Am I being mean? (help needed)

Standard Deck Help forum

Posted on Sept. 1, 2016, 2:06 a.m. by hawk393

land destruction cause i can

The deck above, I created as a form of just being fun and not nice in my local meta, but I tested it out today against several decks. I also had it altered slightly, I had 3 Radiant Flames mainboard as well as 3 Gaea's Revenge to add to the pounding side of the house. As an alter... I did not have the structural distortion and ran 2 less lands.... aside from that everything else was exactly as you will see it on the deck page.

So..... therein lies my question: Is a deck like this standard capable? and could it stand up to tier 1 decks?

Supporting aspects: It will stand up against almost any control or late game deck (provided I get the land destruction going turn 3-4). It can hold its own early game against most aggro (provided I dont get flooded with land destruction and no removal). It stays very consistent when playtesting and has plenty of recursion.

Declining aspects: It could be very inconsistent with the amount of land removal in the deck (being 33% of the deck alone) vs the creature amounts. What would a sideboard look like?

Again all help is welcome and feel free to bash or hate on the deck as much as you like. However, suggestions and support are also welcome!

jeannieboef says... #2

I don't think so, but it is getting better. Currently, a lot of decks play low CMC creatures which can get pumped out of removal range. After that, you don't need much mana. If I play UB zombies, I can get creatures out on the field and from the grave cheep, counter spells (sided in for removal spells) and they get stronger the bigger my grave is. If I play bant company, I'll board out sylvan advocate and go weenie.

September 1, 2016 4:58 a.m.

DanLane says... #3

The white red equipment deck will be rough for you, as will any decks that can board counters. Roll with it though, looks nasty. Nothing is a good matchup against everything.

September 1, 2016 10:10 a.m.

strictlyWorse says... #4

the word "deleterious" would work better than "declining", in the sense that you are using it. ;)

September 27, 2016 12:59 a.m.

This discussion has been closed