|
9 months ago ::
Sep 08, 2012 - 3:07AM
#1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 08, 2012 - 3:26AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2012
|
[*deck] Deck list [*/deck]
Remove the "*", Try that then put your texts after the deck.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 08, 2012 - 8:33PM
#3
|
|
|
Ah I see, done now.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 09, 2012 - 2:41AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2011
|
Hi, I'm having a slight problem balancing my vampire deck. I posted here because it's in modern format. Would running 30 creatures be any bad? I'm focusing mainly on aggro, but I like having a bit more of a backup incase Nocturnus can't get the job done, which unfortunately seems to have happened a lot. This is the deck here.
Creatures (28 x ) 2 x Malakir Bloodwitch 3 x Vampire Nocturnus 3 x Stromkirk Captain 3 x Gatekeeper of Malakir 2 x Kalastria Highborn 3 x Bloodghast 2 x Viscera Seer 2 x Ghuul Draz Vampires 4 x Vampire Lacerator 4 x Pulse Tracker
Spells (11 x )
2 x Tendrils of Corruption 2 x Go for the Throat 2 x Doom Blade 3 x Sign in Blood
Lands (21 x )
15 x Swamp 4 x Dragonskull Summit 2 x Verdant Catacombs
Malakir Bloodwitch is always helping me big time, shes great when I have tons of 1 drops and being my only 5 drop she usually bombs the field on turn 5 or 6. Nocturnus doesn't always rape and having 4 I would often draw him too early, and he's not amazing on his own.
Stromkirk Captain is one I really want to play 4. I was running 4 before and it's nice to give my weaker Vamps first strike and +1/+1 on turn 3. But running 3 seems to work cause I don't want him on turn 1 and he requires the Dragonskull Summit. Gatekeeper is awesone but he is another removal so I think 3 is fine, I also don't want him turn 1.
OK, I gotta ask, as a fan of Vamp decks, myself:
Why no Vampire Nighthawk ? He's fantastic, and a good attack deterrent, too. My sugggested decklist:
Creatures (28 x ) 2 x Malakir Bloodwitch 2 x Vampire Nocturnus 4 x Stromkirk Captain 4 x Gatekeeper of Malakir 3 x Kalastria Highborn 3 x Bloodghast 4 x Vampire Nighthawk 2 x Ghuul Draz Vampires 3 x Vampire Lacerator 3 x Pulse Tracker
Spells (11 x )
2 x Tendrils of Corruption 4x Murder (yeah, I know it costs more, but there aren't any resterictions on it.) 3 x Sign in Blood
Lands (21 x ) I usually run 24 lands, but you seem to be doing all right on the mana department.
15 x Swamp 4 x Dragonskull Summit 2 x Verdant Catacombs
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 09, 2012 - 9:10PM
#5
|
|
|
Well, I sideboard 2 Nighthawks, and while he is great, he seems to me to be more of a defensive card. I find myself having him as a dead draw in my hand because often on turn 3 or 4 I would be better off dropping a Stromkirk Captain and beefing up all my other vamps. I side 2 incase I go against an aggro heavy deck. As for Murder, yeah it has no restrictions but in the meta I face with this deck no one runs much black or artifact creatures. Would you say Tendrils is better than Feast of Blood? I was running 2 Feasts before but I'm not too sure, I like that Tendrils is an instant and doesn't require me to have 2 Vamps or more in play. The cost is the only problem.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 10, 2012 - 5:08PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2011
|
Well, I sideboard 2 Nighthawks, and while he is great, he seems to me to be more of a defensive card. I find myself having him as a dead draw in my hand because often on turn 3 or 4 I would be better off dropping a Stromkirk Captain and beefing up all my other vamps. I side 2 incase I go against an aggro heavy deck.
As for Murder, yeah it has no restrictions but in the meta I face with this deck no one runs much black or artifact creatures. Would you say Tendrils is better than Feast of Blood? I was running 2 Feasts before but I'm not too sure, I like that Tendrils is an instant and doesn't require me to have 2 Vamps or more in play. The cost is the only problem.
I ran 3 of each when I had my old Vamp deck. And I've usually used Feast a lot more often, but that might just be me.
As for Nighthawk, I use him both on defense and offense. He's a lifelinker, so you get healed every time he swings, and if you drop him on turn 4, you can have a Stromkirk Captain out already, and drop a Viscera or some such at the same time. I dunno, I just love the card, he's been in every incarnation of my Vampire deck from day 1.
My usual plays go like this:
Turn 1: Swamp, Lacerator, pass. Turn 2: Swamp, Blood Artist, swing with Lacerator, pass. Turn 3: Mountain/Dragonskull, Stromkirk Captain, swing with Lacerator, pass. Turn 4: Land (any), Nighthawk, some one-drop, swing with Lacerator and Captain, pass. Turn 5: Land, Blade of the Bloodchief , equip to Nighthawk, swing for the fence, pass if they live. Turn 6: If possible, Damnation and Darksteel Plate on the Nighthawk. Swing for the win.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 10, 2012 - 7:39PM
#7
|
|
|
Yeah Hawk is great but I think it's better to drop a Nocturnus on turn 4. Then Bloodwitch if it gets to turn 5 or 6 to allow you to remain competetive late game. I definitely bring Hawk for multiplayer and drop Lacerators.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 10, 2012 - 11:52PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 18, 2012
|
My suggestions... Cut: Sign in Blood and some creature removal Add in: Inquisition of Kozilek Lightning Bolt Blightning Vampire Nighthawk and you'll need to add more red
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 2:34AM
#9
|
|
|
My suggestions... Cut: Sign in Blood and some creature removal Add in: Inquisition of Kozilek Lightning Bolt Blightning Vampire Nighthawk and you'll need to add more red
I would love to run Lightning Bolts but the fact that it's pure red hurts my Nocturnus. Inquisition is nice, I suppose I can swap Duress from my SB for those. Blightning seems good too. But I'm still pretty set on Nighthawk being better on the SB.
|
|
|