I have had this deck for a while and always wanted to give this an update. The deck is very simple, I use to get more spiders into play. I used lands that i just decided to find in my box of nonbasic lands to make the manabase. Delirium is not a problem with this deck because of Commune with the Gods. Otherwise, the deck is very straight forward.
I have 2 main problems with this deck, I can't stop mill and I can't stop worldwide destruction. What I would think about adding would be Elixir of Immortality and Eldrazi Monument but I am not sure what to take out for them. Any help will be appreciated!
I used to run Spider deck, but I ended up trading it to mate for a carton of beer. Mmmmm James Squires.
I'd consider the fact that most spiders are mana-intensive, so cards like Arachnogenesis are often a dead card.
If I was going to run Spiders, I'd start with abusing Thornbite Staff with Deathtouch as much as possible, get rid of stuff like TrapDoor, and make the deck more graveyard based to abuse the Spiders that care about the graveyard, like Nyx Weaver, Graverobber Spider, Ishkanah, Grafwidow.
Door of Destinies needs to be here to negate that spiders are slow and not a very offensive tribe
I disagree. arachnus web is a lousy card. arachnus spinner is also a lousy card. Together they are two lousy cards creating one of the worst two card combos in all of magic the gathering.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was the guy playing the relentless rats deck back during mirrodin and kamigawa blocks. Yes, cranial extraction was used on me. No, I didn't win much. Yes, I do have a relentless rats edh deck. No, it doesn't win much either...
I disagree. arachnus web is a lousy card. arachnus spinner is also a lousy card. Together they are two lousy cards creating one of the worst two card combos in all of magic the gathering.
The point is I would not run it. Not in a spider deck, not in any deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was the guy playing the relentless rats deck back during mirrodin and kamigawa blocks. Yes, cranial extraction was used on me. No, I didn't win much. Yes, I do have a relentless rats edh deck. No, it doesn't win much either...
Giant Trap Door Spider seems awful. I get that the idea is to dissuade attacks but are you really going to hold 3 lands up every circuit? How do you win the game doing so?
Mana Crypt seems heinous. You cast it on turn 1, how could you possibly hope to win before it kills you? I'm not even being sarcastic; the card seems unplayable in this type of deck.
21 lands (assuming that you remove Mana Crypt) in a deck with seven 6 drops is "ambitious." You should run at least 24.
The point is I would not run it. Not in a spider deck, not in any deck.
Fair enough, but what else are you going to put in a spider deck? Let's assume that we're building a Tribal Wars deck, so we need at least 20 actual "Creature - Spider" cards (or *sigh* changelings) to qualify.
Even if I was interested in building a spider deck I would not build one currently. ishkanah, grafwidow is $10 right now. Once it leaves standard it will be 10 cents. I would wait. Also, I build legacy legal decks. No banned or restricted cards for me so no sol ring, mana crypt, demonic tutor, etc. For the sake of honor or whatever I won't run any shapeshifters.
Spiders are a difficult deck to build. I don't deny that but here we go.
Dragonlair spider is the best spider. The problem with it is it requires 2 red to cast and its 6 mana. I don't like splashing a color just for 1 card. Especially if that one card is difficult to cast. I also don't like that its 6 mana. I feel that any deck running a card that is 6 or more mana needs mana ramp. The thing is there is nothing else that is 6 or more mana that I want to run. Now i'm stuck investing in red and mana ramp just for dragonlair spider. I don't think its worth all of that. Sadly, I think my spider deck is cutting the best spider. (It also annoys me that it makes insects not spiders)
The next best spider probably Ishkanah, grafwidow. Again I would wait till its out of standard and plummets in price. Its not as good a card as Wingmate roc and that went from $15 when it was in standard to $1.15 tcg play mid now. Ishkanah will drop even further. It also has its own set of problems. Its only good if you have delerium and getting delerium requires an investment. It also wants you to splash black for its ability. That is fine though. Spider spawning also wants your graveyard full and it also benefits from black. So the basis of the deck is Green with black splashed in built around Ishkanah, grafwidow and Spider spawning. A self decking mechanic seems advisable with these cards. I really like mesmeric orb. Better still I own them. Since virtually ever spider has more toughness then power assault formation gives the deck a nice boost in damage. Since i'm self decking I think I want 4 of most things since i'll lose some to the graveyard.
Need some stuff to keep me alive. My group as very agro. deadly recluse and juvenile gloomwidow punish people for attacking early and still have some effect late game. I also can't see any reason not to run spider fog so arachnogenesis is in.
Now its really just filling in the remaining slots with cards I like and adjusting the numbers so everything fits. sporecap spider hits hard with assault formation. I like commune with the gods to help get assault formation and to get cards in the graveyard. penumbra spider replaces itself.
This is what I would playtest as my spider deck. Make changes from there. If most decks I play against are NOT tribal I would likely run coat of arms. If they are then I would never run it.
I was the guy playing the relentless rats deck back during mirrodin and kamigawa blocks. Yes, cranial extraction was used on me. No, I didn't win much. Yes, I do have a relentless rats edh deck. No, it doesn't win much either...
Dude, in a clunky high-curve no-ramp deck, that card is basically 0-mana Time Stretch! I would gladly flip some coins for that. You're going to lose life to unblocked creatures otherwise anyway. Might as well get double ramp out of it. It should provide a massive increase in win percentage (provided you're not a total idiot and don't run it out when you don't need it).
I strongly believe that Mana Crypt would decrease his overall win %. I've played with and against the card a countless number of times in Cube, EDH Cube, and a bit of Vintage and I truly believe that the card is heinous in fair decks. Again, I believe that he'll lose the overwhelming % of games that he casts this on turn 1 because I do not believe that this deck can race the 1.5 damage of blow-back (on average) per turn. This is coming from someone who always plays to win and who wouldn't think twice about keeping it if I thought that it would help more than hinder.
Ignore opinions and think about the math. Assuming a turn 1 Crypt he'll do an average of 15 damage to himself by turn 11 and I don't think that it's a stretch to suggest that you take more than 5 damage by turn 11 in an average multiplayer game. What is the probability that this decks wins in the first 10-15 turns? It's not 0% but it's damn close. This isn't a fast deck by any metric and even a T1 Sol Ring isn't going to change that.
Personally, If I'm going to take a crapload of damage anyway, I'd rather it come from a mana rock that allows me to implement my game plan two whole turns faster.
I'm not here to argue that Mana Crypt isn't a powerful Magic card. I'm here to argue that this deck can't realistically race a 1.5 damage unblockable creature in a multiplayer setting. We can both faun over Mana Crypt for days and it would get us nowhere because ultimately the question that we have to ask ourselves is "does Mana Crypt win games in this deck?" and I can confidently state that "no, it doesn't."
The perversion that is changelings has forever tainted tribal deckbuilding. It is sad that a tribal deckbuilder now faces a mutually exclusive choice of flavor and winning.
Changelings are irrelevant. "Flavour" is an arbitrary cop-out that only exists to serve as a non-quantifiable variable in order to serve your personal whims and desires. Rather than justifying decisions with any reasonable or rational justifications you can simply state the "flavour defense" to wash your hands of personal accountability. It doesn't matter how, why or even if the deck works because you were only building it for "flavour" anyways. It's a defense mechanism employed to save-face should your creations fail to live up to (what people perceive to be) reasonable expectations. If the deck sucks, no biggie, you had to adhere to flavour so it wasn't your fault (even though no one actually cares that you imposed self-restrictions). Even if Changelings didn't exist it still wouldn't prevent people from pleading the flavour-th because they'd still find other ways to artificially restrict their deckbuilding decisions and give themselves an out in case it backfired miserably.
The perversion that is changelings has forever tainted tribal deckbuilding. It is sad that a tribal deckbuilder now faces a mutually exclusive choice of flavor and winning.
Changelings are irrelevant. "Flavour" is an arbitrary cop-out that only exists to serve as a non-quantifiable variable in order to serve your personal whims and desires. Rather than justifying decisions with any reasonable or rational justifications you can simply state the "flavour defense" to wash your hands of personal accountability. It doesn't matter how, why or even if the deck works because you were only building it for "flavour" anyways. It's a defense mechanism employed to save-face should your creations fail to live up to (what people perceive to be) reasonable expectations. If the deck sucks, no biggie, you had to adhere to flavour so it wasn't your fault (even though no one actually cares that you imposed self-restrictions). Even if Changelings didn't exist it still wouldn't prevent people from pleading the flavour-th because they'd still find other ways to artificially restrict their deckbuilding decisions and give themselves an out in case it backfired miserably.
Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to detect over the internet. If you are being sarcastic then ignore the rest of this
I don't know what you are talking about. Flavor is everything. If I want to build an elf deck its because of flavor. Someone somewhere could present me with a statistical analysis showing that I would win more often if I built say a sliver deck instead. Mathematically, of all the tribes in magic the gathering, one tribe would win more often then the rest. According to you everyone should be running that best tribe because otherwise we are not being "reasonable or rational."
Simply put the end result of your logic is everyone running the same cards and making the decisions on what to run purely by math. An attitude that ruins any fun the game offers, and one that is particularly odd on a casual forum where the entire idea is to build fun decks. In another thread you said you would run burgeoning in every green deck. I'm sure math would back you up on that, but my god is that boring. I have 23 decks right now. If I was running all the same cards in each of those decks I would have quit the game years ago do to lack of variety. Every green deck needs burgeoning every blue deck needs rhystic study every white deck needs land tax. Every deck period needs sol ring. Sooooooooo boring. Variety is what makes the game fun. Variety in what you play and variety in what your opponent plays. Finally, your assertion that anyone who isn't by math running the best cards is using some sort of cop out defense mechanism is insulting not to mention incredibly condescending. I can't speak for others by my worth as a human being is not linked to winning games of magic. I don't have to win to feel good about myself and I certainly don't need to make contrived back doors to protect my honor in the event that I lose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was the guy playing the relentless rats deck back during mirrodin and kamigawa blocks. Yes, cranial extraction was used on me. No, I didn't win much. Yes, I do have a relentless rats edh deck. No, it doesn't win much either...
Simply put the end result of your logic is everyone running the same cards and making the decisions on what to run purely by math.
It's extremely time consuming and difficult to statistically prove what the optimal build for each deck is. It's a burden of proof so difficult to meet that you can't possibly hold someone else to it because you could never provide it yourself. This is especially true given that Magic is never played in a vacuum and so your individual card choices could vary wildly based on your own personal metagame needs.
An attitude that ruins any fun the game offers, and one that is particularly odd on a casual forum where the entire idea is to build fun decks.
I'm extremely passionate about Magic and enjoy playing it. I almost always have fun slinging spells. It's possible to "enjoy playing Magic" and "enjoy winning." They're not mutually exclusive as you're suggesting.
That's what makes Magic fun? Variety? Do you spend your time reading those color swap books because they're filled with a variety of colors?
People find Magic "fun" (a completely subjective term) for a throng of reasons. You're grossly oversimplifying things by trying to boil it down to exactly one variable. I agree that variety is part of what makes Magic fun but it's only a drop in the bucket.
Finally, your assertion that anyone who isn't by math running the best cards is using some sort of cop out defense mechanism is insulting not to mention incredibly condescending.
Just so we're clear this has nothing to do with only building the best possible deck each and every time. Even I don't do that. I'm asking you "what practical value does flavour possess if flavour can be whatever you want whenever you want it to be?" Isn't it a self-fulling prophecy? I deem these cards flavorful therefore my deck adheres to flavour? How is that not frivolous self-gratification/a cop-out/a self-defense mechanism to circumvent failure? Let's say that we agree that I'm being condescending. Am I wrong? Any card can be deemed "flavourful" by anyone at any time for any reasons right? How isn't that a cop-out?
Example: my Lord of the Rings deck uses Sire of Insanity to represent the Balrog. Yours uses Rakdos, Lord of Riots. Which one of us is objectively right from a flavour standpoint? Aren't we both "winners" because "flavour" is a goal-post that can be changed and molded into whatever suits our needs? Can't we literally justify any card/decision in any deck for any reason by citing "flavour"? What practical value does it serve?
Winning has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that it's a cop-out. "Flavour" has no meaning except for what you elect it to be. It can also be changed at any time for any reason. It's the textbook definition of a "get out of jail free card." For example, lots of people argue that Changelings are bad for tribal decks. Why? Changelings morph to their surroundings. A Changeling surrounded by birds shifts into one itself. If you were a real mage doing battle it would look like one. As such you can easily argue that Changelings are still "flavorful." Or not. You can take a card that has the creature type "spider" and say "it's not a spider because I said so." Probably because there's no spider on the art. The creature type doesn't matter, it's actually the art. Or not. You can use any cop-out in the book because it doesn't matter. You're not adhering to any rational set of rules. Rather, you're imposing self-restrictions that don't apply to anyone else and that no one else truly cares about. You're not trying to build the best Spider deck, you're trying to build the deck that plays cards that have spiders in their art and that feel "spidery." "Spidery," of course, is whatever you want it to be and applies to whatever cards you deem fit for whatever reason.
Let's use the Taurean Mauler example for this deck. Presumably you want a 3 drop that works with Swarmyard, Descendants' Path, Arachnus Spinner, etc. and since this is a multiple deck it behooves you to field cards that scale as their number increases. This makes Taurean Mauler an objectively powerful option for the 3 CMC slot. It's the right creature type, it works with all of your cards and it scales well. If you don't want to add it to your deck for whatever reason, sure, that's fine. It's your deck and you can do whatever you want with your time, money and life. What I don't understand is what calling "flavour" accomplishes. You say that it's not a cop-out. What is it then? People employ it as a blanket cover-all to justify any decision for any reason. Why? Isn't it basically like giving yourself an award/medal? It's mental gymnastics used to make you feel like you've accomplished something relevant even though you haven't. There's no rule saying that you can't play Taurean Mauler in Spider tribal unless it's self-imposed. That way you can pat yourself on the back because "not only did you build the deck but you even adhered to special conditions X, Y and Z."
Let me ask this another way. You use the term "flavour." When you cite "flavour," couldn't you just as easily state "The Holy Order of Care Bears ordered me to play X"? Flavour is just as meaningless as any other meaningless justification isn't it? "It has cute art." "Kami-sama commanded me to run this." "I love lamp." "They took our jobs." None of it means anything. At the end of the day it's all a variation of "I'm running whatever I want why-ever I want." You're allowed to do that. It you're time, money, life, etc. Why all the mental gymnastics? Why are you trying to convince yourself/others that you're achieving something special? You're not.
Simply put the end result of your logic is everyone running the same cards and making the decisions on what to run purely by math.
It's extremely time consuming and difficult to statistically prove what the optimal build for each deck is. It's a burden of proof so difficult to meet that you can't possibly hold someone else to it because you could never provide it yourself. This is especially true given that Magic is never played in a vacuum and so your individual card choices could vary wildly based on your own personal metagame needs.
An attitude that ruins any fun the game offers, and one that is particularly odd on a casual forum where the entire idea is to build fun decks.
I'm extremely passionate about Magic and enjoy playing it. I almost always have fun slinging spells. It's possible to "enjoy playing Magic" and "enjoy winning." They're not mutually exclusive as you're suggesting.
That's what makes Magic fun? Variety? Do you spend your time reading those color swap books because they're filled with a variety of colors?
People find Magic "fun" (a completely subjective term) for a throng of reasons. You're grossly oversimplifying things by trying to boil it down to exactly one variable. I agree that variety is part of what makes Magic fun but it's only a drop in the bucket.
Finally, your assertion that anyone who isn't by math running the best cards is using some sort of cop out defense mechanism is insulting not to mention incredibly condescending.
Just so we're clear this has nothing to do with only building the best possible deck each and every time. Even I don't do that. I'm asking you "what practical value does flavour possess if flavour can be whatever you want whenever you want it to be?" Isn't it a self-fulling prophecy? I deem these cards flavorful therefore my deck adheres to flavour? How is that not frivolous self-gratification/a cop-out/a self-defense mechanism to circumvent failure? Let's say that we agree that I'm being condescending. Am I wrong? Any card can be deemed "flavourful" by anyone at any time for any reasons right? How isn't that a cop-out?
Your entire speech is about projecting emotions onto other people. The narrative is that pride3 is better then those idiots. "They can't handle losing so they make all of these trap doors that they can call upon in the event that they lose." That is not the same as saying "I play to win and use any tool I can."
I find it boring to run the same cards over and over. Thats it. None of the emotionally baggage you are throwing on me actually applies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was the guy playing the relentless rats deck back during mirrodin and kamigawa blocks. Yes, cranial extraction was used on me. No, I didn't win much. Yes, I do have a relentless rats edh deck. No, it doesn't win much either...
The narrative is that pride3 is better then those idiots.
If you think that my narrative has anything to do with me then there's a fundamental disconnect between what you think you're reading and what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with individuals (myself included). You seem to be under the impression that I'm suggesting that the only way to build deck is to maximize your overall win %. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. I build 50% and 75% decks all the time. The difference is that I don't need to use mental gymnastics to justify my decisions. It's perfectly rational and reasonable to say "I'm purposely using weaker cards to keep the game fun for everyone. After all, I care more about having a healthy meta than a high win %." You can say "I don't want to run Taurean Mauler because I don't like the art." It's your money, your time, your life. That being said it makes no sense to say "I don't want to run card N for flavour reasons" when flavour can literally mean anything at any time. If you have to use flavour to justify decisions then the only reasonable explanation is that you want to use it as an excuse.
For clarity's sake I should stress that most of this stuff is subconscious. You seem to be under the impression that I'm suggesting that players are actively thinking about these factors when they're building decks. That's not how any of this works. As with any project that can end in failure people often create scape-goats and employ face-saving techniques well before problems ever occur. Again, I want to stress that it's a completely passive process that most people aren't aware of. In that sense it has nothing to do with emotions or feelings. Most of this "happens in the background" without people being aware of it.
This should make intuitive sense. After all, it's not you putting the card in your deck, it's flavour deciding that "this is the best card for the job." You get to distance yourself from the decision using a metric that's immeasurable and infinitely malleable. If anything goes wrong no worries, you were never in control to begin with. You were simply a vessel enacting flavour's will. All I'm saying is that people should take responsibility for their actions. If you want to put a card in your deck, go for it. Just be willing to say "I put this card in deck because it's the card that I chose to run" as opposed to blaming flavour for pulling the strings.
"They can't handle losing so they make all of these trap doors that they can call upon in the event that they lose."
Why else would you cling to an ideal as malleable as "flavour"? It's anything that you want it to be at any time for any reason. What purpose could that possibly serve if-not some sort of defense mechanism against failure?
For all your talk you have yet to clearly explain what practical service that flavour offers. My argument is that it's a completely meaningless term since it can mean anything at any time for any reason. There's also no flavour overlap between individuals and there's no way to objectively quantity/measure it. What advantage is there to building with flavour as opposed to simply building a deck? I can put Eladamri, Lord of Leaves in my Lord of the Rings deck to represent Elrond without attributing that decision to flavour. My deck, my reasons, my card choices.
None of the emotionally baggage you are throwing on me actually applies.
FWIW if you think that you, as an adult human male, haven't employed face-saving techniques while interacting socially with others then you're even more emotionally disconnected than I am.
Otherwise, why do you force yourself to build around flavour? Why can't you simply exercise your creative muscles and build decks using different cards? What is the advantage to building decks with flavour as opposed to simply building decks?
If I put Balthor the Stout in my Lord of the Rings deck to represent Gimli and and you put AND MY AXE! because it's more flavorful what value does flavour offer you? Aren't we both doing the same thing except you're needlessly self-gratifying yourself for adhering to self-imposed restrictions? I'm building a Lords of the Rings deck and choosing cards because I want to. You're doing it because flavour is dictating what you can and cannot play. You're obviously doing it for reason and I can't think of anything to explain it away. There's no difference between "building a fun deck" and "building a fun, flavorful deck" outside of the meaningless term that is "flavour."
I have 2 main problems with this deck, I can't stop mill and I can't stop worldwide destruction. What I would think about adding would be Elixir of Immortality and Eldrazi Monument but I am not sure what to take out for them. Any help will be appreciated!
Lands
3 Savage Lands
4 Swarmyard
2 Grove of the Burnwillows
1 Cinder Glade
1 Golgari Guildgate
1 Rakdos Guildgate
1 Llanowar Wastes
1 Rootbound Crag
2 Swamp
2 Mountain
2 Forest
Creatures
4 Giant Trap Door Spider
3 Ishkanah, Grefwidow
4 Dragonlair Spider
3 Arachnus Spinner
2 Deadly Recluse
2 Juvenile Gloomwidow
Spells
4 Commune with the Gods
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
4 Arachnogenesis
Artifacts
1 Mana Crypt
1 Sol Ring
Enchantments
2 Assault Formation
4 Arachnus Web
4 Descendants' Path
I'd consider the fact that most spiders are mana-intensive, so cards like Arachnogenesis are often a dead card.
If I was going to run Spiders, I'd start with abusing Thornbite Staff with Deathtouch as much as possible, get rid of stuff like TrapDoor, and make the deck more graveyard based to abuse the Spiders that care about the graveyard, like Nyx Weaver, Graverobber Spider, Ishkanah, Grafwidow.
Door of Destinies needs to be here to negate that spiders are slow and not a very offensive tribe
20 Other Lands
4 Commune with the Gods
4 Mulch
4x Kessig Recluse
2x Penumbra Spider
1x Dragonlair Spider
2x Silklash Spider
1 Skysnare SPider
3x Thornbite Staff
2x Door of Destinies
Obviously this deck needs a lot more work, but it's a start.
I disagree. arachnus web is a lousy card. arachnus spinner is also a lousy card. Together they are two lousy cards creating one of the worst two card combos in all of magic the gathering.
Immortal Coil and Relic of Progenitus has it beat!
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
The point is I would not run it. Not in a spider deck, not in any deck.
Pfft, shows what you know. Spiders have seen a ton of multiplayer play. Mutavault, Amoeboid Changeling, Taurean Mauler, Chameleon Colossus, the list goes on and on.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Deadly Recluse has to be strictly better than Juvenile Gloomwidow in a 4x Swarmyard deck.
Silklash Spider is legitimately decent.
Giant Trap Door Spider seems awful. I get that the idea is to dissuade attacks but are you really going to hold 3 lands up every circuit? How do you win the game doing so?
Mana Crypt seems heinous. You cast it on turn 1, how could you possibly hope to win before it kills you? I'm not even being sarcastic; the card seems unplayable in this type of deck.
21 lands (assuming that you remove Mana Crypt) in a deck with seven 6 drops is "ambitious." You should run at least 24.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Even if I was interested in building a spider deck I would not build one currently. ishkanah, grafwidow is $10 right now. Once it leaves standard it will be 10 cents. I would wait. Also, I build legacy legal decks. No banned or restricted cards for me so no sol ring, mana crypt, demonic tutor, etc. For the sake of honor or whatever I won't run any shapeshifters.
Spiders are a difficult deck to build. I don't deny that but here we go.
Dragonlair spider is the best spider. The problem with it is it requires 2 red to cast and its 6 mana. I don't like splashing a color just for 1 card. Especially if that one card is difficult to cast. I also don't like that its 6 mana. I feel that any deck running a card that is 6 or more mana needs mana ramp. The thing is there is nothing else that is 6 or more mana that I want to run. Now i'm stuck investing in red and mana ramp just for dragonlair spider. I don't think its worth all of that. Sadly, I think my spider deck is cutting the best spider. (It also annoys me that it makes insects not spiders)
The next best spider probably Ishkanah, grafwidow. Again I would wait till its out of standard and plummets in price. Its not as good a card as Wingmate roc and that went from $15 when it was in standard to $1.15 tcg play mid now. Ishkanah will drop even further. It also has its own set of problems. Its only good if you have delerium and getting delerium requires an investment. It also wants you to splash black for its ability. That is fine though. Spider spawning also wants your graveyard full and it also benefits from black. So the basis of the deck is Green with black splashed in built around Ishkanah, grafwidow and Spider spawning. A self decking mechanic seems advisable with these cards. I really like mesmeric orb. Better still I own them. Since virtually ever spider has more toughness then power assault formation gives the deck a nice boost in damage. Since i'm self decking I think I want 4 of most things since i'll lose some to the graveyard.
So far the deck is
4 Ishkanah, grafwidow
4 mesmeric orb
4 Spider spawning
4 assault formation
Need some stuff to keep me alive. My group as very agro. deadly recluse and juvenile gloomwidow punish people for attacking early and still have some effect late game. I also can't see any reason not to run spider fog so arachnogenesis is in.
4 Ishkanah, grafwidow
4 deadly recluse
4 juvenile gloomwidow
4 mesmeric orb
4 Spider spawning
4 assault formation
4 arachnogenesis
Now its really just filling in the remaining slots with cards I like and adjusting the numbers so everything fits. sporecap spider hits hard with assault formation. I like commune with the gods to help get assault formation and to get cards in the graveyard. penumbra spider replaces itself.
4 Ishkanah, grafwidow
4 deadly recluse
4 juvenile gloomwidow
4 sporcap spider
4 penumbra spider
3 mesmeric orb
3 Spider spawning
4 assault formation
3 arachnogenesis
4 commune with the gods
4 oran-rief, the vastwood
4 swarmyard
15 other
This is what I would playtest as my spider deck. Make changes from there. If most decks I play against are NOT tribal I would likely run coat of arms. If they are then I would never run it.
I strongly believe that Mana Crypt would decrease his overall win %. I've played with and against the card a countless number of times in Cube, EDH Cube, and a bit of Vintage and I truly believe that the card is heinous in fair decks. Again, I believe that he'll lose the overwhelming % of games that he casts this on turn 1 because I do not believe that this deck can race the 1.5 damage of blow-back (on average) per turn. This is coming from someone who always plays to win and who wouldn't think twice about keeping it if I thought that it would help more than hinder.
Ignore opinions and think about the math. Assuming a turn 1 Crypt he'll do an average of 15 damage to himself by turn 11 and I don't think that it's a stretch to suggest that you take more than 5 damage by turn 11 in an average multiplayer game. What is the probability that this decks wins in the first 10-15 turns? It's not 0% but it's damn close. This isn't a fast deck by any metric and even a T1 Sol Ring isn't going to change that.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
I'm not here to argue that Mana Crypt isn't a powerful Magic card. I'm here to argue that this deck can't realistically race a 1.5 damage unblockable creature in a multiplayer setting. We can both faun over Mana Crypt for days and it would get us nowhere because ultimately the question that we have to ask ourselves is "does Mana Crypt win games in this deck?" and I can confidently state that "no, it doesn't."
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Yeah I built my spider deck shortly after I was introduced to MTG by my wifey. I gave up on it pretty quick.
Shame. Taurean Mauler is on colour with Dragonlair spider. Maybe something that focusses on tokens instead?
If we focus on tokens;
Dragonlair Spider, Spider Spawning, Arachnogenesis etc. Add some stuff like Parallel Lives or Primal Vigor maybe?
Populate isn't really good enough running spiders unfortunately, but Impact tremors & Purphoros, God of the Forge work with mass token production.
I have a feeling spiders is not a deck I should be bothering with.... ugh.
Changelings are irrelevant. "Flavour" is an arbitrary cop-out that only exists to serve as a non-quantifiable variable in order to serve your personal whims and desires. Rather than justifying decisions with any reasonable or rational justifications you can simply state the "flavour defense" to wash your hands of personal accountability. It doesn't matter how, why or even if the deck works because you were only building it for "flavour" anyways. It's a defense mechanism employed to save-face should your creations fail to live up to (what people perceive to be) reasonable expectations. If the deck sucks, no biggie, you had to adhere to flavour so it wasn't your fault (even though no one actually cares that you imposed self-restrictions). Even if Changelings didn't exist it still wouldn't prevent people from pleading the flavour-th because they'd still find other ways to artificially restrict their deckbuilding decisions and give themselves an out in case it backfired miserably.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to detect over the internet. If you are being sarcastic then ignore the rest of this
I don't know what you are talking about. Flavor is everything. If I want to build an elf deck its because of flavor. Someone somewhere could present me with a statistical analysis showing that I would win more often if I built say a sliver deck instead. Mathematically, of all the tribes in magic the gathering, one tribe would win more often then the rest. According to you everyone should be running that best tribe because otherwise we are not being "reasonable or rational."
Simply put the end result of your logic is everyone running the same cards and making the decisions on what to run purely by math. An attitude that ruins any fun the game offers, and one that is particularly odd on a casual forum where the entire idea is to build fun decks. In another thread you said you would run burgeoning in every green deck. I'm sure math would back you up on that, but my god is that boring. I have 23 decks right now. If I was running all the same cards in each of those decks I would have quit the game years ago do to lack of variety. Every green deck needs burgeoning every blue deck needs rhystic study every white deck needs land tax. Every deck period needs sol ring. Sooooooooo boring. Variety is what makes the game fun. Variety in what you play and variety in what your opponent plays. Finally, your assertion that anyone who isn't by math running the best cards is using some sort of cop out defense mechanism is insulting not to mention incredibly condescending. I can't speak for others by my worth as a human being is not linked to winning games of magic. I don't have to win to feel good about myself and I certainly don't need to make contrived back doors to protect my honor in the event that I lose.
It's extremely time consuming and difficult to statistically prove what the optimal build for each deck is. It's a burden of proof so difficult to meet that you can't possibly hold someone else to it because you could never provide it yourself. This is especially true given that Magic is never played in a vacuum and so your individual card choices could vary wildly based on your own personal metagame needs.
I'm extremely passionate about Magic and enjoy playing it. I almost always have fun slinging spells. It's possible to "enjoy playing Magic" and "enjoy winning." They're not mutually exclusive as you're suggesting.
That's what makes Magic fun? Variety? Do you spend your time reading those color swap books because they're filled with a variety of colors?
People find Magic "fun" (a completely subjective term) for a throng of reasons. You're grossly oversimplifying things by trying to boil it down to exactly one variable. I agree that variety is part of what makes Magic fun but it's only a drop in the bucket.
Just so we're clear this has nothing to do with only building the best possible deck each and every time. Even I don't do that. I'm asking you "what practical value does flavour possess if flavour can be whatever you want whenever you want it to be?" Isn't it a self-fulling prophecy? I deem these cards flavorful therefore my deck adheres to flavour? How is that not frivolous self-gratification/a cop-out/a self-defense mechanism to circumvent failure? Let's say that we agree that I'm being condescending. Am I wrong? Any card can be deemed "flavourful" by anyone at any time for any reasons right? How isn't that a cop-out?
Example: my Lord of the Rings deck uses Sire of Insanity to represent the Balrog. Yours uses Rakdos, Lord of Riots. Which one of us is objectively right from a flavour standpoint? Aren't we both "winners" because "flavour" is a goal-post that can be changed and molded into whatever suits our needs? Can't we literally justify any card/decision in any deck for any reason by citing "flavour"? What practical value does it serve?
Winning has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that it's a cop-out. "Flavour" has no meaning except for what you elect it to be. It can also be changed at any time for any reason. It's the textbook definition of a "get out of jail free card." For example, lots of people argue that Changelings are bad for tribal decks. Why? Changelings morph to their surroundings. A Changeling surrounded by birds shifts into one itself. If you were a real mage doing battle it would look like one. As such you can easily argue that Changelings are still "flavorful." Or not. You can take a card that has the creature type "spider" and say "it's not a spider because I said so." Probably because there's no spider on the art. The creature type doesn't matter, it's actually the art. Or not. You can use any cop-out in the book because it doesn't matter. You're not adhering to any rational set of rules. Rather, you're imposing self-restrictions that don't apply to anyone else and that no one else truly cares about. You're not trying to build the best Spider deck, you're trying to build the deck that plays cards that have spiders in their art and that feel "spidery." "Spidery," of course, is whatever you want it to be and applies to whatever cards you deem fit for whatever reason.
Let's use the Taurean Mauler example for this deck. Presumably you want a 3 drop that works with Swarmyard, Descendants' Path, Arachnus Spinner, etc. and since this is a multiple deck it behooves you to field cards that scale as their number increases. This makes Taurean Mauler an objectively powerful option for the 3 CMC slot. It's the right creature type, it works with all of your cards and it scales well. If you don't want to add it to your deck for whatever reason, sure, that's fine. It's your deck and you can do whatever you want with your time, money and life. What I don't understand is what calling "flavour" accomplishes. You say that it's not a cop-out. What is it then? People employ it as a blanket cover-all to justify any decision for any reason. Why? Isn't it basically like giving yourself an award/medal? It's mental gymnastics used to make you feel like you've accomplished something relevant even though you haven't. There's no rule saying that you can't play Taurean Mauler in Spider tribal unless it's self-imposed. That way you can pat yourself on the back because "not only did you build the deck but you even adhered to special conditions X, Y and Z."
Let me ask this another way. You use the term "flavour." When you cite "flavour," couldn't you just as easily state "The Holy Order of Care Bears ordered me to play X"? Flavour is just as meaningless as any other meaningless justification isn't it? "It has cute art." "Kami-sama commanded me to run this." "I love lamp." "They took our jobs." None of it means anything. At the end of the day it's all a variation of "I'm running whatever I want why-ever I want." You're allowed to do that. It you're time, money, life, etc. Why all the mental gymnastics? Why are you trying to convince yourself/others that you're achieving something special? You're not.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Your entire speech is about projecting emotions onto other people. The narrative is that pride3 is better then those idiots. "They can't handle losing so they make all of these trap doors that they can call upon in the event that they lose." That is not the same as saying "I play to win and use any tool I can."
I find it boring to run the same cards over and over. Thats it. None of the emotionally baggage you are throwing on me actually applies.
Which emotions am I projecting on to people?
If you think that my narrative has anything to do with me then there's a fundamental disconnect between what you think you're reading and what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with individuals (myself included). You seem to be under the impression that I'm suggesting that the only way to build deck is to maximize your overall win %. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. I build 50% and 75% decks all the time. The difference is that I don't need to use mental gymnastics to justify my decisions. It's perfectly rational and reasonable to say "I'm purposely using weaker cards to keep the game fun for everyone. After all, I care more about having a healthy meta than a high win %." You can say "I don't want to run Taurean Mauler because I don't like the art." It's your money, your time, your life. That being said it makes no sense to say "I don't want to run card N for flavour reasons" when flavour can literally mean anything at any time. If you have to use flavour to justify decisions then the only reasonable explanation is that you want to use it as an excuse.
For clarity's sake I should stress that most of this stuff is subconscious. You seem to be under the impression that I'm suggesting that players are actively thinking about these factors when they're building decks. That's not how any of this works. As with any project that can end in failure people often create scape-goats and employ face-saving techniques well before problems ever occur. Again, I want to stress that it's a completely passive process that most people aren't aware of. In that sense it has nothing to do with emotions or feelings. Most of this "happens in the background" without people being aware of it.
This should make intuitive sense. After all, it's not you putting the card in your deck, it's flavour deciding that "this is the best card for the job." You get to distance yourself from the decision using a metric that's immeasurable and infinitely malleable. If anything goes wrong no worries, you were never in control to begin with. You were simply a vessel enacting flavour's will. All I'm saying is that people should take responsibility for their actions. If you want to put a card in your deck, go for it. Just be willing to say "I put this card in deck because it's the card that I chose to run" as opposed to blaming flavour for pulling the strings.
Why else would you cling to an ideal as malleable as "flavour"? It's anything that you want it to be at any time for any reason. What purpose could that possibly serve if-not some sort of defense mechanism against failure?
For all your talk you have yet to clearly explain what practical service that flavour offers. My argument is that it's a completely meaningless term since it can mean anything at any time for any reason. There's also no flavour overlap between individuals and there's no way to objectively quantity/measure it. What advantage is there to building with flavour as opposed to simply building a deck? I can put Eladamri, Lord of Leaves in my Lord of the Rings deck to represent Elrond without attributing that decision to flavour. My deck, my reasons, my card choices.
FWIW if you think that you, as an adult human male, haven't employed face-saving techniques while interacting socially with others then you're even more emotionally disconnected than I am.
Otherwise, why do you force yourself to build around flavour? Why can't you simply exercise your creative muscles and build decks using different cards? What is the advantage to building decks with flavour as opposed to simply building decks?
If I put Balthor the Stout in my Lord of the Rings deck to represent Gimli and and you put AND MY AXE! because it's more flavorful what value does flavour offer you? Aren't we both doing the same thing except you're needlessly self-gratifying yourself for adhering to self-imposed restrictions? I'm building a Lords of the Rings deck and choosing cards because I want to. You're doing it because flavour is dictating what you can and cannot play. You're obviously doing it for reason and I can't think of anything to explain it away. There's no difference between "building a fun deck" and "building a fun, flavorful deck" outside of the meaningless term that is "flavour."
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold