Match? More like game 1.

@@erickwalter2828someone doesn’t know when to concede lol

Lantern control is only as slow as its opponent is stubborn.

104.3a dude

​​@@erickwalter2828you say this like a match and game 1 are different things with lantern control

Some of my favorite bits of commentary came from LSV. He had a lot of fun with Ivan Floch for pro tour M2015, and hell, I thoroughly enjoyed watching that final! I loved it when him, BDM, and Hagon were cheering for the Nyx Fleece Ram to swing in for lethal!

@@JaySay That Floch final was when I first started playing FNM with Jeskai Tempo. Fond memories

@@vb_blokeboi7251 2013-2016 was great Magic that we all took for granted as the norm

Ah yes…I remember the first time I encountered lantern control in a matchup 😂 had no idea wtf was going on. Bless my heart

People just really aren’t used to realizing that conceding is a valuable resource for competitive play, doubly so in tournaments. You aren’t playing a fighting game, you are being Smash Bros Melee wobbled in cardboard. Your brainpower is better spent on the next match, with a better sideboard and a fresh perspective. And in practice fighting Lantern Control isn’t Magic, but managing inventory in a survival horror. You have very few resources to stop the immovable object, and every turn you don’t, the situation gets worse and worse for you.

It's almost a zen nihilist build. You confront that the game and objectives are an artifice, and deny the resources and objectives of your opponents as you do your own. It's incredibly profound and complex and ultimately a victory through denia.

Control is about playing the opponent, the spells you cast only here as performative acts.

I'm a casual mtgArena player playing home brew garbage decks. The number of games won turn 1 with my 1 mana counterspell is astounding. The joke is, I always include exactly one one mana counterspell every (bluish) deck. Maybe not exactly relevant but I honestly just wanted to share this somewhere 😅

​@@tommihalonen6471People on Arena scoop to the slightest of inconveniences

@@tommihalonen6471i do also love spellpierce (pay 2 more mana or dont cast). Seing an opponent cast a 5 mana spell because he thinks "he only has 1 blue mana up, counter spell cost 2 so im safe" always makes me so happy.

​@@tommihalonen6471A friend of mine got into Arena and he was so proud of his first own deck, which was just a blue pile of counters in all shapes and sizes. He early on realised how easily people conceded and decided to make that his win condition, it wasn't competitive or good in any way but it beautifully played the easy frustration of the platform. He found it kinda sad to play though.

Lantern Control is a deck that turns Magic the Gathering into survival horror resource management. Either you find a way to stop the inexorable force, or you die

Hahaha the comment and reply are both great. Is prison just a subset of control?

@@jeremypiles1787 Kind of. Lantern is part of a very rare breed of Control deck known as a “Prison deck”, which locks your opponent out of playing as best as they can. Traditional Control decks want to stall for time long enough to play something that either wins on its own immediately, or play something that’s hard to remove and constantly creates value.

Ooh that's a good one. Static effect vs. deterministic loop. Very spicy.

I don't get get it, isn't it just a draw?

@@chrisiver8506 If you continue to perpetuate a loop when you have the option of stopping it and that loop doesn´t lead to anyone actually winning or losing the game, you are eventually forced to take a different action as per the rules of the game. As opposed to "true" mechanical loops with no player input where if it doesn´t end and neither player wins the game is just declared a draw. The Gideon player doesn´t need to actually do anything to be unable to lose due to Gideon, the Lantern player has to actively take game actions to prevent himself from losing and eventually is forced to take different actions to prevent the game from going on forever which means he has to not recycle Academy Ruins and lose the game.

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

The idea of UW Control, ostensibly the most cowardly deck of all, teching in something that turns the Lantern matchup into the Revengeance Nanomachines scene, is so funny

From a flavour perspective it is a horrifying pacifist's loadout, since you're... erasing all of your opponent's offensive capabilities just as they're about to think of them? Plus standing on the other side of a very troublesome bridge. But, yeah, that's an interesting angle to consider too.

Flavor-wise, you're casting Swords to Plowshares on your opponent.

i played this deck for few years and I have always felt like i am sittin on a big ass chair fidgeting with trinkets when my opponent is trying to do all sorts of horrible things from afar, but if I turn this lil thing a notch to the left he cannot harm me anymore. If u turn it too far, you instantly get blasted by some high tech weaponary xD Then it was just watching them slowly lose faith to finally answer their everlasting question "now u cannot, you would have to draw 7 shatterstorms in a row". Sounds pretty fucking mental i guess haha

I think an even more apt metaphor for fighting against Lantern is that you are now suddenly playing a hand of poker. Whatever lies in your opening hand may be all the good cards you’ll ever get. Your opponent may get to know what’s in there, but you don’t know how good their hand is either. All you can do is try to beat their opening hand with your opening hand.

Fire design killed this type of deckbuilding.

@@imperialcitizen4811 Don’t blame the designers, blame the large corporation that incentivizes the designers to make safe, deliberately synergistic crap for commander

@@imperialcitizen4811 not really, though it didn't help. Maindeckable artifact removal did. A huge, huge, part of the power of the deck was how many decks were weak to ensnaring bridge and had few ways of removing it. Essentially every deck now has maindeckable artifact removal. it's easy to get romantic about this deck but that's really what it was based on and why it's gone. Unless by fire design you mean cards like boseiju, leyline binding, and prismatic ending.

@@jackcooke2327 They need to print such answers because the fire design threats are so game warping.

And honestly Discord is still, to a degree, the same hermit’s mountaintop experience of highly dedicated savants finding all there is to know about One Thing, from a Magic deck to a fighting game character, but the problems with the new model of niche Internet forums are that it’s even more isolated, and even more prone to becoming lost media. It’s not that boomer sentiment of “kids these days”, but the fact that it requires an internet connection, a server complicated enough for voice chat and emoji, voice chat as potentially loseable oral history, and also a big company owns it. Every day, big tech pushes me harder and harder to throw my laptop off a bridge and go anti-paperless

​@@lancesmith8298I think that, one day, there will be a big pulse or something, from man or from nature, and every computer on the planet will be wiped, and it will be our burning Alexandria.

@@lancesmith8298the focus on discord has also given rise to the culture of gatekeepers enforcing who engages in these discord servers now (either through money/subscriptions or old fashioned gatekeeping), which makes it even worse, considering that if there is any sort of deck building innovations happening that they’ll be segregated from the culture at-large.

​@@lancesmith8298 Nah, discord is where discussion goes to die.

is reddit not a forum?

Besides that, Tron also tended to require too many Pithing Needle effects, was resilient to Inquisition, and tended to run some particularly problematic cards such as World Breaker.

oh man, I just wrote that comment, waste of typing but nice to see someone else mentioning that :D

On a somewhat similar note, Hearthstone has probably the most interesting blend of mechanics to ever grace an equivalent deck to Legacy, which is all wrapped up in Questline Warlock. >So, what is it? It is a combo deck that can play a little bit Aggro or Control depending on taste, which wants to kill the opponent by drawing all its cards. >Like Lab Man? Kinda. Hearthstone instead deals scaling damage when you run out of cards in your deck, which gets converted into damage against the opponent by finishing Demon Seed’s requirements of 30 self-damage. Out of 30 base life. So it’s a combo deck dedicated to actively running out of the two most important resources in card games to win. It must barely preserve its life long enough to turn it into a win, and is also trying to eat its library as fast as it can with card draw, discard, and self-mill.

I expected the card to be mentioned in this video. But also I see the deck took a dip before Shenanigans got printed. Seems like the delay between design and release was too long this time

lantern was long out of meta when shenan got printed. patently false

@@_counterspell Yeah, but the card would have been designed earlier, when lantern control was still a part of the meta. the set released in 2019, a year after Lantern won a PT.

@@werhsdnas not conclusive and a fringe modern deck is not the entire reason behind a single card being designed. redact

​@@_counterspellWizards often prints silver bullets for decks that get too big, and with the combination of the flavor, art, and mechanics (Shenanigans destroys an artifact and has dredge, so it's the perfect counter), not to mention the timing (the card was designed while lantern was getting big), I'd say it's very likely. You can even find people saying "RIP Lantern Control" on release promo forum posts and on Reddit

It’s still a completely playable deck

If you want to, you absolutely can build it and start winning games.

@@markuskoivisto current Lantern has lost some of the prison purity of the old builds, mostly because Urza's Saga is so broken lol

Nah, it's real easy. Lantern Control is like the sweaty guy in the corner who's never brushed his teeth: good venues sideline and ask them to leave. Modern didn't.

​@@delathenleso5793 Guess who's still salty about that game they lost to lantern 6 years ago?

@@shitpostgrotto2982 *shrug* I see a pile of refuse festering in my sandwich, I'm going to call out the pile of refuse festering in my sandwich and question the health of the deli that sold it to me.

​@@delathenleso5793 don't take it personally

All the best magic players I knew from the 90s/00s were chess maestros in their own right.

For many years, I used to describe Magic as Chess woth Poker. Poker has bluffing and hidden information and luck of the draw.

i feel as though the main difference is that calculation is more emphasized in chess

I don't mean to be rude but what are you even saying? You're comparing an open information board game to a hidden information card game. I understand that people like to compare their "thing" to chess because chess is the classic smart person game but the comparison is just ridiculous.

@@robrick9361 You are being a tad rude with your word choices and structure. You are also failing to take the time to do any analytical thinking about the comparisons and what the points of comparison are. You can disagree, but to say there is no comparison is closed-minded nonsense. "Magic: The Gathering" (MTG) and chess share several similarities despite their differences in gameplay and thematic content: Strategic Depth: Both games require deep strategic thinking and planning. In chess, players must anticipate and counter their opponent's moves several steps ahead. Similarly, in MTG, players must think multiple turns ahead, considering potential plays and counterplays based on the cards they have and what their opponent might play. Skill and Knowledge: Mastery of both games demands extensive knowledge and skill. Chess players need to understand various openings, middle-game strategies, and endgame techniques. MTG players need to know a wide range of cards, deck-building strategies, and the interactions between different cards and mechanics. Tactical Decision-Making: Both games involve critical tactical decisions. In chess, each move can change the game's outcome, and in MTG, each play of a card can turn the tide of the match. Resource Management: Resource management is crucial in both games. Chess players must manage their pieces effectively, making sure to use them to their full potential without losing them needlessly. In MTG, players must manage their mana (the resource used to play cards) and their cards, deciding the optimal time to play each card for maximum effect. Competitive Nature: Both games have a strong competitive scene, with tournaments and championships where top players compete. The mental challenge and the skill involved make both games appealing to competitive players. Complex Rules and Variability: Both games have complex rules that provide a wide range of possible scenarios. Chess has a fixed board and pieces, but the almost infinite possibilities of move sequences make every game unique. MTG has a constantly expanding set of cards, which leads to an immense variety of possible decks and game situations. Psychological Elements: Bluffing and psychological warfare play roles in both games. In chess, players might use threats or traps to mislead their opponent. In MTG, players can bluff about having certain cards or strategies, influencing their opponent's decisions. Endgame Complexity: The endgame in both chess and MTG can be particularly complex and critical. Chess endgames require precise calculation and knowledge of specific endgame principles. In MTG, the endgame often involves managing dwindling resources and making the most out of each remaining card.

I don't even know the rules of the game, I'm just here for the great storytelling.

My favourite matchup ever was the odd dr boom warrior mirror, knowing when to silence the taunt dinos to dany a single card in their deck One of my fondest memories is managing to win a mirror when I misclicked and deleted 30 armor with the aoe, and also getting dr boom later than my opponent, basically off of not playing shield block and silencing their dinos

With Hearthstone matchups it has to be quest rogue vs the warrior control deck that won via fatigue. I remember seeing turn one concessions since the warrior deck literally cannot win the game. Is there any magic matchup that bad?

@@dancingmathusalem5451 I totally forgot about managing reckless flurries so you didn’t lose half your life! That was also a part of the matchup that made it so difficult.

I have a similar history with the deck. Playing the deck itself was already mentally taxing, but having to manage the opponents was what made me eventually put it down. Now I only play it against fellow degenerate friends. (also, the mirror match was hell)

Bad Religion wrote that song

OwN is a great card, video, and counterpart to this. i can even see a place for OwN in lantern decks.

Yeah it's cool in concept. The fact something like it existing is a testament to how free form and limitless Magic is as a card game. So many cards that let you just perform what is basically the card game equivalent of breaking the 4th wall. Actually dealing with it? Please no. One of my friends used winter orb.... After the first time it's not fun. The whole "I don't want to win i just want to control you playing the game" is a very insufferable personality trait.

This comment needs to be higher up because it expresses exactly how I feel. I don't play magic anymore but I still fucking love this game.

Physical Studies playing notification control.

Not playing Magic is your favourite way to play Magic? No wonder you quit when you weren’t able to play Magic anymore.

@@ImrahilToChaos I didn’t quit playing Magic, I quit playing 60 card Magic. Before Mox Opal, there was Splinter Twin, Second Sunrise, Summer Bloom, and various bans that affected Storm. In legacy there was Sensei’s Diving Top and Deathrite Shaman. But when Mox Opal was banned it hit both Lantern Control and Affinity, two very different decks. At that point I started asking myself why I continued to play formats that are supposed to be eternal but my favorite decks either get nerfed or eliminated. So I switched to commander. Playing casually has made the game fun again for me. Also there’s nothing wrong with prison decks. It’s just another cog in the magic machine.

@@Sinspinner I don’t think a deck that essentially asks both players to commit to not playing the game anymore is ‘another cog’. Prison decks usually have faster wincons than ‘mill them out over many turns’. From the perspective of a person who actually wants to engage with the game, it’s not interesting or fun, it’s just boring.

@@ImrahilToChaos if you do not think it is interesting or fun to continue to play for the 1e-12 chance that you will win, then just concede and move on?

​​@@ImrahilToChaosagreed, all decks that consist of any strategy besides turning creatures sideways need to be banned for requiring triple digit IQ

i was thinking the same thing

im sure this is where the soft win condition card may come in. The video mentions at one time the soft win card isn't needed and in that case i would be super interested to here the pilots opin on how a mirror match would define a winner.

I accidently watched the credits(bc who stays for credits, lol) and they show a mirror matchup between two skilled players you can watch in another video.

Is it not both?

​@@BeatButtonone draws as a triggered effect. The other is a mana ability

@@christopherbaldwin2094 ah, right! somehow I was stuck on the Pithing Needle thing, since they both get sacrificed to a mana ability

Complex? Sure. Interesting? Maybe the first few times you go up against it. But once you understand the general premise, as the video says, the end goal is for both players to spend a great deal of time not playing the game.

Control in general is cool (definitely more fun than aggro killing you turn 3), but this kind of deck is just miserable to go against

It's cool that, conceptually, this deck *can* exist. That it actually *does* is a travesty.

Always enjoyed watching your videos of lantern!

@@IsonDaya thanks! Been busy lately, but hopefully can make more time soon 🙂

The one thing between me and building an engine of fun boredom was that I couldn’t think of a good way to make up for the fact that Commander is singleton, meaning that there’s only so many pieces of Lantern to play, and some of them will need to be sacrificed along the way to 99 cards in the yard. Now that this video’s out, it’s probably Drafna. Counterspells from Blue, card draw from a bunch of dinky artifacts, and pieces of the dementia maker from being returned to hand, copied, and the token versions being sacrificed.

It might work in 1v1 commander with many tutors. Controlling 4 players seems super difficult

I play a reality chip commander deck with a lantern control package, highly suggest putting chip at the helm, as all of your mill rocks can be used to filter your own draws if you don’t have lantern out. also the gameplay becomes a lot less about locking your opponents out of game actions, and more about playing politics with the rest of the table and trying to help/shut down specific players draws to achieve a specific outcome. really fun play pattern in commander, most people I’ve played with love the deck.

@@thephelddagrif2907 We build Lantern Control in EDH, not because it is easy, but because it is hard(locking people, eventually)

@@lemodyne1072 So in practice it’s a kingmaker’s dream deck. I mean, I’m the kind of person who, if they can’t play Aggro, wants to slowly grind people to dust, but as much as I love being the villain at the table, playing nice will probably serve me a lot better than trying to make three people play 99 card pickup

A friend runs a deck based on lantern, thought lash and counterbalance in legacy. Tons of fun !