[Deck] U/G Enchantress

I finished 6 on 24 players and win a Enlightened Tutor.

List:


1 Dryad Arbor
1 Island
1 Underground Sea
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Serra's Sanctum
9 Forest
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 Eternal Witness
1 Gaddock Teeg
4 Argothian Enchantress
4 Cloud of Faeries
2 Cloudstone Curio
1 Words of Wind
2 City of solitude
4 Abundant Growth
4 Elephant Grass
4 Enchantress's Presence
4 Seal of Removal
4 Utopia Sprawl
4 Wild Growth
1 Tendrils of Agony
3 Green Sun's Zenith

SB: 1 Harmonic Sliver
SB: 1 Iona, Shield of Emeria
SB: 2 Trinisphere
SB: 1 Kitchen Finks
SB: 3 Engineered Plague
SB: 3 Blind Obedience
SB: 4 Leyline of Sanctity


G1: Maverick.

R1: lock with Words of wind => He gives up.
R2: Same, he didn't see his Ethersworn Canonist

G2: Goblin

R1: Elephant Grass => win (T1 GSZ=> Dryad to block T1 Lackey gob ^^)
R2: Elephant Grass => win

G3: Esper (I was very stupid during this game....)

R1: Curio=>Tendrils
I side out Gaddock (I forgot that Gaddock protect me from Jace+E.E) => First Stupidity
I forgot to side in Leyline (pro Liliana/Jace/discard) => 2nd stupidity
R2 and R3 Jace+E.E defeat me (at one turn before combo)
I'll have to win this game but I was very stupid and I hope I don't reproduce this anymore ><!!!

G4: Miror (with my friend whom we have built this deck)
He had more chance than me, I lose 2-1 and tell me that I was stupid for the last game :smile:.

G5: Omniclash
played by a pro player (Pierre Sommen which win GP Amsterdam and lot of big tournaments).

R1: T2 I try GSZ => FoW, T3 I play enchant land + faerie, then 2nd faerie, then witness->I get back GSZ then GSZ=>Gaddock :cool:.
He didn't get show&tell (Gaddock prevents him from playing DreamHall and Enter the infinite). When he had 5 life, he try a show&tell to put Emrakul. But I play seal of removal => Win

side in: x1 iona, x2 trinisphere and x4 LL (side out Elephant grass, witness and 2 enchantments)

R2: LL on the battlefield, I put Gaddock T2 with GSZ then Curio then Argo+Faerie => infinite mana and draw => tendrils => Win.
He would to play wish => Intuition to get last card for combo but LL avoids it.

I'm 6/24 and I could have done better.

Modification:
- Improve myself

Regards,
Dihensoeur

Can i ask you in what matchups do you side in Blind Obedience? i understand the other sideboard choices but not this one, maybe i'm missing something obvious

My guess would be aggro decks or stuff like affinity/MUD. While it slows down the opponent it does nothing to slow you down and gives you another win con with extort. The lifegain might be relevant as well. I had been thinking about including Frozen Aether, but Blind Obedience has some obvious advantages over that one.

I'm just unsure whether you need the sideboard slot for aggro match ups. So I would be curious about your practical experiences as well.

I have been thinking about Root Maze as well, as it should slow down combo decks significantly without hurting your ability to combo out too much. Anyone already tested that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samsunait

Can i ask you in what matchups do you side in Blind Obedience? i understand the other sideboard choices but not this one, maybe i'm missing something obvious

---

Blind Obedience is VS Sneak Attack/Through the Breach but VS Elves too (elves can't combo with blind on the battlefield).
We can use blind vs burn or gobs and you can kill with extort easily (faerie on Sanctum).

Quote:

---

I'm just unsure whether you need the sideboard slot for aggro match ups. So I would be curious about your practical experiences as well.

---

We don't need really sideboard for aggro, Elephant grass is enough, but you can add Plague/Kitchen to gain some turns.

Quote:

---

I have been thinking about Root Maze as well, as it should slow down combo decks significantly without hurting your ability to combo out too much. Anyone already tested that?

---

It's not a good idea. I already tested the card. To use efficiently root maze, you need to have it in start hand AND start, otherwise you will be more affected than opponents.
Moreover, the list works very well and it's really very difficult to find a slot.

Just got back into town to talk about SCG St. Louis. Not much happened (as evidenced by the lack of a UG Enchantress deck in the top 8) because I made the choice to party the night before and wasn't quite at my best. I beat a Deathblade list and a Salvagers combo list (completely random...) and lost to another Deathblade list, TES and a UB Delver list. I felt like I was playing well and was in most of my games (except for TES...), but I didn't have the focus and drive to actually wrestle close matches away from people. I made one major change, adding in a single Taiga and a Seal of Fire in the sideboard in order to keep me from drawing games unnecessarily, which is something that did in fact come up. I still feel that under normal situations this is something that is very, very rare if you are playing well, but I guess I worry about it more in real life than I do on MODO. I like it over Emrakul for a number of reasons: 1) it is a cheap enchantment that has great utility and so is never a dead draw and 2) it ensures that if you have a turn, you can win regardless of the opponent's life total. Emrakul has one major benefit, being colorless, but I think if you're going to have a card in your sideboard to ensure that you don't draw games you should win, or to get you to be able to draw matches that you would otherwise lose, it should win in all situations and regardless of how many additional turns you have, since that's the whole point of even having it in the board.

Before anyone asks, the Seal of Fire stays in the sideboard until game 3 in almost all situations. Cutting a Forest for what is, in most cases, a strictly worse Forest is already enough of a liability. You don't want to put yourself into a situation where you have the Seal of Fire sitting in your opening hand against a Wasteland deck which could force you into fetching a risky land just so your hand doesn't clog up. I would almost say that you could get by without any Taigas, but I do think there will be a few games where you will want to be able to use your Utopia Sprawls on blue or green and still be able to play your Seal of Fire in an emergency before you have a chance to go off. Once you go off, you just pick up a Utopia Sprawl and turn it to red, then go nuts.

I don't feel that luck was on my side since I lost some matchups that are probably somewhat favorable. I didn't expect Jund since it seems people have largely forgotten about that deck, so I had some space to work with without Leyline of Sanctity, though I think that the trickiest decks for us to face will be ones that have targeted discard. I'm still looking for a good answer to that, perhaps it's just a lot of Compost. But I got hit with a Hymn to Tourach and was about as unaffected as I've ever been with that card. Sometimes you get blown out, but it's just so random that it's not worth worrying about. What's great about Leyline of Sanctity is that it comes down before they get a chance to Thoughtseize you. What sucks is that you have to have 4 slots in the sideboard for it, and then you have to be able to justify siding in 4 cards in addition to all of the other cards that you're probably bringing in. I will say, in terms of sideboarding, if you're scared of the new Omniclash lists, In the Eye of Chaos will do a number on most of them since they're Cunning Wish decks at their heart.

As for Dihensoeur's list, I'd like to ask that you either A) address the issues that I'd brought up in previous posts about how I feel that you're version is strictly weaker than the list on the first page of this thread or B) start your own thread. Innovation is fun and exciting, but I think if you're comboing off with Cloudstone Curio and Tendrils of Agony, it's pretty safe to say that you're playing a very different deck than I am, so that deserves it's own thread. I do find Blind Obedience interesting and potentially better in the application of win condition than Seal of Fire simply because it's (more or less) on-color, though I'm not sure if the non-extort effect of the spell is good enough since there are so few creatures with Haste in the format and MUD is very, very scarcely played. It's probably an all-star against MUD, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

I made one major change, adding in a single Taiga and a Seal of Fire in the sideboard in order to keep me from drawing games unnecessarily, which is something that did in fact come up.

---

How does sideboarding a shock help? Are you regularly coming up 1-2 damage short of the win or am I missing something? It has to be sacrificed to deal the damage, so how is it being recurred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonymos

How does sideboarding a shock help? Are you regularly coming up 1-2 damage short of the win or am I missing something? It has to be sacrificed to deal the damage, so how is it being recurred?

---

There is Eternal Witness. And with Words of Wind bouncing that one back to your hand all the time you can recur it for the kill with enough mana open. Cloud of Faeries takes care of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

As for Dihensoeur's list, I'd like to ask that you either A) address the issues that I'd brought up in previous posts about how I feel that you're version is strictly weaker than the list on the first page of this thread or B) start your own thread. Innovation is fun and exciting, but I think if you're comboing off with Cloudstone Curio and Tendrils of Agony, it's pretty safe to say that you're playing a very different deck than I am, so that deserves it's own thread. I do find Blind Obedience interesting and potentially better in the application of win condition than Seal of Fire simply because it's (more or less) on-color, though I'm not sure if the non-extort effect of the spell is good enough since there are so few creatures with Haste in the format and MUD is very, very scarcely played. It's probably an all-star against MUD, though.

---

You still feel that my last version is weaker than yours. But I want to remember a lesson of this thread:

Quote:

---

Test it and see it by yourself

---

That I applied for Witness because I don't felt it at the beginning. I tested it and see its power.
It will be too long to explain why my last list is stricly stronger (faster, more stable...) than yours. But you're probably right, I'm playing a different deck. So I will make a new thread and continue to try to convince Enchantress players to play this list because I believe on it. You don't believe on it and maybe don't want to test it because you don't like the version, it's your choice I completely respect it.
I'm sad to have failed to convince you, too bad.

So this is probably my last response in this thread. I just want to tell you about Blind obedience:
It's not for creatures with haste or MUD (but can be if you want) or to kill with extort (but you can too) that's bonus.
Bind allows us to be protected from Sneak Attack/Through the Breach and slow Elves because elves can't combo with Blind on the battlefield. So Blind is a good hate for these combo decks.

Good luck to all.

Imho your version, while different, is perfectly fine here in this thread, that's usually dead for weeks anyway, so why not discussing another version if we see that's working and making good results?
My suggestion is to put personal egos out of this thread and keep working on this deck, if there is a variation of it that works (in practice) and prove itself on real tournaments, why not going on and believe on it? it's definitely Enchantress, it's definitely U/G (with 1 black card...), so it deserve a place here.
Let's put out the childish attitute "i want to kick you from my thread cause i don't like your version no matter what" and go on, less drama, more magic.

I'm sorry you think my attitude is childish; I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we use this section to discuss the deck that uses Words of Wind exclusively and kills with Cloud of Faeries, since that's what UG Enchantress is. We're not here to discuss things just to discuss them; we're here to further the discussion and development of the UG Enchantress deck. And until this new version proves itself in actual, large tournaments in the hands of more than one person, as UG Enchantress has, it hasn't actually proven anything.

Didn't think about Elves, and I see that you already explained that in a previous thread, so I'm very sorry about that. That's a great use for a matchup that's very difficult to win. If Elves comes back with a vengeance, it is a very, very strong sideboard card.

I would hope that you could at least try to address some of the questions I have. I don't need to test something when it's pretty clearly weaker. At this point, your maindeck is 14 cards different from mine which is a large departure, and for each of the cards that you've added (Serra's Sanctum, Cloudstone Curio, Tendrils of Agony, Emrakul, Abundant Growth, City of Solitude) I have (and have given) very specific reasons why I'm not already playing them. This isn't directed so much at you, Dihensoeur, but is more of an explanation as to what I feel is the appropriate response when someone asks you a question on a thread on the internet. It's not very convincing to say "my list is better!" and then fail to address questions raised at the list that you've posted when someone asks you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

I'm sorry you think my attitude is childish; I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we use this section to discuss the deck that uses Words of Wind exclusively and kills with Cloud of Faeries, since that's what UG Enchantress is. We're not here to discuss things just to discuss them; we're here to further the discussion and development of the UG Enchantress deck. And until this new version proves itself in actual, large tournaments in the hands of more than one person, as UG Enchantress has, it hasn't actually proven anything.

Didn't think about Elves, and I see that you already explained that in a previous thread, so I'm very sorry about that. That's a great use for a matchup that's very difficult to win. If Elves comes back with a vengeance, it is a very, very strong sideboard card.

I would hope that you could at least try to address some of the questions I have. I don't need to test something when it's pretty clearly weaker. At this point, your maindeck is 14 cards different from mine which is a large departure, and for each of the cards that you've added (Serra's Sanctum, Cloudstone Curio, Tendrils of Agony, Emrakul, Abundant Growth, City of Solitude) I have (and have given) very specific reasons why I'm not already playing them. This isn't directed so much at you, Dihensoeur, but is more of an explanation as to what I feel is the appropriate response when someone asks you a question on a thread on the internet. It's not very convincing to say "my list is better!" and then fail to address questions raised at the list that you've posted when someone asks you.

---

Ok, sorry I forgot to answer you (#165 right?)

First about your deck:
- Your kill is only Words of wind that's not a real kill because you hope than opponent gives up and can be easily managed (counter spells, discards, revoker, pithing needle, surgical....) that's extremely frangible (mostly have only one kill).
- the deck is slow and needs at least 5 manas (so at least 3 enchant lands on 8 availables) on 2 lands + one faeries + 2 drawer (argothian/presence) + a enchant (cost 1) to play to lock completely. Even the deck draws a lot, it's not really easy and quick to have all without taken discards/counter/decay...
- the deck keep the same weakness as classical Enchantress: Argothian/Presence, you can't win without them (it's not my case).
- So you "kill" slowly and can do many draw in a tournament (as we can see in a video VS U/R delver).
- So you are forced to give up the first round VS all combo decks.

Second about my deck (that I built with a friend who play the deck too):
- I have still Words of wind because it's an excellent card, can lock, etc...as you know.
- I added Cloudstone Curio because it's faster than words of wind and interacts with the entire deck for free (and it's not sensitive to revoker). Ok the goal of curio it's not the lock as Words of wind but the speed (I can potentially have unlimited mana T2). I need only one enchant land and 2 faeries to have unlimited mana or 2 enchant land and one argothian + one fearie to make unlimited spells, etc... there are lot of combinations (more than words of wind).
- I can have unlimited draw without Argothian/Presence. Even without Abundant growth (by unlimited recycling). I'm more stable and robust from hate.
- So, I can have easily unlimited spells/mana/draw, so I added 2 uncounterable kills: Tendrils of Agony and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. 2 kills because it's never good to have a single kill. Emrakul can kill by "aggro" and is uncounterable, Tendrils kill directly the player and is uncounterable because storm (and it's very easy to make 7-8 spells before Tendrils). So I'm safe from many protections/attacks that opponent can have VS me. At worst, I can exploit Words of wind to remove protections or play a Tendrils with few spells to gain life and so gain time.
- So with this, I can potentially kill T2 and I kill regulary around T4 (or can kill T4 but opponents disturb me ^^ so I kill him few turns after like I explained in reports). There is no match drawn with this deck, I can win in one turn.
- Serra's sanctum is here for speed (unlimited mana easy with it and faeries) and play Emrakul easier.
- City of solitude VS carpet of flowers: I've been fan of carpet since long time. But in this version, I need to be safe during combo (no removal on faeries or counter). It's the same for you, during words+faeries, a removal on faeries stop your lock. And so consumes opponent's FoW instead of on Argothian/presence/GSZ.
- Gaddock Teeg: why md? Because it's a little hate for opponent's combo deck that are faster than me, Gaddock can give me the time to combo before them. A hate for FoW/Jace and Engineered Explosives. Even I can't play GSZ or Tendrils, I have so many way to bounce it when I will win so it's good MD.
So I don't give up the first round vs combo deck even (I agree) I have few chance.

I'm still slower than legacy combo decks yes, but faster than any no combo decks, so approximately all my sideboard is for combo deck because there are only them that MUs are not favorable.

Can you give me your opinion about my explanation?
I'm sure you will be not very agree about some points but I will respect your opinion and will answer you if you have more questions.

Sorry again about my missing explanation.

Regards,
Dihensoeur

Dihensoeur: Thank you for posting your tournament reports and congratulations to your good finishes. Tournament success across multiple events is the only real quality indicator there is for a magic deck, so I feel compelled to take your deck seriously. However, since your version overlaps the standard deck to a large degree some of your success might just have to do with the common shell and not your idiosyncrasies. I’d be interested in hearing more about your adventures (in this thread preferably; I see no reason to discuss your deck in a separate thread), both successes and (god forbid) failures.

I thought I’d list the reservations I have with your deck (the one you list in the 201 post) so that you can address them.
First and most importantly, your deck differs from what I play, which is fairly close md to the original list (and which I will henceforth refer to as the standard list) mainly on three different counts; 1) the mana base, 2)the inclusion of dedicated kill cards, and 3) the inclusion of Cloudstone Curio (and Abundant growths to support this.). I think it is important to keep these things apart since one could conceivably differ from the standard list in only one of these respects and not the others.

Two things that I originally found very appealing with the standard ug-enchantress list was that it was more or less wasteland-proof, and that it contained no dedicated kill cards, i.e. no cards that are dead if you are not going off. Your list has neither of these qualities.
You have fewer mana sources (only 16 compared to my 18 lands and 2 moxes), four of which are non-basic lands that tap for mana. You can gsz for arbour, and abundant growth cantrips, but this looks very fragile. Moreover, how good is really the white mana that can be generated with Sanctum? I mean there are colorless mana holes that can be filled (2 for presence, 1 for argothian, 3 for curio etc) but this seems underwhelming (the deck doesn’t after all really run white md).

Concerning the dedicated kill cards; since you already include the wow win (bounce everything) two dedicated kill cards seems excessive. I realize that both have their virtues but by safeguarding against everything you get a deck full of speedbumps. Also, the uncounterability only really matters if you are playing to win really fast (and your opponent for some reason don’t counter curio/faerie, or whatever else it is you use for setting up) Tendrils and Emrakul feel good, but I wonder how much their uncounterability really matters in a deck like UG-enchantress which is soresilent. If you really want to include a dedicated kill card (so that you can win the turn you are going off) why not maindeck a blind obedience (which was a very nice find by the way)? It is also a sink for white mana, and is randomly good against popular decks.

Finally, I’m intrigued by the inclusion of cloudstone curio, because as you say the deck has trouble winning without the enchantresses, and curio is a draw engine that doubles as a mana generator. Also, by including the abundant growths you make the mana better (you could for instance include a seal of fire as a win con without changing the lands since abundant + sprawl gives you 8 red sources, it also makes casting leyline of sanctity easier if one is boarding that (which is currently a problem for me)), and make wow’s without enchantresses slightly better. This can also matter post-board since some people board surgical extraction and hope to fow or discard an enchantress effect and then grab all the others via extraction. So what I think is most compelling about your list is the inclusion of curio. Do you see any strong reasons against including curio’s and growth but keeping the mana base intact and not including any dedicated kill cards? What would you replace in that case?

Also, I’m hoping to write down some more tournament experimence of m own soon. I won another tournament and scrubbed out of another (at gp Gothenburg)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

I’d be interested in hearing more about your adventures (in this thread preferably; I see no reason to discuss your deck in a separate thread), both successes and (god forbid) failures.

---

What do you want to know about my adventures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

Two things that I originally found very appealing with the standard ug-enchantress list was that it was more or less wasteland-proof, and that it contained no dedicated kill cards, i.e. no cards that are dead if you are not going off. Your list has neither of these qualities.

---

I don't understand your point. Tendrils and Emrakul are not dead even I can't go off. Like I said in reports, I can play Tendrils for few spells to gain life (so gain time) and Sanctum allows me to have 15 manas without faeries. Moreover, WoW is not a real kill (mostly in real tournament). Even you don't like Emrakul/Tendrils, you should think about a second plan instead of only WoW like all legacy combo decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

You have fewer mana sources (only 16 compared to my 18 lands and 2 moxes), four of which are non-basic lands that tap for mana. You can gsz for arbour, and abundant growth cantrips, but this looks very fragile.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

Moreover, how good is really the white mana that can be generated with Sanctum? I mean there are colorless mana holes that can be filled (2 for presence, 1 for argothian, 3 for curio etc) but this seems underwhelming (the deck doesn’t after all really run white md).

---

Yes it's only 2 for presence, 1 for argothian etc...but if you sum all, how many colorless need you in reality? I mean, I'm storm, I play many spells in one turn, 2 for presence+1 for argothian + 3 for curio + 1 for fearies + 2 for GSZ...= 9 and more. Sanctum allow me to play many spells in one turn. I tested it before add in the deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

Concerning the dedicated kill cards; since you already include the wow win (bounce everything) two dedicated kill cards seems excessive.

---

WoW is not a real kill. I want to say "I win" in a game and not waiting for a probable abort and finally a draw... Tendrils is a "direct kill" and Emrakul is the "aggro kill". WoW is a lock, a control card, not a kill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

I realize that both have their virtues but by safeguarding against everything you get a deck full of speedbumps. Also, the uncounterability only really matters if you are playing to win really fast (and your opponent for some reason don’t counter curio/faerie, or whatever else it is you use for setting up)

---

Opponent counter/discard curio/faerie when he know the engine. But he has to counter argothian, presence, GSZ, Witness, WoW.... too, there are too cards that he has to manage. He can't manage all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

Tendrils and Emrakul feel good, but I wonder how much their uncounterability really matters in a deck like UG-enchantress which is soresilent. If you really want to include a dedicated kill card (so that you can win the turn you are going off) why not maindeck a blind obedience (which was a very nice find by the way)? It is also a sink for white mana, and is randomly good against popular decks.

---

UG Enchantress will be more and more popular while we win. A list with only 2 main cards (WoW+Blind) that can't be managed is very dangerous. A good player with some counter spell will wait for your main card and counter them. But you can kill with Blind if you want (already kill a SneakShow with it in training). Even I play Witness and City of solitude, I want to be safe. Moreover, for Emrakul: Emrakul don't need storm but only 15mana and can be useful for Show&Tell (SneakShow mu), for Tendrils: it's easier to cast Tendrils with storm than kill with blind, by example: opponent has 18life, so you need to cast 18 spells with additional one white mana to kill with blind instead of cast 8spells then Tendrils. You can really kill with blind only if you are in the infinite mana case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

Finally, I’m intrigued by the inclusion of cloudstone curio, because as you say the deck has trouble winning without the enchantresses

---

It's the case of classical UG Enchantress, exactly not my case because I'm using Abundant like a draw engine (with curio or WoW).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

and curio is a draw engine that doubles as a mana generator.

---

Curio is more than a mana generator, it's a draw engine with abundant, a mana generator with faeries, a recuperator generator with Witness, a infinite life engine with Kitchen, .....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

Also, by including the abundant growths you make the mana better (you could for instance include a seal of fire as a win con without changing the lands since abundant + sprawl gives you 8 red sources, it also makes casting leyline of sanctity easier if one is boarding that (which is currently a problem for me))

---

The kill with seal of fire is: play seal, use seal, getback seal by witness.... ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

and make wow’s without enchantresses slightly better. This can also matter post-board since some people board surgical extraction and hope to fow or discard an enchantress effect and then grab all the others via extraction.

---

With argo/presence/curio engine, it's very difficult to extract all to put me in trouble. Even he can do it, I can always cast Emrakul with faeries or without. So, when an opponent has a surgical in hand, it's very very diffcult for him to choice a target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

So what I think is most compelling about your list is the inclusion of curio. Do you see any strong reasons against including curio’s and growth but keeping the mana base intact and not including any dedicated kill cards?

---

If I understand (sorry for my english), you want to include Curio without any dedicated kill cards? Curio is a draw/mana/effect engine so yes you can include it without include Tendrils/Emrakul if you don't like them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

What would you replace in that case?

---

Sorry I don't understand the question, you mean what I will replace in your deck to include curio?

Thanks for your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waytowinatwar

Also, I’m hoping to write down some more tournament experimence of m own soon. I won another tournament and scrubbed out of another (at gp Gothenburg)

---

Good luk!

First, I'd like to say it's good for you to try to innovate. I've also tried to innovate with this deck. I've found pretty much every innovation that I've made has been just worse than what Cuneo did, in the long run. I've also found that most of the things that I've tried to do, he's already tried and dismissed. Things like Dryad Arbor, Arcane Laboratory, City of Solitude, even lots of Chrome Moxen are all things he's tried and dismissed, and I just had to learn for myself why he made those choices, often by losing lots of games that I would have won with a more streamlined deck.

Next, a lot of the issues that you bring up quite simply do not exist. You talk about how Words of Wind can be hit with a Pithing Needle effect, or a counterspell, or discard, but I have literally never lost a game in which someone has thought that that was the best way to attack this deck. The only way I usually lose is either a) the opponent's deck is faster than mine and I have no way to interact (combo) or b) the opponent has disrupted my Enchantresses long enough to beat me (usually with targeted discard). Every other plan that anyone has ever tried to implement to beat me has failed. If you needle Words of Wind, I'll still just draw my deck until I find Seal of Primordium, kill the Pithing Needle or Phyrexian Revoker, and then bounce their whole board. If your plan is to counter all of my Words of Wind, you'd better have at least 4 hard counters in your hand when I'm going off (one for each Words of Wind and each Eternal Witness), as well as potentially one for each Green Sun's Zenith. You said something about removal on Cloud of Faeries stopping me from going off. Since there are Eternal Witness in the deck, I'll assume you're talking about Swords to Plowshares. I've never lost to a Swords to Plowshares on Cloud of Faeries stopping me for the turn. Mostly because I have Seal of Removal in the deck, and when I'm going off I have now or will soon have half of my deck in my hand meaning that finding a replacement Cloud of Faeries is pretty simple, but there are also situations where it will stop me for a turn but I'll just win the next turn after having had him pick up most of his permanents and having had me draw a full hand.

The only draw I have received in four large tournaments any many small ones has been from my own illegal play costing me a game, and subsequently being unable to complete a third game in time (as I had been playing at a good pace to win 2 games, and would have if not for my mistake). Regardless, the addition of Seal of Fire or Blind Obedience makes this irrelevant.

I do find it interesting that you mention one of the strengths of the deck (no "kill" cards) as a weakness. It is a strength because it means that you will never, ever (ever) have any dead cards in your hand at any point in the game. Even some that are dead in some matchups (like Carpet of Flowers) still function to draw you more cards by virtue of being an enchantment. All of the cards in the deck function to draw you cards in one way or another, which makes counterspells very, very bad against this deck since it's pretty simple to just run them out of cards in hand with you actually gaining cards in the mean time. In your list, if someone counters the Cloudstone Curio, then they've traded one-for-one. In mine, if someone counters the Words of Wind, they've traded one-for-one, but I then draw at least one replacement card, often 3-4, off of the Enchantress triggers. Same for removal like Abrupt Decay. Same for Discard pointed at anything but Enchantresses. If someone is trying to beat you with one-for-ones, they will lose, often embarrassingly so. But with your list, those one-for-ones can actually do something against you since you've got cards that are main engines in the deck that aren't drawing you extra cards just by virtue of coming into play.

Finally, here's the main issue: Enchantress, by it's nature, is not fast. It will never consistently beat a fast combo deck because of this. No card that you add in to an Enchantress deck will make it a turn 2 deck because it's just not possible with the way that the deck operates. By your estimation, you have added some cards and gained one turn in speed, but that's not fast enough to beat combo. It never will be. It is something you must accept if you choose to play a deck with Argothian Enchantress in it. But where that is a weakness, it is traded off for the strength of being extremely consistent and resilient in the face of disruption. If you want to build a deck that wins turn 2 with Cloudstone Curio, then why aren't you running the full 4 to maximize your chances of that happening?

You have gained that extra turn by cutting cards that should help you control the game to help you get to the late game where you can win (Seal of Removal, Seal of Primordium) and by removing Carpet of Flowers, made yourself more vulnerable to Daze and Spell Pierce which are exactly the cards that are going to beat you in the early game. You have cut into the strength of the deck and replaced it with weakness. As I see it, there are no non-combo decks in the format that kill on turn 4, and few that kill on turn 5, so you haven't really accomplished anything there. You've sped yourself up but made yourself more vulnerable to counterspells. You've added (unnecessary) powerful lands that are mulligans in the wrong opening hands and are vulnerable to Wasteland which is played as much now as ever. You say that Wasteland disrupting you isn't that common; in my list, Wasteland is always a dead card. Always. I do think that a lot of the games that you've won would have been wins with a more standard version of the deck anyway, that maybe one game in twenty you win based on the strength of the cards that you've added to the deck. I also suspect that you lose at least 5% of the games that you would win with a more consistent list like the one on the first page of this thread. That means that at best you're breaking even, and at worst you've traded consistency for flashiness and are losing more games in the long-run because of it. Your deck is just less efficient in a lot of ways than the standard build, and it's not a question of whether or not it's costing you games but rather of how many and how often.

You can play whatever cards you want. I just want you to know that it's not a case of me not having thought of the cards that are in your list (other than Blind Obedience, which I do thank you for). I've thought of and dismissed the cards that you have added in for being inefficient as compared to the cards already present. The deck doesn't not run Emrakul because no one thought of it, it was a conscious choice to not play a dedicated kill card in the deck because it's completely unnecessary. It doesn't not run Serra's Sanctum because we didn't know that card exists, it doesn't run it because the deck already makes more than enough mana and running a non-basic land in a deck that's already very rarely going to have a non-basic in play makes that particular land more than twice as likely to be affected by Wasteland over the course of the game. I don't run Abundant Growth because I'm really only two colors and have tons of Fetchlands and Utopia Sprawls and Chrome Moxen to fix my colors and my enchantments already cantrip if things aren't going terribly, so that's a wasted spot when it could be something that helps control the game like Seal of Removal. If you want to do something flashy rather than consistent, go for it. Just know it's probably a bad tradeoff in the long run.

regarding Blind obedience VS Sneak Attack/through the breach:
clever players will activate SA at the end of your turn after the triggers are gone to the stack, in this way their creature will be sacrificed at the end of their turn.
Blind obedience buys you a turn, it doesn't stop SA.

Dihensoeur: I started responding to your responses but then I saw benthetenors reply. Mine would have been very similar; I have the exact same worries, and the exact same experience.

As I wrote, I'm curious whether the standard build could incorporate the curio+abundant growth engine (but without messing up the mana/include dedicated kill cards) but I don't know if the resulting deck would be better than the standard version. But I'm interested in how you would do it.

Kingtk3: Thanks. I'm reconsidering my Blind Obedience trade-request. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

Next, a lot of the issues that you bring up quite simply do not exist. You talk about how Words of Wind can be hit with a Pithing Needle effect, or a counterspell, or discard, but I have literally never lost a game in which someone has thought that that was the best way to attack this deck. The only way I usually lose is either a) the opponent's deck is faster than mine and I have no way to interact (combo) or b) the opponent has disrupted my Enchantresses long enough to beat me (usually with targeted discard).

---

You mention 2 ways to lose the game. I'm less sensitive to these ways like I explained, I'm more robust on your weakness and have more chance to win combo deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

Every other plan that anyone has ever tried to implement to beat me has failed. If you needle Words of Wind, I'll still just draw my deck until I find Seal of Primordium, kill the Pithing Needle or Phyrexian Revoker, and then bounce their whole board. If your plan is to counter all of my Words of Wind, you'd better have at least 4 hard counters in your hand when I'm going off (one for each Words of Wind and each Eternal Witness), as well as potentially one for each Green Sun's Zenith. You said something about removal on Cloud of Faeries stopping me from going off. Since there are Eternal Witness in the deck, I'll assume you're talking about Swords to Plowshares. I've never lost to a Swords to Plowshares on Cloud of Faeries stopping me for the turn. Mostly because I have Seal of Removal in the deck, and when I'm going off I have now or will soon have half of my deck in my hand meaning that finding a replacement Cloud of Faeries is pretty simple, but there are also situations where it will stop me for a turn but I'll just win the next turn after having had him pick up most of his permanents and having had me draw a full hand.

---

Fragile don't mean that the deck is weak. Yes I know you have some way to getback WoW. Again, I'm more robust on this point. Because you need to draw (with only argo/presence) to get Witness/Seal to hope getback WoW and lock instead of win by another way quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

The only draw I have received in four large tournaments any many small ones has been from my own illegal play costing me a game, and subsequently being unable to complete a third game in time (as I had been playing at a good pace to win 2 games, and would have if not for my mistake). Regardless, the addition of Seal of Fire or Blind Obedience makes this irrelevant.

---

So you will kill with seal of fire or blind now? That's a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

I do find it interesting that you mention one of the strengths of the deck (no "kill" cards) as a weakness. It is a strength because it means that you will never, ever (ever) have any dead cards in your hand at any point in the game.

---

You can have kill cards and no dead cards. It's not impossible. And I already explained that Emrakul and Tendrils are not really dead. Even you think that are dead cards, I prefer have kills and one shot opponents quickly instead of wait and try to install a win con with WoW or Seal of fire and let opponent find a solution to win. But it's my choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

Even some that are dead in some matchups (like Carpet of Flowers) still function to draw you more cards by virtue of being an enchantment. All of the cards in the deck function to draw you cards in one way or another, which makes counterspells very, very bad against this deck since it's pretty simple to just run them out of cards in hand with you actually gaining cards in the mean time. In your list, if someone counters the Cloudstone Curio, then they've traded one-for-one. In mine, if someone counters the Words of Wind, they've traded one-for-one, but I then draw at least one replacement card, often 3-4, off of the Enchantress triggers. Same for removal like Abrupt Decay. Same for Discard pointed at anything but Enchantresses. If someone is trying to beat you with one-for-ones, they will lose, often embarrassingly so. But with your list, those one-for-ones can actually do something against you since you've got cards that are main engines in the deck that aren't drawing you extra cards just by virtue of coming into play.

---

Yes, counter curio don't make me draw, but it's the same for GSZ no? Faeries no? And you forgot a detail, I play more enchantments (27) than you (25 no?). So I have more chance to draw enchantment when I play enchantment than you. And I already explained that my draw engine is stronger than you via Curio/Abundant/Recycling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

Finally, here's the main issue: Enchantress, by it's nature, is not fast. It will never consistently beat a fast combo deck because of this. No card that you add in to an Enchantress deck will make it a turn 2 deck because it's just not possible with the way that the deck operates. By your estimation, you have added some cards and gained one turn in speed, but that's not fast enough to beat combo. It never will be. It is something you must accept if you choose to play a deck with Argothian Enchantress in it. But where that is a weakness, it is traded off for the strength of being extremely consistent and resilient in the face of disruption. If you want to build a deck that wins turn 2 with Cloudstone Curio, then why aren't you running the full 4 to maximize your chances of that happening?

---

First, I can potentially win turn 2. Yes it's not enough to beat combo in game1 and not be sure, because all combo decks don't win T2 all the time so again, I have more chance than you and it's the same for no combo deck. I don't play 4 curio because 2 is enough and I keep more enchantments than you. You don't play 4 WoW right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

You have gained that extra turn by cutting cards that should help you control the game to help you get to the late game where you can win (Seal of Removal, Seal of Primordium) and by removing Carpet of Flowers, made yourself more vulnerable to Daze and Spell Pierce which are exactly the cards that are going to beat you in the early game.

---

I don't cut Seal of removal. And why I'll need Seal of primordium? Pithing needle doesn't work for me. I have so different tricks than there is no artefact that can really affect me. Except Canonist (like you) and Canonist can came in Game2 when I have already Seal of removal, WoW and add a Sliver that I can get more quickly by GSZ than a single Seal of primordium.
Then, carpet. Yes carpet is useful. And you talk about early game, but you have only 2 carpets, how many time have you a carpet in early game? You give up when you don't have it in start hand VS control deck? I don't think and you know that, you can win without carpet and can be Daze/Spellpierce proof without them. Yes is useful for Daze/Spellpierce, but I don't care, I have so many way to have a draw engine and you know we have so many way to make mana to be Daze/SpellPierce proof. So it's not a problem. So no weakness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

You have cut into the strength of the deck and replaced it with weakness. As I see it, there are no non-combo decks in the format that kill on turn 4, and few that kill on turn 5, so you haven't really accomplished anything there. You've sped yourself up but made yourself more vulnerable to counterspells.

---

High Tide was a combo deck that kill T4. And could you explain me why I'm more vulnerable to counterspells? I explained many times the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

You've added (unnecessary) powerful lands that are mulligans in the wrong opening hands and are vulnerable to Wasteland which is played as much now as ever. You say that Wasteland disrupting you isn't that common; in my list, Wasteland is always a dead card. Always. I do think that a lot of the games that you've won would have been wins with a more standard version of the deck anyway, that maybe one game in twenty you win based on the strength of the cards that you've added to the deck. I also suspect that you lose at least 5% of the games that you would win with a more consistent list like the one on the first page of this thread. That means that at best you're breaking even, and at worst you've traded consistency for flashiness and are losing more games in the long-run because of it. Your deck is just less efficient in a lot of ways than the standard build, and it's not a question of whether or not it's costing you games but rather of how many and how often.

---

Obviously, as you don't like the deck, you suspect that I lose when your deck probably win. But, strangly, I'm not convinced, it's just your intuition but I can say the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benthetenor

You can play whatever cards you want. I just want you to know that it's not a case of me not having thought of the cards that are in your list (other than Blind Obedience, which I do thank you for). I've thought of and dismissed the cards that you have added in for being inefficient as compared to the cards already present. The deck doesn't not run Emrakul because no one thought of it, it was a conscious choice to not play a dedicated kill card in the deck because it's completely unnecessary. It doesn't not run Serra's Sanctum because we didn't know that card exists, it doesn't run it because the deck already makes more than enough mana and running a non-basic land in a deck that's already very rarely going to have a non-basic in play makes that particular land more than twice as likely to be affected by Wasteland over the course of the game. I don't run Abundant Growth because I'm really only two colors and have tons of Fetchlands and Utopia Sprawls and Chrome Moxen to fix my colors and my enchantments already cantrip if things aren't going terribly, so that's a wasted spot when it could be something that helps control the game like Seal of Removal. If you want to do something flashy rather than consistent, go for it. Just know it's probably a bad tradeoff in the long run.

---

I know you don't like my version. And I need more proof by winning big tournament like UG Enchantress as did last year but strangly, neither you or me accomplish this in this year, so we can consider two things: UG Enchantress needs modification and I need more proof.

Thanks for your opinion. I will continue to play this version until I convince you. I need more train because I'm not a pro player and time to participate in tournaments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingtk3

regarding Blind obedience VS Sneak Attack/through the breach:
clever players will activate SA at the end of your turn after the triggers are gone to the stack, in this way their creature will be sacrificed at the end of their turn.
Blind obedience buys you a turn, it doesn't stop SA.

---

Read the card (oracle text): "Sacrifice the creature at the beginning of the next end step" not his turn, so if the player activate SA at the end of my turn, the creature is sacrified at the end of my turn. Ask arbiter if you have a doubt. But you will never see this play in a tournament except to play Griselbrand and draw many cards to start the turn with twenty cards. So yes Blind works completely vs sneak.

Regards,
Dihensoeur

I don't think you're willing to consider any of my points, which is a shame. Nor have you really addressed anything that I've said, other than just saying what you said before, but with more emphasis. The last thing I will say is that I have had zero issues in actually winning during a game or a match that would have been solved by including additional win conditions, and it is not mere speculation to think that adding in cards that only do something when you have already won the game is a bad idea; it is now, as it has been since 1993. I will likely include a single Blind Obedience in the sideboard for game 3 from now on, simply so that I do not draw a match that I should have already actively won, but there is absolutely no reason to have any win conditions main other than Words of Wind. None. Emrakul and Tendrils of Agony are both dead cards in the opening hand. You can't even cycle them. There is no reason to play with them. None. I think if you would play with the actual deck promoted in this thread for a significant period of time, you would see this.

I think if you read the oracle text on Sneak Attack, you will find that it puts a trigger on the creature put into play that triggers at the beginning of the next end step. If you activate Sneak Attack in someone's end step, it not be sacrificed until it's trigger happens, which will be at the beginning of the next end step. Playing Sneak Attack in exactly the way described by Kingtk3 works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dihensoeur

Read the card (oracle text): "Sacrifice the creature at the beginning of the next end step" not his turn, so if the player activate SA at the end of my turn, the creature is sacrified at the end of my turn. Ask arbiter if you have a doubt. But you will never see this play in a tournament except to play Griselbrand and draw many cards to start the turn with twenty cards. So yes Blind works completely vs sneak.

Regards,
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.

The reason High Tide and UG enchantress can get away with winning turn 4 is everything in there deck is essentially a can trip which makes them extremely redundant. High tide additionally has counters to fight through the hate. I am not saying your deck is any different I am just saying the redundancy lets you fight through hostility were some decks just die to hate.