So one way or another, I've decided I'm going to make a blue deck. Now my predicament is that I don't really have any single costing blue creatures, most are 3+ though I have a FEW 2's. So I figure I need to aim to play slow, but my question is, can I? I mainly play a white deck that puts out tokens like a white trash girls put out kids when they're with a black guy, and my other deck is a red green, so I'm use to getting guys out at a pretty fast rate, perhaps I'm just insecure about waiting to get fuckers out there.
>>47532242
DELVER
OF
SECRETS
>>47532242
Blue shouldn't need creatures.
You're doing it wrong
>>47532242
no creatures
20 lands, 40 counterspells
>>47532256
Isn't magic nowadays all about the creatures?
>>47532256
>>47532278
So should I atleast try to have a lot of low costing stuff that would either counter or just hurt/tap my opponent to buy me time to get enough land to lay out a few massive guys and try to 1-3 turn kill?
>>47532455
ONLY. COUNTERS.
>>47532645
Ok, I'm feeling good about this deck, but I do have 5ish big guys only for the sake of I still need something to take the game home, and with that I have the ability to beef them the fuck up and counter/tap just about everything. My only threat I foresee is them using instants on my big fuckers and I don't honestly have anything to do anything about that
>>47532278
>>47532455
plus 1 copy of Elixir of Inmortality
>>47533376
>Elixir of Inmortality
Need me another one of those, I only have 1 and it's reserved for my white token plump deck. What set are those in currently, maybe I'll just buy some boosters
You can use Delver of Secrets and that counterspell with Awaken. You can alao use Flip Jace with Circular Logic.
>>47533413
most recent print is in Magic 2014, so idk if you'll find boosters
>>47533615
Will keep an eye out then, that wouldn't be unoptimle to have a few more of on hand anyway
>>47533529
I'm digging these two, i'll keep an eye out
Fuck, this thread hurts my autism so hard
my friend ran a slight variant of
>>47532278
execept it ran archaeomancers and pic related as well
>>47532242
It sounds like you're playing in a pretty casual metagame, which means it's unlikely that you should be playing any 1-drop creatures at all. In general, the ease of casting 1 and 2 drops is near enough and the difference in tempo small enough that they can be compared directly, and as a result most 1s simply aren't "worth the card" when they could be swapped out for a more powerful 2.
There are three classes of 1-drops that justify the cost of a card: hyperefficient cards with histories of serious constructed play which will warp a casual meta (Delver, Wild Nactl, Goblin Guide), strategy specific utility cards (Disciple of the Vault, Deathrite Shaman, Grim Lavamancer), and mana dorks (Birds of Paradise, Noble Hierarch, 12 different Elves). Your deck shouldn't be looking for these.
Has no one noticed that is a blue card but the cmc has a forest in it?
>>47533944
Blue hurricane is a misprint that was shipped in an England-only release (in 94 I believe?) and sells for stupid amounts to old-school collectors.
>>47532242
Buy delver of secrets
>>47533944
It's a misprint. Back in the day WotC simply did not give a fuck.
Once while playing a Blue deck during a four man multiplayer game I caused a player to almost table flip, and pull a knife before he eventually packed up his things and left. Probably one of the biggest reactions I've seen during my magic career.
>>47532242
The blue casual deck I've made recently only consists of 7 creatures where 6 of them are 7-drops. Rest are counters / bouncers to buy me time and some ramp (Traumatic Visions and Myriad Landscape) to reach 7 mana quickly and play a fatty. Any extra land will be discarded with Trade Routes or fed to Trench Gorger to thin out my library und help me only draw stuff I need.
>>47535806
>blue decks
>guarantor of rage quits since 1993
Last time I played against my brother he just Æthersnatched my finisher. I felt so abused...
>>47533900
another cool finisher is pic related
>monoblue
>creatures
here.
>>47538273
That's a vicious jelly fish, what boosters am I probable to find him?
>>47539116
image saved, but do I need that many tapped-when-placed lands? I've gota fair number in my green/red and I'm considering taking some out
>>47539116
The Exotic Orchards are there for activating abilities of enemy copied creatures, I guess? I really like that!
>>47539253
none of those lands enter the battlefield tapped. even the mana rocks enter untapped.
Not to be a parrot, but even a budget Delver deck if played well would completely stomp even seasoned players. But that's only if you wanted to play more instant and sorceries than creatures, for a blue deck pretending to be green or white, you could play merfolk. There are illusions too, but they're just shitty merfolk. You could also go an artifact route or build a deck with a lot of unblockable/ fliers and get some equipment or something.
The point of blue creatures are usually not to be brute force, but provide utility, otherwise the colors wouldn't be different. If you want a "true" blue deck, you want a control deck or Delver deck, which either get few small creatures and protect/ delay, or delay until you drop something huge (most fun mono blue beater imo is Lorthos or planeswalkers).
That's my two cents at least.
>>47532242
Realistically speaking, you can't win an MTG game if you just sit doing nothing for the first couple turns, so yeah, you need lower-costing creatures or spells. Ideally, most of your deck should be spells cost 0-3 so you are sure not to get mana-screwed and can do something every turn.
Truth be told "I want to make a blue deck" is a rather poor description. Post your list as it is, tell us what format you want it for and what do you want your deck to focus on and we'll get back to you.
>>47540427
> stuff
http://deckstats.net/deck-10220113-ae212a467788d7c20ae0a21ef0354368.html
>>47541009
Well, before you start worrying about your creatures in particular:
You're either playing far to many cards, or far too few 999 decks in 1000 should contain 60 cards. You can always improve the average card quality of your deck by removing the worst card, so why not do so as much as possible?
~2/5 of your deck should be land. The actual number varies wildly depending on context, but until you really know what you're doing or have an iterative process to rely on, it's not going to hurt to start with 24-26 lands in your 60 card deck.
Aura enchantments are, as a reasonable rule of thumb, not good. Your positions in a game of magic can generally be measured by asking who has the mist resources and who has deployed them most effectively. Auras are difficult to deploy and are a nest drain on your resources when your opponent kills the enchanted creature, removing two of your cards using one of their own.
Want a cheap mono U deck? Pauper delver is good. The extra set of delvers is my foil set in clear sleeves.
>>47532242
Slippery boggle and delver of secrets for 1 drops. Invisible Stalker for your 2 drop. Use trepanation blade.
throw in bounce cards and counters, go nuts, gg.
>>47542383
>thumb on lens
FUCK
Mono u brains is what you are looking for.
>>47532242
Play a Time Walk deck.
