Community

ix_deadend wrote:

1. 8 mana to double bounce? somehow i doubt that your opponent would allow that possibility after 7 turns.
2. i don't think raking canopy even targets so scion doesn't matter if i'm correct.
3. what does clique have to do with anything?

Your second and third questions answer each other. 5/5 clique laughs at raking canopy.

I've been playing bitterblossom control pretty heavily lately, and I have also realized that the shadowmoor hosers and RDW really put a hurting on this deck. Since Fae is arguably THE best deck in the format right now, people will be hating hard against it during regionals. RDW is very budget, pulling most of its threats out of the uncommon pool, fae is nearly all rares and very expensive. The more feasibly attained one will be played more.

Here is my current list:

// Lands
4 [MOR] Mutavault
4 [LRW] Secluded Glen
2 [10E] Faerie Conclave
4 [9E] Underground River
2 [TSB] Desert
4 [FUT] River of Tears
3 [IA] Island (3)

// Creatures
3 [LRW] Mistbind Clique
4 [LOR] Spellstutter Sprite
4 [LRW] Scion of Oona
4 [LRW] Pestermite
2 [MOR] Vendilion Clique

// Spells
4 [TSP] Ancestral Vision
4 [LOR] Nameless Inversion
4 [CS] Rune Snag
4 [LOR] Cryptic Command
4 [MOR] Bitterblossom

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [10E] Deathmark
SB: 4 [10E] Flashfreeze
SB: 4 [LOR] Thoughtseize
SB: 3 [LRW] Sower of Temptation

I kind of want to replace sower with terror for the RDW matchup. Despite the mass support for her, I feel like she is too easily dealt with, and I'd rather leave my mana untapped for counters and flash fae (this is true in any matchup, not just RDW. Against green I'd rather be untapped and prepared for thresher. Against other fae id rather not open myself to an easy rune snag. Since I seem to only be running into these 3 kinds of decks, Sower is always too risky.) The only other option for the spot is thoughtseize, but I'd rather not render my recent $72 investment useless. The general consensus seems to be that it is the creatures, not the burn, that is making RDW pack a harder punch right now. Since that is the case, I'd rather have a permanent answer like terror than a "save me for a turn" gnomes, or the too-ineffectual dragon claw. That's just my $.02.

And if anyone wants to critique the list since this is the first time I've officially posted it, that would be sweet.

How well will Faeries match up against a dedicated land destruction deck? Specifically this one: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1013563.

I personally think this could be a hard battle.

Question: Why is sage's dousing not covered in the OP?

I know it's bit of a fringe choice for a counterspell, but it's quite Viable in a Fae deck.
With Spellstutters, Sowers, and both the Cliques being Wizards in addition to being Faeries, there isn't many occasions that you won't get a cantrip out of it.

Now, I realize there are Cons too: it pushes your curve a little, and if you take it over Rune snag, then it shuts you out of a T2 counter... But if I'm honest, I find myself tapping out for Bitterblossom on T2 most of the time, even if I'm holding counterspells.

Wednesday Night Magic Tourney results:

THE DECK:


Prowler x4
Bitter Blossom x4
Oona's Blackguard x4
Spellstutter Sprite x4
Rune Snag x4
Scion Of Oona x4
Pestermite x4
Mistbind Clique x4
Notorious Throng x4

Faerie Conclave x 4
Secluded Glenn x 4
River Of Tears x 1
Urborg
7 Island
7 Swamps

SB
Terror x 4
Flashfreeze x 4
Sower Of Temptation x 3
Evacuation x 4



THE RESULTS:


Game one2-1, classic fae, cryptic command, bitterblossom, ancestral vision, scion, mistbind, spellstutter, familiars ruse, rune snag.

Game two2-0, mono black control, grave peril, korlash, tendrils, damnation, etc etcc.

Game three2-1, Merfolk aggro, very similar list compared to the average one that topped the champs. Reejery, lord of atlantis etc.

Game four2-0, Snow white, martyr, pegasus mesa, mobilisation, wrath, condemn, snow-draw engine, etc etc.

Another unbeaten record for the deck, beating one of the "you have to play cryptic command in fae" players along the way.

Other decks tonight included an identical fae deck to the recent 'best' deck at champs. That deck lost against the fae deck from game one, and lost against mono red burn.

White kithkin also was there etc etc.

Second place tonight was the Merfolk deck.


I know everyone in here seems to hate the deck listed above, but once again it has ousted it's competition, I thought I'd put it up since this is a new thread, with new results, and there may be some more players who are a little more open minded.

CyrusBales wrote:

Wednesday Night Magic Tourney results:

THE DECK:


Prowler x4
Bitter Blossom x4
Oona's Blackguard x4
Spellstutter Sprite x4
Rune Snag x4
Scion Of Oona x4
Pestermite x4
Mistbind Clique x4
Notorious Throng x4

Faerie Conclave x 4
Secluded Glenn x 4
River Of Tears x 1
Urborg
7 Island
7 Swamps

SB
Terror x 4
Flashfreeze x 4
Sower Of Temptation x 3
Evacuation x 4



THE RESULTS:


Game one2-1, classic fae, cryptic command, bitterblossom, ancestral vision, scion, mistbind, spellstutter, familiars ruse, rune snag.

Game two2-0, mono black control, grave peril, korlash, tendrils, damnation, etc etcc.

Game three2-1, Merfolk aggro, very similar list compared to the average one that topped the champs. Reejery, lord of atlantis etc.

Game four2-0, Snow white, martyr, pegasus mesa, mobilisation, wrath, condemn, snow-draw engine, etc etc.

Another unbeaten record for the deck, beating one of the "you have to play cryptic command in fae" players along the way.

Other decks tonight included an identical fae deck to the recent 'best' deck at champs. That deck lost against the fae deck from game one, and lost against mono red burn.

White kithkin also was there etc etc.

Second place tonight was the Merfolk deck.


I know everyone in here seems to hate the deck listed above, but once again it has ousted it's competition, I thought I'd put it up since this is a new thread, with new results, and there may be some more players who are a little more open minded.

I've come up with a more elegant and functional variant of Fae. Given that we all know how unverifiable results from a single poster are exactly what it takes to prove the effectiveness of a deck, here's the proof you all were looking for, as absolutely no one told me something like "it's no use posting results", so I will indeed post my results which constitutes proof.

THE DECK:


60 Islands

SB: 15 Islands

THE RESULTS:

Game one2-0 against Mannequin-Mage, because their Mage couldn't target my lands.

Game two2-0 against classic Fae because my Fae is better

Game three14-(-8) against a deck of 60 forests

Game four2-0 against UbaStax, even if the player managed to cheat the event an compete with a T1 deck.

This is the first of many certainly successful records for my new revolutionary Fae variants, in the face of all of you "you-must-play-spells" naysayers.

I hope someone is open minded enough to test this deck, so that it will win the Pro Tour: Alpha-Centauri, because on this planet these stupids netdeckers never have the courage to try lists that are this innovative and efficient, and that's why such decks never score and we have years of false gaming theory explaining us why they don't; when actually all the fault is of the competitive players, who would do anything to win including copying each one's suboptimal version of the deck instead of trying mine, which is stronger (but for some misfortuned case of fate they end up winning events nonetheless).