ABUR vs Shocks. Also, Miracles Suggestions
Legacy forum
Posted on Nov. 4, 2014, 4:48 a.m. by GoofyFoot
To my legacy players out there: is there any shame in running shocks over Duals? plain and simple, duals are completely out of my price range, and while I would love to eventually pick them up, I'm looking at a 2-4 years down the road acquiring the ones I would want. I'm trying build Miracles, which is probably a 6-12 months process. I have all the Shocks I could need, and Flooded Strand is relatively easy to acquire right now. Arid Mesa and Scalding Tarn are a different story, but an achievable one.
In short, any help or thoughts on this, especially from other miracle players, would be greatly appreciated.
Gidgetimer says... #3
My take on running shocks in legacy is that as long as you realize they will lead to you losing about 10% of the games you normally would have won, go for it. The problem is when people get a "poor me" mentality and start blaming the shocks for every loss and thinking along the lines of "well that guy just bought a victory".
ABUR lands are strictly better so you will see them in all the lists. But there is no reason to not play one of the more fun formats just because the great lands are ludicrously expensive.
November 4, 2014 5:59 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #4
It's not like Miracles actually requires a lot of ABUR duals. Two Tundra s and a Volcanic Island would be fine. The deck actually runs a ton of basics. You do, however, require one Karakas for tricks with Vendilion Clique and Venser, Shaper Savant .
November 4, 2014 7:02 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #5
I will note that Miracles is a very rewarding deck to play, but it definitely folds to 12 Post and any version of Lands! can occasionally be rough. You may lock up a game early, but it'll still take a long time to actually win. Be prepared for long matches and drawing a lot when you're getting started. When I was running Miracles, I eventually took the Stoneblade approach and it sped up games significantly for me, but I still believe that I sacrificed significant stability in order to pull it off. The Entreat the Angels version is much more consistent, but definitely takes longer to win games with.
November 4, 2014 8:35 a.m.
I see it occasionally but am reluctant to try it myself. While it feels good to Wasteland a $200 ABUR Dual, there's something backbreaking about blowing up a Shockland.
That being said, I have been thinking of sliding a single copy of Overgrown Tomb
next to 2 Badlands
to try out at my LGS's Legacy Night. Hopefully I can borrow a Bayou
or two before Grand Prix New Jersey.
So if you think they're on Wasteland , find basics. If you don't suspect a Wasteland , grab your Shock at the end of your opponent's turn. Decks that anticipate a mid-late game play Wasteland, decks that try to win in the first couple of turns don't.
November 4, 2014 8:55 a.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #7
Your list will obviously be better with ABUR duals, but there's no shame in running a few shocks. Being two colors isn't so bad. With three you'd definitely want the OG duals.
As pointed out, fetch EOT to save some life. Against aggressive decks, those 2 points will matter.
November 4, 2014 9:04 a.m.
During Eternal Weekend, Eric Markowicz playing Delver, came in 4th place using 3 ABUR duals, and 3 shocks. Winning in legacy with Shocks is achievable but you'll be setting yourself way back.
GoofyFoot says... #2
and I've read the primer via SCG, so no need to suggest that.
November 4, 2014 4:52 a.m.