Golgari (unrefined, getting there)

Standard Sixty3Zero

14 COMMENTS | 861 VIEWS


gorgonauta92 says... #1

slitherhead is really good in this deck!

October 20, 2012 5:21 a.m.

Sixty3Zero says... #2

I took Slitherhead out a while ago, because it mainly just served as Lotleth Troll fodder. However, now that it's gone, I can't help but find I can't ditch anything for the Troll. They may find their way back in, but I don't know.

October 20, 2012 1 p.m.

gorgonauta92 says... #3

otherwise..in my opinion it is better than sluiceway scorpion,which is 4mana cost.

October 21, 2012 8:14 a.m.

zandl says... #4

Sluiceway Scorpion is just too slow and its Scavenge is too small for it to be a real threat.

I'd go down to 3 Abrupt Decay and 2 Golgari Charm , then look for more removal. Tragic Slip is pretty good.

October 21, 2012 3:23 p.m.

Sixty3Zero says... #5

I usually ditch the Scorpion for Lotleth Troll and it's low scavenge cost is pretty helpful. In the long run, I may just replace it with Gravecrawler though.

I've been thinking of cutting Decays and Charms since they usually just end up cluttering my hand. I like the idea of Tragic Slip.

October 21, 2012 4:16 p.m.

zandl says... #6

Not sure who you're playing against, but Decay and Charms should never just be sitting in your hand. Unless your opponents simply never play spells, they'll be useful.

October 21, 2012 4:27 p.m.

Sixty3Zero says... #7

They are useful, however not immediately. I've usually playtested this against an Izzet deck, which doesn't play enough permanents worth throwing Decay at and Charm isn't immediately useful either. I'll have to playtest against other decktypes, but for the most part, I think cutting a Decay and putting it in the sideboard will be the better option in the long run.

So I'm thinking: -1 Decay -2 Charm +3 Tragic Slip

-3 Sluiceway Scorpion -1 Vampire Nighthawk +4 Gravecrawler

As for the Sideboard I'm still trying to work that out.

October 21, 2012 5:15 p.m.

zandl says... #8

4x Abrupt Decay might be a bit excessive, but even against Izzet Aggro, you can kill just about any permanent they bring out. And Golgari Charm can let your creatures live through burn and kill any Enchantments or x/1s they play.

October 21, 2012 5:17 p.m.

Sixty3Zero says... #9

Well, there are Treasured Find s if I need a Decay, Charm, or whatever back from the grave, so three copies Decay two copies Charm mainboard seems good to me.

October 21, 2012 5:40 p.m.

Silver23 says... #10

so far this deck is pretty bad in a good way. this deck could go for some undyers like Young Wolf for the side board to have if the opponent uses tokens. also you could put in a Strangleroot Geist for quick striker that comes back a swingin. you can use that for a quick knock down then use powerhouses to finish off the job

October 22, 2012 6:39 p.m.

Datestamp says... #11

After reading all of the above, I'm just gonna ask that you glance at the my deck:standard-legal-golgari-takedown deck. It works off of similar principals. I'd drop the Lambholt unless you're running more towards the +1/+1 style of Golgari. Mine is a hybrid, as pure grave dump and pure growth have their faults.

October 24, 2012 7:01 p.m.

xPaDaWaNx says... #12

Useful Artifacts Golgari Keyrune , Ring of Kalonia , Ring of Xathrid

I'd drop Treasured Find and pick up Disentomb that way you can throw away any creature with Lotleth Troll and bring it back to your hand for just one mana (if you need to)

I'd also get a Bond Beetle to put +1/+1 on anyone and you gotta throw Slitherhead back in for an early blocker or another sac for Lotleth Troll plus the free +1/+1 from the grave.

All in all great looking deck (+1) feel free to check out my G/B deck CounterKeeper

October 27, 2012 10:44 p.m.

matt2265 says... #13

This is almost exactly like my other deck. I suggest you add a desecration demon or 2. ALSO, you should check out my B/r/u american or my green/blk golgari

November 1, 2012 6:36 p.m.

EleshBlade says... #14

If you can get a hold of 4 Thragtusk s they seem pretty good in this deck.

November 3, 2012 3:06 p.m.

Please login to comment