Yeah, we wouldn't merge Team America with Tempo Thresh just because they are both Delver decks. 4cc Loam is a new match up though, and I think it's fair to discuss how a new element might affect our deck selection. There are some of us who switch between the two as a meta call.Originally Posted by Phelix
I might just have to bite the bullet and post a Primer in Salvation to help with the issue.
Lego, come to the Combo lands thread, we have cookies.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
A better comparison is Dredge vs mana-less near the beginning of the thread.
It's called aggro loam and it's nothing new. Chalice vs us g1 rarely shuts us down as we have multiple EE to answer them and their creatures. Some pack primeval titan, so try to prevent them from getting 6 mana if you suspect it. This gets pretty easy since we are able to waste them twice as fast as they are used to. Devastating dreams is a scarey staple without an exploration up or if they follow up with a bojuka bog. They can't use extraction with chalice, so bring in some grips to kill leylines or crypts. Expect Ooze to be in the 75.
Last edited by snorlaxcom; 07-16-2015 at 12:47 AM.
It's not new per se, but it hasn't been a significant part of the meta.
Absolutely right.
But you might wanna avoid RG atrocity and REAL lands terminology then...
Atrocity. Sure. It was humour.
"Real lands". I Stand by that. RUGx is real lands. the other decks are other decks.
"Brainstorm and Fetchlands are interesting although I don't know if Brainstorms alone are worth it right now, because Stifle is a common card. " -Peddi 2015.
Back to the fun stuff:
This is my latest list in TESTING not really recommended, but if you want try give something silly a whirl:
4 life from the loam
4 exploration
3 crop rotation
1 Entomb
1 worm harvest
4 Dark Confidant
3 punishing fire
4 mox diamond
1 engineered explosives
2 chalice of the void
4 wasteland
4 rishadan port
2 Tranquil Thicket
1 swamp
1 forest
1 taiga
3 bayou
3 grove of the burnwillows
3 maze of ith
3 Verdant catacombs
2 thespians stage
1 dark depths
1 tabernacle
1 ghost quarter
1 karakas
1 bojuka bog
1 urborg, tomb of yawmoth
Sideboard:
4 choke
3 Trinisphere
1 Chalice of the void
4 krosan grip
3 Iona, shield of emeria
"Brainstorm and Fetchlands are interesting although I don't know if Brainstorms alone are worth it right now, because Stifle is a common card. " -Peddi 2015.
You have a strange kind of humour, Phelix.
I liked the previous build more, with Chalice along Intuition.
What you think about running 4 Chalices, as DTT really pushes the cantrips and Chalice seems really good right now (it hits Lands as well, but loaming each turn could circumvent that)?
Whats the experience with your 2-off Chalice?
You could say the same thing about the original 43 Lands build. The deck has been getting diluted over the years. Leading up to DRS, most lists didn't even run red anymore. Red came back when Factories were replaced by PFires; a move which reduced the overall land count and resulted in less of a "Real Lands" archetype.
A typical R/G build has only eight cards main which don't have the word 'land' printed on them somewhere (4x PFire & 4x Gamble). RUGx lists usually have just as many such cards - 3x Intuition, 3x PFire, 2xEE.
Both these builds are quite a bit different from the original. There is no objective measure by which RUGx is fundamentally more a Lands deck than R/G. This is just petty snobbery, elitism, and/or bitter jealousy.
1. Talking about the history of the deck in that way to me seems a little silly.
2. 43 Lands has become whatever is in THIS thread. you are welcome to argue that thesource has it wrong and that the thread should be merged. Perhaps you can post a thread on the topic? I thinnk that would just be confusing and a little annoying to everyone.
"Brainstorm and Fetchlands are interesting although I don't know if Brainstorms alone are worth it right now, because Stifle is a common card. " -Peddi 2015.
I never said they should be merged - if you read the top post of this page I quite clearly advocate the opposite. Reading is tech.
What I'm saying is that the Lands archetype has evolved along two distinct branches, and neither is more truly "Lands.dec" than the other. You seem to have a different opinion, but offer nothing substantial to back it up.
43 Lands is a footnote in Legacy's history now. This deck has become it's own beast, riding on the back of printings and rules changes. Combo Lands is the same, a deck riding on the back of printings and changes. Both are strong and unique in their own right, regardless of who's pilots wish to belittle who. (And to date I have not seen to many elitist Combo pilots)
I am with Crim on this one, your being a snob and their ain't no reason for it. What is it you wish to prove? This deck is harder to pilot? This deck is better than the others? You have a bigger bulge then pilots of other decks? I don't get it.
I will concede this deck is then harder of the two common lands decks to learn, I think Combo is harder to pilot though since its reduced late game options makes for catching up in the late game hard if you slip behind. You get punished harder if you fuck up with Combo Lands and most of your choices of compounded into the opening two turns. If you read the game state wrong, you will pay for it harder then RUG would because you don't have something like EE to save you.
This deck is better than the others? I would argue that they both offer a strength the other doesn't possess. Combo Lands is faster, it's tutors are cheaper, it can get Loam online faster and it is able to pull faster wins. It falls far short of RUGs catch up potential, it's somewhat inconsistent since it has to bet on Loaming what it needs and it has to build in redundancy because of that. It can play a totally Graveyard free game though. The flip side is that RUG can run one of silver bullets that just win games. It gets Zuran Orb, EE, artifact recursion and a much more dependable tutor in Intuition. It also gains a stronger inevitably factor as the game goes on. A basic and a Gofy are more of a headache for Combo then it is for RUG. Granted, Maze is in both decks so... Yea.
I don't feel either is better, it really depends on how you wish to play. I don't think being a snob over your choice though offers any benefits. Personally, I like combo, Painter, Elves, TES, RG Lands. It's a personal choice. Make of that what you please.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
Claiming to be the true and only Lands-deck is actually pretty childish, and as could have been suspected at the start of this nonsense, it's derailing the thread.
So let's cut it out and let's show some respect for eachother.
Regardless what anyone thinks about what version of Lands, my guess would be that the root of the problem is the naming/terminology or lack thereof.
RUGx Lands has mostly been called just Lands for several years, as there hasn’t really been any other version. Nowadays whenever someone says Lands, it’s almost certain they are referring to RG Combo Lands. The longtime RUGx custodians obviously and rightfully get their panties in a bunch from this fact, especially when this phenomena reaches the inner sanctum of this very thread.
The fault, as with everything in life, probably lies with SCG.
Perhaps some confusion and irritation could be avoided by renaming this thread to RUGx, Control or Intuition Lands. Although that would give RG Combo Lands a stronger claim of being called “Lands” and we can’t have that.. or can we?
Personally, I don't think of this as "Lands" I think of it as "Control Lands". Anyone coming into Legacy now would likely think of the Combo deck as "Lands" If you said the name, mostly because it's the more common and better placing version of the deck.
This actually came ahead when I posted the Primer. I had been asked to call the deck "R/G Lands". I decided Combo needed to be in the name to show a stronger split from the Control thread. The idea being that you could see at a glance which is which. I would think that naming one thread "Combo Lands", another "Control Lands" and the last "Jund Depths" (a deck I do feel fits into the Lands sphere of influence) would be the best for everyone. After all, the thread named "43 Lands" is now locked away in the Old Threads folder, a grandfather for both of us now retired rightfully and with full honours from all.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
The root of the problem lies with a limited group of people who spout unconstructive supremascist trashtalk of 'real lands' versus the rest.
As a player who enjoys both versions and attempts to post accordingly in the right thread (and I'm pretty sure that's the majority of people posting), this is the thing that bothers me, not which version is 'real' and which isn't.
It's like Rug Delver being pissed about other existing delver variants, or Leddredge bitchtalking about Manaless, how stupid would that be.
I like your idea of renaming this thread towards RUGx or Control Lands, it's a constructive suggestion in an otherwise useless discussion.
As for Rg then having a stronger claim on being called Lands ... what a strange line of thinking. That's nobody's claim to make, that's just how Magic and decks naturally evolve in a shifting metagame. Right now it's the RG-version of Lands that thrives the best, and who knows which evolutions might occur in the future.
As for naming, I prefer RUGx Lands and RG Lands.
ControlLands and ComboLands seem to imply that one is a controldeck and the other a combodeck (like TurboDepths), while they're both controldecks at heart. The extra focus on the combo lies in just 2-3 extra copies of Depths or Stage, where I see the bluesplash with EE/Ruins/TWest/Intuition/TropIsles as a bigger difference.
Last edited by Ingo; 07-17-2015 at 05:32 AM.
They don't bitchtalk because nobody in the "LED" Dredge thread is posting report about Manaless, nor having discussions about Manaless, nor asking to rename "Dredge" into "LED Dredge". There are "Dredge" and "Manaless Dredge" threads, I don't see why Lands and RG Lands are an issue..
RG players are coming in this thread to set fire to the oil, not the opposite.
Sure it's best to keep RG or RUG posts in the designated thread, and namings like Lands and RG Lands are fine. You're getting flooded though with angered offtopic responses, because of some unnecessary and frustrated remarks about REAL Lands, RG 'lands' (with the apostrophes meant to question the authenticity), RG atrocity, ...
It's not just RG-players. Many posters just as me do not feel compartimented in RUG or RG, but are broadly interested in all versions (which is a healthy attitude in my opinion). You will never obtain a pure RUG-thread without any reference to RG, simply because both versions are too akin and have too many issues in common.
I came here to direct someone to the correct thread.
And for the record, Lands now does mean Combo Lands. Someone askes me what I play, I say Lands, they ain't thinking of this deck, they ain't asking me which veraion. Take that as it comes. That was no act on my behalf, it's just the way the tides have turned. So enjoy your "Real Lands", the deck that is losing the title.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
I'm a Lands player. I mostly play RUG or RUGb, sometimes RG, and thinking to try RGb and straight Jund sometime in the future. Regardless, I am always tweaking the main deck and sideboard - both expirimentally and in reaction to an evolving meta. I don't think I've played the exact same 75 (sometimes 76) more than twice in a tournament setting.
Most of my purpose discussing Lands is to compare the marits of various card inclusions. Sometimes this will result in questions of whether or not certtain cards which are good in one version might also be good in the other version (and why or why not) or if shifts in my meta might motivate one build over the other.
I don't think this derails or sabotages the thread!
Shittalking R/G does derail the thread and adds nothing of value to the community.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote