|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:23AM
#21
|
|
|
I have a question for the more old shool magic gamers. I've played DOTP since 09 and i've always thinnd my deck to 60 cards (apart from 09 as that wasn't an option). However, what's the deal with deck thinning when it comes to cards that replace themselves, such as the yavimaya elder [c] and [c] evolving wilds  . If a card can be used to gain cards, or lands, does the deck still require a maxiumum of 60 to be properly thinned? Furthermore, we need manual land count selection in 2014. I've noticed SS is terrible for land flooding, and sac'ing an elder often draws two lands (as it should) and a 3rd land. Rendering the card very ineffective. What are people's thoughts?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:26AM
#22
|
|
|
Ocal, yes you still want to be at 60 cards. Even with cantrips or deck thinning you still just want to hit your best cards more consistently.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:36AM
#23
|
|
|
Ocal, yes you still want to be at 60 cards. Even with cantrips or deck thinning you still just want to hit your best cards more consistently.
The pro's vs con's for including evolving wilds into SS seem to be in favour of the cons. With the amount of land fetch, adding those 4 extra cards over more creatures and spells seems pointless. Should i consider removing them completely and getting my deck down from (i think it's sat at 63) to 60?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:37AM
#24
|
|
|
None of the expansion deck should be running 61 cards. In the other decks, people would run 61 to offset having 24-25 land in a deck that didn't need that much land, to help balance the land to non-land ratio. However, in the expansion decks, you can run as few as 20 land (or 21 for MS) by removing the Evolving Wilds.
Duels of the Planeswalkers 2013 deck builds and analysis: http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/dotp2013/ Another one of my websites: http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/rationalchristianity/ 
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:40AM
#25
|
|
|
I think any deck that is trying to play 5 drops and above needs 24 land minimum.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:49AM
#26
|
|
|
None of the expansion deck should be running 61 cards. In the other decks, people would run 61 to offset having 24-25 land in a deck that didn't need that much land, to help balance the land to non-land ratio. However, in the expansion decks, you can run as few as 20 land (or 21 for MS) by removing the Evolving Wilds.
Don't most decks need the evolving wilds for land fixing? Where as in the case of SS land fixing is done by the creatures?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:53AM
#27
|
|
|
The problem is most of the fixing us double green so if you don't hit those you lose. I think the 4 fetchlands are crucial for SS. It has enough card advantage and removal tocatch up from a slow start but struggles with mana screw.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:56AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2006
|
Ocal, yes you still want to be at 60 cards. Even with cantrips or deck thinning you still just want to hit your best cards more consistently.
There is only one reason Magic players run 60 cards religiously and that's to sideboard (61+ cards and you lose your 15 card sideboard). Sideboarding doesn't exist in DotP so the adherance to 60 is a non-issue.
61 cards gives you one more card without the game auto-adding lands. Probably a big deal since 4 of the cards you're adding ARE lands.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:59AM
#29
|
|
|
I'll chime in on the Evolving Wilds discussion again. After playing around with a 0 Wilds build, I'm noticing that roughly 60% of the time it's fine, and the other 40% I have to cross my fingers or struggle for a few turns. Given that I'd prefer to eliminate as much of the luck factor as possible, I've been toying with varying amounts of the Wilds. Seems like 2 is the magic number for my build. Smooths over a lot of problems without land flood happening too terribly often.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 10:00AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2012
|
I think that this deck is that best resolves the problem of mana on the decks of the DLC taking many cards for mana.
|
|
|
