Legacy TurboFrog: Need Help

Legacy Deck Help forum

Posted on July 29, 2015, 1:19 p.m. by CheeseBro

please help me with my legacy TurboFrog Deck.

TurboFog? No! TurboFrog!

Servo_Token says... #2

Wow, that's actually really clever. I didn't even know that there were Fog Frogs...

However, the deck is lacking against any sort of combo deck. Suggestion, jam more counter spells.

July 29, 2015 1:36 p.m.

To be honest fog effects are really weak in terms of legacy as they either end up doing nothing in the case of combo decks such as storm, belcher, high tide, aluren, etc. briefly delay the inevitable in the case of decks such as show and tell variants, 12 post, reanimator, elves, etc. are a minor nuisance to tempo and midrange decks such as delver decks, shardless bug, stoneblade, etc. and provide little to no issues towards control decks such as miracles, pox, eternal garden, etc.

Also outside of your fog effects that are inefficient your counter spells and other control aspects are also slow in relation to the format. Counterspell is relatively inefficient by legacy standards and only usually makes it into most decks as a 1-2 of at best and is more often than not sideboarded rather than mainboarded in most lists that run it in the 75. Your list is also lacking in any form of win con outside of jace who isn't a particularly efficient win con although he is decent card advantage.

I would recommend running full play sets of Daze, Force of Will, Stifle, Wasteland, and probably a few Counterbalance to make the deck efficient enough in control to survive in the format while supplementing this with 2 jace a few Dig Through Time, a play set of Brainstorm and Ponder, and your fog frogs if you want to take a controlling tempo orientated route while suplimenting the remaining spots with a few more win cons such as a couple goyfs or a play set of delver of secrets along with maybe 2-3x counter spell depending on what your local metagame is like this might allow fog frogs to be semi viable within the format.

July 29, 2015 2:56 p.m.

This discussion has been closed