Delver and Burning Vengeance.. best of both worlds?

Deck Help forum

Posted on Dec. 5, 2011, 12:16 a.m. by spiralshadow

So I love aggro featuring Delver of Secrets  Flip  FlipMTG Card: Insectile Aberration. I also love counterburn decks using Burning Vengeance . Is there a way to combine these two types of U/R decks so that they complement one another? Or would trying to blend both together make them weaker than each individually? I don't want to have to choose, because Delver seems to do well but Burning Vengeance is so fun.

Thoughts?

KorApprentice says... #2

While Burning Vengeance does not have to be in the same deck Delver of Secrets  Flip  FlipMTG Card: Insectile Aberration is in, I don't believe I've ever seen a Burning Vengeance deck without 4x Delver of Secrets  Flip  FlipMTG Card: Insectile Aberration...

Of course it's a good idea.

December 5, 2011 12:42 a.m.

spiralshadow says... #3

Well to clarify what I mean, a BV deck will want to mostly have spells with Flashback (especially considering Snapcasters are way out of my price range), but a strict U/R aggro deck will feature burn and counter spells that are effective but generally don't have flashback (e.g. Arc Trail and Mana Leak , etc).

I tried finding a balance with Flashback and non-Flashback spells, but then Burning Vengeance became ineffective. And without the non-Flashback "staple" cards, the aggro seemed to lose its potency as well. Maybe I'm just not finding the right mix.

December 5, 2011 1:47 a.m.

KorApprentice says... #4

Ah, given that you cannot run Snapcaster Mage , then perhaps Delver of Secrets  Flip  FlipMTG Card: Insectile Aberration is not for you. A BV/Delver deck would run 4x Snapcaster Mage .

December 5, 2011 2 a.m.

spiralshadow says... #5

Well, I really love the idea behind them, and I think it may be viable without Snapcasters. Not as good or competitive obviously, but still viable. I think it's just a matter of finding a balance of enough non-flashback and flashback to keep it relatively consistent.

December 5, 2011 2:05 a.m.

This discussion has been closed