Please guys, read before posting
Modern Deck Help forum
Posted on April 18, 2016, 6 a.m. by incredibruhahaha
this thread applies only to creature heavy lists
If you're posting any creature based list, and you're seeking advice:
Beforehand, please do make sure your control includes cards aimed at things other than creatures.
Seriously, I love to give advice to newcomers, specially when their decks are self built. Lately though, I don't know what's going on. Someone comes asking "but what should I take out?" then you go check the list, and whatever the theme is, be it eldrazi, poison, elves, whatever... It's in the realm of twenty creatures, twenty creature removal, and twenty lands square.
You should know what doesn't work! Playtest! Help us help you!
So, if you upload a list where you creature aggro, and most of your control consists in creature removal, best advice is: please go to mtgtop8, check the winner lists, download some play testing software, and try to cultivate yourself.
We've all been there though!
Good luck!
Poison Is The Only Way To Die
Modern
SCORE: 3 | 4 COMMENTS | 75 VIEWS | IN 2 FOLDERS
lemmingllama says... #3
Most aggressive Zoo-type decks run 20-20-20 since it is a balanced way to ensure you get a little bit of everything each game.
Also if the decks were created during the reign of the Eldrazi, running a pile of creature removal is somewhat decent. Your removal will suck when you run into something like Scapeshift, but most Modern decks run creatures as their primary wincon.
That being said, I do agree with you that playtesting a little bit is best. I tend to run between 10 and 50 goldfish games before I publish a deck and feel somewhat confident about it. Sometimes it's worth realizing that Darksteel Colossus isn't easy to hardcast in Modern by testing it.
April 18, 2016 7 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #4
Even testing in general, just figure out what works and doesn't. If you're unable to work this out, get better at the game and deckbuilding. Test with some netdecks and see how smoothly they work. Compare them to your lists to see what you can do differently to make it better.
I used to suck back in RTR, but I'm pretty good at deckbuilding now. Netdecking is really important to figure out the deckbuilding process, and a step that shouldn't be skipped.
April 18, 2016 7:33 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #5
I completely agree that people should be able to work out on their own what is wrong. You have to be willing to help yourself before expecting anyone else to help you. Once a problem is identified, sure go to the community to discuss ways to fix it. Don't just go "hey guiz my deck isn't cool can you build me a better deck in the same colors and keep my pet cards that i'm not going to tell you which they are."
April 18, 2016 7:53 a.m.
incredibruhahaha says... #6
No, wait. You didn't get the point.
What I'm saying is: how can it be that people don't understand that they need artifact, enchantment removal, that they need to work a way around counter spell, combo, and all the million ways in which this game allows you to win other than direct creature damage?
At least some?
See I comment decks that basically expect literally to drop four lands, play a clumsy three, four drop creature, put some negative counters on some assumed creature on the other side of the table, aggro their way to 20 and call it a day.
Seriously, take a look, maybe it's just me:
Hate-eldrazi
Modern
6 COMMENTS | 93 VIEWS
This guy here is insisting he's going to shake control off with read comment #2 in the deck's discussion. I'm like... A wisp, a seer, Thalia and what else you said?
Let me know, maybe the meta is just like that over there.
Tl;dr: I'm talking about people basically not acknowledging the very existence of threatening cards beside the creature type.
April 18, 2016 10:39 a.m.
The deck you provided has 8 ways to discard a card from an opponent's hand, Thalia to tax non-creature spells, AEther Vial to get around counterspells, Flickerwisp to enable all his creatures again and protection from removal, Relic of Progenitus for both CoCo decks and Grixis Delve matchups and Ghost Quarter vs tron. Sideboard could be quite a lot better, but the maindeck is solid in terms of answers and threats.
The deck you provided actually has answers to all of the top decks in modern and is great example of doing it right.
It is more telling that you probably are not familiar with the deadguy ale archetype.
April 18, 2016 10:53 a.m.
incredibruhahaha says... #8
If you say so, I still see no removal there. What's he going to do against burn, counters, artifacts...?
April 18, 2016 11:04 a.m.
Oh, and also, Calling out another user is generally not okay.
April 18, 2016 11:05 a.m.
incredibruhahaha says... #10
Dude, there's zero beef with the guy. I was literally asking you to correct me if I'm wrong about what I told him, apparently I am.
April 18, 2016 11:10 a.m.
incredibruhahaha, you are starting to contradict yourself:
Tl;dr: I'm talking about people basically not acknowledging the very existence of threatening cards beside the creature type.
versus
If you say so, I still see no removal there.
Are you saying that every deck should have a way to deal with every type of threat there is? You see, there is a basic principle in deckbuilding: you should NOT do that. It will lead to a diluted deck that does nothing. The better thing to do would be to focus instead on specific matchups and forgo others.
For example, facing either burn or affinity is several times more likely than facing any control deck. Which one should you prioritize?
April 18, 2016 11:15 a.m.
Artifact removal could be better in the deck you posted, but other than that, it's a nice example of a Death and Taxes deck.
The Mono-B Infect deck, whilst needing some work, seems ok too. It has a decent curve (could defitely replace the Vatmothers for Hand of the Praetors, and Blackmail for IoK, maybe drop the Skithiryx too). It has plenty of removal for aggro AND hand hate for control. I'd personally add in some buff spells like Unnatural Endurance or Boon of Erebos.
If anything, I think the problem might be your attitude (do not mean to sound harsh or anything mate).
April 18, 2016 11:27 a.m.
incredibruhahaha says... #13
And I think you're interpreting my words rather liberally, it's alright.
The two sentences are actually synonyms, you see. People who don't acknowledge other card types can hardly pack removal for them. I don't even know what you understood, but I believe it's rather simple and straightforward an idea.
Now for the second paragraph, thank you a lot. I totally was about to pack a card for every single build. And expect it to win. I don't know, if you want to be right that's ok, but I do not think there're many people out there who would even consider doing that, so you could correct them and come on top. Again, you're trying to call me out on ideas that not only are not mine, but that are mediocre to conceive as other people's. You apparently missed the part when I said, word for word, at least some. As in, dude, cards in the realm of say, Disenchant. Not that card specifically, but you know, removal.
As for your question, depends on the color. I play white, so I guess there're enchantments aplenty to address that situation.
Cheers.
April 18, 2016 11:27 a.m.
I don't think we should be linking decks that aren't ours for the sake of making an argument. More importantly, the points you are trying to make are shaky at best, and exactly as mentioned, the Hate Eldrazi deck is actually a sweet deck. Also, as Boza said, you generally want to focus on decks that you have bad matchups against or are slightly less favored to win.
TL;DR You should probably learn more about certain archetypes before calling them out. After reading through the Hate Eldrazi comments, Commissioner clearly understands what his deck is trying to do, and is honestly good at doing it. You certainly do not understand the archetype based on your comments.
April 18, 2016 11:34 a.m.
incredibruhahaha says... #15
Ok guys, it's cool. We seem to disagree about what a deck should pack in terms of removal. I'm not saying I'm right to begin with! I just don't see sufficiently varied control in those lists.
In my opinion, you can't only have discard, which is ok, then again I play a great deal of removal. I see those decks and I can't help thinking true control would just rip them apart.
Anyway! It's fine, let's just let it die and maybe discuss it in an ad hoc thread?
Peace.
April 18, 2016 11:35 a.m.
incredibruhahaha says... #16
From the very beginning I used the citing deck tool as a resource to enrich the conversation, really. I wasn't even going to do it in the first place, and then I was like, hey he might get free points! And I get to illustrate what I'm trying to point out.
April 18, 2016 11:39 a.m.
incredibruhahaha your intention might have been good but you need to listen to why other people think that linking someone else's deck wasn't a great idea.
It seems to me that your deck building experience is perhaps not as good as you think it is. I think your suggestion to just let this thread die is a great idea, but won't work if you keep posting in it.
April 18, 2016 11:51 a.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #18
The points you're making come with time. When I first got into magic I didn't even know there were formats, let alone curves, consistency, and metas.
April 18, 2016 2:08 p.m.
You don't need to run artifact, enchantment, and creature removal for a deck to be successful. This entire thread is based on a false premise. Zoo doesn't bother. Scapeshift runs Remand and Cryptic Command - the former not being a permanent answer. Grixis runs Kolaghan's Command and /some/ run counterspells. Jund has cut the number of Abrupt Decay down to 2 but does run discard. Seriously - all of these decks have gaping flaws, but it just doesn't matter because no one deck beats all other decks.
Also implying that 20-20-20 split is bad? Again, I fundamentally disagree. Lots of decks make that kind of thing work.
April 18, 2016 3:40 p.m.
I kinda see where you're coming from, incredibruhahaha, but if I may make an assumption, you seem to be focusing too much on removal for permanents, as opposed to, say using discard or counterspells. You say you play white, which is excellent at clearing out permanents, but removing threats before they hit the field is a) completely valid removal and b) what the linked decks seem to focus on. So, yes, the linked decks don't really establish field control beyond spot removal, but they utilize and establish hand and deck control, which is just as good. A 
deck can destroy the hand and deck, while 
focuses on what's a present threat. I'm not bashing white at all, just pointing out that other colors use other control.
April 18, 2016 7:03 p.m.
incredibruhahaha, may I make a suggestion?
Before making any criticism regarding a deck build, ensure you have at least either:a. Read a primer regarding the strategy of said deck, orb. Playtested the deck to gain an overall of how the deck works.
You should also limit your suggestions to "descriptive" ones, rather than "prescriptive" ones.
So in other words, phrase it like "I feel like I'm not achieve the win con fast enough/as fast as X deck", or "I felt like X card didn't do enough". As opposed to "you need to run more removal" or "you need to run more lands". Notice the difference of "this is what X thing felt like" compared to "you need to do X". The former is more understandable to anyone (and the, whilst you may just end up in an argument over what's better with the latter.
Day9 on Youtube/Twitch discussed this comparison in some detail regarding the criticism of games in a video of his from a while back (I forget which one), but I feel like this could be used pretty much in any criticism.
April 19, 2016 7:58 a.m.
TheAnnihilator says... #22
I just want to point out that not all decks actually need to control the board. Back in Twin days, yes -- you needed a way to not die to the combo, but now there's a lot of incentive on getting your deck to just do what it does without much concern for what your opponent is doing. Burn is a good example -- why does this deck need artifact/enchantment removal in the mainboard? Most game ones, you literally just want to kill them as fast as possible with Lava Spikes, and Disenchant doesn't do anything for that plan (barring the unlikely game one Leyline of Sanctity, but that's what the sideboard is for).
Another good example is Infect -- they just want to make a Blighted Agent Become Immense with a bunch of pump spells and attack you with it. Does this deck really need that much removal? About the only way it actually tries to work around the opponent's permanents is Slip Through Space, since it's so fast that most things that aren't creatures just don't matter -- and it's a very good deck.
Sometimes, the opposite is true, however. If your game plan revolves around controlling your opponent, then you do need lots of versatile removal for anything they might do, like Counterspell, Anguished Unmaking, etc. A control deck basically is a bunch of removal with an eventual game-winning threat and some card advantage to tie it all together.
So, how much removal your decks needs is dictated by the strategy of your deck, and really shouldn't be a strict number for every list.
April 19, 2016 10:48 a.m.
Listen incredibruhahaha. My mommy taught me manners, I'm not sure if yours did though. Last I checked, it was considered rude to call someone out about their deck, and not tell them about it. I am the creator of Poison Is The Only Way To Die, and I am rather upset about this. I suggest that you learn manners. On Poison Is The Only Way To Die's comment page you accused me of not testing my deck. You told me that my creatures would get instantly removed, and then gave me no advice regarding this issue. While I admit that my deck is not very good at all, I am a relatively new player, and was trying to make the deck work. As it is, I (sarcastically) complement you on your eloquence. Thank you.
April 20, 2016 6:49 p.m.
VampireArmy should probably lock this before it spirals (even more) out of control.
April 20, 2016 7:08 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #25
Wtf is this thread? Epochalyptik what do you think?
Boza says... #2
Wait, what?
You are saying that everybody should work out on their own what is wrong? How does that make any sense?
You are currently advising people not to be part of a community, not to rely on other people and to not seek out help when they deem it needed.
This is probably a terrible advice for pretty much anything, but MTG - even more so. For example, There is (almost) no single pro player that is not part of a team.
Please try to restate what you mean by this post.
April 18, 2016 6:52 a.m.