[Deck] U/G Enchantress

[Dihensoeur]

No. Oracle for Sneak Attack reads: "You may put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield. That creature gains haste. Sacrifice the creature at the beginning of the next end step." What kingkt3 suggested is that a player activates Sneak Attack DURING his opponents end step once he recieves priority. The beginning of the next end step will then be the beginning of his own end step, and he can untap his creatures and attack during his turn before he has to sacrifice them. Cf.

513. End Step

513.1. First, all abilities that trigger “at the beginning of the end step” or “at the beginning of the next
end step” go on the stack. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)

513.1a Previously, abilities that trigger at the beginning of the end step were printed with the trigger
condition “at end of turn.” Cards that were printed with that text have received errata in the
Oracle card reference to say “at the beginning of the end step” or “at the beginning of the next
end step.”

513.2. Second, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

This is all pretty standard stuff which is relevant from time to time in legacy (with kiki-jiki for instance), you should really know this.

Ok thanks for the explanation.

@benthetenor: As you said, you don't consider any of my points and you have no more argument. You think your deck is the best, but you don't win any big tournament like me. I think and I prove by arguments that I'm stronger on many points but you don't care because you don't like it, ok it's your choice. I need to win big tournament to continue to prove my deck yes, but it's your case too. A deck that win only few times last year is not enough. And you don't win any big tournament by yourself to justify your list.

I will continue to play my version while I believe on it. Maybe by winning lot of tournaments I will change your mind. We will see.

[benthetenor]

At what point did you assume that I didn't consider any of the points that you've made? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't consider them. Truth be told, most of the points you make don't follow logically, so there is very little point in continuing a debate full of illogical ideas. Every time I've tried to ask you to clarify your points or pointed out logical inconsistencies, you've just repeated your original point louder and more forcefully, so there really is no reason to continue the debate.

I'm terrible at Magic: The Gathering. It does not follow that because I am terrible at Magic: The Gathering, this deck is bad. Or flawed. Or in need of innovation. In the hands of genuinely good players (Andrew Cuneo, Chris Andersen, Drew Idoux), this deck has placed highly. If you were to ask those better players why they play the list that I've posted and don't change to the list that you've suggested, I'm 100% certain that they would tell you exactly what I've told you. I can be so certain because I've talked to some of them about this deck, either over the internet or IRL, and their reasoning for card inclusions or disinclusions are the same or similar reasons that I've given you. Make no mistake, our two lists are not equally valid, as you are trying to suggest.

In the end, I literally could not care less what list you play, but I'd really appreciate if you didn't mislead people who are new to the deck into picking an inferior (here being not derogatory, but rather a simple statement of fact as to the deck's qualifications) version and getting frustrated with it. The deck at the beginning of this thread was designed and honed over a period of more than a year by an old-school pro with two PT Top 8s, and then further honed by one of the top 40 players on the SCG Open series. You are some guy who doesn't fully grasp the end-of-turn trigger. That doesn't mean you can't be right, but it does mean maybe you should readjust your perspective.

I don't think that this deck is "the best", whatever that means. I think it is very consistent and fairly well-positioned right now, which is why I play it. If it's positioning changes, as it has a few times since this thread has begun, I will re-evaluate, as I have in the past. I am under no illusions that this is the best deck ever. No deck is perfect. Hell, no deck even goes 60/40 against the entire field. It's impossible in a well-balanced metagame with 10 first-tier decks and 20-30 other viable decks like Legacy. This deck crushes fair decks and has maybe a 20-40% chance of winning against an unfair deck, depending on what that deck is. That's a good tradeoff for me in this metagame.

[tyriion]

I've traded/bought all the cards I need to build the deck and today they all arrived. Just waiting for one more Argothian Enchantress, she's a bitch (no pun intended) to find. So I started goldfishing right away and I have to say, this deck is complex :O. Lots of things to think about, math to do and triggers to observe. So I don't think I will take it to a tournament next Sunday, as I probably would end up making a fool out of myself. Currently no Living Wish and 3x Chrome Mox as that one really can save your ass if you miscount your mana.

While I was building the sideboard I noticed that I somehow misplaced 2x Leyline of Sanctity. Would you leave the house without them? I don't really like mulling for Leylines, so I have upped the count of Deep Analysis, Mystic Remora and Compost. I have also included Blind Obedience as I see more and more Elves around here, so I will try that one out.

All in all I'm looking very much forward to playing this deck, even if it's just to see the look on peoples faces. I'm pretty sure no one plays this where I usually play.

[benthetenor]

If you're without Leyline of Sanctity, I'd put in 2-3 Compost and hope for the best. I think early targeted discard is one of the few ways that any fair decks have to interact with you, but if you can land a Compost, you stand a good chance of recovering. Leyline of Sanctity is the best answer here because it can't be hit by Abrupt Decay and it comes down before the opponent has a chance to cast Thoughtseize, but they are not exactly cheap so I could see you trying something else out in their place. I don't like the fact that it's such an all-or-nothing card, but then it is really good at what it does and there really aren't any other cards that do what it does, so I guess we're kinda stuck. But yeah, Compost is a good replacement, and Deep Analysis is good if you think you can afford to pay the life in the matchup that you're bringing it in for.

[Dihensoeur]

At what point did you assume that I didn't consider any of the points that you've made?

See #217. I answered to all of your points and reminded you some details (about number of enchantments, chance to win vs combo...), I'm waiting for your defense.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't consider them. Truth be told, most of the points you make don't follow logically, so there is very little point in continuing a debate full of illogical ideas. Every time I've tried to ask you to clarify your points or pointed out logical inconsistencies, you've just repeated your original point louder and more forcefully, so there really is no reason to continue the debate.

It's not necessary to say "it's illogical" when you have simply no more argument...And who continue to repeat "your deck is inferior" without explain clearly, without defend your point? Without test? I began with your list. I tested it, you never ask yourself why I change my mind for my version? Why I'm still
stubborn? If you don't want to continue the debat because you have no real argument and you don't want to "lose" the debat, it's your choice.
What point do you want I clarify? Tell me and I will explain you.

I'm terrible at Magic: The Gathering. It does not follow that because I am terrible at Magic: The Gathering, this deck is bad. Or flawed. Or in need of innovation. In the hands of genuinely good players (Andrew Cuneo, Chris Andersen, Drew Idoux), this deck has placed highly. If you were to ask those better players why they play the list that I've posted and don't change to the list that you've suggested, I'm 100% certain that they would tell you exactly what I've told you. I can be so certain because I've talked to some of them about this deck, either over the internet or IRL, and their reasoning for card inclusions or disinclusions are the same or similar reasons that I've given you. Make no mistake, our two lists are not equally valid, as you are trying to suggest.

You say that you're not a genius like Andrew Cuneo, Chris Andersen or Drew Idoux but you claims that your list are superior only with your eyes, without tests, without take account arguments...

In the end, I literally could not care less what list you play, but I'd really appreciate if you didn't mislead people who are new to the deck into picking an inferior (here being not derogatory, but rather a simple statement of fact as to the deck's qualifications) version and getting frustrated with it. The deck at the beginning of this thread was designed and honed over a period of more than a year by an old-school pro with two PT Top 8s, and then further honed by one of the top 40 players on the SCG Open series. You are some guy who doesn't fully grasp the end-of-turn trigger. That doesn't mean you can't be right, but it does mean maybe you should readjust your perspective.

People play what they want to play. I post reports, I explain what people want to know, if they prefer your version or my version, it's their choices. What do you need to be convinced by my version?

I don't think that this deck is "the best", whatever that means. I think it is very consistent and fairly well-positioned right now, which is why I play it. If it's positioning changes, as it has a few times since this thread has begun, I will re-evaluate, as I have in the past. I am under no illusions that this is the best deck ever. No deck is perfect. Hell, no deck even goes 60/40 against the entire field. It's impossible in a well-balanced metagame with 10 first-tier decks and 20-30 other viable decks like Legacy. This deck crushes fair decks and has maybe a 20-40% chance of winning against an unfair deck, depending on what that deck is. That's a good tradeoff for me in this metagame.

I agree.

In conclusion, only by your feeling, you think that my version are inferior like the deck on this thread. You believe totally on your first feeling, it's your choice. I lost the good feeling of the first version of this thread in spite of your reports and tests, that's why I turned myself to Curio in a first step. Kills are not my idea, but I was convinced on them.
If I continue to play my version and no more the version of this thread (that I tested before), that's there is a good reason.
Maybe I didn't mastered enough the version of this thread. But while my version doesn't disappointed me, why stop it?

To be restart the debat on a clear base:
If I can summarize, things that bother you are:
- Curio that seems to be an overkill and a non-enchantment card
- Number of lands that seems too weak and risk to force you to mulligan many times.
- Number of non-basic lands that seems useless and makes weakness.
- Kills cards that can be dead cards and useless in UG Enchantress.
Right? Or I forgot something?

If we can restart from things that bother you, maybe I will enable to clearly explain each point.


A little question: What is the problem of the deck of this thread that oblige you to make your version?

[waytowinatwar]

Dihensoeur: I agree with benthetenor, your replies are often not very convincing. Let me give you one example to illustrate this.

Both me and benthetenor remarked that the mana of your deck is significantly worse than the mana of the standard list (i'm going to use my own list here to make things explicit - 7 forests, 2 islands, 1 tropical, 1 Savannah, 7 fetch and two moxes). You seem unwilling to concede this point.

One simple way to illustrate this point is to calculate the probabilities of getting starting hands where the mana is so poor that they have to be mulliganed. These probabilities can be calculated both with your deck and with the standard list, and can then be compared. One doesn't really have to consider wasteland vulnerability to see how inferior your mana is to the standard list. One just have to concede three fairly obvious things about how to mulligan with these decks (see below).


1. All hands that contain ZERO lands(/moxes in our case) absolutely have to be mulliganed:

The probability of this happening in your deck (with 16 lands and 44 non-lands) = 44/60*43/59*...*38/54=0,099

The probability of this happening in the standard list 40/60*39/59*...=0,048


2. Some hands that contain exactly ONE land (/mox in our case) absolutely have to be mulliganed:

Your deck: any hand that contains, as its only land, island, underground sea, arbour, sanctum #1, or Sanctum #2 (these either don't produce green mana, or, with arbour, only does so t2 and only given arbour's miraculous survival) = 1/60*44/59*43/58*...*7*5= 0,09

The standard list: island #1, island #2, chrome mox #1 chrome mox #2 = 1/60*40/59, 39/58...*7*4=0,036


3. Some hands that contain exactly TWO lands (/moxes in our case) absolutely have to be mulliganed.

Your deck: any combination of island, underground sea, arbour, sanctum #1, Sanctum #2 (10 combinations)= 1/60*1/59*44/59*...*42*10=0,028

The standard list: double chrome mox, double island (2 combinations)= 1/60*1/59*40/59*...*42*2=0,028

If these probabilities are summed we can conclude that your deck has a 0.218 probability to get a hand that absolutely has to mulliganed. The corresponding probability for the standard list is 0,089. So for your deck, more than every fifth hand absolutely has to be mulliganed! For the standard list less than one in ten hands absolutely has to mulliganed. So the mana in your deck is clearly worse than in the standard deck, in fact it is so bad that it alone makes me hesitant to play the deck.

What was your counter-argument when I pointed out the poor mana? Here is what you wrote:

Yes it looks very fragile, but not in reality. In all games that I played, I mull very rarely. I know, see 16 lands with 4 non-basic seems to be crazy, but it's not in practice. To be honest, in many games, I often had the feeling that I have too many lands. But I know that I can't reduce this number.

This is no argument. It is a statement about you being oblivious about the statistics of your deck.

Finally, if you want to convince anyone about the merits of some component of your deck, discuss that aspect separately from other aspects that are more controversial. But you don't really seem interested in this kind of analysis. I asked you twice for instance about how you would incorporate the curio engine into the standard list (without damaging the manabase or including dedicated kill cards) without a response. I don't want to play your deck because of its poor mana, and if you are unwilling to discuss components of your deck on their own terms, I benefit a lot less from your posts.

[Dihensoeur]

Dihensoeur: I agree with benthetenor, your replies are often not very convincing. Let me give you one example to illustrate this.
Both me and benthetenor remarked that the mana of your deck is significantly worse than the mana of the standard list (i'm going to use my own list here to make things explicit - 7 forests, 2 islands, 1 tropical, 1 Savannah, 7 fetch and two moxes). You seem unwilling to concede this point.

Ok, so we will discuss for the mana base. I already say that yes the mana base seems to be worse than yours.
Yes I know probability:
With 18 lands, to have a good hand (1,2 or 3 lands) = 81,7% then 80,7% with 19 lands but more chance to have 2 or 3 etc...
With 16 lands = 82,6%

Computing:
X : have X lands in start hand.
P(X): probability to have X lands in start hand.

If we consider a good hand (for lands number) as a hand with 1,2 or 3 lands so:
P(X=1 || X=2 || X=3) = P(X=1)+P(X=2)+P(X=3)

(draw without reset) P(X=k) = C(k,m) * C(7-k, 60-m) / C(7,60)
With (Combination) C(k,n) = n! / k!(n-k)!

So, P(X=1 || X=2 || X=3) = 0,292446422 + 0,33743818 + 0,196838938 = 0,82672354

So, I have more chance to have one land in hand and less chance to have hand full lands (and so not more chance to mulliganed). But Ok, it's surely not enough for you.
Let's continue with probability:
Even we have a good start hand, we don't want to draw many lands when we play enchantment.
First, we need to have a lot of enchantments cards: 27 for me, and 25 for you.
Second, chance to draw a land:
With 18 lands and started with one land: 32%
With 18 lands and started with two lands: 30%
With 18 lands and started with three lands: 28%

With 16 lands and started with one land: 28%
With 16 lands and started with two lands: 26%
With 16 lands and started with three lands: 25%

So, it seems that I have more chance to draw more than you by Argothian/Presence effect. Ok, you play fetchs and I'm thinking to run 4 fetchs instead of 2 because I draw again too many useless lands. Maybe you tell me that in game that's not the case, but it's the same for me and you tell me that's experiences are not enough for this.

Then, non-basics lands. I agree, my x2 sanctum reduce the probability for a good hand to 81,6% (considering 14 lands) so the same than you.
I agree, have non-basics lands or few is a strenght, you play 2 non-basics and me 4.
First, I tested without Sanctum and with Sanctum, and by my experiences (maybe not enough), I found better with Sanctum. I don't contratict you about play or not play Sanctum, I just said that I find it useful in my deck, it's my personal opinion and I don't tell you to play them, I just explained what I find it useful in my deck. If we imagine that you want to play my version without Sanctum, I don't forbid you.

About Underground Sea: It's not for Tendrils, not at all. It's only for Plague. To have more chance to put plague T2 and beat Elves. Or maybe to play some discard card like Duress (from sideboard) for another combo deck (I'm thinking about it). If you have a best idea that allow me to not play this non-basic land, I'm OK.

My apologies for my behavior. I have been irritated by benthetanor and its "My feeling tell me you're inferior" in loop. I'm more zen with you.

Is it a more structural argument than I said before ?

I asked you twice for instance about how you would incorporate the curio engine into the standard list (without damaging the manabase or including dedicated kill cards) without a response. I don't want to play your deck because of its poor mana, and if you are unwilling to discuss components of your deck on their own terms, I benefit a lot less from your posts.

Sorry for this, You could try with -1 Kitchen (or -1 Witness) and + 1 Curio (only +1 because you're more based on WoW, and it's for test).

[benthetenor]

Ok, we'll go through this one by one. Let's stay on the mana base for a minute. I have a few questions.

1) how is Underground Sea better than Bayou? In this deck, any land that can't tap for green is a bad land to have in the opening hand. Replacing Underground Sea with Bayou would immediately improve the number of hands that you have to mulligan.


2) 16 mana sources is almost certainly too few. The standard list plays 20-21. I've dropped to 19 before and found it to be too few. Of course you have a higher concentration of enchantments; you've cut somewhere around 4 mana sources to do it.

-> This is almost certainly why you feel you need Serra's Sanctum, so that you have something to create more mana while using fewer lands. The downside, even if you refuse to acknowledge it to be a downside, is that it places more strain on your deck by relying on a non-basic land in an environment full of Wastelands. If Sanctum were your 20th land, it would probably be fine (still bad, but not dire), but with it as your 15th and 16th lands, you're going to have to have it in play in way more games.


3) I'm not sure how you're hitting all of your colors on time with 9 Forests and only 2 fetchlands, unless you're leaning super hard on Abundant Growth and Utopia Sprawl. It makes you especially vulnerable to Chalice of the Void set on 1 and Engineered Explosives and Pernicious Deed because you can't even develop your mana in that situation, whereas with our version, you can at least start building up a board presence and power through.


4) Lastly, this is more of a comment on your last post; what exactly is your argument? It looks to me like you're just putting numbers in a post (which is pretty pointless since waytowinatwar already did a statistical analysis of keepable hands), but you never draw a conclusion about the mana. We say that your mana base is a problem, you put up a bunch of numbers and I think the conclusion you draw is "but I will draw more enchantments than you will!". If that is indeed what you're saying, it's completely irrelevant to the mana base. If you feel that your deck is superior, you should be able to defend the points we bring up, rather than bringing up other irrelevant points. If you concede that your mana base is weaker, then that is an area of weakness.

[Dihensoeur]

1) how is Underground Sea better than Bayou? In this deck, any land that can't tap for green is a bad land to have in the opening hand. Replacing Underground Sea with Bayou would immediately improve the number of hands that you have to mulligan.

The UG Enchantress play 2 island, so it's nearly the same that play 1 island+1 Underground sea, no? I tried Bayou (and no island to be honest, full trust on abundant growth/Utopia), but I saw too many situation where I need an island.

2) 16 mana sources is almost certainly too few. The standard list plays 20-21. I've dropped to 19 before and found it to be too few. Of course you have a higher concentration of enchantments; you've cut somewhere around 4 mana sources to do it.

-> This is almost certainly why you feel you need Serra's Sanctum, so that you have something to create more mana while using fewer lands. The downside, even if you refuse to acknowledge it to be a downside, is that it places more strain on your deck by relying on a non-basic land in an environment full of Wastelands. If Sanctum were your 20th land, it would probably be fine (still bad, but not dire), but with it as your 15th and 16th lands, you're going to have to have it in play in way more games.

You're probably right, I'm trying to play with 16 lands (which 4 non-basics lands), I taked the risk, I assume. I will continue with this mana base even it's probably an error but while I don't see in test/tournament a mull problem or others, I continue to "challenge the probability" that you show me. I don't encourage to follow the same way.

3) I'm not sure how you're hitting all of your colors on time with 9 Forests and only 2 fetchlands, unless you're leaning super hard on Abundant Growth and Utopia Sprawl. It makes you especially vulnerable to Chalice of the Void set on 1 and Engineered Explosives and Pernicious Deed because you can't even develop your mana in that situation, whereas with our version, you can at least start building up a board presence and power through.

I will surely move to 4 fetchlands. We don't need inevitably to have blue mana to develop us and win.

4) Lastly, this is more of a comment on your last post; what exactly is your argument? It looks to me like you're just putting numbers in a post (which is pretty pointless since waytowinatwar already did a statistical analysis of keepable hands), but you never draw a conclusion about the mana. We say that your mana base is a problem, you put up a bunch of numbers and I think the conclusion you draw is "but I will draw more enchantments than you will!". If that is indeed what you're saying, it's completely irrelevant to the mana base. If you feel that your deck is superior, you should be able to defend the points we bring up, rather than bringing up other irrelevant points. If you concede that your mana base is weaker, then that is an area of weakness.

I shown by probability (see #227), that I seem to be nearly equal because I'm taken account the hand with full lands (or 4,5,6 lands), you don't keep a hand with 4 or more lands right?

Ok I concede you, my mana base is worse than yours and surely the experience will show me that I need to play more basics lands.
Ok I concede you, maybe kills cards like Emrakul/Tendrils are useless (fun?) and dead cards. I continue to play them because I like them (and don't really like consider WoW as a real kill in tournament) and I won't encourage anyone to play them, but I will answer anyone want to know more about my experience with them.
I will continue to play and report with my list (except if I finally found by experience that it's really worse than classical UG Enchantress) but no more incitation, only answer questions.

The mainly card that I would like you to try is Cloudstone Curio engine. It's a draw engine, an effect engine and a mana engine (all that UG Enchantress play).
It accelerates really the deck (not only one clock), and can complete the draw engine (Argo/presence) via Abundant Growth.
Could you, at least, try this engine? By cutting a non-enchantment card like a Witness/Kitchen card (one Witness is enough no?).
And for add Abundant Growth, I want to suggest you cards like Mox, Carpet or Seal of primordium (are you certain that seal is useful MD? Your experience show you that seal are more often useful?)
but I know you won't agree. Maybe you have an idea if you need to add abundant growth?

Regards,
Dihensoeur.

[benthetenor]

So that leads directly to the second line of questioning:

1) Why should I add in 6 cards (2 Cloudstone Curio and 4 Abundant Growth) to do something that the deck already does very well (makes mana, draws cards, solid mana base)? I already feel that Abundant Growth is an objectively weaker card than any of the cards that you've suggested I cut for it strictly because my mana is already so good so it doesn't add anything to the deck in and of itself, which gives me no reason to play it on it's own merits. The only reason I would play it would be as a draw engine with Cloudstone Curio, but then, as I said, I'm adding in six cards that don't add anything to the deck aside from speed, and at the cost of consistency (here, about 4 lands and 2 other cards that are already pulling their weight).

2) Why should I want to be faster? Even if I live the dream with your list and somehow combo off on turn 2, many of the decks I couldn't beat before (combo) are at least as fast, except consistently. At an average speed of turn 5 (with my current list), I am already fast enough to consistently beat any deck that isn't a combo deck. And if your goal is actually to speed up the deck, you should be playing the full 4 Cloudstone Curio to increase the chance of winning on turn 2. If it does everything, as you say it does, then you should want every one you can get.

3) Some quick answers to your points, not anything you have to answer or even consider. 1 Tropical Island and 1 Bayou is probably just better than 1 Underground Sea just because in that setup you still have fewer lands that don't tap for green, and are free to fetch out whichever color you need without endangering your green mana development. And second, Words of Wind is a kill in a live tournament. Your opponent is just as dead with 0 permanents from a Words of Wind as they are with 0 permanents from an Emrakul, except that the Words of Wind can deal with any number of permanents, is active as soon as you cast it, and draws you cards when it comes into play, which can be pre-combo, mid-combo or as the last card you cast before you beat them. Emrakul just sits in your hand looking at you until you can generate 15 mana. As I said previously, I have never failed to complete a round on time using only Words of Wind, aside from the one round where I made a procedural error and received a game loss. I've never even gone to time with this deck, truth be told. I would also not hesitate to keep a 4-lander, though it probably isn't the best hand.

[Dihensoeur]

So that leads directly to the second line of questioning:

1) Why should I add in 6 cards (2 Cloudstone Curio and 4 Abundant Growth) to do something that the deck already does very well (makes mana, draws cards, solid mana base)? I already feel that Abundant Growth is an objectively weaker card than any of the cards that you've suggested I cut for it strictly because my mana is already so good so it doesn't add anything to the deck in and of itself, which gives me no reason to play it on it's own merits. The only reason I would play it would be as a draw engine with Cloudstone Curio, but then, as I said, I'm adding in six cards that don't add anything to the deck aside from speed, and at the cost of consistency (here, about 4 lands and 2 other cards that are already pulling their weight).

2) Why should I want to be faster? Even if I live the dream with your list and somehow combo off on turn 2, many of the decks I couldn't beat before (combo) are at least as fast, except consistently. At an average speed of turn 5 (with my current list), I am already fast enough to consistently beat any deck that isn't a combo deck. And if your goal is actually to speed up the deck, you should be playing the full 4 Cloudstone Curio to increase the chance of winning on turn 2. If it does everything, as you say it does, then you should want every one you can get.

3) Some quick answers to your points, not anything you have to answer or even consider. 1 Tropical Island and 1 Bayou is probably just better than 1 Underground Sea just because in that setup you still have fewer lands that don't tap for green, and are free to fetch out whichever color you need without endangering your green mana development. And second, Words of Wind is a kill in a live tournament. Your opponent is just as dead with 0 permanents from a Words of Wind as they are with 0 permanents from an Emrakul, except that the Words of Wind can deal with any number of permanents, is active as soon as you cast it, and draws you cards when it comes into play, which can be pre-combo, mid-combo or as the last card you cast before you beat them. Emrakul just sits in your hand looking at you until you can generate 15 mana. As I said previously, I have never failed to complete a round on time using only Words of Wind, aside from the one round where I made a procedural error and received a game loss. I've never even gone to time with this deck, truth be told. I would also not hesitate to keep a 4-lander, though it probably isn't the best hand.

Ok, by your experience, UG Enchantress doesn't need speed and WoW is enough to win, sorry for thinking the opposite (maybe lack of experience). So it doesn't need anything that I suggested, Ok.
As my deck is completely not a response to improve UG Enchantress (that seems not need any innovation),
what is, by your experience, the actual problem of UG Enchantress? What's blocking the deck to be in Top8 in big tournament?

PS: a little suggestion: why not a Gaddock Teeg MD to have a little hate VS combo/control deck? Instead of Kitchen?

[benthetenor]

Put simply, there's no room. I'm not running Kitchen Finks anywhere in the 75 anymore (I'm running 4 Leyline of Sanctity, so there's no need for any additional anti-burn cards), and if I were planning on playing a deck in a metagame with enough combo to necessitate a maindeck answer, this isn't the deck I would play. Gaddock Teeg is definitely the most high-impact card though, since it's good against almost all combo decks and can be tutored for with GSZ, so if I were going to run one main, that would be it.

As for why the deck isn't doing well, I think it's pretty clearly that no one is playing it. Even when Chris Andersen was making multiple top 16s (some back-to-back) on the SCG circuit with this deck, and actively telling everyone that it was the best deck and extremely well-positioned, he was still pretty much the only UG Enchantress deck in the room. Even when he was featured on-camera across multiple tournaments, still no one really picked up the deck. The reasons for people not playing a deck are pretty numerous, but here it's probably equal parts: the stigma of playing Enchantress, the perfect nature of the deck stifling people's ability to innovate, the fact that it's an extreme dog to combo, the desire of players to "win big" with Emrakul or Tendrils of Agony or Griselbrand, and the perceived difficulty in any combo deck. Most of those things we've seen on this very forum, with people trying to fit in cards just because they wanted to make it different, or to fit in a "win condition" when it's just not necessary. As far as difficulty goes, I find this deck to be significantly easier than pretty much any combo deck I've ever played, though I have played pretty much all of them and could be accurately described as a "combo player", so perhaps I downplay the difficulty of piloting combo decks. I do think there are a lot of people who conflate "Enchantress" with "Timmy" and so they just don't want to play it because they think it's a little kid's deck. I guess I understand that, though it's a pretty silly thing to think when we're all playing a card game. But regardless of the reason, no deck can put up results with only a handful of people playing it.

It seems to me that from the moment you picked up this deck, you had already inserted Cloudstone Curio and an additional combo-finish (along with a lot of other cards that have eventually gotten cut), and you've stuck by it. The main strength of this deck is that it's a control deck first and a combo deck second, which means that it's very good at surviving until the late game where the natural strength of Argothian Enchantress takes over and makes this deck more or less unbeatable. The main problem is that each of the changes that you've made have pushed the deck away from being a control deck and towards being a combo deck, which is not the kind of game that Argothian Enchantress is well setup to play. Again, you haven't made it completely a combo deck, and have still kept in elements of control, but you've added cards that are only good at being combo cards and are not good at fighting through the opponent's disruption (Carpet of Flowers, lands) or controlling aspects of the game (Seal of Primordium, Mindbreak Trap). The point I've tried to ask a few times, and have not yet gotten a good answer, is if you're trying to make a Cloudstone Curio combo deck, why not just make a Cloudstone Curio combo deck? The Enchantress shell isn't built for speed, it's built for the long-game, so you'd probably be better suited playing cards that are fast, like Dark Rituals and Lotus Petals and lots of other Moxes that you could bounce back and forth for free with Cloudstone Curio. If you want to play UG Enchantress, maybe you need to start with an actual build of UG Enchantress and see what makes it good before you start making changes. But as I've said from the beginning, it's your choice.

[waytowinatwar]

I don't think the curio-list/standard list discussion is really progressing anymore. I've tried goldfishing the standard list with an added curio and it definitely does interesting things, but I'm currently undecided on the merits of including it. I have a feeling that it points towards a slightly different game-plan than the original and might to this extent be disruptive but it is too early to tell. I will continue testing. There are lots of other things that I find are more pressing right now though that I would rather discuss, such as sideboard configuration, and mulligan decisions, so starting with this post, I will probably focus on them and on writing up tournament reports.

So I won the Legacy Treasure Chest side event tournament on the first day of GP Gothenburg. The event only featured 16 players (since most people were playing in the main event) but it had an extremely good payout. I won, in no particular order, a Foil Primespeaker Zegana, a foil Chrome Mox, a foil Advent of the worm, an english three portals Loyal Retainer, a foil Spiritmonger, 8 DGM boosters and a complete set DGM (including 10 shocklands).

I played roughly what I have been playing in the last couple of tournaments, but I replaced one Surgical Extraction in the sb with a Detention Sphere, since 1) Dredge and Reanimater are fairly scarce these days, 2) Extractions only have marginal utility against Storm Combo where I usually board them, 3) I don't board Extractions against anything else, and 4) I wanted something good against Show and Tell decks (since I found the Omniclash/Omnimaniac matchup to be pretty poor). Here's the list again for your convenience;

Main Deck
2 Carpet of Flowers
4 Cloud of Faeries
2 Chrome mox
4 Elephant Grass
4 Enchantress's Presence
2 Eternal Witness
7 Forest
4 Green Sun's Zenith
2 Island
1 Kitchen Finks
4 Misty Rainforest
1 Savannah
1 Seal of Primordium
4 Seal of Removal
1 Tropical Island
4 Utopia Sprawl
4 Wild Growth
1 Windswept Heath
1 Verdant Catacombs
1 Wooded foothills
2 Words of Wisdom

Sideboard:
1 Carpet of Flowers
2 Deep analysis
1 Gaddock Teeg
1 Harmonic Sliver
1 Krosan Grip
4 Leyline of Sanctity
3 Mindbreak Trap
1 Surgical Extraction
1 Detention Sphere

R1 UW Miracles 2-0

G1otd
7 Misty, Foothills, Growth, Argothian, Presence, 2 Elephant Grass. Extremely good against everything. Keep.

He goes tundra top. I draw another argothian(!), fetch a forest and play growth.

He goes plains pass. I draw another prescence(!), play misty and argothian which resolves(!). Fetch forest into grass draw wild growth. He tops eot.

He untaps and play another plains. I draw a forest. I play a second argothian which also resolves. Play forest and another wild growth, draws sprawl and chrome mox. Play mox and sprawl and precence which he spell pierces.

I'm a little hazy about the specifics of our turn fours. He might have played a jace on his. I definitely won on mine.

G2 (-3 grass, 2 removal, finks, +carpet, sliver, grip, teeg, deep analysis, detention sphere)
7 Forest, Misty, Carpet, Growth, Sprawl, GSZ, removal. Not great, since I'm a bit mana heavy, but it is likely that I'll be able to play around spell pierce t2 with my only enchantress effect, and I'm fairly likely to draw another pretty soon if he fows it.

He goes island top. I play carpet into growth. He plays island counterbalance. I play land gsz for argothian (not sure if this is right, could have gone with sliver but at this point I have no other enchantresses) he blindflips a land. I play sprawl. He thinks for a bit (about drawing with top most likely. It resolves. Removal. Resolves, Grass resolves. At this point I've drawn another carpet and a grip. Next turn I bait counterbalance with carpet and then grip. The exact details of the rest of the game escapes me. I win

R2 Junk 2-0

G1 otp
7 forest, misty, catacombs, growth, gsz, witness carpet. Ok hand.

I fetch a forest and play growth. he plays swamp inquisition and forces me to discard the gsz rather than the witness. I go t2 witness even though I expect him to force me to discard the next turn. He doesn't! He plays savannah and a dark confidant. I gsz after argothian and play a seal of removal which I have drawn and bounce bob. He replays it next turn. I cantrip a few enchantments into a new removal and bounce bob again. Next two turns I repeat this (he might have done something other than just replaying bob but it wasn't very impactful or memorable). Eventually I find another enchantress and bounce everything.


G2 ( - 1 witnes, 1 removal, 1 primordium, 2 carpet + 1 sliver, +4 leyline of sanctity)
7 2 forest, growth, sprawl, argothian, presence, wow. Pretty good, no leyline but a single discard spell is not the end of me.

He thinks about his hand for awhile but decides to keep. Swamp but no t1 discard! I play forest sprawl. He plays forest(?) go. I play argothian into growth (even if he has lilliana, this seems better than prescence since he signals abrupt decay, also everything else being equal you want to play your argothians before your prescences). He doesn't have lilliana (!), plays a land and passes. I go prescence, into seal of removal. He has the decay, but I've drawn another gsz. He plays a dark confidant. I play gsz, draw four or so cards, bounce his confidant and win next turn.

R3 RUG 1-1-1

G1 otd
7 Island, tropical, savanah, misty, carpet, sprawl, prescence

The specifics of this match escapes me. I think he plays delver or mongoose t1, I carpet into growth (to play around spell pierce t2) and prescence t2. I win.

G2 (-witness +carpet)
7 no lands
6 no lands
5 forest, island, sprawl, grass, presence A very good hand of five cards.

If I remember correctly he has multiple fows and I'm never able to regain the initial card disadvantage.


G3
7 heath, catacombs, 2 sprawl, argothian, faerie, finks

This was an interesting game that we drew on time but I should have won. At some point I realize that I most go on the offence with my creatures to win (since we are short on time), but I make the mistake of attacking with my witness into a flipped untapped delver, which I could have bounced the same or possibly the next turn. The two points extra damage cost me the game more or less since three turns later I have my last round and he is on five lives. At this point he has no permanents.


R4 Deathblade (the only guy with 9 points)

G1
7 2 Misty, sprawl, growth,gsz, witness, removal
I don't remember that much. I think he fows my t2 gsz but my t4 gsz resolves and I cantrip for awhile until I win.


G2 (- 2 grass, removal, finks, prim + carpet, 4 leyline)
7 no lands
6 forest, catacombs, growth, mox, gsz, witness Good 6, although no leyline

I think he forces me to discard the witness t1, and maybe fows the gsz. The game goes back and forth for a while, he draws a lot of discard but has no real clock. At some point, I'm low on cards but topdecks a presence, plays it but doesn't draw enchantments. A few turns later I topdeck wow and can start bouncing his stuff.

So anyway, I finished 3-0-1 and won the tournament (the Rug player from R3 also won his final game but I had better tiebreakers since my R4 opponent was undefeated before he met me). Apart from my R3 mistake I'm very happy with my performance.

In other news, I made t8 in the legacy league where I normally play legacy, and will be playing the t8 on tuesday next week. I will likely need your advice about some things before then. :)

[benthetenor]

I like pretty much everything about your list, the only thing I would suggest (and this came after a lot of testing) is that you probably don't need to run both Kitchen Finks and Leyline of Sanctity. They are definitely in there for different reasons, but Leyline destroys burn decks which is the primary reason to have Kitchen Finks. You lose a little bit in terms of other aggro matchups, but you can also replace it with a good card in the aggro matchups. For me, it's either an Oblivion Ring or a Blind Obedience, or maybe a 4th Mindbreak Trap or an In the Eye of Chaos if you want to go that direction, though I haven't actually tested out Blind Obedience yet, just using it as my insurance policy for game 3s. But I would move one Mindbreak Trap to the main, and swap out the Kitchen Finks with something else. Finks still has utility, so it's not a bad call to keep him in, but I'd see if I couldn't find something with a little more play in it.

Also, in general, I'd run Oblivion Ring over Detention Sphere. It's almost a toss up, but in the matchup where you really want it (Show and Tell variants), exposing it to potential REB is not great. I know Detention Sphere does more work against tokens though, so it's a judgement call.

[Dihensoeur]

GG for tournament.

I played roughly what I have been playing in the last couple of tournaments, but I replaced one Surgical Extraction in the sb with a Detention Sphere, since 1) Dredge and Reanimater are fairly scarce these days, 2) Extractions only have marginal utility against Storm Combo where I usually board them, 3) I don't board Extractions against anything else, and 4) I wanted something good against Show and Tell decks (since I found the Omniclash/Omnimaniac matchup to be pretty poor). Here's the list again for your convenience;

For Omniclash/Omnimaniac: The best weapon that I know actually is Iona, Shield of Emeria under Show&Tell or casted. A pro Omniclash player tells me that he doesn't like an early Trinisphere but a Trinisphere under Show&Tell can give you at least 2 turns (after you first turn he wishs to get bounce, after the second turn he bounces trinisphere then win) except if he has an Emrakul in hand.
For others weapons, Omni has a response (spells to get wish=>bounce/Stifle/tutor=>Emrakul...).
Trinisphere can be a weapon VS storm if you have some slots for it.

[tyriion]

GG for tournament.



For Omniclash/Omnimaniac: The best weapon that I know actually is Iona, Shield of Emeria under Show&Tell or casted. A pro Omniclash player tells me that he doesn't like an early Trinisphere but a Trinisphere under Show&Tell can give you at least 2 turns (after you first turn he wishs to get bounce, after the second turn he bounces trinisphere then win) except if he has an Emrakul in hand.
For others weapons, Omni has a response (spells to get wish=>bounce/Stifle/tutor=>Emrakul...).
Trinisphere can be a weapon VS storm if you have some slots for it.

I could imagine In the Eye of Chaos shown in to be quite a big thing against Omniclash. Not so much against other SnT versions of course. But I'd hate to run such a one off solution (Iona) that's only good in that particular matchup. ItEoC fits the deck a lot better, while having applications in other matches as well.

I wouldn't run Trinisphere either, as it will also cause you some inconvenience. The beauty of this deck comes in part of the ability to run big sideboard answers that don't harm you in any way and ideally even fit into your game plan (enchantments). ItEoC slows him down as much as Trinisphere (should give you at least 2 turns before he has found mana to cast a wish) while allowing you to steam ahead and bounce his board before he finds an answer.

[waytowinatwar]

GG for tournament.

Thank you! It felt very good!

For Omniclash/Omnimaniac: The best weapon that I know actually is Iona, Shield of Emeria under Show&Tell or casted. A pro Omniclash player tells me that he doesn't like an early Trinisphere but a Trinisphere under Show&Tell can give you at least 2 turns (after you first turn he wishs to get bounce, after the second turn he bounces trinisphere then win) except if he has an Emrakul in hand.
For others weapons, Omni has a response (spells to get wish=>bounce/Stifle/tutor=>Emrakul...).
Trinisphere can be a weapon VS storm if you have some slots for it.

When I originally saw Trinisphere in your sideboard I was quite impressed with it's power (for the reasons you mention), it is also good against elves, and tin-fins, two other problematic matchups. However, I share tyriion's worries about it interfering too much with what you are trying to do yourself. True, ug-enchantress functions better than most decks under a trinisphere since we have the eight land auras. However, the average cmc on our spells is 1.79 (if we count gsz as having cmc 3 since it typically gets argothian) which means that on average, trinisphere makes our spells cost 1.21 more mana, which significantly slows us down. Looping with cloud of faeries and two cmc 1 enchantments require six land auras rather than the normal three (there are ways around this of course, like killing your trinisphere, but I think that it bears emphasis nonethelesss).

Iona is super powerful, but too narrow, and interacts quite poorly with the rest of the deck (i.e. is not an enchantment, cannot be tutored for, and does nothing until you have a lot of mana).

I could imagine In the Eye of Chaos shown in to be quite a big thing against Omniclash.

Unfortunately, they can still play enter the infinite and if they have an alternative win condition (like emrakul) they might proceed uninterupted even if iteoc is in play. Even if they haven't got another win condition main, iteoc might just buy us a single turn since they might have bounce in the deck after boarding, and they find it with enter the infinite. Iteoc is soooo great since it doesn't interfere with us at all but I worry that it's effect isn't strong enough. (and also thatit might be too expensive against faster storm decks).

On a slightly different note, I've just returned home after playing some legacy. The legacy league we have running where I live played it's top 8 tonight. The top 8 was (except for me) zoo, elves, painter-grindstone, 12post, tin-fins, pox, jund. Not a great field, although by no means impossible, for enchantress. Unfortunately, I was paired against tin-fins and got knocked out in the quarter finals in two swift games. I was really never in either games. This is a very poor matchup for us imho. It got worse by me trying to be clever before the tournament and removing the graveyard hate from my sideboard (since I almost never board it) but it wouldn't have made much of a difference, since he won behind silence g2. Anyway, when I got back I read Melissa DeTora's excellent Enchantress primer (focused on GW enchantress) and she suggested cursed totem against griselbrand. It is no enchantment, but it is also good against elves, comes online fast, and doesn't disrupt us at all.

Anyway, after I got knocked out I could sign up for the main legacy tournament (18ppl, four rounds) with a first round loss. I managed to go 3-0, and this was good enough for me to get tied for second place. I defeated living end, goblins and nic-fit (6-0 all in all).

The matches weren't very interesting except for the fact that I have now come to think that Elephant Grass is absolutely crucial in certain matchups (Like goblins) and I now more or less mull after it (within reason). For instance, in this tournament I mulled (otd) forest, growth, 2*arg, presence, faerie, witness for 2*fetch, growth, grass, mox, witness, which I kept and won with. I played another tournament last week (where i defeated spiral-tide and miracles but lost to painter grindstone and zoo) where I mistakenly lost against zoo (with Burning tree Emissaries) due to mulliganing(otp) incorrectly i now believe, sprawl, grass, five lands for two lands, argothian, presence, witness and prim. After my opponent won the game he indulged me and we played out my seven card hand, which I won. I attribute my poor 2-2 performance here partly to my mulligan decision.

[Muffinman]

First of all, I have to say that I haven't read the entire thread, I think I got as far as page 6 before I stopped. I also created this account right now, just so I could post this. ;)

I found this thread and became aware of the existence of the deck about 2 months ago, and I instantly fell in love with the deck, as I've always loved enchantress. I only ever played a very budget deck though, and it wasn't at all on par with the legacy scene. (It played Mesa Enchantress, Attunement, Replenish and Opalescence.) I've never actually played legacy for real apart from on Cockatrice and Magic Workstation, as it has been rather unreachable for me in terms of cost.

Anyway, I've started building the deck, and I took it to a local tournament. So I guess I want to share the outcome, as well as ask a bit about the sideboard.

The list I run wasn't as complete as I would've wanted it, I lacked some cards that I couldn't get a hold of before the tournament, so at that time, it looked like this:

2 Breeding Pool (Those other duals are too damn expensive!)
4 Misty Rainforest (Fetches are also expensive, but I already owned some, and I managed to borrow the rest.)
3 Wooded Foothills
9 Forest
2 Island

4 Argothian Enchantress
4 Green Sun's Zenith
4 Enchantress's Presence
2 Eternal Witness
2 Words of Wind
4 Cloud of Faeries
4 Utopia Sprawl
4 Wild Growth
4 Elephant Grass
4 Seal of Removal
2 Carpet of Flowers
1 Seal of Primordium
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn (I was planning on playing with the wish, but couldn't find one, so I just stuck him in the main board.)

Sideboard was not at all complete, but here goes, I guess

2 Faerie Macabre (Pre-emptive strike against a deck I knew would be there, which is the landless Balustrade spy into Laboratory Maniac combo deck.)
2 Krosan Grip
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Carpet of Flowers
1 Palinchron (What do you think about this one? I thought of it as an alternative way of producing infinite mana/bounces in case your opponent plays Surgical Extraction on one of your Cloud of Faeries for example.)
1 Vexing Shusher
1 Verduran enchantress
1 Eternal Witness
1 Kitchen Finks

It was a rather small tournament (14 players in total I believe) so this might not be the best test I could get, and I managed to dodge my worst match-ups. This is basically the first time I play the deck outside of goldfishing, and my experience with legacy is farily limited, so even though there weren't too many rounds, I learned a lot. With so few players, we played 4 rounds of swiss, which will result in a maximum of one player remaining unbeaten.

I'm worthless at writing reports, and I might've forgotten some things, but I'ma give it a try.

Match 1: BUG Delver
I end up winning 2-0
I really felt like the Elephant Grasses as well as Seal of Removals saves this deck against Delver-style decks. They bought a bunch of time which let me get enchantress effects on the table and overwhelm his counterspells. I didn't go off as early as turn 4 or 5 any of the games, but around turn 6 or 7.

Match 2: Maverick
I won 2-0 easily.
This match up almost felt like a joke. He just sat there and watched me play solitare.

Match 3: UWR Delver
I won 2-1.
Game one was very close, and I won with 3 life left. It was a lot like the BUG delver match-up but I feel like this one is worse because of the burn spells he ran. Game two, I lost. I got countered and burned out. He also played a clutch Surgical Extraction that removed an enchantress's presence, which also made me discard the one in my hand. (My only enchantress effect at the time.)
Game three, he kept a hand without Force of Wills, and didn't get any, so I pretty much roamed freely.

Match 4: Maverick?
As I said earlier, I'm not the most experienced Legacy player. This person played some kind of a maverick-style deck, but he had added red into the mix, and played with Punishing Fire + Grove of the Burnwillows.
We ended up going to time, and no one won the match, 1-1.
In game one, he didn't do much to stop my assault apart from 2 Qasali Pridemages that tried to remove my enchantress effects. Game two was intense though. He dropped a Ethersworn Canonist, and together with Sylvan Safekeeper(Couldn't bounce his canonist) and Umezawa's Jitte (To kill my faeries and hit hard), he managed to pull out a victory.
Game three was kind of awkward. I only found one enchantress effect, and drew my emrakul(He just stared at me stupidly) as well as a lot of other dead cards, lands mostly. We ended up going to time, and neither of us could end the game.

I did win on tie-breakers though, so I finished first. I was very pleased with the deck, both how it performed and how fun it was to play. I will most certainly continue to play the deck, and continue with Legacy - it is the coolest format after all.

As for the sideboard, what would you suggest I should do with the it? It seems to be the only part of the deck that is truly adjustable, apart from a few cards in the main. I know that combo is a weakness, so I'd have to adjust it to that, I guess.

That's all from me. Bye!

[tyriion]

Thank you! It felt very good!



When I originally saw Trinisphere in your sideboard I was quite impressed with it's power (for the reasons you mention), it is also good against elves, and tin-fins, two other problematic matchups. However, I share tyriion's worries about it interfering too much with what you are trying to do yourself. True, ug-enchantress functions better than most decks under a trinisphere since we have the eight land auras. However, the average cmc on our spells is 1.79 (if we count gsz as having cmc 3 since it typically gets argothian) which means that on average, trinisphere makes our spells cost 1.21 more mana, which significantly slows us down. Looping with cloud of faeries and two cmc 1 enchantments require six land auras rather than the normal three (there are ways around this of course, like killing your trinisphere, but I think that it bears emphasis nonethelesss).

Iona is super powerful, but too narrow, and interacts quite poorly with the rest of the deck (i.e. is not an enchantment, cannot be tutored for, and does nothing until you have a lot of mana).



Unfortunately, they can still play enter the infinite and if they have an alternative win condition (like emrakul) they might proceed uninterupted even if iteoc is in play. Even if they haven't got another win condition main, iteoc might just buy us a single turn since they might have bounce in the deck after boarding, and they find it with enter the infinite. Iteoc is soooo great since it doesn't interfere with us at all but I worry that it's effect isn't strong enough. (and also thatit might be too expensive against faster storm decks).

If he goes for Emrakul he can't shuffle back his hand, so all you need then is 7 permanents to win it. Unless I'm missing something, which is probably the case. I don't think 7 permanents has to be a problem for this deck really, but as with every sideboard card ItEoC isn't perfect. As I haven't played the deck for real yet I wouldn't know of course, but on paper it looks as the best piece of hate we have against Omniclash, blue based combo decks in general and maybe even Burn. The drawbacks of that card are just significantly less than with the other cards (Iona, trini) so I see much more flexibility and a broader range of application. That's quite a good thing to have in a sideboard card.

[LurkingMatt]

Thank you! It felt very good!



>>Snipp<<


Unfortunately, they can still play enter the infinite and if they have an alternative win condition (like emrakul) they might proceed uninterupted even if iteoc is in play. Even if they haven't got another win condition main, iteoc might just buy us a single turn since they might have bounce in the deck after boarding, and they find it with enter the infinite. Iteoc is soooo great since it doesn't interfere with us at all but I worry that it's effect isn't strong enough. (and also thatit might be too expensive against faster storm decks).

Well it all depends. If you manage to resolve ITEOC before they resolve EtI, you are set.
Still the mono blue lists are really hard with hate to get since they run tons of protection.
The one good thing about them is the fact that they need god hands to combo before T3
which we also "can" manage (though we prefer T4).

Other then ITEOC I could only suggest Flusterstorm which I continue to run as a four-of in my
sideboard (primarily vs Storm I admit).

On a slightly different note, I've just returned home after playing some legacy. The legacy league we have running where I live played it's top 8 tonight. The top 8 was (except for me) zoo, elves, painter-grindstone, 12post, tin-fins, pox, jund. Not a great field, although by no means impossible, for enchantress. Unfortunately, I was paired against tin-fins and got knocked out in the quarter finals in two swift games. I was really never in either games. This is a very poor matchup for us imho. It got worse by me trying to be clever before the tournament and removing the graveyard hate from my sideboard (since I almost never board it) but it wouldn't have made much of a difference, since he won behind silence g2. Anyway, when I got back I read Melissa DeTora's excellent Enchantress primer (focused on GW enchantress) and she suggested cursed totem against griselbrand. It is no enchantment, but it is also good against elves, comes online fast, and doesn't disrupt us at all.

Mind handing a link to Ms. DeTora's Primer?
Also thanks for the idea of using Cursed Totem (Dampening Matrix if Affinity/ Mav/ DnT are big in your area but Elves ain't). Since I dropped the deck b/c Elves where are real pain in the ass and popped everywhere I went, I have to admit this might be
a nice addition which would let me pick up the deck once more.

Anyway, after I got knocked out I could sign up for the main legacy tournament (18ppl, four rounds) with a first round loss. I managed to go 3-0, and this was good enough for me to get tied for second place. I defeated living end, goblins and nic-fit (6-0 all in all).

The matches weren't very interesting except for the fact that I have now come to think that Elephant Grass is absolutely crucial in certain matchups (Like goblins) and I now more or less mull after it (within reason). For instance, in this tournament I mulled (otd) forest, growth, 2*arg, presence, faerie, witness for 2*fetch, growth, grass, mox, witness, which I kept and won with. I played another tournament last week (where i defeated spiral-tide and miracles but lost to painter grindstone and zoo) where I mistakenly lost against zoo (with Burning tree Emissaries) due to mulliganing(otp) incorrectly i now believe, sprawl, grass, five lands for two lands, argothian, presence, witness and prim. After my opponent won the game he indulged me and we played out my seven card hand, which I won. I attribute my poor 2-2 performance here partly to my mulligan decision.