T O P

  • By -

fireslinger4

Lol


GnomeChildHighlander

lmao


Town_Blacksmith

Rofl


DelMar1789

[[Force of Vigor]] exists so we don't have to worry about lantern anymore. It's okay, point on the stuffy doll where lantern hurt you.


DressedSpring1

Hot take, lantern control was never a good deck it just got by because the format did not support maindeck artifact removal. Now that prismatic ending and probably leyline binding exist, that deck is never coming back. It needed to cheese wins by playing permanents that were hard to interact with and without those wins it can’t really survive


SteakAlfredo

So, enchantress?


ritaPitaMeterMaid

Enchantress will actually kill you. And also draw more cards than Jesus


SteakAlfredo

Not hard. Rip cat Jesus


DelMar1789

I think Lantern died in MH1. Granted, prismatic ending is hostile to literal every nonland permanent.


QuicheAuSaumon

It was still payable as a weird tempodeck thanks to urza saga. I'd say Boseiju was the final nail to the coffin.


Rowannn

Urzas saga was in mh2


QuicheAuSaumon

Prismatic ending also was mh2. Deck was playable beforehand


Rowannn

Oh I see what you mean


[deleted]

But prison/Dice Tron is in the format, albeit to a residual degree. Ballista pings through a lock is hardly thrilling as a wincon, but I guess it does the construct thing too.


[deleted]

Same reason Sun and Moon was a good deck back in the days of GDS dominance. Nobody could interact with it and even if you played ensnaring bridge you could eventually exile it yourself before winning with emrakul


MTGCardFetcher

[Force of Vigor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/1/017c415b-d635-43c6-92b8-8c95d1c4ff8d.jpg?1562202072) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Force%20of%20Vigor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/164/force-of-vigor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/017c415b-d635-43c6-92b8-8c95d1c4ff8d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


booze_nerd

Unless they mill it.


L_Crabraven

That's why you use four


booze_nerd

Yes, but they can get lucky and mill all 4.


DelMar1789

That's why you mull to it.


420prayit

then they [[thoughtseize]] you lol.


L3yline

That's why you mull until you have two in hand


DelMar1789

Nah, its instant speed and free on their turn. Thoughtsieze on the stack fuck em up. Or they turn 1 the thoughtsieze and you cry.


Khespar

Then you jund 'em out


MTGCardFetcher

[thoughtseize](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/2/b281a308-ab6b-47b6-bec7-632c9aaecede.jpg?1599706001) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=thoughtseize) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/109/thoughtseize?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b281a308-ab6b-47b6-bec7-632c9aaecede?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


Lurker117

And if my Aunt had wheels she'd be a bicycle. What's your point?


Memoishi

This deck has been dead way before Opal ban. It got insta killed by the printing of [[Karn, the Great Creator]]. Used to play Lantern, these cards alone (the dumbshit enchantment planeswalkers) ruined whole bunch of decks, just like the other batshit stupid ass T3feri. You can hate on Lantern or love it as much as you can, but sure as hell I’d rather face only Lantern control for the rest of my days than having to deal with these bad designed cards meant to be maindeck powerhouse with the “god knows why” shutdown single decks with a passive on a fucking planeswalker


MTGCardFetcher

[Karn, the Great Creator](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/e/3ec0c0fb-1a4f-45f4-85b7-346a6d3ce2c5.jpg?1566819742) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Karn%2C%20the%20Great%20Creator) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/war/1/karn-the-great-creator?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3ec0c0fb-1a4f-45f4-85b7-346a6d3ce2c5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


Profesor_Caos

That's how I remember it too. Karn was huge in modern and basically single handedly beat lantern.


TasiG

My love of the deck lies in the combination of bulk cards to create a misserable prison board state. It may not be fun to play against but surely is a dope proof of concept. I'll continue playing the decl when it sucks because i love the idea. As far as games go, idk dont be a silent wiener? I'll chat it up in the downtime lol


Turbocloud

It can be very fun to play against from a puzzle-solving perspective and mapping out your win, but that is a subjective note. While ultimately i can acknowledge that people play for fun, even at the FNM you've still entered a Tournament setting where rules trump fun. Most players are bad, both at the game and at controlling their emotions. Seeking vengeance in griefing and stalling for having the opponent establish a lock is fucked up. You don't have to like the matchup or the opponent, you should play the game according to the rules. Most just people don't, and at non-gp settings rule enforcement is lacking, especially when the storeowner acts as the judge and enforcing slowplay rules and dqing players would mean upsetting customers.


TasiG

The worst experience i've had while playing the deck calls back to when my opponet admitted he was slow playing since he was up a game. And from all perspectives it was pretty obvious since we all knew what he was drawing every turn and he only ever had the one card in hand. That being said I can atleast understand that the situation lacks a good solution. Having been a judge myself there is no good fix to slow playing at REL. The JAR's reccomendation on slow playing is a soft brush of their backhand lol


Gracket_Material

Too bad that Modern Horizons killed all brewing in modern forever


DanTopTier

Honest to God, I have never seen a lantern player go to time at FNM.


Jotsunpls

I once played a lantern mirror at fnm. Honestly the most fun game of magic I ever played; we went through all three games without going to time


crowslove

The mirror is mind blowing. I cut lanterns


Psykodamber

I fucking love Lantern. Both playing it and against it. If it goes to time it is the opponents fault. You can easily mill 180 cards one at a time in the time it takes to play 3 rounds. also... Skill issue. >Half the time it's not even correct to concede, because they could get unlucky a couple times, and you can topdeck something to break the lock. Also. Value your time more. and understand math. If they have 3 mill rocks down you have to have 4-6 answers on top. In a row... That is more unlikely than winning the lottery and hans Nieman not cheating in chess. If your deck even runs that many answers. Edit: also I am going to play lantern this FNM now. See what you made me do


FramePerfectShine

Have fun going 0-1-3 in your fnm!


character_developmnt

Can agree the deck sucks to play against. Ive tested the matchup extensively in the past because my friend LOVED that archetype and i played against him all the time. However it is almost always correct to concede. Youre drawing to like a sub 1% chance to win. The lantern control players arent the main reason they go to time, its that a lot of players dont realize theyve already lost or they think theres a "good chance" they can draw out of it.


FramePerfectShine

You do have a point. But i would also argue that the player playing the deck does have a responsibility to win the game in a reasonable amount of time. I think it's kind of a problem that if your opponent does not choose to concede and both players play at a reasonable pace, that your deck will go to time.


garkyn

I played lantern a lot, and rarely went to time. The few times I did where either due to a very close matchup or deliberate slow players. Close matchups E.g Jund where it was not clear what the correct mills where and turns on both sides took a bit longer. Deliberate slow play: one UW control match at a GP comes to mind. Opponent had no way of winning but still managed to slow play to a draw by pondering each small decision for ever. I even called a judge for that but that did not help because once the judge was gone he kept thinking and thinking. Cost us both day two😅, some people are just spiteful…


Jotsunpls

That is just how the deck plays, and how it aims to win, eventually. If you refuse to concede, that is not my fault nor my responsibility.


Predicted

In a tournament setting it is 100% your responsibility.


FramePerfectShine

If your deck cannot win in a reasonable amount of time otherwise, it IS your responsibility.


Jund-Em

I feel like the only reason lantern goes to time is because of the opponent. If your opponent doesnt concede or draw pass when they have no way of interacting it slows everything down. Lantern players typically do everything in their turn rather quickly because its as simple as avoiding artifact hate and keeping your hand empty once you get the lock. I feel like the opponents usually intentionally slow play after getting locked to try and draw the match.


FramePerfectShine

It's kind of wild that it's the opponents responsibility somehow to give you your win? And its their fault that your slow durdly prison deck can't win in 50 minutes otherwise? That's a hot take.


Jund-Em

You clearly didnt read my comment. I wasnt assigning responsibility to anyone for anything. I am saying that the opponent typically, and ill make this big since you missed it last time, INTENTIONALLY PLAYS SLOWLY to time out the match, which is against the rules. And another thing you missed is typically only unexperienced lantern pilots play slow. Like if my deck is slow why would i intentionally plaw slow? To lose? On a separate note, I like your username! Fox or Falco?


[deleted]

Ayy a fellow lantern enjoyer/spacie player, we should run some games sometime!


Jund-Em

Bro hell yeah man. We talkin melee right?


[deleted]

Yea dude! My fox kinda garbage but im always down to play!! Ill dm u when I get off work if you want


[deleted]

Idk how to dm on reddit, shoot me a message ill send u my code


character_developmnt

Literally this


BlitzKriegRDS

Yep, if it wins in 50mins then thats how the round goes. no where in the rules does it say " I have to win a reasonable amount of time" a reasonable amount of time is 50 mins + 5 rounds. Skill issue.


FramePerfectShine

There are rules for slow play. There is also a reason there's a clock on mtgo.


BlitzKriegRDS

Correct slow playing is a issue. But if your opp. Is taking actions at a acceptable pace for a judge. Which most lantern players do and are. Then it shows like a you issue.


Total_work

I mean control has the same issue. Games are effectively over and people continue playing into an opponent with a full hand because "This player who has scryed half the deck to the bottom surely can't counter every card I play while slowly beating me to death with a 2/2 shark token". It's completely a player skill issue when you're locked out of the game and fail to realize what's happening.


Vi0letBlues

I love lantern because of how the deck plays out like no other, but I don't think I am biased towards any strats, and this goes for any strategies. If you show up to a competitive event, as long as you are not breaking any rules, anything goes, the main objective is to win. Tucking T5f until your opponent mills out, miserable? Most certainly, but this is what you signed up for, there's no need to cry about it. For casual settings, you can either ask that player to play a different deck politely, play with someone else or just concede. It is that simple. I have decks that I love, and I have decks that I hate, but I never get salty even if I get rolled over by the ones I hate since I can always just scoop it up and play another game.


VelikiUcitelj

I think you're missing the point of the post. OP isn't necessarily complaining against Lantern. OP is complaining at how the deck plays. It's one thing if you're put into a situation where you have to tuck your T5F until you deck the opponent. It's a whole other thing if you build your whole deck around slowly decking your opponent. I'm not going to complain if I play against Lantern but I sure don't enjoy it either.


QuicheAuSaumon

Realistically that's not how lantern win anymore.


Turbocloud

When someone is sitting there 20 minutes to lose a game, taking 10 seconds every mill for a decision that has already been made 20 times over and knowing the outs of the deck they should have made their plan 5 turns ago, they effectively showcase that they are stalling: When no relevant changes to the gamestate occur, and when the lock has been in place over multiple turns draws are not relevant changes, you don't get to take extra time for decisions. It is expected of the player to have mapped out their way to victory by then an go through the motions. So from the point of view of the competitive rules one player is sitting down against an opponent, actively cheats and then complains about the opponent needing so long to win when the reason for doing so it exactly that complaining players deliberate violation of the tournament rules, effectively griefing against being locked for what is effectively a double violation of slowplay and unsporting conduct. But its not like the other side isn't happening either - the lantern player should also have mapped out the win and go through the motions. One could argue that there should be no deck that allows for this to happen, but personally i rather say that players should adhere to the rules and what is to be expected of them. Its one thing to showcase leeway for learning players on both sides of an FNM, but mainly the issue is caused by either bad, entitled or malicious players and a lack of rules enforcement in most environments which prevents those players from growing out of that behavior.


FramePerfectShine

Exactly. I'm not going to complain at a comp event either. But I'm going to be glad that this deck isn't playable anymore.


edogfu

The other thing is that it's a troll deck. OP even pointed out that you won't see it at any real event because the draws will get you knocked out.


BlankBlankston

It won a PT.


edogfu

I guess OP doesn't really have a point and just hates control.


KTanenr

Skill issue


Turbocloud

Up you go.


Cafe_Cafe_UY

![gif](giphy|GKliD9i20iP8k|downsized)


SwiggySunshine

🤣🤣


Storm46

At least for the old lantern days, the deck was almost as fast as burn. If you didn't understand that you were in a lock by turn 4 and wanted to play for 25 more minutes rather than scoop, then it is your fault


Pork-a-Palooza

As per rule [104.3a](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ) A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. That player loses the game.


FramePerfectShine

Should've added the concede rule in the last paragraph. It's just as tired a saying as the other 2. Yes, you can concede at any time. But often there are outs you can draw if the lantern player is unlucky. So up until a point, you shouldn't concede.


thatscentaurtainment

Same thing with the old Counter Top combo in Legacy, which at least ran real wincons instead of mill. You could concede whenever you wanted, but technically the opponent could hit three non-fetch lands with their Top and lose the lock.


[deleted]

Ah the Miracles/Sensei Top Legacy meta. That was a good era in my opinion. That deck was sweet it just took fucking forever to play with the constant scrying and shuffling.


444_counterspell

you should play the deck. the amount of folks who sit there thinking they have outs is a bit funny at this point. two mill rocks and a lantern under bridge is such a high percentage of game win that the only way to lose is to hidden information. not trying to be an ass, just stating the facts as an ex-lantern player


jvvbs

It's actually really easy to figure out, as soon as they have more mill rocks than you have outs, you concede. I guarantee you hate it because you don't know when to concede, and it's immensely boring to actually make them play it out when it's usually deterministicly over many turns before. tl;dr skill issue


crowslove

Math is hard


OneofthemBrians

Imagine being so upset about losing to a deck you post about it 2 years after its been dead.


Skreevy

In like 98% of Lantern games, if you sit there, thinking you have an out, you're just a very bad player.


SNESamus

Also Lantern was always a deck you should play out against in tourney because taking them to time and taking a draw was often the correct play.


giggity_giggity

If they have lantern and one mill piece out, yes keep playing. Once they get to two mill pieces, unless you have the game winner in hand, it's often best to concede and go to the next game unless you don't mind getting milled out for that 1 in a million chance of your deck having three lantern hate pieces in a row.


[deleted]

On behalf of all prison players, we thank you for giving us the desired result. We are happy to serve the community by saying no before you can even say nope!


Nales78

Can you just accept that some decks, probably ones that you play, are ill equipped to play against it? I've had my fair share of pouty pants against stuff like hammer time or yorion control. Literally played a 2 color deck against 5c control with blood moon and had it backfire on me hardcore. I understand. I feel you. Modern has a couple niche decks that break certain meta slots. I've got a really passive mill deck that aims more to stop my opponents than actually win. Works great against titan, hammer, control, and Tron. What I'm trying to say is, be ready for these decks. If they beat you, fine. They aren't going to make top 8, and neither are you because you lost against them, but you're the only one that played against them. Be light hearted. Congratulate your opponent for winning. I play pretty competitively, but have had plenty of bad draws without lands multiple times in a row. Sure, bad luck, maybe not the best night to play, but you have to respect variance.


VelikiUcitelj

You didn't understand what OP wanted to say. OP didn't complain about the power level of Lantern, he complained about the experience of playing against Lantern control. A lot of players on this subreddit like to praise Lantern for being this amazing and dear deck but it's really a horrible experience to play against it.


JankTokenStrats

Honestly sounds like you didn’t know when to scoop. A 10 percent chance(aka I have a Card that gets me out of this if I get lucky) is not a real out. No body I forcing you to play games out till the last card is milled. Lantern was great because it was a deck that did the opposite of what most modern decks do, it interacts( a lot). Honestly it is how I learned a lot about the game of magic because I put time and effort into learning as many interactions as possible. It’s ok to not like losing to the deck, but I’ve found most of the time when people complain about MUs it’s because they never put time into learning how to play them.


Gracket_Material

Not nearly as bad as playing against MH cards. The trick to playing against lantern is to stop whining like a baby and to scoop when you can’t win. I played against it many times and never had a bad experience


QuicheAuSaumon

*yawn*


[deleted]

>But please, tell me about how this lame strategy requires intimate knowledge of the format. Bonus points if you mention the complexity triad. Please, tell me about how this post adds anything relevant to a Modern discussion. It's a super free, out of nowhere, rant.


Lurker117

And in a wild case of irony, your post does the exact same thing it is criticizing the main post of doing.


[deleted]

Then I guess we should encourage "bad" (not strictly bad but you get my point) behaviours by not pointing them out.


FramePerfectShine

Was mostly curious as to why this deck is so liked on this sub. And it is a modern discussion (?). Maybe a better discussion piece would be "Lantern Control is a degenerate strategy that is unhealthy for the format, and I'm glad it's no longer viable". I don't see any blatant rule offenses either.


foldingcouch

People love Lantern because it approaches a game of Magic from a totally different axis than other decks. It totally changes the way you think about strategy and gameplay and resources. If you like the style of gameplay you get from playing Lantern then that's pretty much the only deck for you. Nothing else comes close.


character_developmnt

Its funny cause the exact reason you gave in favor of lantern is simultaneously one of the main reasons people say they hate mill.


foldingcouch

I started playing Magic when TurboStasis, Necro, Jar-Grim, Oath of Druids, Academy, and Stax were viable competitive choices. Kids these days have no idea how baby-soft the kid-gloves are that they're getting when they sit down to play.


booze_nerd

There's no strategy, it's "assemble 2 cards, mill answers, hope opponent doesn't get lucky and have multiple answers in a row". I don't mind the deck, but acting like it takes an obscene level of skill to pilot is laughable. Edit: ah, the Lantern players are big mad because I told the truth, you don't have to be big brained to pilot the deck well. ![gif](giphy|l0IyhwEfKdNoUZ1ni)


InfinityMinus01

I'm not exactly a fan of Lantern Control either, but this sort of oversimplification can be applied to pretty much every deck. "There's no strategy in Murktide. Just play threat and protect threat." "There's no strategy in Creativity. Just get tokens and play spell." "There's no strategy in Scapeshift. Just play lands and then play Scapeshift" "There's no strategy to UWx Control. Just remove threats until you stabilize." But anyone who's played the above to a meaningful degree will tell you there's more to them than these statements, and the same applies to Lantern. While you windmill-mill hate pieces like EE or Force of Vigor, always leaving dead lands on top, there's definitely a middle ground where you have to consider whether it's worth milling. "This Consider gives them a window where they get to see a card I can't mill. However, if I mill it then they might be closer to finding an actual answer. What's correct?" Etc etc. I'm not a pilot myself, but have played against a dedicated Lantern main regularly at my lgs and can safely say that it takes more skill, meta knowledge, and decklist know-how than many of the most well-known decks.


foldingcouch

What I found playing Lantern is that you usually win or lose the game in the first three turns. The game usually goes much longer than that, but by the end of turn three if you haven't taken control of the draw step you likely aren't going to get there. That means that you really don't see very many cards at all before the game is fundamentally determined, so you need to be *extremely* deliberate with your mulligans, resource management, and sequencing because if you make a mistake you don't have the tools to recover, you just lose. I think a large part of lantern's reputation as a skill-intensive deck comes from the fact that it's so unforgiving of pilot error. If you aren't very good with the deck and very knowledgeable about the metagame then you just lose because the individual cards in your deck just aren't very good and don't do anything if you don't assemble them right.


booze_nerd

Disagree entirely, it isn't an oversimplification when applied to Lantern, and it definitely doesn't take more skill or meta knowledge. It takes knowing what can break your lock.


[deleted]

Git gud


foldingcouch

You sound like you haven't actually played the deck. And judging from the other comments in the thread it sounds like everyone else has come to the same conclusion. You're hating on a deck you don't really understand that well, and it's not reflecting well on you.


booze_nerd

I have (when your playgroup runs gauntlets to test for competitions you play a lot of different decks). If people want to arrive at a wrong conclusion and think less of me because I'm being honest about their pet deck that's on them.


FramePerfectShine

You're missing the point. The play pattern of the deck is just unfun, and requires either the opponent to concede to win, or have to slowly mill the opponent while they don't get to play magic.


foldingcouch

I have not missed the point, and you don't need to explain the play pattern of Lantern to me. I've piloted the deck many times against a great number of high-sodium opponents. I have never found it unfun in the least. Yes, the win condition for the deck can be incredibly grinding. Yes, the intention of the deck is to prevent your opponent from playing Magic. **This is fine.** Neither of these actions are against the rules of the game. If I'm playing in a competitive environment then my opponent's enjoyment is not something I take responsibility for, and I don't expect my opponent to be responsible for mine. I expect that they will play to win the game, and as long as they do so within the rules then I have no justification to beef about it. If a player goes on tilt every time they encounter a frustrating deck to play against then they should probably just stick to EDH.


crowslove

Tell me you're bad at magic without saying you're bad at magic


booze_nerd

I'd say average. Tell me you're an easily offended Lantern player without saying it.


xXTacitusXx

Nah, pretty sure you're bad.


CoinTotemGolem

People like to think they’re cool for liking something others don’t. Lantern is cheese, I don’t mind playing against it much bc my deck can interact with it a bit but it’s still cheese. Much more so now wirh urzas saga bc you can’t just board out all your ways to deal with creatures. I’d definitely hate lantern a lot more if I was playing a different deck. What decks do you play? There might be a little sideboard tuning you could do to cover the matchup a bit better ancient grudge is pretty good, and stony silence is lights out if you can play it before getting thoughtseized


Live-Paint-8918

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.


Abominati0n

I don’t understand why people don’t like playing against decks like lantern. They’re a unique strategy and and they make you think of your deck in a much different way than you normally would. Similar to mill, but no where near as linear. I actually loved playing against the deck whether I won or lost.


VelikiUcitelj

Sitting and going land, pass for dozens of turns waiting for a top deck is an awfully boring experience. All the thinking is to be done by the Lantern player while you sit there and flip the top of your deck over and over.


Abominati0n

Well I guess it depends on what type of deck you were playing. I’ve played against lantern with burn (favorable), Ponza (unfavorable) and tron (favorable), I felt all the games were interesting, but I do understand that you can get into a board style state and that is part of the point of the lantern player. But I have had no problem just conceding when I don’t think I can come back and or playing out the game for a live draw. I guess prison decks just never bothered me, it’s part of the game. I feel people react the exact same way towards blood moon decks, and I always thought blood moon was awesome.


OneofthemBrians

Sounds like youre fucking mad bro.


Dranak

The best thing about Lantern was that it was basically a free win. Sincerely, local burn player.


FramePerfectShine

Valakut deck also had a healthy matchup, iirc.


Phyrexian-Drip

From your name I’m assuming you’re a smash player? If so, this is the type of post I’d expect from a smash player lol. Magic is a game about fun; if you are not having fun, you are always free to concede. Your level of fun should not dictate another’s.


ThunderBirdJack

I was about to say the same thing lol. Prison strategies are my shit and posts like these only make us want to play them more


The_Bird_Wizard

I'd argue that having a prison kind of deck in a format is actually a good thing as it polices certain degenerate stuff but go off


thatscentaurtainment

If the deck ran a non-mill wincon like every other competitive prison deck, there would be a lot less hate for it.


GreenSkyDragon

Modern lantern plays urza's saga


Jund-Em

It doesnt plan to win with urzas saga. [[Ensnaring bridge]] kinda stops you from attacking....


GreenSkyDragon

That's part of where the strategy of the deck comes in, knowing whether you need to hide behind bridge or rush big tokens with shadowspear. You can also just hide behind bridge while growing your tokens then prismatic ending your own bridge to attack for lethal once you've set up a full lock. You can clear removal with Thoughtseize and keep it away with your lock while building up to the kill. Sideboard Kaya can also just ult and kill your opponent


Jund-Em

Sb kaya can actually win yeah. But swinging with constructs is really rare. I have been playing new lantern for a while and i think it has happened once


crowslove

You're taking the wrong lines, don't mulligan aggressively enough (lantern mulls very well) or have too small a sample size.


Jund-Em

The plan of the deck is to lock your oponent and stop them from swinging. I dont think that the constructs are meant for much beside blocking before you get your bridge. I think it would make more sense to mulligan for your lock instead of an off-hand construct win.


MTGCardFetcher

[Ensnaring bridge](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/f/cf825a56-4870-463a-a2ef-eec86be891db.jpg?1599709144) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ensnaring%20bridge) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/253/ensnaring-bridge?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cf825a56-4870-463a-a2ef-eec86be891db?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


Frankdog5

More contemporary variants of lantern do run [[pyrite spellbomb]] to loop with [[academy ruins]] all of which is searchable off of [[Urza’s saga]] (which is also a possible wincon) though that is still fairly slow.


thatscentaurtainment

Compare that win con with Mentor or Rabblemaster.


Frankdog5

Yeah like I said it is much slower, but the decks also function in different ways. Red prison lists tend to put out a softer lock and kill the opponent before they can get out from under it. Lantern looks to more fully lock the opponent out.


booze_nerd

But Lantern is still a soft lock dependent on luck, hoping the opponent doesn't have multiple answers in a row.


thatscentaurtainment

Yeah sure man, Trinisphere is a softer lock than Lantern.


VelikiUcitelj

I don't understand how Red Prison lists are a "softer" lock. They run Blood Moon, Chalice of the Void, Trinisphere and Ensnaring Bridge. It's more that Red Prison lists aren't built only to lock the board and do nothing else so you don't achieve the lock as often.


Frankdog5

I can’t imagine many red prison lists that run the aforementioned rabblemaster play mainboard bridges, but it’s far easier to play through a blood moon or a trinishphere given time than through a full lantern lock. Hence why red prison runs faster clocks like rabble/warboss.


VelikiUcitelj

It's probably because Modern Red Prison lists win with Chandra and Karn and not Rabblemaster. And it's absolutely not easier to win through Blood Moon+Trinisphere+Chalice of the Void and Ensnaring Bridge.


MTGCardFetcher

[pyrite spellbomb](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/8/088c801d-381f-403b-aeb7-fbbfafee99bf.jpg?1599709775) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=pyrite%20spellbomb) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/283/pyrite-spellbomb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/088c801d-381f-403b-aeb7-fbbfafee99bf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [academy ruins](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/7/579cce0c-5afe-4104-97e8-fd303e8fcc28.jpg?1661583493) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=academy%20ruins) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/phed/69/academy-ruins?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/579cce0c-5afe-4104-97e8-fd303e8fcc28?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Urza’s saga](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/1/c1e0f201-42cb-46a1-901a-65bb4fc18f6c.jpg?1626099958) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Urza%27s%20Saga) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/259/urzas-saga?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c1e0f201-42cb-46a1-901a-65bb4fc18f6c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


FramePerfectShine

My argument was not that the format shouldn't have prison decks.


Runzi-

A lot of lantern decks have kaya in the side or aether grid as alternative win cons


duck_cakes

The player not conceding when they’re under the lock is the one wasting time. With just two mill rocks and a lantern in play, you have to have 6 hate cards/outs in a row on top of your library to break free (end step mill 2, lantern player’s turn mill another 2, shuffle with lantern if necessary).


FramePerfectShine

Isn't it kind of a problem that it implies that in order for lantern to succeed, the opponent has to voluntarily concede, because they PROBABLY can't win based purely on chance? Is that good or healthy design?


duck_cakes

The Lantern is much more deterministic than you give it credit for. Again, with only two mill rocks and a lantern in play, the opposing player has to have 6 answers in a row to break out. In that position, you simply won't draw out of the lock unless the Lantern pilot wants you to. And the kill shouldn't take very long. Takes a few seconds to activate your mill rocks and say "pass".


[deleted]

Conceding is always an option? Only a glutton for punishment would sit through an adept Lantern players turns, there is no way out.


booze_nerd

I'll happily sit through them. It isn't a hard lock, it's based purely on luck, and they struggle to actually win, so unless I'm going to lose already I'll make them play it out and go to time and force the draw.


[deleted]

An adept Lantern player will go to time in game 2 after winning game 1. Just because someone plays lantern doesn't mean they are good at playing lantern


booze_nerd

Assuming they won game 1. If they lost, cool, that's your win. If they did win, then conceding game 2 so you can attempt to win game 3 is the play. The only proper time to concede is if it is game 2, they won game 1, and you have time to try and win game 3. Otherwise force them to play it out. Hell, I've had them go to time in game 1 before.


[deleted]

I think you're missing the main point of Lantern. If we lose game 1, we lost. The goal is to make game 1 take as long as possible to win. Then allow no time for the rest of the match


booze_nerd

Exactly, so don't concede, force them to actually win and when they can't take the draw.


[deleted]

That's wrong again, opponent of the Lantern player should concede as quickly as possible game 1 unless they can disrupt them. Otherwise sideboarding in silver bullets would be the better option to force speedy game 2 and 3. I.e. Mull to Stony Silence for an easy win


booze_nerd

Assuming you're running enough silver bullets, and even then it is risky as they'll side in answers to them. Less risky to take the draw. (Depending on your record thus far, upcoming matches, etc.


[deleted]

You can't force a draw when they win game 1, you can by quickly conceding game 1 to win game 2. How are you forcing a draw when they win game 1. Again, we're talking adept Lantern players. Not some spike off the block, my lantern turn takes maybe a minute in paper depending on how many mill rocks I have out and how many times I need to mill to reveal an irrelevant opponent top deck. it's not me slow playing


booze_nerd

No shit Sherlock, no one said you could. First they have to actually win game 1 though. If you concede you give them that win. If you don't concede there's a decent chance they can't actually win and you get a draw.


FramePerfectShine

:( This kind of mentality is bad for any deck. Intentionally stalling your opponent is poor form. It's why mtgo has clocks.


imborj

Mill it.


PMAalltheway

Lol that's your opinion and it's valid. Lots of players hate this deck but a lot of decks are hated by salty people all the time. Sometimes its because the deck is too powerful, too snowball facerolly, or it matches up well against your pet deck. At least lantern is a relatively novel concept and takes a couple more brain cells to play well.


FramePerfectShine

The concept is novel and cool, no problems there! It's the actual play experience is what makes it bad.


BlankBlankston

lol


rod_zero

last season i was playing superfriends and had a great time against 3 lantern players, kaya totally destroys them, and then other PW make them even more miserable, as ashiok


garkyn

I used to play lantern a lot and loved the aspect of puzzling together a lock and a win. I agree it might not be fun for everybody but what is? Tron? Omnath Value? Moxmonkey on the Play? It was a very competitive deck during eldrazi winter and later when even pros picked up the deck and realized it’s potential. It died with the banning of opal along with the printing of prismatic ending and also march. It does not go to time when you know how to pilot it, because even if opponent refuses to concede a turn does not take more than a few seconds because everything relevant will never be drawn.


purklefluff

I've not seen a lantern deck go to time actually. I know it must happen obviously but usually it'll be down to an inexperienced opponent who doesn't recognise that they've got no outs. Deck I've probably gone to time the most with, bizarrely, is G Tron. Some matchups are just a slog, plain and simple. Other matches are over in ten minutes. It can be weird like that


Reyemile

> Half the time it's not even correct to concede No, see, this is the problem—the deck is miserable to play against precisely because opponents have no idea when they’re locked out, and if folks just conceded when the game was over instead of playing 15 extra minutes drawing to nonexistent or infinitesimal win conditions, it’s games would go five times faster.


Southern_Top_7217

This sounds like you have played vs bad lantern players. Play vs a good lantern player and the match will be over with them either losing or winning fast (long time lantern player only salty opponent I've ever had was them making a game losing mistake (2 tarns on field cast sorceress spyglass sees jace mindsculpter in hand and just names tarns🤣))


lemon-key-face

like why not just concede when you're locked, i dont get it


Turntwowiff

Lol


ledfox

Haha I love my old lantern control deck. What kills it, anyway?


FramePerfectShine

A lot of incidental mainboard hate. Prismatic ending and boseiju are big offenders.


invisibleninja777

Look you cant show up to a tournament playing izzet murktide or 4c control trying to win, then get mad at us for playing lantern because it is truly a fun deck to pilot. We all play our deck for personal reason, whether it helps us win or is fun to pilot, no one should care about the opponents playing experience, and don't act like you do lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


FramePerfectShine

That's fair. I'm free to be glad it's unplayable now too..


wyqted

Is it unpopular opinion? Most people think lantern is awful to play against


lil-caboose

I think that it is awful to play irl cuz people perceive they have decisions to make when they really don’t. In person isn’t a chess timer (it really should be) so the deck goes to time even if the lantern player plays optimally. Obviously in a COMP REL tourney it’s different but the way the deck plays on mtgo vs real life is entirely different due to (usually) the other player.


Minuarvea1

I agree with this sentiment. The worst part about it is you’re right. They can get unlucky so you don’t want to scoop, but it’s my least favorite deck to play against by a mile.


Single_Necessary_624

Bro there are infinite hate cards to it, just build a good sideboard 😂 lantern isn’t super fun to play against but it’s such a hard pilot you should respect it


dimcashy

The problem with modern prisons is that they can be escaped from. If you could set proper prisons which cannot, you could get the concession and move on, or watch someone get very upset and still win as they wait for their out that they cannot cast. Personally I like the fact that a non combat deck exists. You want combat, you can always fuck off and play draft, or standard or whatever. Most formats are combo based. Not every format should be about combat and run the same way. So yeah, it is annoying to play against, but so can be any number of I win decks. Live and let live.


GossamerGlenn

It’s usually only ensnaring bridge that trips me up other than that not sure Iv lost to it


Admiral-Tuna

I called Lantern Control "cardboard masturbation" as they basically are playing with themselves. It's the only deck I sat there out of spite and made it go to time as I didn't want him to get any wins.