[Deck] 43 Lands

[DragoFireheart]

I've been looking at scute mob from zen and want to do something with it, this looks like one possible shell it could shine in. What do you guys who regularly run the deck think?

Shouldn't be hard to fit in the deck, and hitting 5 lands by turn 5 isn't an issue. Course, Terravore is better due to trample, but the bug isn't graveyard reliant.

[4eak]

Played a couple variants of 43-lands. I've had a lot of fun with this one. Eh, I don't know if it is any better, but it has been hilarious. I wanted to make Valakut useful (Counterburn fails), but a control deck that is good at getting lands into play can certainly abuse it.

Mana Denial:
4 [TE] Wasteland
4 [MM] Rishadan Port

Ground Game:
3 [DK] Maze of Ith
1 [LG] The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
3 [AQ] Mishra's Factory (4)

Draw and Loam protection:
2 [EVG] Forgotten Cave
2 [EVG] Tranquil Thicket

Mountains/Forests:
4 [R] Taiga
4 [ON] Wooded Foothills
4 [GP] Stomping Ground
1 Mountain
1 Forest

Win:
4 [ZEN] Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle

Fancy stuff:
4 [TSP] Vesuva (Usually Taiga or Valakut)

Tempo:
4 [EX] Manabond
4 [US] Exploration

Tutorage/Draw:
4 [JU] Burning Wish
3 [RAV] Life from the Loam
4 [Kel] Gamble


Valakut is like a mana-free, Loamable, Uncounterable, Stackable Seismic Assault. Perhaps winmore. Worth a glance though.




peace,
4eak

[Knuckles29]

is it very realistic to have 3+ Valakut/Vesuva in play before mountain 6?

[(nameless one)]

Noob question:

you can put as many lands (let's say 4 lands) in play from your hand if you have Exploration in play, correct?

[quicksilver]

Noob question:

you can put as many lands (let's say 4 lands) in play from your hand if you have Exploration in play, correct?

What? No. Exploration only allows you to play one additional land per exploration you have out. So if you have one exploration out you can play up to two lands a turn. You would need 3 explorations to be able to play 4 lands a turn.

[lorddotm]

Could this deck run the Willows Punishing Fire combo?

[MMogg]

Noob question:

you can put as many lands (let's say 4 lands) in play from your hand if you have Exploration in play, correct?

Perhaps you're thinking of Fastbond, which is banned in Legacy.

[leander?]

Could this deck run the Willows Punishing Fire combo?

In a way I think the combo sucks for Legacy. But on the other hand, in this deck you should be able to dredge them all into your grave, recur Grove, activate it and return 2 or 3 Punishing Fires. If you can do that every turn, that'd be nuts. But I'm afraid this situation is not going to occur enough to make those 2 suboptimal cards worth it. Thats the point. They're both not impressive at all on their own, and together they can be very nice, but they're still not going to win you the game immediatly.

[CUB3X]

I just recently created this deck to bring to a legacy tournament at my local store, however I've been playing it on Workstation for a good amount of time. I am having issues against burn. The only way I see of beating it is getting a really really lucky first game and then SBing a ton of hate second game. So far Nomad Stadium seems the most solid card against them. I have also had some speculation of including the new white landfall enchantment Sunspring Expedition. Any thoughts on this card or anything else to improve the matchup against mono red?

[Nidd]

Against Burn, Zuran Orb looks like an awesome idea. I suppose it's pretty good SB material, regarding how it can possibly fuck up Storm-Combo and Burn.

[DownSyndromeKarl]

I main deck Glacial Chasm. SB Zuran Orb. I don't know if its a good move, but I side it in Vs ANT. Each land I sac, means another spell my opponent needs to play in order to go off. If they Empty the Warrens instead, then Chasm saves me there.

[lorddotm]

I don't play this deck.

But I think that Punishing Fire and Grove of the Burn Willows has a place here.
This is the fastest ramping deck in this format, so if it has a place in Legacy, it would be here. The entire engine is recursive via Life from the Loam. Also, if Fire is dredged, you can easily get it back. It seems like a good alternate engine to Loam.

[bowvamp]

@lorddotm:
I doubt Punishing Grove or whatever you want to call it is at a power level where it does something in legacy. It certainly isn't helped by the fact that it's strictly worse than Flame Jab in this deck which is a 1 card combo (loam synergizes exactly the same way, except better). Let's just say retrace is better...

[Illissius]

With Flame Jab, you need 5 mana to deal 1+1 damage: to Loam three lands, to Jab twice, and one more mana to get the Loam back with a cycling land and bring you full circle.

With one copy of Punishing Fire, you need 1 to deal 2 damage while your opponent gains 1 life. With N copies of Punishing Fire, the mana and damage get multiplied accordingly, while the life gain remains at 1.

Just for reference.

[Domel]

Hi,

I'm a new 43.lands player and have problems fighting Progenitus. Wouldn't it be rational to put some additional Glacial Chasms main since it is the only way to beat this guy (or I'm missing something)?

What do you think about it?

[chokin]

Can't you just slow the shit out of them via Port and Wasteland and possibly Tabernacle? Waste quasi Time Walks them early on (omit mono NO decks), Port forces them to get an additional land, Tabernacle forces them to have an additional land to keep a green guy in play.

Glacial Chasm is fine too for extra help. It also does well against aggro without Wasteland or burn (Merfolk, Elves).

I don't really play the deck, but I'm working on a build (UGx Intuition based), but I thought I'd chime in.

[Domel]

Can't you just slow the shit out of them via Port and Wasteland and possibly Tabernacle? Waste quasi Time Walks them early on (omit mono NO decks), Port forces them to get an additional land, Tabernacle forces them to have an additional land to keep a green guy in play.

Guess you're right - plan works well against CB decks with progenitus but isn't great against survival/progenitus. Probably it is just worse machup since it has only 6 nonbasic or so.

Also I have a question about SB - how bad it is against ichorid and do we need extra SB cards for it? I run 1 Glacial chasm main + 1 SB (deck-list below) and am thinking about adding LotV / Crypts.

Do you think they are necessary when you don't know the meta?

3 Intuition
3 Gamble
4 Life from the Loam
4 Exploration
4 Manabond
4 Mox Diamond

2 Barbarian Ring
4 Maze of Ith
4 Mishra's Factory
4 Rishadan Port
2 Savannah
3 Taiga
1 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale (have only one :( )
1 Glacial Chasm
4 Tranquil Thicket
2 Treetop Village
3 Tropical Island
4 Wasteland
2 Windswept Heath
2 Wooded Foothills

Sideboard:

1 Ancient Grudge
2 Krosan Grip
1 Ray of Revelation
1 Flame Jab
1 Worm Harvest
4 Chalice of the Void
3 Zuran Orb
1 Ghost Quarter
1 Glacial Chasm

[DownSyndromeKarl]

idk,the meta im used to is very aggro (elves, merfolk, ichorid, zoo, etc...) so i ran four Chasms main. I dont get why you run Chalice. What's that going to do for you? Also, the re-wording on the errata of Tabernacle stops it from killing Progenitus(suck). Another card i played that did me well was Nantuko Monastary. 4/4 First Striker Man-Land.

[kkoie]

Question: I've played this deck in the past, and I've noticed in the last year several lists that run 2 tabernacles rather than just 1. What, exactly, is the advantage of running 2 tabernacles over 1? Is it purely to increase the odds of drawing/dredging into it rather than having to tutor for it?

[DownSyndromeKarl]

I was wondering that myself. I ran one in my list, and it worked just fine. All I needed was a Manabond on the field and a Glacial Chasm and Life from the Loam in hand or the yard and I was set. The Tabernacle was either a lucky early draw, or a late-game hoser for me, but I never relied on it.