|
|
| Author |
Message |
vdemario
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 5
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| It is already in it.. Read the list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blitzer2k7
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Even though its not an elf, Kitchen Finks seems like the best choice for your deck..Imperious perfect is a must..also you should be running Bramblewood Paragon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Balthazar88
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think Talaria's Battalion is a 4-of, more like a 3-of. You can get some really bad hands with too many of that card. And you like must play with some kind of manlands. I prefer Treetop Village over Mutavault as the deck is quite color demanding, but Mutavault is fine to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlamingZelda
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blitzer2k7 wrote: | | Even though its not an elf, Kitchen Finks seems like the best choice for your deck..Imperious perfect is a must..also you should be running Bramblewood Paragon |
Bramblewood Paragon works best in a deck that has a lot of warriors. It's 2 for a 2/2 that doesn't trigger its own ability for itself, unfortunately. Kitchen Finks however, would be a good choice, if just as a somewhat stall card and a little lifegain to pull out some of the other elves. Plus it's a good chumpblock to save a Llanowar Elf or something.
| Balthazar88 wrote: | | I don't think Talaria's Battalion is a 4-of, more like a 3-of. You can get some really bad hands with too many of that card. And you like must play with some kind of manlands. I prefer Treetop Village over Mutavault as the deck is quite color demanding, but Mutavault is fine to. |
I think I agree with you on the 3-of instead of a 4-of. Why does everyone think I should play manlands? Theyre nonbasic (which gets a lot of hate in T2) and the only one I know that produces elves would be Mutavault. Treetop Village is ok, but it comes into play tapped. Maybe 3x of them? But I don't want to go 4x because I think it'll mess up the land I need to satisfy the manacurve...
Please explain to me why manlands would be a good choice in this deck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Balthazar88
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
They are good against Wrath-effects and sorcery speed removal. Also they are a good excuse for playing more lands. The 20 lands you have right now is defenetly too few. I recommed to go to at least 22 with 4 manlands. Topdecking a manlands in the late game compared to a forest is huge. The only downside is that they comes into play tapped, which like 95%+ of the worlds aggro players think is an okay price to pay for using them.
If you deck need like 3-green (like for for the liege and the cavelier) Mutavault might not be optimal, but Treetop Village should perfect. You taliking about hate against nonbasics, the only hate that ppl commonly play is Magus of the Moon, which should not disturb you even with 4x Treetop illage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsy
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 921
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| how do nonbasics get a ton of hate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vedrfolner
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 1443
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the card is good, it doesn't matter that it is not an elf, even though you play elf lords.
The only cards in your deck that requires elves, are 4 Vanquisher, 4 Champion and 4 Imperious Perfect. Of those, it is clear that you need 15+ elf cards to play Vanquisher consistently in turn 2 - but while Elvish Champion is not a very good card (it backfires badly), Imperious Perfect is good on his own. He can work in a non-elf deck as well.
Avoiding mana screw isn't the only requirement for the number of lands the deck needs. It also need to be tuned so that you don't consistently start missing land drops too early. With 20 lands you won't always get up to 3 before you need to draw up to 3 more cards to get one more land. And 3 mana is not very good for you; as it seems you really like to empty your hand and swarm as quick as possible. With 2 or 3 lands, you won't be able to play two cards per turn unless you have Llanowar Elves in play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlamingZelda
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vedrfolner wrote: | If the card is good, it doesn't matter that it is not an elf, even though you play elf lords.
The only cards in your deck that requires elves, are 4 Vanquisher, 4 Champion and 4 Imperious Perfect. Of those, it is clear that you need 15+ elf cards to play Vanquisher consistently in turn 2 - but while Elvish Champion is not a very good card (it backfires badly), Imperious Perfect is good on his own. He can work in a non-elf deck as well.
Avoiding mana screw isn't the only requirement for the number of lands the deck needs. It also need to be tuned so that you don't consistently start missing land drops too early. With 20 lands you won't always get up to 3 before you need to draw up to 3 more cards to get one more land. And 3 mana is not very good for you; as it seems you really like to empty your hand and swarm as quick as possible. With 2 or 3 lands, you won't be able to play two cards per turn unless you have Llanowar Elves in play. |
I see...thank you for pointing that out. I already own 4 Elvish Champions and 4 Imperious Perfects.
| Balthazar88 wrote: | They are good against Wrath-effects and sorcery speed removal. Also they are a good excuse for playing more lands. The 20 lands you have right now is defenetly too few. I recommed to go to at least 22 with 4 manlands. Topdecking a manlands in the late game compared to a forest is huge. The only downside is that they comes into play tapped, which like 95%+ of the worlds aggro players think is an okay price to pay for using them.
If you deck need like 3-green (like for for the liege and the cavelier) Mutavault might not be optimal, but Treetop Village should perfect. You taliking about hate against nonbasics, the only hate that ppl commonly play is Magus of the Moon, which should not disturb you even with 4x Treetop illage. |
And I didn't think of the removal effects that wont' be able to touch manlands. They're a decent insurance against those. Thank you for pointing that out, too. I'll post a revised decklist here in a while. Hopefully it'll be better 
Last edited by FlamingZelda on Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlamingZelda
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So then, my updated deck list is:
Gw Elves!
>>Mainboard (61):
>Creatures (33):
3x Nettle Sentinel
4x Llanowar Elves
2x Elvish Hexhunter
2x Safehold Elite
4x Wren's Run Vanquisher
3x Talara's Battalion
2x Elvish Champion
3x Kitchen Finks
3x Wilt-Leaf Cavaliers
4x Imperious Perfect
4x Wilt-Leaf Liege
>Spells (6):
3x Might of Old Krosa
3x Shield of the Oversoul
>Land (21):
20x Forest
1x Treetop Village
>>Sideboard (15):
3x Wheel of Sun and Moon
3x Krosan Grip
3x Avoid Fate
3x Raking Canopy
3x Gaea's Herald
It's got the manlands for some protection against removal, 22 lands including the 4 manlands. I went ahead and put Shiled of the Oversoul in because putting that onto a Cavalier or a Liege makes them awesomely godly. Dropped the Talara's Battalion from 4 to 3, increased the Nettle Sentinel count by 1 (the more I playtest that card the more I love it. If I attack and then drop a monster in second main, that card will untap, almost making it a vigilance creature). I took out the Yavimaya Dryads and reduced the Elvish Champion count to 2. I also took out the Safehold Elite (2x), and also I added 3 Kitchen Finks.
What are your guys' opinions now? Is the sideboard ok?
Edit: I playtested this setup some and it's not as fast as the first decklisting, and ironically I get manascrewed more. I'm considering putting in only 3 manlands and 18 forests (for 21 total lands). And then 3 Elvish Champions and 2 Kitchen Finks instead of 2 Elvish Champions and 3 Kitchen Finks.
Edit 2: I think I've ended up with what is above. I kept getting screwed with having more than 1 Treetop Village in there (plus I only own 1 Treetop Village). So I've limited it to that. And oddly enough I seem to have better luck not getting manascrewed with 21 lands rather than 22. I took the advice of the Safehold Elite, as I really like that card (and think it's pretty underrated overall). I took out 1 Nettle Sentinel (for 3 total) and dropped the land count by 1 for the 2 Safehold Elites.
Unless there is anything glaringly wrong with this, I think I'll give it a whirl in some tourneys once Eventide comes out.
Thanks a ton for your help guys! I look forward to working with you in the future 
Last edited by FlamingZelda on Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:06 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lynolf
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 256
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't do it, leave it as it is. That's only a question of luck, as it usually happens. Its fine how it is I think, but I'm not still sure about Nettle Sentinel. I believe Safehold Elite would fill the spot much better. Its boosted with Liege and has 2 lives, which, as you will probably see with Kitchen Finks, its quite useful.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vedrfolner
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 1443
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you want the deck to beat down and swarm as fast as possible, your curve isn't optimal:
1 cc: 12
2 cc: 6 (excluding Battalion)
3 cc: 18
4 cc: 4
with only 21 lands, that won't work.
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Boreal Druid
4 Nettle Sentinel
4 Heritage Druid
4 Wren's Run Vanquisher
4 Talara's Battalion
4 Imperious Perfect
2 Garruk Wildspeaker
4 Overrun
4 Hunting Triad
2 Pendelhaven
20 Forest
... this is a pure swarm deck. Compare it to a regular GW beatdown deck and decide what you want to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsy
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 921
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| why do u keep calling it gw its mono green doesnt matter that hybrid cards are white |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlamingZelda
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's certainly an interesting deck, but I don't have many of the cards in that deck. And Garruk is expensive as heck. I've already got all of the cards in the elf deck except the ones coming in Eventide.
And you're right, the manacurve still needs a little fixing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlamingZelda
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gypsy wrote: | | why do u keep calling it gw its mono green doesnt matter that hybrid cards are white |
It utilizes the fact that the cards have white mana symbols, therefore it has white in it. If I completely ignored the fact they have white parts, then I'd call it monogreen, but the deck is built so it takes advantage of the white and green hybrids, but only uses green mana. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
commador01
Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| you should try to find the secret card that you are still missing. lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
