Kazzong

lol... yeah, on and off for about 5 years. but I must admit I have never played in anything bigger than a normal FNM or prerelease event. Even so, I know a fair bit of deck theory after spending so much time spent doing card research.

so OP... you clearly didn't read what I posted. I didn't say that everyone criticized your deck, I stated that you are jumping down the throats of the people who critiqued your deck. you kinda brought the hostility upon yourself by doing that.

First off, it takes a lot to actually make me mad, so congrats at doing that. this it going to be a long post, so for everyone else... TLDR at the bottom.

with that out of the way:

Personally I like this deck. I love land destruction, and you just don't see new powerful LD cards printed in standard anymore, and as such you don't see it as a viable deck in standard because Wizards of The Coast decided it simply wasn't fun to play against. similar to why there will never truly be a top tier viable mill deck in standard either. both border on what I call NRM, or Not Real Magic because they simply don't allow for both sides to play evenly. but they can both be fun when built properly in older formats like modern, vintage, legacy or of course casual. Prison decks also can fit here. So seeing somebody come up with a fun looking LD deck, regardless of format... it makes me happy.

But when you try and stomp out all commenters that don't agree with you, with the single-mindedness of the Spanish Inquisition , it tends to make you look pretty bad regardless of whether you are right or wrong. and even those of us who like the deck wish you would back off a bit and mellow out.

yes you have stated your points and opinions, yes you say you have sideboard tech to deal with meta, and yes you have your claims about being in the so called hardest fnm meta because players A,B, and C, are there (which can't actually be verified regardless), and yes you can CLAIM to know better than anybody on the planet how to truly test a deck in a competitive environment based on your previous STANDARD (not modern) decks (again in an non-confirmable super meta).. but that simply isn't an applicable argument here. point being that you don't have the actual deck in question (the LD deck) nor are you willing to get it because time and money, but you immediately attempt to invalidate anyone who claims they can test it via proxy.

who knows, perhaps they can set up an event of that scale, net deck the top 8-12 modern decks (with variations for multiple players of course) for it to play against, in a 75 player setting and get valid results.

People come here and comment saying that the deck isn't as good as you say it is. and you don't like it. boo hoo.
Awhile back I thought I had an amazingly good deck and I posted it, and it got dumped on. but I decided to take their advice instead of being hostile, because it was far more useful than arguing every tiny detail. now I never claimed the deck was tier 1, because it isn't, but it clearly wasn't as good as I thought. that being said the deck is certainly better for it.

You come here expecting to be crowned the savior of LD decks because your LD deck is simply the greatest of all time because it can shut off land drops effectively on turns 1-4, so you claim. and yet people who have played probably as much as you have, as competitively as you have come here and tell you something you don't want to hear. Why? because perhaps it isn't the be all end all of decks like you claim it to be. it may be the best Land Destruction deck ever made, or maybe not, BUT that doesn't mean it is better than other deck types simply because it is (possibly) the best of it's own type. LD has never been tier 1, and perhaps this deck pushes that, but it doesn't raise LD as a whole into tier 1.


You claim, validly I would generally say, that nobody can really say for sure that a deck is good or bad until it's theory has been proven in a large scale competitive setting and tweaked based on the results, but you are going way out of your way to try and discredit anyone other than you who may have equivalent experience who also knows how to build and test competitive decks, that thinks they can predict how the deck with perform in that real world testing based (as you have) on their own previous competitive experience. but this experience is clearly invalid to you for some reason because it isn't your own.

Now your own logic dictates that your own deck must go through this testing as well before you can claim it to be good, but you don't have the deck, nor have you tested it in any meaningful way. you only have theory as to why it SHOULD work, and the crappy draw testing on the vault, and whatever they have on Tappedout. but those clearly don't fit the requirements that you stated as valid testing. so your statement of deck theory acceptance doesn't line up with your statements of superiority due to previous deck building. thus you lack credibility, even by your own logic.

now for you to be considered credible, your statement of deck theory acceptance, and your statement of how to properly test deck theory must line up, but yours does not. you don't have the deck, and thus you have not tested it in a manner that should be satisfactory to your own methods, so you can't claim as fact that it reliably does anything that you haven't actually tested. anything can happen in happy-Christmas-Land that you state as the perfect playing of this deck, just like any other deck. but without actual testing it is, again, only speculation as to if it can actually happen consistently.

for this testing that should happen, you said that you wished for someone to test this deck for themselves (in response to somebody offering to test it just so you would shut up), but then said, in essence, that it simply couldn't be properly tested by anyone but you for lack of: experience, qualifying local meta, and proper competitive setting. so on here at least what people are seeing is this: you simply don't think it should be tested by anyone here, and you want people to just take your word that it does what you say it does because YOU say it does (because your experience is Be All End All and thus should be taken as though the very word of god when repeated) which, as has been already stated, can't be relied upon as more than speculation prior to the testing that you yourself require of a deck, by your own logic.
speculation, and nothing more. again, based on your logic. all the prior experience in the world means nothing when faced with a new task, right? by your treatment of the people here, that is clearly what you are saying.

You can make all the claims in the world as to the effectiveness of any given deck, but it simply means nothing until actually proven. theory is still theory until proven fact. so please get off your high horse.




TLDR:
Your CLAIMS about this being a tier 1 deck are merely that: CLAIMS, until the deck has been tested, which it hasn't. you yourself stated that a deck should be tested before it can be stated as fact that it is good or not, but refuse to acknowledge claims of anyone who states they can test it in a meaningful way, as valid, and also refuse to test it yourself.

just because you have experience with competitive deck building doesn't mean nobody else does. nor should they take your word for it prior to testing, as logic should demand before stating the conclusion. nothing is certain before testing, only speculative.
speculation can be good but must be verified to be conclusive. it simply doesn't make sense to take someone's word when they won't even follow their own logic in this area.
and Happy-Christmas-Land that gives you a perfect hand simply isn't going to happen the majority of the time.

oh, and Thanks SureWhyNot for chiming in here. :)

yeah, I think I might put Mana Web in the sideboard strictly as tech against white, and swap it for something like... Apostle's Blessing or perhaps Dawn Charm as you suggested.

personally I would love for somebody to proxy this deck in some form and test it against high level modern decks. Be it in cocatrice or forge or anything. and if it does well then it does well, and if it loses... then perhaps OP will stop ranting about why everyone who critiques his/her deck is a blithering idiot. which would be nice.

Heck, OP doesn't even have the deck, so for all the theory that OP claims is in the deck... it hasn't been validated.

I know, right?

nobody said countersquall wasn't modern legal. Bfrick2 said it was counterspell and underground sea. and stormtide suggested countersquall asan alternative to counterspell.

actually, Counterspell and Underground Sea also make it not modern legal.
Also to be honest, this simply loses to blood moon. you might want some basic lands here.

yeah, that makes sense. again, thanks. :)

interesting at very least.
nothing like a good old land destruction deck to rustle your opponent's jimmies. :)

my brother Egotines is super shy but wanted me to thank you for you comment. he also wanted to know if you had any suggestions on how to make this deck better. also your opinion on skyshroud cutter.

ah sanguine bond. that makes sense. :)

what card is blood of the covenant? I can't find it.

that is kind of the point.

I only wish that tainted remedy or false cure were pauper legal. or another similar card.

right on. I would be curious to know how it performs in testing.

well it has to be a common on Magic the Gathering Online, and that is really the only requirement. So Hordeling outburst is unfortunately a no go... :(

Might also think about adding some more token making cards as well. Dragon fodder etc...

Mogg war marshal is certainly a good card for this deck. thanks for the suggestion. :) I will drop a few ramp cards for some.

no. no it isn't. :(
that is a brand that makes duct tape. duck tape brand duct tape. and I personally think their duct tape is not particularly good, loses its stickiness too easily. would much rather have Scotch brand, or Gorilla tape.

regardless though... any opinions on the deck itself?

bummer... I hope you can find something soon.