15 {Forest}
4 {Terramorphic Expanse}
19 lands
2 {Leatherback Baloth}
2 {Garruk's Companion}
1 {Baloth Woodcrasher}
3 {Llanowar Elves}
1 {Kalonian Behemoth}
4 {Blightwidow}
2 {Mossbridge Troll}
15 creatures
2 {Beastmaster's Magemark}
2 {Nature's Lore}
4 {Naturalize}
2 {Might of Oaks}
2 {Rancor}
2 {Harrow}
3 {Might of Old Krosa}
1 {Elephant Guide}
2 {Primal Cocoon}
2 {Nature's Spiral}
2 {Garruk Wildspeaker}
2 {Rude Awakening}
26 other spells
Sideboard
Notes:
My favorite
|
Looks evil
This pretty evil. Still get beat a lot though think some improvement could still be made. Don't know what though.
Getting rid of the 2 of's will make your deck more consistent. Run 4 of's for cards you do not mind drawing at any time, 3 of's are one of my favorite and save those for cards you want to see in the game but not necessarily a lot of, 2 of's are just too unreliable to draw consistently and should be used for a limited amount of cards, 1 of's are great for that game changer card that you never want to draw copies of but could make the difference in a game when you draw it at the right time.
I finally got more {Naturalize} 3 of them to make a playset I need to remove 3 cards I'm thinking about the two rancor cards but still need to take out one more. What'll it be?
Replaced my two {Rancor} and my {Enormous Baloth} for my three {Naturalize}. Now I have the question, are there too little creatures in this deck?
I've seen a couple of your decks Sasquatch and I'm not trying to be rude just constructive, they seem too inconsistent more 4s 2 are ok just very few and more reserved for nukes
K thanks for advice.
I have too many lands when I have 20 lands. So I'm gonna get a couple {Terramorphic Expanse}
Hunh? But that's MORE land. I thought you said you had too much land!
Quote from: 92Sasquatch on October 10, 2012, 11:48:51 AM
Replaced my two {Rancor} and my {Enormous Baloth} for my three {Naturalize}. Now I have the question, are there too little creatures in this deck?
If you think you don't have enough creatures, you could run {acidic slime} or a beastie like {molder slug} rather than {naturalize}.
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on October 13, 2012, 08:10:04 PM
Hunh? But that's MORE land. I thought you said you had too much land!
The only reason I say have too much land is because I keep drawing too many lands and not enough other stuff. So if I put {Terramorphic Expanse} in that would still give me the same amount of lands which that would be good, and I can just sacrifice it right away to find a land card and put it on the field. Getting rid of 4 lands that I would draw at another time.
I need more creatures in here
Quote from: 92Sasquatch on October 14, 2012, 06:53:53 AM
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on October 13, 2012, 08:10:04 PM
Hunh? But that's MORE land. I thought you said you had too much land!
The only reason I say have too much land is because I keep drawing too many lands and not enough other stuff. So if I put {Terramorphic Expanse} in that would still give me the same amount of lands which that would be good, and I can just sacrifice it right away to find a land card and put it on the field. Getting rid of 4 lands that I would draw at another time.
Derp.
Absolutely no reason to use {Terramorphic Expanse} in a mono colour deck. All you do is slow it down - the land comes in tapped, where if you'd dawn a forest you'd be able to use it... Think it through... You have the same number of land cards, so the same chance of drawing a land, except now 20% of them will generate a useless land until the next turn. Not a good idea...
{Tranquil Thicket} not Expanse. 👋