you can put a derelor in it and speed it up too...

Play against Boros Bushwacker. Play against Jund. Play against A pyromancer control deck. post results.

I see a guy playing a kor based deck and to me its just not strong at all and laugh. Taking a deck idea like this would need a better match up. I can test your deck list out against several people and probably get stomped. Something like lightning aggro would only work with white because of the cheap anthem effects and cheap spot removal but in the long run it runs out of gas. You lose card advantage and the match is over quick.

Good idea, requires more thought i think.

also having counted the cards you had in hand by the end of your opponents turn 4 you have 1 card in hand; 2 after you draw. With 4 swamps you have no way of winning two turns later.

Admittedly Vamps is by far the best the others were posted for options. Many players see the Vamp deck and laugh and that is their folly.

Dear Robot,

Firstly I did not play a fourth turn swamp, Secondly I won in two turns hence two draws and finally how I won: A sided Sign in Blood followed by a Guul Draz Vampire . He plays a land and ends (no doubt his hand full of unecessary lands). I draw and swing dropping a card:Vampire's Bite on my Guul Draz. He draws into a Journey to Nowhere and plays it on my Guul Draz then plays a Kabira Crossroads . I use the final card in my hand a sided Needlebite Trap and win.

There is more than one way to win in this situation (others not requiring sides) and I suggest you look over articles more carefully in future before posting rash and boldly stated accusations.

My final Critique of your comments so far is that using words like probably with no backing especially after reading an article designed to educate those that doubt the ability of the deck is very naive of you.

Scores so far:

Vamps v Jund 2-0 (consistently) Vamps v Eldrazi 2-0 (consistently) Vamps v Naya 2-0 (consistently) Vamps v Mono red Burn 2-1 (one game) Vamps v Esper 2-0 (without fail to date) Vamps v Bant 2-0 (consistently)

I will be playing in several tournaments and continue posting results until you are sated.

The Turbo Aggro Vamp wins faster enough against an Eldrazi deck, other Vamp decks and all Jund, Naya, Esper & Bant (have not played a Grixx) decks to date. By the time these decks (especially Vamps) runs out of steam you are already three turns dead.

For those who think this deck type is not up to scratch I look forward to the jaw drop when you lose embarassingly, it is most satisfying to see.

A possible addition of Bloodchief Ascension would interesting in this build.

Gonna sleeve this deck up next fnm for sure.

I would have to agree with robot on this one.. what kind of jund deck loses to freaking lacerator for one... and for 2 you lost a minimum of 3 life for the lacerators so you would have been on 21.. I wanna know what kind of crappy decks youve been playing... you dont beat bushwacker.. you dont beat white weenie and you deff dont beat grix. The 15 land cheap vamps isnt good at all considering the best cards in vamps are tendrils, nocturnus, and bloodwitch. I also wanna know if you cry against white knight because it sounds like you lose it up hard to it.

@ C&K White knight isnt played quite as often as you think anymore, and TurboVamps, does have a consistant win. Sadly you do beat bushwacker, you can beat almost any deck to be honest. You remind me of the kid I played and he said 'who plays the sigil sergeant, you'll never beat me, game by turn 5" same kid who happened to look all choked up turn 6 when he lost....

Jund is NOT invincible.

I think most people are getting bent out of shape by this article because it's more of an anecdote of personal match-ups rather than an article that highlights the strengths of Turbo Aggro.

While I don't doubt its viability as a deck type in format (a monoblack deck did go 5-1 recently in a similar vein), I would be hard pressed to say that it will "sodomize" the other decks in the format.

The main problem I see with Turbo Aggro right now is that in order to have access to the best removal, you need to splash another color at least; the three examples of each color given (barring white) aren't varied enough to deal with all deck types. I intend to keep my eyes open to see if Turbo Aggro presence increases in the format, but the guys at Worlds tend to know what they're doing, and it certainly wasn't dominating the show. And I don't think that's on account of Turbo Aggro being secret to them.

My two cents.

i played a turbo-aggro deck last night, before i knew it had a name.

jund-wiener-factory

it didn't do too bad. problem is that it's SO dependent on the opening draw, maybe too much so. but it can safely mulligan down to 5 or so.

id love for this deck to come play with me and my friends:) itd be powned but alright idea and concept just couldnt compete i think not against jund, naya aggro or black blue control theyre just too fast at getting rid of everything

I think the deck IS underrated, for the reason that it does tend to get badly housed by certain cards that are actually very popular. Day of Judgment and you win, Mind Funeral and you win, etc. If it can avoid decks that use these cards, it tends to build up too quickly.

I find that this archetype DOES do extremely well against mono-green Eldrazi, and is very competitive with Jund and Vamps, which is of course important. But I've seen similar decks suffer against mono-white, RDW, black/red/Grixis control, or anything mill-y.

The Archetype is not invincible neither is the example. The point of the article was to grab attention with a pretentious title so that people would test a Turbo Aggro deck, see for themselves how well it can run and as a result Turbo Aggro would get the respect it deserves. A well played Turbo Aggro deck will surprise and beat a lot more decks than most of you would realise. I have found that it works especially well against players that beleive it will be a pushover. I would love to see a deck designed specifically to beat turbo aggro that still works well against other decks or for those literalists specifically the example deck.

For those who would build a Turbo Aggro deck. They are not just straight forward there are good decisions and bad ones and each is based on the situation and more importantly what the opponent has in hand (which you should be able to make reasonable guesses from what they're playing). If you play Turbo Aggro you need to avoid having an opposing field presence (which is why I find against the better Jund decks the winner is whoever plays first)

I have thought perhaps I should sleeve up some of the decks of those who have posted and get my Brother (he came top eight at Nationals so he is not a tragic player) to play them against me. My issue here is that posting the results would involve naming the decks and hence angering or upsetting those that lose badly.

Sorry for the Double post.

In order of posts:

Thankyou to those that actually play tested a Turbo Aggro deck (Dark Tower, Mr Spook, Jund Hotdog e.t.c.)

@ C&K my apologies for the miscount on the lacerators. Protection from Black does hurt but without any other field presence a Gatekeeper is an easy solution. The best cards in Vamps are arguably Tendrils, Nocturnus and Bloodwitch but every other Vamp deck containing those cards is taken home and is has those cards put on side and then takes out three lands for Blades. The Example is one of the better Vampire decks in standard.

@ Zanven Yes it is perhaps that which is rowing people up but I knew that if I didn't in some way seem overly confident or even arrogant about the deck style's capabilities it would not be taken notice of. I don't actually beleive it will sodomize the standard. I think it will go well and beat a lot of the Robot C&K's out there. I would be interested to see a turbo aggro deck played at Worlds althoug it is probably to much of a risk for the stakes they play. Thankyou for your two cents I'm on my way to a dollar by the look of things.

@ Jund Hotdog When you say dependent you mean it needs A LAND right? It is quite playable with a single land for the first few turns. It helps to have more but it's not essential. I meant it when I said the example deck should almost never need a mulligan. I have certainly never mulliganed with it. 4 in 15 cards are land so you have good chances of drawing into your 2nd with only one in hand. I'd keep a one land hand. Even more so in Red Turbo Aggro.

@ Mexico I'd love to if you happen to be anywhere nearby (same country even). It's odd you say "they're just to fast at getting rid of everything" that's exactly what Turbo Aggro is supposed to do but while it's doing that it gets creatures out as well. That in the business is what we call a twofor (pronounced toofer).

@ Krazy they do often lose to Mill that's why you should never search your library, because it's a trap (Archive Trap ). Mind Funeral is pretty much the Archetype bane. If you realise they are close to being able to drop a Day of Judgment you stop playing creatures and beat down with what you have. I am yet to face a Grixis and that is unfortunate. Sadly they are uncommon in my area so if you could recommend one I could sleeve and play that would be great.

there is only one true turbo aggro.. and its mono red.. play small creatures up until turn 4.. and finish them with burn.. its a simple concept that has been around for 10 years "Sligh"

wait until the next set comes out---Mono Blue will be back to combat all of these "midrange" decks that are overplayed simply because that is what the pro's are playing... and the market will be back to aggro..

at this moment BOROS is the fastest

great article --im not trying to argue against your point...

i think every deck is playtested against this type of deck and then the rest of the format... if you cant beat a wheenie deck with 12 cheap removal spell's then dont even bother trying to beat a control deck...

I just don't feel comfortable with less than 20... Especially with so many 3 colour decks out there. Tho, I do understand that this is potentially a good deck style.

I would be comfortable running 15 lands if I had Birds of Paradise , Lotus Cobra , Harrow and Khalni Heart Expedition and maybe card:Explorer's Scope ... For standard anyway. But this isn't really "turbo aggro."

And as for Vamps you really should be running 24 lands. This is because a huge Vamp contender is Bloodghast ... if you don't have the lands then landfall isn't really going to coincide well with this ability. Amirite?

Come on wit it

Armillary Sphere is worth two lands in one card...

18 lands with this card and you should not run into problems

yes im in the country ny to be specific(i actually know spook if you wanna double check) and the point im making is rdw and bushwackers has seen significant play in my area and most decks i know of are prepared to stop fast decks if a turbo deck doesnt have a win in 5 turns it loses amongst the decks i play with and one of the kids is a ptq winner so turbo vamps or any aggro can do great if people are not prepared for it but its like white weenie which is dead....you need a late turn kill and turbo doesnt really have that which is why rdw and bushwackers lose after turn 5 or 6 just too maany answers...white has too many answers with harms way, path and thats just one color....but time sieve is one deck this deck would win against consistently if it went off by turn 4 or 5

ohh and sorry for the double post but black blue control/mill is my main deck right now....so itd be a bad match up

if you build a deck that tops out at cc=2 (and no more than 4 of those) i think turbo aggro can run with as few as 16 lands, provided that half of those are capable of producing all the colors you need.

agreed that red is the color to use if you go mono, but i think r/b is more solid and offers more combos against midrange, as well as Terminate , which is really the only removal with no drawbacks or restrictions. i think a lot of people were surprised when i played a turbo aggro jund deck and either won or got most everyone down to 5 or less life in a few turns before losing (admittedly, the latter happened more often).

i think the burning-inquiry / Bloodchief Ascension combo is the answer to this problem of the deck running out of steam. the beauty of this deck is that it doesn't need more than 2 lands on the battlefield and the 3 discards aren't really an issue since it's not like it depends on bombs. but they can totally screw up pretty much any other type of deck.

r/b-turbo

not sure about the refuges, but i tend to think they're just as viable as Dragonskull Summit , which is most likely going to come into play tapped anyway in a deck like this. at least the refuge helps with the lacerators a bit.

turbos problem is by turn 5 it usually fizzles out...its a good if it goes off but early removal takes a lot of steam out of it and first strike hurts it too but then again everything has a drawback to it

@ Mexico (Specifically in relation to the black Vamps Turbo Aggro) The Bloodchief Ascension and Blade of the Bloodchief are there to keep it running strong after turn five. If I equip the blade it works like a Coalition Flag Equipment just because of how much hate it generates. The Bloodchief Ascension is another treat and they rob the opponent of what little artifact or enchantment removal they are playing.

Possible changes to the Vamp deck include taking out some or all of the Bloodghast s and Blood Seeker s and throw in Quest for the Gravelord s and more Bloodchief Ascension s.

Even if these cards are removed they are both one cast and gives you the card advantage since they have spent an extra mana on removal. That extra mana came from an extra mana source that you didn't need.

In mono Red and White there are cards that drag it out into late game.

Wow, way to write a controversial article. :)

As far as I can tell, people that say there's a set number of lands that should always be included in Magic decks don't really understand how the game works - I feel like 20 lands is a good baseline, but I'll scrap that number in a second to adjust for the way a particular deck actually plays.

I'm curious about the role that card advantage plays in this sort of archetype - it seems like you'd run out of steam quickly... but Vampires are great at trading with bigger creatures at the moment, so maybe it'd work out okay. I wonder what Turbo Aggro versus Turbo Fog would look like?

Also, it'd be sweet if there was some sort of decklist embed function for articles like this that showcase a particular build - hmmm...

@Tama: very true i was wrong to say that there wasn't a possible way to win. A needlebite trap was a very blind sighting way to win imo. Good call lol

I played a turbo aggro deck today while using A-hole Island (my control deck) and slapped it down hard. Still not sated with with the fact it could have been just a bad match up i whipped up a quick Pauper deck (its composed of only commons for those that do not know the format) and played it once again just to test the capability and potential of the deck. I still beat it down. Yet i realized that my deck fitted the the archetype "turbo aggro". However it was an irrelevant issue due to the fact i have only commons at my disposal. People making this build can make it work however in a strong meta FNM or PTQ or Regional or State match, you wont see it compete without slapping in a bomb or two.

Turbo aggro decks that i have seen people try to build have alot of creatures in with only 2 to a max of 3 toughness without many bombs and without those stupid OP creatures like Jwar Jwar Sphinx (Sphinx of Jwar Isle ), Walletslayer (Baneslayer Angel ), or the runner up for highest casting bomb drop Bogardan Hellkite you might not be able to get in those last few points in case something bad hits the board and you cant get in with your creatures or they arent low enough to bolt to death.

After Worlds, which recently ended people are looking up those decks and asking mommy and daddy for money to build them without realizing how to use them. Thats why FNMs and what nots are easy to go in with a Rogue deck like these. Just look at the strength and weaknesses of the Deck. Going Lone Rogue at a FNM is a strength, but back up your dudes with some defense, cause all it oculd take early game is a bolt here or there or a fallout once to knock you back to square one.

Mexico is correct, you'd have serious issues in our area. Upstate NY, if your in the area feel free to message me on here i'll give you my cell (Formal Invite to come fizzle).. U/W control is my main right now. he'll still building it. The sad thing is, removal or not you'll probably fizzle or end up hitting a wall of 'no' against most of our decks.\

Mex knows his stuff.

My opinion is the same as mattlohkamp, different decks require a different amount of lands. There is no set amount of lands required for a "good" deck.

However, Zanven raises a good point, the people at worlds know what they are talking about and they mostly run 24 land decks.

But, who is to say that a unique build that circumvents the norm will fail? Maybe one of those unique builds will take the Magic world by storm.

Regardless, I have seen the discussed deck in action, and while I believe it should be playtested more thoroughly, just to be certain (partly because of the controversy) it IS a competitive deck.

Additionally, as Tama stated, it is also largely dependent on the player, and the decisions they make.

Just an opinion, one amongst many.

just like spook said we are always down for playing if you are around cny or upstate ny and aggro has seen very little play due to the harsh amount of hate it sees here....i do agree though 24 lands doesnt need to be staple i usually play 20 or 18 depending on my deck but if im using fetch alot 2 is not a bad land count...depends on the deck but going below 18 can lead to very bad circumstances in game play

I think that this has turned into a debate about what deck is best. If we stay on the original topic I think that TAMA is right about one thing. people who insist that all decks require a certain amount of land do not understand the game. What is the point of analyzing your mana curve if you are unwilling to adjust for more or less land. Not all decks play landfall. Not all decks use land as their main mana source (more for T1). If I have 19 lands in an elf deck with other acceleration. I will most likely be fine, without a mulligan.

@ Mex and Mr. Spook I live in Australia. I would love to give you guys a run but can't.

Just for those who are interested. I played the example deck against what are considered to be the best decks in standard (Naya Lightsaber, Jund Cascade, Eldrazi Green, Boros Bushwhacker) and beat them with ease. I played what are to be considered (relatively) the lesser decks in standard (Esper Mill, Ball Lightning Burn, Bant, Esper Control) and had my Ass Fedexed home. As is always the trend people attempt to build decks that can stand their ground against what the pros are playing. This Archetype is exactly the same thing it is controversial because it is so far distant from the considered Norm. I do beleive that of you that have said it will get "powned" you haven't given Turbo Aggro a fair chance. It won't do marvellously against control but it won't bite the dust turn four either. People should treat all new ideas in general as blind mice.

Turbo Aggro is just completing the Scissor, Paper, Rock, Lizard, Spock of Magic. You have Turbo Aggro, Combo, Rock, Aggro and Control. I am not by any means limiting all magic decks to these five Archetypes, merely throwing out my findings after playing a lot of other decks with a variety of Turbo Aggro decks. Judge me and mine well.

Robot did you say you built a turbo aggro deck out of commons? thats so awsum

I played the example deck against what are considered to be the best decks in standard (Naya Lightsaber, Jund Cascade, Eldrazi Green, Boros Bushwhacker) and beat them with ease........

LOL

I'm not an elitist. But your example game was not..the best way to get your point across... wtf is a kor deck? Yes, of course if your 16 land deck manages to drop it's first three lands and pull it's creature destruction while meeting two vamp requisites against a deck with apparently no removal of it's own, you will in fact win. Frankly, that's like me using that exact deck as a test dummy against my turbo fog. It simply can't win. As far as testing against lightsaber and winning easily, particularly post game one. In any case, turbo aggro already exists in bushwhacker. It's the fastest deck to appear in standard since... what, fireblast and ball lightning were together?

Anyway, I'm glad you started a discussion on turbo aggro, but I think more versatile options are available for the job.

@DevouringFlame I have posted four turbo aggro decks one of which is bushwhacker-burn. The example game was against a fast aggro deck. The guy thought he would win and at worst would drop a day of judgment to save him the game. As you may have noticed it was a sided game and he was not expecting me to have sided in card draw or Needlebites. A Kor deck is a deck comprised mainly of Kor's. kor-turbo-aggro and Kor Rebellion]] are examples of such.

The example game was only there to show that it could survive a fourth turn Day of Judgment .

"As far as testing against lightsaber and winning easily, particularly post game one." was there more to that? It usually go to whoever plays but if vamps gets a Blade of the Bloodchief out early it's practically scoop time, which is why it will win 3-2.

If you reduces the land count as well as the mana curve, you are effectively maintaining the same card/land ratio. It's not rocket science, but it is a good way to speed up any deck.

You made mention that there is a lot of skepticism regarding the idea of Turbo Agro... I'd wager that that is perhaps a matter of perspective based on location and/or experience with your meta. While other "turbo'esk" decks are certainly favored in the format, I've read plenty of online banter regarding Turbo Agro specifically. It's out there, but like most turbo styled decks, I think folks are struggling with card advantage or just getting it ironed out to 'click' the way they expect it to.

Regardless, an entertaining albeit slightly "agro" read all the same.

People should calm down, and try to think of a better way to criticize constructively. A fast deck that purposely runs low mana to maximize threat output is viable, but the problem lies in if your opponent can stall out to even MIDgame there is a decent chance you'll get your face crushed in.

In my jund, I run 4 lightning bolts mainboard, 3 terminates mainboard, 1 side, and 3-4 magma spays sideboard to make sure if I come against turbo-aggro/bushwhacker/eldrazi I have the answers for that early game stomping.

But as for low cost aggro decks where you can't afford to be land flooded, consider filter lands, running 20 land with 4 Verdant Catacombs is often better than running 16 and risking getting screwed. It filters out the spot it takes in your land base for 1 life - better than not having the swamp.

Thanks Sitromis and Illiad. I was thinking of upping the land count but then I won a game with one land on table so I was ok with it being low. Verdant Catacombs throws off the idea of the deck. I bought it when zendi was new so at that point it was dirt cheap and Verdant Catacombs throws that off entirely. Even if I did run it, it wouldn't be upping my land count it would be subbing in for swamps. 16 is really enough.

I played with this deck you posted here, with some minor adjustments it was easily on par with any other deck teir-1 in standard. Won some, lost some. Just like all the others.

I really don't understand all the fuss, its a fast aggro deck. How many mana I have in my deck really doesn't matter when I'm smashing your face every turn regardless... There will always be turbo-aggro decks in magic...

Are you guys still talking about that Vamp it up deck that he used as an example...??

trust me --with out Tendrils of Corruption to stabalize--

you wont beat Mono red----100% of the time...

20-0 RDW

If i may put mt two sense in....No one can win all games 100 percent of the time. you may win a tournament with a deck..and the next day lose to a ten year old's deck. It's all about draws and luck. True less lands= better draw power. However if you played against a land destruction deck or a mill deck...you might get stomped. Very good ideas...no one can make an invincible deck. If someone could it would be all over the internet and everyone would have one. Remeber this is supposed to be constructive criticism, so don't go bashing one deck, or another person's ideas. Be open, state your opinion kindly, and if you can't kindly take your opinions and rudness somewhere else. I think this would be an excellent deck, however against certain decks, it might not hold upp so well. Against a mill, land destruction, or even an old elf deck, this might be stomped. Twenty lands is enough...sixteen might be too little...24 is too much....

Question: Is this a tournament legal deck? Please provide possible main/side deck list if possible, or a better idea of what is included.

Thank you for reading...and have a plesant day =)

@ Bensoj I deeply disagree with you. I am currently on the road to recovery and have very little to do so I thought I'd proxy up your rdw-states deck and get my brother to play my deck against whilst I used yours. I tried my very best and by no means to offend you but the result was 20-0 in favour of Vamp it up. Demolish on your sideboard was the best strategy I found but his Blade of the Bloodchief won the game as soon as it hit the table same for Bloodchief Ascension . Vampire Nighthawk 's life gain demeaned RDW and coupled with card:Vampire's Bite ment I never got a look in. I got him down to Lightning bolt range but he used the life gain to bounce back up to 10 whilst dropping me to 5.

@Patal absolutely agree with you. I get stomped by a good mill deck 90% of the time Land destruction I fair a little better against.

The example deck is tournament Legal and you can find its listing here Vamp it up.

Your deck must have been working abnormaly fast cuz you say 3 lands are rare on turn 3.

Are you sure 18 lands would help alot more than being screwed at two and not being able to play gatekeeper or nighthawk?

Ok This decks consept is alright but This deck is honestly the worst deck iv ever ran at a fnm. I lost 3 match ups in a row to stupid 24-26 land count decks. this deck not only sucks in the late game but the only way you can win a game is with lucky draws and every deck in standard runs some sort of anti-vampire sideboard. vampires are the most exspected least powerful tribal deck run today. It will be better when world wake comes out but I mean when slivers first happend they wernt this bad. They need to reprint alot of the old good vampires: Mirri the Cursed , Skeletal Vampire and lots of other things like Bad Moon and Corrupt and more vampire boosts like noctourness. Vampires are hyped and thats all that is. elves in standard run better than them.

Did you play the example deck Vamp it up or your own Vamp deck?

I played your deck. with slight varrients i added one nocternous and favored blooghast over hexmage even thought hexmage is pretty awsome i ended up running 2 bloodghasts and useing all the hexmages in the sideboard.

Every game i played i won 1 lost 2 after they sideboarded it was game over. On a positive note your very clever for this idea but i doubt it would do good in any tourtement play. better for casual.

See there is your first issue. You changed it. Vampire Nocturnus is to slow and Vampire Hexmage is a millions times better than Bloodghast . You can sack a Hexmage to boost a Vampire Lacerator with two Blades on it. Also Hexmage beats RDW and it kills planeswalkers. You got thrashed because you chose late game options. Vampires that return from grave a useless if you are going for a turn 5 kill and so is Nocturnus it paints a target on itself. I deliberately don't play it because people save their removal for it and I don't run it. They tend to realise that after I beat them. I can teach you to play turbo aggro but you have to stop trying to play aggro. There is no late game that's how it works. You kill them before they start or you lose and if you play well you will beat even the fastest 24 land decks purely because they have to many lands.

RDW wins easily if you cant kill the plated geopedes straight away, and im not sure how it would beat jund when sprouting thrinax is just as good dead as alive

But i see that it would smash eldrazi green, naya and possible even bant to bits... I wonder how itl go against my new junk... We should play test it soon...

I wan2 see it play white weeny and token generation decks, i thought it would be an intresting match up, almost a mirror match

Btw you guys do realise that white weeny is top 8'ing everywhere so it is obviously not dead

and some white weenys play only 16 lands