Leaving a legacy

by Ixionnoixi on 06 December 2012

Main Deck (60 cards)

Sideboard (0 cards)

No sideboard found.

The owner of this deck hasn't added a sideboard, they probably should...

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.


Deck Description

A deck to hopefully be able to compete against the deck I made for my friend.

Still trying to come up with a deck that can comfortably beat this deck without the use of hate to beat it. http://www.mtgvault.com/ViewDeck.aspx?DeckID=411532

This deck being the way it is... the win con is pretty limited though the whole point is to stop the opponent any means necessary anyway so as long as that is accomplished, you win. (Eventually)

Deck Tags

  • Tournament

Deck at a Glance

Social Stats

0
Likes

This deck has been viewed 1,222 times.

Mana Curve

Mana Symbol Occurrence

2882400

Card Legality

  • Not Legal in Standard
  • Not Legal in Modern
  • Legal in Vintage
  • Legal in Legacy

Deck discussion for Leaving a legacy

Hyperlink his deck down here btw so we can click on it
I feel like path to exile over two wrath's and two chalices
Also why is chalice in here if its a slow win con use nephilia drownyard

0
Posted 06 December 2012 at 06:08

Permalink

Changing the 2 wrath's to path to exiles sounds good enough but, the chalices are also a psuedo heal defense for racking up life while they have nothing, as well as healing me when I use shock lands and Thoughtseize early on so I don't die.

It's not that I'm aiming to have a slow win con either, it's just that it turned out to happen as such. I don't care how I win as long as I know I can reliably and safely before they win. Nephilia drownyard would hurt a lot to get in my opening hand and even mid game come to think of it. Though it would be a win con outside of damage.

I'm hoping slowly but surely this deck will lockdown everything and with 4 chalices, I can save my own life and end up taking theirs in the end.

-1
Posted 06 December 2012 at 06:46

Permalink

I mean that you could put them in over chalice as "spell" slots and not land slots of your worried about mana security
And a great lock down win con is luminarch ascension

0
Posted 06 December 2012 at 07:24

Permalink

Love the luminarch ascension. Thanks for the suggestions. Though I did end up changing the path to exiles over to swords to plowshares since that will have helped more in the long run. Thanks.

-1
Posted 06 December 2012 at 20:15

Permalink

Here is the deck I need to beat. http://www.mtgvault.com/ViewDeck.aspx?DeckID=411532

-1
Posted 06 December 2012 at 06:40

Permalink

Too many discard. The red deck is fast, so you'll be able to use one or two discards at best. Then, your opponent would have no cards to discard anymore.
Keep 4 Hymn to Tourach and 4 Gerrard's Verdict. Get rid of the others.
Luminarch Ascension is a really dumb idea. Playing agains a red deck, you probably WILL take damage and I don't see any wall or Orim's Chant to prevent that situation. So either you use Orim's Chant / Ghostly Prison, or get rid of those.

Entreat the Angels is also a poor choice. You'd better drop it for some white lifelink creature to help you survive the early turns with life gain.
A couple of Serra Angel as a win cond seems appropriate as well.

0
Posted 08 December 2012 at 04:13

Permalink

I suppose there may be too much discard however, ensuring you get it in your opening hand every time is important. Though I have to disagree with the Luminarch Acension. With all the field wipes and him top decking, he has no means of haste rather than his four chiefs. The problem is again though that he will get such an early lead and plays such that he keeps onto cards until he needs them being that I do use field wipes in other decks. Which is where the discard comes in.... hopefully. I will however put in some life gain and see how it goes. Thanks for the input.

-1
Posted 11 December 2012 at 04:47

Permalink