Easier to disrupt than what? A spell-land? A filter spell like Faithless Looting? Well - of course! Grim Lavamancer is very easy to disrupt as well. For a 1 drop that will trade with pretty much anything, and can let you do huge damage if you're unfortunate enough to flood, he is pretty good. He is the exact opposite of a win-more; when everything goes well, he is probably no better than a 2/1 for R, but when things are going badly and you flood - then he is great. He is also easily the best 1 drop to topdeck.
I am unsure how it is possible to claim than bonfire is expected to be 25% better across an event.
Sure, but we cannot really run Bonfire effectively without running more land. Stonewright and Bonfire don't really compete for the same deck space anyway - at least for me I want at least 10 x 1 drops; the games where you have a good 1 drop is so much better than the games where you don't.
I would rather have the body and not be vulnerable to 2-for-1s. I don't doubt that furor isnt a good card, but Stonewright should be both more consistent and a better topdeck.
I just like him because he:
- lets your creatures trade up OR makes any frist strikers you have crazy scary
- lets you turn any unused mana into damage. It might only be 1 damage every 3 turns, but it is still something. And there will be times where he generates 3+ damage a turn, which is the same as drawing a card for us.
- he is the best topdeck of any 1 drop we have. He has pseudo-haste later on. Sure, he is weaker than Stromkirk Noble or Rakdos Cackler on turn 1, but as the game goes on I really do believe that he is a lot better.
Your analysis is most likely completely wrong. I don't know how else to state this fact. He does in fact die to literally every removal in standard, He doesn't impact the board as much your making it out to be unless your reaching turn 5-7 clogged board and youve somehow hit land drops every turn then how would bonfire not be a better topdeck?, He himself can never swing he is only good at defense, Yes he is inherently better then stromkirk or cackler off the top late game but if thats all your using it for why not just run bonfire it does exactly the same thing and is much more versatile then stonewright and makes your stromkirks/cacklers better cards themselves. I am lost as to where this is going, and why are you searching out more and more creatures to run when you can tell midrange/control is going to be a thing verse seeking out more interactive cards?
Explain how stonewright is in fact impacting the board more then a bonfire, when is the ideal turn to play him verse aggro/midrange/and control?, when do you wish to topdeck him in each of those matchups?, how much mana do you really need for him to be a good card?, and is he not simply put a 1 trick pony he gets one useful swing in that might make a big difference in the game but then they know to leave something or more back or does your opponent just always race you? Are you really trying to compare him to the abyss because i just can't see it.
How many lands do you really think bonfire needs to be good? your making it sound like 25 land+ is the only way to run bonfire...which is simply not right. Just because it really shined in GR because they had "potential" 28-30'ish mana sources doesn't mean they ever really had more then 6-8 lands on board including dorks in average games. and they were running 22-23 lands...your running 21-22...Your bonfire is still gonna be hitting for 3-4...just not have the huge upward swing of 5-8 as easily as them fast enough, because early game guess what your going to be applying pressure and then using bonfire to gain advantageous attacks and try to win.
Our burn makes our first strikers already crazy, 75% of our burn deals 3 or more damage so do they count as cantrips then by that philosophy?, i didn't think we wanted to ever really be trading creatures unless we are forced to but use burn to clear them out the way, and there are going to be many gamestates where topdecking him isn't ideal its the same with every other card in your deck stop putting just a focal point on when its good but look at the overall usage of the card, I could care less about my 1 drop if the rest of my deck is just miles ahead of my opponents at all other stages of the game since their is no deck which wins/completely dominates/decides the game just by turn 1 plays. Delver was the closest to that but now is near impossible to replicate that.
I can't understand where your points are coming from if you have actually tested, and if you even bothered to test against random opponents with today's t1 decks to test against already tuned decks at all. The format will change but if your deck can't operate it can't operate. Unless you have specifically tuned it to beat a certain decks and just fold to all other decks that have ever existed, which would be pretty hard since no one has actually even had results with any deck with RTR cards yet...But please do run stonewright at a large open and prove me wrong by placing 1st-top32 that would make me happy.
Your analysis is most likely completely wrong. I don't know how else to state this fact. He does in fact die to literally every removal in standard,
Neither does any other creature we're running at 1cc. Dies to removal isnt a real argument against a card.
Quote from Drowning »
He doesn't impact the board as much your making it out to be unless your reaching turn 5-7 clogged board and youve somehow hit land drops every turn then how would bonfire not be a better topdeck?,
Yes, I agree that if we hit every land drop, then bonfire is a better topdeck. But it is awkward in our curve and in our opener. Stonewright isnt. Sure, it cannot win games like Bonfire can, but even if you play Stonewright on turn 3 or 4, you just immediately pump his buddy for damage and it is effectively a 3 or 4 drop. That is pretty cool. We have all been in situations where we have 1-2 mana that we cannot use in a turn - it happens all the time. So in those situations, Stonewright really shines. Every spare mana now has the potential to become 1 damage. I don't think I am overstating it - I am giving examples from games I have played against the gauntlet of new decks. I really have had him do 10 firebreathing damage in two turns (once pumping his buddy for 4, then pumping himself for 6).
He himself can never swing he is only good at defense,
He is still a 1 drop. If he trades up and lets you get a bit of extra damage through (from pumping his buddy) that is pretty great. We might even call it a big game.
Yes he is inherently better then stromkirk or cackler off the top late game but if thats all your using it for why not just run bonfire it does exactly the same thing and is much more versatile then stonewright and makes your stromkirks/cacklers better cards themselves. I am lost as to where this is going, and why are you searching out more and more creatures to run when you can tell midrange/control is going to be a thing verse seeking out more interactive cards?
I don't think theyre the same, outside scaling well. Stonewright is still a 1 drop. It is still a body I can attack with every turn. Against decks without a lot of removal, it is damage every turn, or trading up every turn. Both are really important against those midrange decks. My deck has insane matchup against control. Midrange is of course, a sligh decks worst matchup - but I have tried as much as posible to address that post sideboard. I believe my matchup with the GW/Bant deck is fine game 1, and better post board. My Jund matchup is pretty bad game 1 if they draw really well, but if they stumble at all it is over very quickly. It is about 50% post board so far, but I am working on the sideboard plan.
Explain how stonewright is in fact impacting the board more then a bonfire, when is the ideal turn to play him verse aggro/midrange/and control?
I don't need to. I havent said that he is. Theyre not competing for the same deck slot. The idea time is whenever he fits the curve of my hand - obviously the other 1 drops are a better play on turn 1, Ash Zealot is better on 2 - but maybe I don't have those cards? If there is a hole in the curve I can just play him and pump any excess mana into his buddy - so he is whatever drop I need him to be.
He is just average against against aggro (though he can close out the game when you're both living off the top). He is solid against midrange (lets you trade up, invalidates a lot of the plans out of GW/Bant) and very good against control (never have to commit more than 2 threats, can deal consistent damage).
when do you wish to topdeck him in each of those matchups?, how much mana do you really need for him to be a good card?, and is he not simply put a 1 trick pony he gets one useful swing in that might make a big difference in the game but then they know to leave something or more back or does your opponent just always race you? Are you really trying to compare him to the abyss because i just can't see it.
He isn't the abyss at all - he is just a mana sink. A good one. I don't need much mana at all - the idea is to use otherwise unsused resources. I don't think he is any more a 1-trick pony than Grim Lavamancer; he isn't as good, but he still has a lot of utility. I feel I have listed enough uses to demonstrate that he has multiple roles.
How many lands do you really think bonfire needs to be good? your making it sound like 25 land+ is the only way to run bonfire...which is simply not right. Just because it really shined in GR because they had "potential" 28-30'ish mana sources doesn't mean they ever really had more then 6-8 lands on board including dorks in average games. and they were running 22-23 lands...your running 21-22...Your bonfire is still gonna be hitting for 3-4...just not have the huge upward swing of 5-8 as easily as them fast enough, because early game guess what your going to be applying pressure and then using bonfire to gain advantageous attacks and try to win.
Most RG decks were running 24 land (to support 4 Huntmaster and some 5 drops, sometimes Hellrider as well) and 8-10 mana dorks. The issue isnt how much mana theyre going to have on turn 5+, but the fact that their early game bonfires are often going to be for 1-3 more damage; which is just huge with bonfire. I don't really like bonfire with less than 24 land (and when I play a deck that wants 24 land, I play 25. Just like I play 22 land in my RDW when I might be able to get away with 21 - I like the consistency). The closest example I can give is BR Zombies which runs 22-23 land, and bonfire is horrible in that deck.
Our burn makes our first strikers already crazy, 75% of our burn deals 3 or more damage so do they count as cantrips then by that philosophy?,
No, and honestly, I don't appreciate being made to look silly. A burn spell that does 3 damage is basically a 1-for-1 trade. My point with Stonewright was obviously that you don't spend a card, and you can generate 3 damage over the course of the game. That is a cantrip - because you're not spending a card. If you don't want to use the Philosophy of Fire analysis, I will simply put:
If they want to kill it, they have to spend a card. If Stonewright can pump 3 damage, then you have drawn and incinerate. You know that is what I meant.
I can't understand where your points are coming from if you have actually tested, and if you even bothered to test against random opponents with today's t1 decks to test against already tuned decks at all. The format will change but if your deck can't operate it can't operate. Unless you have specifically tuned it to beat a certain decks and just fold to all other decks that have ever existed, which would be pretty hard since no one has actually even had results with any deck with RTR cards yet...But please do run stonewright at a large open and prove me wrong by placing 1st-top32 that would make me happy.
You're right. I didn't bother to test against random opponents with today's tier 1 decks. Instead I got together with the strongest players I could. This includes three players with pro tour experience. Everyone mocked up some expected decklists and played with them.
But you do spend a card and you spend much more mana on said card. He can't trade up every turn as you say because he just trades once never more if he ever swings outside of 0 power creatures blocking him. He only actively works well with 1 card in every list to efficiently murder a creature each turn, ash, these points seem very side stepped in your analysis of the card overall and i can't understand how you can just overlook all of that. He also doesn't go well with actively advancing board position which is why i think sb for control is the better route to go with him.
How come you can't actually address let alone answer half of my questions as to your actual opinion or test results with him i wanted to know so i asked about those situations in particular. And then say im making you look silly when you have made a claim i adapted the claim to a different situation and posed a question in retort. We have had debacles about card choices in the past as well and you were the one in the same situation i am in expressing your opinion(need to run more lands) i don't recall being offended so i don't understand how your offended now.
If stonewright dies after only making 3 damage happen and didn't trade at all its 1 card 4 mana 3 damage. Your comparison is only assuming he stays alive thats very situational bear that in mind in comparison to something like incinerate/searing spear as a card. Consistency points to spear over stonewright if you make that comparison since it will always do what it does. Stonewright will always have the capability to grant firebreathing to itself and 1 other but won't always actually have that happen. Its situational by definition, albeit its situational case is extremely minute is all but you can't take that completely out of the equation when talking about reasons behind card choices. Your making him sound like a mid/late game drop so im curious as to how bonfire isn't just the better card overall in most given situations. And when i say he dies to every removal in the format i do mean every removal, hate card on humans, geistflame, pillar, slip, dreadbore, mono colored, izzet charm/golgari charm etc. I wasn't exaggerating or trying to make a claim just pointing out a simple fact that he is very easy to remove if he does pose a threat that other choices that are available do not have the same issue of and sb's will be easier to hose him game 2 and 3.
I play regularly against opponents of the same caliber as your friends but that doesn't mean much other then were both trying to get better. Im confused as to what this is getting at other then your playtesting with competent players which is good but i wasn't talking about that i was talking about testing against a broader field. I just am unorthodox with my playtesting and feel as though if you can have your t2 deck beating/competing against legacy/modern decks then its most likely playable in t2.
Black based control decks will most likely continue to use curse of death's hold. So he might not be all that great against some control decks as well.
If your offended i will refrain from further posting here. Good luck then.
But you do spend a card and you spend much more mana on said card.
More mana, but you don't spend a card. The incerate goes away. The Stonewright stays in play. If it goes away, it is only through a trade.
He can't trade up every turn as you say because he just trades once never more if he ever swings outside of 0 power creatures blocking him.
No, he lets whoever is his buddy trade up. This lets you trade your 1 and 2 drops for their 2, 3 and 4 drops. Sure, sometimes he will trade up himself and that is the end of it, but sometimes not.
He only actively works well with 1 card in every list to efficiently murder a creature each turn, ash, these points seem very side stepped in your analysis of the card overall and i can't understand how you can just overlook all of that. He also doesn't go well with actively advancing board position which is why i think sb for control is the better route to go with him.
He advances the board about as much as any other 1 drop. Yes, he is amazing with Ash Zealot, but he is fine with any other creature - the point is to have a way to spend every point of mana you couldnt otherwise. I don't feel he needs any synergy beyond that to earn a spot.
I am not sure how you can claim I am sidestepping questions. I not only took the time to respond to each point, but where possible I gave examples, full paragraphs responses and anecdotes.
How come you can't actually address let alone answer half of my questions as to your actual opinion or test results with him i wanted to know so i asked about those situations in particular. And then say im making you look silly when you have made a claim i adapted the claim to a different situation and posed a question in retort. We have had debacles about card choices in the past as well and you were the one in the same situation i am in expressing your opinion(need to run more lands) i don't recall being offended so i don't understand how your offended now.
Because you wanted to run 18 land. Others as well as myself said that in our experience, that wasnt enough. I never said anything like:
Quote from Drowning »
Your analysis is most likely completely wrong. I don't know how else to state this fact
If stonewright dies after only making 3 damage happen and didn't trade at all its 1 card 4 mana 3 damage. Your comparison is only assuming he stays alive thats very situational bear that in mind in comparison to something like incinerate/searing spear as a card.
If it is dying, it is trading for a card. It might not do 3 damage, but incinerate to the fact doesn't trade for a card. My point is, and always has been that creatures are currently better than burn. If they stay in play, they effectively draw you cards. Stoneright is better at this than a lot of the other creatures in the discussed deck.
Consistency points to spear over stonewright if you make that comparison since it will always do what it does. Stonewright will always have the capability to grant firebreathing to itself and 1 other but won't always actually have that happen. Its situational by definition, albeit its situational case is extremely minute is all but you can't take that completely out of the equation when talking about reasons behind card choices. Your making him sound like a mid/late game drop so im curious as to how bonfire isn't just the better card overall in most given situations.
Yes, searing spear is more consistent. Stonewright is higher variance - it can be worse but it can also be better. I believe this to be true of all of our early game creatures.
I don't believe stonewright competes with bonfire of the damned for a spot in the deck. If anything, bonfire competes with any of the burn spells. Right now, we need creatures to do a lot of the work. In any single turn, bonfire is likely to be the better card. Over a number of turns? I believe that Stonewright has the potential to be better. It is the 3rd best 1 drop, and I want more than 8 1 drops.
And when i say he dies to every removal in the format i do mean every removal, hate card on humans, geistflame, pillar, slip, dreadbore, mono colored, izzet charm/golgari charm etc. I wasn't exaggerating or trying to make a claim just pointing out a simple fact that he is very easy to remove if he does pose a threat that other choices that are available do not have the same issue of and sb's will be easier to hose him game 2 and 3.
And I still don't think it matters. Every 1 drop dies to removal. So what?
I play regularly against opponents of the same caliber as your friends but that doesn't mean much other then were both trying to get better. Im confused as to what this is getting at other then your playtesting with competent players which is good but i wasn't talking about that i was talking about testing against a broader field. I just am unorthodox with my playtesting and feel as though if you can have your t2 deck beating/competing against legacy/modern decks then its most likely playable in t2.
You might be able to build a type 2 deck that can compete against a modern deck. I don't know how you could ever build a type 2 deck to compete against a legacy deck. I don't even know what the point is.
Black based control decks will most likely continue to use curse of death's hold. So he might not be all that great against some control decks as well.
True. But that card basically beats most of the deck anyway. It certainly makes the other 1 drops horrible, so this is no real slight on him.
If your offended i will refrain from further posting here. Good luck then.
Not offended, just confused. I think we can agree to disagree (I hope). I do value your contribution to the discussion and I do not want you to feel unwelcome here.
I think it is fair to say that I am a much larger fan of 1 drops than you are (judging from your posts about Stromkirk Noble - I think he is the best I drop, I believe you have said that it is nearly unplayable). If that is the case, I believe that just means we value different attibutes of cards differently, which is probably why we're disagreeing here.
Please do feel welcome to keep posting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
If anyone can't see why a first turn play that's also a solid mid-game top deck and a potential source of damage if you're flooded or have no better use for mana is better in aggro red than an expensive spell that's only playable if you top deck it turns 3+ or are mana flooded and as good as worthless the rest of the time then RDW is not the deck for you.
Stonewright is good in your opening hand.
Bonfire is not good in your opening hand.
Stonewright is a good top deck the first few turns of the game.
Bonfire is not a good top deck the first few turns of the game.
Stonewright in your hand is good if you get mana flooded.
Bonfire in your hand is good only if you get mana flooded.
Can you see the difference?
I'm not argueing that Bonfire is crap or that Stonewright is better in the vast majority of decks, but, in RDW (which cares about turns 1-3 more than turns 4+), that is the case.
++EDIT++ Also, I went to the archives to read some Br Zombie tournament reports because I figured if any aggro deck bothered with Bonfire last season, that would be it. There was only one deck list that played Bonfire and the guy who played it described it as "literally a dead card".
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
Don't want to deter from the point of this thread since im not as focused on the 1 drops as you and various others are i think 4 vexing/4 cackler/2-4 Deathrite shaman is all id want tops and im not completely sold on cacklers need to test them.
Stonewright verse deathrite are essentially trying to do the same thing but i think deathrite is much better in a overall course of a game and id rather draw deathrite in so many more spots then i can think of wanting to draw stonewright. They both require less board commitment but deathrite can operate completely alone.
Im enthusiastic about your threads but don't want to offend for speaking my honest opinion. Thanks for making them. Sorry if what i say gets taken the wrong way.
all of your analogies on bonfire are completely eschewed. Bonfire is good in your opening hand its called sandbagging a card till its relevant, bonfire is a perfect topdeck turn 4 and its fine to topdeck any other time as well since you might of preferred to actually apply more pressure to board before you try to wipe and deal lethal or set it up, Bonfire is playable at 3 mana if you can't think of any times where dealing 1 damage to each creature/them or planeswalker your not thinking hard enough. If you can't actually give a valid reason of why one is better then the other and just trying to justify by simplifying things down to only 2 cases of the card just keep that **** to yourself since that is not the overall context of said card in a game. Stonewright does not nor can have as many options as bonfire, and i don't think its the creature you need to reach for to end stalls because it is effectively a turn 3-5 play otherwise your never going to maximize on it just paint a giant target on it or make them keep back guys and start clogging board or throw some miniscule removal at it. Yes it turns all of your dudes into bigger threats individually but id rather just play burn at that point to optimize on when they were already threats and have some protection if need be. And at that point i think playing bonfire almost always does effectively the same thing and a bit harder hitting wiping away blockers and hitting them seems much more impactful then averaging 3 damage.
If all you can think of is just turning dudes sideways blindly i don't think were even remotely thinking of the same deck.
edit-zeman i posted a decklist in the archived version of this thread before but it was with runes and im still going to test runes in the meantime.
I really value your opinion. Unfortunately, as a red mage, I am quick to get offended
I do agree that if you're running black, Deathrite shaman is just amazing.
If you're going that low on creatures, I guess you're running an RB Burn deck? That does sound pretty good. I might sit on it and brew. Do you have a list? I prefer Burn to Sligh when possible, so I am certainly interested to see where you go with the idea.
Good to hear you're passionate. That is what I like about red mages - we get involved and we mean it!
Aside - starting a write up of the creatures tomorrow. Should I focus on strictly competitive choices, or potential choices that might/might not be playable in more themey decks (eg: red humans)?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
I'd like a more theme-y list to be included simply because, when Gatecrash is released, there's probably a good chance that Boros Humans will be a thing.
No point in waiting until the last minute.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
all of your analogies on bonfire are completely eschewed. Bonfire is good in your opening hand its called sandbagging a card till its relevant, bonfire is a perfect topdeck turn 4 and its fine to topdeck any other time as well since you might of preferred to actually apply more pressure to board before you try to wipe and deal lethal or set it up, Bonfire is playable at 3 mana if you can't think of any times where dealing 1 damage to each creature/them or planeswalker your not thinking hard enough. If you can't actually give a valid reason of why one is better then the other and just trying to justify by simplifying things down to only 2 cases of the card just keep that **** to yourself since that is not the overall context of said card in a game. Stonewright does not nor can have as many options as bonfire, and i don't think its the creature you need to reach for to end stalls because it is effectively a turn 3-5 play otherwise your never going to maximize on it just paint a giant target on it or make them keep back guys and start clogging board or throw some miniscule removal at it. Yes it turns all of your dudes into bigger threats individually but id rather just play burn at that point to optimize on when they were already threats and have some protection if need be. And at that point i think playing bonfire almost always does effectively the same thing and a bit harder hitting wiping away blockers and hitting them seems much more impactful then averaging 3 damage.
Wow wall o text.
Anywho, I'll try to break it down. RDW (or any other straight aggro deck) tries to win by turn 6 at the latest. That means you will have drawn 5-6 cards over the course of an average game that you'll actually win. I'm going to assume a few things:
1. The average game that you'll win will end by or before turn 6,
2. Over the course of an average game that you'll win, you won't have access to more than 4 mana (statistically, with 22 land, 4.4 by turn 6 if you play and 4.76 if you draw), and
3. That a Bonfire that you can't miracle into is not good since I expect more from 3cc spells than, realistically at best, a dead creature or two and 1 damage to the opponent (I'd prefer Flames of the Firebrand for that).
With those three things in mind, you can conclude that Bonfire is almost worthless if drawn before your third turn or after your sixth turn.
That means in your opening 7, or draws 1,2, and possibly 3 (depending on play/draw) Bonfire is not good, but is only good on draws 4, 5, 6 and possible 3. That means that there are 9.5 chances for Bonfire to be sub par and 3.5 chances for it to be good (I split the 3rd draw).
Not good enough.
I mean, this isn't even theory. Go to the archives and look up Br Zombie threads. If Bonfire was good in aggro, it'd have been played there - it wasn't because it's not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
Anywho, I'll try to break it down. RDW (or any other straight aggro deck) tries to win by turn 6 at the latest. That means you will have drawn 5-6 cards over the course of an average game that you'll actually win. I'm going to assume a few things:
1. The average game that you'll win will end by or before turn 6,
2. Over the course of an average game that you'll win, you won't have access to more than 4 mana (statistically, with 22 land, 4.4 by turn 6 if you play and 4.76 if you draw), and
3. That a Bonfire that you can't miracle into is not good since I expect more from 3cc spells than, realistically at best, a dead creature or two and 1 damage to the opponent (I'd prefer Flames of the Firebrand for that).
With those three things in mind, you can conclude that Bonfire is almost worthless if drawn before your third turn or after your sixth turn.
That means in your opening 7, or draws 1,2, and possibly 3 (depending on play/draw) Bonfire is not good, but is only good on draws 4, 5, 6 and possible 3. That means that there are 9.5 chances for Bonfire to be sub par and 3.5 chances for it to be good (I split the 3rd draw).
Not good enough.
I mean, this isn't even theory. Go to the archives and look up Br Zombie threads. If Bonfire was good in aggro, it'd have been played there - it wasn't because it's not.
Bonfire was seeing play in BR zombies off and on and still does on mtgo dailies. It stopped seeing play mostly with flames of the firebrand.
Let me break down sligh to you then. Also its essentially a burn deck with creatures as burn. You want every single card to have as much potential guaranteed damage as you can. It uses burn as another way to guarantee damage, gain reach, and push through dudes. It aims to be the most efficient creatures at each cmc/have the most consistency possible.
If your using firebreathing your not being optimal. And no bonfire is still more optimal all of those draws then stonewright if you actually play the card because youd only play stonewright if you ran out of creatures.
Bonfire isn't meant to be played to begin with just for miracle its played because even without miracle it still is going to be the strongest pyroclasm effect left in standard. Its not a 4 of your right but its a 1 sided pyroclasm/flamebreak in these decks and how you don't want that makes no sense when instead your reaching for a another dude that isn't strong on its own. And actually you made a great point because i was originally planning on running 3-4 flames and 2 bonfires so i completely agree that flames can easily replace bonfires in the early game as well for almost all those scenarios and think that card is much better for this deck then stonewright MD.
Following your logic stonewright will come down maybe turn 4-5 and attempt to end the game. So that means youve done 16 damage and stonewright is finishing that final 4ish for you.
How do you deal 16-20 by turn 4-5 lets break it down then, turn 1 vexing devil take 4 they are at 16, turn 2 ash they are at 14 (4 cards in hand), turn 3 ash+cackler swing for 4 they are at 10 (2 cards), turn 4 hellrider kill them. Earliest plausible kill, excluding a few factors them taking 2-6 damage from shocks since they wont verse us and miracling T-Wrath's, and stone could replace cackler in this scenario but in every turn your tapping out essentially to try to get there stone doesn't fit in that line of play. More in a grindy game hence the feel that you want him in sb if you want him.
You want your creatures to be able to be operate on their own and be efficient stonewright is complete opposite of efficient its always a 1 for 1. It only shines verse control where to begin with control is usually the least represented deck in the first month of a new season, and we could just have it sb in. Im also of the standpoint that bonfire deals with certain problem cards that present a faster clock that are set up to have various ways to protect it, geist of st traft, and for that a lone comes a large portion of my recommendation since i do think st traft is going to be rather big in std.
Secondly the average game your aiming for turn 5 wins average lets agree that is where we want the deck to be just talked about turn 4's and how they are not that unrealistic on the play. So turn 5's to be averaging we need as many optimal card inclusions as possible that fit on that curve.
So i can get behind a mono red deck if it can infact average turn 5 wins, otherwise id play RB even though it does average turn 6-7 maybe its just a more consistent deck that has a wider variance of sb options, and plays a bit more grindy game then mono red.
Im hoping this clears some things up. If anyone has really brewed up a deck that is meant just for turn 5 wins id be interested in see'ing it because we can then focus on other things in sb.
Sadly if you wanted to keep in true tradition of sligh youd be playing RG since it has so many turn 5 capable wins. Boar, thundermaw, hellrider, strangleroot, rancor, burn etc ive played it its outstanding sadly you lose good mana dorks, yes they helped turn 5 wins blatantly happen, and having good mana. Then bonfire would probably be more readily accepted by you but you can't play rg right now and expect it to be as consistent as other decks. I think this deck will eventually just become RG because honestly RG has much more consistency then any other color currently even without rg getting printings till Gatecrash.
Lots of words basis of the story, bonfire deals with geist of st traft otherwise don't run it, both bonfire and stonewright actually don't up the consistency of the deck to average turn 5 wins. Lets brew something that does.
Damn, that's a lot to go through... I'm going to try and touch on some points, but a good bit of this seemed only, at best, tangentially related to what I've posted - so I'll probably not comment on those sections.
Bonfire was seeing play in BR zombies off and on and still does on mtgo dailies. It stopped seeing play mostly with flames of the firebrand.
I'm not seeing that... I've seen many decklist that splashed R for Aristocrat and Brimstone Volley, but only one in the Tourney Report thread that had Bonfire. As I posted earlier, that guy described it as "literally a dead card".
Let me break down sligh to you then. Also its essentially a burn deck with creatures as burn. You want every single card to have as much potential guaranteed damage as you can. It uses burn as another way to guarantee damage, gain reach, and push through dudes. It aims to be the most efficient creatures at each cmc/have the most consistency possible.
While I appreciate your break down, I feel like I should correct you here. Sligh/RDW/DGR do all care about efficient guaranteed damage - that's true - but only in the context of speed. You want spells that not only do efficient, guaranteed damage, but do it as quickly as possible.
Bonfire, if not drawn turn 3+, is neither quick nor efficient.
If your using firebreathing your not being optimal. And no bonfire is still more optimal all of those draws then stonewright if you actually play the card because youd only play stonewright if you ran out of creatures.
Not true. Stonewright is a perfectly fine first, second, third, etc. turn play. It can keep your opponent from blocking for fear of loosing their superior creature. It can force your opponent to block for fear of taking a ton of extra damage. It can act as a mana sink if you can't or don't want to play any other cards in your hand. If nothing else, it's still a creature and can turn sideways - that's a lot of utility from a one drop.
Following your logic stonewright will come down maybe turn 4-5 and attempt to end the game. So that means youve done 16 damage and stonewright is finishing that final 4ish for you.
How do you deal 16-20 by turn 4-5 lets break it down then, turn 1 vexing devil take 4 they are at 16, turn 2 ash they are at 14 (4 cards in hand), turn 3 ash+cackler swing for 4 they are at 10 (2 cards), turn 4 hellrider kill them. Earliest plausible kill, excluding a few factors them taking 2-6 damage from shocks since they wont verse us and miracling T-Wrath's, and stone could replace cackler in this scenario but in every turn your tapping out essentially to try to get there stone doesn't fit in that line of play. More in a grindy game hence the feel that you want him in sb if you want him.
Not sure how this is following my logic, but I'll bite.
In this scenario you could replace the Vexing Devil with Stonewright and it'd still get there turn 4. Or you could replace the Cackler with Stonewright and same thing. Or you could replace Hellrider with 4 Stonewright activations and you'd still have a turn 4 kill. Or you could do all of those together, replacing your nutz scenario with a much less powerful line of play and you'd still put your opponent in lethal range of any of your burn spells.
Now, what would Bonfire do in this scenario? Not a damn thing unless you top decked it turn 3 or 4, and, even then, not much.
Lots of words basis of the story, bonfire deals with geist of st traft otherwise don't run it, both bonfire and stonewright actually don't up the consistency of the deck to average turn 5 wins. Lets brew something that does.
Blocking or racing also deal with Geist. Stonewright bonded to a creature deals with Geist for 1 activation. Stonewright, like I explained earlier, also actually does increase the consistency of an early win, unlike Bonfire.
You said yourself, Bonfire's only use is to deal with Geist of St. Traft - and, not only is it unlikely (at best) to do that, but we have more efficient ways (including Stonewright) to do that anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
I mean if you want to actually talk about card choices im glad but if your just going to keep coming up with small corner cases of why having 8 dual lands which only 4 have a mandatory ETB tapped clause and other semantics i will gladly be done with this, i can easily bring up the cases of you play hellion crucible play a slow hand tick it up then unleash it they then drop unsummon/cyclonic rift, or you drop a stonewright and pair your turn 3 they then drop a wolfir silverheart turn 4 paired to another creature because you tapped out to deal that extra 2 damage...wtf now.
Semantics? The scenario I suggested is a very real thing if you run coreset duals (and basic Swamps) in your RDW list. You will have to either mulligan or keep suboptimal hands that in the mono-red version would not exist. Let's say you run 4 Summits, 2 Swamps and then all Mountains. That's 6 lands that you don't want to see in your starting hand without Blood Crypt or Mountains. Now in the Mono-Red version you're running just 3 Hellion Crucibles as lands that can't produce red turn 1. That's half as many lands as the B/R list which is not an insignificant number. If the B/R list wants to run any colorless lands of its own (Crucibles, Bloodhalls, or what have you) then the number of unkeepable/awkward hands increases.
Like I said it's a tradeoff of consistency for increased power level/more card options. If you believe through testing that this trade off is worthwhile then by all means play a B/R list. To pass off the argument about the loss of consistency a B/R list has as a cornercase would be remiss though. It's a very real concern and one you should be taking into account when comparing the merits of the two lists.
As for Stonewright, Zeman has given you some very good arguments for why the card warrants consideration, and through my own personal testing of the card I agree with much of what he has said. I have had the card deal upwards of 3 damage thanks to its firebreathing ability and if my 1 drop is able to do and then eventually trade for a creature or removal spell then I am very happy. Yes, it dies to every removal spell ever, but so what? Every 1 drop pretty much ever is susceptible to removal and the fact that Stonewright dies to stuff isn't really an argument against him anymore than it is against other 1 drops.
If anyone really is interested in straight burn for red, there's actually a lot you need to consider, mostly when lifegain gets turned on. For most non g/w decks, you're safe until at least turn 4 I think since the fastest lifegain outside of those colors you can expect to see is vamp nighthawk.
The same is MOSTLY true for gw decks, but some of them will play centaur healer, plus they have the option of playing huge guys that you can't ignore or play around like loxodon smitter which similarly ruins your math. I think you want to be able to win immideately through Trostani since if they untap, it's most likely game over.
With all that in mind, if I played Rakdos, it would look like this:
Everything at the face. Stonewright is marginal in this list since you don't want to be a victim of interaction at all, but you really want a dude on board turn one so he gets the nod. Plus he's good when you flood and in topdeck situations.
Bump in the night and thunderbolt are hear because they deal three damage and hlep you goldfish turn 4. THunderous wrath is more of the same thing, and unlike other miracles, outside of turn two not being able to play ash zealout, I don't think there's ever a spot where you don't would think about holding it so it's mostly pure value. Is straight burn viable? I don't think so, but if it is, I think it looks like this.
For straight red, I think you have more leeway to play actual cards and a real game of magic. In that case I'd play:
LP, I'm checking your article out as well. Behind all of your swag is the brain of one of the most intelligent Magic players I've ever known. I guess that's one more thing for you to add to the wall of ego that is your Sally sig.
I can go with that. LK, you are the Mace Windu of red mages...cool, tempered logic in deliberation, but capable of just flat kicking tail when the situation warrants it.
I like the reasoning about Stonewright, mana sinks and the various other suggestions interest me. As I talk Rakdos (out of curiosity rather than conviction mind you) I first spotted Hellhole Flailer for it´s T4 game ending ability and manadumping. My curve goes T1 Cackling Devil, T2 Gore-House Chainwalker and T3 Flailer meaning damage dealt: 2 + 5 + 11 (+4) = 23 in the goldfish case.
I was thinking that Stonewright would work aswell in Rakdos, but as other people suggests there are options:
Deathrite Shaman - if the resoning goes that the manadumping role is for filling out Turns 4-6 in our game plan as redthirst et al. argues, it may not be much of an issue if Shaman is B. As Alex Shearer shows in his article All Your Victories Begin Here about manabases (with a handy worksheet to find the odds), 8 duals + 11 Mountains + 2 Swamp means 90% of a black source T3. Translation is that he can get 'online' earliest T3. Just when we need him to be ready. As he is a cheaper, tougher and more effective Grim Lavamancer I believe he may merit a spot in Rakdos. The issue is how many of him? He´s a bonus, yet powerful, not a pre-quisite for the plan. 2 of him perhaps?
Rix Maadi Guildmage - another manadump playing both Shaman and Wrights roles. If the reasoning holds again this guy also can deploy T3 and even better he is immediately active. He offers more than Wright to as he also targets Toughness meaning she upgrades from not offering trades for mana dumping, but actual card advantage. E.g. following my earlier T1-T3 curve if she deploys T4 it means GW/Naya cannot trade their R.Angel for Flailer (supposing 2 black sources). Another 2 of perhaps?
What do you think?
Well, runing 21 lands, assuming you get shaman on board turn 3, does it actually do anything you want turn 4? It requires creatures in the yard to do work, so assuming you've just been attacking up to that point, nothing has died. Resultantly, you need to spend a card killing something of theres(pillar doesn't work for this), so where looking at searing blazing there whatever then deathriting losing a point of damage overall. Add to the fact that I think 3 mana, 1 of which is black by turn 4 while not overly steep a scenario, isn't something that I think you can rely on achieving consistently. It seems to me that you really need a lot of stuff to go right for this to be a viable line. Having said all of that, that's what testing is for so go ahead and try it.
Rixi maadi guildmage similarly seems too low impact to matter imo, though there is potentially a LOT of value to be had with the card.
LP, I'm checking your article out as well. Behind all of your swag is the brain of one of the most intelligent Magic players I've ever known. I guess that's one more thing for you to add to the wall of ego that is your Sally sig.
I can go with that. LK, you are the Mace Windu of red mages...cool, tempered logic in deliberation, but capable of just flat kicking tail when the situation warrants it.
That looks fairly optimal. I don't think this is that good though - I played a lot with a very similar deck prior to rotation and it was not amazing. This deck definitely has some technology upgrades (Cackler and Zealot) but it loses a lot as well (Incinerate, Arc Trail, Grim Lavamancer, Shrine of Burning Rage). I don't mind it though. I would be tempted by either a Stensia Bloodhall or a Rakdos Guildgate as a 22nd land - just for hardcasting some of the bigger spells (brimstone volley in combination OR hardcast the wraths).
Decks like this are a lot of fun to play of course, and have surprisingly good matchups against control.
For straight red, I think you have more leeway to play actual cards and a real game of magic.
I agree. We're weak at 3 for now (with two sets to come of course), but our creatures are a lot better than last season (Grim Lavamancer aside).
I like the reasoning about Stonewright, mana sinks and the various other suggestions interest me. As I talk Rakdos (out of curiosity rather than conviction mind you) I first spotted Hellhole Flailer for it´s T4 game ending ability and manadumping. My curve goes T1 Cackling Devil, T2 Gore-House Chainwalker and T3 Flailer meaning damage dealt: 2 + 5 + 11 (+4) = 23 in the goldfish case.
I was thinking that Stonewright would work aswell in Rakdos, but as other people suggests there are options:
Deathrite Shaman - if the resoning goes that the manadumping role is for filling out Turns 4-6 in our game plan as redthirst et al. argues, it may not be much of an issue if Shaman is B. As Alex Shearer shows in his article All Your Victories Begin Here about manabases (with a handy worksheet to find the odds), 8 duals + 11 Mountains + 2 Swamp means 90% of a black source T3. Translation is that he can get 'online' earliest T3. Just when we need him to be ready. As he is a cheaper, tougher and more effective Grim Lavamancer I believe he may merit a spot in Rakdos. The issue is how many of him? He´s a bonus, yet powerful, not a pre-quisite for the plan. 2 of him perhaps?
Rix Maadi Guildmage - another manadump playing both Shaman and Wrights roles. If the reasoning holds again this guy also can deploy T3 and even better he is immediately active. He offers more than Wright to as he also targets Toughness meaning she upgrades from not offering trades for mana dumping, but actual card advantage. E.g. following my earlier T1-T3 curve if she deploys T4 it means GW/Naya cannot trade their R.Angel for Flailer (supposing 2 black sources). Another 2 of perhaps?
What do you think?
Stonewright is just OK in rakdos - the black splash gives you other good manasinks already. I might still run it, but not a full playset.
I think deathrite shaman is quite good, and Aesnath developed a list last season that was more of a black weenie deck splashing heavy burn - I think this concept would be even better with the addition of the Shaman. I am imagining ~16 to 18 black sources with 10 to 12 red sources, mostly black 1 drops (cackler works particularly well here) with the shaman for early beats, then the usual burn package for closing. You lose Ash Zealot, but you have up to a dozen 2 power 1 drops which is nothing to sneeze at. You get to keep everything else you're running as well, and with even more black, you have even bigger sideboard options (Underworld Connections maybe?!?!). Something to consider.
Rix Maadi Guildmage I like, but it is pretty slow. I can see you getting value from it in a grindy midrange deck, but none of us have really come up with anything great there yet. It might also be that the 2/2 body is too vulnerable when (if?) you're wanting to run sweepers. Card certainly does have potential though.
EDIT: thanks for the article link, I will add it to the primer
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
I know I Haven't got any 3 drops, but I was very unimpressed with the 3 drops available to us. So turn 3 will be a removal spell or burn spell of some kind.
4x Brimstone volley gives me reach. When I used to play goblins, what I least wanted is to run short of a big creature. Which Is why I put Thundermaw Hellkite in here. (Plus, It's one of the favourite creatures in standard.)
I don't run hellion crucible, because on turn 1/2 I need double red. So I don't want mana issues, and TBH It's quite slow.
Other than that, this is my take on RDW in standard.
Hey mate.
The list looks very good. I think it is playable as it is. I have two quibbles:
- mana curve is a little ambitious. I would personally stretch to 24 land, but you need at least a 23rd - I have only two hellriders in my 22 land deck and even that is a bit pushed sometimes. With an extra 4 and some 5s, I would hate to see you lose to yourself Thats what the other decks are meant to do!
- I would prefer 1 or 2 Hellion Crucible. It seems slow, but if you do flood, it gets online in only two turns.
Otherwise, yeah, we're very weak at three. It happens sometimes. We at least have burn spells that fit in there well enough. I think when GTC hits we will be looking for a better 2 drop (there is a huge drop off in quality after Ash Zealot) a playable 3 (there isnt any) and a better burn spell (though we're doing fine currently). Fingers crossed for us!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
One drops: Rakdos Cackler is the top choice, either of the other two could be replaced with Vexing Devil if so inclined. I feel like Stonewright is a solid mana sink (along with Crucible) and Stromkirk Noble suits well with Flames (I feel like some form of Arc Trail is necessary. Obviously Pillar is a must.
Two Drops: Ash Zealot is a clear choice. I chose Gore-House Chainwalker over Flunkies or Shred-Freak because A. Chainwalker is more reliable than Flunkies, the 1 toughness makes no difference in an aggro deck, and 2. Shred-Freak is just a bad version of Zealot.
3 Drops: I split the difference between Brimstone and Flames. I feel like both had a spot but neither deserved a 4x. Brimstone is usually going to be an expensive Spear, and Flames is an expensive (but better) Electrickery.
I could see Pyreheart being here. I'd really like to know how he tests out, though I feel like he'll remain a useless 1/1 because your burn spells should be killing all the blockers if you're doing it right, anyway.
4 Drops: Obviously, Hellrider goes here. I can see him as a 4x and I may bump him to that (Maybe drop 2x Thunderbolt?) but I think I'd rather play safe with my mana so he's a 2x for right now.
Hellion Crucible plays as a late-game mana sink to help you push through the game.
If anyone has suggestions (especially on the spell board, particularly what I should cut [if anything] to add room for maybe two more Hellriders) feel free to mention them.
Everything else about the deck is pretty much set in stone, though.
I think if I were to play thundermaw hellkite, I'd play 24 lands, and branch into another color for something to fill the curve at three. Black would be the best option for color probably soley based on Olivia being a card you'd have access too. You'd be more midrangy, but still lethal.
LP, I'm checking your article out as well. Behind all of your swag is the brain of one of the most intelligent Magic players I've ever known. I guess that's one more thing for you to add to the wall of ego that is your Sally sig.
I can go with that. LK, you are the Mace Windu of red mages...cool, tempered logic in deliberation, but capable of just flat kicking tail when the situation warrants it.
One drops: Rakdos Cackler is the top choice, either of the other two could be replaced with Vexing Devil if so inclined. I feel like Stonewright is a solid mana sink (along with Crucible) and Stromkirk Noble suits well with Flames (I feel like some form of Arc Trail is necessary. Obviously Pillar is a must.
Two Drops: Ash Zealot is a clear choice. I chose Gore-House Chainwalker over Flunkies or Shred-Freak because A. Chainwalker is more reliable than Flunkies, the 1 toughness makes no difference in an aggro deck, and 2. Shred-Freak is just a bad version of Zealot.
3 Drops: I split the difference between Brimstone and Flames. I feel like both had a spot but neither deserved a 4x. Brimstone is usually going to be an expensive Spear, and Flames is an expensive (but better) Electrickery.
I could see Pyreheart being here. I'd really like to know how he tests out, though I feel like he'll remain a useless 1/1 because your burn spells should be killing all the blockers if you're doing it right, anyway.
4 Drops: Obviously, Hellrider goes here. I can see him as a 4x and I may bump him to that (Maybe drop 2x Thunderbolt?) but I think I'd rather play safe with my mana so he's a 2x for right now.
Hellion Crucible plays as a late-game mana sink to help you push through the game.
If anyone has suggestions (especially on the spell board, particularly what I should cut [if anything] to add room for maybe two more Hellriders.
Everything else about the deck is pretty much set in stone, though.
Firstly, thanks! The primer is taking a lot of work, but hopefully it will be a useful resource. I hope to keep working on it piece by piece until it is finished
I came to a lot of similar choices myself (our creature package is the same, our burn package is slightly different but very similar). In my experience Dangeous Wager was pretty underwhelming - but I tend to hold cards a lot, so maybe it is just the way I play. I have found the double-cycle from Wild Guess works better for me, especially with less counterspells about.
Hellrider is a great card, but I don't think you need the full 4. You have a few turns to draw into one anyway. It may be that three is better than two though? I do feel the games with him are a lot easier than the games without. I have two at the moment, but I can see trying three. I wouldnt want to add a 23rd land to the version we're running though - I know a lot of people have had success running 21 land and 22 is a concession to my own risk-adversity
It certainly requires testing
Thanks and welcome to the thread!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
I think if I were to play thundermaw hellkite, I'd play 24 lands, and branch into another color for something to fill the curve at three. Black would be the best option for color probably soley based on Olivia being a card you'd have access too. You'd be more midrangy, but still lethal.
Firstly, thanks! The primer is taking a lot of work, but hopefully it will be a useful resource. I hope to keep working on it piece by piece until it is finished
I came to a lot of similar choices myself (our creature package is the same, our burn package is slightly different but very similar). In my experience Dangeous Wager was pretty underwhelming - but I tend to hold cards a lot, so maybe it is just the way I play. I have found the double-cycle from Wild Guess works better for me, especially with less counterspells about.
Hellrider is a great card, but I don't think you need the full 4. You have a few turns to draw into one anyway. It may be that three is better than two though? I do feel the games with him are a lot easier than the games without. I have two at the moment, but I can see trying three. I wouldnt want to add a 23rd land to the version we're running though - I know a lot of people have had success running 21 land and 22 is a concession to my own risk-adversity
It certainly requires testing
Thanks and welcome to the thread!
True. Another reason I chose against playing Shred-Freak and Wild Guess were just the mana requirements. Granted, it's a low possibility, but when you're playing two Crucibles, anything can happen. Especially on turn two, and I don't wanna be in a position like that.
But like you said, it could just be play style. How has Faithless Looting turned out?
And has anyone decided on an ABSOLUTE best spells list?
I will say while shred freak is a worse zealout, it adds redundancy to your hasty two drops.
Regarding my R/B conglamoration, I tweaked what you guys saw(I'm at the library and my computer timed out) and I think the manabase actually works. The biggest appeal of R/B aggro is that you can do stupid things to control decks depending on how you set up your sideboard.
You have acces to slaughter games, Rakdo's return, underworld connections, and Stensia Bloodhall. Essentially, you can setup postboard games where you get to be the aggro and control while retaining inevitability if you so choose.
I like how the maindeck is set up because the bulk of your creatures allow you to play the hyper aggro game while olivia, thundermaw, and your higher land count allow you to not be drawing dead past turn 6. They play'd thragtusk? Thundermaw undoes there hard work. Trostani got you down? Gain control of her with olivia. Good luck Selesnya. Liliana does work against everyone ensuring that you get some value from your three slot.
Depending on how the Zombie matchup is, you could even incorporate a couple sign in bloods to make sure you "get there" without giving up on reach.
LP, I'm checking your article out as well. Behind all of your swag is the brain of one of the most intelligent Magic players I've ever known. I guess that's one more thing for you to add to the wall of ego that is your Sally sig.
I can go with that. LK, you are the Mace Windu of red mages...cool, tempered logic in deliberation, but capable of just flat kicking tail when the situation warrants it.
I don't mind the RR in Wild Guess because I am not usually going to cast it on turn 2. So it is less of an issue. I like Chainwalker because the body is more relevant than Shred-Freak, and having a 2 drop that is 1R instead of both of them been RR does help with the mana (halves the chance of an awkward turn 2).
I definitely think play style is a huge issue with the draw spells. No one was a bigger fan of Faithless Looting than me - but we had Grim Lavamancer; so you could very easily offset the card disadvantage. The dig is very powerful. It is a great way of fighting through lategame x/1 draws or flooding. I might run it again, I do like it very much. I would want fewer mana sinks if it was back in the list though - it eats up a LOT of lands. If you go back through the old thread (there is a link in the primer itself) you can see a lot of discussion on the card (I will be adding it to the primer when I get time). The loss of Shrine of Burning Rage, Grim Lavamancer and Chandra's Phoenix do hurt the card.
Right now I don't know of any best spell list. The metagame probably needs to settle a lot more before we can be more certain. Generally speaking though, don't maindeck spells that cannot go to the dome - they're sideboard only.
I doubt faithless looting has much merit now that shrine of burning rage is gone. Before looting was fine since it still represented a point of future damage if you had a shrine on the field, plus you could dump chandra's phoenix and then gut shot them breaking the disadvantage of the card. Now it's basically junk IMO for mono red.
LP, I'm checking your article out as well. Behind all of your swag is the brain of one of the most intelligent Magic players I've ever known. I guess that's one more thing for you to add to the wall of ego that is your Sally sig.
I can go with that. LK, you are the Mace Windu of red mages...cool, tempered logic in deliberation, but capable of just flat kicking tail when the situation warrants it.
Your analysis is most likely completely wrong. I don't know how else to state this fact. He does in fact die to literally every removal in standard, He doesn't impact the board as much your making it out to be unless your reaching turn 5-7 clogged board and youve somehow hit land drops every turn then how would bonfire not be a better topdeck?, He himself can never swing he is only good at defense, Yes he is inherently better then stromkirk or cackler off the top late game but if thats all your using it for why not just run bonfire it does exactly the same thing and is much more versatile then stonewright and makes your stromkirks/cacklers better cards themselves. I am lost as to where this is going, and why are you searching out more and more creatures to run when you can tell midrange/control is going to be a thing verse seeking out more interactive cards?
Explain how stonewright is in fact impacting the board more then a bonfire, when is the ideal turn to play him verse aggro/midrange/and control?, when do you wish to topdeck him in each of those matchups?, how much mana do you really need for him to be a good card?, and is he not simply put a 1 trick pony he gets one useful swing in that might make a big difference in the game but then they know to leave something or more back or does your opponent just always race you? Are you really trying to compare him to the abyss because i just can't see it.
How many lands do you really think bonfire needs to be good? your making it sound like 25 land+ is the only way to run bonfire...which is simply not right. Just because it really shined in GR because they had "potential" 28-30'ish mana sources doesn't mean they ever really had more then 6-8 lands on board including dorks in average games. and they were running 22-23 lands...your running 21-22...Your bonfire is still gonna be hitting for 3-4...just not have the huge upward swing of 5-8 as easily as them fast enough, because early game guess what your going to be applying pressure and then using bonfire to gain advantageous attacks and try to win.
Our burn makes our first strikers already crazy, 75% of our burn deals 3 or more damage so do they count as cantrips then by that philosophy?, i didn't think we wanted to ever really be trading creatures unless we are forced to but use burn to clear them out the way, and there are going to be many gamestates where topdecking him isn't ideal its the same with every other card in your deck stop putting just a focal point on when its good but look at the overall usage of the card, I could care less about my 1 drop if the rest of my deck is just miles ahead of my opponents at all other stages of the game since their is no deck which wins/completely dominates/decides the game just by turn 1 plays. Delver was the closest to that but now is near impossible to replicate that.
I can't understand where your points are coming from if you have actually tested, and if you even bothered to test against random opponents with today's t1 decks to test against already tuned decks at all. The format will change but if your deck can't operate it can't operate. Unless you have specifically tuned it to beat a certain decks and just fold to all other decks that have ever existed, which would be pretty hard since no one has actually even had results with any deck with RTR cards yet...But please do run stonewright at a large open and prove me wrong by placing 1st-top32 that would make me happy.
Neither does any other creature we're running at 1cc. Dies to removal isnt a real argument against a card.
Yes, I agree that if we hit every land drop, then bonfire is a better topdeck. But it is awkward in our curve and in our opener. Stonewright isnt. Sure, it cannot win games like Bonfire can, but even if you play Stonewright on turn 3 or 4, you just immediately pump his buddy for damage and it is effectively a 3 or 4 drop. That is pretty cool. We have all been in situations where we have 1-2 mana that we cannot use in a turn - it happens all the time. So in those situations, Stonewright really shines. Every spare mana now has the potential to become 1 damage. I don't think I am overstating it - I am giving examples from games I have played against the gauntlet of new decks. I really have had him do 10 firebreathing damage in two turns (once pumping his buddy for 4, then pumping himself for 6).
He is still a 1 drop. If he trades up and lets you get a bit of extra damage through (from pumping his buddy) that is pretty great. We might even call it a big game.
I don't think theyre the same, outside scaling well. Stonewright is still a 1 drop. It is still a body I can attack with every turn. Against decks without a lot of removal, it is damage every turn, or trading up every turn. Both are really important against those midrange decks. My deck has insane matchup against control. Midrange is of course, a sligh decks worst matchup - but I have tried as much as posible to address that post sideboard. I believe my matchup with the GW/Bant deck is fine game 1, and better post board. My Jund matchup is pretty bad game 1 if they draw really well, but if they stumble at all it is over very quickly. It is about 50% post board so far, but I am working on the sideboard plan.
I don't need to. I havent said that he is. Theyre not competing for the same deck slot. The idea time is whenever he fits the curve of my hand - obviously the other 1 drops are a better play on turn 1, Ash Zealot is better on 2 - but maybe I don't have those cards? If there is a hole in the curve I can just play him and pump any excess mana into his buddy - so he is whatever drop I need him to be.
He is just average against against aggro (though he can close out the game when you're both living off the top). He is solid against midrange (lets you trade up, invalidates a lot of the plans out of GW/Bant) and very good against control (never have to commit more than 2 threats, can deal consistent damage).
He isn't the abyss at all - he is just a mana sink. A good one. I don't need much mana at all - the idea is to use otherwise unsused resources. I don't think he is any more a 1-trick pony than Grim Lavamancer; he isn't as good, but he still has a lot of utility. I feel I have listed enough uses to demonstrate that he has multiple roles.
Most RG decks were running 24 land (to support 4 Huntmaster and some 5 drops, sometimes Hellrider as well) and 8-10 mana dorks. The issue isnt how much mana theyre going to have on turn 5+, but the fact that their early game bonfires are often going to be for 1-3 more damage; which is just huge with bonfire. I don't really like bonfire with less than 24 land (and when I play a deck that wants 24 land, I play 25. Just like I play 22 land in my RDW when I might be able to get away with 21 - I like the consistency). The closest example I can give is BR Zombies which runs 22-23 land, and bonfire is horrible in that deck.
No, and honestly, I don't appreciate being made to look silly. A burn spell that does 3 damage is basically a 1-for-1 trade. My point with Stonewright was obviously that you don't spend a card, and you can generate 3 damage over the course of the game. That is a cantrip - because you're not spending a card. If you don't want to use the Philosophy of Fire analysis, I will simply put:
Incinerate = 1 card, 3 damage. Result: 3 damage, -1 card
Stonewright = 1 card, 3 damage. Result: 3 damage, card parity.
If they want to kill it, they have to spend a card. If Stonewright can pump 3 damage, then you have drawn and incinerate. You know that is what I meant.
You're right. I didn't bother to test against random opponents with today's tier 1 decks. Instead I got together with the strongest players I could. This includes three players with pro tour experience. Everyone mocked up some expected decklists and played with them.
Im the worst, I know.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
How come you can't actually address let alone answer half of my questions as to your actual opinion or test results with him i wanted to know so i asked about those situations in particular. And then say im making you look silly when you have made a claim i adapted the claim to a different situation and posed a question in retort. We have had debacles about card choices in the past as well and you were the one in the same situation i am in expressing your opinion(need to run more lands) i don't recall being offended so i don't understand how your offended now.
If stonewright dies after only making 3 damage happen and didn't trade at all its 1 card 4 mana 3 damage. Your comparison is only assuming he stays alive thats very situational bear that in mind in comparison to something like incinerate/searing spear as a card. Consistency points to spear over stonewright if you make that comparison since it will always do what it does. Stonewright will always have the capability to grant firebreathing to itself and 1 other but won't always actually have that happen. Its situational by definition, albeit its situational case is extremely minute is all but you can't take that completely out of the equation when talking about reasons behind card choices. Your making him sound like a mid/late game drop so im curious as to how bonfire isn't just the better card overall in most given situations. And when i say he dies to every removal in the format i do mean every removal, hate card on humans, geistflame, pillar, slip, dreadbore, mono colored, izzet charm/golgari charm etc. I wasn't exaggerating or trying to make a claim just pointing out a simple fact that he is very easy to remove if he does pose a threat that other choices that are available do not have the same issue of and sb's will be easier to hose him game 2 and 3.
I play regularly against opponents of the same caliber as your friends but that doesn't mean much other then were both trying to get better. Im confused as to what this is getting at other then your playtesting with competent players which is good but i wasn't talking about that i was talking about testing against a broader field. I just am unorthodox with my playtesting and feel as though if you can have your t2 deck beating/competing against legacy/modern decks then its most likely playable in t2.
Black based control decks will most likely continue to use curse of death's hold. So he might not be all that great against some control decks as well.
If your offended i will refrain from further posting here. Good luck then.
More mana, but you don't spend a card. The incerate goes away. The Stonewright stays in play. If it goes away, it is only through a trade.
No, he lets whoever is his buddy trade up. This lets you trade your 1 and 2 drops for their 2, 3 and 4 drops. Sure, sometimes he will trade up himself and that is the end of it, but sometimes not.
He advances the board about as much as any other 1 drop. Yes, he is amazing with Ash Zealot, but he is fine with any other creature - the point is to have a way to spend every point of mana you couldnt otherwise. I don't feel he needs any synergy beyond that to earn a spot.
I am not sure how you can claim I am sidestepping questions. I not only took the time to respond to each point, but where possible I gave examples, full paragraphs responses and anecdotes.
Because you wanted to run 18 land. Others as well as myself said that in our experience, that wasnt enough. I never said anything like:
If it is dying, it is trading for a card. It might not do 3 damage, but incinerate to the fact doesn't trade for a card. My point is, and always has been that creatures are currently better than burn. If they stay in play, they effectively draw you cards. Stoneright is better at this than a lot of the other creatures in the discussed deck.
Yes, searing spear is more consistent. Stonewright is higher variance - it can be worse but it can also be better. I believe this to be true of all of our early game creatures.
I don't believe stonewright competes with bonfire of the damned for a spot in the deck. If anything, bonfire competes with any of the burn spells. Right now, we need creatures to do a lot of the work. In any single turn, bonfire is likely to be the better card. Over a number of turns? I believe that Stonewright has the potential to be better. It is the 3rd best 1 drop, and I want more than 8 1 drops.
And I still don't think it matters. Every 1 drop dies to removal. So what?
You might be able to build a type 2 deck that can compete against a modern deck. I don't know how you could ever build a type 2 deck to compete against a legacy deck. I don't even know what the point is.
True. But that card basically beats most of the deck anyway. It certainly makes the other 1 drops horrible, so this is no real slight on him.
Not offended, just confused. I think we can agree to disagree (I hope). I do value your contribution to the discussion and I do not want you to feel unwelcome here.
I think it is fair to say that I am a much larger fan of 1 drops than you are (judging from your posts about Stromkirk Noble - I think he is the best I drop, I believe you have said that it is nearly unplayable). If that is the case, I believe that just means we value different attibutes of cards differently, which is probably why we're disagreeing here.
Please do feel welcome to keep posting.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
If anyone can't see why a first turn play that's also a solid mid-game top deck and a potential source of damage if you're flooded or have no better use for mana is better in aggro red than an expensive spell that's only playable if you top deck it turns 3+ or are mana flooded and as good as worthless the rest of the time then RDW is not the deck for you.
Stonewright is good in your opening hand.
Bonfire is not good in your opening hand.
Stonewright is a good top deck the first few turns of the game.
Bonfire is not a good top deck the first few turns of the game.
Stonewright in your hand is good if you get mana flooded.
Bonfire in your hand is good only if you get mana flooded.
Can you see the difference?
I'm not argueing that Bonfire is crap or that Stonewright is better in the vast majority of decks, but, in RDW (which cares about turns 1-3 more than turns 4+), that is the case.
++EDIT++ Also, I went to the archives to read some Br Zombie tournament reports because I figured if any aggro deck bothered with Bonfire last season, that would be it. There was only one deck list that played Bonfire and the guy who played it described it as "literally a dead card".
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Stonewright verse deathrite are essentially trying to do the same thing but i think deathrite is much better in a overall course of a game and id rather draw deathrite in so many more spots then i can think of wanting to draw stonewright. They both require less board commitment but deathrite can operate completely alone.
Im enthusiastic about your threads but don't want to offend for speaking my honest opinion. Thanks for making them. Sorry if what i say gets taken the wrong way.
all of your analogies on bonfire are completely eschewed. Bonfire is good in your opening hand its called sandbagging a card till its relevant, bonfire is a perfect topdeck turn 4 and its fine to topdeck any other time as well since you might of preferred to actually apply more pressure to board before you try to wipe and deal lethal or set it up, Bonfire is playable at 3 mana if you can't think of any times where dealing 1 damage to each creature/them or planeswalker your not thinking hard enough. If you can't actually give a valid reason of why one is better then the other and just trying to justify by simplifying things down to only 2 cases of the card just keep that **** to yourself since that is not the overall context of said card in a game. Stonewright does not nor can have as many options as bonfire, and i don't think its the creature you need to reach for to end stalls because it is effectively a turn 3-5 play otherwise your never going to maximize on it just paint a giant target on it or make them keep back guys and start clogging board or throw some miniscule removal at it. Yes it turns all of your dudes into bigger threats individually but id rather just play burn at that point to optimize on when they were already threats and have some protection if need be. And at that point i think playing bonfire almost always does effectively the same thing and a bit harder hitting wiping away blockers and hitting them seems much more impactful then averaging 3 damage.
If all you can think of is just turning dudes sideways blindly i don't think were even remotely thinking of the same deck.
edit-zeman i posted a decklist in the archived version of this thread before but it was with runes and im still going to test runes in the meantime.
I do agree that if you're running black, Deathrite shaman is just amazing.
If you're going that low on creatures, I guess you're running an RB Burn deck? That does sound pretty good. I might sit on it and brew. Do you have a list? I prefer Burn to Sligh when possible, so I am certainly interested to see where you go with the idea.
Good to hear you're passionate. That is what I like about red mages - we get involved and we mean it!
Aside - starting a write up of the creatures tomorrow. Should I focus on strictly competitive choices, or potential choices that might/might not be playable in more themey decks (eg: red humans)?
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
No point in waiting until the last minute.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Wow wall o text.
Anywho, I'll try to break it down. RDW (or any other straight aggro deck) tries to win by turn 6 at the latest. That means you will have drawn 5-6 cards over the course of an average game that you'll actually win. I'm going to assume a few things:
1. The average game that you'll win will end by or before turn 6,
2. Over the course of an average game that you'll win, you won't have access to more than 4 mana (statistically, with 22 land, 4.4 by turn 6 if you play and 4.76 if you draw), and
3. That a Bonfire that you can't miracle into is not good since I expect more from 3cc spells than, realistically at best, a dead creature or two and 1 damage to the opponent (I'd prefer Flames of the Firebrand for that).
With those three things in mind, you can conclude that Bonfire is almost worthless if drawn before your third turn or after your sixth turn.
That means in your opening 7, or draws 1,2, and possibly 3 (depending on play/draw) Bonfire is not good, but is only good on draws 4, 5, 6 and possible 3. That means that there are 9.5 chances for Bonfire to be sub par and 3.5 chances for it to be good (I split the 3rd draw).
Not good enough.
I mean, this isn't even theory. Go to the archives and look up Br Zombie threads. If Bonfire was good in aggro, it'd have been played there - it wasn't because it's not.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Bonfire was seeing play in BR zombies off and on and still does on mtgo dailies. It stopped seeing play mostly with flames of the firebrand.
Let me break down sligh to you then. Also its essentially a burn deck with creatures as burn. You want every single card to have as much potential guaranteed damage as you can. It uses burn as another way to guarantee damage, gain reach, and push through dudes. It aims to be the most efficient creatures at each cmc/have the most consistency possible.
If your using firebreathing your not being optimal. And no bonfire is still more optimal all of those draws then stonewright if you actually play the card because youd only play stonewright if you ran out of creatures.
Bonfire isn't meant to be played to begin with just for miracle its played because even without miracle it still is going to be the strongest pyroclasm effect left in standard. Its not a 4 of your right but its a 1 sided pyroclasm/flamebreak in these decks and how you don't want that makes no sense when instead your reaching for a another dude that isn't strong on its own. And actually you made a great point because i was originally planning on running 3-4 flames and 2 bonfires so i completely agree that flames can easily replace bonfires in the early game as well for almost all those scenarios and think that card is much better for this deck then stonewright MD.
Following your logic stonewright will come down maybe turn 4-5 and attempt to end the game. So that means youve done 16 damage and stonewright is finishing that final 4ish for you.
How do you deal 16-20 by turn 4-5 lets break it down then, turn 1 vexing devil take 4 they are at 16, turn 2 ash they are at 14 (4 cards in hand), turn 3 ash+cackler swing for 4 they are at 10 (2 cards), turn 4 hellrider kill them. Earliest plausible kill, excluding a few factors them taking 2-6 damage from shocks since they wont verse us and miracling T-Wrath's, and stone could replace cackler in this scenario but in every turn your tapping out essentially to try to get there stone doesn't fit in that line of play. More in a grindy game hence the feel that you want him in sb if you want him.
You want your creatures to be able to be operate on their own and be efficient stonewright is complete opposite of efficient its always a 1 for 1. It only shines verse control where to begin with control is usually the least represented deck in the first month of a new season, and we could just have it sb in. Im also of the standpoint that bonfire deals with certain problem cards that present a faster clock that are set up to have various ways to protect it, geist of st traft, and for that a lone comes a large portion of my recommendation since i do think st traft is going to be rather big in std.
Secondly the average game your aiming for turn 5 wins average lets agree that is where we want the deck to be just talked about turn 4's and how they are not that unrealistic on the play. So turn 5's to be averaging we need as many optimal card inclusions as possible that fit on that curve.
So i can get behind a mono red deck if it can infact average turn 5 wins, otherwise id play RB even though it does average turn 6-7 maybe its just a more consistent deck that has a wider variance of sb options, and plays a bit more grindy game then mono red.
Im hoping this clears some things up. If anyone has really brewed up a deck that is meant just for turn 5 wins id be interested in see'ing it because we can then focus on other things in sb.
Sadly if you wanted to keep in true tradition of sligh youd be playing RG since it has so many turn 5 capable wins. Boar, thundermaw, hellrider, strangleroot, rancor, burn etc ive played it its outstanding sadly you lose good mana dorks, yes they helped turn 5 wins blatantly happen, and having good mana. Then bonfire would probably be more readily accepted by you but you can't play rg right now and expect it to be as consistent as other decks. I think this deck will eventually just become RG because honestly RG has much more consistency then any other color currently even without rg getting printings till Gatecrash.
Lots of words basis of the story, bonfire deals with geist of st traft otherwise don't run it, both bonfire and stonewright actually don't up the consistency of the deck to average turn 5 wins. Lets brew something that does.
I'm not seeing that... I've seen many decklist that splashed R for Aristocrat and Brimstone Volley, but only one in the Tourney Report thread that had Bonfire. As I posted earlier, that guy described it as "literally a dead card".
While I appreciate your break down, I feel like I should correct you here. Sligh/RDW/DGR do all care about efficient guaranteed damage - that's true - but only in the context of speed. You want spells that not only do efficient, guaranteed damage, but do it as quickly as possible.
Bonfire, if not drawn turn 3+, is neither quick nor efficient.
Not true. Stonewright is a perfectly fine first, second, third, etc. turn play. It can keep your opponent from blocking for fear of loosing their superior creature. It can force your opponent to block for fear of taking a ton of extra damage. It can act as a mana sink if you can't or don't want to play any other cards in your hand. If nothing else, it's still a creature and can turn sideways - that's a lot of utility from a one drop.
Not sure how this is following my logic, but I'll bite.
In this scenario you could replace the Vexing Devil with Stonewright and it'd still get there turn 4. Or you could replace the Cackler with Stonewright and same thing. Or you could replace Hellrider with 4 Stonewright activations and you'd still have a turn 4 kill. Or you could do all of those together, replacing your nutz scenario with a much less powerful line of play and you'd still put your opponent in lethal range of any of your burn spells.
Now, what would Bonfire do in this scenario? Not a damn thing unless you top decked it turn 3 or 4, and, even then, not much.
Blocking or racing also deal with Geist. Stonewright bonded to a creature deals with Geist for 1 activation. Stonewright, like I explained earlier, also actually does increase the consistency of an early win, unlike Bonfire.
You said yourself, Bonfire's only use is to deal with Geist of St. Traft - and, not only is it unlikely (at best) to do that, but we have more efficient ways (including Stonewright) to do that anyway.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Semantics? The scenario I suggested is a very real thing if you run coreset duals (and basic Swamps) in your RDW list. You will have to either mulligan or keep suboptimal hands that in the mono-red version would not exist. Let's say you run 4 Summits, 2 Swamps and then all Mountains. That's 6 lands that you don't want to see in your starting hand without Blood Crypt or Mountains. Now in the Mono-Red version you're running just 3 Hellion Crucibles as lands that can't produce red turn 1. That's half as many lands as the B/R list which is not an insignificant number. If the B/R list wants to run any colorless lands of its own (Crucibles, Bloodhalls, or what have you) then the number of unkeepable/awkward hands increases.
Like I said it's a tradeoff of consistency for increased power level/more card options. If you believe through testing that this trade off is worthwhile then by all means play a B/R list. To pass off the argument about the loss of consistency a B/R list has as a cornercase would be remiss though. It's a very real concern and one you should be taking into account when comparing the merits of the two lists.
As for Stonewright, Zeman has given you some very good arguments for why the card warrants consideration, and through my own personal testing of the card I agree with much of what he has said. I have had the card deal upwards of 3 damage thanks to its firebreathing ability and if my 1 drop is able to do and then eventually trade for a creature or removal spell then I am very happy. Yes, it dies to every removal spell ever, but so what? Every 1 drop pretty much ever is susceptible to removal and the fact that Stonewright dies to stuff isn't really an argument against him anymore than it is against other 1 drops.
The same is MOSTLY true for gw decks, but some of them will play centaur healer, plus they have the option of playing huge guys that you can't ignore or play around like loxodon smitter which similarly ruins your math. I think you want to be able to win immideately through Trostani since if they untap, it's most likely game over.
With all that in mind, if I played Rakdos, it would look like this:
4 Vexing Devil
4 Stromkirk Noble
4 Ash Zealot
2 Stonewright
4 Searing Spear
2 Thunderous Wrath
4 Pillar of Flame
4 Thunderbolt
3 Brimstone Volley
4 Dragonskull Summit
13 Mountains
Everything at the face. Stonewright is marginal in this list since you don't want to be a victim of interaction at all, but you really want a dude on board turn one so he gets the nod. Plus he's good when you flood and in topdeck situations.
Bump in the night and thunderbolt are hear because they deal three damage and hlep you goldfish turn 4. THunderous wrath is more of the same thing, and unlike other miracles, outside of turn two not being able to play ash zealout, I don't think there's ever a spot where you don't would think about holding it so it's mostly pure value. Is straight burn viable? I don't think so, but if it is, I think it looks like this.
For straight red, I think you have more leeway to play actual cards and a real game of magic. In that case I'd play:
3 Stonewright
4 Rackdos Cackler
4 Ash Zealot
4 Rackdos Shred Freak
2 Flames of the Firebrand
3 Brimstone Volley
4 Searing Spear
3 Thunderbolt
2 Wild Guess
2 Hellion Crucible
Well, runing 21 lands, assuming you get shaman on board turn 3, does it actually do anything you want turn 4? It requires creatures in the yard to do work, so assuming you've just been attacking up to that point, nothing has died. Resultantly, you need to spend a card killing something of theres(pillar doesn't work for this), so where looking at searing blazing there whatever then deathriting losing a point of damage overall. Add to the fact that I think 3 mana, 1 of which is black by turn 4 while not overly steep a scenario, isn't something that I think you can rely on achieving consistently. It seems to me that you really need a lot of stuff to go right for this to be a viable line. Having said all of that, that's what testing is for so go ahead and try it.
Rixi maadi guildmage similarly seems too low impact to matter imo, though there is potentially a LOT of value to be had with the card.
That looks fairly optimal. I don't think this is that good though - I played a lot with a very similar deck prior to rotation and it was not amazing. This deck definitely has some technology upgrades (Cackler and Zealot) but it loses a lot as well (Incinerate, Arc Trail, Grim Lavamancer, Shrine of Burning Rage). I don't mind it though. I would be tempted by either a Stensia Bloodhall or a Rakdos Guildgate as a 22nd land - just for hardcasting some of the bigger spells (brimstone volley in combination OR hardcast the wraths).
Decks like this are a lot of fun to play of course, and have surprisingly good matchups against control.
I agree. We're weak at 3 for now (with two sets to come of course), but our creatures are a lot better than last season (Grim Lavamancer aside).
I have been running a very similar decklist (it is in the examples on the frontpage) and it is doing very well. Do let me know how it tests for you
My biggest gripe with MonoR at the moment are the pretty uninspiring sideboard cards.
Thanks for the contribution mate
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Stonewright is just OK in rakdos - the black splash gives you other good manasinks already. I might still run it, but not a full playset.
I think deathrite shaman is quite good, and Aesnath developed a list last season that was more of a black weenie deck splashing heavy burn - I think this concept would be even better with the addition of the Shaman. I am imagining ~16 to 18 black sources with 10 to 12 red sources, mostly black 1 drops (cackler works particularly well here) with the shaman for early beats, then the usual burn package for closing. You lose Ash Zealot, but you have up to a dozen 2 power 1 drops which is nothing to sneeze at. You get to keep everything else you're running as well, and with even more black, you have even bigger sideboard options (Underworld Connections maybe?!?!). Something to consider.
Rix Maadi Guildmage I like, but it is pretty slow. I can see you getting value from it in a grindy midrange deck, but none of us have really come up with anything great there yet. It might also be that the 2/2 body is too vulnerable when (if?) you're wanting to run sweepers. Card certainly does have potential though.
EDIT: thanks for the article link, I will add it to the primer
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Hey mate.
The list looks very good. I think it is playable as it is. I have two quibbles:
- mana curve is a little ambitious. I would personally stretch to 24 land, but you need at least a 23rd - I have only two hellriders in my 22 land deck and even that is a bit pushed sometimes. With an extra 4 and some 5s, I would hate to see you lose to yourself Thats what the other decks are meant to do!
- I would prefer 1 or 2 Hellion Crucible. It seems slow, but if you do flood, it gets online in only two turns.
Otherwise, yeah, we're very weak at three. It happens sometimes. We at least have burn spells that fit in there well enough. I think when GTC hits we will be looking for a better 2 drop (there is a huge drop off in quality after Ash Zealot) a playable 3 (there isnt any) and a better burn spell (though we're doing fine currently). Fingers crossed for us!
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Here's the deck list I'm looking at right now, as well as a few reasons for my card selections.
2x Hellion Crucible
20x Mountain
Creatures: 22
4x Rackdos Cackler
4x Stonewright
4x Stromkirk Noble
4x Ash Zealot
4x Gore-House Chainwalker
2x Hellrider
4x Pillar of Flame
2x Dangerous Wager
4x Searing Spear
2x Thunderbolt
2x Brimstone Volley
2x Flames of the Firebrand
One drops: Rakdos Cackler is the top choice, either of the other two could be replaced with Vexing Devil if so inclined. I feel like Stonewright is a solid mana sink (along with Crucible) and Stromkirk Noble suits well with Flames (I feel like some form of Arc Trail is necessary. Obviously Pillar is a must.
Two Drops: Ash Zealot is a clear choice. I chose Gore-House Chainwalker over Flunkies or Shred-Freak because A. Chainwalker is more reliable than Flunkies, the 1 toughness makes no difference in an aggro deck, and 2. Shred-Freak is just a bad version of Zealot.
Searing Spear is a must, I like a little bit of card draw and Dangerous Wager is best for that. Thunderbolt to take out Resto Angels and such.
3 Drops: I split the difference between Brimstone and Flames. I feel like both had a spot but neither deserved a 4x. Brimstone is usually going to be an expensive Spear, and Flames is an expensive (but better) Electrickery.
I could see Pyreheart being here. I'd really like to know how he tests out, though I feel like he'll remain a useless 1/1 because your burn spells should be killing all the blockers if you're doing it right, anyway.
4 Drops: Obviously, Hellrider goes here. I can see him as a 4x and I may bump him to that (Maybe drop 2x Thunderbolt?) but I think I'd rather play safe with my mana so he's a 2x for right now.
Hellion Crucible plays as a late-game mana sink to help you push through the game.
If anyone has suggestions (especially on the spell board, particularly what I should cut [if anything] to add room for maybe two more Hellriders) feel free to mention them.
Everything else about the deck is pretty much set in stone, though.
3 Stonewright
4 Stromkirk Noble
4 Ash Zealot
3 Rackdos Shred Freak
2 Rix Maadi Guildmage
2 Thundermaw Hellkite
3 Liliana of the Veil
4 Pillar of Flame
2 Searing Spear
2 Brimstone Volley
3 Flames of the Firebrand
4 Blood Crypt
4 Swamp
10 Mountain
2 Cavern of Souls
Firstly, thanks! The primer is taking a lot of work, but hopefully it will be a useful resource. I hope to keep working on it piece by piece until it is finished
I came to a lot of similar choices myself (our creature package is the same, our burn package is slightly different but very similar). In my experience Dangeous Wager was pretty underwhelming - but I tend to hold cards a lot, so maybe it is just the way I play. I have found the double-cycle from Wild Guess works better for me, especially with less counterspells about.
Hellrider is a great card, but I don't think you need the full 4. You have a few turns to draw into one anyway. It may be that three is better than two though? I do feel the games with him are a lot easier than the games without. I have two at the moment, but I can see trying three. I wouldnt want to add a 23rd land to the version we're running though - I know a lot of people have had success running 21 land and 22 is a concession to my own risk-adversity
It certainly requires testing
Thanks and welcome to the thread!
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
See, once I am including Olivia, I am much more on the midrange plan and I might not even include many 1 drops at all.
Also, Ash Zealot into Liliana looks tricky, even with the better duals available
There is definitely some potential though. The power level on the Rakdos-mix is definitely there.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
True. Another reason I chose against playing Shred-Freak and Wild Guess were just the mana requirements. Granted, it's a low possibility, but when you're playing two Crucibles, anything can happen. Especially on turn two, and I don't wanna be in a position like that.
But like you said, it could just be play style. How has Faithless Looting turned out?
And has anyone decided on an ABSOLUTE best spells list?
Regarding my R/B conglamoration, I tweaked what you guys saw(I'm at the library and my computer timed out) and I think the manabase actually works. The biggest appeal of R/B aggro is that you can do stupid things to control decks depending on how you set up your sideboard.
You have acces to slaughter games, Rakdo's return, underworld connections, and Stensia Bloodhall. Essentially, you can setup postboard games where you get to be the aggro and control while retaining inevitability if you so choose.
I like how the maindeck is set up because the bulk of your creatures allow you to play the hyper aggro game while olivia, thundermaw, and your higher land count allow you to not be drawing dead past turn 6. They play'd thragtusk? Thundermaw undoes there hard work. Trostani got you down? Gain control of her with olivia. Good luck Selesnya. Liliana does work against everyone ensuring that you get some value from your three slot.
Depending on how the Zombie matchup is, you could even incorporate a couple sign in bloods to make sure you "get there" without giving up on reach.
I definitely think play style is a huge issue with the draw spells. No one was a bigger fan of Faithless Looting than me - but we had Grim Lavamancer; so you could very easily offset the card disadvantage. The dig is very powerful. It is a great way of fighting through lategame x/1 draws or flooding. I might run it again, I do like it very much. I would want fewer mana sinks if it was back in the list though - it eats up a LOT of lands. If you go back through the old thread (there is a link in the primer itself) you can see a lot of discussion on the card (I will be adding it to the primer when I get time). The loss of Shrine of Burning Rage, Grim Lavamancer and Chandra's Phoenix do hurt the card.
Right now I don't know of any best spell list. The metagame probably needs to settle a lot more before we can be more certain. Generally speaking though, don't maindeck spells that cannot go to the dome - they're sideboard only.
Hope this helps
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com