I'm trying to make a recreation of Zemanjaski's RW Burn deck but I don't have the funds to pick up 4x Mutavaults at ~$30-34 a piece, and was wondering if there was ANY way to run the deck without them.
They are extremely versatile and can be quite relevant, and I don't think there's any real replacement for them...but I figured I would ask!
First off please read the stickies before posting.
The deck that you decided to not wrap with Deck Tags is a pretty basic RDW list. Basically that deck is highly non interactive and basically allows you to win by out nut drawing opponents. If you want to win games based purely on luck play the second list.
As for the Boros burn deck. R/W burn is really a meta dependent deck. It is meant to capitalize on how slow the current decks are in standard. It is more interactive with the opponent and requires a bit more skill to pilot. Do you have the 4 Sacred foundry and 4 Temple of Triumph? If not I wouldn't even consider running it. Just go with the RDW list.
As for mutavault. They are a highly integral part of the deck and greatly up your win percentage against control decks. I wouldn't even bother running the decks without 3 Mutavaults.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Would Dark Confidant still be good if he punched you in the face for 5 damage a turn?
First, I'd disregard anything that someone who says a red based aggro deck is purely luck says. Piloting a good version of RDW takes just as much skill as some of the other deck types. Sequencing of creatures/spells is very important, and one wrong decision can cost you the game. As for Mutavault, it's a tough call. It is a very versatile card in that particular build. Especially against control decks, it's a hard to deal with creature that can win the game if given the chance. I'd suggest checking out diestoremoval.com (http://diestoremoval.com/) for more info on red based aggro decks to see if anyone there has answered a question similar to the one you have. I'd also just try messenging zem with your question, he may respond back if he has the chance and would probably be able to provide a more concise answer for you.
Phoenix that first sentence earns a thank.
Mono red may win fast when it wins but the decisions it makes, while often being fewer than other archetypes, are much more important for the deck to succeed.
This includes hand composition, when to remove blockers versus when to go to the head, when to leave mana untapped to do so, whether or not to mulligan, and what are you only options in the deck when you need to draw them and the likely hood that you need to bet on the opponent not having an answer to your next threat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The red mage lives by the variance and dies by the variance. May the variance be with you, always.
Sorry about not wrapping with deck tags, I'm pretty new to the forums. I'll definitely keep that in mind. Right now I have the Sacred Foundrys and the Temple of Triumphs, but the Mutavaults are out of reach for a while. I wanted to try something awesome at the PTQ event at our local LGS but the timing is bad for me.
I appreciate the props Kahmos. Just bugs me when people talk about red decks like they are less skill intensive.
I wouldn't worry too much about the deck tags. It can take a little bit to figure everything out about the site. Do your friends play at the same store? If you know enough people there would someone be willing to lend you the Mutavaults for the event? Borrowing/lending cards between friends is a good way to not go broke until you can afford to pick up the cards yourself.
First, I'd disregard anything that someone who says a red based aggro deck is purely luck says. Piloting a good version of RDW takes just as much skill as some of the other deck types. Sequencing of creatures/spells is very important, and one wrong decision can cost you the game. As for Mutavault, it's a tough call. It is a very versatile card in that particular build. Especially against control decks, it's a hard to deal with creature that can win the game if given the chance. I'd suggest checking out diestoremoval.com (http://diestoremoval.com/) for more info on red based aggro decks to see if anyone there has answered a question similar to the one you have. I'd also just try messenging zem with your question, he may respond back if he has the chance and would probably be able to provide a more concise answer for you.
Disregard what I said because you disagree with it and didn't actually bother to assess the value of what I said?
In the current meta that second list (Which is the list David Jones piloted to a 6th place finish at an scg open in Atlanta recently) is a fairly non interactive list that relies on you flooding the board and praying they can't answer your threats. Don't take my word for it though. Watch his feature match coverage. Watch as he the only decision he has to make he chooses incorrectly and it doesn't even matter.
Beginners are often told to play RDW begins it is simple and straightforward to learn and understand. You will win and lose games purely based on opening hands (More so than say Mono-black control, Mono Blue Devotion, Jund Control, Jund Monsters, Gruul monsters, U/W Aggro, even Boros Burn.)
To say you won't have highly noninteractive games while playing Red Deck Wins is a joke. I understand the love for Red Aggro (after all it is my favorite archetype) but I am not disillusioned to what makes the deck strong. It is linear and streamlined and preys on the inefficiency and inability of other decks in the meta to answer early game pressure.
In your first post you said his deck is highly non-interactive. In your second post you state that "to say you won't have highly interactive games while playing Red Deck Wins is a joke.". Which is it exactly then? With the decks gaining popularity atm being G/R Monsters and Jund Monsters a RDW style deck has a highly interactive game requiring the pilot to plan many moves ahead to ensure that the opponent is within burn range as fast as possible while not losing to larger creatures. The deck CAN be linear, certainly. Just as any deck can be described as linear, ie: G/R- play large creatures and kill via combat damage; U/W control-control the board state until you can play you haymaker and swing for the win, or if you have the Elixir variant, attempt to mill your opponent out via constantly reshuffling your gy into your library; etc.... One of the bigger advantages that red based aggro/burn decks have right now is their flexibility. Most of their spells can target your opponent just as easily as their creatures, allowing your to choose what you feel you can ignore and for how long.
Back to the op: I'd say you can certainly try either deck without the Mutavaults, just be aware of the tempo loss that doing so will cause the deck and play around it accordingly. It is certainly possible for an aggro deck with no Mutavaults to do well at FNM level, it just takes a bit more work is all.
I think it really can be disregarded because there is no value in it. Combo aims to be non-interactive. Burn aims to be non-interactive. If you're swinging with creatures and you're not combo, your opponent will interact with you. If your opponent goldfishes there, it isn't your fault for being non-interactive. It is their fault for moving like a snail. If you were trying to put together some kind of synergy to slam out 40 damage, yeah, you're not going to try to be interactive. But this isn't that. Its not combo and it does invite your opponent to do things. It simply aims to overwhelm them before they can mount enough of a defense to survive. I doubt any minorly seasoned red aggro player expects or plans no interaction and if they were like that, you wouldn't see them splashing white for chained to the rocks. You aim for a fast paced, short term interaction but that interaction is very important. Its like looking at someone endorsing playing a 90 card deck. Its plainly wrong so it gets disregarded.
Moving along, if you have the shocks and temples and want to play red aggro, I do suggest looking at splashing for chained to the rocks.
On the note of the deck the OP posted, it feels out of date though I see searing blood in the side. For one, it is playing foundry-street denizen instead of firedrinker satyr. Just get up to speed with the times and it shouldn't be an issue. Yes, you can totally run it without Chandra. Splashing white gives you a lot of sideboard wiggle room.
@Nev: Unless your local meta is more control decks than creature based ones Firedrinker Saytr can actually be a bit of a liability. The Denizen will typically hit for two a turn without causing you any damage, whereas the Firedrinker Saytr is just not a great creature to try to attack with into creatures like Polukranos, Stormbreath Dragon, Reaper of the Wilds, etc.... I believe even zem has them only in his sideboard for control/monoblack matchups.
To the op: regardless of which list, the most important part is to play a list that you both like and feel comfortable running. When you do pick one be sure to practice with it as often as you are able. Familiarity with your deck helps to increase the chances you make the more advantageous plays during matches.
These two guys are clearly red fanatics. So take what they say with a grain of salt. I enjoy playing red aggro because it is possible to 3-1 fnms when people aren't prepared for it. People get cute with their decks and then you just blow them out of the water with speed. You are as I said often going to have highly noninteractive games but as someone else pointed out it isn't your fault if your opponent has no plays early... which is the point of the deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Would Dark Confidant still be good if he punched you in the face for 5 damage a turn?
To answer the op:
There is no real "replacement" for Mutavault. That's a big part of why it's so expensive right now. That said, you can just run burn without Mutavaults. Running some extra temples in those slots to have additional scrying will probably be fine, or even just Mountains if you want to reserve your cash to buy Mutavaults down the line.
To address the "red decks win on luck" comment:
Every deck has unbeatable nut draws. It's possible to win with just about any tier one archetype despite making one bad decision after another, just based on the power of the list. Thoughtseize into Pack Rat just wins games. Sweepers into Revelations just win games. Sure, red decks win faster when they get the nuts, but they also need to work harder when they don't. In fact, almost all proactive decks are more difficult to play than defensive ones simply because defensive decks can afford to play off what the opponent is doing and are more equipped to recover after falling behind due to a mistake.
My rule of thumb is: "Proactive decks are easy to build, hard to play. Defensive decks are hard to build, easy to play."
I still prefer firedrinker for the purpose of being able to push through the 3 toughness stuff. Foundry-street just leaves a slight sour note for me due to the presence of mutavault which can often lead to delays in creature dumping and the fact that his burn count is slightly on the high side. I also like firedrinker's ability to push past caryatid.
To Rambo, I'm hardly a red fanatic considering that alone, it is my least favorite color. I'm more of a blue type though not to the point that I'd try to force it for absolutely everything. Ex, I don't care too much for MUD. Doesn't mean I don't play different things, though. So what he should take with a grain of salt is that you're making baseless statements. I prefer my aggro white.
And I'd appreciate it if you didn't take a snipping of what I said, cut out a part, and claim proceed to "agree" with it while stating restating your opinion, pretending that it supports or agrees with you. RDW will end the game turn 4-5 ideally. And there is no deck that hopes to pray to be competitive that shouldn't be moving (or at least be able to move consistently) on turn 3 at latest. And in that window, there is very important interaction. You can say a deck aims to be non-interactive but that's a complete stretch. I could make any creature deck with a bunch of 7 drops and you could claim that it intends to be non-interactive because it'd just be ideal if the opponent was a goldfish till turn 10 or so. But that's not reality. You play creatures. They have live. They have to swing and for a good part of it swing safely. And it is not all happening at the point before the average defense is reasonably being mounted. Therefore, it cannot aim to be non-interactive and is not so unless the opponent is moving slower than they should be. It has a short but critical time of interaction during which the decisions are that much more important, leading things to a swift finish either way.
Mutavault is horrible for RDW right now unless you play Burn. The red creatures that currently are in RDW are so colored-mana heavy that drawing a Mutavault can really mess up your curve, i.e. turn 1 Cackler, turn 2 Zealot, turn 3 Reckoner.
Horrible might be a bit of an overstatement. I certainly wouldn't mind playing 2. 4 is a bit overkill but a little extra land seems to leave it fine enough. I compare it to hitting double white for precinct captain in mono white weenie. Reckoner, however, I do agree it is much less a friend of even if ash zealot is fine. Then again, I also prefer the firefist striker props over reckoner too.
Interesting... I watched the entire video, and nowhere do either of them say that the red deck is easy to pilot. Unless you are somehow counting CVM sarcastically saying that " you need to be a genius" to pilot it. The plain truth is that to successfully pilot a red deck in a meta such as the current one takes quite a bit of thought and skill to beat the decks that have bigger creatures and typically a higher threat density than your deck does.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm trying to make a recreation of Zemanjaski's RW Burn deck but I don't have the funds to pick up 4x Mutavaults at ~$30-34 a piece, and was wondering if there was ANY way to run the deck without them.
They are extremely versatile and can be quite relevant, and I don't think there's any real replacement for them...but I figured I would ask!
http://www.channelfireball.com/videos/channel-zemanjaski-standard-rw-burn/
Also I wanted to try this deck out as well, but I don't have the Chandra, Pyromasters or the Mutavaults ;/
Creatures (28)
4 Ash Zealot
4 Burning-Tree Emissary
4 Chandra's Phoenix
4 Fanatic of Mogis
4 Firefist Striker
4 Foundry Street Denizen
4 Rakdos Cackler
Lands (22)
19 Mountain
3 Mutavault
Spells (10)
4 Lightning Strike
4 Magma Jet
2 Shock
Sideboard
4 Searing Blood
4 Skullcrack
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
2 Mizzium Mortars
The deck that you decided to not wrap with Deck Tags is a pretty basic RDW list. Basically that deck is highly non interactive and basically allows you to win by out nut drawing opponents. If you want to win games based purely on luck play the second list.
As for the Boros burn deck. R/W burn is really a meta dependent deck. It is meant to capitalize on how slow the current decks are in standard. It is more interactive with the opponent and requires a bit more skill to pilot. Do you have the 4 Sacred foundry and 4 Temple of Triumph? If not I wouldn't even consider running it. Just go with the RDW list.
As for mutavault. They are a highly integral part of the deck and greatly up your win percentage against control decks. I wouldn't even bother running the decks without 3 Mutavaults.
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.
Mono red may win fast when it wins but the decisions it makes, while often being fewer than other archetypes, are much more important for the deck to succeed.
This includes hand composition, when to remove blockers versus when to go to the head, when to leave mana untapped to do so, whether or not to mulligan, and what are you only options in the deck when you need to draw them and the likely hood that you need to bet on the opponent not having an answer to your next threat.
I wouldn't worry too much about the deck tags. It can take a little bit to figure everything out about the site. Do your friends play at the same store? If you know enough people there would someone be willing to lend you the Mutavaults for the event? Borrowing/lending cards between friends is a good way to not go broke until you can afford to pick up the cards yourself.
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.
Disregard what I said because you disagree with it and didn't actually bother to assess the value of what I said?
In the current meta that second list (Which is the list David Jones piloted to a 6th place finish at an scg open in Atlanta recently) is a fairly non interactive list that relies on you flooding the board and praying they can't answer your threats. Don't take my word for it though. Watch his feature match coverage. Watch as he the only decision he has to make he chooses incorrectly and it doesn't even matter.
Beginners are often told to play RDW begins it is simple and straightforward to learn and understand. You will win and lose games purely based on opening hands (More so than say Mono-black control, Mono Blue Devotion, Jund Control, Jund Monsters, Gruul monsters, U/W Aggro, even Boros Burn.)
To say you won't have highly noninteractive games while playing Red Deck Wins is a joke. I understand the love for Red Aggro (after all it is my favorite archetype) but I am not disillusioned to what makes the deck strong. It is linear and streamlined and preys on the inefficiency and inability of other decks in the meta to answer early game pressure.
Back to the op: I'd say you can certainly try either deck without the Mutavaults, just be aware of the tempo loss that doing so will cause the deck and play around it accordingly. It is certainly possible for an aggro deck with no Mutavaults to do well at FNM level, it just takes a bit more work is all.
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.
Moving along, if you have the shocks and temples and want to play red aggro, I do suggest looking at splashing for chained to the rocks.
On the note of the deck the OP posted, it feels out of date though I see searing blood in the side. For one, it is playing foundry-street denizen instead of firedrinker satyr. Just get up to speed with the times and it shouldn't be an issue. Yes, you can totally run it without Chandra. Splashing white gives you a lot of sideboard wiggle room.
To the op: regardless of which list, the most important part is to play a list that you both like and feel comfortable running. When you do pick one be sure to practice with it as often as you are able. Familiarity with your deck helps to increase the chances you make the more advantageous plays during matches.
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.
There is no real "replacement" for Mutavault. That's a big part of why it's so expensive right now. That said, you can just run burn without Mutavaults. Running some extra temples in those slots to have additional scrying will probably be fine, or even just Mountains if you want to reserve your cash to buy Mutavaults down the line.
To address the "red decks win on luck" comment:
Every deck has unbeatable nut draws. It's possible to win with just about any tier one archetype despite making one bad decision after another, just based on the power of the list. Thoughtseize into Pack Rat just wins games. Sweepers into Revelations just win games. Sure, red decks win faster when they get the nuts, but they also need to work harder when they don't. In fact, almost all proactive decks are more difficult to play than defensive ones simply because defensive decks can afford to play off what the opponent is doing and are more equipped to recover after falling behind due to a mistake.
My rule of thumb is: "Proactive decks are easy to build, hard to play. Defensive decks are hard to build, easy to play."
To Rambo, I'm hardly a red fanatic considering that alone, it is my least favorite color. I'm more of a blue type though not to the point that I'd try to force it for absolutely everything. Ex, I don't care too much for MUD. Doesn't mean I don't play different things, though. So what he should take with a grain of salt is that you're making baseless statements. I prefer my aggro white.
And I'd appreciate it if you didn't take a snipping of what I said, cut out a part, and claim proceed to "agree" with it while stating restating your opinion, pretending that it supports or agrees with you. RDW will end the game turn 4-5 ideally. And there is no deck that hopes to pray to be competitive that shouldn't be moving (or at least be able to move consistently) on turn 3 at latest. And in that window, there is very important interaction. You can say a deck aims to be non-interactive but that's a complete stretch. I could make any creature deck with a bunch of 7 drops and you could claim that it intends to be non-interactive because it'd just be ideal if the opponent was a goldfish till turn 10 or so. But that's not reality. You play creatures. They have live. They have to swing and for a good part of it swing safely. And it is not all happening at the point before the average defense is reasonably being mounted. Therefore, it cannot aim to be non-interactive and is not so unless the opponent is moving slower than they should be. It has a short but critical time of interaction during which the decisions are that much more important, leading things to a swift finish either way.
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/28087_BBD-vs-CVM-BW-Midrange-vs-Mono-Red-Aggro.html
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.