you can all eat my crap 2.0 (s..

by patchkey on 02 December 2011

Main Deck (60 cards)

Sideboard (15 cards)

Instants (3)


Artifacts (2)

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

still the mayor of the world.

a sized down version of the other, bigger G/W -- for faster fastness.

Deck Tags

  • Tournament

Deck at a Glance

Social Stats

7
Likes

This deck has been viewed 7,861 times.

Mana Curve

Mana Symbol Occurrence

2800013

Card Legality

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

Deck discussion for you can all eat my crap 2.0 (standard)

Nice. Where's the other batterskull? They're twins. You can't separate twins (you should know that).

1
Posted 02 December 2011 at 03:57

Permalink

too big for this deck. alas! what it really needs is another sword..grin grin, nudge nudge.

it's basically what i ran the other fnm, but minus all the garruks and + all the mayors.

getting arc trailed early shouldn't cripple this deck like the last one.

and twins? nah dawg, i don't know nothin' 'bout no twins. heard they're sick-nasty though.

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 04:45

Permalink

Done with Garruk so soon? He's a good boy, though.

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 04:47

Permalink

nah. i'll probably put him in the side for mirror matches or something. this deck is just a hair faster than the other, so i took him out for blade's. if it's not smooth, garruk to the rescue!

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 12:57

Permalink

I like it. Though I'd take out the DoJ. It's gonna hurt u mare than the opponent.

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 05:12

Permalink

neg. it's never a bad idea to have a sweeper -- that is unless you're running suicide-aggro WW or goblins or tempered steel. there are decks that are quicker than mine and players that overextend. i like being ready for both.

let tokens pour out their hand the turn before they overrun.

how else am i going to get rid of a dozen hexproof illusions.?

it's a good card. it stays for now. but thanks for the criticism.

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 13:00

Permalink

and, it's a control element that works well w/ this sort of aggro build. just knowing you have it in your deck compels your opponent (if he's smart) to play around it. if not, gg.

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 13:15

Permalink

I'd agree with that. But you would need to at least add in some spot removal to take its place.

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 05:20

Permalink

kamikazi1000 has deleted this comment.

Posted 02 December 2011 at 05:25

Permalink

kamikazi1000 has deleted this comment.

Posted 02 December 2011 at 05:36

Permalink

nicedeck, come check out mine! http://www.mtgvault.com/ViewDeck.aspx?DeckID=262844

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 10:31

Permalink

nice Dick!Come check out mine!

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 18:29

Permalink

both the compliment and offer are flattering. however, spelling is important. and i'm not clicking on your username (infected link) to look at anything.

:- /

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 19:01

Permalink

That's probably about right. ^

0
Posted 02 December 2011 at 19:01

Permalink

kamikazi1000 has deleted this comment.

Posted 02 December 2011 at 21:41

Permalink

That is a pretty nasty deck but why do you still have DoJ, why not put in 2 more O-rings Check out my deck please http://www.mtgvault.com/ViewDeck.aspx?DeckID=266381

0
Posted 03 December 2011 at 17:24

Permalink

Reposting:

"neg. it's never a bad idea to have a sweeper -- that is unless you're running suicide-aggro WW or goblins or tempered steel. there are decks that are quicker than mine and players that overextend. i like being ready for both.

let tokens pour out their hand the turn before they overrun.

how else am i going to get rid of a dozen hexproof illusions.?

it's a good card. it stays for now. but thanks for the criticism."

I've changed up the sideboard to try to compensate for control match-ups. It's hard to play when your opponent has 8 counters in their hand at all times.

0
Posted 03 December 2011 at 21:03

Permalink

kamikazi1000 has deleted this comment.

Posted 05 December 2011 at 04:31

Permalink

kamikazi1000 has deleted this comment.

Posted 05 December 2011 at 04:33

Permalink

IhaveHedronCrabsinMyPants has deleted this comment.

Posted 06 December 2011 at 04:27

Permalink

i like this deck. it smells better than most g/w's ive seen lately. hows gideon working out for you in here?

0
Posted 06 December 2011 at 04:29

Permalink

gideon is a nice control aspect that both locks down opponent's attackers and draws attention away from what's about to happen on the battlefield. he's a fine addition.

0
Posted 06 December 2011 at 05:02

Permalink

IhaveHedronCrabsinMyPants has deleted this comment.

Posted 06 December 2011 at 04:30

Permalink

i love human tribal this looks sweet

0
Posted 06 December 2011 at 07:11

Permalink

yeah, thanks man. i esp. like the mayor (one of my fav. cards of the new set). he's so unassuming -- 'til the moon comes out ;)

0
Posted 06 December 2011 at 18:29

Permalink

Pretty solid deck, but I agree with Jayden, shouldn't use Judgement at all, or at least not main. You better off with a 3 beast and 3 O Ring split.

0
Posted 07 December 2011 at 23:59

Permalink

this deck, despite being aggro, has a tendency to go slow. DoJ in the main is sick against tempered steel and other "all-in" aggro decks. if i'm playing rdw or some other burn, they side out for witchbane. but for now, they stay in, b/c they meet a need this deck has: sweeper.

if it's ineffective in game 1, i'll side it out, but i like it's versatility.

thanks for the crit.

0
Posted 08 December 2011 at 01:34

Permalink

Why is Blade Splicer in there? Its the only card I don't truly understand

0
Posted 09 December 2011 at 12:18

Permalink

another 3 drop turn 2. two bodies to wear a sword or stop stromkirk or...

she's good. trust me.

0
Posted 10 December 2011 at 07:56

Permalink

why not throw in some grand abolishers over her?

0
Posted 16 December 2011 at 02:31

Permalink

Mike Haggar?

0
Posted 14 February 2012 at 18:39

Permalink