All B/R update speculation.

[Dice_Box]

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.

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.

[colo]

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.

[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.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

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.

[Lemnear]

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

[Ingo]

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.

[Dice_Box]

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

[Ingo]

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.

[Barook]

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.

[Dice_Box]

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."

[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.

[Lemnear]

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

[Dice_Box]

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.

[Fox]

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 in general as the timewaster-in-chief of magic; now at least DnT doubles down on 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).

[Ingo]

@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).

[square_two]

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.

[dte]

@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.

[Fox]

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.

[Ingo]

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.

[Fox]

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.