[Deck] Solitaire (Enchantress)

[alderon666]

I myself like the new enchantment. It doesn't require an upkeep cost, makes a mana enchantment into a 4/4 and can be really scary once you chain a lot of enchantments in one turn and win on the next one.

Is it optimal? Better than this or that? Theorizing only does so much when optimizing a deck, some things can only be really evaluated in testing.

My 2 cents.

[Jaiminho]

The mana for Mesa is spread over two turns, which can be highly relevant. Sanctum is never a guarantee to remain for any amount of time.

On the 1st turn you simply pay 2W. Then, on the 2nd turn, you must pay 2WW to have a single Pegasus on the board. Mesa works, but it's too mana intensive and, when trying to not die to some creatures running over you, you will most likely have very few mana to continue with your main game plan. Saying Sigil is too costly makes no sense.

WoW can't be Needled.

"X: Y" constitutes an activated ability. Words of War's ability doesn't add mana to the pool. Therefore it can be needled.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

On the 1st turn you simply pay 2W. Then, on the 2nd turn, you must pay 2WW to have a single Pegasus on the board. Mesa works, but it's too mana intensive and, when trying to not die to some creatures running over you, you will most likely have very few mana to continue with your main game plan. Saying Sigil is too costly makes no sense.

Yes it does.

Sigil costs 5 just to get into play. In case people have forgotten, the point of Enchantress is to play permanents. That means, logically, we want cheap, or, preferably, free permanents.

I can't believe I have to defend the value of a low mana curve.

First of all, in an ideal build, I would run neither Mesa nor this new card. Neither advances your main game plan, and if I'm in a situation where either would be relevant (against control), Replenish will most likely be better.

HOWEVER.

If I were forced to play one for some reason I would play Mesa.

BECAUSE MESA IS A STAND ALONE THREAT AND SIGIL IS NOT.

You are not going to kill good players with Sigil.

If they don't draw an answer, or bigger threats, it doesn't matter which one you have in play, either way, they weren't going to win.

If they do have enough threats or answers to neutralize either one, you're either dead or in a stalemate.

However, if you had Mesa, and it was a stalemate, you would still have enchantments in hand. So that if you draw an Enchantress, you can break the stalemate.

If we were discussing post-board, I would rather have Dovescape, since it adds something the deck actually needs (answers to sweepers and Grip).

If I all ready have an enchantress out, I would have to give up my entire 3rd or 4th turn to play this card, which is not acceptable.

[Parcher]

Feh. Confusing Rift and WoW FTL.

[Gibbie_X]

I think he may have thought it a replacement effect like dredge and not an activated ability. Still, incorrect is incorrect.

This Sigil looks to be pretty beastly. It is a definite 'Find solution now or get beat upon', something mesa can't do. But I think the utility of Mesa is what makes it so versatile. Instant blockers helps when staring at large goyfs and mongoose, that is if you are a bad player and have no protection down. I recently played a game where Mesa saved me at 1 life.

With a resolved Sigil, as with Hoofprints, you need to wait 2 or 3 turns to get the fatties flowing. Mesa drops, sits around, then, BAM, 6 critters. The Sigil and Hoofprints are definitely cards that work best with a City of Solitude out, plopping out an unstoppable tide of flying fatties.

Sigil of the Empty Throne may deserve a place in Legacy Enchantress, but I don't think it replaces Sacred Mesa, even if it is good Counterbalance fodder. You still have Force and Daze to deal with.

[Jaiminho]

I think he may have thought it a replacement effect like dredge and not an activated ability. Still, incorrect is incorrect.

It's both. It's a replacement effect created by an activated ability.

This Sigil looks to be pretty beastly. It is a definite 'Find solution now or get beat upon', something mesa can't do. But I think the utility of Mesa is what makes it so versatile. Instant blockers helps when staring at large goyfs and mongoose, that is if you are a bad player and have no protection down. I recently played a game where Mesa saved me at 1 life.

Mesa doesn't have a surprise factor when creating its tokens. It's on the board and your mana is open, so your opponen will behave as if the tokens were there. Truth be told, Sigil won't put tokens until next turn, but it's able to put some 4/4 flying dudes the turn right after it came into play.

With a resolved Sigil, as with Hoofprints, you need to wait 2 or 3 turns to get the fatties flowing. Mesa drops, sits around, then, BAM, 6 critters. The Sigil and Hoofprints are definitely cards that work best with a City of Solitude out, plopping out an unstoppable tide of flying fatties.

You need a single turn. It creates the tokens immediately. Unless you fail to draw enchantments, you will keep tokens coming.

Mesa going BAM 6 critters takes 2W + 6WWWWWW. Add another 1W if you want them to live through your upkeep. Now that's a fuckton of mana!

Sigil of the Empty Throne may deserve a place in Legacy Enchantress, but I don't think it replaces Sacred Mesa, even if it is good Counterbalance fodder. You still have Force and Daze to deal with.

Every card in the game has to deal with Force and Daze. It's nothing relevant that, unless it has split second, it can be stopped, as this is the general rule. The real question here is whether Sigil will be good enough to ensure playability because of its restrictions: cost and enchantment dependancy. My bet is that it will replace Mesa as the 2nd win condition.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Every card in the game has to deal with Force and Daze. It's nothing relevant that, unless it has split second, it can be stopped, as this is the general rule. The real question here is whether Sigil will be good enough to ensure playability because of its restrictions: cost and enchantment dependancy. My bet is that it will replace Mesa as the 2nd win condition.

Countering a 5 mana spell is much better tempo gain than countering a 3 mana spell.

It's also a lot easier to Daze.

[JMG021283]

To be honest, I think you're undervaluing the card. I personally think it makes a great 2-3rd kill mech. I'm gonna play it and test it, but what do I know:) I personally don't think it's a good replacement for mesa but as a third option or board option I def think it has great potential.

[GreenOne]

It's also a lot easier to Daze.

Don't get me wrong, but it's not worse than Mesa if it's the first spell you're playing this turn. Those are the scenarios:

Opponent has Daze:
- With 5 mana open you're going to play Sigil. Bad move, knowing your opponent is playing Daze. Sigil gets countered. If the opponent doesn't daze the next turn you're probably making at least one 4/4.
- With 5 mana open you're playing Mesa. If the opponent Daze it you will not be able to make a token this turn, so if you want mesa to survive next turn you have to use 1W during your upkeep. And if you want it to have some impact on the game you also have to spend 1W to make a 1/1 token. You've lost 4 mana out of 5 in this turn (likely a timewalk for your opponent) to make a 1/1. You'll also have to pay 1W each turn. That's a loss of tempo.

Opponent has not daze:
- With 5 mana open you're going to play Sigil. Bad move, knowing your opponent is playing Daze. The opponent doesn't daze and next turn you're probably making at least one 4/4 while playing your enchantments.
- With 5 mana open you're playing Mesa. The opponent doesn't daze, you have to spend 1W to make a token that got sacrificed in your turn, then you can spend 2WW to make two 1/1 tokens, using almost your entire turn (likely a timewalk for your opponent) to make two 1/1. You'll also have to pay 1W each turn. That's a loss of tempo.

I see Sigil being not that worse if the opponent dazes it (I'll probably will not mantain that mesa) and being definetly better if the opponent doesn't.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Comparing this new card to Sacred Mesa is kind of silly, because Mesa is a fucking awful card that shouldn't be seeing any play.

Sigil is going to have to be much better to deserve inclusion. It seems like a powerful card to have when you can't get an enchantress effect online, so it at least bears consideration.

[landstill101]

Comparing this new card to Sacred Mesa is kind of silly, because Mesa is a fucking awful card that shouldn't be seeing any play.

Sigil is going to have to be much better to deserve inclusion. It seems like a powerful card to have when you can't get an enchantress effect online, so it at least bears consideration.

And what reason would bring this burst of hate for mesa(you cant say you hate it and not give a reason, usually that gets a warning), personally I love mesa and use it to win games all the time. it's needed especially if you don't have' tons of enchantments but have a sanctum running.

As for the new card, I'm deffinitly trying as a 1 of maybe a 2, the only thing I don't like about it is I would hate to see it in opening hand because of the mana cost, seeing mesa in opening hand isn't a bad Idea sometimes because you have to drop it turn 2-3 help win games when sigil cant be played usually before turn 4. But hey until we can test this shit out of it, we will never know how good it is.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Sigil is going to have to be much better to deserve inclusion. It seems like a powerful card to have when you can't get an enchantress effect online, so it at least bears consideration.

If I all ready have an enchantress out, I would have to give up my entire 3rd or 4th turn to play this card, which is not acceptable.

Don't get me wrong, but it's not worse than Mesa if it's the first spell you're playing this turn. Those are the scenarios:

Opponent has Daze:
- With 5 mana open you're going to play Sigil. Bad move, knowing your opponent is playing Daze. Sigil gets countered. If the opponent doesn't daze the next turn you're probably making at least one 4/4.
- With 5 mana open you're playing Mesa. If the opponent Daze it you will not be able to make a token this turn, so if you want mesa to survive next turn you have to use 1W during your upkeep. And if you want it to have some impact on the game you also have to spend 1W to make a 1/1 token. You've lost 4 mana out of 5 in this turn (likely a timewalk for your opponent) to make a 1/1. You'll also have to pay 1W each turn. That's a loss of tempo.

Opponent has not daze:
- With 5 mana open you're going to play Sigil. Bad move, knowing your opponent is playing Daze. The opponent doesn't daze and next turn you're probably making at least one 4/4 while playing your enchantments.
- With 5 mana open you're playing Mesa. The opponent doesn't daze, you have to spend 1W to make a token that got sacrificed in your turn, then you can spend 2WW to make two 1/1 tokens, using almost your entire turn (likely a timewalk for your opponent) to make two 1/1. You'll also have to pay 1W each turn. That's a loss of tempo.

I see Sigil being not that worse if the opponent dazes it (I'll probably will not mantain that mesa) and being definetly better if the opponent doesn't.

With Mesa, you are more likely to have the choice of paying for Daze enough. If you are in a situation where Mesa is a threat, being 1 token behind is better than having your threat countered.




Alix does bring us back to the real issue here;

Why do we need a second, or third, kill condition?

[Hoojo]

With Mesa, you are more likely to have the choice of paying for Daze enough. If you are in a situation where Mesa is a threat, being 1 token behind is better than having your threat countered.

Alix does bring us back to the real issue here;

Why do we need a second, or third, kill condition?

If I were to run a second win condition, I think it should be something that cannot be Needled, which is why I would consider Sigil.

I wouldn't consider Sigil because it works like Words of War being that you need to play other enchantments to make it work, so if you ran both you would have two win conditions based on the same mechanic. I think this is why Mesa is stronger; you don't have to play out other enchantments to win with Mesa.

[GreenOne]

If I were to run a second win condition, I think it should be something that cannot be Needled, which is why I would consider Sigil.

I wouldn't consider Sigil because it works like Words of War being that you need to play other enchantments to make it work, so if you ran both you would have two win conditions based on the same mechanic. I think this is why Mesa is stronger; you don't have to play out other enchantments to win with Mesa.

Mesa requires you to have Sanctum in play, otherwise it's going to cost your entire turn to make 2-3 tokens.

WoWar requires you to have enchantments in hand and at least 2 enchantresses on board, and also to splash a color. However, it's the fastest kill we have at our disposal.

Sigil requires you to have enchantments in hand or to draw them. You draw an everage of 1 enchantment every 2 cards, so, in the worst case, when you have zero enchantments in hand, you're making a 4/4 guy for free every 2 turns. To put the same power on board with mesa you have to spend 3WWW every turn. Obviously, every enchantress on board and every enchantment in hand decreases the power of Mesa (you're dropping enchantments drawing cards or making tokens), while increasing Sigil's.

[Forbiddian]

I think people supporting Mesa fail to understand that cards that answer Mesa do not necessarily answer Sigil.

Two Tarmogoyf is a pretty effective answer to Mesa. Dreadnought answers Mesa (even long after Mesa is online). Jitte answers Mesa. Trickbind answers Mesa. Goblins answers Mesa without even changing their game plan. As much as people want to say it's a one-shot wonder ("I just play Mesa and force them to deal with it"), almost all of the time, your opponent's game plan trumps your game plan, so you're still responsible for beating them or at least slowing them down. Sigil, if it resolves (I'm sure some guy will bold that, but it's just as hard to resolve Sacred Mesa and Mesa dies to Deed much more readily), can actually turn the tables on a losing board position. Mesa can only just barely tip it in your favor.


About one win con:

I think it's possible to have a good maindeck with 2 win conditions, provided that they're different and randomly selected. If you want to win a tournament, by the later rounds, people will be sure to scout your deck and know at least a few of your possible win cons. If you just have Words of War, then you literally scoop to anybody who can pull out three counterspells.

If you could theoretically protect your deck's identity through the final rounds, you'll do ok. And you'll probably do fine the first few rounds. If you actually want to get far/win, though, I think you need more than a single win con.




Sigil has some big drawbacks, mainly reliance on fast mana (Utopia Sprawl/Wild Growth).

I still think it's the one and ONLY enchantment we have that can singlehandedly win the game just on any random stray enchanments you have and the stuff you topdeck, even against a dangerous board position.

Dovescape does not. You need to resolve an Enchantress before or just a loaded hand.
Mesa does not. You still need to answer their creature threats.
Hoofprints of the Stag does not. You need an Enchantress or two, otherwise it just takes forever.
Words of War does not, obviously. Words of Wind doesn't either.

It costs much more, so it should be better. I'm just pointing out that it is much, much better than any other win con that we have so far.


I'm not sure if that makes it playable in spite of its CC, but I see a lot of people trying to dismiss it as somehow only as good as Mesa or vulnerable to the same things. It's really not. Pretty much nothing except disenchant/countermagic answers this guy. There's no playing around a steady stream of 4/4s.

Again, I'll have to test it, the casting cost looks prohibitive, but statements like

HOWEVER.

If I were forced to play one for some reason I would play Mesa.

BECAUSE MESA IS A STAND ALONE THREAT AND SIGIL IS NOT.

You are not going to kill good players with Sigil.

are just completely without merit.

[JMG021283]

I think people supporting Mesa fail to understand that cards that answer Mesa do not necessarily answer Sigil.

Two Tarmogoyf is a pretty effective answer to Mesa. Dreadnought answers Mesa (even long after Mesa is online). Jitte answers Mesa. Trickbind answers Mesa. Goblins answers Mesa without even changing their game plan. As much as people want to say it's a one-shot wonder ("I just play Mesa and force them to deal with it"), almost all of the time, your opponent's game plan trumps your game plan, so you're still responsible for beating them or at least slowing them down. Sigil, if it resolves (I'm sure some guy will bold that, but it's just as hard to resolve Sacred Mesa and Mesa dies to Deed much more readily), can actually turn the tables on a losing board position. Mesa can only just barely tip it in your favor.

I seem to remember playing moat....Could be wrong but this list is stop'd by moat: Goyf, dreadnought, jitte(as long no flying guys), trickbind doesn't interact. Also something to note, Sigil can't make guys on there turn.... no idea why that would be important. But to me it has been several times. I'm not arguing against Sigil, but I think your undervaluing Mesa. But to be honest I'd rather people not play it. I'll run it, be a lot happier and win more games.

[honz]

If you just have Words of War, then you literally scoop to anybody who can pull out three counterspells.

I have run 1 win-con for a while, and this has never really been the case. Between 3 replenish, # city of solitude, # blood moon, and 4 choke, it would be just stupid to hold 3 counterspells for WoW. Also, anyone who just tries to counter WoW is playing a dangerous game, because they have no way of knowing how many win-cons you run, or what your SB looks like.

With that said, i would seriously consider running Sigil. I view it as more of an enchantress effect than strictly a win-con. Although you don't cantrip from each enchantment, you still slow your opponents game (ussually) by forcing them to deal with your threats.

[Redlotus27]

One thing I can say about mesa is that most enchantress players usually don't drop it until its time to win with it. Once it hits, the lights go out rather quickly.

[Forbiddian]

One thing I can say about mesa is that most enchantress players usually don't drop it until its time to win with it. Once it hits, the lights go out rather quickly.

That's called a win more, which is such a buzz word, but it applies here.

Any enchantment (and a hundred other things) could fit THAT role. Mobility, Brainfreeze, Changeling. You want your win con to do stuff in situations other than "I'm dominating and my opponent can't do anything, I just need 20 damage now." It seems like you don't understand that.

A win con will be better if it can win in situations where you would have lost.

I have run 1 win-con for a while, and this has never really been the case. Between 3 replenish, # city of solitude, # blood moon, and 4 choke, it would be just stupid to hold 3 counterspells for WoW. Also, anyone who just tries to counter WoW is playing a dangerous game, because they have no way of knowing how many win-cons you run, or what your SB looks like.

With that said, i would seriously consider running Sigil. I view it as more of an enchantress effect than strictly a win-con. Although you don't cantrip from each enchantment, you still slow your opponents game (ussually) by forcing them to deal with your threats.

By the end rounds in a tournament, people will have figured out your rough deck composition. Especially since Enchantress games often go fairly late in the round, you can expect that a lot of people have scouted your deck, starting around when you're 3-0. Assuming that they haven't scouted you and that nobody will is pretty dangerous considering how you literally have no answer to that strategy.

By the way, you don't NEED three counterspells to win. With Words of War as your kill con, they can do stuff like play a Pernicious Deed and make you answer that (countering the Karmic Justice or eating it, doesn't really matter).

Or Pithing Needle and keeping your disenchant effects off the board.

Or Meddling Mage on Words of War requires you to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops (drawing to 8 cards, pitching your Words, then Replenish the next turn).

Or just Thoughtseize when Solitary Confinement is down.

Not to mention that Words of War itself requires a pretty specific board situation, involving usually three enchantress effects, a Sacred Mesa, and a lot of Enchantments in hand.


I've found with only one win con, recovering after a Deed or Disk or even EE is incredibly difficult, especially into the teeth of countermagic, and playing the killcon lockout game is by far the best strategy if they know your deck composition (even if you have two win cons, it's the best strategy), and if they even suspect that you only have the one win con, it's devastating.

[Obfuscate Freely]

And what reason would bring this burst of hate for mesa(you cant say you hate it and not give a reason, usually that gets a warning), personally I love mesa and use it to win games all the time. it's needed especially if you don't have' tons of enchantments but have a sanctum running.

Hate? I said the card is awful, not that I had some personal problem with it.

Sacred Mesa is a relic from older, slower formats in which it was actually okay to sink all of your available mana into making tiny dorks, turn after turn. In modern Legacy, spending in order to attack with a Spectral Procession just doesn't fucking cut it. Like Forbiddian said, the card only functions reasonably once you have already won the game.

Sigil, on the other hand, is a one-time investment, and it creates tokens that are four times as large as Mesa's Pegasi. It is clearly in an entirely different league than Sacred Mesa, but that says so little about the card's value relative to the rest of the format that we still don't know if it will make the cut or not.