Hi everyone! I'm CJ, Nara's gf. I'm using his account since we more/less share the same MTG cards. I have been playing MTG for around a year, I came in around the time that Shadows over Innistrad came out.
So I run a G/Black deck, but its not doing so good. I have been playing exclusively against my bf (well except for that three way match against the Wolf/Werewolf deck and him) for a couple months. A few days ago I underwent a purge of my deck (because it was pretty big, around 100 or so cards) and took out primarily some creatures, but now I get mostly mana when I play and need something, not quite sure what the issue is.
Here is my deck, thanks in advance for all of your help!
If it helps, I like shiny cards and also getting the most I can get out of a card, but using as little mana as possible, oh and interesting artwork, definitely!
Also, my main opponent is my bf and he LOVES using burn cards against me (he used to run 4 Trials of Zeal and 4 Trials of Ambition and 4 each Cartouches of Zeal/Ambition just so he could recycle the ToZ back to his hand and repeat the burning process)
I count about 87(?) cards. The minimum is 60. You should have 60. (There are arguments about this, but unless you have a bunch of tutors or are playing Battle of Wits, you should basically always have 60 or 61.) This on its own should improve your deck consistency considerably; whatever you want the deck to do, it should do it better like that.
You said you draw too many lands -- that's because you have too many. Generally speaking, you want about 40% lands in a deck. In a 60 card deck, that means you want 24 lands. Keep the dual lands (Foul Orchard / Tainted Wood) and split the rest between Forest and Swamp.
As for what to take out: pure lifegain is just flat out bad. Things like Pulse of Murasa, maybeJaddi Offshoot, and especially Arborback Stomper can be okay because they're useful on their own, but I'd say Bountiful Harvest and Hunters' Feast should immediately go. (They may be slightly better against your bf's deck since he plays burn, but even then something that has lasting impact on the board should probably do more work.) Auras meant for your own creatures are usually bad too, because if the creature dies, you lose two cards. I would cut Oakenform and Primal Cocoon.
From there, you've got a bunch more cards to cut. This may be really painful. Try to keep a decent 'curve': have a relatively low amount of 1 and 2 cost cards, most of them a 3, 4 and 5 cost, and pretty few 6+ cost cards. (Most decks play even lower costs than this, but a highly casual environment can help with that by having much slower games.) Try not to have a million things cost the same amount, and be wary of spells that are hard to cast or low-impact. Keep some amount of removal (eg Doom Blade) and combat tricks (eg Titanic Growth), but probably mostly focus on creatures since they have the most permanent impact on the board.
Finally: lots of people may say that you'll need to buy lots of new cards. I would highly disagree. In a casual environment it's not worth it for a slightly better deck -- skill and deckbuilding will get you better results. Plus, right now you first need to focus on cutting cards, not buying them.
Cheers, and I hope you have fun!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
The minimum is 60... you should basically always have 60 or 61.
What compelling argument could you make to justify having him play a 61 card deck? Each card that you play above 60 reduces your probability of drawing your strongest spells. This is especially worrisome for newer players who have shallow card pools i.e. players who can't fill their decks with (traditionally) powerful cards. Put simply, each "Loam Larva" that he fields in excess of 60 cards makes it that much less likely that he'll draw Pharika, God of Affliction in favor of cards that won't win games of Magic for him. Should he not be aiming to draw his Pharika as consistently as possible?
Dear CJ,
Check my response to your friend's post on the black red, it generic deck building advise.
Keep in mind that the object of the game is having fun.
If your opponent plays a deck that is comparable to yours in power the games should be interesting.
So try to improve both your decks equally.
When you start playing other people this holds as well.
If they play tougher decks you'll want to improve yours.
It's an arms race until both parties agree to stop that and just play.
That said:
How do you want to win?
Which cards do you really want to play? (As often and as early as possible.)
Which cards in your collection help with that goal?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In magic there's Harry Dresden, Fizban, Sethra Lavode, Dorotea Senjak and me...
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
What compelling argument could you make to justify having him play a 61 card deck? Each card that you play above 60 reduces your probability of drawing your strongest spells. This is especially worrisome for newer players who have shallow card pools i.e. players who can't fill their decks with (traditionally) powerful cards. Put simply, each "Loam Larva" that he fields in excess of 60 cards makes it that much less likely that he'll draw Pharika, God of Affliction in favor of cards that won't win games of Magic for him. Should he not be aiming to draw his Pharika as consistently as possible?
I was referring to the theory of optimizing your mana base in some cases; from googling, here's Frank Karsten's article (specifically point 5): link. I don't think it's a good idea, but I mentioned it so nobody would say I left it out as a 'vallid' option For a beginner, one extra Loam Larva would indeed make it slightly less likely they draw their bomb; that is why I said they should play 60 or 61, preferably 60. You will note that I said:
Are you suggesting that acquiring skill in Magic is either A) fast B) simple C) possible for all players?
No, I'm not suggesting any of those. I didn't say anything to that effect.
What I am suggesting is that, if the user was a beginner in terms of skill at the game -- which admittedly was an assumption I made, possibly wrongly but meaning no harm -- then practice (where possible, with others) is better bang for your buck than buying cards. I'm no expert (indeed, I'm pretty mediocre) at playing Magic myself, but I know I'm better than when I started, to a point where I could probably beat my earlier self with an inferior deck.
I'm not trying to say they should become pros at the game before buying any cards at all -- or that they should wait to buy cards if they look cool. If you want to buy a neat card then do it. What I'm saying is... well, see below.
How can you build good decks with bad cards? What is "good" deckbuilding if-not building and playing the strongest sets of cards available to you?
This is the attitude I take issue with. It's true, to a certain extent, that buying better cards will help. What I see, over and over again, though, with threads like these, is that the question-askers are told to go off and buy multiple whole top-tier Standard decks, when this is in fact completely unhelpful. It's okay to show people examples of these decks, but it's useless to tell people they need to drop hundreds on new cards when it won't help them early on.
That's the main point I was originally trying to preemptively make -- I'm totally not against buying new cards, but (especially when the person is trying to make cuts to their deck) recommending whole new decks full of expensive Standard staples smacks me as wrong. I've seen it before in these sorts of threads; luckily, I haven't really yet seen it here.
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
I was referring to the theory of optimizing your mana base in some cases; from googling, here's Frank Karsten's article (specifically point 5): link. I don't think it's a good idea, but I mentioned it so nobody would say I left it out as a 'vallid' option
But it's not a "valid" option. As per that same article:
"I also investigated via a simulation experiment whether or not it is worth running 41 or 61 cards to improve the land/spell ratio. The results indicate that the optimal 40-card or 60-card deck is still better."
Frank concluded that those arguments aren't valid. Why are you suggesting that they are?
No, I'm not suggesting any of those. I didn't say anything to that effect.
Well yes, actually, you did. You said "[i]n a casual environment it's not worth it for a slightly better deck -- skill and deckbuilding will get you better results." You argued that buying cards like Exsanguinate and Gray Merchant of Asphodel is relatively worthless compared to becoming an expert. That was your entire argument. It's foolish. I would be willing to wager you any sum of money or any stakes of your choosing that I could help a newer player win more games in both the short and long run by handing them a deck full of "Pride approved" multiplayer cards and telling them to play it. No strategy sessions, no in-depth discussions, I would just hand them a decklist, say "play this" and send them off on their merry way. In fact, I don't understand how you could possibly argue that mastering the game would be a more practical approach for a newer player. After all, one requires time, effort and a level of a capacity that not all players possess. Bear in mind that I don't mean that as a slight to anyone because we all have our own strengths and weaknesses and none of us are great at everything. I've played with thousands of players at this point in my life and suffice it to say that only a small fraction of them had the time, money, desire, capacity and inclination to want to learn how to play the game and build decks at a high level. That being said anyone can be handed a deck with Exsanguinates and Insurrections and win games of Magic. The former has relatively strict requirements wheres the later has virtually none at all.
Sorry bud, that's just how the real world works. When you spend nearly every waking moment of your life managing other people and their actions you learn very quickly that not everyone can "git gud" and if that's your primary go-to then you're in for a rough ride. You have to fool-proof that stuff as much as possible and set it up so people have to do as little work as possible. Yes, a small % of people are always going to succeed and excel even in the harshest of conditions with minimal motivation. That's how they're built and they're going to shine with or without you so you don't need to spend much of your time and energy trying to help them out. Your primary problem, as a manager, is the overwhelming % of your personal who don't have the drive, capacity or motivation to excel. Not everyone cares as much as you do. Not everyone wants to succeed as much as you do. If you manage these individuals with the mindset of "I need to figure out how to make these people as hungry to succeed as I am" then you're going to have a bad time. Some people just play Magic because their friends/family do. They have absolutely no desire to master the game nor learn how to build decks, they just want to chill with their friends, brothers, boyfriends, etc. They're not going to go home, read articles, practice, goldfish, theory craft, etc. They're going to buy a deck or two, play them poorly and never significantly improve as a player. That's totally fine; you don't have to be a master to enjoy the game. Your approach is far too idealistic in that sense because you unreasonably assume that "gitting gud" is the optimal solution for everyone. It's not. It only makes sense for a small fraction of the playerbase (or to a small fraction of your work force) and everyone else is going to need significantly more help, external motivation and support along the way.
I'm no expert (indeed, I'm pretty mediocre) at playing Magic myself, but I know I'm better than when I started, to a point where I could probably beat my earlier self with an inferior deck.
How long did it take to get you to where you are today?
Go back to original you. Scrap the decks that you were playing and imagine that you're playing from my playbook. Your old curves are dead, now you're jamming Carpet of Flowers, Compost, Managorger Hydra, Lurking Predators, Sylvan Primordial, etc. How drastically does your win % increase? Now repeat that exercise with the current decks that you're playing. Are you still going to tell me that mastering the game yields better results than buying oppressive cards?
What I see, over and over again, though, with threads like these, is that the question-askers are told to go off and buy multiple whole top-tier Standard decks, when this is in fact completely unhelpful.
List two reasonably recent examples if this is such as recurring problem.
That's the main point I was originally trying to preemptively make -- I'm totally not against buying new cards, but (especially when the person is trying to make [i]cuts[/i] to their deck) recommending whole new decks full of expensive Standard staples smacks me as wrong. I've seen it before in these sorts of threads; luckily, I haven't really yet seen it here.
I don't disagree with the idea that telling a new player to buy a ton of expensive Standard cards is generally unhelpful.
I disagree with the idea that it isn't worthwhile to suggest powerful-yet-budget-minded multiplayer staples to help newer players compete. The "git gud" argument is extremely overrated in general because the reality is that only a small fraction of players will go on to invest the time, effort and money into mastering the intricacies of Magic and deckbuilding. This means that for the overwhelming majority of players "play good cards" is a significantly more practical approach because the small minority will already succeed with or without the help of others.
Note, this isn't me saying "playing good cards is more helpful in the long run than mastering the game." The people who're going to go on to become great Magic players and/or deckbuilders are going to do with or without our help. You weren't going to prevent Owen Turtenwald from becoming a master just by handing a powerful deck in his youth. Don't worry about him, worry about "Mr. 0-2 drop every event I've ever played" and focus your efforts on developing a strategy that will legitimately help him succeed in a field where he's currently struggling to compete.
So I run a G/Black deck, but its not doing so good. I have been playing exclusively against my bf (well except for that three way match against the Wolf/Werewolf deck and him) for a couple months. A few days ago I underwent a purge of my deck (because it was pretty big, around 100 or so cards) and took out primarily some creatures, but now I get mostly mana when I play and need something, not quite sure what the issue is.
Here is my deck, thanks in advance for all of your help!
19 Forest
2 Foul Orchard
1 Tainted Wood
1 Bountiful Harvest
1 Drain Life
1 Hunters' Feast
2 Larger Than Life
1 Raise Dead
1 Doom Blade
1 Grasp of Darkness
2 Naturalize
1 Pulse of Murasa
1 Tar Snare
1 Titanic Growth
1 Vines of the Recluse
1 Autumnal Gloom
1 Dark Heart of Wood
2 Curse of Wizardry
1 Gift of Paradise
2 Primal Cocoon
1 Quag Sickness
2 Stab Wound
2 Trial of Strength
1 Ambuscade Shaman
1 Arborback Stomper
1 Avatar of Woe
1 Beastbreaker of Bala Ged
1 Bitterblade Warrior
1 Channeler Initiate
1 Creakwood Liege
1 Doomed Dissenter
2 Garruk's Companion
1 Garruk's Horde
2 Gravedigger
1 Highland Game
2 Jaddi Offshoot
1 Khenra Eternal
1 Leatherback Baloth
1 Moriok Reaver
1 Pharika, God of Affliction
1 Scute Mob
4 Tattered Mummy
1 Territorial Baloth
1 Vraska the Unseen
If it helps, I like shiny cards and also getting the most I can get out of a card, but using as little mana as possible, oh and interesting artwork, definitely!
Also, my main opponent is my bf and he LOVES using burn cards against me (he used to run 4 Trials of Zeal and 4 Trials of Ambition and 4 each Cartouches of Zeal/Ambition just so he could recycle the ToZ back to his hand and repeat the burning process)
You said you draw too many lands -- that's because you have too many. Generally speaking, you want about 40% lands in a deck. In a 60 card deck, that means you want 24 lands. Keep the dual lands (Foul Orchard / Tainted Wood) and split the rest between Forest and Swamp.
As for what to take out: pure lifegain is just flat out bad. Things like Pulse of Murasa, maybe Jaddi Offshoot, and especially Arborback Stomper can be okay because they're useful on their own, but I'd say Bountiful Harvest and Hunters' Feast should immediately go. (They may be slightly better against your bf's deck since he plays burn, but even then something that has lasting impact on the board should probably do more work.) Auras meant for your own creatures are usually bad too, because if the creature dies, you lose two cards. I would cut Oakenform and Primal Cocoon.
From there, you've got a bunch more cards to cut. This may be really painful. Try to keep a decent 'curve': have a relatively low amount of 1 and 2 cost cards, most of them a 3, 4 and 5 cost, and pretty few 6+ cost cards. (Most decks play even lower costs than this, but a highly casual environment can help with that by having much slower games.) Try not to have a million things cost the same amount, and be wary of spells that are hard to cast or low-impact. Keep some amount of removal (eg Doom Blade) and combat tricks (eg Titanic Growth), but probably mostly focus on creatures since they have the most permanent impact on the board.
Finally: lots of people may say that you'll need to buy lots of new cards. I would highly disagree. In a casual environment it's not worth it for a slightly better deck -- skill and deckbuilding will get you better results. Plus, right now you first need to focus on cutting cards, not buying them.
Cheers, and I hope you have fun!
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
What compelling argument could you make to justify having him play a 61 card deck? Each card that you play above 60 reduces your probability of drawing your strongest spells. This is especially worrisome for newer players who have shallow card pools i.e. players who can't fill their decks with (traditionally) powerful cards. Put simply, each "Loam Larva" that he fields in excess of 60 cards makes it that much less likely that he'll draw Pharika, God of Affliction in favor of cards that won't win games of Magic for him. Should he not be aiming to draw his Pharika as consistently as possible?
Are you suggesting that acquiring skill in Magic is either A) fast B) simple C) possible for all players?
How can you build good decks with bad cards? What is "good" deckbuilding if-not building and playing the strongest sets of cards available to you?
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
Check my response to your friend's post on the black red, it generic deck building advise.
Keep in mind that the object of the game is having fun.
If your opponent plays a deck that is comparable to yours in power the games should be interesting.
So try to improve both your decks equally.
When you start playing other people this holds as well.
If they play tougher decks you'll want to improve yours.
It's an arms race until both parties agree to stop that and just play.
That said:
How do you want to win?
Which cards do you really want to play? (As often and as early as possible.)
Which cards in your collection help with that goal?
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
I was referring to the theory of optimizing your mana base in some cases; from googling, here's Frank Karsten's article (specifically point 5): link. I don't think it's a good idea, but I mentioned it so nobody would say I left it out as a 'vallid' option For a beginner, one extra Loam Larva would indeed make it slightly less likely they draw their bomb; that is why I said they should play 60 or 61, preferably 60. You will note that I said:
No, I'm not suggesting any of those. I didn't say anything to that effect.
What I am suggesting is that, if the user was a beginner in terms of skill at the game -- which admittedly was an assumption I made, possibly wrongly but meaning no harm -- then practice (where possible, with others) is better bang for your buck than buying cards. I'm no expert (indeed, I'm pretty mediocre) at playing Magic myself, but I know I'm better than when I started, to a point where I could probably beat my earlier self with an inferior deck.
I'm not trying to say they should become pros at the game before buying any cards at all -- or that they should wait to buy cards if they look cool. If you want to buy a neat card then do it. What I'm saying is... well, see below.
This is the attitude I take issue with. It's true, to a certain extent, that buying better cards will help. What I see, over and over again, though, with threads like these, is that the question-askers are told to go off and buy multiple whole top-tier Standard decks, when this is in fact completely unhelpful. It's okay to show people examples of these decks, but it's useless to tell people they need to drop hundreds on new cards when it won't help them early on.
That's the main point I was originally trying to preemptively make -- I'm totally not against buying new cards, but (especially when the person is trying to make cuts to their deck) recommending whole new decks full of expensive Standard staples smacks me as wrong. I've seen it before in these sorts of threads; luckily, I haven't really yet seen it here.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
But it's not a "valid" option. As per that same article:
"I also investigated via a simulation experiment whether or not it is worth running 41 or 61 cards to improve the land/spell ratio. The results indicate that the optimal 40-card or 60-card deck is still better."
Frank concluded that those arguments aren't valid. Why are you suggesting that they are?
You contradict that statement in the very next sentence. You couldn't even keep your story straight for a paragraph.
Well yes, actually, you did. You said "[i]n a casual environment it's not worth it for a slightly better deck -- skill and deckbuilding will get you better results." You argued that buying cards like Exsanguinate and Gray Merchant of Asphodel is relatively worthless compared to becoming an expert. That was your entire argument. It's foolish. I would be willing to wager you any sum of money or any stakes of your choosing that I could help a newer player win more games in both the short and long run by handing them a deck full of "Pride approved" multiplayer cards and telling them to play it. No strategy sessions, no in-depth discussions, I would just hand them a decklist, say "play this" and send them off on their merry way. In fact, I don't understand how you could possibly argue that mastering the game would be a more practical approach for a newer player. After all, one requires time, effort and a level of a capacity that not all players possess. Bear in mind that I don't mean that as a slight to anyone because we all have our own strengths and weaknesses and none of us are great at everything. I've played with thousands of players at this point in my life and suffice it to say that only a small fraction of them had the time, money, desire, capacity and inclination to want to learn how to play the game and build decks at a high level. That being said anyone can be handed a deck with Exsanguinates and Insurrections and win games of Magic. The former has relatively strict requirements wheres the later has virtually none at all.
Sorry bud, that's just how the real world works. When you spend nearly every waking moment of your life managing other people and their actions you learn very quickly that not everyone can "git gud" and if that's your primary go-to then you're in for a rough ride. You have to fool-proof that stuff as much as possible and set it up so people have to do as little work as possible. Yes, a small % of people are always going to succeed and excel even in the harshest of conditions with minimal motivation. That's how they're built and they're going to shine with or without you so you don't need to spend much of your time and energy trying to help them out. Your primary problem, as a manager, is the overwhelming % of your personal who don't have the drive, capacity or motivation to excel. Not everyone cares as much as you do. Not everyone wants to succeed as much as you do. If you manage these individuals with the mindset of "I need to figure out how to make these people as hungry to succeed as I am" then you're going to have a bad time. Some people just play Magic because their friends/family do. They have absolutely no desire to master the game nor learn how to build decks, they just want to chill with their friends, brothers, boyfriends, etc. They're not going to go home, read articles, practice, goldfish, theory craft, etc. They're going to buy a deck or two, play them poorly and never significantly improve as a player. That's totally fine; you don't have to be a master to enjoy the game. Your approach is far too idealistic in that sense because you unreasonably assume that "gitting gud" is the optimal solution for everyone. It's not. It only makes sense for a small fraction of the playerbase (or to a small fraction of your work force) and everyone else is going to need significantly more help, external motivation and support along the way.
How long did it take to get you to where you are today?
Go back to original you. Scrap the decks that you were playing and imagine that you're playing from my playbook. Your old curves are dead, now you're jamming Carpet of Flowers, Compost, Managorger Hydra, Lurking Predators, Sylvan Primordial, etc. How drastically does your win % increase? Now repeat that exercise with the current decks that you're playing. Are you still going to tell me that mastering the game yields better results than buying oppressive cards?
If by "certain extent" you mean "my decks/cards are banned because I win far too often" then sure.
List two reasonably recent examples if this is such as recurring problem.
I don't disagree with the idea that telling a new player to buy a ton of expensive Standard cards is generally unhelpful.
I disagree with the idea that it isn't worthwhile to suggest powerful-yet-budget-minded multiplayer staples to help newer players compete. The "git gud" argument is extremely overrated in general because the reality is that only a small fraction of players will go on to invest the time, effort and money into mastering the intricacies of Magic and deckbuilding. This means that for the overwhelming majority of players "play good cards" is a significantly more practical approach because the small minority will already succeed with or without the help of others.
Note, this isn't me saying "playing good cards is more helpful in the long run than mastering the game." The people who're going to go on to become great Magic players and/or deckbuilders are going to do with or without our help. You weren't going to prevent Owen Turtenwald from becoming a master just by handing a powerful deck in his youth. Don't worry about him, worry about "Mr. 0-2 drop every event I've ever played" and focus your efforts on developing a strategy that will legitimately help him succeed in a field where he's currently struggling to compete.
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
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.