Experiment One vs. Wild Nacatl

Deck Help forum

Posted on Aug. 10, 2015, 3:19 a.m. by JohnnyBaggins

Hey everyone!

I'm running a casual/budget Modern Deck in the Naya Colours. Its dedicated one-drop is Wild Nacatl, but I don't run shock duals at the moment, so Nacatly sometimes is just a 1/1, most of the time a 2/2, and sometimes a 3/3. Now I've been wondering if maybe, Experiment One is the better for this deck. Sure, most of the time, it's the worse later game top deck, but still I'd assume there's a good chance I can get a Turn 1 Experiment to 4/4 or 5/5. Should I swap these? What's your opinion on that? Deck's here: Ristorante da Ajani: Italian Aggro

TheLivingCME says... #2

Experiment One could be good, but as you said can rapidly become useless if you don't see it early or if you find few creatures.

What do you say about Dryad Militant?

August 10, 2015 4:41 a.m.

JohnnyBaggins says... #3

It kind of interefers with my idea of buying burn spells or creeps back later with Naya Charm, but I like it. It's 2/1 after all and that's good. I mean, there's quite some cards that can do 2/1 for 1, but this is the most versatile of them I assume. Well, I will clearly consider the card. Thanks!

August 10, 2015 5:21 a.m.

TheLivingCME says... #4

Here comes the sweet part, bro. It doesn't exile creatures! So you can use the Charm to get back creatures (which are your central strategy) while messing up a Delver, for example.

August 10, 2015 5:27 a.m.

JohnnyBaggins says... #5

In the late game, it's usually better to flashback a Boros Charm of a Lightning Helix, simply because it's a set of unblockable damage. But I think the likelihood that it becomes all that relevant is low.

August 10, 2015 6:11 a.m.

If you don't have fetches + shocks, ooze is probably better.

August 10, 2015 6:16 a.m.

Arvail says... #7

This just in: ScOoze errata changes CMC to 1!

August 10, 2015 9:52 a.m.

JohnnyBaggins says... #8

Experiment One is an ooze, too :)

August 10, 2015 2:52 p.m.

Arvail says... #9

enter image description here

August 10, 2015 6:02 p.m.

This discussion has been closed