Decisions, Decisions
Standard forum
Posted on Feb. 6, 2013, 12:49 a.m. by AstroFalcon751
I'm trying to decide which of three decks I've made to use in standard. I would like some help determining which one to use. Just post which one you like best or pros/cons you see of the decks to help me decide. Thank You!
Links:
deck:fire-steel-battalion - R/W Gisela/Aurelia Combo
deck:burning-glory - Boros Humans w/ late game heavy hitters in sideboard
Army of the Oppressed - Naya Humans (Leaning towards this one)
Option 1: pros: can have an aggressive start. cons: has angels that will never be cast as you'll either have won before then or lost never reaching the land needed, making the angel you drew into a dead draw or a virtual mulligan.
Option 2: pros: can have an aggressive start. cons: as with option 1 it can easily get mana screwed, not hitting a 3rd land by turn 3 will be common and will normally be the reason the deck would lose those games.
Option 3: pros: ... cons: In playtesting it's slower than option 1 or 2, often due to the heavy colored mana costs, it also lacks the reach Boros Charm gave (by reach I mean getting the last bit of damage in after you've hit topdeck mode and your opponent has been able to deal with your various creatures) and it lacks any sort of reliable removal (the fighting spells will often be dead against the creatures you want to kill due to humans natural low stats).
Overall I'd say option 2 would be the more consistent option, as it's only real problems are in the sideboard and it's low land count.
February 6, 2013 3:58 a.m.
AstroFalcon751 says... #4
Back to my point of view.
I have playtested 1 and found it does have an aggressive start and on occasion I was able to drop an angel. Your comments on mana screwed don't apply very much when in actual playing. I proxied this deck (my friends complained a lot) just to get real world playtesting and I actually consistently pulled enough land to cast the angels because I would get too many lands or they would stall.
In my playtests of 3 I found it actually builds much faster than 1. The removal problem I noticed however generally I had a big Champion of the Parish out or a Thraben Doomsayer to churn out tokens to chump block with. My problem would be with flying which could be solved by adding Thunderbolt . I have had a problem with the mana cost but it wasn't very much.
Demarge now that I have put my thoughts and experience with my own decks out there, what would your reccomend.
February 6, 2013 7:34 a.m.
Unfortunately your thoughts and experience with your decks only tell me you playtest a meta with no control or at least no one running removal.
On occasion dropping an angel isn't good when the deck should have won 2-3 turns ago (and in your deck dropping an angel any turn later than it's casting cost is bad). As for mana screw you will run into it often, losing more than one game in a potentially 24 game tournament will likely mean you're only going to play 15 of those games or less.
As for your comment on your 3rd deck I still hold you need a ton of luck to not draw colorless land on turns you need W for champion, RG for your turn 2 play, then WW1 for a doomsayer or silverblade. Also by removal I was more referring to the challenge of a planeswalker landed after a boardwipe or hiding behind some larger creatures.
Overall I'd recommend attending some decently competitive tournaments, these decks are all over $300, spending that much money for a deck that isn't going to try and win you something likely isn't worth it.
goodair says... #2
naya humans
February 6, 2013 1:15 a.m.