Why not just play Worldly Tutor, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopo
Printable View
Why not just play Worldly Tutor, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopo
I guess for the same reasons why no one plays tutor over zenith. I dislike zenith as it can't fetch the better creatures but this could. That's the reasons it caught my eye. The shitty part is that you really need a Creature in play which might end up being a dealbreaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartesian
Sacrificing a creature as an additional cost in an already creature light deck is probably not what you want to be doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopo
My concern exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkii
I'm not familiar with this new card. But isn't this how crop rotation works as well most of the time? Sac inkmoth to find another inkmoth? If this thing is sorcery then it would be unplayable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopo
Not really, you can sacrifice a non-inky land, turning a fetch/trop into a threat end of turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by shocked439
I'd like to get everyone's opinions on sideboarding against Miracles, since there are lots of variations of that deck seeing play and all can board somewhat differently.
Datanaga posted his board plan last month, which was:
MIRACLES
on play: -3x fow, -3x noble, +2 fluster, +2 krosan, +1 safekeeper, +1 needle
on draw: -3x daze, -3x noble, +2 fluster, +2 krosan, +1 safekeeper, +1 needle
I've played this matchup a lot and watched a lot of videos, and I still have a lot of questions. The ideal scenario for Infect is running a guy out early and getting there with the first swing, but often that doesn't happen and games go long. My boarding plan has been similar to the above, except I've always left in Noble Hierarchs. I run 2 MD Sylvan Library instead of the Green Sun's Zenith package. My logic for leaving in Hierarchs that is that Hierarchs enable the Turn 3 kill with countermagic backup and, less commonly, the Turn 2 kill, which is Infect's preferred time of engagement. I agree that Hierarchs are a liability if the assumption is that Terminus will get cast and resolve, but I am more apt to fight over Terminus in the early game. I don't know Datanaga's reasoning for removing them.
I'm curious what you've seen most frequently out of Miracles sideboards and also what you feel Infect should be boarding. Obviously there will be some minor variations due to us having a few different cards in the main and perhaps very different sideboards.
So Dazes vs. Force of Will in sideboarding is actually a topic I'm very fond of discussing. I'll start with a broader approach to sideboarding, and then move on to how it applies to Miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by ESG
Most of us at some point in our legacy lives were presented with the piece of advice to "board out FoW's on the play" and to "board out dazes on the draw". While this is a good general rule, I feel it doesn't adequately cover the nuances presented by the huge diversity of legacy decks. As an example, you don't ever board out Dazes OR FoW's against combo decks. That's an obvious one, but when you get to less streamlined archetypes or decks that tend to be more reactive than proactive, the sideboarding plans can get a little tricky.
In short, it's mostly about evaluating the strength of individual cards, or presented in question form "What am I afraid of?". Decks like RUG Delver are composed almost entirely of individually unassuming cards that happen to be incredibly strong when played together. In this case, I'd move towards 0-1 FoW's in postboard game, fearing only a couple of key cards, such as Grim Lavamancer or Forked Bolt. On the other end of the spectrum, a deck like storm is almost guaranteed to win if it can resolve a critical mass of mana spells followed by a business spell. This streamlined, critical mass game plan (as opposed to competing for resources against Tempo decks), coupled with a number of VERY impactful cards (Ad Nauseum, Infernal Tutor, Burning Wish or DP?) means that if you manage to prevent them from executing their game plan, you're most likely going to win simply by applying pressure.
So Miracles is an interesting one because it's not what you'd classify as a combo deck, but it does have a higher than average number of cards that are bad news for us if they resolve. Imagine boarding out all of your FoW's, only to watch your opponent play an Izzet Staticaster. Or watch them untap and cast a Terminus for W while you have a hand of soft permission. As such, I feel it's pretty necessary to leave in at least some number of Force of Wills in against Miracles. You probably don't need the full 4 as our deck can sometimes struggle with blue card count, but something like 2 on the play and 3 on the draw is what I would typically go with.
How I'd side against Miracles:
On the play: -1x Daze, -1x FoW, -2x Noble Hierarch, -1 Spell Pierce, +1 Flusterstorm, +1 Krosan Grip, +1 Seal of Primordium, +1 Pithing Needle, +1 Sylvan Library
On the draw: -3x daze, -2x Noble Hierarch, +1 Flusterstorm, +1 Krosan Grip, +1 Seal of Primordium, +1 Pithing Needle, +1 Sylvan Library
Main deck has 4 Daze, 3 FoW's, 2 Spell Pierce, 1 Flusterstorm
Reference sideboard from last Saturday, mostly for fair decks:
1x Pithing Needle
2x Swords to Plowshares
2x Rest in Pecae
1x Absolute Law
1x Savannah
1x Nature's Claim
1x Seal of Primordium
1x Krosan Grip
1x Viridian Corrupter
1x Sylvan Library
1x Hydroblast
1x Force of Will
1x Flusterstorm
Not a single copy of FoW ever goes out against Miracles. I wish I could play 5...
Sure, care to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by kova
Please explain. Otherwise just empty words without meaning. There are no cards that will lose you the game once resolved that you sb cards can't handle.Quote:
Originally Posted by kova
Against Miracles I want to hate Top and removal and to some extent Staticaster and maybe Blood moon. Against stp you have vines and Flusterstorm as well as Pierce. I much rather kill counterbalance with Grip or Needle/Rod than fow it. Miracles has so many angles of control that on average you can't afford to hymn yourself to deal with just one unless it's the deciding play.
The thing is to leave as many forces in as you comfortably can but you have way better cards to bring in usually. Siding out hierarchs gives you a lot of room to play. I usually have 1-2 forces still in games 2&3. Daze is not the best card against miracles but it gives you some room to avoid the critical turn 2 balance while also boosting Flusterstorm like no other spell.
Flusterstorm is very good against miracles and you can easily make the fow->flusterstorm switch without diluting your decks strategy.
On the other hand, the matchup is rather good so maybe this is just splitting hairs.
I totally agree, that's why i have 2 needles on the board. stopping tops is huge vs miracles... I sideout hierarchs and dazes too both on the play and on the draw, and loading it up on grips, primordium and more permissions. I could say it's a positive matchup for us, Inkmoths are MVP here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopo
And with already 3 hate cards vs artifact/enchantments in 2grips and a primordium, together with 2 needles... I might cut the corrupter for a Stonewood Invocation, for a surekill vs grindy matchups.
But you can play with 5 of them - just add Misdirection (as it works like fow most of the times) :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by kova
It's because no other card allows you to cover everything miracles deck has to offer. And they will offer: stp, terminus, jace, staticaster, moon - not to mention their "combo".Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopo
You can count all different sorts of answers to each of the individual cards all day. Good luck having the right one every time:)
Re sideboading out the hierarchs. Tempting, but I'd rather kill with five attacks, rather than ten. Most of the games against miracles are grindy. Just don't jam more than one NH on to the board.
Your opinions, however unpopular, are always welcome here. That said, it'd be kinda cool if you could throw in some more detailed analysis on why you feel the way you do about your sideboard decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kova
I tend to trim down on the number of 1cmc spells I have against Miracles, and Hierarch feels less necessary to quick kills than Glistener Elf does. From my experience, hierarchs tend to either get stranded in hand after a resolved Counterbalance, or get swept away by Terminus. That said, I agree that Hierarch helps a tremendous amount in smoothing out games, and as such I don't agree with boarding out the full 4.
Hello, I'm Clay Spicklemire and I won GP columbus with infect about a month ago. Here's a write up I did on the tournament and the deck on reddit. I'll try to answer any questions there or here you guys have.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spikes/comm...eport_1st_and/
Though its been said a thousand times, I'll throw in another congrats on your GP Columbus win. I caught your interview with Zachary Koch on Legacy's Allure, but that didn't stop me from laughing out loud at the office when I got to Game 3 of finals in your tournament report. Really great stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Infect_Kid
So I perused both the writeup and comments of the reddit post but couldn't find any information on the rationale behind the second Wasteland in the board. I'd imagine it's made better by the inclusion of a second copy of Crop Rotation, but what matchups did you end up bringing it in for? Is it just another way to punish Eldrazi mana bases? Or maybe another small edge you can pick up against the R/G Lands deck?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesture
The second wasteland serves a couple purposes in the sideboard. The first is obviously to punish greedy manabases or chalice decks with sol lands. It is also great against 4c knight loam and lands, as they have some troublesome lands like grove of the burnwillows, maze of ith, tabernacle, and the depths+stage combo. The second crop rot also makes more wastelands slightly better.
The other reason sounds pretty simple, but it's just another land. Even though infect's spells are so efficient and cheap, it's still pretty easy to get wastelanded and stifled or ported out of a game, so another land can help quite a bit in matchups against delver decks and death and taxes.
My sideboard is constructed a little oddly, with things like force of will and wasteland in the board, but my sideboard is all about forming a 75 card gameplan and being able to have the best 60 card deck in popular matchup with access to only 75 cards, so having those sideboard cards can help fill in the gaps in a variety of matchup where a sufficient quantity of maindeck cards are bad.
Hope that helps!
Yeah, one wasteland is a lot to have to lean on against lands, 2+the crop rotations gives you virtually 4 wasteland post board, and it has the added perk of comboing well with surgical extraction, which is a one of in my sb. When i run white, i swap it for a savannah, but otherwise it is very good i feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Infect_Kid
Thoughts on the new set? I am looking forward to testing Unsubstantiate and Nephalia Academy.
Don't think there's anything in this set that's gonna have any effect on legacy as a format, honestly. I don't see what I would cut from any infect list for those two cards and believe I'd be upgrading my deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartesian
Agreed, Infect is extremely short on colored mana sources as is, and I don't think a boomerang/remand split card would be good enough, let alone one that doesn't cantrip or bounce lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bichon_Blitz
I don't see anything playable in infect, I think there's a couple cards that will have an impact on other decks for sure though. Thalia will go in death and taxes and I wouldn't be surprised if the red draw three have a giant beater for RR sees some play. This feels like one of the more powerful sets in a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bichon_Blitz
Yea i forgot about nouveau thalia, she looks playable. That might be it. I think nic fit is experimenting with eldritch evolution but i don't see how it's better than birthing pod which is repeatable.
As far as power level goes, this block is nowhere near as powerful as original Innistrad. That set was so much fun, so much fun to draft, too.
Hey, svyelunite, would like to hear about your worcester experiences when you get the chance. Noticed you switched to straight u/g, wondering how you felt about it.
Tournament went pretty well. I'll do a recap later when I can dig out my notes. As for the U/G list, I playtested it a fair amount leading up to the event and I liked the streamlined feel, especially vs. Combo decks and Eldrazi. I would kind of like to still have the GSZ in there, but there just isn't room currently. Here's the list I played for reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witch_king_of_angmar
Creatures (12)
4 Blighted Agent
4 Glistener Elf
4 Noble Hierarch
Lands (19)
1 Forest
4 Inkmoth Nexus
3 Misty Rainforest
4 Tropical Island
1 Wasteland
3 Windswept Heath
2 Wooded Foothills
1 Pendelhaven
Spells (29)
1 Sylvan Library
1 Become Immense
2 Berserk
4 Brainstorm
1 Crop Rotation
3 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Invigorate
2 Spell Pierce
3 Vines of Vastwood
3 Gitaxian Probe
1 Ponder
Sideboard
1 Pithing Needle
1 Viridian Corrupter
1 Seal of Primordium
1 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Crop Rotation
2 Flusterstorm
1 Krosan Grip
1 Stonewood Invocation
2 Submerge
1 Surgical Extraction
1 Teferi's Response
1 Bojuka Bog
1 Karakas
I was also testing out Stonewood Invocation, and while the card is powerful (and really awesome vs. Miracles) it's pretty tough to pull off against most decks. I wouldn't recommend it going forward unless you're going to play 50% Miracles probably. Probably could have used a second Pithing Needle or a Nature's Claim instead. I'm also not convinced the Blue Elemental Blast is necessary. This is another spot where a more flexible card like Sylvan Safekeeper, Spellskite, Grafdigger's Cage or Dismember might be preferable.
The MD was pretty spot on. I usually run a Flusterstorm over a Spell Pierce main, but 2 things made me switch. 1. I was worried I'd run into more Eldrazi because Opens tend to get a bigger turnout of players that don't do Legacy often (and thus have to build a deck quickly) and 2. I just got my Dazes and Spell Pierces altered and wanted to show them off :tongue: The Sylvan Library was awesome, as always, and I'm pretty sure its still the card we want (over JVP). You can debate main or side, but have 1 in your 75 for sure. The only other card I'd consider swapping for something else is the 3rd Vines. I've seen a lot of folks go down to 2 and I realize that outside of Shardless and Lands, they aren't as useful, but I still really like the card as a 3-of so you can reliably draw one even without a BS/Ponder. Your result may vary.
Obviously finishing 14th, I had a pretty good run. I think there were only 2 matchups where I would have preferred to be on the White splash version. Lands, and Punishing Maverick. Every other time, I think the current configuration was equal or preferable. As I always advocate however, do what you're comfortable with, and practice it a bunch, because nothing beats experience and familiarity with your deck in Legacy. Major edges aren't gained with "tech".
Tournament report probably will be posted tomorrow. LMK if y'all have any questions.
Thanks for the reply, your list looks like mine, except for the 4th Force instead of Corrupter. Regarding the 3rd vines slot, i am currently running Might of old Krosa; it's been nice, enabling speedier kills and letting me rely on inkmoth more, as before it was very difficult to get GGG for kicked vines+berserk. I ran it by Clay Spicklemire on reddit; he felt like a 2nd Become immense was superior in that spot, and Todd Stevens has gone that route. But i like Might, as it+ BI is a kill, whereas BI+BI is probably a no-go. Anyways, I'm running it this weekend, we'll see how it goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Svyelunite
Fans of white splash, I'd like to get some opinions on the inclusion of Swords to Plowshares in two postboard scenarios.
1) Mid range decks, which can be divided into
1a) Grindy midrange decks (Shardless, Jund)
Or
1b) Decks that just go bigger than us like Maverick or DNT (DNT is definitely more prison than midrange, but their games are usually won between a combination of mana denial and their larger creatures.)
2) Chalice decks with impactful creatures, think Eldrazi, MUD, or 4cLoam. The temptation to use Plow on a Knight or Metalworker is very real, but there's also a pretty good chance that the Swords just gets stranded in hand along with the Brainstorm you would typically use to shuffle it away.
Bonus question: R/G Lands matchup? To swords or not to swords?
As someone who, while personally isn't a fan of the white splash, but uses it because they need to borrow a deck, I would believe that swords is more relevant in 1b than 1a, although I haven't brought it in myself, opting to bring in rest in peace instead. For 2, I would not bring it in, instead hoping to protect a blighted agent and either chip them or go for the kill in one go. I've noticed I only really bring in my swords in against decks where they either try to go to town with one creature, or the creature is threatening to win the game on the spot. However, I don't have any fancy titles under my name, so take my word with a grain of salt if you wish :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Jesture
I play the white splash and you could make an argument for bringing it in against all of those decks. It's better than most people think against DnT (assuming there's no mom on the board). Sometimes it will just clear the way t2 for your t2 elf. It buys you time vs delver decks that are usually just trying to ride a single delver to victory.
I think I've tried it against Eldrazi, with muddy results. I've decided not to side it in, as I don't want mess with the redundancy of the deck too much as I'm already siding in k grips (and seal of primordium) and the 4th force. They also have TKS and usually will bring in thorns, on top of the chalice. I will bring it in against 4c loam though, as I've tested with it and sometimes it really play differently if it doesn't have KOTR on board and active. It hits so much stuff againt 4c loam, too, they will usually bring in Thalia's. Can't play scared, like I don't worry if they have land/land/cotv/mox diamond turn 1. If they have it, they have it. Just like sometimes we get nut draws, it's legacy, it's going to happen.
Lands? I think I may have tried it in the past, but I play Absolute Lawx2 along with Rest in Peacex2 in my board so, again, I don't want to over side. Lands isn't usually trying to set up the depths combo asap (though it happened to me at GP columbus, still kind of salty about that :frown:), they're usually trying to set up some kind of lock on the board. I don't really know what they're gameplan is against us, if I knew it was to get a quick Marit Lage then I might be more open to siding it in.
I don't bring in Swords to Plowshares for Shardless or Jund. I bring in Rest in Peace for both matchups. Yes to bringing in Swords vs. Maverick due to Ethersworn Canonist. I bring in Swords vs. DNT primarily to clear out Canonist. Decks with Chalice require me to bring in artifact destruction from the sideboard, and I also have Rest in Peace, so I bring in two RIP vs. 4C Loam but no copies of Swords. I played against MUD at the last 1K I played in and I brought in Swords there to have a fast answer for a T1 Metalworker on the draw and have more outs to something like Platinum Angel. I think the key is knowing which matchups have a creature that can lock you out. I lost a match to Miracles once because he found a Peacekeeper in Game 3 and I had no removal, so it's always important to board to counter your opponent's strategy. I don't have a lot of games against Eldrazi, but I would bring it in there unless I knew there was no Eldrazi Displacer or Endbringer in the list. Against Lands I always bring in Swords. Most Lands players I play against just try to make it a combo race, and so I like having an easy out to Marit Lage. Swords is a pretty high-value card, so I'm never unhappy to have it in the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesture
Amen. Even when I get my 4th trop, I don't think I'm going to drop the white splash and lose access to swords and some other sb cards that are high impact. But it's also good against delver decks, that aren't going to lock you out, but it removes the pressure they're applying.Quote:
Originally Posted by ESG
I think you should test out swords against 4c loam. I don't know why you bring it in against lands, but not loam, which also has the stage/depths combo and more critters to hit. And I haven't played against MUD too much, though i used to play it and i would definitely bring in the swords. Really and deck that drops a creature that you have to answer.
Because Lands plays Exploration and Manabond and lots of copies of Stage and Depths and has the Crop Rotations and Gambles to find them, making a Turn 2 or Turn 3 Marit Lage with reliable frequency. 4C Loam players are unlikely to piece together Knight, followed by Stage, followed by Depths, before they are dead. It's not even a close comparison. I don't really care about the other creatures out of 4C Loam. It's not about number of "critters to hit"; it's about getting raced. Having Swords to Plowshares is vital against a Turn 2 flying 20/20.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bichon_Blitz
Quote:
Originally Posted by ESG
I agree that bringing in swords against lands if probably pretty viable. I've played against lands a decent amount online and a few times in paper, and I rarely see a t2 or t3 marit lage. Lands is not this scary fast boogeyman deck a la storm that consistently wins t2-t3, at least not in my experiences against the deck. The only issue I've had with bringing in swords against lands is when they go the slower prison/lockout style (which is pretty normal for them), and you have stp sitting there in hand and they are just taking their time setting up marit lage, in which case stp bought you one turn.
So I'm a converting Modern Infect player, and I was wondering how much different the playstyle is in Legacy. I notice that there aren't any Spellskite, so I assume that removal is harder to come by.
The removal is absolutely there, but I'd also say that the sweepers are more prevalent (Golgari Charm, Terminus, Night of Souls' Betrayal) which makes Spellskite worse. The deck also runs between 8-10 counterspells, so you can often use those to protect creatures in lieu of pump spells. None of that is to say Spellskite isn't good in legacy infect, it's just a lot more narrow in use than it is in Modern.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfThePanda
Only my own personal experience to go on, but the playstyle of Legacy Infect is better than the playstyle of Modern Infect in almost every way. The deck is stronger and more consistent with Brainstorms and permission spells, but the overall format is a lot more punishing of misplays and suboptimal lines. As a result, it's also a lot less linear than its modern counterpart, you often just play a tempo game. For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever met anyone who prefers the modern version over the legacy version, so I'm pretty certain that your friend will like the legacy build if he enjoys U/G infect in Modern.
Edited some autocorrects
Is the wasteland super important, or can I just use another forest? Out of all the games I've seen, the single wasteland hasn't done a lot and if we ever get Blood Mooned, I feel like being able to fetch the 2 Forests early game makes the long game much less horrid. It's not that I think this is a great idea, I just don't want to buy Wasteland. But I figured I'd ask anyway.
In my opinion and my usual meta, the Wasteland is not that important. I play 2 Pendelhaven, and never really felt that was too many.
Blood Moon hits us hard if it sticks, and even if you have a basic Forest out already you are probably still losing the game.
Wasteland is the only out to Glacial Chasm. If you don't play against that card regularly, then you could skip it. I find Wasteland to be much stronger than a basic Forest. I also find the second Pendlehaven to be stronger than the basic Forest.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfThePanda