I'd cut the Plummet, you really don't want to a card that is blank ever in this deck, and Act of Treason lends itself to a few more nut draws where you just do a bunch of early damage and then punk them out with one of Act/Stomp/Enlarge/Shiv's Embrace. Obviously you will board it in a good amount. I'd probably play the Stomp also considering the 5/3s, and your lack of a late game. Probably cut a scout for it. If you had one more real dude or didn't have Shiv's Embrace, I'd at least consider cutting the other scout for Lava Axe as well, but it's just too few creatures for what you are trying to accomplish and for having the finishers you do.

Your advocates are pretty meh also, but at least they are a hurloon minotaur, and you occasionally mize when you draw the 3/3.

I would cut something for the Cyclops Tyrant. Probably an Axe or the Windstorm. I maindeck Naturalize quite a bit also, but maybe not in this deck. Ratchet Bomb's no good in this deck, and is generally been a bit mediocre outside of a pretty pure control deck the times I've played it. It is quite good vs the Angelic Accord shenanigans deck and pretty good vs the BR sacrifice deck as well.

Blessing is pretty meh, but I suppose you have Auramancers? You're missing all of the cards that trigger me to move into B/W somehow. I usually want Quag Sicknesses or an Angelic Accord before I'm willing to start picking up Auramancers unless there's straight nothing in the pack, or crack an Angelic Accord and build around that. I'd def get one and probably both Warlords in this deck.

Is it just me or is six mana way too much to pay for that guy? I mean, compare to Bladetusk Boar/Accursed Spirit.

Yeah, he doesn't look very exciting.

Btw I'd like to buy some tickets if someone reputable wants to sell at $0.95/ea.

It's not like I'm a fan of it or think it's that great, but I'd rather have it then Lava Axe in this deck mainly because we are pretty creature light, and our spells/dudes aren't as good in the first draft, so might need a card that has a little reach even if its generally bad. I mean I suppose we can try and get there with just trying to chain a bunch of Academy Raider (another card I'm not much of a fan of) to try and filter our draws to be streamlined, but that's not the greatest plan either.

On the Academy Raider tangent - it's not that great in faster aggro decks, but in control decks and aggro decks relying on bombs or big fatties, he's pretty amazing. I'd say that if I'm playing a control deck or something focused on the long term, once he's hit 3-4 times, my chances of losing drop pretty close to 0. The amount he increases card quality is pretty huge.

Life tip: Save those extra lands when you have him in your deck. It seems obvious, but I've seen a ton of times where guys play land number 11, then later they cast Academy Raider with an empty hand (or maybe the one land half of mtgo keeps in hand as a "bluff") and then it does nothing.

Good life tip. The corollary:

When you've got card draw spells in your deck (and not cards like Academy Raider/Wild Guess), play out your lands even if it's the last card in your hand. Reason is that you give away some information (though people tend to realize these days that the last card in hand is a land and that you're not fooling anyone), but if you draw a card draw spell, you want to be able to play it, draw your cards, then make your land drop and be able to tap out to do whatever thing(s) you just drew.

I think this is pretty terrible. Having 4 cards in hand makes the opponent's game so much more complicated. There are plenty of tricks which you can reasonable hold for long time.

well if you have a bomb you will want enough to cast the draw spell + bomb beyond that it's prob excessive

This is really overrated - often I see people hold a bunch of cards in hand and they would have used a trick if they had one, but instead they just draw their card, say go, don't cast a spell, don't do anything, don't advance their board. I can narrow down their holdings to some lands and maybe one spell. Any decent handreader is going to see through it. Just play out the damn lands because when you draw your draw spell, you want to be able to advance your board as efficiently as possible.

Holding lands in hand is incredibly overrated IMO. You really aren't fooling people as much as you think you are, and the information you're "hiding" isn't worth being unable to cast multiple spells a turn when you do draw a card draw spell.

The problem with holding the land as the last card in your hand is that most people won't hold two. So as soon as you get to that point and draw the second land, an observant opponent will often be able to deduce that the card you aren't showing him is a land when you play the land you just drew.

Whether or not you ought to play the land is dependent on which cards you are playing and which your opponents are playing. Is your opponent playing Liliana of the Veil? Are you playing Bonfire of the Damned? Is the land a shock land that could potentially be used next turn? If the answer to any of these, or any similar questions is yes then you should probably play the land. If playing the land is irrelevant, you should just hold it because it doesn't cost you anything to cause some potential misdirection even if it does not work the majority of the time. I know I prefer it when my opponent voluntarily gives me 100% information.

Sure, you should have a reason to play the lands if you're going to play them - in this case, having a card draw spell in your limited deck, or the other reasons you mentioned. But some people always hold the last card in their hand if it's a land, and I was pointing out a situation where it's better to play out the lands in your hand. You've come up with other situations as well.

Bonfire/Liliana/card draw are reasons to play out the lands, even if you're giving up a little bit of information in doing so. The amount you lose by missing a point of damage or not being able to cast two spells or whatever the benefit is if you do draw the mana-intensive spell(s) isn't offset by what you gain by the times your opponent thinks you have something other than a land in your hand.

tl;dr: I agree with everything you just said.

I'm currently in the process of liquidating my collection (decided it was dumb to be holding tons of value in cards when I play maybe 1-2 games of constructed a week if you were to average it out) and could probably sell at this price. How many did you want to buy?

I have 200ish tix at the moment but that should be rising over the next few days - I'm selling some of the pieces by hand since some of it is rare-ish stuff (foil sphinx's revelation, foil zen lands and unglued lands, foil promos, etc.) where the value increases if you're patient, instead of just dumping to a bot.

I could take stars/full tilt/paypal/moneybookers (although I'd prefer tilt or MB to stars or paypal, I'm flexible).

cool, can i take the rest pls? got ftp $

What colours are we playing in this pool?

Looks like it's time to enlarge Liliana's Reaver to me.

r/b, how is it even close?!!!

also, you can probably play vampire warlord in that deck. you'll have enough removal/tokens to make him fine. sucks you can't really play battle/syphon sliver.

Because recluse, hunt the weak, and enlarge can actually kill 4/4 flyers, unlike shock.

RB would do better vs a deck full of bears, but this is sealed, and I think GB has a better chance of winning games against good decks.

Fwiw, I would main deck both windstorm and syphon sliver.

I have to agree that black/green is the way to go here. It sucks to leave Chandra in the sideboard I guess, but the creature quality in red is just really, really low. Gimping your whole deck to get sucked in by a Chandra and a couple Shocks isn't worth it at all.

bought all the tix.

smooth transaction, would recommend.

Good. Maybe he can eat now.

hey

i started playing magic after 5 year and i made a deck. I will play modern with this and i would like to share your thoughts. Thank you