Izzet Delver

by NicolBolasTM on 29 October 2012

Main Deck (60 cards)

Sideboard (0 cards)

No sideboard found.

The owner of this deck hasn't added a sideboard, they probably should...

Submit a list of cards below to bulk import them all into your sideboard. Post one card per line using a format like "4x Birds of Paradise" or "1 Blaze", you can even enter just the card name by itself like "Wrath of God" for single cards.


Deck Description

cheap creatures supported by runechanter's pike, and ways to clear blockers.

Deck Tags

  • Experimental

Deck at a Glance

Social Stats

2
Likes

This deck has been viewed 1,741 times.

Mana Curve

Mana Symbol Occurrence

0250180

Card Legality

  • Not Legal in Standard
  • Legal in Modern
  • Legal in Vintage
  • Legal in Legacy

Deck discussion for Izzet Delver

Hey, really cool deck. I love decks with super low mana curves!
One change I'd make if the budget allows is adding vexing devil instead of Niv elemental - he seems a bit counterproductive since you have to exile your own spells, n doesn't benefit the pike-carrier.
For more fun, try throwing in 2-3x fling, an unblockable heavy hitter attacks, then gets flung - epic :P

0
Posted 30 October 2012 at 12:41

Permalink

hadnt considered fling though, might switch it with downpour.

0
Posted 30 October 2012 at 16:15

Permalink

I like niv-elemental, whenever he gets countered he can eat my spells that wouldnt have resolved anyways. Also, an early devil almost always is just 4 to the face. This deck really only uses burn for removal, as it can deal lots of damage around blockers.

0
Posted 30 October 2012 at 16:11

Permalink

Also, this deck is extremely low budget aside from the lands (already had those)

0
Posted 30 October 2012 at 16:13

Permalink

I am also a fan of the low mana curve, one question why unsumon and not vapor snag?

0
Posted 08 November 2012 at 05:28

Permalink

Because vapor snag isn't standard legal anymore. Nice deck, the spells are so cheap I'd even consider cutting a land or two?

0
Posted 08 November 2012 at 16:44

Permalink

Ironick has deleted this comment.

Posted 08 November 2012 at 16:52

Permalink

I don't think so, 21 is a pretty low land count already. This deck really needs to play a land the first 3 or so turns so I can pop a bunch of instants at once. Only thing I had really considered was adding some draw spells, but they need to be cheap. Think twice doesn't help cause I have to flashback it for card advantage, so doesn't help pike.

0
Posted 09 November 2012 at 04:30

Permalink

Considering Faithless Looting to dump spells into graveyard and increase spell selection(eliminate extraneous evasion and lands)

0
Posted 09 November 2012 at 04:38

Permalink

Considering faithless looting. Can put instants/sorcerys into graveyard, can ditch extra lands if i draw too many, helps get the best combinations of spells(want to cast a pump/burn and a evasion/block clear, 2 evasion is extraneous, no evasion=no damage). But what to cut?

0
Posted 09 November 2012 at 04:35

Permalink

check this out when you can
http://www.mtgvault.com/ViewDeck.aspx?DeckID=405779

0
Posted 20 November 2012 at 03:38

Permalink

Please leave a pertinent comment or dont make one, not just "hey come comment on this unrelated deck" I dont mind people leaving deck links in their comments, as long as the comment actually makes sense and is helpful, Or if the deck linked is a similar idea, like if you had, say, a U/W deck that also used stalker+instants+pike with St. Traft, because then the link is helpful, or at least has a purpose.
But when you say check this out, heres my high cmc creature-based modern ramp deck off a different color that you're going to post without a comment on my deck, which is a standard deck based on cheap, evasive creatures+runechanters pike supported by tempo-oriented spells(about as far apart as you can be), and post for no apparent purpose, it p!$$e$me off. People like you who leave their links to bad decks everywhere, then brag when your deck makes front page because so many people commented on how much they dislike it, are what this and sites like it.

0
Posted 20 November 2012 at 04:38

Permalink