All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It will take time to see the effect of Prelate, but it shouldn't be hard to imagine the disgust a pilot R/G Lands or storm deck would have with such card design, just in the hypothetical.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

That said it is not Miracles I fear right now, it's an updated DnT list. One card, that one card, can fuck me harder than anything Miracles is trying to do.

---

...

The worst part of this is that I do not want to bitch too much, because I want to see Miracles get knocked down a peg or two. It feels like the price for not just banning cards though will be more and more shit mistakes. Decay because of CB, DRS because of Souls, Judgement because of TNN, Wizards trying to "Fix" something normally ends badly for those of us who can not hope for rotation to save us. But I am not going to bitch too much about a card I have never played against before. But I think that Recruiter was all that was needed. I am on the "Wait and see what comes" train for now.

On the flip side, did anyone realise that Prelate is actually very close to the Champs card idea that Chalice is built off? It is in effect the card that Wizards decided in 03 was too powerful so they built the card as Chalice. Just a bit of history.

Edit:
I also recognise the bind they are in. I am bitching about them trying to help, I see how that is a double standard and it's disingenuous of me to ask that they care about the format and then bitch when they print things for it. (In the case of Decay and Judgement) I see that they end up in a bind, likely because they are so focused on Standard they do not see the impacts these things will really have overall. Still, anyone with any knowledge of Legacy could have told them TNN was a bad idea. I feel like that situation may repeat itself here. I guess it is what we get for having the format we pride ourselves with being self correcting. Sometimes, it's not and Wizards corrections are not always for the benefit of us all.

If your deck really, actually is at risk to fold to a meta filled with Sanctum Prelate left and right, well, I guess you'll have to diversify your frickin' removal suite. I think that's the hidden beauty fo the card - that it can shine a light on card choices that where hitherto overlooked, as they don't have a CMC of 1.

As someone who just bought into R/G combo lands recently, the thought of fighting death and taxes now gives me such a headache.

I don't have qualms with many cards that get printed but prelate kind of actually bugs me. Thankfully I'm not far from owning death and taxes now anyways so if I can't beat em, I can add that deck to the collection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I think this is more about Sanctum Prelate being a poorly designed card. There's nothing healthy about Prelate on 2, R/G Lands can't do anything anymore...btw RiP so no threshold (Barbarian Ring). If a DnT pilot has any idea of how other decks in the format work then Prelate is even viable maindeck.

---

Sanctum on 2 (or 1, or 4 or whatever number) isn't any more or less healthy then 20/20s recurred continuously, tendrils you for lethal turn 2/3, or delver>daze>waste, inelegant and bad design, sure, but certainly on par with what the rest of legacy is doing. Remember all those years where chalice of the void was a card and we had no abrupt decay to kill in game 1?

For that matter, it's not as if RG Lands is completely helpless in the meantime, on the play, they can certainly explode on D&T and power out multiple 20/20s before they can realistically cast prelate (without dying), and looking at the preliminary lists in the D&T thread, it's a 1-2 of that's tutor'd up by a 3 mana 3-4 of, outside of the rare chance of them naturally casting it turn 3 (and that's assuming that lands isn't trying to interact with ports or forcing them to interact by making them hold up karakas/plains for swords), they reasonably are casting that card turn 4.

Guys, guys, guys ... I feel like important aspects of Prelate are undermined by the constant pointing at D&T. The deck itself is not your problem. Your problem will be Miracles picking up Prelate to lock out your anwers to counterbalance and slowly killing you with a 2/2 and now EVERY creature deck being able to run around a PERMANENT MENTAL MISSTEP ON A 2/2 BODY.

If you want a financial advice from me: Pick up Noble Hierarchs, fellas. T1 Hierarch into T2 Prelate and go slapping with a 3/3 Prelate while follow up with one of the Thalias is going to be a thing, fucking over all the cantrip/combo decks

P.S.: We stormers already adjusted to the scenario of Prelate being rampant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadinthestreet

As someone who just bought into R/G combo lands recently, the thought of fighting death and taxes now gives me such a headache.

I don't have qualms with many cards that get printed but prelate kind of actually bugs me. Thankfully I'm not far from owning death and taxes now anyways so if I can't beat em, I can add that deck to the collection.

---

It won't be that hard to fight Prelate with Lands though, because Lands' tutorpackage are onedrops. So while Prelate on 2 shuts down loam and Fire, you'll still be able to crop and gamble under it for a (non-2cc) answer. Mostlikely Vortex, and it's a card already often run in the main.

Vortex dies to Revoker and the one drops doesn't save you against a clock and a Wasteland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Vortex dies to Revoker and the one drops doesn't save you against a clock and a Wasteland.

---

Everything dies to something, this reminds me of the Force of Will argumentation (if it can get countered, it cannot be a good card). While Prelate shuts down Fire, and Revoker kills Vortex, the opposite combinations will do the opposite for Lands (Fire/Revoker - Vortex/Prelate).
So what's more probable? Lands is by far better equipped to assemble Fire/Grove and possibly gamble for Vortex, than D&T is geared to find and protect both Revoker and Prelate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

If you want a financial advice from me: Pick up Noble Hierarchs, fellas. T1 Hierarch into T2 Prelate and go slapping with a 3/3 Prelate while follow up with one of the Thalias is going to be a thing, fucking over all the cantrip/combo decks

---

To spind that idea a bit further, loads of mana dorks (DRS/Hierarch), Prelate and a GSZ toolbox including Leovold, Emissary of Trest. Sounds like one hell of a midrange deck.

The thing is, Vortex doesn't fit the decks plan. You need 3 at minimum to have a chance of drawing one early and that eats into your deck. It's the reason it's not seen anymore. It was tested and rejected. Would I choose not to run it if it becomes my only choice? No, I will do what I have to do, but it's not the plan. At all.

It's original intended use in the deck was a way to play around Bloodmoon. With a single Forest or a Mox, you could throw 6 points of damage a turn. That's what it was tested for, used for and later we tried it for other reasons. Sadly, due to the nature of the deck it was found lacking. Thanks to the need to draw the card, a plan we often cease doing after we have Loam, it was sidelined. It can come back sure, but that's not optimal at all.

As for Gambling for cards, a card you Gamble for, if you must keep it, you pad your hand first. This is done with Loam. If you cut off Loam, Gamble becomes a much worse card. You suddenly find yourself keeping card after card a turn without playing out something in hopes of keeping what it is you seek. This is not a strong plan against a deck that can destroy your mana and disrupt you with its creatures. To make matters worse, their clock is not insignificant and adds to the pressure.

We will try and adapt, but fuck this is not as simple as "Add x" like there is some kind of secret sauce that will solve everything. And yes, we are better equipped to getting fire online than they are at getting Revoker online, but it's not Revoker that's the issue, it's the card that says "You can't play Fire or Loam any longer."

For the record, according to TCdecks there were 48 landsdecks without Vortex in the 75 in 2016, versus 55 decks with a copy in the 75 (of which 28 main, and 27 side). So there's actually more Landsdecks playing with Vortex, than without.

The point is diversifying your creaturekill in the maindeck, and while Vortex isn't the best card to specifically deal with Prelate (and broader D&T or Miracles), it is the best creaturekill that answers Prelate AND ALSO is good enough to be played in the main versus other decks as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

To spind that idea a bit further, loads of mana dorks (DRS/Hierarch), Prelate and a GSZ toolbox including Leovold, Emissary of Trest. Sounds like one hell of a midrange deck.

---

Pls no 4c, my friend. I don't see the need for Leovold or GSZ if you can go mad with Exalted Prelates/Thalias/Recruiters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ingo

For the record, according to TCdecks there were 48 landsdecks without Vortex in the 75 in 2016, versus 55 decks with a copy in the 75 (of which 28 main, and 27 side). So there's actually more Landsdecks playing with Vortex, than without.

The point is diversifying your creaturekill in the maindeck, and while Vortex isn't the best card to specifically deal with Prelate (and broader D&T or Miracles), it is the best creaturekill that answers Prelate AND ALSO is good enough to be played in the main versus other decks as well.

---

They in the main or side. On my phone, can't check.

Also I agree, like I said, if I have to I will run it. But I don't think it's a perfect answer since what I am trying to answer can play out a two drop that can stop it and follow up with the card I fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds

Sanctum on 2 (or 1, or 4 or whatever number) isn't any more or less healthy then 20/20s recurred continuously, tendrils you for lethal turn 2/3, or delver>daze>waste, inelegant and bad design, sure, but certainly on par with what the rest of legacy is doing. Remember all those years where chalice of the void was a card and we had no abrupt decay to kill in game 1?

For that matter, it's not as if RG Lands is completely helpless in the meantime, on the play, they can certainly explode on D&T and power out multiple 20/20s before they can realistically cast prelate (without dying), and looking at the preliminary lists in the D&T thread, it's a 1-2 of that's tutor'd up by a 3 mana 3-4 of, outside of the rare chance of them naturally casting it turn 3 (and that's assuming that lands isn't trying to interact with ports or forcing them to interact by making them hold up karakas/plains for swords), they reasonably are casting that card turn 4.

---

I'm not sure that you quite understand what happens when R/G Lands plays DnT. That 20/20 is legendary and non-trampling. DnT has: 4x Swords, 4x Flickerwisp, 4x Mother of Runes, and a total of ~8x [or more] fliers that chump endlessly with active Mother of Runes. The only way that DnT really loses game 1 is a god hand (Manabond into very quick Marit Lage) or P-Fire outracing the ability to equip out of P-Fire range (too many board states to quickly sum up the Port/Wasteland, except that in the long run Lands will win it). That said P-Fire probably pushes Lands to being more favored in game 1.

DnT was already doing just fine against Lands, especially in the post-board games. Now they get a card that totally shuts down R/G Lands and is arguably maindeckable (without recursive 2-drops, the numbers are way out of Lands' favor). This would be like wizards printing Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, except that the new printing triggers in the draw step (so lands can change nothing in deck design and just dump on creature strats even more with upkeep Ports/Wastelands).

There are some real differences between all those cards you've mentioned Prelate, first is build-around. Prelate on 1 would stop Vials and Swords, but that's kind of the extent of deckbuilding with it. Kind of like saying that a deck that goes for 2-mana T1 (Chalice decks) can't play one drops...if they're going for that much mana in the opener, they weren't really wanting 1-drops anyways (exceptions exist, i.e. Tezz would like Brainstorm, but that's about the extent of it). The bigger issue is that it's a 1-card combo that says "you can't win" rather than "you lose" thus absolving you from the need to end a game in a reasonable amount of time. This is a hallmark problem with :w: in general as the timewaster-in-chief of magic; now at least DnT doubles down on :w: with the weenie-beatdown plan, but Prelate is more firmly in the timewaster category.

It's more the additive effect RiP-style cards increasing the amount of ways you can't lose a game without demonstrating any real interest in ending a game that is the potential issue here. It takes many-fold fewer slots to not lose than to proactively win.

@colo the issue with your statement is that you're telling everyone who doesn't play fair decks (removal-based) to play magic like you do. Your way of choosing to play legacy is just a preference, it is neither inferior nor superior.

@Ingo Gamble for a card you can't get back is not really the healthiest way to play the game. I don't think that idea has ever been seriously floated, otherwise we'd see things like Careful Study as a cantrip in decks that can't use graveyards. The option exists to desperation Gamble like that, but you're advocating this as a normal play. Let's look at what would happen:
-Prelate on 2 is played. If we've gotten to this point in the game we're in the grindy portion where surprise 20/20 isn't going to get there by itself.
-Gamble for Vortex...hope you retain it...you probably discarded the land you needed as a pitch card...in a hand that was probably on the smaller side...what exactly came out of the deck to make room for the Vortexes (hopefully not lands)

I'm not really seeing where this became a good plan, and that's without considering pulling this off vs a 4x Revoker deck. All they did was take out their two new-Thalia they were experimenting with for a better card at the 3-drop flex slots. This is only one match-up, but it (and the Gamble for Vortex talk) does highlight why Prelate is poorly designed. Decks that care hypothetically need vastly more slots to potentially deal with cards like this; and if they cared enough to adapt, are probably losing deck identity (i.e. the way in which they choose to enjoy legacy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

@Ingo Gamble for a card you can't get back is not really the healthiest way to play the game. I don't think that idea has ever been seriously floated, otherwise we'd see things like Careful Study as a cantrip in decks that can't use graveyards. The option exists to desperation Gamble like that, but you're advocating this as a normal play. Let's look at what would happen:
-Prelate on 2 is played. If we've gotten to this point in the game we're in the grindy portion where surprise 20/20 isn't going to get there by itself.
-Gamble for Vortex...hope you retain it...you probably discarded the land you needed as a pitch card...in a hand that was probably on the smaller side...what exactly came out of the deck to make room for the Vortexes (hopefully not lands)

I'm not really seeing where this became a good plan, and that's without considering pulling this off vs a 4x Revoker deck. All they did was take out their two new-Thalia they were experimenting with for a better card at the 3-drop flex slots. This is only one match-up, but it (and the Gamble for Vortex talk) does highlight why Prelate is poorly designed. Decks that care hypothetically need vastly more slots to potentially deal with cards like this; and if they cared enough to adapt, are probably losing deck identity (i.e. the way in which they choose to enjoy legacy).

---

Lands needs a number of cards to abuse the loam engine, like exploration, or like manabond, and we usually need such a card in play along the loaming to really abuse the loamengine. But, unfortunately those cards do not recur from the graveyard but ofcourse we still play them. Vortex is such a card as well, and it is probably better to compare it's place in the deck with manabond (instead of comparing it with Punishing Fire). Like manabond, you want to have it in your opener and play it, and have loam available. And like manabond, you can always gamble for it if you really need it. That doesn't mean the card is meant to be gambled for!

I think Prelate will be a 1-off in D&T (I'm not talking about other decks yet as I don't really see it being played in Miracles), that has to be tutored for in a deck that has hardly cardselection, apart from probably 2 recruiters? That means we shouldn't worry too much about Prelate, and that I'll take my chances with 1 or 2 Vortices in the main (with the knowledge that' I might need to risk gambling for it).

EDIT: besides, risky gambling for a card is a correct thing to do, when the gains outweigh the risks. Like gambling for combopieces or acceleration vs combo or burn. Or Tabernacle (without loam) against Elves, if you don't have Fire/grove available. etc. Basically gamble gives you a shot at resetting your gameplan, usually riskless because of loam, sometimes hazardous because the situation asks for it (f.e. Long once gambled T1 for Chasm against Infect. He would have died to a quick infectkill without it, and kept it in play until he could swing Marit for the win. There's a video of it, and a beautiful example how a riskful gamble for a high impact card totally turned the gamestate around).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

To spind that idea a bit further, loads of mana dorks (DRS/Hierarch), Prelate and a GSZ toolbox including Leovold, Emissary of Trest. Sounds like one hell of a midrange deck.

---

I keep wondering when a 5c deck chock full of the format's most offensive 2/3 drops could be viable. Mana Confluence is just so darn cheap right now. Noble Hierarch, Deathrite Shaman, and these things called fetchlands probably just make the idea pointless though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

@Ingo Gamble for a card you can't get back is not really the healthiest way to play the game. I don't think that idea has ever been seriously floated, otherwise we'd see things like Careful Study as a cantrip in decks that can't use graveyards. The option exists to desperation Gamble like that, but you're advocating this as a normal play. Let's look at what would happen:
-Prelate on 2 is played. If we've gotten to this point in the game we're in the grindy portion where surprise 20/20 isn't going to get there by itself.
-Gamble for Vortex...hope you retain it...you probably discarded the land you needed as a pitch card...in a hand that was probably on the smaller side...what exactly came out of the deck to make room for the Vortexes (hopefully not lands)

I'm not really seeing where this became a good plan, and that's without considering pulling this off vs a 4x Revoker deck. All they did was take out their two new-Thalia they were experimenting with for a better card at the 3-drop flex slots. This is only one match-up, but it (and the Gamble for Vortex talk) does highlight why Prelate is poorly designed. Decks that care hypothetically need vastly more slots to potentially deal with cards like this; and if they cared enough to adapt, are probably losing deck identity (i.e. the way in which they choose to enjoy legacy).

---

What's wrong with gambling to find not recursive cards?
It is just not as good as gambling for LotL, but getting a 67-80% chances (assuming a 3 to 5 cards hand, not a full grip even) of getting the winning card is perfectly fine. It is something that should be considered. I have seen countless time lands player gambling for tabernacle/DD/stage without LftL active, because it was a perfectly reasonable shot at winning the game.
Also, barbarian ring is a thing that eschew MoR, revoker or any other shenanigan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dte

What's wrong with gambling to find not recursive cards?
It is just not as good as gambling for LotL, but getting a 67-80% chances (assuming a 3 to 5 cards hand, not a full grip even) of getting the winning card is perfectly fine. It is something that should be considered. I have seen countless time lands player gambling for tabernacle/DD/stage without LftL active, because it was a perfectly reasonable shot at winning the game.
Also, barbarian ring is a thing that eschew MoR, revoker or any other shenanigan.

---

So the Barbarian Ring problem was discussed at the top of the page your post is on, sufficed to say graveyard-centric answers to sideboard RiP decks is a poor life choice. Desperation Gambles are bad, more decks would use it if this were otherwise; because a play does exist with Gamble does not equal "it's ok because I can Gamble for it."

There is a very real difference between "oh look Empty for 14 goblins, now it's my first turn" and "they have a Prelate." There's no real deck-building consequences for putting in a Prelate. Desperation Gamble is not nearly as likely to succeed when their deck does different things. You are advocating a loss of 4 cards (net loss 3), assuming you didn't randomly discard Vortex to answer a single card (Gamble, random discard, play Vortex, discard land to Vortex). This is a line of play, but let's not call it good - I've cast my fair share of Dreadnoughts and I can safely tell you that is too much card disadvantage. Uncestral Recall...

Read @Dice_Box's post about Vortex, it's primarily a tool against decks that go all-in on not trying to win (traditionally miracles). If Cursed Scroll (that is to say 2 dmg per turn) isn't going to single-handedly beat your opponent, then such a line is unlikely to succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So the Barbarian Ring problem was discussed at the top of the page your post is on, sufficed to say graveyard-centric answers to sideboard RiP decks is a poor life choice. Desperation Gambles are bad, more decks would use it if this were otherwise; because a play does exist with Gamble does not equal "it's ok because I can Gamble for it."

There is a very real difference between "oh look Empty for 14 goblins, now it's my first turn" and "they have a Prelate." There's no real deck-building consequences for putting in a Prelate. Desperation Gamble is not nearly as likely to succeed when their deck does different things. You are advocating a loss of 4 cards (net loss 3), assuming you didn't randomly discard Vortex to answer a single card (Gamble, random discard, play Vortex, discard land to Vortex). This is a line of play, but let's not call it good - I've cast my fair share of Dreadnoughts and I can safely tell you that is too much card disadvantage. Uncestral Recall...

---

Fox, you do realise that this deck is all about loaming, and that discarding lands doesn't really matter then? Loam basically is ancestrall recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ingo

Fox, you do realise that this deck is all about loaming, and that discarding lands doesn't really matter then? Loam basically is ancestrall recall.

---

Yeah and they have Manabond, Exploration, and Mox Diamonds which require time to rebuild hand size, even with Loam. Everything stops if Prelate hits the table be it by 3 mana or 3 counters on Vial. So now we're advocating holding opening-hand Gamble to not start the Exploration, P-Fire/Loam engine, or Depths/Stage combo? You're not winning that matchup if your holding your engine back to play around Prelate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Yeah and they have Manabond, Exploration, and Mox Diamonds which require time to rebuild hand size, even with Loam. Everything stops if Prelate hits the table be it by 3 mana or 3 counters on Vial. So now we're advocating holding opening-hand Gamble to not start the Exploration, P-Fire/Loam engine, or Depths/Stage combo? You're not winning that matchup if your holding your engine back to play around Prelate.

---

If the 1off Prelate hits on T3, D&T is about as lucky as me landing a T1 Vortex. I like my odds with the T1 Vortex better. You cannot compare the best possible scenario available to you to the worst sceanrio for lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ingo

If the 1off Prelate hits on T3, D&T is about as lucky as me landing a T1 Vortex. I like my odds with the T1 Vortex better. You cannot compare the best possible scenario available to you to the worst sceanrio for lands.

---

There's far too many possibilities in that matchup with questionable keeps (knowing there is no FoW), Port/Wastelands, taxes, protection from red until EoT, what exactly is being dredged over, etc to come up with a nice clean synopsis. What I can tell you though is that if Cursed Scroll's pace isn't going to win the game, Vortex generally wont either (and Vortex is colored, which is not irrelevant). We're identifying a line that removes a problem card, but R/G Lands is more like an unfair deck in that it doesn't win by removing things, it still has to assemble a kill (around yard hate if post-board). It's great to identify 'x' kills 'y,' but too much of that means you will lose the game b/c you're not a creature-based fair deck.

In this way Vortex here is like bringing in 1-drop spells to combat miracles (like Snare or Pyroblast); these are highly flawed answers based on the mechanical imbalance of the scenario. It's another example of bending over backwards to deal with a card so inane that it shouldn't have been printed. If we're going to have all these cards that don't let people play the game we may as well try and get DTT unbanned so OmniTell can return the favor. One thing that is certain is that Prelate risks making DnT vs R/G Lands not fit for broadcast, because it goes from one of the most nuanced, interactive matchups (albeit grindy) to mindless stupidity if Prelate on 2 hits the field. You could just focus on streaming legacy as a way to increase interest and playerbase, and you'll see why a card like Prelate is problematic.

Meh, coverage I don't think counts. Bloodmoon can more or less do the same thing already. I know we have answers, but if they have a clock and a moon...

Non games are a part of the format. I am still on the "Wait and see" train. But I do not like the signals.

(Fuck you auto correct.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

There's far too many possibilities in that matchup with questionable keeps (knowing there is no FoW), Port/Wastelands, taxes, protection from red until EoT, what exactly is being dredged over, etc to come up with a nice clean synopsis. What I can tell you though is that if Cursed Scroll's pace isn't going to win the game, Vortex generally wont either (and Vortex is colored, which is not irrelevant).

---

You are right that there are too much possibilities to discuss any line of play. And I don't like Prelate either, as I don't like noninteractive cards.
Just one last thing, Vortex easily deals 6 damage (3x2D) with loam, for R each, which is the whole point of including this in the deck. Quite different from a Cursed SCroll's pace ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ingo

You are right that there are too much possibilities to discuss any line of play. And I don't like Prelate either, as I don't like noninteractive cards.
Just one last thing, Vortex easily deals 6 damage (3x2D) with loam, for R each, which is the whole point of including this in the deck. Quite different from a Cursed SCroll's pace ...

---

Not if you can't cast Loam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Not if you can't cast Loam.

---

Casting loam is the whole point of this deck. And killing Prelate is only discarding 1 land with vortex before loams active again ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ingo

Casting loam is the whole point of this deck. And killing Prelate is only discarding 1 land with vortex before loams active again ...

---

And Mother does?

The worst part is I am not even pulling shit out of my ass, I am just talking about how the deck is built to work. DnT with this card will be hell. Add Revoker and you have up to 8 ways to just flat stop Vortex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

And Mother does?

---

And just like Pfire deals with mother in two strikes (opp Eot and yours), vortex does too. That's not a world of difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I'm not sure that you quite understand what happens when R/G Lands plays DnT. That 20/20 is legendary and non-trampling. DnT has: 4x Swords, 4x Flickerwisp, 4x Mother of Runes, and a total of ~8x [or more] fliers that chump endlessly with active Mother of Runes. The only way that DnT really loses game 1 is a god hand (Manabond into very quick Marit Lage) or P-Fire outracing the ability to equip out of P-Fire range (too many board states to quickly sum up the Port/Wasteland, except that in the long run Lands will win it). That said P-Fire probably pushes Lands to being more favored in game 1.

There are some real differences between all those cards you've mentioned Prelate, first is build-around. Prelate on 1 would stop Vials and Swords, but that's kind of the extent of deckbuilding with it. Kind of like saying that a deck that goes for 2-mana T1 (Chalice decks) can't play one drops...if they're going for that much mana in the opener, they weren't really wanting 1-drops anyways (exceptions exist, i.e. Tezz would like Brainstorm, but that's about the extent of it). The bigger issue is that it's a 1-card combo that says "you can't win" rather than "you lose" thus absolving you from the need to end a game in a reasonable amount of time. This is a hallmark problem with :w: in general as the timewaster-in-chief of magic; now at least DnT doubles down on :w: with the weenie-beatdown plan, but Prelate is more firmly in the timewaster category.

---

Given I've played the deck for the better part of the year in a meta with loads of D&T (all of whom agree the MU isn't great for D&T I might add), I'm inclined I know more about it then you, but no matter. D&T game 1 (pre-prelate) had few ways of interacting with loam, it's gameplan of taxing you with waste+port+thalia and beating you down simply doesn't work when you have loam and can interact with Thalia and their lands, for that matter, the odds that they get Flickerwisp + Mother and the 3 mana neccesary to play it, and survive to land both (remember, Flicker does not infact have flash) isn't completely in their favor (if they don't simply have it in hand, they are relying purely on the odds of them drawing it, which aren't great if they are missing 2+ cards necessary). The scenario you're describing (Mother plus all the fliers and there isn't at least one punishing fire involved) sounds more like a god scenario then the other way around, Lands has Loam, 4 Gambles and 4 Punishing Fire (in addition to 4 crop rotations for grove of the burnwillows), D&T had no form of card manipulation in the deck, you cannot reasonably expect that scenario to happen incredibly often.

I guess, but the point was about how healthy or unhealthy the card was, it's not like it's straight up killing you turn 2/3, or just completely ignoring what you are doing by playing 20/20s and saying "interact with me". Prelate on 2 is no different from "Tendrils kill you" on turn 3, arguably, you could play through prelate and still feasibly win the game, you cannot do that with "tendrils kill you".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ingo

And just like Pfire deals with mother in two strikes (opp Eot and yours), vortex does too. That's not a world of difference.

---

I agree. But while your drawing 2 or 3 cards to get those lands, your getting clocked or your not trying to hit the cards that are doing the lions share of the damage too you. This is the issue, it's not that you can't remove the fucker if you happen to have the perfect card on the table, it's that you have to now stop playing until you get rid of their card and hope you live long enough to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

The worst part is I am not even pulling shit out of my ass, I am just talking about how the deck is built to work. DnT with this card will be hell. Add Revoker and you have up to 8 ways to just flat stop Vortex.

---

If they're tutoring for Revoker, that means they aren't getting Prelate :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds

If they're tutoring for Revoker, that means they aren't getting Prelate :wink:

---

True that. Again, I will hold my fire until I view this thing on the other side of the table. Right now my plan is to add Trackers to the main. Because I can punch with them and they can draw me into my other options.

I am not against seeking an answer, I just don't believe Vortex is that answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So the Barbarian Ring problem was discussed at the top of the page your post is on, sufficed to say graveyard-centric answers to sideboard RiP decks is a poor life choice.

---

They have to play RIP first though, right? And their only tools to find it are the muligan plus whatever deck thinning they get from Recruiter and SFM?

Sure, Revoker and RIP protect Prelate from Vortex and BRing. But we also have Grips for those cards. Post-board only, but so is RIP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Desperation Gambles are bad, more decks would use it if this were otherwise

---

That would sound reasoning if other decks:

• could reliably pump their hands full of cards to reduce the risk.
• were running over 40 cards that were cool to have in the graveyard.

If we want to actually"Gamble", we load out hand up with Loam, and almost always do we throw away a card that we can get back. If Painter or R/U Delver ran Gamble they would lose the card they tutor for a lot more, and regardless they'd always suffer the card disadvantage. Lands heavily pads your Gambles, even when it doesn't 100% protect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Read @Dice_Box's post about Vortex, it's primarily a tool against decks that go all-in on not trying to win (traditionally miracles). If Cursed Scroll (that is to say 2 dmg per turn) isn't going to single-handedly beat your opponent, then such a line is unlikely to succeed.

---

I've been running a main-deck 3-2 PF/Vortex split, and it's pretty smooth. That's anecdotal, but Ingo already cited evidence that over half the winning RGCL lists are already running it, the (slim) majority of which are running it main. It's a good card, and it's going to get better if we see more D&T. Vortex work nicely with Tracker too; another card which incidentally helps diversify our cmc spread.

So we modify our lists to include Vortex and BRing main. This isn't such a big setback - some of our matches will even be improved. If they draw early Revoker, RIP, and Prelate we'll probably lose. Otherwise we should have plenty of game vs D&T. Note that the adjustments I'm discussing would have helped our D&T match anyway (as does our recently acquired Tireless Tracker).

Maybe our D&T match will suffer. But if we are getting more D&T and less Miracles, as we!l as more Elves and less Storm, are we going to be that far behind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Maybe our D&T match will suffer. But if we are getting more D&T and less Miracles, as we!l as more Elves and less Storm, are we going to be that far behind?

---

I fail to see why Miracles' meta penetration would fall. Eldrazi preys on Miracles and it didn't dent its meta penetration one bit after the initial hype around Eldrazi died down.

While more people are going to pick up D&T, I doubt the rise is going to be a long-term thing. There are just too many 3-drops.

Miracles picking up Prelate (as Lemnear said) is a real possibility, though, which could push the deck even further.

Eh, other than for combo, I don't think it will change much for miracles, what number are you going to put it at? You can't put it at 1 or 2 (and even if you could somehow, countertop takes care of those just fine), leaving the option of setting it to 3 or 4, but in the MUs you were going to put it at 3 or 4, usually it's a specific card you don't want them casting (Show & Tell, Sneak Attack, etc), if Miracles hasn't started bringing in meddling mage for those MUs by now, I doubt prelate is going to be so much better that they are going to start playing it.

Even for the fair MUs, you rely on terminus and Swords to get the job done, meaning your creatures need to have good ETB effects so as to profit off of replaying them.

It's not really on topic for the B/R, but focus on how often Loam can be fired off before DnT hits either 3 mana or Vial on 3; pay especial attention to R/G Lands self-hand destruction vs how many lands it gets back from those opening 2 Loam casts. There has to be a lot going right for Vortex to be a reliable answer. Keep in mind Gamble is [correctly] being fired off to find combo/engine pieces, not Vortex.

Getting back on topic, it's important to point out that Prelate is one card capable of totally preventing an opponent from winning. There is an additive problem with printing 1-card "I can't lose to that anymore" let's call them 'combos.' These cards are generally white, and what's very strange is people can't stand losing to a combo but that solitary white card that ends the game except that it drags on for turn after turn, that one is fine? I don't care what you play in legacy, if you're up against a deck like ANT you get to play magic at all points, yes you will die on the spot in the first few turns but then you go right back to playing magic again in g2/3. All that's being done here is printing what are effectively Strip Mines except that you get to keep lands that do nothing on the battlefield.

Naming off convoluted lines of play with all these moving pieces doesn't make the card it was meant to combat acceptable; it indicates strongly that the opposite is true.

I don't like the card, but to say this is new is fudging it a bit. Decks have been falling to single cards for ages. Fastest game I ever won was against Hypergenisis, I was playing burn. His first turn he cascades, I drop a Bridge. Game over.

Think about Painter. Maindeck Moon, Bridge and tutors. Think of Eldrazi and by extension MUD. Your not playing in this game, therefore I win. Think about decks of old, Stax (A deck I still play) or Stasis. The idea is the same, even if now we are talking about two cards.

3Ball, Chalice, Moon, Bridge, fuck even Kiki Goblin Settler for a while. We have these kinds of lock outs already. I have dumped a Moon turn one against Elves and just won before. It happens.

Now is it good to add another card to the list? No. But am I going to say this is new? Well no, it just happens to effect me more. But fuck, if I can say with a straight face that Chalice is fine and mean it, I guess I can eat the pie too.

Prelate is one card that stops people winning yes, but hey, we have been here before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Getting back on topic, it's important to point out that Prelate is one card capable of totally preventing an opponent from winning. There is an additive problem with printing 1-card "I can't lose to that anymore" let's call them 'combos.' These cards are generally white, and what's very strange is people can't stand losing to a combo but that solitary white card that ends the game except that it drags on for turn after turn, that one is fine? I don't care what you play in legacy, if you're up against a deck like ANT you get to play magic at all points, yes you will die on the spot in the first few turns but then you go right back to playing magic again in g2/3. All that's being done here is printing what are effectively Strip Mines except that you get to keep lands that do nothing on the battlefield.

Naming off convoluted lines of play with all these moving pieces doesn't make the card it was meant to combat acceptable; it indicates strongly that the opposite is true.

---

You'll note that your one card that wins the game does so only if you are playing a combo deck with no way of interacting with a ccm3 creature.
Find a single legacy deck that just lose to this "one card".
The card is good, enough to be legacy material. That's great, we got a new toy. We can think of how to include it, or how to battle it. Food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It's not really on topic for the B/R, but focus on how often Loam can be fired off before DnT hits either 3 mana or Vial on 3; pay especial attention to R/G Lands self-hand destruction vs how many lands it gets back from those opening 2 Loam casts. There has to be a lot going right for Vortex to be a reliable answer. Keep in mind Gamble is [correctly] being fired off to find combo/engine pieces, not Vortex.

---

Vortex costs one, after that we have 35 lands turned into shocks (besides all the nasty stuff they still do), thats even more shocks than D&T runs creatures. That's not a bad scenario even without loam to reload. Granted Revoker spoils the party, but then again, 3 Fires and 4 gambles should deal with it too.

The above is ofcourse Lands' dreamscenario versus D&T, just as a T3 Prelate is quite the punchout for Lands as well. These are just scenario's, we should calculate how probable they are, and then make the comparison again. But as long as Prelate is a 1-off, with only 2 recruiters to find it, I'm not nervous. Keep in mind that the Lands / D&T matchup is mostly about recasting Punishing Fire for Lands (more than loaming), that Lands is the best deck to assemble it (crop gamble lotl), and once there's Fire/Grove established you can draw each turn into additional gambles and Vortices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

Miracles picking up Prelate (as Lemnear said) is a real possibility, though, which could push the deck even further.

---

I am not so worried though that Miracles adopts the card though. They already have a comparable effect in counterbalance, and I think adding Prelate to beat maindecked Abrupt Decays is just worse than just entreating, flashing cards back with Snapcaster or generating an army with Mentor/top. Miracles is probably too tight to squeeze Prelate in as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Keep in mind Gamble is [correctly] being fired off to find combo/engine pieces, not Vortex.

---

Against D&T we rarely Gamble for combo pieces unless we already have the game locked down. Gamble is typically for Grove or PF in this match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So now we're advocating holding opening-hand Gamble to not start the Exploration, P-Fire/Loam engine, or Depths/Stage combo?

---

Again, we don't want to Gamble for combo pieces early in this match - they set us back too far when Marit Lage gets flickered. Exploration is as risky to Gamble for as Vortex, but having Vortex live is probably better than Exploration in this match.

We can also Gamble (or CR) for our Bring; especially game one. We can do this in response to Wasteland too. The match gets tougher, but not a blow-out against us! We have multiple answers for Prelate. They have answers for our answers, and we have answers for their answers. As far as I'm concerned, the game's afoot!

Gambling for an enchantment is not nearly as uncommon as you'd think. Gambling for Exploration or Manabond is something we do regualrly if that's the effect we need to get a huge advantage. We just prefer to fill out hand up first. I have personally gambled for Vortex when I have believed it to be the card the board-state calls for. I can see making a habit of this vs D&T, especially those games where I already have Punishing Fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It will take time to see the effect of Prelate, but it shouldn't be hard to imagine the disgust a pilot R/G Lands or storm deck would have with such card design, just in the hypothetical.

---

I'm honestly not worried as a Lands player (of course I play RUG Lands more often than R/G, and RUG is much less bothered by Prelate).

But this sort of design does disgust me a little. Besides Miracles, Lands, and most combo decks, the rest of the format is fair creature decks. Why make a card that hoses non-creature strategies? These are less than half of the format. I wouldn't mind if we also got more creature hosers. The last card printed that taxes your opponent's creatures was Lodestone Golem, and that was seven years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Ritual

Like, what do they have to print hypothetically to get something banned out of DnT for making DnT oppressive?

...Current design philosophy isn't going to break DnT to banworthy either, as they are simply printing good creatures for it that could never hold a candle to the likes of lion's eye diamond and co. that legacy allows as 4 ofs.

---

It wasn't long ago that Maverick's dominance bordered on oppressive. Combo decks seemed to be at an all time low and the biggest three decks were fair, creature based agro/control (Maverick, Blade, and Thresh). I wouldn't underestimate the ability of WotC to warp a format in favour of creature strategies.