To your recent reasons
1) Welcome back.
2) Fair enough, whatever you enjoy at the end of the day for deckbuilding, just don't fault people who use established decks.
3) Some just want a quick route to carve their way to mythic. If you can make it work, then good for you.
4) Not so much weenie lifegain as it is more about a deck with lifegain to tank their damage, also watch out for Tibalt, Rakish Instigator when he comes out.
5) Especially with no more Nexus of Fate anymore.
6) Best to think of sligh and burn as a raid boss in reverse. That they already have their rage timer activated and that outlasting the boss causes the boss to slow down.
Each color tends to shift in its power, green being a support color is just this. Back in Kaladesh block, which is four sets before Dominaria, red was a support color and green was stronger.
Multiple planeswalkers of the same type but different names is a recent invention and had been met with a mixed reaction as one might expect.
Won't disagree the game has more triggers and synergies than past standard formats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks: Dredge (Vintage), Burn (Legacy), Hydra Tribal (Modern), Kruphix (Multiplayer EDH), Leovold (1v1 EDH),
Sorceress Queen (Pauper EDH), Zahid (Brawl), Tron (Pauper), Selesnya Slivers (Peasant), Blue Tempo (Standard)
If you can endure the game for another 3 months the standard rotation will take away some toys from red decks namely goblin chainwhirler, Ghitu Lavarunner, Wizard's Lightning and The Flame of Keld. Probably even Viashino Pyromancer if you are lucky.
In the meantime, gaining a little extra life goes a long way against monored: a creature with lifelink will get you some life back while trading with one of theirs or eat up a red spell that would otherwise hit you in the face or another more important target.
As does playing persistent creatures like Hunted Witness or creatures with afterlife.
Some cheap creature removal like cast down can make short work of those pesky runaway steam-kins and in less than a couple weeks you will get Teyo, the Shieldmage that together with Shalai, Voice of Plenty can shield you from burn spells.
The problem you can't avoid in Bo1 unranked in Arena is the hand helper that actually allows 13-land monored decks to work much more consistently than they actually should in real life.
So I've had some more time to sift through some of the comments on my work breaks, now I'm home.
For starters,
I still stand by my original conclusion that cookie cutters are cancer to magic. I give props to the original deckmaker, whoever that might be, and no one else. Here's a challenge: Make an original deck that can stand up to most streamlined decks, if you can do that, then you know a thing or two about magic. Using someone else's deck does not require deep knowledge on the finer nuiances of the game, to know what works and more importantly, WHY. After deck building is taken out of the equation, you're most left with 'luck of the draw'. There is very little skill in the in-game decision making, the choices you make are usually obvious and only have a few each turn anyway. This isn't chess, where there are 18 possible moves in the first turn. ( I play chess BTW)
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means pro tier. I cannot make decks as refined as, say a mono red burn. I'm constantly swapping out cards, and I have a hard time stripping it down to 60 cards most of the time. My current best deck is 78 cards, however I've seen a few 200+card decks out there (don't really see the point but whatever). This is the area I struggle with the most, it's prioritizing. What do I want 4 of and what needs only 1?
Those who only play to win at all costs, or those who play aggro decks in order to grind out the daily rewards faster, you do realize that your opponent is also trying to grind it out? Playing a red burn deck makes it much harder for anyone else to grind especially because it seems like almost 50% of the people I play use this exact deck. I'm bloody tired of it.
Even if you think I'm an idiot and can't play because I can't beat this outrageous deck, you can't argue the fact that it's way too common online. This alone should send alarm bells that maybe it's popular for a reason, because it's that good. It would not be so common if it wasn't at least close to as good as I claim it is.
And lastly, if you're not playing tournaments, or money isn't on the line, then playing under the philosophy of "playing to win", is pointless. Why do people play games in the first place? Is it solely for the sake of winning? Or is it because they are fun to play?
We all know how good the red burn deck is. It's been played out a million times. Do something else if for no other reason than to mix things up and make things interesting again. Whatever you do, if you play me using a land destruction deck I will track you down and murder your whole family
What it's come down to is making a purely anti-red deck. Nothing but life gain and deck-out. I call it the "red can go **** itself" deck. It's my way of showing my middle finger to all the degenerate copy-cats who think they can play because someone else came up with the winning deck.
Again it's popular because it's Bo1 where aggro is king and it goes quick for people to complete dailies. Anywhere else it's not a good deck to play in Standard. Why does it matter if everyone else is playing a red deck for dailies? It just means it's guaranteed to go fast. If you want to build a counter deck to it, go ahead. No one is stopping you or judging you for doing so. As I said in another post, I made a Selesnya Angel deck to play against red decks when they flare up.
Playing a top tier deck does require skill to pilot. Just because you have Ferrari doesn't mean you know how to drive it in a race in the most optimal way. Sure it raises the chances of a win, but in closer matches and match ups it requires a lot of skill to know what lines of play to make. Mono Blue in standard is a prime example on a great deck that needs a great pilot to be successful with. Do you use Dive Down or Spell Pierce to protect your creature from a removal spell, do you risk tapping out to play a Tempest Djinn or keep the mana open with a counter in hand and risk dragging a game out longer than it should? Mono red has an advantage over Esper, but a bad player can trip on themselves with just one wrong play that costs them the game. You can't imagine how many red players complain about Esper being unbeatable but they never bothered learning why they have the advantage and the right strategy to take against control.
Instead of criticizing people for playing net decks, maybe you should study those decks or play them yourself to understand deck building better instead of jamming 78 cards into your deck and not understanding what needs to be cut. I'm going to sound like an a-hole for saying this but you not understanding how to cut down your massive deck to 60 cards shows your skill level and not understanding the game as much as you're trying to criticize.
I still stand by my original conclusion that cookie cutters are cancer to magic. I give props to the original deckmaker, whoever that might be, and no one else. Here's a challenge: Make an original deck that can stand up to most streamlined decks, if you can do that, then you know a thing or two about magic. Using someone else's deck does not require deep knowledge on the finer nuiances of the game, to know what works and more importantly, WHY. After deck building is taken out of the equation, you're most left with 'luck of the draw'. There is very little skill in the in-game decision making, the choices you make are usually obvious and only have a few each turn anyway. This isn't chess, where there are 18 possible moves in the first turn. ( I play chess BTW)
Are you saying that unless you are a deck builder on par with the very best pros then you shouldn't play magic? Standard is a format with a very limited card pool where there are simply a bunch of "strictly best" choices.
Claiming there i little skill in-game is just blatantly false. And stating that there are 18 possible moves in the first turn in chess is true in theory, but not in practice. Did you watch the chess world championship? How many times did anyone open with a3 or nh3?
You are on the draw with a three land hand and two 1-drops then you have 6 ways of playing a one drop and then also the choice of not playing a land and discarding one of 8 cards. So that is 14 different lines of play during your first turn. Of course a lot of those lines don't make sense. But they are there, just like in chess.
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means pro tier. I cannot make decks as refined as, say a mono red burn. I'm constantly swapping out cards, and I have a hard time stripping it down to 60 cards most of the time. My current best deck is 78 cards, however I've seen a few 200+card decks out there (don't really see the point but whatever). This is the area I struggle with the most, it's prioritizing. What do I want 4 of and what needs only 1?
If your current best deck is 78 cards then it has 18 cards that are worse than the rest that should be cut. You are not alone in that struggle, hence why people netdeck to get a good competitive deck to actually play the game with.
Those who only play to win at all costs, or those who play aggro decks in order to grind out the daily rewards faster, you do realize that your opponent is also trying to grind it out? Playing a red burn deck makes it much harder for anyone else to grind especially because it seems like almost 50% of the people I play use this exact deck. I'm bloody tired of it.
2 player standard SHOULD be played to win in a competitive setting. Sure, at a kitchen table where you just wanna fool around and have some beers janky decks have a place. But in a competition you should expect others to play to actually win the game and making choices both during play and during deckbuilding to reach that goal. If you are tired of folk playing to win then perhaps you should play some variant where the competition isn't in focus? Why should consideration be taken to other players trying to grind out wins? If you have a deck that does what you want it to, grinds out wins fast and cheap, then it is up to the opposition to adjust their decks to the meta. It is not up to you to gimp your deck to help others win.
Even if you think I'm an idiot and can't play because I can't beat this outrageous deck, you can't argue the fact that it's way too common online. This alone should send alarm bells that maybe it's popular for a reason, because it's that good. It would not be so common if it wasn't at least close to as good as I claim it is.
Of course you can argue the "fact" that it is too common online. Where is the line that makes a deck "too common"? And if it is too common wouldn't the meta choice be to play a deck that stomps the too common deck? It is popular on arena bo1 because it is fast and RDW is usually a cheaper deck to assemble than 3 colour control that has a much higher barrier to entry due to all the rare lands and mythic cards required.
And lastly, if you're not playing tournaments, or money isn't on the line, then playing under the philosophy of "playing to win", is pointless. Why do people play games in the first place? Is it solely for the sake of winning? Or is it because they are fun to play?
No. The philosophy of "playing to win" is never pointless. You seem to think that playing to win and having fun while playing is mutually exclusive but that is not the case. A lot of playes find the game the most fun when they have a hard struggle between two competitive players doing their best to win over the other. Some players have the most fun when they are just fooling around with jank doing splashy things, but not everyone prefer that.
Chess by the way is a great example here. You state that you play chess yourself. Did you enjoy chess more when you were just starting playing making moves without much plan or did it become more fun when you got better, studied opening theory (or did you refuse to do that since it is the chess equivalent to netdecking?), and played agianst better opponents?
Didn't you get more enjoyment from the game when you were a competent player playing against a competent player doing your best to outsmart them trying to put yourself in an advantageous position? I know I ejoyed chess a LOT more when I had a really tough struggling game where both I and the opponent did their best to weigh each move seing which would lead to the largest advantage rather than when I was just fiddling around moving pieces against an opponent that blundered away rooks and queens.
We all know how good the red burn deck is. It's been played out a million times. Do something else if for no other reason than to mix things up and make things interesting again. Whatever you do, if you play me using a land destruction deck I will track you down and murder your whole family
Do we all know how good the red burn deck is? As you have been told several times in this thread it is far from the best deck around. Then you make a weird laim about hwo if someone plays land destruction against you you will track them down? So if someone tries playing a janky land destruction deck that is out of the meta that is also bad? You seem to not have made up your mind about what decks are okay to play against you, neither netdecked competitive lists nor janky brews are okay? It seems to me that what you want to play against are decks that your decks does well against.
What it's come down to is making a purely anti-red deck. Nothing but life gain and deck-out. I call it the "red can go **** itself" deck. It's my way of showing my middle finger to all the degenerate copy-cats who think they can play because someone else came up with the winning deck.
Okay rant over.
EXACTLY! If the meta is very dense on mono red burn then it is a great choice to build a dek to counter that meta. Not because it tells a certain deck to go f itself but because it would be a competitive choice in the current meta. The problem with a deck like that is that while you gain a large percentage point increase versus the red deck you will lose a lot versus other strategies. That is why deck choice is interesting. You have to weigh the distribution of archetypes versus the matchup against the decks.
Here are some quick maths to explain that concept:
You have deck A and deck B and the meta consists of one mono red deck and one 3 coloured control deck.
Deck A is catered towards crushing mono red and nothing else. Versus mono red you manage a 90% winrate but since you have no wincons other than decking the opponent the control deck will never drop a game against you. So versus that deck you have a 0% winrate.
Deck B is a more midrangey deck that tries to have an even matchup against the entire meta slightly leaning towards beating monored. Versus the red deck deck B has a 55% winrate and versus the control deck it has a 45% winrate.
Now which deck should you choose in order to win the most matches? The answer is that it depends entirely on the meta.
If the meta is 80% mono red decks and 20% control then over 100 games:
Deck A will win 72 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 72% winrate overall.
Deck B will win 44 games vs monored and 9 games vs control giving you a 53% winrate overall.
If the meta is 60% mono red decks and 40% control then over 100 games:
Deck A will win 54 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 54% winrate overall.
Deck B will win 33 games vs monored and 18 games vs control giving you a 51% winrate overall.
If the meta is 50% mono red decks and 50% control then over 100 games:
Deck A will win 45 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 45% winrate overall.
Deck B will win 27,5 games vs monored and 22,5 games vs control giving you a 50% winrate overall.
Of course the math isn't nearly as simple since you usually have a way more diverse meta than simply two decks and the winrates can be hard to calculate exactly.
Calling people "degenerate copy-cats who think they can play" is simply uncalled for and is just the result of you being annoyed that others choose to play by the rules of the game rather than the arbitrary rules regarding deck building that you have set up.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
1- it's a cookie cutter deck, down to the exact configuration. If you use this deck, congratulations! You copied someone else's idea! 90% of the skill involved is deck construction, you just completely took that out of the equation, because you have no soul, no originality, and no creativity.
Welcome to competitive standard!
2- the deck is a completely brain dead, one dimensional powerhouse. It can kill you by turn 3 or 4, kill all of your early creatures, and by the time you get bigger ones you're already dead.
It is easy to play but does take some skill to master. There are a lot of decisions to make playing this deck, and that decision you made to shock someone 5 turns ago in the face, as opposed to holding that shock in your hand, could cause you to lose the game. But really, thats the same for any deck.
3- no amount of life gain or creature control will stop the train. Red should not have better and faster card draw than blue. Risk factor is broken. Sure you can eat 4 damage, but the problem is that you're already taking a lot of direct damage anyway and most of the time can't afford the damage. So red basically gets a 3 mana-3 card draw with jump start. cheaper and more card draw than chemister's insight, one of blues best card draws. With so much cheap direct damage combined with awesome card draw, this deck is unstoppable. Or that red creature that gets +1's for casting red spells, and then dumping the counters for mana, for more cheap burn and card draw.
Even a moderate amount of lifegain can stop mono red as long as you have the damage/pressure/control to back it up. It just depends on what else you are doing, if all you are doing is gaining life and not applying pressure or controlling the situation, then ya, life gain wont help.
4- I have not come up with a single deck idea that can beat this. Nothing can weather the early storm, nothing, nada. Believe me when I tell you that I have dumped a ton of money into MTG arena and have over 10 different decks full of rares and mythics. Nothing can beat it. It's just flat out too fast.
I think it has good and bad matchups. Try the deck with hydroid krasis, jadelight ranger, wildgrowth walker, etc.
5- 50% (at least) of the players I play online use this deck, to a tee. Need I say more? This deck is completely taking all the fun out, to the point where I will concede on turn 1 if I realize that they're playing this deck. What's the point in even trying? It's just a waste of time.
There are always going to be good decks that everyone plays. The good news is that this will eventually rotate out.
6-Red needs nerfs. Red didn't used to have so many cheap burn cards as they do now. I'm an old school magic player
Just be glad they dont have Hazoret or Chandra anymore. Look at mono red during the amonkhet days.
I feel you, I know it sucks to play against the same deck over and over again, and it sucks to know that everyone just net decks and doesnt use originality when coming up with a deck. But now that Arena is a popular thing, and people are trying to grind to mythic to get invites to the big championships, they are going to use what wins the most, is the most efficient, and the fastest. Maybe if you just play casual games instead of ranked games, you will see less mono red, at least, that is my experience.
This too will pass. (literally, because it will rotate)
Plus, I will play against mono red over control decks any day. If I am going to lose, it may as well be quick and not take 45 minutes. The red deck at least has a wincon, the win con of most control decks seems to be to bore the opponent to death and make them concede.
If you can endure the game for another 3 months the standard rotation will take away some toys from red decks
Six months. Rotation is in the fall, never summer.
I was under the impression that the first rotation happened with M20 coming, which is in a little more than 3 months.
I don't understand the confusion why so many people think this. It's never rotated with core sets before nor in the summer, just look at last year for example.
I would add something, but HugSeal covered everything quite nicely.
But I want to say this. The idea that netdecking is cancer is just wrong. I personally like playing decks through online guides in Standard (ie basing my deck on a netdeck and then tuning it) and I also like playing my very own decks with my own ideas in Commander, so I'm part of both sides of the problem. But I won't berate other players in Commander for playing Atraxa over and over.
Also, it's kind of ironic to the whole discussion that you find the idea of deck piloting cancer when we're discussing red decks since the original Sligh build has the history that it is. On theme, you might say.
Honestly having played heavy aggressive decks vs control, I find it much better to play the former than the latter. Wins feel more satisfying and losses are less slow. Played some obnoxious Mardu land destruction deck and got to try the gate deck people are talking about, both were some of the longest and most boring matches I’ve had.
About metdecking:
There is a difference between copying someone’s dick list verbatim, and looking from checklist to Douglass to see what different people are using and making your mind up what cards you would like from those multiple lists. Especially if you get into things like commander, EDHREC is by no means a deck list, but it is a great tool to use if you’re trying to make a commander deck.
The good thing about everyone using the same deck, is that once you figure out how to beat it, you can beat all the people using the same deck.
Tangent: My legacy red deck does not uses only two cards total (not even multiples) of standard cards. Lightning Bolt (1993) and Chain Lightning (1994) are strictly better than Wizard’s Lightning.
Be glad Repercussion is not standard. The hardest thing about red deck wins is choosing whether to burn the player or the creatures.
Standard has Court Cleric, Haazda Marshal, Healer’s Hawk, Hunted Witness, and Legion’s Lansing. All of these are 1 cmc, get you a lifelink creature, and only one of them is rare...plenty of options right here. I used gatherer.wizards.com Which is the official magic the gathering card database. No netdecking, no hacks, right there when you need it.
A lesser player might stop for a second and think that a 78 card Mirari Conjecture deck might not actually be playable in the world of monoblue and monored. It takes a true veteran expert to make the tough calls and determine that cheaty monored players are the problem all along.
If Monored’s everywhere on Arena, just play a deck that preys on it.
Acknowledging the metagame, choosing the worst possible archetype for that metagame, deliberately ignoring basic deckbuilding principles, then complaining that you keep losing is a joke.
So I've had some more time to sift through some of the comments on my work breaks, now I'm home.
For starters,
I still stand by my original conclusion that cookie cutters are cancer to magic. I give props to the original deckmaker, whoever that might be, and no one else. Here's a challenge: Make an original deck that can stand up to most streamlined decks, if you can do that, then you know a thing or two about magic. Using someone else's deck does not require deep knowledge on the finer nuiances of the game, to know what works and more importantly, WHY. After deck building is taken out of the equation, you're most left with 'luck of the draw'. There is very little skill in the in-game decision making, the choices you make are usually obvious and only have a few each turn anyway. This isn't chess, where there are 18 possible moves in the first turn. ( I play chess BTW)
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means pro tier. I cannot make decks as refined as, say a mono red burn. I'm constantly swapping out cards, and I have a hard time stripping it down to 60 cards most of the time. My current best deck is 78 cards, however I've seen a few 200+card decks out there (don't really see the point but whatever). This is the area I struggle with the most, it's prioritizing. What do I want 4 of and what needs only 1?
Those who only play to win at all costs, or those who play aggro decks in order to grind out the daily rewards faster, you do realize that your opponent is also trying to grind it out? Playing a red burn deck makes it much harder for anyone else to grind especially because it seems like almost 50% of the people I play use this exact deck. I'm bloody tired of it.
Even if you think I'm an idiot and can't play because I can't beat this outrageous deck, you can't argue the fact that it's way too common online. This alone should send alarm bells that maybe it's popular for a reason, because it's that good. It would not be so common if it wasn't at least close to as good as I claim it is.
And lastly, if you're not playing tournaments, or money isn't on the line, then playing under the philosophy of "playing to win", is pointless. Why do people play games in the first place? Is it solely for the sake of winning? Or is it because they are fun to play?
We all know how good the red burn deck is. It's been played out a million times. Do something else if for no other reason than to mix things up and make things interesting again. Whatever you do, if you play me using a land destruction deck I will track you down and murder your whole family
What it's come down to is making a purely anti-red deck. Nothing but life gain and deck-out. I call it the "red can go **** itself" deck. It's my way of showing my middle finger to all the degenerate copy-cats who think they can play because someone else came up with the winning deck.
Okay rant over.
I know this is a late reply to this ancient thread.
First of all every format have its archetypes and meta, eventually players will choose the best and most streamlined efficient way to build their decks. Being ignorant about it and whining when you lose to a better player is just being bad and salty.
You said your best deck have 78 cards. Wizards and everyone have said before that 60 is the optimal unless you have a deck that specially needs more which is extremely rare. You come in here to whine about mono red aggro, but you Didn’t even get the basics right in the first place.
You refusing to be similar to any other netdeck out there doesn’t make you better or special, just makes you silly. Even players who have come out with their own special brew have studied the meta and the archetypes themselves before constructing their decks.
The solution to beat RDW? I think most players have already said. Anything life gain, control decks.. so many ways to beat red decks.
I play red deck wins and I also play esper control. Although my variants aren’t exactly the same as the netdecks, they win me games.
I've played magic for almost 25 years ...all kinds of decks.
My mono red burn deck is probably my all time favorite.
Its never been s teir 1 deck, but it's usually just a step behind. If I play tight, I've almost always got a shot at winning.
Since it's not a top tier deck, there are always some decks that I have to play perfectly and get really lucky or have my opponent make a mistake for me to win.
I play legacy and decks like dark depths, reanimator, storm are highly favored over burn.
I can't remember a time period when burn was ever an unstoppable powerhouse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My decks. Feel free to make suggestions. The Precious B___U___G___R___W
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) Welcome back.
2) Fair enough, whatever you enjoy at the end of the day for deckbuilding, just don't fault people who use established decks.
3) Some just want a quick route to carve their way to mythic. If you can make it work, then good for you.
4) Not so much weenie lifegain as it is more about a deck with lifegain to tank their damage, also watch out for Tibalt, Rakish Instigator when he comes out.
5) Especially with no more Nexus of Fate anymore.
6) Best to think of sligh and burn as a raid boss in reverse. That they already have their rage timer activated and that outlasting the boss causes the boss to slow down.
Each color tends to shift in its power, green being a support color is just this. Back in Kaladesh block, which is four sets before Dominaria, red was a support color and green was stronger.
Multiple planeswalkers of the same type but different names is a recent invention and had been met with a mixed reaction as one might expect.
Won't disagree the game has more triggers and synergies than past standard formats.
Sorceress Queen (Pauper EDH), Zahid (Brawl), Tron (Pauper), Selesnya Slivers (Peasant), Blue Tempo (Standard)
In the meantime, gaining a little extra life goes a long way against monored: a creature with lifelink will get you some life back while trading with one of theirs or eat up a red spell that would otherwise hit you in the face or another more important target.
As does playing persistent creatures like Hunted Witness or creatures with afterlife.
Some cheap creature removal like cast down can make short work of those pesky runaway steam-kins and in less than a couple weeks you will get Teyo, the Shieldmage that together with Shalai, Voice of Plenty can shield you from burn spells.
The problem you can't avoid in Bo1 unranked in Arena is the hand helper that actually allows 13-land monored decks to work much more consistently than they actually should in real life.
Six months. Rotation is in the fall, never summer.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
For starters,
I still stand by my original conclusion that cookie cutters are cancer to magic. I give props to the original deckmaker, whoever that might be, and no one else. Here's a challenge: Make an original deck that can stand up to most streamlined decks, if you can do that, then you know a thing or two about magic. Using someone else's deck does not require deep knowledge on the finer nuiances of the game, to know what works and more importantly, WHY. After deck building is taken out of the equation, you're most left with 'luck of the draw'. There is very little skill in the in-game decision making, the choices you make are usually obvious and only have a few each turn anyway. This isn't chess, where there are 18 possible moves in the first turn. ( I play chess BTW)
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means pro tier. I cannot make decks as refined as, say a mono red burn. I'm constantly swapping out cards, and I have a hard time stripping it down to 60 cards most of the time. My current best deck is 78 cards, however I've seen a few 200+card decks out there (don't really see the point but whatever). This is the area I struggle with the most, it's prioritizing. What do I want 4 of and what needs only 1?
Those who only play to win at all costs, or those who play aggro decks in order to grind out the daily rewards faster, you do realize that your opponent is also trying to grind it out? Playing a red burn deck makes it much harder for anyone else to grind especially because it seems like almost 50% of the people I play use this exact deck. I'm bloody tired of it.
Even if you think I'm an idiot and can't play because I can't beat this outrageous deck, you can't argue the fact that it's way too common online. This alone should send alarm bells that maybe it's popular for a reason, because it's that good. It would not be so common if it wasn't at least close to as good as I claim it is.
And lastly, if you're not playing tournaments, or money isn't on the line, then playing under the philosophy of "playing to win", is pointless. Why do people play games in the first place? Is it solely for the sake of winning? Or is it because they are fun to play?
We all know how good the red burn deck is. It's been played out a million times. Do something else if for no other reason than to mix things up and make things interesting again. Whatever you do, if you play me using a land destruction deck I will track you down and murder your whole family
What it's come down to is making a purely anti-red deck. Nothing but life gain and deck-out. I call it the "red can go **** itself" deck. It's my way of showing my middle finger to all the degenerate copy-cats who think they can play because someone else came up with the winning deck.
Okay rant over.
Playing a top tier deck does require skill to pilot. Just because you have Ferrari doesn't mean you know how to drive it in a race in the most optimal way. Sure it raises the chances of a win, but in closer matches and match ups it requires a lot of skill to know what lines of play to make. Mono Blue in standard is a prime example on a great deck that needs a great pilot to be successful with. Do you use Dive Down or Spell Pierce to protect your creature from a removal spell, do you risk tapping out to play a Tempest Djinn or keep the mana open with a counter in hand and risk dragging a game out longer than it should? Mono red has an advantage over Esper, but a bad player can trip on themselves with just one wrong play that costs them the game. You can't imagine how many red players complain about Esper being unbeatable but they never bothered learning why they have the advantage and the right strategy to take against control.
Instead of criticizing people for playing net decks, maybe you should study those decks or play them yourself to understand deck building better instead of jamming 78 cards into your deck and not understanding what needs to be cut. I'm going to sound like an a-hole for saying this but you not understanding how to cut down your massive deck to 60 cards shows your skill level and not understanding the game as much as you're trying to criticize.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
Are you saying that unless you are a deck builder on par with the very best pros then you shouldn't play magic? Standard is a format with a very limited card pool where there are simply a bunch of "strictly best" choices.
Claiming there i little skill in-game is just blatantly false. And stating that there are 18 possible moves in the first turn in chess is true in theory, but not in practice. Did you watch the chess world championship? How many times did anyone open with a3 or nh3?
You are on the draw with a three land hand and two 1-drops then you have 6 ways of playing a one drop and then also the choice of not playing a land and discarding one of 8 cards. So that is 14 different lines of play during your first turn. Of course a lot of those lines don't make sense. But they are there, just like in chess.
If your current best deck is 78 cards then it has 18 cards that are worse than the rest that should be cut. You are not alone in that struggle, hence why people netdeck to get a good competitive deck to actually play the game with.
2 player standard SHOULD be played to win in a competitive setting. Sure, at a kitchen table where you just wanna fool around and have some beers janky decks have a place. But in a competition you should expect others to play to actually win the game and making choices both during play and during deckbuilding to reach that goal. If you are tired of folk playing to win then perhaps you should play some variant where the competition isn't in focus? Why should consideration be taken to other players trying to grind out wins? If you have a deck that does what you want it to, grinds out wins fast and cheap, then it is up to the opposition to adjust their decks to the meta. It is not up to you to gimp your deck to help others win.
Of course you can argue the "fact" that it is too common online. Where is the line that makes a deck "too common"? And if it is too common wouldn't the meta choice be to play a deck that stomps the too common deck? It is popular on arena bo1 because it is fast and RDW is usually a cheaper deck to assemble than 3 colour control that has a much higher barrier to entry due to all the rare lands and mythic cards required.
No. The philosophy of "playing to win" is never pointless. You seem to think that playing to win and having fun while playing is mutually exclusive but that is not the case. A lot of playes find the game the most fun when they have a hard struggle between two competitive players doing their best to win over the other. Some players have the most fun when they are just fooling around with jank doing splashy things, but not everyone prefer that.
I can highly recommend this article: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win It covers why playing to win is a very valid choice.
Chess by the way is a great example here. You state that you play chess yourself. Did you enjoy chess more when you were just starting playing making moves without much plan or did it become more fun when you got better, studied opening theory (or did you refuse to do that since it is the chess equivalent to netdecking?), and played agianst better opponents?
Didn't you get more enjoyment from the game when you were a competent player playing against a competent player doing your best to outsmart them trying to put yourself in an advantageous position? I know I ejoyed chess a LOT more when I had a really tough struggling game where both I and the opponent did their best to weigh each move seing which would lead to the largest advantage rather than when I was just fiddling around moving pieces against an opponent that blundered away rooks and queens.
Do we all know how good the red burn deck is? As you have been told several times in this thread it is far from the best deck around. Then you make a weird laim about hwo if someone plays land destruction against you you will track them down? So if someone tries playing a janky land destruction deck that is out of the meta that is also bad? You seem to not have made up your mind about what decks are okay to play against you, neither netdecked competitive lists nor janky brews are okay? It seems to me that what you want to play against are decks that your decks does well against.
EXACTLY! If the meta is very dense on mono red burn then it is a great choice to build a dek to counter that meta. Not because it tells a certain deck to go f itself but because it would be a competitive choice in the current meta. The problem with a deck like that is that while you gain a large percentage point increase versus the red deck you will lose a lot versus other strategies. That is why deck choice is interesting. You have to weigh the distribution of archetypes versus the matchup against the decks.
Here are some quick maths to explain that concept:
You have deck A and deck B and the meta consists of one mono red deck and one 3 coloured control deck.
Deck A is catered towards crushing mono red and nothing else. Versus mono red you manage a 90% winrate but since you have no wincons other than decking the opponent the control deck will never drop a game against you. So versus that deck you have a 0% winrate.
Deck B is a more midrangey deck that tries to have an even matchup against the entire meta slightly leaning towards beating monored. Versus the red deck deck B has a 55% winrate and versus the control deck it has a 45% winrate.
Now which deck should you choose in order to win the most matches? The answer is that it depends entirely on the meta.
If the meta is 80% mono red decks and 20% control then over 100 games:
Deck A will win 72 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 72% winrate overall.
Deck B will win 44 games vs monored and 9 games vs control giving you a 53% winrate overall.
If the meta is 60% mono red decks and 40% control then over 100 games:
Deck A will win 54 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 54% winrate overall.
Deck B will win 33 games vs monored and 18 games vs control giving you a 51% winrate overall.
If the meta is 50% mono red decks and 50% control then over 100 games:
Deck A will win 45 games vs monored and 0 games vs control giving you a 45% winrate overall.
Deck B will win 27,5 games vs monored and 22,5 games vs control giving you a 50% winrate overall.
Of course the math isn't nearly as simple since you usually have a way more diverse meta than simply two decks and the winrates can be hard to calculate exactly.
Calling people "degenerate copy-cats who think they can play" is simply uncalled for and is just the result of you being annoyed that others choose to play by the rules of the game rather than the arbitrary rules regarding deck building that you have set up.
Again, read this article: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win It is good.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Welcome to competitive standard!
2- the deck is a completely brain dead, one dimensional powerhouse. It can kill you by turn 3 or 4, kill all of your early creatures, and by the time you get bigger ones you're already dead.
It is easy to play but does take some skill to master. There are a lot of decisions to make playing this deck, and that decision you made to shock someone 5 turns ago in the face, as opposed to holding that shock in your hand, could cause you to lose the game. But really, thats the same for any deck.
3- no amount of life gain or creature control will stop the train. Red should not have better and faster card draw than blue. Risk factor is broken. Sure you can eat 4 damage, but the problem is that you're already taking a lot of direct damage anyway and most of the time can't afford the damage. So red basically gets a 3 mana-3 card draw with jump start. cheaper and more card draw than chemister's insight, one of blues best card draws. With so much cheap direct damage combined with awesome card draw, this deck is unstoppable. Or that red creature that gets +1's for casting red spells, and then dumping the counters for mana, for more cheap burn and card draw.
Even a moderate amount of lifegain can stop mono red as long as you have the damage/pressure/control to back it up. It just depends on what else you are doing, if all you are doing is gaining life and not applying pressure or controlling the situation, then ya, life gain wont help.
4- I have not come up with a single deck idea that can beat this. Nothing can weather the early storm, nothing, nada. Believe me when I tell you that I have dumped a ton of money into MTG arena and have over 10 different decks full of rares and mythics. Nothing can beat it. It's just flat out too fast.
I think it has good and bad matchups. Try the deck with hydroid krasis, jadelight ranger, wildgrowth walker, etc.
5- 50% (at least) of the players I play online use this deck, to a tee. Need I say more? This deck is completely taking all the fun out, to the point where I will concede on turn 1 if I realize that they're playing this deck. What's the point in even trying? It's just a waste of time.
There are always going to be good decks that everyone plays. The good news is that this will eventually rotate out.
6-Red needs nerfs. Red didn't used to have so many cheap burn cards as they do now. I'm an old school magic player
Just be glad they dont have Hazoret or Chandra anymore. Look at mono red during the amonkhet days.
I feel you, I know it sucks to play against the same deck over and over again, and it sucks to know that everyone just net decks and doesnt use originality when coming up with a deck. But now that Arena is a popular thing, and people are trying to grind to mythic to get invites to the big championships, they are going to use what wins the most, is the most efficient, and the fastest. Maybe if you just play casual games instead of ranked games, you will see less mono red, at least, that is my experience.
This too will pass. (literally, because it will rotate)
Plus, I will play against mono red over control decks any day. If I am going to lose, it may as well be quick and not take 45 minutes. The red deck at least has a wincon, the win con of most control decks seems to be to bore the opponent to death and make them concede.
We all have decks we hate playing against.
When I played mono red, I was quite afraid of Gates deck.
That stupid Angel, gaining all the life back that I burned away...
I don't understand the confusion why so many people think this. It's never rotated with core sets before nor in the summer, just look at last year for example.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
But I want to say this. The idea that netdecking is cancer is just wrong. I personally like playing decks through online guides in Standard (ie basing my deck on a netdeck and then tuning it) and I also like playing my very own decks with my own ideas in Commander, so I'm part of both sides of the problem. But I won't berate other players in Commander for playing Atraxa over and over.
Also, it's kind of ironic to the whole discussion that you find the idea of deck piloting cancer when we're discussing red decks since the original Sligh build has the history that it is. On theme, you might say.
There is a difference between copying someone’s dick list verbatim, and looking from checklist to Douglass to see what different people are using and making your mind up what cards you would like from those multiple lists. Especially if you get into things like commander, EDHREC is by no means a deck list, but it is a great tool to use if you’re trying to make a commander deck.
The good thing about everyone using the same deck, is that once you figure out how to beat it, you can beat all the people using the same deck.
Tangent: My legacy red deck does not uses only two cards total (not even multiples) of standard cards.
Lightning Bolt (1993) and Chain Lightning (1994) are strictly better than Wizard’s Lightning.
Be glad Repercussion is not standard. The hardest thing about red deck wins is choosing whether to burn the player or the creatures.
Standard has Court Cleric, Haazda Marshal, Healer’s Hawk, Hunted Witness, and Legion’s Lansing. All of these are 1 cmc, get you a lifelink creature, and only one of them is rare...plenty of options right here. I used gatherer.wizards.com Which is the official magic the gathering card database. No netdecking, no hacks, right there when you need it.
A lesser player might stop for a second and think that a 78 card Mirari Conjecture deck might not actually be playable in the world of monoblue and monored. It takes a true veteran expert to make the tough calls and determine that cheaty monored players are the problem all along.
If Monored’s everywhere on Arena, just play a deck that preys on it.
Acknowledging the metagame, choosing the worst possible archetype for that metagame, deliberately ignoring basic deckbuilding principles, then complaining that you keep losing is a joke.
I know this is a late reply to this ancient thread.
First of all every format have its archetypes and meta, eventually players will choose the best and most streamlined efficient way to build their decks. Being ignorant about it and whining when you lose to a better player is just being bad and salty.
You said your best deck have 78 cards. Wizards and everyone have said before that 60 is the optimal unless you have a deck that specially needs more which is extremely rare. You come in here to whine about mono red aggro, but you Didn’t even get the basics right in the first place.
You refusing to be similar to any other netdeck out there doesn’t make you better or special, just makes you silly. Even players who have come out with their own special brew have studied the meta and the archetypes themselves before constructing their decks.
The solution to beat RDW? I think most players have already said. Anything life gain, control decks.. so many ways to beat red decks.
I play red deck wins and I also play esper control. Although my variants aren’t exactly the same as the netdecks, they win me games.
Also git gud. Really, adapt instead of whine.
I'd suggest he reads up on deckbuilding if he hasn't at this point.
My mono red burn deck is probably my all time favorite.
Its never been s teir 1 deck, but it's usually just a step behind. If I play tight, I've almost always got a shot at winning.
Since it's not a top tier deck, there are always some decks that I have to play perfectly and get really lucky or have my opponent make a mistake for me to win.
I play legacy and decks like dark depths, reanimator, storm are highly favored over burn.
I can't remember a time period when burn was ever an unstoppable powerhouse.
The Precious
B___U___G___R___W