have definitely appreciated another EE. I'm going to throw an EE in the side. My personal feeling is that small creature aggro decks are the most difficult matchups (Affinity, Merfolk, Elves, etc.). I'd rather dump the Hurkyl's Recall for another EE to deal with those matchups.
3) Chalice of the Void...where were you?!?! Do you know how many 1 CMC cards Delver has in the deck? A metric s-ton. Do you know how many 2 drops Merfolk has in the deck? Same answer. I would very much liked to have actually seen a Chalice during either of those games. A single copy wasn't cutting it. Whether to run 2 MB or mix it up, I'm unsure at this point, but I definitely think that at least 2 should be in the deck.
4) Gifts Ungiven was underwhelming. I've played with Epiphany at the Drownyard as well and I'm not a fan of my opponent choosing the cards, but Gifts definitely felt like a crappier choice of those 2 cards. With Epiphany, I at least get to make the piles, but my card choice is potentially limited by not being able to search, but rather flip over cards from the top. Nonetheless, I never found myself hoping for either card to appear or missing that Gifts didn't appear or that Epiphany wasn't in the deck. The number of draw engines and tutors without either Epiphany or Gifts in the deck feels just fine.
5) Spatial Contortion MB was actually a surprising improvement (though maybe not surprising given the matchups). Having the spot removal MB that can also double as a Wurmcoil buff was a welcome addition. Previously I did not play it MB, but kept it in the side with 2 x Dismember, opting for more bounce and counter options in the MB. I think I'll continue with it MB to see how it fares for a greater variety of matchups.
Smallpox is such an integral part to the deck, in my opinion. It's a 3 for one, in that it destroys a land, kills a creature, and takes a card from their hand (yes, a point of life too). It keeps all of their resources and threats low in every state of play. It almost seems like heresy to cut it.
Other, potentially better targets would probably be Wrench Mind and some of your creature removal package, if you're looking to avoid creature threats through Ensnaring Bridge, rather than removal.
The problem that many people, I think, see and experience with Bridge is that you put too much reliance on it protecting you, weakening your survivability if you fail to find or protect it. Game 2, many people board in Artifact hate to deal with The Rack, making Bridge even more susceptible too. Which is why Tom Ross and other top 8 8Rack decks don't run Bridge.
However, give it a shot and it may work for you in a brew that not many have tried or at least haven't reported results about.
Asylum Visitor fills that roll, arguably better than Bob, and was in the SCG Classic decks of the 8rack players that were in the Top8