Fire/Earth Destruction Control

[Daxx]

Hypothetical deck designed to do well in the current metagame. As requested by Sabberblazer, here's a decklist.

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

778 778 778 778 778 778 778 77c 77c 77j 77j 77j 77j 77j 7dg 7dg 7dg 7dg 7dg 7dg 7di 7di 7dk 7dk 7dk 7dm 7dm 7dm 7dm 7dm 8po

Fairly self explanatory and simple to use. Probably needs balancing in terms of card numbers, but that is the sort of thing that's likely to come out in testing.

[Parabol]

Seems to be weak against the very same kind of deck, due to its being spread across two elements (weak to pillars being taken, as there are fewer of them), and only having 2 creatures (2!) which will make it INCREDIBLY weak to even a single fire lance/Thunderbolt/Ice bolt...and quite possibly never drawing a creature.

Water/Earth might work better for a similar concept...but unfortunately would probably require more rares, such as arctic squid and trident.

[Scaredgirl]

Why the need for Fire? Why not just do a Earth/Gravity?


Mark of Gravity.

Protected Pulverizer and Gravity Pull do the same thing as Deflagrate and Fire Lance, but only much better.

Those 2 Ruby Dragons with 2 HP will die in a heartbeat like Parabol mentioned.

If you HAD TO make a Earth/Fire deck you should definitely take 4 x Lava Golems and 4 x Heavy Armor, maybe 2 x Firestorm..

[Uncle Jellyfish]

From my experiences, I've found that running Earth/Dark with a Mark of Fire works better as a denial deck, as well as Mark of Aether and Mark of Gravity (shown here http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,311.0.html ). Sure, the one that Scaredgirl keeps adveritising is better, but the ones in that link are easier to build for unfunded players, or players without a lot of rares.

(@Scaredgirl: I sorta almost helped with that deck idea too... )

[Daxx]

Why the need for Fire? Why not just do a Earth/Gravity?

<image]>
Mark of Gravity.

Protected Pulverizer and Gravity Pull do the same thing as Deflagrate and Fire Lance, but only much better.

Those 2 Ruby Dragons with 2 HP will die in a heartbeat like Parabol mentioned.

If you HAD TO make a Earth/Fire deck you should definitely take 4 x Lava Golems and 4 x Heavy Armor, maybe 2 x Firestorm..

Yeah, we know about your deck; I was suggesting something different. This has the advantage that it can be used without rares and works unupgraded as well.

The point was to get it down to 30 cards, use as many deflagrate and earthquake as possible (I don't agree that Pulveriser necessarily does it better, by the way, due to the fact that you can rarely use them until at least a couple of turns in - this deck gives you an advantage because you can in theory drop your control spells straight away). I would have quite liked to drop in a firestorm or two, but wasn't sure what to remove - any suggestions, bearing in mind the deck's plan as it currently is?

You obviously don't use the Ruby Dragons until you've got control and are going for the kill. Yes, they are vulnerable, but that's not the point. The deck doesn't play like a standard Mono-Fire Aggro deck, because it's a control deck.

But yes, it probably could do with some improvements, and the mirror match is likely to lead to hilarity.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

With only two creatures, you'll be quite vulnerable to Rain of Fire. They won't use it until they see creatures out, and if you play both dragons, you'll get thirty damage in, and then they'll die. After that, you'll lose the game. In fact, most creature control spells would solve the problem, since they probably won't waste those spells until they see creatures hit the field.

Also, with upgraded Earth Towers, I can usually get a Pulverizer out with an Enchant Artifact second turn, since three Towers nets me three Quantum when they come into play, and then three more when I end my turn. Pulverizer costs four Earth Quantum to play, and Enchant Artifact only costs one, for five total. If I have six second turn, then I pretty much control the game from turn two on.

[Scaredgirl]

Yeah, we know about your deck; I was suggesting something different. This has the advantage that it can be used without rares and works unupgraded as well.

Relax. I'm not saying this deck sucks and mine is better. I'm just saying maybe Fire isn't the best choice if Earth has cards that will do the same thing. Usually if you design a duo deck instead on mono, there is at least one card from other element that you have to have. I don't see any "have to have" cards in Fire (IF you have Pulverizer). The Earth/Gravity I posted also doesn't need upgraded cards but it does need Pulverizer. So if you don't have Pulverizer then yeah, Fire is the best way to go (because of Explosion).

That being said, I think most rainbow decks out there would destroy this deck. In my opinion the biggest issues are:

1. no permanent protection (your shield WILL be stolen)
2. only 7 Earth Pillars in a deck of 30 cards.
3. only 2 characters with 2 HP each (Rain of Fire anyone?)
4. Fire Lances but only 6 Fire Towers (+mark)
5. difficult if not impossible to penetrate Bone Wall

You might wanna consider dropping a couple, if not all, Earthquakes. Reason why Earthquake is so effective with Seism, is that he's a False Gods who can push out tons of characters early. So you have no quantum coming in AND you get pounded by tons of characters. Human players cannot do both, so even if you manage to destroy Towers, your opponent just uses Supernova to get that quantum he needs. Very rarely have I seen a situation where you can totally shut down a rainbow decks quantum production. If not for Novas, Earthquake would be awesome.

And Protect Artifact is a must imo. That one card is usually the sole reason why I go Earth. I cannot imagine why you wouldn't take it if you have permanents like that Shield?

Like you yourself said, this is "Hypothetical" deck. So you haven't actually tested it?

[Daxx]

Relax. I'm not saying this deck sucks and mine is better.

I didn't mean to suggest you were saying that - what I meant to express is that your deck doesn't work in the situation I designed this one for.

No, it's not been tested. Sabberblazer was asking if it was possible for a new account to put together a deck that had a chance against rainbow, and I came up with that on the spot to demonstrate that permanent control is the best option.

I will test it but I still fundamentally believe that this deck is capable of controlling a rainbow deck into the ground. All the answers you listed require actually having a reasonable amount of quanta left to cast your 7 Rain of Fire or your 7 Bonewall. Novas would actually give this deck more trouble than supernovas, I think.

Ideally this would shift more towards a fire-based deck, with more Fire Pillars, some Rain of Fires (these actually are essential for the control element of the deck) and a few more dragons, but I was trying to include as many earthquakes as possible since they are necessary for the control. I don't think the pillar numbers are a problem due to the small deck size. The deck has a long time to accumulate the necessary fire quanta for decent Fire Bolts and the Earth cards are all fairly cheap (the shield not really needing to be put down until later anyway).

It's by no means a deck I would play; I currently play my variant on Rainbow and am reasonably successful with it. This deck was posted for a purpose and I think it accomplishes it reasonably well, though improvements could well be made since I've not tested at all.

[Warr]

I love fire and earth combo!!

Aww you to make a good couple I mean fire and earth.

awwww