Transcendent Grace

This where Advanced players can post decks for rating and fixing.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rin
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:44 am

Transcendent Grace

Post by Rin »





Creatures (23 Water, 6 Fire, 2 Ice, 31 Total)
  • 4 x Parkour L
    3 x Orca Calf
    1 x Smolder, Ant Soldier

    2 x Great Barrier Reef
    1 x Angel Shark
    3 x Togami, the Hitman
    2 x La Bomba
    2 x Prism Wall

    4 x Delphi
    4 x Orca Sibling

    3 x Kafan Tara

    2 x Orca Matriarch
Other (9 Spells)
  • 1 x Air Cannon

    3 x Heat Fissure
    1 x From the Depths

    4 x Maelstrom
Responcers: 5
Blockers: 2 (+5)


Mercy cometh.
Image

User avatar
Rin
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:44 am

Re: Transcendent Grace

Post by Rin »





Creatures (32 Water)
  • 1 x Meryl Maid

    4 x Parkour L
    3 x Orca Calf
    2 x Madame Sharley

    4 x Delphi
    4 x Orca Sibling
    3 x Neptunia
    3 x Kilijoa
    1 x Man-O-War

    3 x Kafan Tara

    2 x Orca Matriarch
    2 x Imperial Blue
Other (7 Spells, 1 Rune)
  • 2 x Hypnotic Sway

    1 x Air Cannon

    2 x From the Depths
    1 x Call to Arms
    1 x Heat Fissure

    1 x Stealth Matrix
Responcers: 4
Blockers: 7 (+3)


I shifted to fully water after realizing I could use Hypnotic Sway in place of [Fire/Ice] Maelstrom for the low-level field disruption I desired (Snipe Rammar is too weak and impermanent for my purposes); while still maintaining robust and protective t3+ creatures. I'm quite content with the tradeoff of the increased efficiency of 'forced attack' type effects at the cost of giving the opponent more opportunity to react to it. I dislike having to engage my creatures overmuch in 'tap-kill' tactics, and I'm already blocker-heavy for the purpose of field preservation, so it seemed like a good direction to take the deck in. It's lost a little bit of aggressiveness/explosiveness, but I think I'm alright with that, because it still maintains its basic offensive capability and 'poise', and I'm not averse to the idea of something with a bit more of a 'defensive stance'.

I also traded some of my beloved Heat Fissures for Imperial Blue, because I realized how much I disliked having to sacrifice my (typically very contested) flow of field-building for 'one-for-one' spell removal. I suppose this orients more towards resource-abundant field races as opposed to drawn-out attrition, but maybe that's for the best. The single 1-drop feels like a nice touch to similarly address my determination not to lose that crucial hold on field presence (despite my bias towards value-per-card and making the most out of limited resources). Especially when I've increased dependence on low-power turn 2 creatures even more.

Admittedly, I was a little intrigued at how I ended up shifting to a mono-element with basically no sense of 'missing out' on other capabilities, but I suppose that's just something to be happy about. Speaking of which, the deck seems to perform quite well against even the scariest decks I can find to throw against it.
Image

Post Reply