Yea, biggest problem seems to be that it turns on removal for our opponent. I'm also not a fan of it's lack of evasion
Printable View
Yea, biggest problem seems to be that it turns on removal for our opponent. I'm also not a fan of it's lack of evasion
The animated monk being able to block is a thing though. I don't know whether it will be good enough but it deserves a shot. Animating to make a 5/5 or 6/6 blocker seems good. Also games 2/3 when they side out their creature removal makes it much better.
Testing showed him to be mostly win-more. Casting Hydra for X=3 or 4 on turn 3 is a beating against some decks like RUG Delver, but most of the time he's too easy to kill because he dies to Decay and Swords no matter how big he is and if you're able to generate the 8-10 mana for him to be truly degenerate, you're probably winning anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethebubbeth
That being said, Hydra encouraged building the test deck in a way that both encouraged the Devotion angle (he both fuels Nykthos and wants as much mana as possible) and presented tension with the engine (because the cards you put in off of him aren't cast, you don't draw for them). To help with both of these, I added a third copy of Eidolon and was VERY impressed. If you're running multiple Groves she's nearly as good as Argothian and is positively busted with GSZ, Nykthos, and Replenish.
This is worse than both Hoofprints of the Stag and Luminarch Ascention, which are both worse than Words of War, Sacred Mesa, and Sigil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dihensoeur
idk - all of Luminarch Ascension, Hoofprints of the Stag and this have the disadvantage that they're relatively useless unless you're winning anyway. But that's also true of Emrakul. This being an enchantment that costs only :w:, meaning that with an untapped Serra's Sanctum it costs zero net, seems quite relevant? Might be worth trying at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
When evaluating win conditions I always look at the inevitability the card provides and how many slots it takes up. Emrakul is simply the best from that point of view, because he is nearly impossible to remove and takes exactly 1 slot. Other win cons like sigil provide inevitability by going wide with a swath of creatures.
By contrast Myth Realized is easily removed, provides very little utility for the 4 slots it would probably need, and can be chump blocked until the end of time. In summary it takes up too much space in the deck and provides too little utility for that space, It can be chumped until the end of time, and will probably just eat a plow that otherwise would have been totally dead.
Just as a thought experiment, think about the number of times you have lost after casting emrakul. I've lost just one time after casting emrakul. Now think about the number of times you've lost after casting sigil of the empty throne. Probably a few more times than with emrakul, but still not frequently I bet. Now imagine casting myth realized. You've already lost because you are playing myth realized.
After being very critical of a pretty decent card I'm going to advocate a very bad one. I would totally love to play assault formation as my win con and kill people with argothian enchantress just for the yucks.
We have a new one. Thoughts?
http://cdn.magicspoiler.com/wp-conte...3/Silkwrap.jpg
Why would you use this over Journey to Nowhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakadis
In my excitement I kind of forgot. Sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolofaTook
For what it's worth, Myth Realized isn't very good against Death & Taxes, more so because i cut Suppression Field to try it out. Whatever, I usually win with Emrakul, the Aeons Torn against them anyway. The card certainly feels interesting. Even if it's dead on board, it's a one mana draw X. The fact that it can come down turn 1 and threaten is cool.
What's interesting is how it's essentially the opposite of our current win-conditions, since we actually want to get it on the board as early as possible. Gonna test against some other things.
I actually like this list a lot. I'm not sure how I feel about 3 RIP and no Helm in the 75, but if you don't need it don't run it. Chalice of the Void actually seems really sweet, god knows we have no problem winning in spite of one. Especially since you're on the Sigil of the Empty Throne plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Eidolon of Blossoms is crazy in multiples. I'm a bit sketch about going up to 3, but the second one makes the first so much stronger it's insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
EDIT: I mean multiples in the deck. Having access to it through GSZ is sometimes enough to save your life, but the second or third and a Replenish plan C means you can always get back in the game. I'm a fan.
I'm very skeptical, but I'd be interested in your testing results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watersaw
Chalice was run in the past (2008-ish?), and I'm very torn between having it or just conceding the Storm matchup altogether. If I do that, I'll probably change to a black splash for SB Dread of Night, Engineered Plague, and Brain Maggot against Death and Taxes, Elves and Show and Tell, respectively. If that happened I'd probably cut Blind Obedience from the board and replace Sphere of Safety with The Abyss.Quote:
I actually like this list a lot. I'm not sure how I feel about 3 RIP and no Helm in the 75, but if you don't need it don't run it. Chalice of the Void actually seems really sweet, god knows we have no problem winning in spite of one. Especially since you're on the Sigil of the Empty Throne plan.
As for Helm and Sigil, I think the difference is small, but that I probably want to switch the MD Rest in Peace for Wheel of Sun and Moon or Ground Seal if I'm not running Helm. So far in testing the list I've won a game with Sigil that RiP/Helm wouldn't have won me and lost a game that RiP/Helm would've won. If I go to Helm, I might swap one or both Replenishes for Argivian Finds
I think 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 is something to test. 3 could easily be wrong, but multiples are really strong, and at least 2 is probably correct at this point.Quote:
Eidolon of Blossoms is crazy in multiples. I'm a bit sketch about going up to 3, but the second one makes the first so much stronger it's insane.
EDIT: I mean multiples in the deck. Having access to it through GSZ is sometimes enough to save your life, but the second or third and a Replenish plan C means you can always get back in the game. I'm a fan.
I'm trying to build a comprehensive log of testing results for the deck and keeping a results sheet on Google Docs. If anyone wants to contribute, let me know. Also, I haven't heard anything from Freggle about the Primer update, so I might just start writing one myself and contact a mod about it.
Hey sorry I have been taking a bit of a hiatus from Magic while I pursue other hobbies more hard core (violin, brewing, others) and my play has gone way down, however having said that I would still love to work on the primer. All I have are written outlines and then information in my head at this point. I'm a bit rusty on these last couple blocks, but I don't see anything that would easily make the cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
I think the best way to start the primer is show a decision tree of Enchantress building any why certain choices should exclude or lesson other choices and what meta each branch is better in. Just a thought.
HOLY GOD DOES Myth realized makes this deck playable right?
Scroll up, check the previous page and all your questions will be answeredQuote:
Originally Posted by The Etched Champion
Maybe answered already, but can I use shocks instead of duals? Looking into enchantress as second deck (Merfolk main) and with children and a house, don't have the capacity to buy duals? I'm assuming since you mostly fetch basics, you can run shocks, is that not so? Any guidance for this noob will be helpful.
Absolutely. It all depends on how you choose to build the deck. I've won 15-20 dual lands with this deck over the years, and I used only basic lands to do it. If you play all basics, you should treat the deck as either base-green or base-white and only minimally splash the second color. If you decide you need or want a heavier splash, or if you decide you need to double splash, then you'll need duals or shocks. Shocks will either slow you down a little or take a turn off the clock (this will be most noticeable if you play against tempo decks), so plan for that when building. Abundant Growth and Lotus Petal are two inexpensive ways to fix your colors. Carpet of Flowers is a strong card if you play against a lot of blue decks. My opinion is that it's better to play a budget version than to not play at all. Budget versions can and do prize in tournaments, just not often. Your direction with building the deck ought to be informed by the other decks you expect to face at area tournaments.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeshimoji
Personally, I feel that Enchantress has been poorly positioned for almost two years now, so I rarely play it anymore, but there are certainly metagames where the deck could be a decent choice.
Do you think it is still poorly positioned, even with the million enchantments printed? I feel like this deck (have been playing legacy for over 4 years, just tier 1 decks) is a diamond in the rough how elf was before behemoth and new legend rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by ESG
I think it'll be poorly positioned until Show and Tell gets banned or Earthcraft gets unbanned. Right now it's too close to 50/50 against the top 'fair' decks, weak against Sneak and Show and Reanimator, and has atrocious matchups against ANT, TES, and Omni, with Omni being by far the worst of these. An Earthcraft unban would make most of your matchups against 'fair' decks favorable by speeding the deck up something like 1.5-2 turns based on my testing with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeshimoji
I played Enchantress a lot in Vintage (~2001-2004, basically until GAT showed up) and then again once I picked up Legacy, and have also had a lot of success with it over the years (duals, a Mox Pearl way back in the day). I occasionally play it at locals still if the room looks like it's full of Miracles and creature decks. But as much as I love the deck, you can't ever bring most combo up to 40/60, even postboard, against competent opponents. This was fine back in the day when combo was both less prevalent and held in check by favorable matchups, but I don't think Enchantress has been a good choice for an open meta at least since mid-2013, and hasn't been tier 1 since Mental Misstep was banned.
Very interesting and helpful analysis. Do you think the deck that went 4-0 in daily with four living wishes help alleviate the bad combo matchups at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
I love the deck to death, and it's a blast to play, but from a competitive standpoint it's extremely poorly positioned in the metagame and I don't see Enchantress moving into a better spot anytime soon. Solitary Confinement-based Enchantress' biggest draw was always how effective it was against any deck that relied upon the combat step to win the game. But it can't boast such nowadays.
Dedicated, linear aggro decks (e.g. Madness, Goblins, Zoo) are practically nonexistent outside of some folks plugging away with them because they generally enjoy playing with them. It's no longer a large part of the greater metagame, and as such, Enchantress' overall matchups are a bit diminished; less stuff the deck is good against in the meta is bad for the deck's competitive ability.
And the remaining decks that win via combat have gained a whole bunch of game against Enchantress (or already had some). There aren't really any easy matchups anymore. Going up against Blue Tempo, assorted B/G/x archetypes, Death&Taxes, and even Infect isn't going to be easy; all these decks can effectively disrupt your gameplay and/or put you on a clock. Solitary isn't even robust against any deck with Deathrite Shaman unless you're running the Helm of Obedience / Rest in Peace package (which I really should give another try at this point)
And the combo matchup, aside from Dredge, is as miserable as ever. There's hardly any way within the deck's confines to interact with stack-based combo, and most of those cards are too slow, too ineffectual, or too easily responded to. Even Elves, in my experience, isn't favorable; it's too easy for them to tutor up an answer to any prison-effect you have on board. Maybe the G/W/b version of 'Tress can fight against the pointy-eared menace...I don't have much experience on that end.
The meta really doesn't favor the deck all that much. You can still grind out wins, and maybe tailor a sideboard full of silver bullets to a small meta, but placing in any large event or winning with consistency is gonna be difficult.
Question 1: Do you need duals?
No. As a matter of fact many lists I run play 0 copies of any type of dual (shock or not)
Debated Statement: Is Enchantress viable?
Yes, but it’s not easy, and will require a lot of work to get good enough with the deck that it has to be a labor of love or the deck will not work for you. There are many things currently working against the deck. Here are the main ones:
BGx getting the following cards:
Abrupt Decay, Golgari Charm
Prior to these cards BGx matches were heavily favored because they could not interact with out “locks” now they have main deck hate.
Sigarda & Oring effects for Strix seems like a good plan b, but is relatively untested.
Storm:
Storm was always an issue, but is mitigated well with. Gaddock Teeg (Green Sun’s for Gaddock), Stony Silence, and to a lesser extent Leyline of Sanctity There may be additional insurance in Runed Halo
Sterling Grove IMO is just not good here.
Omnitel:
Beatable with Banishing Light, Oblivion Ring, Seal of Primordium or helm combo.
Gaddock also does a lot of work here.
Elves:
Elves when from poor to horrible with the printing of Reclamation Sage.
Gaddock is a decent way to Fight elves, but you need to close them quick. Some sweet tech for Elves may be Torpor Orb
All the rest of the match-ups in the decks to beat for the GW Helm list (no duals) Are / were 50/50 or favorable.
In summary Enchantress is not a deck that you pick-up and do well with it right off the bat (especially in this meta.) In order to play Enchantress you have to:
1. Want to REALLY play Enchantress
2. Understand the Meta and what makes your opponents decks work
3. Practice
4. Tweak your list to the ever changing meta
In other words it has got to be a labor of love. If you are not up for that type of investment, I would suggest a different deck as there isn’t a lot of development going into Enchantress although it can be quite powerful in skillful Enchantress player’s hands.