Garruk Beast

[92Sasquatch]

Garruk Beast 60 cards, 0 sideboard 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

[AgrusKos]

Looks evil

[92Sasquatch]

This pretty evil. Still get beat a lot though think some improvement could still be made. Don't know what though.

[cltrn81]

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.

[92Sasquatch]

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?

[92Sasquatch]

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?

[Boatdeason]

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

[92Sasquatch]

K thanks for advice.

[92Sasquatch]

I have too many lands when I have 20 lands. So I'm gonna get a couple  {Terramorphic Expanse}

[Double-O-Scotch]

Hunh? But that's MORE land. I thought you said you had too much land!

[adventus]

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}.

[92Sasquatch]

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.

[92Sasquatch]

I need more creatures in here

[swallowtail]

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...

[Harmon1c]

{Tranquil Thicket} not Expanse. 👋