Effective Elves

by PasttimePlayer on 01 December 2012

Main Deck (60 cards)

Sideboard (3 cards)

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

Lots of elves that work together to create super powerful creatures on the battlefield as an overwhelming force to destroy the opponent.

I also have another deck at http://www.mtgvault.com/ViewDeck.aspx?DeckID=410386. It's an arcbound deck. Thanks.

Edit #1: I added Joraga Warcaller instead of Elvish Warrior.

Deck Tags

  • Combo

Deck at a Glance

Social Stats

1
Like

This deck has been viewed 1,799 times.

Mana Curve

Mana Symbol Occurrence

002046

Card Legality

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

Deck discussion for Effective Elves

Hi PasttimePlayer :)
Now personally I think 80 is about 20 too much, but we all have the right to play as we see fit, so no lifted, waving index at you. You did a nice combination of Elves, no doubt about that, however I'd look into Immaculate + Joraga Warcaller - that is a combo *made* for breaking the game, and opponents face ):-))
I think its cool you've added Nath of the Gilt-Leaf - one of my favorites in the game - never used him though...

0
Posted 05 December 2012 at 01:13

Permalink

Why do you think that anything over 60 cards is too much. Wouldn't that just add more powers to the deck? What is your aversion to it? Just wondering.

0
Posted 05 December 2012 at 03:38

Permalink

And thans for the Joraga warcaller I think it will help.

1
Posted 05 December 2012 at 03:39

Permalink

Hey man, no problem :) Glad to help. Well, its not a mandatory rule to play with 60 cards minimum, however, when you play with *fewer* cards (and perhaps x4 of everything besides basic Lands) you have statistically higher chances of drawing the cards you really need and want for any possible scenario, and a quicker victory.
That's why some, for example, says: "The deck need to be more consistent" - Which basically means, run 4 of everything (except basic Lands) and have a maximum of 60 cards total.
*However* ! ! ! This game is called MAGIC: because, you can play (almost) any way you want, and the game keeps changing because of new Core and expansion sets :)

0
Posted 07 December 2012 at 06:46

Permalink

BTW Putrefy is a nice destructive spell, featuring both green and black from "the pie"
Fetch-Land can really help you out - Evovling Wilds, Terramorphic Expanse and the like, to "thin' your deck, making each draw to be more likely the card you need ;-)

0
Posted 05 December 2012 at 01:18

Permalink

Thanks for the Putrefy, but in the first edition of this deck I had Terror which does the exact same thing (except you cant't kill black creatures) as Putrefy for one less mana (minus the forest). I decided to kick it out in favor of Drove of Elves and Footbottm Feast. I think that was a good trade.

1
Posted 05 December 2012 at 02:58

Permalink

As for the fetch-lands I'm wondering why to put them in when you can have basic lands that don't come into play tapped? If you could explain the appeal to me I would be grateful. Thanks.

1
Posted 05 December 2012 at 03:36

Permalink

The fetch-lands is a way to get the mana you need *when* you need it, and they make your library "thinner" by giving you basic lands, either tapped or not. The so-called "pain-lands" are better because, they make the land you're fetching come into play *untapped* as opposed to Evolving and Expanse, which makes a huge motherload of difference. At the small price of 1 life you've actually removed 2 lands in your deck (the fetch, and the fetched) which improves your next draw, and logically should be the card you need, meaning; you're more likely to draw your Llanowar Elves or Nath of the Gilt-Leaf, or... or... or... and not a land, which you already have.
I know it sounds complicated, but trust me... Fetch Lands work...!

0
Posted 07 December 2012 at 06:55

Permalink