thisispein

15 Decks, 23 Comments, 8 Reputation

eddit comment, didnt realise you added it already

1
Posted 30 November 2014 at 17:54 in reply to #520111 on My anaconda don't want none...

Permalink

use only 1 or 2 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth , it's a legendary land, you can't have more than 1 in play...

1
Posted 30 November 2014 at 17:50 in reply to #520111 on My anaconda don't want none...

Permalink

How about adding some grindclock in it? it fits into the idea of the deck so

0
Posted 30 November 2014 at 14:48 as a comment on Mill-pump

Permalink

the infect one it's just bad placed here, this ain't an infect deck....sure you got the regen but stil, i just don't imagine it having a place on this deck

1
Posted 30 November 2014 at 14:38 in reply to #520111 on My anaconda don't want none...

Permalink

Why not add some ambush viper's? i use it on some deck i made a while back and it's pretty fun to see people reactions to it

1
Posted 30 November 2014 at 04:52 as a comment on My anaconda don't want none...

Permalink

why not add some hornet queen or whatever name is on sideboard or something?you can always add the bow or the cepter has legendary artfact's has well, would love to see them in this deck, anyways pleasent deakc, really liked what i saw, good job man :)

1
Posted 24 November 2014 at 23:02 as a comment on [Standard/Infinite-Combo] Bees

Permalink

if you want the draw power with this deck i would prob think that bident of thassa would be better, ain't that expensive i guess , and it's for each creature that deals combat dmg? should be working for draw power, but only turn 4 coming out at least so...

0
Posted 19 November 2014 at 18:58 in reply to #517943 on Budget Decks: Super Ninja-Kick

Permalink

stil that means he wuld tuurn 2 ruhan, since it's 4 lands so, i was just saying his deck sounds more of control than agro

0
Posted 19 November 2014 at 03:33 in reply to #517973 on M'erica!!!

Permalink

i dont understand much about commander so dunno, but the thing is, your deck is more based on control and damage over type than agro itself, not saying i'ts a bad card just seems a difrent style from the deck itself, no idea though

0
Posted 18 November 2014 at 22:39 in reply to #517973 on M'erica!!!

Permalink

Jeskai windscout, that's the name you forogt :p, i would like some dissolve's to the mix, for more scry, some aquous form might not be that bad has well with the heroics, there's jsut so many options eve in budget so

Edited ( some erase has sideboard instead of revoke existance? not many players use artifacts in standard)

1
Posted 18 November 2014 at 19:09 in reply to #517943 on Budget Decks: Super Ninja-Kick

Permalink

yeah a numot would be nice has well, but a narset with this many non creature spells just means free spells with each atack, wich is always lovely <3

0
Posted 18 November 2014 at 15:42 in reply to #517856 on M'erica!!!

Permalink

just get a narset, get a narset and feel the power of wins! xD

0
Posted 18 November 2014 at 03:49 as a comment on M'erica!!!

Permalink

i would honestly love to see a narset here, some dissolve's and magma jet's would also be good for the scry and extra control, not a fan of mindswipe's even if i use them myself but if you don't look at a max budget would honestly replace them but good deck in general,

0
Posted 14 November 2014 at 23:00 as a comment on Jeskai Control

Permalink

that's true has well, good thing you remind me about that, thanks buddy , apreciate it, just seems like a messy deck without a main idea, also the enchant's that require to to use noncreature spells to activate, just a weird idea in my point but hes the deck owner so , maybe it works ^^

0
Posted 14 November 2014 at 22:58 in reply to #517015 on Khans of Tarkir: Jeskai Way

Permalink

dude' you can barely use narset at all in this deck format, needed way more spells and such, where's the ascendancy has well? that sayed , i don't really see a use to anrset in a more creature base deck ^^

0
Posted 13 November 2014 at 04:32 as a comment on Khans of Tarkir: Jeskai Way

Permalink

Honestly with the number of blue in the deck i wouldn't even get the 2 island's, it's just not worth at all, i would also try to balance the number of creatures with the number of spells, you have 21 creatures to a number of 14 spells, also a bit disapointed for not seeing some Rakshasa Deathdealer , these low cost creatures that can pumo are just very strong on the format, even some abzan's started to use them, since the pump can be active more than 1 time a turn, also can regen, some nice stuff right there, i dunno about other stuff, it's really late here, can't focus that well , sorry xD

0
Posted 13 November 2014 at 04:30 as a comment on Khans of Tarkir: Sultai Brood

Permalink

hmm, im stil looking around, but i notice the lack of protognostic sphinx, that's always nice to have on a contrl blue deck, would def get the resolute archangel into sidboard or something, also add some dig though time?
on sideboard i would honestly put deicide and negate number into 2 , don't really see the point into having 3,some disdainful stroke is always nice ,
This are just some opnions , i usually don't go into "black" that much so, hope i could assist you somehow, ^^

0
Posted 13 November 2014 at 04:25 in reply to #516982 on Clever Control

Permalink

Yes almost every card is very good, but your almost playing like it's commander , 1 card of each, you could always lower some number of mana or take the banner away? i don't kow man xD, im not syaing it's bad, just a bit mixed up :P

0
Posted 11 November 2014 at 02:14 in reply to #516513 on Standard Temur YAY

Permalink

To many cards only have 1 copy on the deck , sure it sounds interesthing for the price but i don't know if it will be that good against other decks.

0
Posted 10 November 2014 at 14:42 as a comment on Standard Temur YAY

Permalink

WEll i can do that, i also did this thinking about price, it's very cheap, or else i would put some better werewolves myself, but yeah i can remove the Eder to add some more numbers of the ones i already got...

0
Posted 16 July 2013 at 18:42 in reply to #378308 on Werewolf's

Permalink