Start typing a card name and use the auto-complete feature to quickly select the card you're trying to add. Enter a quantity and add that card to your sideboard!
Submit a list of cards below to bulk import them all into your sideboard. Post one card per line using a format like "4x Birds of Paradise" or "1 Blaze", you can even enter just the card name by itself like "Wrath of God" for single cards.
This deck has been viewed 790 times.
NOTE: Set by owner when deck was made.
Looking for suggestions.
Permalink
In general this looks extremely solid. I don't think you need 24 lands though, especially since none of them are tech lands (field of ruin). I also see a couple balancing problems.I hate running 4 crackling drakes, as you don't want one in the opening at all (hard to cast, conditional return). I would cut it down to 2 or 3. I have similar feelings about chemister's insight, as you don't want it in the opening, so maybe drop that down to 3.Right now you have more than enough critter hate, but only a little non-critter hate. I would advise mainboarding 4 negates, as there are plenty of targets to take advantage of in standard with it. I'm surprised to see no ionize in here, as its the flagship of control builds right now.
Thank you so much for your suggestions.I absolutey agree and will probably cut down on Chemister's Insight and maybe Crackling Drake for some more Negates.I'd like to know what you would take out for Ionize (maybe Sinister Sabotage?).And is there any sideboard card that could help me deal with an enchantment or non-creature artifact if it manages to resolve? Also would like to know if there's a feasible way to deal with Carnage Tyrant.Much appreciated.
I would pull 2 lands and the sabatage's for maxed ionize. They are just too good to ignore.As for Carnage Tyrant, that's the question isn't it? I haven't seen a better anti-control critter in standard in a long time. Fortunately, and I believe firmly that this was on purpose, star of extinction is the answer. It can double as a side option against swarms if needed (honestly fiery cannonade is a fantastic nuke option), but this deck desperately needs 3 sided star of extinctions for game 2 and 3 against the tyrant. It's also worth noting that your side is currently heavy on critter hate, as is the deck (even with the negate changes), so it would be a good idea to give the side some options against non-critter decks (mirror matches, grixis, jeskai, etc). The burn spells are fine, as they can go to the face, but essence scatter, lava coil, fiery cannonade are 9 basically dead draws against decks that use control or grind it out, so siding them out for non-critter hate will help bigtime.
Wow, you're so right. That is an excellent suggestion.I always overlooked Star of Extinction because to be honest i think it's a pretty bad card. But in this case, i don't see any other reliable way to deal with Carnage Tyrant, at least for Izzet decks. So i'm definitely going to side a couple or more of those.As for the sideboard, i'm definitely going to side in some more permission for the mirror matches. Which counterspells do you think are the strongest in the format right now? I'm a bit on the fence about Syncopate.
I've never been a fan of syncopate or its like. Too conditional for me. Ionize is the strongest in the format, and I wouldn't doubt it will trickle into modern. Negate is also extremely strong, as it hates on the dominant planeswalkers. besides those two, unwind isn't too bad, and sinister sabotage is solid (although harder to cast). But the best option I see for this deck in the side against control is risk factor. It does exactly what control doesn't want used against it, which is a + in tempo and material. If opponent uses a negate on it, they're down material when you ditch a land to recast it. If they let the 4 damage hit because they aren't close to the danger zone, you can still recast it by ditching a land. Its a damn near perfect card for control vs control.
I'll most probably side them out because i too find they're too conditional and i haven't found real use for them. I guess i never considered Ionize because i find really valuable for Sinister Sabotage to smooth out my draws with surveil, as opposed to the 2 damage Ionize can deal.Risk factor is definitely an interesting option here and for sure should be taken in to consideration (It's absolutely disgusting when someone resolves it against me lol).
Surveil is a fantastic ability to be sure, better than scry by leaps and bounds. I hope they keep going with it.Here is my thought process on ionize, and bear with me, its going to cause me to wax poetic.As I see it, there are only 4 types of decks possible to build: aggro, combo, proactive control, reactive control. And all 4 of them seek to take advantage of the strange relationship between tempo (how fast you develop toward your goal), material (how many cards you have), interaction (the ability to change the board state or the future of the board state), and board state (what's in play and how it affects the win conditions).The desire for tempo is a constant in all decks, and can't be ignored at any cost. However, the other 3 variables are in flux depending on what you're trying to accomplish.Aggro just fields critters as fast as possible and tries to overwhelm board state at the cost of interaction, and has the possibility of material problems as they can be nuked into oblivion with 1 card.Combo ignores material and largely doesn't care about board state in favor of a vastly accelerated tempo and enough interaction to get the job done.Proactive control is the great compromise, which has pretty much equal interests in all 4 categories (the best recent example of this idea is nicol bolas the ravager).But reactive control has the strange problem of maxing interaction with the inverse relationship between card advantage and board state. Simply put, every card you have in a control deck that is a win condition is hurting your ability to stop opponent's win condition, which is the entire point of the build. Thus, you have to very carefully balance the win conditions vs the control cards, and if you get the balance wrong you get steamrolled. Ionize is an example of a fantastic compromise that gets around this problem. If you can shock for free when you cast an interaction, you retain material and advance board state, all at the same time. Another fantastic example of this is electrolyze. So, my contention is that in a reactive control deck, running cards like ionize lets you run fewer win conditions, which overall keeps you in control more often.
where is guttersnipe?
That is an incredible dissection! Thank you for taking the time :)Definitely changed my perspective and i'll most definitely start running Ionize on this deck from now on. Cheers.
I don't think Guttersnipe is a good fit here as opposed to running it on a more aggro Izzet version. I want to have my mana open by turn 3 to cast counterspells and critter hate as the main goal is to control. It is also a very vulnerable creature.
Ok. Then what about thing in the ice? would be awesome in basically any izzet deck.
oh wait, sorry that is modern. My apologies.
I wish brother ;) Cheers.