Only Angels Come to a Near Death Experience

Modern* Femme_Fatale

SCORE: 34 | 86 COMMENTS | 4638 VIEWS | IN 15 FOLDERS


PreZchoICE1 says... #1

Vedalken Orrery so you can play NDE on their end step. I like the flavor of plunge into darkness into near death experience. Nice thought process there.

December 17, 2014 1:53 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #2

I don't think I'll be using Vedalken Orrery PreZchoICE1. It seems far too janky considering I only have 11 cards to make use of it. Also, why use that when I can just Angel's Grace or Plunge into Darkness on their endstep?

The only other times when it would be useful is to instant speed Serum Visions to hopefully draw into a response to their spell (which a. is unlikely to happen since I normally use it as soon as I get it b. unlikely to not have an answer in hand since I have no creatures and c. the draw is only one card, so the chances to get an answer are slim, not worth risking a spot for an answer to play the card), to instant speed a Thoughtseize at their draw step (once again, unlikely to happen as I would be playing Thoughtseize in the early game or +1'ing Lili for the discard) and finally, to instant speed a wrath, which also wouldn't be nearly as important as haste creatures aren't that common.

December 17, 2014 2:40 p.m.

PreZchoICE1 says... #3

mostly you'd want to play Near Death Experience on their end step so you could untap and win. I understand though. I figured Near-Death Experience and Plunge into Darkness were janky enough for Orrery but I guess was wrong. :)

December 17, 2014 2:50 p.m.

PreZchoICE1 says... #4

it looks to me like Sudden Shock will be a severe heel for you though. Good luck with this it looks cool.

December 17, 2014 2:56 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #5

Is Sudden Shock even used?

December 17, 2014 4:07 p.m.

GlistenerAgent says... #6

Not really, no. Secret tech (possibly) against Delver decks, but meh.

December 17, 2014 4:11 p.m.

merrowMania says... #7

In playtesting, I found that I had more black (3+) than white mana (1), forcing me to dig for the Damnation even though I had two Wrath of Gods in my hand. Considering you are also running two urborgs, consider changing the Damnation:WoG ratio to 2:1.

December 18, 2014 9:57 a.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #8

Agreed, and will follow through. Thanks merrowMania~

December 18, 2014 10:01 a.m.

nerdydolly says... #9

Love this! I couldn't stop giggling while reading it.

December 18, 2014 8:11 p.m.

Why Dissolve when you can Cryptic Command?

December 18, 2014 8:32 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #11

Cryptic Command huh. What would be your idea of how many GlistenerAgent? Same number or a little bit less with some mix of another removal/counterspell?

December 18, 2014 8:45 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #12

I'm glad you like it -KinkyPie-~

And yes, I love to add a degree of humor to my descriptions :D

December 18, 2014 8:59 p.m.

I'd be essentially replacing Dissolve with Cryptic Command, just because the card is very powerful. I'd consider cutting a Remand for another removal spell, as it's poor against Delver.

December 18, 2014 9:01 p.m.

nerdydolly says... #14

I do agree. I would put at least two Cryptic Commands in the deck because of the flexibility. Maybe Go for the Throat for removal?

December 18, 2014 9:29 p.m.

The manabase is pretty poor. You shouldn't be playing more than 5 shocklands, and at least 8 fetchlands (ideally the blue ones) should be in there. I'd also advise Celestial Colonnade or Creeping Tar Pit as backup win conditions.

December 18, 2014 9:33 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #16

Here is the edited version GlistenerAgent and -KinkyPie-.

First things first, GlistenerAgent, our ideas on an ideal mana base are completely different. We should both accept that and move on before we start arguing about it.

On the topic of manlands, while they are indeed good ideas, I feel that A) they would be instantly targeted by the removal that is dead in their hands, and B) takes away from the creatureless status of this deck. I don't want to be spending my counterspells trying to prevent my manlands from getting killed. I think a nice aspect of this deck is its ability to be able to thwart a fair portion of the opponent's deck by making their removal useless. The desire to uphold the creatureless status of this deck was what made me remove both Aven Mindcensor and Spellskite from my sideboard.

Going on the topic of the sideboard, I removed Disenchant for Stony Silence as I really wanted something to hit affinity with. I may remove Torpor Orb to up Stony Silence and Negate both up to 3. Mainly to do better against affinity, and to have more leverage in my choice of counterspells against other control decks. Thoughts?

Finally, here are the base changes I made to this deck (not counting the changes I made to the mana base. I can't remember them as I just flicker back and forth rapidly).

Removed:- 3x Dissolve- 2x Remand- 3x Serum Visions- 1x Wrath of God

Added:- 1x Angel's Grace- 2x Cryptic Command- 1x Damnation- 1x Dig Through Time- 1x Land- 2x Path to Exile- 1x Thoughtseize

The main reasons to remove Serum Visions and so many Remands was because the single card draw in Serum Visions just paled in comparison to the strength of Dig Through Time, so removing it allowed for more room for control. Thoughtseize I wanted at 4x so that I can get it more often in the early game. I added Path to Exile because I agreed with -KinkyPie-'s idea of needing another removal set, but yet required something that was "cheaper" in a sense that it couldn't potentially screw me over in terms of mana or life. I also didn't want to use the 2 cmc black removals out there because they either costed , which was too straining on my mana base to get a turn 2 removal out, or was too restrictive in that they missed entire decks.

December 19, 2014 1 p.m.

Asher18 says... #17

Worldfire HO!

December 20, 2014 4:38 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #18

Not playing red Asher18. And even if I was, that is FAR too pricy.

December 20, 2014 4:40 p.m.

Asher18 says... #19

It's just a joke, thta card is like THE card for this deck

December 20, 2014 4:52 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #20

With all the people I see making half-assed suggestions on my decks, I have never once come to that conclusion >.>

There are too many people who just don't read descriptions or even bother to think about the deck before suggesting cards. It irritates me.

December 20, 2014 4:54 p.m.

Prima says... #21

I'd like a Jace Beleren in this list. He'd let you dig for NDE, and lets you draw up more counterspells/ removal. Just a one-of, thoughts? There might be a reason you kept him out of the deck...

December 20, 2014 5:47 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #22

Because Dig Through Time is SO much better Prima. I can look at the top 7! 7! Cards of my library for 2 answers for just 2 mana, without giving my opponent anything to draw! In terms of function, Dig Through Time fits this deck so much better because there will be the occasion where I need an answer right away (it is an instant after all), and/or the first 3 cards could be cards that have no relevance in the current situation, like lands.

December 20, 2014 5:52 p.m.

patrice says... #23

You could try using Idyllic Tutor as another way to get Near-Death Experience and as a way to get hate enchantments from the sideboard past game 1, like stony silence or other useful stuff, like Porphyry Nodes, Suppression Field, etc...

December 20, 2014 5:55 p.m.

I don't think you can really support four Dig Through Time with only five fetchlands. I'd almost certainly be playing eight, if only to fuel Dig. Playing eight also makes your mana better.

December 20, 2014 5:55 p.m.

patrice says... #25

Its not like you always need to delve 6 cards each time you want to resolve a Dig, even if you assume you will cast 3 or more each game. Because it is an instant, you can always spend a it of your open mana at end of their turn in order to "save" some cards on the graveyard for further Digs. Also take in consideration that this is a control and grindy deck, fetches are not the only way to dump cards in the graveyard

December 20, 2014 6:04 p.m.

Please login to comment