The owner of this deck hasn't added a sideboard, they probably should...
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 1,354 times.
Either you are very new to magic, or this is an elaborate joke... (I have never seen so many high castingcosts with so little land in a deck)For some reason there are groups that tell new players that they recommend that 1 third of your deck must be lands.This is an extremely narrow assumption, and I can tell you that decks need lands based on the very content of the cards in your deck.You need to break out of the 20 lands for a 60 cards deck mantra, as it is an extreme lie. With 19 cards costing 4 or more, you will draw cards that are dead in your hand for more than 4 turns, and this will happen 1 third of your draws, which is a pretty longterm strategy. Imagine that you got to draw an opening hand of 9 cards, then it would statistically hold 3 lands, 3 cards costing 4-5 mana and 3 cards that you would be able to cast faster. Just think about that hand a bit, then remember that you actually can't draw 9 cards, so you have to cut 2 away. Let's say the rules allows you to do this, and that you get to pick which 2 cards to remove. What will you remove? You can't lose any lands, because that would cripple you, and the stuff costing less than 4 mana is probably what you need the most to stop your opponent fast. The logical consequences of this is that you pick one of 2 strategies.1 You seriously need 24-25 lands to support playing with such a high castingcost.2 you cut down on cards with a high castingcost to get more cards with a lower castingcost.
Permalink
Thanks for the input. And you would be right if I was playing one on one modern or standard... But I play group tabletop... Which those games are mid - long terms games... Fyi. One of the biggest things about a Group games is the politics... If you come out to strong to fast everyone will gang up on you.. and that's a b**** when there are 6 other people playing... Thanks ??
I'd still say you need more lands :PIn my groupplay haydays I was allways the target because I owned most cards and allways had some nasty brews that would try to cut down everyone. The only combo-player could never be stopped by anyone else than me, because I allways had something to stop him, and half of the games usually went: stop the combo deck from winning, die, see the combo-deck die, see the rest fight it out.In my group-experiences, the most quiet player almost allways wins, which has nothing to do with politics really, despite the fact that we did allow threatening and dealmaking :D