What makes a Delver deck?

Deck Help forum

Posted on Jan. 26, 2014, 10:36 p.m. by twospires

I've been staring at a few Delver of Secrets  Flip in my binder and wanting to build a deck around them. As you might know, I'm a very budget-oriented player, so I just want to know what makes a Delver deck tick, so I can try to reproduce it in budget. What made it a deck that broke Standard for so long? Thanks in advance!

Epochalyptik says... #2

Moved to Deck Help.

It was so good in Standard because Mana Leak , Ponder , Snapcaster Mage , and Runechanter's Pike supported it. There was also lots of flashback and decent, low-cost burn.

In other formats, you have those cards and Lightning Bolt , plus other utility spells.

January 26, 2014 10:48 p.m.

TurboFagoot says... #3

Well Delver, obviously. You drop a powerful threat turn one, then back it up with disruption. Especially if you're playing RUG, you have Stifles, Wastelands, FoWs, etc. that stop an opponent from doing much anything, swinging for three, and growing your Goyfs.

The standard Delver had a similar theme to the RWU Delver list in legacy: Ran delver, ran equipment (And Stoneforge in legacy), backed up by counterspells.

Basically, Delver decks are identified as such because a 3/2 flier on turn two is enough to sculpt a gameplan around.

Good lucking building this for budget though lol, what's even the point?

January 26, 2014 10:48 p.m.

DrFunk27 says... #4

It never really broke standard. In fact, it was very poor in Standard. It's really only broken in Legacy. Modern does an okay job at abusing Delver but still isn't incredibly powerful by itself. What kind of budget are you working around? Most Modern Delver decks are expensive due to spells and legacy Delver is one of the most expensive decks to build.

January 26, 2014 10:49 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #5

I don't know about the delver deck that dominated standard but the way I would build the deck is a manipulation suite of ~12 cards with some good burn and few creatures outside of the playset of delvers.

January 26, 2014 10:51 p.m.

DrFunk27 says... #6

This is my weird Delver variation that I've been testing in Modern. Lab Experiment: U/W/R Delver

January 26, 2014 10:54 p.m.

twospires says... #7

DrFunk27 I was pretty sure the Scars-Innistrad Standard was mostly dominated by Delver decks. Guess I could be wrong. I'm working around probably not much more than a $25 budget. Like I said, I'm extremely budget-oriented, which is why I don't just go out and look at actual Delver decks to see what they're running.

Gidgetimer OK, I could work that. About 12 counter/removal spells and some solid beaters? Any other suggestions? Runechanter's Pike has dropped so much, I could put that in, if it's a good idea.

January 26, 2014 10:55 p.m.

Servo_Token says... #8

Here's my modern deck, it's UWR Delver, and it's pretty super budget. You can make it even cheaper by taking out white (Which I have only for Geist of Saint Traft and Lightning Helix ) as well as Snapcaster Mage .

Young Pyromancer , Delver, Counterspells, burn spells, and a couple of equiments are all you need to make a good delver deck.

The most original modern deck ever...

January 26, 2014 11:05 p.m.

gnarlicide says... #9

If you run pike, remember that there are trolls that run Abrupt Decay . It's a card that is almost an auto-include in any of my modern decks. I think of it as a really awesome insurance policy. Come to think of it, there is only one deck that I run that does not use green for decay, but that deck just goes bonkers really fast anyways.

January 26, 2014 11:21 p.m.

twospires says... #10

Thanks. This is going to be more for casual play anyway, I'm not really playing against mainstream decks. Of course, that's not an excuse to make a subpar deck, but I don't think I'll be running into many Abrupt Decay s any time soon.

January 26, 2014 11:29 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #11

By a manipulation suite I meant deck manipulation like Index , Mystic Speculation , Ponder , and Condescend all of which are budget choices

January 26, 2014 11:35 p.m.

EvenDryke says... #12

There's a nice Pauper list built around Delver, costs around $30 to build and it's pretty fun.

4 Delver, then it runs 4 Brainstorm , 4 Ponder , 2 Preordain for draw manipulation and to flip the delver. Then it runs counters, and other ways of disrupting your opponent's game.

I recommend it to anybody who likes good old fashioned blue shenanigans.

January 26, 2014 11:35 p.m.

If you're building casual, load up on Runechanter's Pike , Lightning Bolt , Preordain /Brainstorm , and other low-cost spells. Cards like Preordain and Brainstorm are particularly important because they help you set up for Delver of Secrets  Flip 's ability.

January 26, 2014 11:48 p.m.

You could even do a Pyromancer Ascension variant, or go a partial-creature route with Guttersnipe /Young Pyromancer .

January 26, 2014 11:49 p.m.

twospires says... #15

Thanks for all the help, guys! I'm hearing that it should be red/blue. I've also seen a couple of American and RUG variants. Should I try to dip into another color? I wouldn't be able to spend anything on good dual lands (probably not anything better than Guildgates or Refuges), so I'm kinda nervous about that. At the same time, I don't think I've seen a good true Izzet Delver deck. Should I add third color? If so, which one?

January 27, 2014 8:05 a.m.

twospires says... #16

OK, here's what I've got so far. It's pretty sketchy at this point.


The Best Way to Delve for Secrets... Playtest

Casual* twospires

SCORE: 0 | 0 COMMENTS | 3 VIEWS

January 27, 2014 10:33 a.m.

Servo_Token says... #17

I don't think that a third color is necessary for your needs. Most RUG varients are only in green for Tarmogoyf and a handful of other expensive cards. If you think that it's necessary, go for it, but I would just start with the UR base.

January 27, 2014 10:34 a.m.

twospires says... #18

OK, sure. That's what I thought. Thanks again for the help! If you have any cads suggestions for the deck specifically, please leave it on the deck's page.

January 27, 2014 1:36 p.m.

This discussion has been closed