I haven't found skullcrack to be any good in RDW... or anything for that matter. It's such a reactive and narrow card.
See, I disagree. Skullcrack is useful, but not in the applications that people are wanting to use it. It's no good against the Naya decks that run Huntmasters and Thrags, because here you want to overload on threats instead of keeping two up, but against the Sphinx Revelations decks you are perfectly fine playing a two drop on four and keeping mana open to counter their Revelation for two if the Hellrider wont outright kill them. Then, if you manage to make it to the late game, which is happening more and more frequently, the longer the game goes the bigger the value you gain from Skullcrack. If you look at it strictly as a Searing Spear, then it seems bad. What it really is in practice against Sphinx Revelations, is X+3 damage. Revelations for 5? Nope, take three instead. That's an 8 point life swing that oterwise wouldn't have happened. 8 points is so much too. Sometimes thats more damage then you would get through with Hellrider. If Hellrider can't kill them that turn, why are you worried about tapping out for him when you can instead Skullcrack their revelations, and then Hellrider for what should be lethal the next turn.
If you hold 7-2 and go all-in preflop versus AA after a high raise and hit 3 more 7s you annihilated your opponent, but you certainly didn't make the right play. In this case, it's obviously a matter of choice backed by reasoning, not stupidity.
@zem
If he meets the same decks I met last time around he'll 4-0 with both hands tied behind his back.
Poker is completely different though. You don't have certain variables that you have in magic, i.e, deck construction matters in magic. In poker, every single person has the same access to the same cards every game pre-deal. The cards never change, only the information changes. If you have 7-2 off suit and you keep and raise pre-flop, you are doing so with the knowledge that you have x opportunities to hit a seven or a two, and you have certain percentages. It is safest, and most correct, to fold that hand and play hands that have higher percentages.
Now, imagine if you got to build your own poker deck, and your opponent didn't know exactly what you put it in it. They may know most of the cards, but not all. Suddenly, your 7-2 off suit could actually be boss. If could be that you actually have nine different sevens in your deck of cards, so hitting two more is a lot more reasonable than them hitting a second king, of which you only run 2. Magic works this way because they are unable to predict exactly what is in your deck, so their decisions are based on reasonable deduction and not absolute fact, therefore creating false percentages. You can play around that Supreme Verdict they are broadcasting, but what are the actual percentages that they have it? You can't possibly know the answer unless you know exactly how many of them are in their deck. Obviously, cards like Slaughter games allow for the math, but you don't actually have enough time to calculate said percentages because you'll get a slow play warning if you sort out their deck....
Anyway, last season I got that, "you suck!" comment while playing Delver a lot against the Zombie decks. I usually kept in my Vapor Snags, Gut Shots and Dismembers, while a lot of people were siding them out. My reasoning was that these cards provided me with a huge tempo advantage, and since I was siding in 4 Celestial Purges in this match-up, chances are very likely a single snapcaster or Delver was just going to go all the way, so removing any blockers was vital to my success. It wasn't "correct" apparently, but I was a pretty heavy favorite personally against zombie's all season. I actually top 8'ed two PTQ's last season with Delver where I won my win and in's against Zombie's, "doing it wrong."
He's actually insane against the Naya decks that are running Garruk as well, because you usually can conscripts the turn after they play him, meaning they get a 3/3 and you get to draw 3 cards, which sets them severely behind. Usually they play Garruk, tick once, then draw something absurd. If they can no longer untap, Thrag, draw 5, you've already gained an insane edge in an otherwise rough match-up.
On another note, so far I've had pretty good success with Instigator Gang online, but I think the Conscripts main is slightly better. While having the fifth and sixth Hellrider is fine, the fact that Conscripts is so much better against the Naya decks is something that I think is important.
See Disil's comments above basically. I went through this in pretty significant detail twice on the last stream (newer viewers towards the end asked the same question) and for me it is about continuing to get value out of the 1 and 2 drops that your deck is made up of ~ Thundermaw will get in his 5 damage sure, but Conscripts can let all your guys who were standing around doing nothing get in as well ~ it isn't uncommon for Conscripts to result in you attacking with their creature + 2 or more of your guys as well, which can be 10+ damage in a swing.
The deck I am running is more focussed on going 'under' than before, so the huge knockout blow of the Conscripts is something I am very interested in. The effect is also randomly good in a lot of matchups ~ blowing out Jace's and Tamiyo, Nicol Bolas etc.
I had a situation come up at the 5k where with six lands in play I played a one drop and Conscripted it for lethal. I also Conscripted a land to play a second one drop in one game where I knew I had lethal next turn through Pyreheart damage.
On the inclusion of Reverberate, I tried it, I even cast it when my opponent revelated for 4, but the problem is by the time they are casting Sphinx Revelation, the life gain is more valuable for them then it is for us, and the cards they are drawing are more valuable for them then they are for us. While we're drawing Searing Spears and 1-drops, they are drawing Thragtusks and more Revelations. While we have Hellrider we can draw into, they are going to be untapping and casting another card before we can do anything with the cards we drew, so chances are, that Hellrider isn't going to be for lethal. Instead, if you Skullcrack them, you are nugging them for three and probably winning the game your next turn.
The key I believe, is to only leave the mana open when it's going to matter. If you can't play Hellrider and kill them, it might be correct to leave the mana open to Skullcrack when they play Thrag or Revelations, because the following turn you should be able to kill them with Hellrider. That comes from playing control for the past couple years. You have to know when leaving mana open is actually important. If you treat SC like a counterspell, then you need to understand what cards are important and what lines of play are able to beat the board position you've created. If Thragtusk and Revelations are not able to beat you, or, in this case, keep you from winning this turn/next turn, then Skullcrack obviously isn't the correct line. If they are however, then most certainly Skullcrack is going to win you the game in a way that Pyreheart Wolf/Pillar currently are not (the cards you're siding out for them).
Skullcrack is worth so much damage against cards like Sphinx Revelation and Thragtusk. In response to a Thrag, it's worth 8 points of damage. For two mana. That's the insane. Against Spinx Revelation its worth 3+X damage. Also huge. The biggest incentive to playing Skullcrack is that if you are good at reading lines correctly, then you know when leaving two up is important and when tapping out is more correct. I guess it's about understanding whats important in the current game state, but against Bant and Esper, I would much rather have access to Skullcrack then not having access to it.
Also, it's randomly good against Faiths Shield, and I don't know if you guys have ever been blown out by that card, but I didn't even know it was a card at GP San Antonio (even though it had been in my board the previous week at the SCG 5k... I had taken a hiatus when RTR came out to focus on transition from Military to Civilian life and was in deck borrow mode). Anyway, I swung in with three Thrags against an opponent at five thinking that I was lethal through his two guys, and he was able to just Faiths Shield untap kill me....... Super awkward. Skullcrack prevents this!
I'd play 3 skull crack in my board. I think it will be good against sphinx's revelation half the time, but where it shines is against thragtusk as you just put them dead. I also disagree that pyreheart wolf is bad versus control. It's bad versus terminus like everything else. It's actively good versus supreme verdict and allows you to attack through thragtusk.
Pyreheart isn't always good for three though, but Skull Crack is always worth three. I'm not siding out 4 Pyrehearts in the match-up, but if siding out one means I get more value out of the slot, I'm doing it every game. My typical board plan against Control decks currently is -3 Pillar -1 Pyreheart, and that probably wont change as the cards I want to side in are changing.
So, this is my outlook on Skullcrack, you play in the board, because against the Sphinx Revelation decks, it's a 2 mana counter spell that also bolts them. In these match-ups you are siding out cards like Pillar and Pyreheart anyway because they are bad, and this card is always going to nug them for three. The cards that were being played instead didn't provide the opportunity for a blowout, whereas this card can provide that blowout that we didn't have before. Imagine getting them to 5 or less on four only to have them untap and Thrag. With Skullcrack, even though they go to 10 because you are tapped out like a good red mage, you are still nugging them for three and probably killing them through the Thrag with dudes. But imagine, it's turn 6 and they've stabilized at a low life total. You have lethal with dudes, but obviously they can just Sphinx before damage. Viola, swing in, they Revelate, and you Skullcrack. Instant counter! Not to mention, if Faiths Shield becomes a thing again... It's not worthy of a maindeck slot though, because I don't think the Sphinxs Revelation decks are going to be big enough to warrant running a two mana do nothing against the decks where we need to be Spearing their guys.
So I've been playing with Instigator Gang online, but I haven't drawn it yet. I did manage to beat mono red though with Instigator Gangs themselves, but I didn't get to see it perform because I had the Searing Spear for the Gang on four. I'll get back with some data.
A lot of players have had success with three. While I appreciate that drawing multiples can be unfortunate, there are non-zero number of games when they handle your first one and you do want the second one. They're also invaluable as blockers (to gain tempo) against some decks, so I have been able to justify playing four. Of course, this could also be a playstyle thing ~ I am probably more comfortable playing 'defence' with RDW than most (and probably more comfortable than I should be).
Playing three is certainly acceptable, but I wouldn't only run two ~ there isn't realistically a matchup where a single Wolf is bad.
My opinion on Pyreheart is that in the match-ups where you want multiples, you need to have four, and in the match-ups where having him isn't "ideal" you can just side him out. The question comes down to, how much value do you gain from having the second one in the match-ups where he is important, vs. how much value you can gain by having something else in that spot in the match-ups where you dont want Pyreheart Wolf. I think that the value from having multiples in the match-ups it's important is far too much to run a number less than 4, but again, you would have to take the big picture into account and look at the metagame. For me, since I live in DFW and Naya Humans just won the SCG in Dallas (the winner plays 5 minutes from the convention center), having 4 Pyreheart Wolves is a necessity. It comes down to the metagame I think. I did side him out a bunch this weekend, but when I needed him, he was an all-star and I was glad to have the four main deck. I never dropped below three though, as a dude is fine, and he survives Supreme Verdicts and he can block perdy good.
According to Hamfactorial's Guide on these things, 8 black sources gives you a 79% chance to hit 1 black on turn 4; just so we're totally clear, that means you will miss only 1 in 5 games. Personally however, I would rather run more sources to lower the number (when I ran Dos Rakis I ran 12 black sources, but had lower cost black spells, so I needed to hit black earlier) which gave me a 92% hit-rate by turn 4. Just something to think about.
Also, another Top 8 performance by Mono R at the SCG, for whatever little that is worth (if you saw the live stream of the event, you know what I mean).
I'm glad the Mono Red deck didn't win.. Only because the guy who won the tournament has been a friend for the past 14 years of my magical career.
I think one point in Tibalt's favour that I always thought was a downside, is that if you draw a good spell and play it, activating Tibalt to mill 1 isn't the worst if you can build towards a kill ~ some decks will be way behind against the -4; maybe we will some red cards that like a full graveyard soon (a la grim lavamancer).
For myself, I like a single Archwing, but it's almost entirely due to liking cards like Pulse of the Forge et all., i am more comfortable with the plans.
Good work today, keep trying and you'll hit a streak of good luck (instead of the rubbish you had today).
I would kill for Pulse of the Forge. After a six month hiatus, I opened a random pack one day while in High School and thought the card was bonkers. Then I came back and discovered Eternal Witness and a relationship was born with Crystal Shard... Ahh... the good ol' days.
I think the ability to fall behind to a removal spell after a large investment makes it hard for me, but I also understand the allure. A friend played the same 60 as me but he ran two Archwings and one Thundermaw in the board over the one Tibalt and the two Bloodcray Giant (which was awful or an all star and never in between... I side it in for the mirror as they pretty much can't kill it and it's a big body) I ended up running. I wouldn't run Giant again, but I couldn't find Thundermaws and I wanted a 5 power guy.
What do you think of Instigator Gang against decks where we have to have Hellrider? It's not as good, but it could operate in the four drop slot as Hellrider 5-6 and when it does manage to flip its absolutely a blow out.
So, I won a game with Tibalt today. I had a great tournament report typed up, with arguments against Archwing Dragon, but my computer decided to turn itself off and I lost it... to summarize:
Dragon is bad because it doesn't promote board presence. If they manage to have a counterspell or a removal spell after two or three turns, you've spent two or three turns not building a board presence. Dragon represents a repeatable four damage, but the decks you want it against play things like Thragtusk and Sphinx Revelation, and well, both of those cards in numbers quickly outclass 4 damage a turn. You have to be able to build a board state that threatens to grind them down, but if you are tapping out every turn to play Dragon, you aren't ever threatening more than 4 a turn.
Tibalt is actually insane when he's insane. I won two games with him against Esper and Bant that I otherwise would have lost. Agaisnt Esper my opponent drew six and passed the turn with 7 in hand. I then -4'd and I actually was up a point of damage the very turn after he Revelated. Then I also did damage with attackers, so it was as though the revelations never happened. If I had been playing Dragon in that spot, then he would have been up some points of damage.
Also, there was a game where I resolved Tibalt and literally saw 18 lands out of my deck. I was able to grind out the Bant deck and won when I ultimated Tibalt and got him with 2 Thrags, 1 Beast token and an Angel to go with my Hellrider and two Ash Zealots. Thats a lot of damage coming through. I was at 3 when the game ended, because he was trying to race Tibalt. Imagine if instead he had swung at Tibalt? He would have to swing enough through that my potential blockers and burn don't negate the attack, and that would leave him open to a second hellrider or any number of things that starts to get nutty. Not to mention I was always threatening minus 4 to get him for a bunch.
I went 3-2 drop.
I won game one against GB beats. It was pretty routine.
Round 2 I lost the mirror. I lost the die roll but won game one on a mull to 5. My opponent was pretty bad. He missed a ton of triggers and sent Pillars to my face with targets in play and my life at 20. I understand racing, but..... I lost game two to his quad hellrider, unable to beat the last one, and in game three I had an Ash Zealot with a Volcanic Strength on it and a Stromkirk with three counters, plus a Brimstone in hand. My opponent is at 11. He's got no cards in hand. I had attacked with my Stromkirk that turn to put him to 11 and I pass the turn. He has five lands and an ash zealot. I had 9 lands... My opponent then draws, swings, and I obviously have to block. Now, I figure, he'll just burn my guy and it'll be my volley -5'ing him and then swinging for 4 next turn + any number of cards (a hellrider, mauler, burn spell... anything, literally anything almost would have won the game). Of course he drew Volley number four though, and so when I blocked he was able to nug me for five. It was a fake feature and one of the spectators apologized after, and it really hammered home magic recently for me. I feel as though the game design has gotten to a vanilla point. While the cards are all interesting, they all do the same thing essentially. It comes down to the fact that cards are so powerful they literally play themselves. When you miss your Stromkirk trigger four turns in a row and still win because you quad hellrider, it really makes you not want to play. Skill means a lot less now than it did 10 years ago, and that really saddens me.
Anyway, I won against Esper and Bant the next two rounds, and in round 5 I lost to Omni Door. I really just wasnt feeling it anymore by this point, and I kept a one lander with 4 Hellriders because, well, misers happen sometimes and I was tired of playing. My heart just isn't in the game anymore. It's been 15 years or so, and I think I might hang up the creatures and stuff for a while and learn to play whatever solitaire deck exists in whatever format.
The deck was fine. I flooded out in game two against Omni door, keeping one drop, Mauler, Mauler, Crucible, and I went Noble, Mauler into his Augur, Augur draw. It was sad and I drew 9 lands in a row. He had the charm too for my Crucible....... SAD DAY.
Anyway, I recommend testing Tibalt in the grindy match-ups, because he takes excess lands and either gives you a threat to replace them OR you are in the same position when you +1'd him. Then, you get value from his -4 nugging them and punishing them for having cards in hand, and then you have his -7 which can miser kill them sometimes if they can't deal.
Good luck to everyone playing this deck in the future. Tomorrow I'm playing Cheerio's or MUD if I even show up, otherwise if I show up late I'll be playing Pokemon with some buddies... You should see the crowd we get with the nostalgia. We had more crowds between rounds than most of the features.
Hey, I'm playing this list today at the SCG. I'll be leaving in about 45 minutes (I live like, 5 minutes from the venue)... This is what I'm playing, but I didn't get to test last night or since the bant deck showed up so any SB advice would be great last second.
It's essentially Ari Lax's list from last week, with the Tibalt change in the board because I don't like Archwing Dragon, and it gives me a way to turn extra lands late game into more aggression, and also gives me the potential to 7 them post Sphinx for a billion if the game goes that long. It's been testing fine online for the past few weeks, so I'm going to stick with it.
Essentially, my question is, am I missing something obvious? I don't like Hound because I haven't tested it at all, and it just feels wrong right now to me. I'm wondering if I should be playing Flames of the Firebrand or something in the board, but any last second idea's would be strong. I wont actually finalize my list until I get there, but this is the first major event I'm attending where I'm playing aggressive since GP Dallas 2008? I think it was (I've only played control since then in almost every format, but I recently discovered the love of having time between rounds).
Hound of Griselbrand is a 2-for-1 or better vs GW. Giant isn't.
Edit ~ I know Hound looks a bit underwhelming on paper, but talking from experience which I think is shared by most of the other players here, Hound just takes over the game against GW. I am interested in seeing any playtest data on the card though.
Completely forgot about undying. Do you think in the GW Match-up it might just be better to cast an overloaded Mortars and win the game? I'm not sure. I haven't played Hound so I'm not sure how it plays in the match-up, just theory crafting here.
He allows for ridiculous starts, but is otherwise outclassed by two drops who maintain relevance the later the game goes.
See, I disagree. Skullcrack is useful, but not in the applications that people are wanting to use it. It's no good against the Naya decks that run Huntmasters and Thrags, because here you want to overload on threats instead of keeping two up, but against the Sphinx Revelations decks you are perfectly fine playing a two drop on four and keeping mana open to counter their Revelation for two if the Hellrider wont outright kill them. Then, if you manage to make it to the late game, which is happening more and more frequently, the longer the game goes the bigger the value you gain from Skullcrack. If you look at it strictly as a Searing Spear, then it seems bad. What it really is in practice against Sphinx Revelations, is X+3 damage. Revelations for 5? Nope, take three instead. That's an 8 point life swing that oterwise wouldn't have happened. 8 points is so much too. Sometimes thats more damage then you would get through with Hellrider. If Hellrider can't kill them that turn, why are you worried about tapping out for him when you can instead Skullcrack their revelations, and then Hellrider for what should be lethal the next turn.
Poker is completely different though. You don't have certain variables that you have in magic, i.e, deck construction matters in magic. In poker, every single person has the same access to the same cards every game pre-deal. The cards never change, only the information changes. If you have 7-2 off suit and you keep and raise pre-flop, you are doing so with the knowledge that you have x opportunities to hit a seven or a two, and you have certain percentages. It is safest, and most correct, to fold that hand and play hands that have higher percentages.
Now, imagine if you got to build your own poker deck, and your opponent didn't know exactly what you put it in it. They may know most of the cards, but not all. Suddenly, your 7-2 off suit could actually be boss. If could be that you actually have nine different sevens in your deck of cards, so hitting two more is a lot more reasonable than them hitting a second king, of which you only run 2. Magic works this way because they are unable to predict exactly what is in your deck, so their decisions are based on reasonable deduction and not absolute fact, therefore creating false percentages. You can play around that Supreme Verdict they are broadcasting, but what are the actual percentages that they have it? You can't possibly know the answer unless you know exactly how many of them are in their deck. Obviously, cards like Slaughter games allow for the math, but you don't actually have enough time to calculate said percentages because you'll get a slow play warning if you sort out their deck....
Anyway, last season I got that, "you suck!" comment while playing Delver a lot against the Zombie decks. I usually kept in my Vapor Snags, Gut Shots and Dismembers, while a lot of people were siding them out. My reasoning was that these cards provided me with a huge tempo advantage, and since I was siding in 4 Celestial Purges in this match-up, chances are very likely a single snapcaster or Delver was just going to go all the way, so removing any blockers was vital to my success. It wasn't "correct" apparently, but I was a pretty heavy favorite personally against zombie's all season. I actually top 8'ed two PTQ's last season with Delver where I won my win and in's against Zombie's, "doing it wrong."
On another note, so far I've had pretty good success with Instigator Gang online, but I think the Conscripts main is slightly better. While having the fifth and sixth Hellrider is fine, the fact that Conscripts is so much better against the Naya decks is something that I think is important.
I had a situation come up at the 5k where with six lands in play I played a one drop and Conscripted it for lethal. I also Conscripted a land to play a second one drop in one game where I knew I had lethal next turn through Pyreheart damage.
The key I believe, is to only leave the mana open when it's going to matter. If you can't play Hellrider and kill them, it might be correct to leave the mana open to Skullcrack when they play Thrag or Revelations, because the following turn you should be able to kill them with Hellrider. That comes from playing control for the past couple years. You have to know when leaving mana open is actually important. If you treat SC like a counterspell, then you need to understand what cards are important and what lines of play are able to beat the board position you've created. If Thragtusk and Revelations are not able to beat you, or, in this case, keep you from winning this turn/next turn, then Skullcrack obviously isn't the correct line. If they are however, then most certainly Skullcrack is going to win you the game in a way that Pyreheart Wolf/Pillar currently are not (the cards you're siding out for them).
Skullcrack is worth so much damage against cards like Sphinx Revelation and Thragtusk. In response to a Thrag, it's worth 8 points of damage. For two mana. That's the insane. Against Spinx Revelation its worth 3+X damage. Also huge. The biggest incentive to playing Skullcrack is that if you are good at reading lines correctly, then you know when leaving two up is important and when tapping out is more correct. I guess it's about understanding whats important in the current game state, but against Bant and Esper, I would much rather have access to Skullcrack then not having access to it.
Also, it's randomly good against Faiths Shield, and I don't know if you guys have ever been blown out by that card, but I didn't even know it was a card at GP San Antonio (even though it had been in my board the previous week at the SCG 5k... I had taken a hiatus when RTR came out to focus on transition from Military to Civilian life and was in deck borrow mode). Anyway, I swung in with three Thrags against an opponent at five thinking that I was lethal through his two guys, and he was able to just Faiths Shield untap kill me....... Super awkward. Skullcrack prevents this!
Pyreheart isn't always good for three though, but Skull Crack is always worth three. I'm not siding out 4 Pyrehearts in the match-up, but if siding out one means I get more value out of the slot, I'm doing it every game. My typical board plan against Control decks currently is -3 Pillar -1 Pyreheart, and that probably wont change as the cards I want to side in are changing.
My opinion on Pyreheart is that in the match-ups where you want multiples, you need to have four, and in the match-ups where having him isn't "ideal" you can just side him out. The question comes down to, how much value do you gain from having the second one in the match-ups where he is important, vs. how much value you can gain by having something else in that spot in the match-ups where you dont want Pyreheart Wolf. I think that the value from having multiples in the match-ups it's important is far too much to run a number less than 4, but again, you would have to take the big picture into account and look at the metagame. For me, since I live in DFW and Naya Humans just won the SCG in Dallas (the winner plays 5 minutes from the convention center), having 4 Pyreheart Wolves is a necessity. It comes down to the metagame I think. I did side him out a bunch this weekend, but when I needed him, he was an all-star and I was glad to have the four main deck. I never dropped below three though, as a dude is fine, and he survives Supreme Verdicts and he can block perdy good.
I'm glad the Mono Red deck didn't win.. Only because the guy who won the tournament has been a friend for the past 14 years of my magical career.
I would kill for Pulse of the Forge. After a six month hiatus, I opened a random pack one day while in High School and thought the card was bonkers. Then I came back and discovered Eternal Witness and a relationship was born with Crystal Shard... Ahh... the good ol' days.
I think the ability to fall behind to a removal spell after a large investment makes it hard for me, but I also understand the allure. A friend played the same 60 as me but he ran two Archwings and one Thundermaw in the board over the one Tibalt and the two Bloodcray Giant (which was awful or an all star and never in between... I side it in for the mirror as they pretty much can't kill it and it's a big body) I ended up running. I wouldn't run Giant again, but I couldn't find Thundermaws and I wanted a 5 power guy.
What do you think of Instigator Gang against decks where we have to have Hellrider? It's not as good, but it could operate in the four drop slot as Hellrider 5-6 and when it does manage to flip its absolutely a blow out.
Dragon is bad because it doesn't promote board presence. If they manage to have a counterspell or a removal spell after two or three turns, you've spent two or three turns not building a board presence. Dragon represents a repeatable four damage, but the decks you want it against play things like Thragtusk and Sphinx Revelation, and well, both of those cards in numbers quickly outclass 4 damage a turn. You have to be able to build a board state that threatens to grind them down, but if you are tapping out every turn to play Dragon, you aren't ever threatening more than 4 a turn.
Tibalt is actually insane when he's insane. I won two games with him against Esper and Bant that I otherwise would have lost. Agaisnt Esper my opponent drew six and passed the turn with 7 in hand. I then -4'd and I actually was up a point of damage the very turn after he Revelated. Then I also did damage with attackers, so it was as though the revelations never happened. If I had been playing Dragon in that spot, then he would have been up some points of damage.
Also, there was a game where I resolved Tibalt and literally saw 18 lands out of my deck. I was able to grind out the Bant deck and won when I ultimated Tibalt and got him with 2 Thrags, 1 Beast token and an Angel to go with my Hellrider and two Ash Zealots. Thats a lot of damage coming through. I was at 3 when the game ended, because he was trying to race Tibalt. Imagine if instead he had swung at Tibalt? He would have to swing enough through that my potential blockers and burn don't negate the attack, and that would leave him open to a second hellrider or any number of things that starts to get nutty. Not to mention I was always threatening minus 4 to get him for a bunch.
I went 3-2 drop.
I won game one against GB beats. It was pretty routine.
Round 2 I lost the mirror. I lost the die roll but won game one on a mull to 5. My opponent was pretty bad. He missed a ton of triggers and sent Pillars to my face with targets in play and my life at 20. I understand racing, but..... I lost game two to his quad hellrider, unable to beat the last one, and in game three I had an Ash Zealot with a Volcanic Strength on it and a Stromkirk with three counters, plus a Brimstone in hand. My opponent is at 11. He's got no cards in hand. I had attacked with my Stromkirk that turn to put him to 11 and I pass the turn. He has five lands and an ash zealot. I had 9 lands... My opponent then draws, swings, and I obviously have to block. Now, I figure, he'll just burn my guy and it'll be my volley -5'ing him and then swinging for 4 next turn + any number of cards (a hellrider, mauler, burn spell... anything, literally anything almost would have won the game). Of course he drew Volley number four though, and so when I blocked he was able to nug me for five. It was a fake feature and one of the spectators apologized after, and it really hammered home magic recently for me. I feel as though the game design has gotten to a vanilla point. While the cards are all interesting, they all do the same thing essentially. It comes down to the fact that cards are so powerful they literally play themselves. When you miss your Stromkirk trigger four turns in a row and still win because you quad hellrider, it really makes you not want to play. Skill means a lot less now than it did 10 years ago, and that really saddens me.
Anyway, I won against Esper and Bant the next two rounds, and in round 5 I lost to Omni Door. I really just wasnt feeling it anymore by this point, and I kept a one lander with 4 Hellriders because, well, misers happen sometimes and I was tired of playing. My heart just isn't in the game anymore. It's been 15 years or so, and I think I might hang up the creatures and stuff for a while and learn to play whatever solitaire deck exists in whatever format.
The deck was fine. I flooded out in game two against Omni door, keeping one drop, Mauler, Mauler, Crucible, and I went Noble, Mauler into his Augur, Augur draw. It was sad and I drew 9 lands in a row. He had the charm too for my Crucible....... SAD DAY.
Anyway, I recommend testing Tibalt in the grindy match-ups, because he takes excess lands and either gives you a threat to replace them OR you are in the same position when you +1'd him. Then, you get value from his -4 nugging them and punishing them for having cards in hand, and then you have his -7 which can miser kill them sometimes if they can't deal.
Good luck to everyone playing this deck in the future. Tomorrow I'm playing Cheerio's or MUD if I even show up, otherwise if I show up late I'll be playing Pokemon with some buddies... You should see the crowd we get with the nostalgia. We had more crowds between rounds than most of the features.
4 Rakdos Cackler
2 Stonewright
4 Lightning Mauler
4 Ash Zealot
4 Pyreheart Wolf
4 Hellrider
2 Zealous Conscripts
3 Pillar of Flame
2 Brimstone Volley
4 Searing Spear
1 Hellion Crucible
1 Frostburn Weird
4 Reckless Waif
2 Volcanic Strength
4 Mizzium Mortars
1 Pillar of Flame
1 Hellion Crucible
It's essentially Ari Lax's list from last week, with the Tibalt change in the board because I don't like Archwing Dragon, and it gives me a way to turn extra lands late game into more aggression, and also gives me the potential to 7 them post Sphinx for a billion if the game goes that long. It's been testing fine online for the past few weeks, so I'm going to stick with it.
Essentially, my question is, am I missing something obvious? I don't like Hound because I haven't tested it at all, and it just feels wrong right now to me. I'm wondering if I should be playing Flames of the Firebrand or something in the board, but any last second idea's would be strong. I wont actually finalize my list until I get there, but this is the first major event I'm attending where I'm playing aggressive since GP Dallas 2008? I think it was (I've only played control since then in almost every format, but I recently discovered the love of having time between rounds).
Completely forgot about undying. Do you think in the GW Match-up it might just be better to cast an overloaded Mortars and win the game? I'm not sure. I haven't played Hound so I'm not sure how it plays in the match-up, just theory crafting here.