I hope this is what you meant by "message":) This is my deck: My G/R Casual You replied to my question about playing modern. I was wondering if you could help me a bit with my deck. A few cards are gone temporarily in exchange for some recent draft cards i wanted to play with, but this is my deck. This is my first and only deck, so there is no particular theme. If you could help me, that would be great Ps I was consideting taking Grunn, the Lonely King out to replace with more Multani, Yavimaya's Avatar's. Thanks, Matt
July 17, 2018 11:37 p.m.
Please login to comment
Welcome to the site! I think the best way to get into modern is to buy $30 stompy, budget burn or elves. These decks can be built cheaply and actually win games. Later they can be upgrade into decks capable of winning an FNM. This will give you a good starting point and more importantly let you start to learn the format. After you get some experience you can then start to brew your own list! It's just difficult to build a functioning deck if you don't have a reference point to the power level of the meta
July 20, 2018 1:34 p.m.
I dont get it, I see unlimited mana on t2 but how do you win?
July 20, 2018 1:22 p.m.
Izzet Burning Yet? this should be the correct link!
I always use the name found in the url for the link, that'll keep you from linking the wrong deck
July 19, 2018 9:48 p.m.
It would be interesting in grixis for sure but unfortunately thing is an unfortunate nombo with tas and angler. Maybe the same creature base with the extra support from red and black?
It is so rough on a broke college student.... I just have a hard time throwing money at it
July 19, 2018 8:35 p.m.
That's interesting so it would become 4 snap, 4 thing, 4 serpent, 2 click maybe? We'd probably also have to drop retort? T2 thing t3 retort t4 snap retort doesnt seem amazing.
I've kind of pushed the project to the side, money is tight, but I took my budget UR delver thing list to a small event (my first modern event ever) and it felt really good! Went 1-3 but had some great matches. I didnt feel like any of the match ups were unwinnable
July 19, 2018 7:42 p.m.
Those rules are pretty standard across all formats! that's why you have multiple colors in most decks, to cover each colors weakness. Personally I love blue based decks, I love to disrupt my opponents game plan while advancing my own. I know that this is a Wikipedia article but this has allot of helpful information about the different types of decks.
July 18, 2018 3:14 p.m.
That's totally fine! I keep my first deck around double sleeved in it's own case! It's nothing special but it's a blast and I'm pretty attached to it
July 18, 2018 3:05 p.m.
Xica by fine tuned I meant that the deck has been tested and theres a reason behind the numbers. I am fully aware of flex spots BUT what is put into those spots is largely dependent on the meta as well as personal preference and play style. I am by no means a spike that gets sucked into the current popular metta decks but when it comes down to playing subpar vs optimal cards there is always a clear answer. Currently as it sits this list is full of subpar options and OP will have to include more viable options to run with meta decks. I am also a believer in the viability of budget brews, especially at the FNM level.
MJS154 so for your next step I would start by looking at decks like the one that I posted on your wall and other variants. More aggro or more midrange and play test those lists. That'll start to give you an idea of what's powerful and what works. After that I would start to brew your own creation and play test it! After it feels smooth I'd start putting it together and start playing! This is what I've done and it's been a very rewarding process, I'm constantly brewing and testing and I've gotten a a list (and by no means a meta deck) viable enough to play at FNM!
July 18, 2018 9:51 a.m.
If I were you I would try and turn your list into something like this. I would first upgrade your mana base and then your creatures
July 18, 2018 8:37 a.m.
As it sits your deck is fine for table top with your buddies but unfortunately tournament level lists are just on an entire different planet. Competitive decks are $800+ and are fine tuned and to either win on turn 3/4 or keep you from playing magic and as it sits your deck just cant keep up. Personally if I was you I'd purchase a budget deck like elves or $30 stompy if you just wanted to have some fun at an FNM.
BUT if you where to put maybe $80ish dollars in your GR you would have a decent starting point (that would play similar to your original list just streamlined) to enjoy at FNM and you could slowly upgrade it into something like ponza
That's what I did, i started with budget UR delver (went 1-3 at my last event but I had great games) and I'm slowly upgrading it
July 17, 2018 9:48 p.m.
I think I would go to 4 visions and scour and then use opt to fill up your remaining slots but looks good! Let me know how it does if you ever take it to FNM
July 13, 2018 4:16 p.m.
Boza I'll agree that i over simplified deck building BUT when I looked at power levels and the number of each rarity in a given list, I dont think that it is a coincidence that the number of each rarity is actually very close and that each list has a score ranging from 130-160 (using common =1 uncommon =2 ect, and excluding sides). Those uncommons may have pushed humans over the edge (it gave them a near painless mana base) but that doesnt take away from the value of Cavern of Souls and Aether Vial or the fact that it still plays around 35 rares. So if we where to rebuild humans for the proposed format we would have to choose some suboptimal choices instead of running the most efficient cards possible. We would have to cut some rares and mythics for uncommons and Cummons. So the optimal list gets much more grey because of the added "cost of cards" it's no longer just what does it do for the mana cost but you have to take into account how much space it takes up of your 100 points.
cdkime I agree that the algorithm idea is just much to confusing but could assigning a score based on just rarity be simple enough? Or do you think that it is still so vaugue?
I'm honestly just intrigued on if this is version viable at this point
July 12, 2018 2:20 p.m.
It happened to me a few times last night, next time I'll post a screen shot.
July 12, 2018 7:35 a.m.
I don't really understand the need for all of the extra points, competitive 60 card decks barely run 4 drops much less 5 and up. Planes walkers barely see competitive play, I also think that your over valuing draw affects like visions. Visions doesnt net you additional cards it simply thins your deck out while smoothing out your draw.
I also think it's fine if people want to waste points on fancy mana bases. By themselves fetches dont increase the power of your lists
My goal isn't to eliminate people's ability to play their $200 cards or make ultra budget decks tier 1. I just want a healthier format where modern tier 3-2 strategies have a leg to stand on, theres a lower investment ceiling on a powerful list and deck building is more complex than just jamming all of the most efficient cards possible
I also realize that I should probably just play pauper XD
July 11, 2018 7:52 p.m.
So I calculated the score of some teir 1 modern lists (not including sides and using the 1-4 scoring system) and the average score came out to be around 140.
My 2 test decks (Budget Stompy and Load Out Delver) came out to be around 70 without sideboard so I think that if we simply set the limit to be 100 points, including side, using the lowest printed rarity, we could have a pretty interesting format.
It will take a group of people to really test this out and build a few different decks (especially combo decks, I think they are going to be our biggest issue) to find out just how balanced or broken that it could become
July 11, 2018 4:56 p.m.
Yea I'm leaning toward just using the rarity. It's a simple solution that will still allow us to limit the power of the decks. It's the easiest way to explain it to players entering the format as well integrating new sets. Every time a new set is printed, some alteration to the algorithm would have to be made, to account for new interactions.
I'm going to check out a few tier one lists and check out there score and then cross reference that with the score of our test lists. I'm thinking the score limit should be 100 give or take
July 11, 2018 4:05 p.m.
apohl13 Oona's Prowler is the perfect beater for once we have the lock established, delver isn't reliable because the top card of our library is no longer changing, it has evasion, and our opponent is very unlikely to discard to because that is the only resource that they have and if they do choose to discard than it puts us that much further ahead.
Ob Nixilis, Unshackled is interesting and is basically an insta win but 6 mana could be tough to accomplish in a delver deck but it would be worth testing!
July 11, 2018 3:08 p.m.
Wizards has kind of already given us a kind of power assessment in the rarity of cards, I wonder if it would work better to assign a value for the rarity and track it that way?
This would greatly simplify our system and would alleviate any bias. Unfortunately we would probably have to have some kind of ban list....
Idk the algorithm seems like a neat idea but i'm not sure how practical it will be in the long run.
July 11, 2018 1:03 p.m.
I guess we could also scrap the algorithm altogether and manually assess the power of each card and assign a number but then that adds some level biased into our system
July 11, 2018 12:47 p.m.
maxon honestly I dont know the correct answer. The 2 things I can think of is to either create a separate item for each variation of interaction and ability or create the algorithm with super generalized generic statements that can cover multiple scenarios with a single value. Neither one of these is a great solution
July 11, 2018 12:44 p.m.
SCORE: 18 | 35 COMMENTS | 1859 VIEWS | IN 8 FOLDERS
SCORE: 10 | 6 COMMENTS | 727 VIEWS | IN 3 FOLDERS
SCORE: 7 | 36 COMMENTS | 992 VIEWS | IN 2 FOLDERS
SCORE: 9 | 7 COMMENTS | 954 VIEWS | IN 4 FOLDERS
SCORE: 15 | 20 COMMENTS | 1732 VIEWS | IN 10 FOLDERS
SCORE: 9 | 13 COMMENTS | 1658 VIEWS | IN 9 FOLDERS
SCORE: 3 | 34 COMMENTS | 1128 VIEWS
|Playing since||Journey into Nyx|
|Avg. deck rating||10.19|
|Good Card Suggestions||56|
|Last activity||1 day|