Jingle

Despite the amount of burn/kill spells, I don't think this deck will be fast enough to compete against the momentum of your opponent. Despite the amount of creatures you can kill during the early game, it will cost you mana and a card from your hand to destroy their creatures/permanents. After these are exhausted you will be top-decking for kill-spells while trying to play planeswalkers at the same time. Unless you had a way to mana ramp, it will be a while until you can play spells and planeswalkers at the same time. Simply stated, you will run out of kill-spells and waste the contents of your hand long before you can play a planeswalker. As a result, your opponent will have time to kill the planewalker or complete other strategies.

It'd take a lot of work, and this is only a suggestion, but perhaps the deck should be revised into one of the following categories: mana ramp, control, proliferate. I think an artifact/proliferate would be the most fun and effective. Using the concept for the Lux deck, you can utilize artifacts that either benefit from proliferate or use the ability. Tumbler Magnet will be useful to tap creatures, Everflowing chalice can be used to accelerate mana, Mirrorworks can be utilized to double the artifacts used, and Throne of Geth can help further increase the counters on items. Obviously there are many ideas to research, but the core of the deck would be to use non-creature artifacts to accelerate your mana and then accelerate the counters on the planewalkers to activate their final abilities as soon as possible.

You probably just made this deck for fun, but with revising it could be a decent deck for multiplayer, archenemy, and squiggles.

It's a great card, I just don't think it works well with this deck. If anything, I'd eventually add them into the sideboard, but they never seem to help much in the actual deck. It's difficult to believe, but even in a discard-based deck you are seldom able to discard consistently. The way this deck is currently set up focuses on using quick discard spells in the beginning to exhaust their hand. After that, they'll be top-decking, and therefore you will be unable to discard much more unless they do not play the card they draw.

'Liliana's Caress", on average, might do 6 damage in this deck. You'd have to play it during your second turn, and then focus on discarding from then on. Not only would your opponent run out of cards before you could effectively use it, but the turns you'd spend playing the enchantment and discarding cards will leave you vulnerable to other threats. The only time 'Liliana's Caress' could be used to win the game is with the 'Mimic Vat' and 'Liliana's Specter' combo, but at that point you're probably already going to win regardless since your opponent can no longer draw. In exchange for 'Liliana's Caress', I've found 'Quest for the Nihil Stone' to be slightly more useful. It only costs one black mana, allowing me to play it whenever I have spare mana left over. Furthermore, it only takes two discarded cards to become active, and then proceeds to deal five damage to your opponent each turn they have no hand. Essentially, this card works faster and more efficiently than the other enchantment, but even then I rarely find myself focusing on playing it early in the game.

I don't think it's standard though. Otherwise, it would be great.

Indeed, it seems better due to the fact that you have the potential to discard a card of your choice. However, in reality, your opponent only has to show you cards equal to the number of swamps you have. Since this card only costs 1 Black Mana, it is very likely you'll find yourself able to play it on your first few turns. Obviously, if you did this on the first 3 turns, your opponent will only have to show a maximum of 3 cards. Not only will they still have a large hand because it's the beginning of the game, but now they have the option of which cards to reveal. This means, they can easily just show you land or poor cards. Certainly you can discard a card, but you lack the potential to see their entire hand or choose from their entire hand. In this sense, you'd have to wait until turn 5 to use this card, and at that point your opponent should already be low enough on cards that a mind rot or Liliana Specter will be just as effective, if not more. Simply noted, at that point in the game, you cannot really afford to waste mana on smaller spells.

I agree, Mire's Toll has many components that are better than Duress. The ability to reveal and select any card is grand. Yet, Duress, along with Inquistion of Kozilek, are two low-cost discard spells that are always great to start the game with. Focusing simply on Duress, on your first turn you have the ability to see their entire hand. This will allow you to get a sense of their battle plan, as well as make a mental note of what is left in their hand as the turns proceed onward. Next, you can discard any non-creature/non-land. This doesn't seem too great, but often if you focus on Planeswalkers, Enchantments, Low-cost counters and spells; it can cripple their early game presence.

Basically, spells such as Duress and Kozilek are great for finding out what your opponent has in store for the first few turns, as well as discarding anything that they can play within their first few moves. Think of it this way, if you begin looking at their hand and discarding chosen cards on your first few moves, you can figure out how to dismantle their biggest early-game threats. Once this is done, your opponent will be left with little to play during their turn, allowing you more time to draw cards, play mana, and extinguish anything you couldn't discard early game by using Mind Rot and your creatures.

I see where you're going with Mire's Toll, and the ability to discard a card at your choice for only 1 Black mana is great. I certainly know there are ocassions where such a card could prove useful. Still, if you're playing discard effectively, by the time you have enough swamps to view their entire hand, they're probably only down to 1-3 cards, making them just as vulnerable to your more powerful discard spells. I find that if you chose to discard their low-cost spells to start, and leave their larger/threatening creatures in their hand, they'll have nothing to do but wait for the appropriate mana. Before they can get that mana, it's more likely that you'll be able to continue spending your own mana to devour their hand. Even if they play their creature, you'll probably have a kill-spell ready. On top of this, they'd have to play mana each turn to get ready to summon a large spell, which will continue to narrow down their hand.

As you have it, with 2 Mire's Toll, I suppose it's fine to leave it there. If you had 4, it might be problematic, but with 2 I'm sure you could learn to use them effectively. I'd still suggest increasing the amount of Duress, just by 1-2. Those early game discard spells work wonders, but in testing you'd just need to make sure you don't add too many. 3 Kozilek, 2 Duress, 2 Mire's Toll should be fine. Keep testing Mire's Toll, find out if it works for you. What I stated is just my opinion brought about from experience, there's not exact way about going about it.

Massacre Wurm and Bloodchief Ascension are both good ideas for a Discard Deck. The Wurm acts not only as offense/defense, but certainly can help clear the field of small creatures. Bloodchief Ascension is also a great effect, especially in combo with Sign in Blood, Liliana's Caress, and Quest for Nihil Stone. I'd recommend adding another one if possible, as 2 should be effective.

Liliana's Caress is an interesting card, as it seems appealing due to its combination with the concept of discard. In reality though, I've found that it often seems to simply be a waste of space in a deck. By the time you play it, your opponent will hopefully have already discarded 2-3 cards in their hand. Besides that, your opponent will be playing as many cards as possible to avoid your discard effects, and therefore, you'll be lucky if you can savor 6 damage from it, rarely more than that. So, maybe running three is a bit too much. Perhaps running 1 and 2 Liliana Vess might be more efficient.

I used to run 4 Quest for the Nihil Stones, as it is a great card for discard. However, I've discovered it's not required for victory and you'll typically only be able to have one run well at a time. If you're running two on the field, you're likely winning as a result of other cards, not because you have two out. Perhaps running only 2 Nihil Stones might be better?

Perhaps 1 less Liliana Specter might be 'safer', as once your opponent is rid of their hand, they're not useful in combatting large creatures. Have you thought of Bloodhusk Ritualist and Gatekeeper? Bloodhusk is useful due to its multikicker ability, allowing you to drop it for 3 and pay an additional 1 mana to force an opponent to discard a number of cards. It's great because in terms of drawing it, it's essentially a creature and spell combined into one card. Gatekeeper is useful as a low cost creature with a kicker ability that allows you to have them sacrifice a creature.

On the topic of destroying their creatures, you could possibly add more cards such as Doom Blade, Go for the Throat, Grasp of Darkness, and Quag Sickness. The ability to finish your opponent's hand and then rid them of any potential threat typically results in a win. For Go For the Throat and Doom Blade, it might be best to run 4 of Each, but keep one set in a sideboard. For instance, if you know your opponent is playing artifacts, you can remove 4 Go for the Throats and add the Doom blades. If your opponent is playing Black cards, just switch for the appropriate spells.

Morbid Plunder, Black Sun's Zenith, Gruesome Encore, Mire's Toll, and Rise from the Grave seem rather inefficient. Ultimately, if you focus on the process of discard first, your creatures will be less likely to die. Furthermore, after using your first few turns to use discard spells/creatures, hopefully your larger creatures will get drawn and will be ready to play once the field is safe. Therefore, there is little need to worry about returning them from your graveyard. In replacement, you could think about adding more cards such as Duress and Horrifying Revelation, and possibly another Sign in Blood.

Well, those are just suggestions, hopefully it has some use.

For a $30 Budget Deck, using cards such as Liliana Vess and Sword of Body and Mind might not only be expensive, but to a large extent they alone may cost more than $30 and they are not too useful for Discard. I also agree with the above post about the lack of mana. With a mono-colored deck, you might want to think about 20 Swamps and cutting the amount of highcost cards. The cards that are not mana heavy seem to lack the ability to drive the deck, and some of the cards that are mana heavy don't really mean much in terms of gameplay.

If you're thinking of making a Discard Deck, you want to try and focus entirely on creating a deck in which the cards flow and achieve victory revolving around maintaining your opponents hand. Cards such as Duress, Mind Rot, Sign in Blood, and Liliana Vess aid this goal. Yet, it seems like most of the other cards do not. The zero cost artifacts may appear useful for defense/offense, but they're not something you'd want to waste time drawing for an initial hand or in the midst of a game. A lot of the other creatures and artifacts are either too high-cost, or they're not in sync with the deck type. For instance, Geth sounds like a great card; but does a discard deck really support it? You'd have to wait for seven mana, play the card, wait a turn, and then spend your next turn using his ability. Essentially at that point, you're giving your opponent too much time to execute their own plan. Other cards such as Diabolic Tutor and Mind Sludge may seem useful, but Diabolic Tutor is typically too expensive to run 4 of, and Mind Sludge isn't very effective. By the time you have enough mana to play Mind Sludge, hopefully in a discard deck you've already gotten your opponent down to less than 3 cards.

Rather than discussing the reasons behind why I'd suggest replacing certain cards, it might be best for me to simply suggest a few cards that may enhance a discard deck.

Liliana's Specter is a great 3 cost flying creature that forces all opponents to discard a card when it comes into play. This not only provides offense/defense, but also will have a guarenteed effect upon play. Guul Drax Specter is another flying creature that costs 4, making it an ideal replacement for some of your large creatures. Whenever your opponent has an empty hand, it goes from a 2/2 to a 5/5 and whenever it deals damage your opponent discards a card. Bloodhusk Ritualist is a 3 drop that is not flying, however, each time you kick it for 1 mana your opponent must discard a card. Aside from creatures that discard cards, Gatekeeper of Malikir is a low cost creature that forces your opponent to sacrifice a creature, thus allowing you to clear the field.

Duress, Inquisition of Kozilek, and Horrifying Revelation are all great spells that cause your opponent to discard a card in different ways, and each is only a 1 drop. These are great for crippling your opponent's ability to play cards early in the game, as most of them allow you to view their hand and choose the proper card. Quest for Nihil Stone is another useful enchantment that essentially deals 5 damage to your opponent at the beginning of their upkeep if they have no hand, which flows well with many of the stated creatures. Finally, any kill spells such as Grasp of Darkness, Doomblade, Go for the Throat, and Quag Sickness are useful in maintaining the field in addition to manipulating their hand.

Anyhow, it seems lengthy, but these are just suggestions for cards that are typically associated with the term 'discard'. Maybe some of the suggested cards may have an appeal, but regardless, I think the best thing for you to do is research Discard Decks in order to find cards that aid the process.

What purpose does Haunting Echoes serve in this deck? It's certainly helpful I suppose, but it seems like a High-Cost card that doesn't actually influence their hand. Perhaps it would be best to toss in Psychic Miasma instead? That card costs 2 Mana I believe, and causes the player to discard a card. If they discard a land, Psychic Miasma returns to your hand. In other words, it'll force them to discard a non-land item, probably something useful. So, they'll either have to leave their hand filled with mana, or allow you to use it again. In my opinion, swapping Haunting Echoes for PM is a better choice. And, perhaps, it might be useful to add another 2 PM to your side deck by removing 2 Quag Sickness.

No problem. Just remember, it's all idealistic at first. Although those are certainly 3 ways to win, it's difficult to plan for each other deck you might face. (Control, Burn, Discard, Artifact, Flying) Rather, it's probably best on your part to think of a strategy and research cards that not only compliment your goal, but also serve to dismantle your opponents plan, since sometimes the speed of an infect deck is not able to stop your opponent from enacting their plan. For example, Stabbing Pain serves to tap a creature and allow your infect creatures to deal direct damage, but it also can destroy your opponent's creature, thus creating disorder in their ranks. Regardless though, for whatever strategy you choose, just attempt to find the proper cards to transform your winning plan from idealistic to realistic.

That is true, if your opponent knows what to expect, they can mulligan once to ensure they get a few of those spells. In that case, you'd essentially have to play with wit, opposed to countering with cards. You'd have to focus on pushing as many creatures onto the field as possible in the first few turns. I believe in the next block there is a 1 Mana creature with infect, which will make this possible. The more creatures you can throw out, the faster you can waste their counters. Finally, when attacking, beware of how much mana they have available to spend. If they've got at least 1 red mana, it's possible after buffing your creature they'll toss a lightning bolt. The bolt would be established first, thus ruining your entire plan. Also, they could toss out unsummon or a damage reducing card, which would have the same result. If they have mana available, attack, but use the weaker buffs, or no buffs at all, in order to encourage them to waste these spells. Thankfully, unless the mulligan rule is loose, they will not have their ideal hand to counter everything you can do.

I'm not sure if the addition of another Vines of Vastwood is worthwhile. From an external view, the +4/+4 and 'shroudish' ability is obviously better, but Vamp's Bite seems like a better choice, for this quick deck. First, this deck runs with both swamps and forests, and it's going to be best to find buffs for each type of mana. If you load this deck up with too many forest buffs, there'll be instances where you'll be unable to play the required green buffs because you'll have 1-2 swamps in play that won't allow them. Since the creature cards are equally balanced between Forest/Swamp, it seems fine to include the Bite over the Vines of Vastwood. The other reason for including the extra Bite is the reality that Vines is expensive. Most of the time, if you're going for a one shot, it's going to be better to simpy toss out 3 buffs with +3, rather then waste 2 mana for a +4 (That's where Groundswell is useful, a 1 Mana cost card with a potential for +4/+4). That'll still deliver the 10 poison counters, where Vines'll cost, not only 2 Mana, but specifically 2 Green Mana, which could prevent you from casting other green cards that turn. Vines of Vastwood certainly is great, but I think 2-3 is better than 4. Winding up with multiple of them in your hand is potentially harmful, as it'll cost four mana to use them effectively. It's a great card, but for a quick deck as this one, wouldn't it be best to pull for more cheap buffs? In testing, this deck essentially requires the effective use of every bit of mana you have, both on your turn and on your opponents turn.

As far as Doom blade goes, this deck can't really handle it due to its cost. Sure, you might get to turn four and kill their creature and attack, but you'll only be able to toss 2 of your buffs at max, which probably wouldn't finish them. What about Disfigure or Stabbing Pain? Both are 1 Black Mana cards Disfigure makes a creature -2/-2 until the end of turn. Stabbing Pain makes a creature -1/-1 until the end of turn and then taps it. Since this deck thrives early in the game, Disfigure would likely kill of any creatures, allowing you to take the opponent off-guard and attack. You can also buff your own creature while livewire is equipped and then counter it yourself with a giant growth if you're desperate. I think Stabbing Pain would be a better potential 'kill spell' though, as the -1/-1 would still kill early game creatures, creatures wounded from infect, and most burn cards. It's best feature is its ability to tap a creature, therefore allowing you to avoid blockers and attack directly. Or, it can be used when your opponent is about to attack, rendering a creature useless for the attack and your own combat phase.

Just a suggestion, but perhaps instead of Virulent Swipe you could potentially add Vampire's Bite instead. Virulent Swipe gives +2/0 and Deathtouch, which is great. On the other hand, Vampire's Bite gives +3/0 (and a kicker ability that you'd be unlikely to use). With an infect deck and a ton of buffs, deathtouch doesn't seem that important. It's very rare that you'd suicide an infect creature using deathtouch in this deck, as you need to keep them alive early in the game to quickly overwhelm your opponent. Chances are, you're going to be saving your creatures with Giant Growth/Prey's Vengeance. Whenever you'd use Virulent Swipe, chances are you're simply going for extra poison counters, rather then support with fighting creatures. As much as the extra +1/0 doesn't seem useful, there are multiple ocassions, especially if you're trying for +10 poison counters in one attack, where the extra one will make a difference.

Consider this scenario, it's turn three and you currently have plague stinger out along with 1 swamp and 1 forest. You play a forest, and then attack. Your opponent takes the attack, and then you tap for Vampire's Bite/Giant Growth/Giant Growth. In total, (1+3/3+3/3+3), you've just dealt exactly 10 poison counters. If you play with Virulent Swipe, that'll only be 9 poison counters. Once again, typically if your infect blocks/fights another creature, chances are you'll need to keep your own creature alive, so you'll have to use buffs that add to toughness, which makes Virulent Swipe useless.

Stabbing Pain is a great idea. I was thinking about Disfigure (-2/-2 until the end of turn) to clear out creatures. However, Stabbing Pain is great for clearing 1/1, and it also has the tap ability which'll catch your opponent off-guard. Definitely, good job on that addition, as an infect deck such as this one is all about catching your opponent off-guard and attacking for maximum damage.

I'm not really sure about the Tangler Angler. It's a great infect card, but better played with blue/control. You're running a deck to relies on cheap creatures to take out your opponent with buffs. Besides being too costly, especially since there are four of them in the deck, it doesn't commit enough damage and its ability is contrary to your goal. Rather then forcing creatures to block, you should concern yourself with bypassing them entirely. If you spend too much time using your creatures to block/attack other creatures, you'll find yourself wasting buffs and allowing your opponent to gain mana and use more complex spells. Maybe try swapping the Anglers out for Necropedes? Besides being cheap and reliable, these creatures will allow you to put a -1/-1 on anything you'd like upon death. This means you can kill a 1/1, or kill a 2/2 if you blocked it with the Necropede. Since you're running with multiple Hand of the Praetors, it's best to have as many cheap infect as possible in order to keep the advantage of its effects.

It also might be best to run with 4 Giant Growths. The +3/+3 is useful for dealing poison counters as well as countering Lightning Bolt or creature attacks. Besides an offensive buff, it is essentially your control/counter. Maybe exchange 1 Prey's Vengeance/1 Vines of Vastwood for 2 Giant Growths? Or just exchange 2 Vines of Vastwood for 2 Giant Growths. I find that the +4/+4 effect of Vastwood is great, but sometimes too costly when you could have paid 1 for +3/3, and it's main ability doesn't exactly counter too many things and seems to be situational. I also like Prey's Vengeance, but for a burst deck it can ocassionaly lack, and sometimes when it rebounds you have nothing to put it on or have no use for it during that turn. Still, I think at least 3 is worth having.

Anyhow, feel free to disregard this advice, that's all it is anyhow, just a few things you might want to think about when tuning your deck. I've played with a similar type of deck, and after testing it, those are the things I've noticed. Someone mentione Garruk, and although I've yet to test it, it might be worthwhile for your sideboard. Whenever you play against control decks, the chance of the game lasting longer will increase, and that is where Garruk will shine. You're correct to note it's too slow, but when forced to play a slow game, it'll be useful. For four mana, you essentially regain 2. And the following turn, that 4 mana can become 6. Or, if you choose his final ability, on the Garruk's second turn you can give your infect +3/+3 and trample. As long as your opponent doesn't have a non-damage counter available, you can just toss out a few more buffs and you win. Even if they have a counter ready, if you've got more then 1 creature, you'll still likely be fine.

That sounds like a plan, good luck with it. At the moment, I've swapped the Corpse Cur(s) for additional land. Where the original deck sports 15, I'm going to simply experiment with an additional 2 minus the weight of the Corpse Cur. So, along with the fetch lands, that brings this deck to 21 lands. Although it seems less than the standard 24, you're certainly right in noting that you only need a few lands to use, and the fetch lands help minimize your chance of getting land after you already have 3 down. I've also swapped 2 Vines of Vastwood out for 2 Hand of the Praetor(s). This was mainly to increase the creature count, provide a powerful/useful creature for longer games, and avoid the high cost of Skithrex. Although I'm hesitant to take out any buffs, Vines of Vastwood always seemed like a situational card. It's main ability is useful in protecting your creature when attacking/defending, but sometimes it doesn't help much aside from the Livewire combo. I still believe it's a great card to add, but I think two should be plenty and the additional creatures will help counter the absence of the Corpse Cur(s) ability and provide a stronger presence.

As much as drawing two livewire's in your intial hand is troublesome, this deck seems to revolve 50% about the card. In some matches, I've found that if you can simply save your buffs and attach the artifact to the creature, the following turn you can just toss out the buffs and there's nothing your opponent can really do. You can either load them up with poison counters, or clear the way of their defense and attack with your buffed creature. I think one less livewire would be good, but taking too many out begins to withdraw the deck from its originality. A lot of infect work with Distortion Strike, Proliferate, Skithrex, Putrefax; so you've definitely done a great job with creating a different and effective infect deck. In 2v2s with a team member who uses distortion strike and counters, this deck is deadly and frustrating for the other team.

One of the issues that becomes increasingly prominent in games is the reality that the 3-turn win sometimes is nothing more than ideal. I've found that it can be unstoppable at various points, but only if the other player has their mana tapped, isn't expecting the attack, or has no spells to counter the assault. After you play 1-2 rounds, typically the other person is going to be smart enough to understand that letting your creatures by when you have mana available is a bad idea. Instead, they'll focus of kill spells and sacrificing creatures to absorb the infect damage. Since this deck lacks trample/unblockable, it seems to be best to focus on a number of infect to outflank the opponent or livewire lash in order to clear their defense of creatures and then attack. In multiple instances, when the opponent realizes that you're going to be tossing out buffs, I've been victim of an 'Unsummon', combat damage preventing card, or even lightning bolt after attacking. Due to the chain of events, it's possible to lose a creature+all its buffs to one of those simple costing cards, which then slows down your deck for a bit.

The surprise aspect certainly is wonderful, but the other player will quickly become aware of your potential and proceed to counter it by tightening defense. As far as Corpse Cur goes, I felt this deck consists of mainly small cost cards, and its 4Mana cost seemed steep for its minor ability and 2/2. It seems better to play a 1/1 for 2Mana and then utilize a Prey's Vengeance/Groundswell/Giant Growth in case they try and burn the infect. I've yet to test it, but I honestly believe Garruk, maybe even two, might be useful to swap in for the Corpse Cur, keeping two in the side deck. The ability to untap land each turn is great for the regeneration of the Mambas/Dragon, and can allow you to play creatures and spells while wielding only 4 mana. (Use 4 to play creatures, untap 2, use the 2 for spells.) Finally, the trample +3/+3 just seems like a finishing move after getting even one creature out. They'll be forced to block it, and you can just buff it up even more with cheap spells in order to deal the remaining poison counters.

I suppose it's all just personal opinion, but I agree this deck runs well with only a few lands. From what I've tested though, it usually requires at least 3 against another decent deck. So, typically one would have to mulligan to ensure that they'll have at least 3 within the first few moves. Other than that though, this deck works as it should, it's quick and powerful. However, once your opponent understands the risks of your infect creatures they will begin using more creatures for defense. What decks have you tested infect against?

Have you considered Garruk as an addition instead of one of the Corpse Curs? The Corpse cur seems out of place (without Putrefax/Blight Dragon already in the deck), since most of your infect creatures are small and rarely do you run out of creatures to play. The four mana cost could be better spent of a creature/buffs. Since this deck runs on limited land, getting Garruk out would immediately grant an additional two mana to play a creature, and then the following turn you have the opportunity to buff your infect creatures +3/3 and trample. Since an opponent will find themselves sacrificing cheap creatures to avoid the burst of poison counters, trample would essentially help to negate the blocking obstacle.

I recently tested this type of infect deck, and it seems (to me at least) that there is a lack of land/mana present. Typically when the game starts, I find that, more often than not, one is heavily dependent on the amount of land in the initial hand. Due to the amount of creatures/spells, it's very likely that 3-4 turns will go by without drawing a land. In lasting games, this certainly isn't an issue, but when one only has 2-3 mana to begin with, it can hinder your progress. While the spells/creatures don't cost a lot, if you're playing with limited mana and your opponent has the opportunity to utilize 5-6 mana, you're at a disadvantage. I've personally attempted to alter a few cards in order to add some land, but I certainly don't know what would be decent to take out.

My question, what is your take on the amount of mana? Has that been an issue for you when using this deck? If it is, what do you suggest swaping for support?