I loved Christopher Juliano's deck he played in the SCG Invitational. I have not seen a thread dedicated to such a deck type. If I have missed it, can someone kindly direct me to it. Otherwise I will throw up the deck list and see if anyone else is interested in discussing and playing the deck.
Its a very cool deck IMO.
Is it possible to for go the blue mana altogether? ? Possibly adding 1x Smoldering Marsh and 2x Swammp.
Kpal, Im not following, the deck list from Christopher already has smoldering marsh x4 and 1 Swamp in the mana base. It also has sunken hollow x1 along with polluted delta x3 in his original list. No any blue cards in the main deck, but there is negate x2 in the side board.
I agree with you, the deck is very cool and it performs very well in the play testing I have done with it so far. Its burn, its dragons, and its aggro creatures! I mean its hard not to love it omg!
You are right on though. It's an aggro players dream. Burn, speed, dragons, and its Red/Black. My fave two colors.
My question is, can it still effectively produce its needed colors on curve without the 3x Polluted Delta and 1x Sunken Hallow? I think it can.
Id think the evidence in his success at the SCG Invitational with this deck speaks for itself.
I have taken his list and made a few changes. IM not positive that the changes I have made are better or not, but so far I am liking them.
So I say this fully expecting to be told what an idiot I am because I am going against the grain a bit here, but despite considering myself first and foremost a RED aggro player, dating back to Weatherlight - I am not a big fan of Zurgo Bellstriker.
I dislike he is legendary - but I can over look that on its own, and I really dislike his limitations in blocking. But again on its own I could live with that - but put those 2 limitations together I feel he is a bit over rated for my tastes, and his draw backs can not be over looked to depend upon playing any more than 2 copies of him in any deck. Just me, I understand most of the world disagrees with me on that by evidence of the numerous decks out there that include 3 to 4 copies of him.
So that said, I took 2 copies of him out in my version. I replaced 1 copy with a Bloodstained Champion and the other copy I replaced with another dragon, Dragonlord Kolaghan.
I also am running only 2 copies of Polluted Delta with 1 additional Mountain in my deck.
I also have made a few small changes to my side board, removing [scab-clan berserker[/card] because I have played Scab-Clan Berserker in a variety of decks over the last year or so, and have always found him lacking. So if I was putting the side board together today, I would simply remove him out and probably add in Rending Volley x2, or Roast x2 to fill in that spot. I am also not sure how I feel about Outpost Siege in the side board of this particular deck. I like the card. A lot in fact, but just am not feeling it as being overly synergistic in this deck. I am leaning toward Sarkhan, the Dragon Speaker x2 or possibly something else. I have played the deck a fair amount but honestly, have not had the need to do extensive fiddling with the sideboard so far. I have not needed to bring in the Negate at all, so that is another card I may replace from the side board.
actually I am with you on Zurgo. Red aggro has to run 3-4 copies, because it is the second best one drop they have. My thought wast to go 2x zurgo and 2x bloodsoaked champion
Originally I was going to do the same. And that may be the better answer, however this deck is much less a "weenie" aggro deck, and I felt the additional dragon better served the deck. I dont think adding 1 more 1 drop significantly improves the odds of having a 1 drop play. And not to mention, one of the problems I already have encountered is that with Zurgo Bellstriker and Bloodsoaked Champion plus Flamewake Phoenix x4 that gives us 6 cards that can not be used as blockers. (Other than Zurgo being able to block a 1 power critter which does help with tokens, but by far and large renders him a non blocker)
I still feel this deck plays as a fast aggressive deck, but instead or relying on the 1 and 2 drop kiddies, this deck kicks you in the teeth with some early game beat down, and than holds you head under water with the finishing 4 - 6 drop dragons PLUS one of my favorite things about the deck is that finally once again, I feel like I am playing a true burn deck!
We can actually use our burn if need be to finish off our opponent, instead of only as creature removal with 13 spells that can do damage to creatures and/ or players!
So I used Dragonlord Kolaghan instead of another Kolaghan, the Storm Fury because I didnt want to increase the chances of holding 1 in my hand due to legendary, and plus the sole 6 mana casting dragon scales along nicely, not to mention it adds an extra dimension with its restriction of opponents taking 10 life damage for replaying a creature or planeswalker that is already in their graveyard.
Aml, good call on the Dragonlord. It looks good as a one off late game. Particular after opponents have used up their crackling doom and Utter End on the other dragons. Makes casting anohter Gideon or Jace look pretty silly now!
Alright, we are both aggro players. So we are used to playing decks with 8 - 12 turn one dudes. This list plays 7. Is having a turn one dude not as essential in the opening for this aggro deck to function properly?
What does an ideal starting hand look like. What do we want on turn one most of the time?
I've played a bit with Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury and Thunderbreak Regent and the reason you play two Kolaghans instead of a Dragonlord/Storm's Fury split is that Storm's Fury is far and away better.
t4 Thunderbreak t5 Kolaghan is typical and often difficult to disrupt. It's a two turn clock and doesn't mess around. This deck wouldn't be any good if you couldn't close the game in two turns but the interaction lets you do so.
Getting two Kolaghans stuck in your hand is a bummer but playing a hasty 6/5 for 6 that sometimes strands Rhinos is just not better than the interaction between Storm's Fury and Thunderbreak.
6 mana is a lot for an aggro deck. Just play a 5 drop with a minimal legendary draw back.
I've played a bit with Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury and Thunderbreak Regent and the reason you play two Kolaghans instead of a Dragonlord/Storm's Fury split is that Storm's Fury is far and away better.
t4 Thunderbreak t5 Kolaghan is typical and often difficult to disrupt. It's a two turn clock and doesn't mess around. This deck wouldn't be any good if you couldn't close the game in two turns but the interaction lets you do so.
Getting two Kolaghans stuck in your hand is a bummer but playing a hasty 6/5 for 6 that sometimes strands Rhinos is just not better than the interaction between Storm's Fury and Thunderbreak.
6 mana is a lot for an aggro deck. Just play a 5 drop with a minimal legendary draw back.
Lugger - I agree with you and nice explanation on how the deck typically finishes and wins by the way. I think it is important to point out that although this deck is still an aggro deck, it isnt the typical red style aggro deck killing with the 1,2, and 3 drop critters, but as you pointed out, ideally 4 and 5 drop critters.
However, in response to your reply, it seemed as if you thought I was saying I took out a Kolaghan's Storm Fury and replaced it with a Dragonlord Kolaghan. (It seemed that way to me as you went on to explain why the t4 and t5 dragons were better and what the deck worked off of ) As you point out that's the main kill condition. But as all good plans go, they sometimes don't go, so having back up conditions add depth.
Kpal - As for an ideal opening hand, what I like to see is a critter or 2 I can cast in first 2 or 3 turns along with a removal spell and 2 to 3 lands, or 2 lands and a dragon. One of the things I really like about this deck is the turn around ability that the burn along with flamewake phoenix. Although I had tried out Flamewake in other decks previously, I had never been a huge fan. I realize now its probably because those other decks did not have ample burn or removal to support it. Flamewake allows us to recover from a slower opening hand, if you have in hand 1 of your burn spells as well as you can hit and remove your opponents T2 drop with an end of turn wild slash or draconic roar, and t3 drop Flamewake turning the tempo back into your favor. This deck does well of stealing wins from the draw when you are able to do that, thanks to the removal and t3 flying haste critter.
I've played a bit with Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury and Thunderbreak Regent and the reason you play two Kolaghans instead of a Dragonlord/Storm's Fury split is that Storm's Fury is far and away better.
t4 Thunderbreak t5 Kolaghan is typical and often difficult to disrupt. It's a two turn clock and doesn't mess around. This deck wouldn't be any good if you couldn't close the game in two turns but the interaction lets you do so.
Getting two Kolaghans stuck in your hand is a bummer but playing a hasty 6/5 for 6 that sometimes strands Rhinos is just not better than the interaction between Storm's Fury and Thunderbreak.
6 mana is a lot for an aggro deck. Just play a 5 drop with a minimal legendary draw back.
Lugger - I agree with you and nice explanation on how the deck typically finishes and wins by the way. I think it is important to point out that although this deck is still an aggro deck, it isnt the typical red style aggro deck killing with the 1,2, and 3 drop critters, but as you pointed out, ideally 4 and 5 drop critters.
However, in response to your reply, it seemed as if you thought I was saying I took out a Kolaghan's Storm Fury and replaced it with a Dragonlord Kolaghan. (It seemed that way to me as you went on to explain why the t4 and t5 dragons were better and what the deck worked off of ) As you point out that's the main kill condition. But as all good plans go, they sometimes don't go, so having back up conditions add depth.
I mean, as far as finishers go, there's minimal difference between Storm's Fury and Dragonlord when they are not paired with Regent. One's more mana intensive but cheaper. One's more expensive and a 6/5 instead of a 5/5 (it can strand Rhinos until your opponent finds a removal spells, but between Delve and good removal for fatties that clause is usually pretty irrelevant). Either way, your opponent is going to be attempting to play around expensive 5-6 drops. Adding Dragonlord just means that you're going to t4 Regent into t5 Storm's Fury less often. So while you add "depth" (or you play a card that your opponent was not expecting -- maybe they had the answer, maybe not -- it's really only relevant to diversify if they are missing critical parts to take care of said diversification -- most of the things that kill Storm's Fury also kill Dragonlord), you're giving up considerable redundancy.
_______________________________________
Zurgo stinks in these lists, so probably almost anything is better. He's not a terrible body, however, and his dash helps you for odd "go-wide" situations. I personally wouldn't mind something like Outpost Siege MD in these lists -- even though it is clunky. Or rather: 25-26 lands, Outpost Sieges.
Im still confused - why will I go into t4 Regent into t5 Storms Fury less often???
Again I am not reducing the amount of Storm Fury's I am playing from Juliano's original deck list? I added Dragonlord Kolaghan in place of 1 of the Zurgo's in addition to the Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury x2.
Aside from my issue I have w/ Zurgo which led me to the above deck list, I only have a few other ideas I may consider making changes to.
1st consideration:Hangarback Walker I love the card personally. However, in this deck we have only 7, 1 drops in Christopher's original deck list he played in the Invitational, and only 6 with the changes I am currently running. This deck does not need a t1 play to get off to a good start, but it does assist it of course. Currently Hangarback Walker is the only creature slotted in as a 2 drop. I am wondering if Hangarback should be sideboarded, and if a better 2 drop could be moved into the main board which better suits this decks game 1? I see him primarily as a slow down and stall card as our board sets up - which is certainly good, but the deck is pretty aggressive with a lot of creature removal, so wondering if other options are better suited? Has advantage of being colorless to cast, so works as an early drop with whatever mana distribution we have in the early game.
Cards I am considering to replace as a 4 of, or in some combination.
Abbot of Keral Keep Everyone knows this card and its advantages/disadvantages. Plenty of instant spells and sorceries to trigger prowess which is always good, and of course can give some card movement to the deck. More aggressive creature than HBW, requiring less mana to make a threat.
Ire Shaman With 11 flying creatures we have a nice bit of evasion going on with our attacking creatures. Ire Shaman could add to that or as a more expensive Abbot of Keral Keep by offering slight card advantage.
Dragon Whisperer Costs RR which could be an issue in some games on t2. But 2/2 body for 2 mana, which can pump, gain evasion, or w/ formidable gives us the option to add another dragon should we need to with our 6 mana. I think this sounds really good when you consider our deck, but I am also thinking that most likely it would seldom be needed. As by t6 when we would have 6 mana to spend on it, if we meet the formidable requirements, we will have other dragons out already, and there for should not need to use the ability, right? On the other hand, can you ever have to many dragons?!?
Dragonlord's Servant This is what I plan on testing first as I think it essentially does the main task that HBW is accomplishing in the deck now - by offering some resistance to early game pressure. While also speeding up our clock to drop a dragon. Under nut draws, we are now moving everything up a turn w/ a t3 Thunderbreak Regent followed up w/ a t4 Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury.
2nd Consideration: Non Creature spells. I really have no complaint, as I love the mixture of creature removal we have, and finally we actually have some REAL BURN! 34 points of damage directed at creature or player (12 directed at both!) are represented in our instances and sorcery spells! With the inclusion of Murderous Cut there are very few threats that we are not already main board capable of handling fairly easily. I believe the way to primarily play the burn spells in our deck is like traditional burn decks, and view our burn 1st and foremost as strictly creature removal, and if you happen to be able to fire 1 or 2 to the head to finish them, than lucky us!
As good as Kolaghan's Command is I am tempted to run 3 copies of Exquisite Firecraft and only 2 of Kolaghan's Command as I am often finding myself wanting to be able tpo do an additional 2 points of damage to a creature or player, instead of bringing a creature back from my graveyard (something our deck already has a fair amount of ability to do with Flamewake Phoenix[/card x4, and Bloodsoaked Champion x1, have player discard a card (very nice and most often the 2nd selection after the burn that is selected, but sure do wish it was randomized!), or its other ability to destroy target artifact.
Aside from that, I really like our supporting spell set as it is for now.
3rd Consideration: The lands. So I do have 2 Polluted Deltas and 1 Sunken Hollow because the deck list from Christopher had them included in his original deck, because on his side board he ran Negate. I still leave them in because the Polluted Deltas still help me to grab a black source while thinning my deck. Also, I feel that those cards are fairly interchangeable to swap to the Red / Green lands if I wanted to , or possibly even go in another direction altogether with another color splash, should I feel the need to do so. Its almost as if they are place holders, while I consider what my final side board would be, which of course changes almost any time you go to a new tournament. So I am struggling to articulate this I think, but essentially I feel it is set up really well to very lightly make a 3rd color splash for blue, green, or white if we wanted to. And I like the balance the way it was set up for the 2 blue sideboard cards from Christopher, and I don't want to change that harmony is all. Not sure if that makes sense or not, but did my best to explain that.
SideBoard Considerations: So the above will maybe make more sense after I explain my side board thoughts. Some pretty good side board options, most dont need me to give any epxlanation, because it will vary on each of our own meta's as to what we like and choose to make up our SB.
However, I want to make a case for Radiant Flames in this side board.
I feel other than card draw, a board sweeper is the only other critical thing that would really improve our deck. We have some big fat dragons flying around which can survive a 3 point of damage radiant flames. And in late games, 3 mana on radiant flames for 2 or 3 damage to opponents creatures, along with a wild slash or draconic roar, or even exquisite fire craft for a total range of 4 to 6 mana will take care of a great many threats.
Which is another reason to keep the land base with a 3rd color option, even if the deck is primarily 2 colors, and another reason I like {Dragonlord's Servant[/card] as a possible swap out instead of Hangarback Walker because along with Monastery Swiftspear, and every other dragon it survives a 2 color (2 point of damage ) radiant flames with out doing anything extra or special. The 4 Flamewake Phoenix, the Bloodsoaked Champion do not - but can be brought back! And the single Zurgo Bellstriker if you prepare adequately, you will have safe in your hand prior to casting radiant flames thanks to dash.
Lastly, I feel like I am on a lone island once again with my preference of Crumble to Dust But this card can single handily just cause major stress on so many decks in standard right now that I don t see why more people do not play them in the sideboard. So few cards, can hurt such a wide variety of decks. And although with all of the sac lands and plentiful lands abound, it doesn't shut down most of them, it slows them down! And if your playing an aggressive, fast paced deck, an extra turn or 2 is all most of us can ever ask for to pull out the win! The next expansion coming out, I am thinking you will begin to see a lot more people utilize Crumble to Dust. But that is another topic, and this has gone on long enough!
Those are my immediate thoughts thus far after playing the deck and fiddling around with it. Plenty more play testing is required. I need some of you to move out to Houston so we can run some of these decks through the gauntlet and really tweak them well! Sorry for how long this was, but I am anxious to share my thoughts and hopefully get some good feedback and constructive criticism on improving on these ideas!
I looked long and hard at Forerunner of Slaughter, in fact a play set of them are still laying next to my laptop here on my desk from me doing so, lol.
What I found to be a problem with him is in understanding the role HBW plays in the deck. When you compare both cards they both come into play on t2, 1 is a 3/2 and HBW a 1/1.
Both die to the same very commonly played removal spells that popular decks are playing, silk wrap and wild slash among others. Also both if used to immediately chump block an opponents creature from their previous turn (either what was their t2 OR t3 play) both will most likely die from one of the numerous early game creatures decks play.
HBW if not exiled, then offers another body in a flying 1/1 thopter to chump again on the next turn. Forerunner does not.
What Forerunner does offer as an advantage is coming into play on t3 as a haste creature, but now it is competing with Flamewake Phoenix which imo is a superior t3 drop if in hand to play due to evasion, and its ability to be returned if put into the graveyard.
If we were running more colorless creatures, I think Forerunner of Slaughter would be more advantageous. If our main strategy of winning was overwhelming our opponent with cheap aggro creatures, I would consider it a stronger candidate. But in this deck, the 1 and 2 drop creatures MAIN reason are to provide interference to allow us to build our board and play the game winning dragon cards in it. Although HBW's can be slowly pumped up and turn into a 3/3 + creature to administer a beat down, people know the threat they represent, and seldom do they get the opportunity to become a threat. Also, it seems to me this deck has plenty of uses for its mana, and can not be relied upon to consistently pump up a HBW at the end of every turn. We need that HBW to block, or we need our mana to clear early threats as we get established.
So all of that said, please keep in mind that is just my opinion based off of my experience with the cards in other decks and in general with my understanding of this deck. I have not tried that combination yet, and play testing will yield the experience to show if its a better combination.
Lastly, if you went with the numbers you listed above, what other 2 creatures would you remove? 2 Monastery Swiftspear?
I agree with you, I do not like 4 copies of murderous cut either. I like roast of course, lower mana cost, more damage, but it cant hit flying creatures such as Archangel of Tithes, Wingmate Roc and most importantly to me it cant be directed at the player, which is a big appeal for me of the direct damage suite of spells we are playing.
That spell list from The Mana Source is aimed at an Abzan dominant meta.
Also, even though M.Swiftspear is a great card, its effectiveness diminishes with each spell below a count 16. This makes me question whether Bloodsoaked Champion would be more suitable. You really dont want Swiftspear going in for 1 too many times.
The drana, liberator of malakir has great synergy with hangarback. And should be cast before Phx when given the option.
Drana is another must answer threat that further stretches our opponents removal before out dragons enter the battlefield.
My FNM is still several hours away. In the mean time , any list critiques are welcome. Is Drana suitable in an already crowded 3cmc slot? Coiuld it be 2 bloodsoaked champs? Two Forunner? There is not much going on at the 2cmc. Or Two more spells such as 2x Fiery Impulse? Or 1x K-coomand and 1x Exa Firecraft. Again the 3cmc slot crowds but two powerfull spells.
Or perhaps another dragon in a third Storm's Fury or the Dragonlord. Adding additonal land to take the count to 25. The extra land could be Haven of the Spirit dragon
I guess it is how you view the deck and how you want to play bud.
My opinion is it is always best to start from the beginning.
If you have not tried out the original deck list, which had pretty darn good success at the SCG Invitational - my suggestion is to start with that, see how it does in your hands, playing against your meta and from there tweak it as need be.
But aside from that here are my thoughts on the questions you asked.
Drana I have not played a lot with, however I currently have her in another deck and have been playing it, with her lately. Its a rAlly deck - so certainly some differences in play style. I say give it a go with the x2 you have in your posted list above, and see what you think My fear is she will possibly be to slow in this deck, and with how I feel it wants to play. But she is a good card, so give it a shot. I can say I run 1 Bloodsoaked CHampion in my version, and I have been satisfied with him. Aside from when he gets exiled from play (stinking silk wrap! ) his ability to come back from grave fits really well in the deck, and even though I only run 1 copy, somehow it feels as if I am running more because he seems to come into alot of my games. I think his speed and helping to apply constant pressure works more so to the benefit of the deck, along with he is a bit harder to get rid of.
I think we are running plenty of burn/removal for our main board without adding in the fiery impulses. Personally Id leave in the 2nd murderous cut in the main board. 8 sac lands, plus 13 (or 14 if you run 2) instant and sorcery spells gives you plenty of ammunition for the delve. And running 2 copies is just to increase odds you will actually have 1 in hand for when you need it, not that you will most likely constantly be holding 2 in play. But even so, I have had little problem casting 5 and 6 mana costing dragons, so even on the rarer occasions I have pulled both Murderous Cuts in a game, I don't recall ever really being stuck to where I could not play the card.
And when your opponent plays one of those really big threats, some of which are outside of the burn range we have in main board, that gives us another option.
I had not considered the Haven of the Spirit Dragon. I want to do some play testing with it now myself. But I dont know if Id run 25 lands, I really feel 24 just works nicely.
Whatever you decide, good luck and let us know what you do and how it goes!
I too am running a RB dragons deck this fnm. I played the juliano scg list last week to an easy 4-0. The deck played real well despite my criticism. This week I am trying out the list with dranas and bloodsoaked champion. I think this list looks real sweet too. I'm not playing the roast or self inflicted wound main though. Opting for pia and kiran nalar and exquisite firecraft and wild slash instead. Pia and kiran should be very good with dranas and kolaghan.
I too am running a RB dragons deck this fnm. I played the juliano scg list last week to an easy 4-0. The deck played real well despite my criticism. This week I am trying out the list with dranas and bloodsoaked champion. I think this list looks real sweet too. I'm not playing the roast or self inflicted wound main though. Opting for pia and kiran nalar and exquisite firecraft and wild slash instead. Pia and kiran should be very good with dranas and kolaghan.
Pia & Kiran were a consideration too. Post your results after FNM.
Yup P&K is certainly a good card. I choose to not add another 4 costing card, so will be really intewrested in seeing your results, especially since you played the original deck list from Christopher for comparison.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thanks
Is it possible to for go the blue mana altogether? ? Possibly adding 1x Smoldering Marsh and 2x Swammp.
C Long Live Eldrazi C
Kpal, Im not following, the deck list from Christopher already has smoldering marsh x4 and 1 Swamp in the mana base. It also has sunken hollow x1 along with polluted delta x3 in his original list. No any blue cards in the main deck, but there is negate x2 in the side board.
I agree with you, the deck is very cool and it performs very well in the play testing I have done with it so far. Its burn, its dragons, and its aggro creatures! I mean its hard not to love it omg!
4 Hangarback Walker
4 Flamewake Phoenix
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Thunderbreak Regent
2 Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury
3 Zurgo Bellstriker
Lands 24
8 Mountain
1 Swamp
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Polluted Delta
3 Smoldering Marsh
1 Sunken Hollow
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Draconic Roar
3 Kolaghan's Command
2 Murderous Cut
4 Wild Slash
2 Exquisite Firecraft
2 Scab-Clan Berserker
2 Outpost Siege
2 Negate
2 Ultimate Price
3 Duress
4 Self-Inflicted Wound
You are right on though. It's an aggro players dream. Burn, speed, dragons, and its Red/Black. My fave two colors.
My question is, can it still effectively produce its needed colors on curve without the 3x Polluted Delta and 1x Sunken Hallow? I think it can.
C Long Live Eldrazi C
I have taken his list and made a few changes. IM not positive that the changes I have made are better or not, but so far I am liking them.
So I say this fully expecting to be told what an idiot I am because I am going against the grain a bit here, but despite considering myself first and foremost a RED aggro player, dating back to Weatherlight - I am not a big fan of Zurgo Bellstriker.
I dislike he is legendary - but I can over look that on its own, and I really dislike his limitations in blocking. But again on its own I could live with that - but put those 2 limitations together I feel he is a bit over rated for my tastes, and his draw backs can not be over looked to depend upon playing any more than 2 copies of him in any deck. Just me, I understand most of the world disagrees with me on that by evidence of the numerous decks out there that include 3 to 4 copies of him.
So that said, I took 2 copies of him out in my version. I replaced 1 copy with a Bloodstained Champion and the other copy I replaced with another dragon, Dragonlord Kolaghan.
I also am running only 2 copies of Polluted Delta with 1 additional Mountain in my deck.
I also have made a few small changes to my side board, removing [scab-clan berserker[/card] because I have played Scab-Clan Berserker in a variety of decks over the last year or so, and have always found him lacking. So if I was putting the side board together today, I would simply remove him out and probably add in Rending Volley x2, or Roast x2 to fill in that spot. I am also not sure how I feel about Outpost Siege in the side board of this particular deck. I like the card. A lot in fact, but just am not feeling it as being overly synergistic in this deck. I am leaning toward Sarkhan, the Dragon Speaker x2 or possibly something else. I have played the deck a fair amount but honestly, have not had the need to do extensive fiddling with the sideboard so far. I have not needed to bring in the Negate at all, so that is another card I may replace from the side board.
C Long Live Eldrazi C
I still feel this deck plays as a fast aggressive deck, but instead or relying on the 1 and 2 drop kiddies, this deck kicks you in the teeth with some early game beat down, and than holds you head under water with the finishing 4 - 6 drop dragons PLUS one of my favorite things about the deck is that finally once again, I feel like I am playing a true burn deck!
We can actually use our burn if need be to finish off our opponent, instead of only as creature removal with 13 spells that can do damage to creatures and/ or players!
So I used Dragonlord Kolaghan instead of another Kolaghan, the Storm Fury because I didnt want to increase the chances of holding 1 in my hand due to legendary, and plus the sole 6 mana casting dragon scales along nicely, not to mention it adds an extra dimension with its restriction of opponents taking 10 life damage for replaying a creature or planeswalker that is already in their graveyard.
Alright, we are both aggro players. So we are used to playing decks with 8 - 12 turn one dudes. This list plays 7. Is having a turn one dude not as essential in the opening for this aggro deck to function properly?
What does an ideal starting hand look like. What do we want on turn one most of the time?
C Long Live Eldrazi C
t4 Thunderbreak t5 Kolaghan is typical and often difficult to disrupt. It's a two turn clock and doesn't mess around. This deck wouldn't be any good if you couldn't close the game in two turns but the interaction lets you do so.
Getting two Kolaghans stuck in your hand is a bummer but playing a hasty 6/5 for 6 that sometimes strands Rhinos is just not better than the interaction between Storm's Fury and Thunderbreak.
6 mana is a lot for an aggro deck. Just play a 5 drop with a minimal legendary draw back.
Lugger - I agree with you and nice explanation on how the deck typically finishes and wins by the way. I think it is important to point out that although this deck is still an aggro deck, it isnt the typical red style aggro deck killing with the 1,2, and 3 drop critters, but as you pointed out, ideally 4 and 5 drop critters.
However, in response to your reply, it seemed as if you thought I was saying I took out a Kolaghan's Storm Fury and replaced it with a Dragonlord Kolaghan. (It seemed that way to me as you went on to explain why the t4 and t5 dragons were better and what the deck worked off of ) As you point out that's the main kill condition. But as all good plans go, they sometimes don't go, so having back up conditions add depth.
Do you favor the Zurgo Bellstriker x3 over the changes I listed?
Kpal - As for an ideal opening hand, what I like to see is a critter or 2 I can cast in first 2 or 3 turns along with a removal spell and 2 to 3 lands, or 2 lands and a dragon. One of the things I really like about this deck is the turn around ability that the burn along with flamewake phoenix. Although I had tried out Flamewake in other decks previously, I had never been a huge fan. I realize now its probably because those other decks did not have ample burn or removal to support it. Flamewake allows us to recover from a slower opening hand, if you have in hand 1 of your burn spells as well as you can hit and remove your opponents T2 drop with an end of turn wild slash or draconic roar, and t3 drop Flamewake turning the tempo back into your favor. This deck does well of stealing wins from the draw when you are able to do that, thanks to the removal and t3 flying haste critter.
What about Sarkhan, the dragonspeaker
Aml - Can you post your list for reference?
C Long Live Eldrazi C
I mean, as far as finishers go, there's minimal difference between Storm's Fury and Dragonlord when they are not paired with Regent. One's more mana intensive but cheaper. One's more expensive and a 6/5 instead of a 5/5 (it can strand Rhinos until your opponent finds a removal spells, but between Delve and good removal for fatties that clause is usually pretty irrelevant). Either way, your opponent is going to be attempting to play around expensive 5-6 drops. Adding Dragonlord just means that you're going to t4 Regent into t5 Storm's Fury less often. So while you add "depth" (or you play a card that your opponent was not expecting -- maybe they had the answer, maybe not -- it's really only relevant to diversify if they are missing critical parts to take care of said diversification -- most of the things that kill Storm's Fury also kill Dragonlord), you're giving up considerable redundancy.
_______________________________________
Zurgo stinks in these lists, so probably almost anything is better. He's not a terrible body, however, and his dash helps you for odd "go-wide" situations. I personally wouldn't mind something like Outpost Siege MD in these lists -- even though it is clunky. Or rather: 25-26 lands, Outpost Sieges.
Again I am not reducing the amount of Storm Fury's I am playing from Juliano's original deck list? I added Dragonlord Kolaghan in place of 1 of the Zurgo's in addition to the Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury x2.
Is your meaning that if I add another dragon you feel it should be a 3rd Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury?
But just to clarify, what I have done doesn't reduce the odds of me getting the t4 and t5 pairing - those remain the same.
Sure thing!
Critters: 21
Monastery Swiftspear x4
Zurgo Bellstriker x1
Bloodsoaked Champion x1
Hangarback Walker x4
Flamewake Phoenix x4
Thunderbreak Regent x4
Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury x2
Dragonlord Kolaghan x1
Non Critters: 15
Wild SLash x4
Draconic Roar x4
[card]Exquisite Firecraft[card] x2
Murderous Cut x2
Kolaghan's Command x3
Lands: 24
Mountain x8
Swamp x1
Wooded Foothill x4
Bloodstained Mire x4
Smoldering Marsh x4
Polluted Delta x2
Sunken Hollow x1
SIDEBOARD: 15
Radiant Flames x3
Self-Inflicted Wound x3
Duress x3
Ultimate Price x2
Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker x2
Crumble to Dust x2
So my thoughts at this point about the deck.
Main Board:
Aside from my issue I have w/ Zurgo which led me to the above deck list, I only have a few other ideas I may consider making changes to.
1st consideration: Hangarback Walker I love the card personally. However, in this deck we have only 7, 1 drops in Christopher's original deck list he played in the Invitational, and only 6 with the changes I am currently running. This deck does not need a t1 play to get off to a good start, but it does assist it of course. Currently Hangarback Walker is the only creature slotted in as a 2 drop. I am wondering if Hangarback should be sideboarded, and if a better 2 drop could be moved into the main board which better suits this decks game 1? I see him primarily as a slow down and stall card as our board sets up - which is certainly good, but the deck is pretty aggressive with a lot of creature removal, so wondering if other options are better suited? Has advantage of being colorless to cast, so works as an early drop with whatever mana distribution we have in the early game.
Cards I am considering to replace as a 4 of, or in some combination.
Abbot of Keral Keep Everyone knows this card and its advantages/disadvantages. Plenty of instant spells and sorceries to trigger prowess which is always good, and of course can give some card movement to the deck. More aggressive creature than HBW, requiring less mana to make a threat.
Ire Shaman With 11 flying creatures we have a nice bit of evasion going on with our attacking creatures. Ire Shaman could add to that or as a more expensive Abbot of Keral Keep by offering slight card advantage.
Dragon Whisperer Costs RR which could be an issue in some games on t2. But 2/2 body for 2 mana, which can pump, gain evasion, or w/ formidable gives us the option to add another dragon should we need to with our 6 mana. I think this sounds really good when you consider our deck, but I am also thinking that most likely it would seldom be needed. As by t6 when we would have 6 mana to spend on it, if we meet the formidable requirements, we will have other dragons out already, and there for should not need to use the ability, right? On the other hand, can you ever have to many dragons?!?
Dragonlord's Servant This is what I plan on testing first as I think it essentially does the main task that HBW is accomplishing in the deck now - by offering some resistance to early game pressure. While also speeding up our clock to drop a dragon. Under nut draws, we are now moving everything up a turn w/ a t3 Thunderbreak Regent followed up w/ a t4 Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury.
2nd Consideration: Non Creature spells. I really have no complaint, as I love the mixture of creature removal we have, and finally we actually have some REAL BURN! 34 points of damage directed at creature or player (12 directed at both!) are represented in our instances and sorcery spells! With the inclusion of Murderous Cut there are very few threats that we are not already main board capable of handling fairly easily. I believe the way to primarily play the burn spells in our deck is like traditional burn decks, and view our burn 1st and foremost as strictly creature removal, and if you happen to be able to fire 1 or 2 to the head to finish them, than lucky us!
As good as Kolaghan's Command is I am tempted to run 3 copies of Exquisite Firecraft and only 2 of Kolaghan's Command as I am often finding myself wanting to be able tpo do an additional 2 points of damage to a creature or player, instead of bringing a creature back from my graveyard (something our deck already has a fair amount of ability to do with Flamewake Phoenix[/card x4, and Bloodsoaked Champion x1, have player discard a card (very nice and most often the 2nd selection after the burn that is selected, but sure do wish it was randomized!), or its other ability to destroy target artifact.
Aside from that, I really like our supporting spell set as it is for now.
3rd Consideration: The lands. So I do have 2 Polluted Deltas and 1 Sunken Hollow because the deck list from Christopher had them included in his original deck, because on his side board he ran Negate. I still leave them in because the Polluted Deltas still help me to grab a black source while thinning my deck. Also, I feel that those cards are fairly interchangeable to swap to the Red / Green lands if I wanted to , or possibly even go in another direction altogether with another color splash, should I feel the need to do so. Its almost as if they are place holders, while I consider what my final side board would be, which of course changes almost any time you go to a new tournament. So I am struggling to articulate this I think, but essentially I feel it is set up really well to very lightly make a 3rd color splash for blue, green, or white if we wanted to. And I like the balance the way it was set up for the 2 blue sideboard cards from Christopher, and I don't want to change that harmony is all. Not sure if that makes sense or not, but did my best to explain that.
SideBoard Considerations: So the above will maybe make more sense after I explain my side board thoughts. Some pretty good side board options, most dont need me to give any epxlanation, because it will vary on each of our own meta's as to what we like and choose to make up our SB.
However, I want to make a case for Radiant Flames in this side board.
I feel other than card draw, a board sweeper is the only other critical thing that would really improve our deck. We have some big fat dragons flying around which can survive a 3 point of damage radiant flames. And in late games, 3 mana on radiant flames for 2 or 3 damage to opponents creatures, along with a wild slash or draconic roar, or even exquisite fire craft for a total range of 4 to 6 mana will take care of a great many threats.
Which is another reason to keep the land base with a 3rd color option, even if the deck is primarily 2 colors, and another reason I like {Dragonlord's Servant[/card] as a possible swap out instead of Hangarback Walker because along with Monastery Swiftspear, and every other dragon it survives a 2 color (2 point of damage ) radiant flames with out doing anything extra or special. The 4 Flamewake Phoenix, the Bloodsoaked Champion do not - but can be brought back! And the single Zurgo Bellstriker if you prepare adequately, you will have safe in your hand prior to casting radiant flames thanks to dash.
Lastly, I feel like I am on a lone island once again with my preference of Crumble to Dust But this card can single handily just cause major stress on so many decks in standard right now that I don t see why more people do not play them in the sideboard. So few cards, can hurt such a wide variety of decks. And although with all of the sac lands and plentiful lands abound, it doesn't shut down most of them, it slows them down! And if your playing an aggressive, fast paced deck, an extra turn or 2 is all most of us can ever ask for to pull out the win! The next expansion coming out, I am thinking you will begin to see a lot more people utilize Crumble to Dust. But that is another topic, and this has gone on long enough!
Those are my immediate thoughts thus far after playing the deck and fiddling around with it. Plenty more play testing is required. I need some of you to move out to Houston so we can run some of these decks through the gauntlet and really tweak them well! Sorry for how long this was, but I am anxious to share my thoughts and hopefully get some good feedback and constructive criticism on improving on these ideas!
C Long Live Eldrazi C
4x Bloodsoaked Champion
3x Drana, Liberator of Malakir
4x Flamewake Phoenix
4x Hangarback Walker
2x Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury
4x Thunderbreak Regent
3x Zurgo Bellstriker
2x Draconic Roar
4x Murderous Cut
4x Roast
2x Self-Inflicted Wound
Lands 24
4x Bloodstained Mire
4x Mountain
4x Polluted Delta
4x Smoldering Marsh
4x Swamp
4x Wooded Foothills
C Long Live Eldrazi C
I looked long and hard at Forerunner of Slaughter, in fact a play set of them are still laying next to my laptop here on my desk from me doing so, lol.
What I found to be a problem with him is in understanding the role HBW plays in the deck. When you compare both cards they both come into play on t2, 1 is a 3/2 and HBW a 1/1.
Both die to the same very commonly played removal spells that popular decks are playing, silk wrap and wild slash among others. Also both if used to immediately chump block an opponents creature from their previous turn (either what was their t2 OR t3 play) both will most likely die from one of the numerous early game creatures decks play.
HBW if not exiled, then offers another body in a flying 1/1 thopter to chump again on the next turn. Forerunner does not.
What Forerunner does offer as an advantage is coming into play on t3 as a haste creature, but now it is competing with Flamewake Phoenix which imo is a superior t3 drop if in hand to play due to evasion, and its ability to be returned if put into the graveyard.
If we were running more colorless creatures, I think Forerunner of Slaughter would be more advantageous. If our main strategy of winning was overwhelming our opponent with cheap aggro creatures, I would consider it a stronger candidate. But in this deck, the 1 and 2 drop creatures MAIN reason are to provide interference to allow us to build our board and play the game winning dragon cards in it. Although HBW's can be slowly pumped up and turn into a 3/3 + creature to administer a beat down, people know the threat they represent, and seldom do they get the opportunity to become a threat. Also, it seems to me this deck has plenty of uses for its mana, and can not be relied upon to consistently pump up a HBW at the end of every turn. We need that HBW to block, or we need our mana to clear early threats as we get established.
So all of that said, please keep in mind that is just my opinion based off of my experience with the cards in other decks and in general with my understanding of this deck. I have not tried that combination yet, and play testing will yield the experience to show if its a better combination.
Lastly, if you went with the numbers you listed above, what other 2 creatures would you remove? 2 Monastery Swiftspear?
Hmmm that is an interesting list!
Drana, Liberator of Malakir intrigues me a lot I admit!
I agree with you, I do not like 4 copies of murderous cut either. I like roast of course, lower mana cost, more damage, but it cant hit flying creatures such as Archangel of Tithes, Wingmate Roc and most importantly to me it cant be directed at the player, which is a big appeal for me of the direct damage suite of spells we are playing.
Also, even though M.Swiftspear is a great card, its effectiveness diminishes with each spell below a count 16. This makes me question whether Bloodsoaked Champion would be more suitable. You really dont want Swiftspear going in for 1 too many times.
The drana, liberator of malakir has great synergy with hangarback. And should be cast before Phx when given the option.
Drana is another must answer threat that further stretches our opponents removal before out dragons enter the battlefield.
Another option could be 1 or 2 Sarkhan, the dragonspeaker
Here is what I am planning to take to FNM tonight::
4 Hangarback Walker
4 Flamewake Phoenix
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Thunderbreak Regent
2 Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury
2 Zurgo Bellstriker
2 Drana, Liberator of Malakir
4 Draconic Roar
3 Kolaghan's Command
1 Murderous Cut
4 Wild Slash
2 Exquisite Firecraft
8 Mountain
4 Swamp
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Smoldering Marsh
4 Wooded Foothills
C Long Live Eldrazi C
I am anxious to hear how it went!
Or perhaps another dragon in a third Storm's Fury or the Dragonlord. Adding additonal land to take the count to 25. The extra land could be Haven of the Spirit dragon
C Long Live Eldrazi C
My opinion is it is always best to start from the beginning.
If you have not tried out the original deck list, which had pretty darn good success at the SCG Invitational - my suggestion is to start with that, see how it does in your hands, playing against your meta and from there tweak it as need be.
But aside from that here are my thoughts on the questions you asked.
Drana I have not played a lot with, however I currently have her in another deck and have been playing it, with her lately. Its a rAlly deck - so certainly some differences in play style. I say give it a go with the x2 you have in your posted list above, and see what you think My fear is she will possibly be to slow in this deck, and with how I feel it wants to play. But she is a good card, so give it a shot. I can say I run 1 Bloodsoaked CHampion in my version, and I have been satisfied with him. Aside from when he gets exiled from play (stinking silk wrap! ) his ability to come back from grave fits really well in the deck, and even though I only run 1 copy, somehow it feels as if I am running more because he seems to come into alot of my games. I think his speed and helping to apply constant pressure works more so to the benefit of the deck, along with he is a bit harder to get rid of.
I think we are running plenty of burn/removal for our main board without adding in the fiery impulses. Personally Id leave in the 2nd murderous cut in the main board. 8 sac lands, plus 13 (or 14 if you run 2) instant and sorcery spells gives you plenty of ammunition for the delve. And running 2 copies is just to increase odds you will actually have 1 in hand for when you need it, not that you will most likely constantly be holding 2 in play. But even so, I have had little problem casting 5 and 6 mana costing dragons, so even on the rarer occasions I have pulled both Murderous Cuts in a game, I don't recall ever really being stuck to where I could not play the card.
And when your opponent plays one of those really big threats, some of which are outside of the burn range we have in main board, that gives us another option.
I had not considered the Haven of the Spirit Dragon. I want to do some play testing with it now myself. But I dont know if Id run 25 lands, I really feel 24 just works nicely.
Whatever you decide, good luck and let us know what you do and how it goes!
Pia & Kiran were a consideration too. Post your results after FNM.
C Long Live Eldrazi C