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 673 times.
I guess this is a test-deck!Run 4 shriekhorn instead of tome scour.I've tested the card in more than 200 games and it mills 5.something on an average, which means it mills more than tome scour.It also allows you to disrupt any scry/manipulation of top card that an opponent may have.If you dislike shriekhorn try out dream twist. In the long run it mills one more than tome scour.
Permalink
Thanks I will definitely look into it
No problem.Another thing about the deck is that you have 14 cards costing 5+ which is a huge problem with only 20 lands.A lot of players fall into the "1 third must be land" trap originally founded by someone in the past.Pro players know this ain't true, but why bother telling newcommers?During iceage I was told I was the worst player in the world, so I looked it up and saw that it was true, so I decided to do something about it. The next 10 years or so I gradually perfected a manaoptimization program and used it to improve my game. I'm currently the number 324 best lifetime player in DK, so the program worked.I produced a manacurve consisting of 22 lands, 12 cards costing 1, 12 cards costing 2 and 14 cards costing 3 and it was extremely solid (Still is if you want to try building a creatures only deck around it).Now if a computer tells you that you need 22 mana to reliably play spells costing 3, then logic dictates that 20 mana will never cast spells costing 5+ at a reliable pace :DBy the way I spent years trying to find the perfect build using curves it generated. The goal I gave it was to beat a "goldfish" (A player that does not play anything) as fast as possible, and only using creatures with a power equal to their castingcost, which had no abilities at all.It provided 2 solid solutions that I used over the years, one faster than the other, but from play experiences I ended up using the deck with 14 3-costs because it had 2 creatures more, and magic usually hates aggro with a lot of removal.In the case you want to test the fastest solution it's 24 lands, 12 cards costing 1, 12 cards costing 2, 8 cards costing 3 and 4 cards costing 4. You won't find many manacurves that can kill reliably at turn 5-6 with creatures without specials.
Thanks man I have only been playing for a year or so, so I will definitely take this into consideration
First time I ever build a deck around it I got a top-place in vintage with no power. I played a white deck with evasion and lifegain at a time where the most played vintage deck was goblins.Later I also held some contests where people could base decks on 3 different manacurves and win a mox if they got a topplace, I had an extensive banning list and I've been told that my contest was the indirect cause in creating death and taxes in legacy.Many of my own projects with these mana solutions have ended in winning an average of 3 out of 6 matches, but only after extensive building and redesigning.There is a lot of power in the right amount of lands and spells, but it is a hell of a puzzle to stay within the frame when designing something based on it. If you aren't a solid deckdesigner these recipies might not cut it for you, but try them out anyways. Once you build a deck that works within your area of play people will adapt to it within short time, so once that happens build a new one and work on it until it is defeated, then start picking which of your decks to play at random.