Stupidest treasure hunt wincon

I have made 2 other decks with battle of wits, and neither of them were like that, for they all had lands

Heh, wotc has a name for your playertype,
I used to be the same before I got competitive.
What is it "lorthos" ?
Spike is the playertype I remember the most.

Who's wotc, and what does lorthos mean

Wotc = wizards of the coast. The name of the publishing game group before tsr bought them.
And it's actually vorthos. Back when magic started to be a big business they paid to get a team to analyse what players wanted from the game and build up some psychological profiles. They started out with 5 player types and gave them names, one was spike. Later it was discovered that there were more playertypes and I think you are one of those, named vorthos.

Search for "timmy, Johnny and spike revisited"
There was 3 types originally, then vorthos was invented and later Melvin.
In other words you are an aesthetic builder more than a player :)

They even went and made the female counterparts.

I know wizards of the coast just didn't know the acronym, and I will. I agree with that mostly except the main thing I do is help others, then make stupid decks, then the third thing I do, nut rarely publish is make competitive decks so I know how the formats work, and how I can better help others

Well you see what I mainly do is help other people, might have missed it but don't think it's on there

The closest thing to me was uber johnny, that I saw

I think you are right, but I also think you are vorthos.
The deck is more aesthetic than it is playable.
A 4 in 230 odds of getting the treasure hunt?

Unless ofcourse you do it like me, opening the deck for viewers before it's done?
That would make us both into street painters.

That's me a lot, but like I said I like helping people improve their decks mostly, but I can make a deck out of any card or any idea (Like this one was your idea I think it was on the stupidest deck that works)

I'm too bent on winning.
I used to be an impractical johnny, and transformed into a practical johnny.
The difference is that there are many Smith's that can make a practical sword, and few that can make a beautifull sword. But the ones who are truly rare are those who can build a beautiful but practical sword.

For me the only art is to make something that can rip the smile of a pro player while being totally alien and also have some sort of beauty over it.

I've spent years on preparing brushes and paint to make my art with. Perhaps the difference between us is just age.

To me magic is an arena where you get to build your own dinosaur and throw it in the pit, and to me the best thing is when my dino wins.

I don't think you're that much older then me, but you're metaphor is top notch, and using I would say I'm the smith that crafts both types of swords, knows how to combine them, and uses that knowledge to let other smiths create beautiful practical swords.

Then go craft some killer instinct into the above deck ;)
I want to see it kill goldfishes reliably on turn 3.
I will build your deck and test it to control if you've done the job.

In return of your efforts, I will make a functional battle of wits myself.

Agreed?

Turn 3 consistent won with a battle of wits deck is impossible in modern as far as I know, so do you want to do a different , less stupid, deck idea or lower the bar? It's esper so you can make a control deck that works swell though.

If it's been impossible in modern so far, we should really do it.
Go any color you want, the card is called battle of wits for a reason.
I'm brainstorming while preparing the sleeves, and can tell you I've already made 1 mistake already, serum powder doesn't fit this deck at all ;)

We are facing several design problems, getting a reliable mana and a tutor in hand, and not robbing the deck of too many cards during the three turns. My own opening goal is to make it a 211 card deck. You draw 10 cards over 3 turns and you fetch a battle of wits with the tutor.

Yeah I tried when amonket came out and I spent about a month, so basically impossible with cards before it

Google battle of wits mtg modern as an opening study, I'm game for this.

Ok would a consistent turn 4 deck work?

Helpful tip if you intend for battle of wits to be your wincon, then yorion is a great companion

I found a loophole you said battle of wits deck implying that you have battle of wits in there, but that says nothing about that being your wincon, what if I use it just because I need a 5 mana enchantment?

Another question what if instead of going aggro I go control or self mill?

Let's have battle of wits as the wincon.
I must admit that there were fewer search cards in the range of 1-2 mana than I thought I would find,
So let's say fastest reliable turn of kill. It might mean we get into more turns, otherwise we'd have to go legacy.

Disciple of deceit looks promising.

That's how I got my original turn 4 consistent, but I won't tell you how, but I will tell you it was a combo of 2 different costs

I made a monoblack version on accident https://www.mtgvault.com/alfred/decks/battle-of-stupidity/

That's quick, have you play tested it against a goldfish ?

Yes it's consistently a loss, but I'm making one that's better

I've made a list of search cards, and there's actually a lot more than I thought, but most are of a high cost.
I'd agree that black will be unavoidable.

Funniest sounding card of the day was the mythos of brokkos.

Wow, this is some mother to crack.
I can't use evolution on this one because it takes too long time shuffling.
That means I have to go mathematical on it, and I really hate maths.

Laughs in human calculator

My solution is to split up the deck in equal portions that contains a game. If I can find a way to measure that my average kill will be at turn 5 then each portion of deck will have mana, a search card and room for problem solving.

With my expertise in building fast decks my main focus is a build that uses infernal tutor by emptying the hand naturally, and part of my room will be based on having backup solutions. Redundancy redundancy as preppers say.

Ok but do you really need tutors, why not just stick with 1

My deck is split into 18 portions, each portion (except 4) needs a tutor to reliably draw the B.O.W not accounting for clusters. I can fill in extra search later to account for that.

I'm not going to rely on drawing 1 card out of 216 ;)

Now were talking tutors, idylic tutor isn't in the database yet.

216 I'm going for 4 tutors 4 battle of wits and so much control it would make a tier -1 deck envious

I also did the math, and the best deck number I think for your type of deck would be 240, but the best overall is 250

I even built it to account for who starts the game which is why I set the bar so low. The less cards the higher the odds will be of drawing an individual card.

Yes but you don't want to draw it after you hit 200

Ah, but since I made room for fixer-cards to deal with problems I will be able to deal with a lot of problems, even crossing the 200 cards in deck limit. Search allows me to aim for a turn 5 kill reliably, and if that fails I can either go with plan b or rebuild and try again.

Plan b is probably aggro for me.

I got 90 cards leftover when the mana and search and support of infernal tutor is in place.
That's a lot better than I hoped for.

Well you see I made control with the backup of gint flying Eldrazi/Demons

I'm at last stage, filling in lands and manaproviding creatures.

What colours is yours, because I got the best one I’m going to get

Everything but red :)

Hmm so mine plus green

I wanted mama generating creatures to access any mana. That meant green.
This was to play b.o.w as soon as possible.
I think I'm ready to reveal. I only have to add lands to the deck and that's trivial.

I still need to do a bit more testing I’ve played 5 goldfish beat them all, but they were all mill decks

I got my final version https://www.mtgvault.com/alfred/decks/control-battle-of-wits/

Nice, I just finished mine...
Wicked's battle of wits