Providing Vigilance in Standard

Standard forum

Posted on June 1, 2013, 5:47 a.m. by zig13

In the deck I am building at the moment, I want to be able to swing-with-everything each turn without fear of reprisal.

My initial plan was to use Hidden Strings as it fulfilled this role pretty well at the Dragon's Maze pre-release. However it could be somewhat unreliable as the "cipheree" was bound to get blocked if possible allowing for a crack-back from my opponent.

Ghostly Touch does not have this problem but seems a lot weaker all round.

Any other suggestions? Which do you think is best?

KingSorin says... #2

Invisible Stalker was bound to get blocked? Really?

June 1, 2013 6:07 a.m.

zig13 says... #3

@KingSorin - Invisible Stalker was naturally absent from a Dragon's Maze pre-release... The deck I ran where the creature enchanted with Hidden Strings on it was bound to be blocked was Azorius//Simic. As you can see, no Invisible Stalker s...

I really don't understand what you are getting at...

If you're trying to suggest I run Invisible Stalker in my deck then you clearly haven't seen the deck (Skychant).

June 1, 2013 6:19 a.m.

KingSorin says... #4

umm... with everything a flyer, i don't see your problem with hidden strings. Ghostly Touch also won't be in a dragon's maze pre-release, so i thought you were talking about for standard in general. I was thinking you played stalker to make Hidden Strings much easier to cast effectively, but i'd just go with strings honestly, since all your creatures have flying

June 1, 2013 6:24 a.m.

zig13 says... #5

@KingSorin - To clarrify: I am designing a Standard deck (Skychant) based on a deck made at a pre-release (Azorius//Simic). When I played the pre-release deck, my opponents blocked the creature I had ciphered Hidden Strings onto which made my "Vigilance" unreliable.

I never mentioned Invisible Stalker so when you mentioned it, I assumed you assuming somehow that I played Invisible Stalker in the pre-release deck hence my confusion.

You might be right. I was just hoping there was some other more consistent way I had missed in my Gatherer searches. I'm more used to making Modern decks where there is usually something to do what you want.

What do you think about siding in/out Hidden Strings /Ghostly Touch based on whether or not the opponent has flying blockers?

June 1, 2013 6:45 a.m.

KingSorin says... #6

Yeah, that could work. I'd main Hidden Strings if you're going to do that, and although expensive (mana and price), Ral Zarek is probably a more consistent option... so long as he remains alive :D

June 1, 2013 7:01 a.m.

zig13 says... #7

Thanks, yeh I think I will do that (main-board the Hidden Strings and side-board the Ghostly Touch ). If I pull a Ral Zarek I'll be sure to give 'im a go ;)

June 1, 2013 7:08 a.m.

Long_Con says... #8

How about Hold the Gates ?

June 1, 2013 9:34 a.m.

DarkHero says... #9

using Hidden Strings for Vigilance is kind of a cop out. why not untap your land and play something else...

June 1, 2013 11:43 a.m.

zig13 says... #10

@jmallette1 - I can. Cast it in main phase 1 and untap the lands used to cast it then cipher it onto a creature. Attack with that creature and others. If they do combat damage to a player, I can untap two of my creatures that attacked that turn.

I'm only going to fruitfully untap lands using the cipher casting if I have cast spells in Main Phase 1 which is going to be a quite rare occurrence in this deck.

June 1, 2013 12:45 p.m.

raca137 says... #11

ummm well why not just play with vigilance creatures? The only other thing is flyers which alot of people dont play atm. There isnt a deck where you can swing and not fear the swing back. Standard is too aggro based and too fast for attacking and nothing happening but good ole Fog .

June 10, 2013 10:34 p.m.

Village Bell-Ringer Ready / Willing and Aurelia, the Warleader will keep your creatures untapped. Aurelia could also provide an additional winning attack instead of just keeping your creatures untapped.

June 10, 2013 10:44 p.m.

This discussion has been closed