idea

Deck Help forum

Posted on March 11, 2014, 11:53 p.m. by jaggthemiller

in my enchantment deck selesnya enchantment i don't really like gladecover scout..i am wanting to change her to soilder of pantheon and i am wanting to change Advent of the Wurm to selesyna charm to lower my mana curve. does anyone think this is a good idea or am i going int he wrong direction to make it a competitive

Servo_Token says... #2

I would cut the enchantments if you wanted to add Selesnya Charm .

By adding Soldier of the Pantheon , you're making 7 of your 11 enchantments less effective, and creating a situation in which you may have dead cards in your hand in the early game. Not a good idea.

I think that you need to decide if you are GW Aggro, or if you are enchantments. If you are GW Aggro, move the Gift of Orzhova to the side, put in Soldier of the Pantheon , and put in Loxodon Smiter instead of Witchstalker .

If you are Enchantments, take out the Fleecemane Lion s and put in Hopeful Eidolon . Personally, I think that GW Aggro is just a bit better because it has bigger threats that are dropping constantly, and you don't get 10-for-1'd with Devour Flesh .

Either way, I think that Selesnya Charm is too good to not have in the main board, as the trample is always relevant, the surprise blocker can be life saving, and the path ability is great against pretty much every non-red deck.

March 12, 2014 12:27 a.m.

jaggthemiller says... #3

i am running selesnya enchantment deck. if i wanted to go selesnya aggro the deck would be completely different. i guess if i keep Gladecover Scout i am concidered selesnya hexproof..so probably keep pantheon out keep gladecover and replace wurm with charm..

March 12, 2014 12:34 a.m.

Servo_Token says... #4

Wurm is still a good idea to have main deck for those games that you need more threats, and need to play the midrange game.

I'd take out Elspeth before I take out the wurm.

March 12, 2014 1:41 a.m.

jaggthemiller says... #5

yeah thats why he is in there to begin with ;)

March 12, 2014 2:16 a.m.

This discussion has been closed