On the hound debate, I think if you want a 4 cost guy that can compete with the GW dudes, I think Bloodfray Giant would be better. Hound is a 2/2 so you can't side it in against any deck that runs Red (Pillar) and while it deals 2 points of first strike damage, dealing 5 points of Trample damage might be better in my opinion. Now, I haven't played either card, because I'm not a fan of what Hound does, and I don't think that the meta is in a place where this card is ever going to be better than Hellrider, but if you wanted an alternate to Hellrider, Giant swings for 5 on turn 5 trample damage, and with Lightning Mauler, that's 5 on 4 instead. Just a thought to consider. I'm indifferent either way because I don't think I'll be playing either, but it seems like the reasons people want Hound are filled just as easily by a 5 power dude that survives blocks and deals damage through any 3 power guy. Only Smiter is still a problem, but at least this guy still puts a point of damage through their Smiter if they block.
I played Touch-Blink when it was standard legal. It was RWU, and it ran Momentary Blink along with cards like Avalanche Riders and Bogardan Hellkites. The deck operated like a tempo-control deck and was absolutely insane late game. Also it ran Court Hussar. Anything that nets value when it comes into play, and then paired with Momentary Blink. Six mana, ten damage, and a 5/5 dragon are pretty good times.
I recently uncovered a package that had been misplaced while I was on deployment that contains the 5 Commander Theme decks. I opened one of them to kind of gauge the projected value, as I could not find them anywhere on the internet, other than Ebay as a set of five for 250. If anyone has any idea how much these are worth, I would greatly appreciate it. I am looking to build a commander deck, and I started with Intet as my general, and so if their projected value is low then I probably will just open all of them and build my commander deck from the cards. Thanks for any help.
yeah, well, you might not have initially had the chip on your shoulder that you were accused of. but now you sure do.
and fwiw, we seriously can't be repeating the same topics over and over again. there's a good reason we don't want to debate Vexing Devil or Rakdos Shred Freak anymore. we're trying to make progress on strategy and learn something new, not continuously rehash old debates.
Chip? No, but whatever. Boys will be boys.
Vexing Devil is an easy explanation, and it was given. Probably took the poster about 2 minutes to type. The same length of time that it probably took Zem to type out his post about not wanting to talk about it.
Shred Freak? Numbers and results don't lie, and it seems as though the card is worth discussing still.
@Gamester2488: In Z's defense, I don't think that your argument using the SCG results was very convincing. There are reasons to run mauler that do not apply to shred-freak; the results you posted suggest, to me, that both GHC and shred-freak are played roughly the same amount. It is not exactly conclusive evidence. Moreover, you're not talking about a lot of lists either; sure they're from a high-level event, but that's not much data to draw conclusions from.
It's 4 of 20 in a 600 person tournament. While not "conclusive" it's certainly more than we've seen in the past two months.
The argument isn't even Shred-Freak or Chainwalker anymore, so much as 2/1 Haste guys vs. Chainwalker. I think the 2/1 Haste guys are vastly superior than Chainwalker. The data shows that 2/1 haste guys aren't "strictly" worse than Chainwalker, even though that has been the argument lately, and then the fact that decks running 2/1 haste guys and no chainwalkers are doing fine (winning 600 people tournaments) means that Chainwalker vs. 2/1 guys isn't even relevant, as obviously if 2/1 haste guys were so much worse than Chainwalker, either this is the best deck in the format by a large margin to where suboptimal choices don't matter, OR the difference between the two is negligible.
@Lauphiette - Modo vs. Tournaments depends on what you are playing in on MODO. 2 mans have about the same value as casual play at the kitchen table. 8 Mans are about the equivalent of a super casual FNM. Not until you get into DE's do you really start getting results.
Most importantly I want to touch on the way card evaluation works. If two weeks ago my experience playing a deck and with a card leads me to believe Mauler is bad, then two weeks ago, my opinion is that Mauler is bad. Since that point in time, I've had 14 days where I can play Magic and opinions can change. Oddly enough, Chainwalker has decreased even more in value to me, as I never want it after turn 2 and I never want it in multiples. This means that I have to play four to see it reasonably on turn two, but I never want more than two in the deck so I can only see it once in a game. Shred Freak and Mauler both have increasing value over Chainwalker the longer the games goes along.
As for not playing four Brimstone Volley, it is the most mana efficient burn spell in the format when a creature dies. In this deck, that happens a lot. Five to the dome has won me countless games, both online and in real life.
Regardless, I believe at this point, I will only come back to the forums when a Red deck makes headlines. Doing so I can further point to the direction the format dictates the deck go, but I can also dodge having to deal with people who seem to be more apt and prone to negativity. It strikes me as odd that the only people any of the main Chainwalker supporters are kind towards, are in fact, other Chainwalker supporters. Obviously you all discussed the deck at a critical moment in it's development, thus developing a bond with each other.
Here's some advice, free of charge. You are on a forum. People aren't going to read through 35 pages of anything unless they truly want too. Most are coming here with a singular question that sifting through 35 pages would create an inefficient return of information. Answer their questions. If they start arguing, or making counter points, feel free to point them in the correct decision, but when it's a simple question such as, "why not play Vexing Devil in the current metagame?", answering it would be a lot less of a "douche bag" moment than getting all up in a tissy over the question and then typing out the tissy you are having and then still not answering said question. It would make you seem less like a jerk if you took two minutes to type a TL;DR version of why you should or shouldn't play such cards, then if they want to talk about direct them to the area's where points have been made for or against. Just saying. Throwing a fit when someone asks and going far enough as to TYPE it out is pretty bad.
That chip on your shoulder is pretty hilarious. The best part is that all you wanted to prove is that Shred-Freak is better than GHC and you can't even do that here.
List is fine, obviously very good in a field of aggro mirrors. Would love to face it with my midrange version of course, close to free-wins.
Honestly, 'I told you so' posts are pretty lame. Some SCG games mean a lot less to me than thousands of MODO games. I'd be more inclined to listen to you of your reasoning had not consisted of debating skills akin to climate skeptics.
It's funny how you call what I posted a "chip" on my shoulder, yet you don't even acknowledge the fact that these decks just placed in the top 20 of a 600+ player tournament. Thousands of MODO matches means zero if you aren't turning them into tournament results. Like the four individuals who played these decks and these cards have done this weekend.
The issue with my argument was that I was making an argument for a card without making the most important one. The match-ups where Shred-Freak is better than Chainwalker are match-ups where your two drop is actually important. The match-ups where Chainwalker is better than Shred-Freak, it's only marginally better and neither card is good in the match-up to begin with. Not to mention all the x/3 stuff that Chainwalker trades with probably shouldn't even be on the board, as the actual best way to play the deck is use your burn spells to remove the one creature a turn they are putting out and killing them with 2/x's. The cards your burn spells can't beat are cards that are equally as good against Shred-Freak AND Chainwalker.
Summary;
Chainwalker is better against Green based decks. These decks are our worst match-up. Chainwalker probably should be sided out in this match-up regardless, in favor of cards like Mizzium Mortars, Conscripts, and other Threaten effects.
Shred-Freak is better against control decks. These decks tend to stabilize beginning on turn 3, where Chainwalker would be blanked damage wise. They also run a very thin line for a while, where at any point in time you could have them at the point where any damage off the top is enough to finish them off. Shred-Freak provides instantaneous damage post Wrath effect, where Chainwalker gives them an opportunity to have mana available for an answer, i.e, Charms and Angels.
Lightning Mauler is better in the R/x mirror as it increases the speed of your deck in comparison to theirs. In this match-up the faster deck is the winning deck, and missing an attack can be bad.
Finally, Shred-Freak off the top in a topdeck war is far more advantageous than a Chainwalker more often than not.
Thousands of games on MODO? Well, I've been grinding MODO and FNM in preparation for the SCG in Dallas. I've lost games because I didn't have Shred Freak and instead had Chainwalker. I've had games where I lost because I had Shred-Freak and not Chainwalker. I can tell you though that the games I lost where I had Shred-Freak and not Chainwalker, those games would have been incredibly rough regardless. The games I've lost where I was missing Shred-Freak? Those were games that were OVER if I had a Shred-Freak instead of the Chainwalker, instead of just advantageous.
I really just wanted to pop in and show the results of 2/1 haste guys vice 3/2 no haste in the two drop slot. I should have guessed that you would find a way to make a 600+ person tournament seem like the drop of a hat to you, but I also know that you've never even made top 16 of even a semi-large event. FNM and MODO are two very different places compared to GP's, SCG's, PTQ's and PT's.
Oh, and finally, I like how you respond to people who are asking for advice... They come to the forums and ask questions because it's convenient and it generates discussion. A lot better than just ALT + F and reading a bunch of out of context discussions from weeks ago. Not that you are interested in sharing information, or even discussing it, being that you are the end all be all of Mono Red, but you should probably work on your response a little bit. I mean, if you don't want to talk about something with someone, then you should probably not take the time to respond. It's a waste of everyone's time and effort. Not to mention it actually is a violation of forum rules, because it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Also, I don't know if you've played in a SCG Event, but you can only "get lucky" so many rounds before you actually have to concentrate during matches. Even if he dodged bad match-ups all day, he still has to be competent enough to win the event. His deck looked very strong.
All I have to say is 4 decks in the top 20, only 8 Chainwalkers. Seems like I'm not the only person who doubts this cards credibility. While Shred-Freak was less played than Chainwalker, 2/1 haste guys were over 2 to 1 in numbers over a 3/2 without haste.
In the match-ups where getting to five mana is reasonable, Conscripts does a lot more work than Hound and Thundermaw would do, as it can steal PW's, Angels, Thragtusks, etc. A Conscripts represents generally 6 points of damage or more in the match-ups its relevant in, while Hound and Thundermaw, in the same match-ups represent less damage. While Thundermaw and Hound both have their match-ups, my guess is that the pilot decided to sacrifice points in those match-ups to increase the match-up against stuff like Jund and Naya, where Thundermaw isn't finishing anyone off, and Conscripts can potentially get a ton of work done.
Shred-freak aside, it's damn near impossible to take someone seriously who's spitting out ridiculous garbage as facts. You didn't look at what you where reading?
Going back to two-drops, the fact that you STATED that aggro decks aren't winning after turn 4/5 yet you use being a good topdeck as reasons for favoring shred freak seems...flawed. Whatever.
Regarding pillar, it should be based off of how aggressive your local meta is. If there are significant numbers of R/X aggro in your area, you probably want maindeck pillar and possibly even the MODO geistflame tech(absurd in the mirror). So basically, the answer is, It depends.
Normally when one reads an article talking about decks from a previous tournament, it's safe to assume the top placing deck is the one that will be highlighted. Mental shortcuts aside, I didn't read the title of the deck list when it was posted that said it was 9th place.
In aggressive v aggressive match-ups, the game can stalemate. The 4/5 turn clock is against decks that run multiple Thrags and Sphix Revelations, and killing them before those come online is absolutely necessary to ensure victory. However, you can beat a single Thrag, and if they try to Verdict/Terminus you, having Shred Freak over Chainwalker helps you actually have something resembling reach. It lets you win games that don't end on turn 5. In the aggressive match-ups, the games very rarely end on turn 4/5 because dudes will be trading, and you should be trading burn spells for their guys, which lengthens your clock a bit.
Anyway, it's stupid to continue discussing this. I made a mistake, and took a mental shortcut, and you aren't the kind of person I try to associate with anyway, since aggressive and rude comments directed at an individual are something you condone. Way to represent yourself bud.
In fact, every deck with blue (in the Top 8) except that Esper deck runs 3+ Augurs.
This is pretty dumb statement to make though, considering you are on a forum talking about a mono red deck. There's nothing wrong about it.
__
Anyway, I played FNM to a 3-0 today.
FNM Summary:
First match was up against G/W aggro. Thankfully, I have 4 Mizzium Mortars in the board and blew up his Smiters every time. Restoration Angel is really rough but I still wouldn't run more than one Thunderbolt in the board since it's so useless against other cards.
There's not much to be said that hasn't already been said. If there was an instant way to kill an x/4, this match up would be a lot easier. As it stands, EOT Restoration Angel into Silverblade + Rancor, as always, is ****.
And if it happens Game 1, I wish you the best of luck with your Mortars draws on Games 2 and 3.
~
Second match is against Grixis.
His deck is essentially Jund deck in the sense that it is chock full of removal and relies on Olivia, Niv-Mizzet, Gilded Lotus and Nicol Bolas.
Very dangerous deck actually, because he had so much removal and the ability to look for more - unlike Jund - that he could run me dry of a 5-card creature hand entirely with single-target removal.
Thankfully, he kept a loose hand in game 1 and I nutdrew him.
Game 2, he plays a very strong game, clearing out my 3-4 threats including a Hellrider and Hound of Griselbrand (I brought that in for resiliency but it got Pillar'd). He plays Olivia which I promptly swing into with a Cackler and Pillar it for the kill, but a Niv-Mizzet drops and all I have is a Mountain.
Game 3, he stumbles and I punish him harshly for it.
~
Third match is against a Mono Red deck, I think it was Sledgehammer.
Nothing notable here really. He had really odd draws and keeps, the only creature aside from Thundermaw I saw him play was an Ash Zealot and a single Stromkirk Noble. Otherwise he only played burn and reacted to my threats.
However, he got up to 6 land with a Thundermaw on the board. I have Hellrider and Hound on my side with a Flames of the Firebrand and Pillar in my hand (I could've killed his Thundermaw the turn before, but played Hound instead so I could threaten lethal with my burn if he did nothing about my creatures).
He plays Pillar on my Hound, Searing Spear on my Hellrider, Thundermaws and Brimstones my face putting me down to 5 and in range of another dragon attack.
I win thanks to killing his dragon, then drawing a Thundermaw to close him out, but Brimstone is pretty insane in the mirror for getting value out of all the creature-burning.
tl;dr
I find Hound of Griselbrand really bad right now with a lot of the decks capable of splashing Red and running Pillar of Flame. It's not mainboardable any more I feel, and isn't even so good against G/W now that they are running Restoration Angel en-masse. I don't like it, but 2 Thunderbolt in the board on top of 4 Mizzium Mortars might make this match-up quite a bit easier. Those are the only cards I have problems with.
Brimstone Volley is pretty sweet, might be better than Flames of the Firebrand mainboard as a 2-of like Flames has been.
Thundermaw mainboard is really nice, I'm running 2 and another land instead of 3 Hound. I side it out to Zealous Conscripts in a lot of match-ups because I know they are bringing in and saving removal for my dragons.
Throughout the night, whether my 2-drop had been Chainwalker or Shred-Freak wouldn't have made a difference in terms of on the board. HOWEVER, running 2 Hellion Crucibles, had my Chainwalkers been Shred-Freaks, I often wouldn't have been able to cast them. So anyone considering them has to cut Crucibles down to a singleton, I think. For the sake of consistency and having 8 RR 2-drops.
And all of these are without the new Naya deck in mind (except that Hound thing).
Again, I didn't even look at what I was reading. The list is from Matt Hoey, who finished 9th. I got the list from Patrick Chapin's article dissecting the decks that performed at the Invitational.
The problem I'm having with the discussion is that I don't understand the logic people are presenting. Until tonight at FNM, while talking about the list with some buddies, did I realize exactly why Shred Freak is better. I'm going to make a final attempt to explain my reasoning behind playing Shred Freak over Chainwalker before I let you play the cards you choose.
To start, no, I'm not mad. I actually don't have any opinion on what other people play. It makes no difference, as the outcome of your matches means absolutely nothing to the outcome of mine. In fact, the more "optimal" other people's lists are, the less likely I am in future events to do well... the more well tuned versions of whatever I'm playing that do well, the more well prepared people will be for whatever it is I'm playing. So, Neophyte, I'm not mad, I just don't like wasting time, and this discussion is borderline a waste of time at this point.
In a vacuum, Shred Freak will do more damage by the start of turn four than Chainwalker. On the play against "mana dork" decks, Shred Freak will at the very least get one attack in before they shut him down. The cards that do so are Wolfir Avenger, Centaur Healer, and that Ooze card that beat my face in tonight (though, it was because he turn 2'd it then turn 3'd triple Rancor...), just as a quick few cards. These cards all have something in common though, they trade with Chainwalker. Now, what does that mean? Trading with anything is bad. Getting shut down is worse but trading is almost as bad. Why? Well, this deck relies on consistent pressure. You aren't going to curve out perfectly every time. In fact, chances are very likely you won't curve out. So, keeping dudes on the table is incredibly important. What does Centaur Healer and Avenger have in common? They both die to Searing Spear. This is key here, because in a deck that only runs one three drop, spending a turn to Spear is actually fine. Not to mention, trading a 3 damage spell for 2 damage with Shred Freak is actually just fine. This is because now you've actually just blanked them a turn.
Then there is the fact that every single turn after the second Chainwalker loses value. On turn three Chainwalker is pretty bad, and it gets significantly worse every turn after that... In the midrangy match-ups, like the BG decks or even Jund Midrange, the games come down to a bunch of trades, whether it be dudes for dudes, or dudes for spells. In this match, the more consistently you can deal damage, the better. When you get into a top deck war against a Midrange deck, Chainwalker is about the last card you actually want to draw. Shred Freak is super strong off the top, and even better if you manage to survive past turn four and keep your Hellrider.
Now, the biggest conclusion I was guided to, was that if you play Shred Freak, your one drops have to change a bit. Maybe not change, but you have to play Stonewright. This makes your turn three that much stronger, and if you turn one Stonewright, and turn two Shred Freak, you actually just force your opponent to do so much more than they normally would want to, and you actually get to conserve cards for when you need to have cards in hand.
The last thing I want to comment on, because it's late and I'm not even sure I'm making sense anymore, is the reason why I would play Shred Freak over Lightning Mauler. The cards I run in the deck that don't have Haste already are my one drops and Pyreheart Wolf. I think giving those haste and it mattering vs. not having Haste in a top deck battle is close, however, I think if you want to play a 2/1 haste, it's because you want to be able to play it off the top if you draw it on three and don't have a Pyreheart Wolf. So, if you are playing it with dudes in play, Lightning Mauler is better because it gives more options the longer it stays in play. However, in the situations where Shred Freak is better than Chainwalker, Shred Freak is also better than Lightning Mauler. AKA after the initial warzone on the front lines has settled and you and your opponent are playing off the top, or when your Bant opponent hits that Blind Miracled Terminus the turn they were gonna die without having proper mana to cast a Supreme Verdict (I'm not bitter I swear) because they missplayed their mana.
Anyway, like I said, I'm not really into the debate mind set. I don't like to spend too much time on a forum, mostly because at the end of the day card selection changes based on the pilot, and arguing over nuances is insignificant in the long haul. You guys keep Chainwalking, and I'll keep on Shred Freaking (I play two Chainwalkers in my list).
I know for a fact tonight that at least three games were won off Shred Freaking enough times in a top deck war, and I actually lost a game because my turn 2 was Chainwalker and NOT Shred Freak. I did win a game off Chainwalker because my opponent top decked an Ooze and couldn't swing with it (he was at 3) and had to keep it back to block my Chainwalker... giving me enough time to draw into the burn spell to win the game. Oh, and once I had a Brimstone Volley and I couldn't turn it on because I had a Chainwalker who got chump blocked by Lotlath Troll or w//e. It ended up not mattering though, and most of the time, nothing really mattered as I was just playing dudes and bashing, not really caring what the card was.
----------------------------------
I do have one question not related to the two drop slot... Pillar maindeck or no? I've seen lists with it, and some without, and I was curious. It seemed underwhelming in most of my matches and I've considered moving it to the board.
I literally do not care anymore. I don't know why I began to care anyway. You have a misrepresentation of the meta game, you don't understand nuances of card interactions, and I assume you probably haven't grinded as many games with the control decks as you may have against them. Say what you will, but I'm done wasting my time talking about which two drop I think is better, because at the end of the day, you aren't going to listen to what I have to say because you have a belief system that revolves around what you believe the meta game to be, and I have a belief system that revolves around what I've seen the meta game to be. I will continue to play Shred Freak until Supreme Verdict and Terminus and Azorous Charm stop being more abundantly played than Faithmender and Centaur Healer and other 1/x's.
Oh, and I missed Todd Andersons deck. The list I saw from the Top 8 was the one that finished better than him, and it ran 0 Augurs. Reid Duke ran 3 and not 2 like I initially said, I looked at an older list, and the Esper Deck finished in the Top 8 of an Invitational and was played by an extremely skilled pilot, so saying their list is "garbage" or whatever you said is pretty arrogant, considering you are on a forum talking about a mono red deck, so clearly you didn't top 8 an invitational. I'm just saying.... When talking about deck lists, until you have some real credentials, you shouldn't call successful decks "garbage." Obviously they did something right.
Oh, I wasn't saying you should be sideboarding it, I was more referring to the fact that people have made that argument for it in the past (that it's a good sideboard card vs control) when really there are much better cards.
Good then we agree that your two drop shouldn't be in the sideboard.
A 2/1 haste for 2 actually IS pretty bad. The card isn't even very good in RTR limited. It will often get one hit in, the problem lies in the fact that it often becomes irrelevant on offence shortly after that one hit while a Chainwalker will still be able to keep attacking (Centaur Healer, Dreg Mangler, Wolfir Avenger, Izzet Staticaster being some relevant 3 drops Shred-Freak can't fight). Chainwalker also doesn't fear Knight of Glory, mana dorks that decide to block (they usually won't early but later on they'll be pretty happy to trade their 1 mana dork for your 2 drop) and is slightly less embarrassing against Lingering Souls.
A 2/1 with haste is not bad. Let me repeat this again. It is on par with strong one drops and bad three drops in terms of stats for cost and efficiency. Let me also remind you that constructed and limited are vastly different formats where different cards are playable. There a plethora of two and three drops in limited that eat Shred Freak that are not good in constructed because they don't contain enough value. Shred Freak is naturally bad in Limited the same way that 2/1's often are. Just because a creature is bad in limited however, does not make it bad in constructed. For example, Delver of Secrets, one of the strongest creatures in the past three years is absolutely abysmal in limited outside of very gimmicky draft decks. Now, regarding the creatures that will be blocking Shred Freak:
Centaur Healer - Not heavily played any longer. If you have SCG Premium you can read Patrick Chapins discussions on the meta game and how Healer has all but been replaced by Faithmender.
Dreg Mangler - Not played
Wolfir Avenger - Not played
Staticaster - In the decks that run it main deck, it's just as good against Chainwalker if not better because of Peddler. The decks that run it in the board won't be bringing it in for this match-up however, as it doesn't kill anything other than Shred Freak.
Knight of Glory - Hit or miss. Some GW lists run it, some do not.
Lingering Souls - All but extinct from the format
Mana Dorks - I'll gladly trade my Shred Freak for your Mana Dork on turn 1. After that I don't even care if you trade it with my Shred Freak because I'm ending the game on turn 4-5 every single game. So, at that point it doesn't even matter anymore. I, as well as any other mono red deck, is aiming to end the game on turn 4 off Hellrider. Turn 5 is considered pretty slow, and if I'm killing them on turn 6 or later, I can assure you it's not Chainwalker or Shred Freak doing the killing.
Giving Pyreheart Wolf haste is actually pretty strong, or just dropping it with a Cackler/Noble on turn 3 can be decent. Pairing him with a Hound of Griselbrand is a pretty strong play as well. The fact of the matter is Lightning Mauler can be both a Shred-Freak OR something better in most circumstances. Sure there are some situations (like after a wrath) where he might not be able to haste and get in right away but that's just one disadvantage compared with the many benefits he gives you over Shred-Freak. I don't even like Lightning Mauler but it's the better card overall. Shred-Freak is just all sorts of bad
I don't build my magic decks around sub optimal lines of play. So, I will never build a magic deck with Lightning Mauler because it induces sub-optimal lines of play. Such as playing a 2/1 non-hasted creature on turn 2 because I don't want to bond with my one drop, or skipping my three drop in favor of a second one drop and a two drop. Those are the plays that make Lightning Mauler good, and therefor, I will never play this card. Giving Pyreheart Wolf haste is pretty bad when you are doing it to swing for 5. Not to mention the same cards that are stopping Shred Freak and going to stop your Pyreheart Wolf on turn 3 just as often.
Summary, Lightning Maulers "benefits" are the type of benefits that are only beneficial when making sub-optimal lines of play. Far more common is Supreme Verdict and Terminus than is a reason to give my Pyreheart Haste.
That Bant Control deck you refer to (Reid Duke's list) runs Augur of Bolas. Why would you want any part of Shred-Freak against a 2 drop that makes it impossible for him to attack? He also has Faithmenders which further make Shred-Freak look silly (Chainwalker can still join in on an alpha strike without fear of dying and can add to Hellrider triggers even in the face of Faithmender). I'm not sure what Esper lists have been doing well but if they run Lingering Souls and/or Sorin I once again want no part of Shred-Freak.
I actually switched from Bant Control to this. I did very well at GP San Antonio with Bant Control, and I ran 2 Augurs. This is also the norm in Bant Control. The actual chance of me casting an Augur on turn 2 vice casting a Farseek is very, very low. Even in the Mono Red match-up. If I'm on the play and I know they have Shred Freak, I'm probably still casting a turn 2 Farseek so I can still cast my turn 3 Faithmender. You know what card stops a turn 2 Chainwalker? A turn 3 Faithmender. I mean, you can attack into it, but I'm going to be gaining 2 life. You know what stops a turn 2 Shred Freak? Not a turn 3 Faithmender, at least, until turn 3. So instead of giving me two life, I'll be losing two life. Oh, and you can still swing Shred Freak in on an alpha strike to get the Hellrider trigger because well, if you are killing them with the trigger it doesn't even matter if it dies. Oh, also, Brimstone Volley would like a word. You know what doesn't turn on Volley? A Chainwalker swinging into a Faithmender. You know what does? A Shred Freak running into a Faithmender. Thats how you are killing them on turn 6 if you get to that point.
Esper is the flavor of the month on Modo after it top 8'ed? or Top 16'ed (I can't remember) the SCG Invitational.
Which midrange decks are you referring to? It's hard to really compare the cards when you're being awfully vague about what decks we're talking about. There are a lot of midrange decks in the format right now (G/W, Naya, UWR, Jund, Junk among others).
Junk is a non-factor in the metagame. GW is not a Midrange deck because they are killing you on turn four 11 different ways. And is our worst match-up regardless. Naya is awkward right now and UWR is awful for our two drops not named Ash Zealot regardless (because they are perfectly fine trading Snapcaster for a guy). Jund is also non-existent since it's abysmal showing at San Antonio.
Well the problem here is that you seem to think Chainwalker is better than Shred-Freak in only one matchup while in reality it's actually better in most matchups.
This is an opinion. I've stated reasons why Shred Freak is better than Chainwalker in a ton of match-ups, i.e, the ones that actually matter, whereas you are making claims with no actual arguments to back up your statement. Because I said so is not a valid point. Just thought I'd clear that up.
One of them dies straight-up to Staticaster while the other lives and can attack through it, yet they are somehow equal? Sorry but you're not making any sense here.
Staticaster is awful against us. Shred Freak is the only card it kills, so chances are very likely they aren't going to be siding it in against us. In the match-ups where it's actually main decked (Peddler reanimator), Peddler + Staticaster kills both equally. Difference being Shred Freak attacks for 2 first, and sometimes, it gets to attack twice.
Only one card? What about Stonewright or a freshly played Noble? It also teams up with other cards like Restoration Angel or Augur of Bolas to kill x/2s and can team up with Pillar of Flame or Snapcaster to remove a Hellrider. Even just on its own it resembles a functional removal spell for a Cackler or Ash Zealot by being a blocker. Saying it only deals with one card couldn't be further from the truth.
They are dead on four or five, otherwise we're losing the game. So, a freshly played one drop is actually a blank. It teams up well sure, but what are the realistic chances of it living until turn 4? It gets one activation. By that point I've already swung for a ton. If they are wasting time playing a Staticaster that does nothing on its own then I'd say we're pretty happy about that. Against hyper aggressive decks, the best way to beat them is resource management, and all the decks that have access to Staticaster want to be doing just about anything else in the world besides durdling around with a Staticaster. Theoretically speaking Staticaster is "fine," but there is a reason why you have to playtest games and not work in theory. I've probably played close to 50 games against Staticaster in the past two months, both with and against. How many have you?
Azorius Charm is pretty much always going to be bad for us. No one wants to draw a Rakdos Cackler or a Stromkirk Noble on turn 3 or later, those are pretty much the worst cards in our deck at that point other than (maybe) more land (depending how many we have access to). Playing one card to maybe make your deck better against it (with cards like Augur of Bolas or Staticaster also being played by those decks it's arguable whether it will even be good against it every time) isn't worth it when you're making your deck worse against the meta as a whole.
The UWR decks from the Invitational ran 0 Augurs. Staticaster is bad against this deck, but if you believe it to be good, I hope you are my opponent every round.
Care to share what you believe the meta to be? Because I'm pretty sure after Red decks the remaining meta game consists of top end control decks (OmniDoor, Esper, Bant), Reanimator variants, and G/x decks. Against how many of these decks is Chainwalker actually better than Shred Freak? Half the G/x decks? All things being equal, that makes it better in 25% of the match-ups.
Except the decks that play those cards (Verdict, Terminus, Charm) are also playing Augur of Bolas, Faithmender, and Thragtusk or Staticaster depending on their 3rd color so it's not even always better than Chainwalker. And against the decks not playing those cards it's almost always going to be inferior.
Except nobody is running Augur. Faithmender comes down on turn 3 at the earliest, which, on the draw, means you aren't swinging with Chainwalker even one time, against Thragtusk they are definitely okay with the trade, and I can assure you once again, that having to use two cards to deal with every card in the deck makes Staticaster bad in this match-up. If it takes them two cards to kill one, then they are dying on turn 4-5. Games are not ending on turn 4-5 when I play Chainwalker. They are when I play Shred Freak.
I have to agree with Dromar. I would also be running Lightning Maulers over Shred-Freaks if ever I need a 2cc haste creature. The flexibilty of making your other creatures gain haste is such a plus. I find it really effective against control. If my opponents would sweep the board and I have a mauler and another creature in hand, I would usually have 2 hasted creatures compared to just 1 with shred freak.
Lightning Mauler does not have haste on turn two, unless you are sacrificing value. I covered it more above. After their turn 4 Supreme Verdict, my Shred Freak is putting them back on the ropes, whereas Lightning Mauler is essentially a time walk for them.
You almost always play Chainwalker before you play Ash Zealot because it leads to a higher damage output (5 damage after two attack steps as opposed to just 4). I won't say there's no situations where it's right to play Zealot first but they are very few and far between.
As for Shred-Freak the card is honestly really bad and I don't advise playing it at all. Not only are there many creatures it can't attack into that Gore-House Chainwalker can, but it's embarrassing against Izzet Staticaster which is seeing a lot of sideboard play of late. If you really want a 2/1 haste for 2 Lightning Mauler has way more versatility (and even he is still pretty poor). People say Shred-Freak is a good sideboard against control decks with few creatures but those decks are few and far between in Standard (mostly just Bant decks which have been dwindling in popularity). Not to mention that we have a card that's much better against those control decks anyways in Stonewright which happens to still be strong in other matchups too. I'd much rather side in additional Stonewrights before I side in Shred-Freaks vs control.
First, if you aren't playing maindeck Shred Freak, you shouldn't be playing it at all. There are much better situational cards against control, including Stonewright.
Now, a 2/1 Haste for 2 is not bad. In fact, in this format there aren't many things Shred Freak won't attack into on turn 2 and even turn 3 on the play.
My comment regarding which you play first was an attempt to show how different game play scenario's lead to different lines of play where different cards are better/worse than counter-parts, and not an actual question... rhetoric question that attempted to put a different spin on a discussion that's being met with a brick wall.
Let me make this clear. Shred Freak is going to be better than Lightning Mauler almost every single time. Lightning Mauler does less damage than Shred Freak unless you waste the soulbond with your one drop who's already attacking, and the only time I would say Lightning Mauler is better is in versions that already run Chainwalker anyway, as it turns your Chainwalker into a 3/2 with haste on turn 4 if you don't have Hellrider.
As for the meta game, the most popular control deck (and the one that just won the inventational) is Bant Control. Also the Esper Control list has been popping up in the past week, and Omni Door was played by LSV to a 4-0 record in a daily, which has in turn spiked it's popularity. Those are all top heavy control decks where Shred Freak is better than Chainwalker. Then there are the mindrange decks where you have to have them dead by turn 5 at the latest before their end game is online and your drawing dead, and in that match-up Shred Freak hits faster than Chainwalker. Finally, in the GW match-up, game one Chainwalker would be better. However, I'm siding out both regardless in this match-up for more removal, so why would I play a card that's better in one match-up (that's poor for us) who is going to be sided out in said match-up every single time anyway. You are talking about minute percentages here where Chainwalker is "better" than Shred Freak, and the amount of gain you get from playing Chainwalker over Shred Freak does not negate OR equal the amount of advantage you gain from playing Shred Freak over Chainwalker.
Regarding Staticaster (and a lesser extend, Peddler combo) Shred Freak and Chainwalker are actually equal here. Especially considering I don't think siding in Staticaster is actually good in this match-up, especially since it deals with exactly one card that they may or may not have seen in game one. These are also the same match-ups where our opponent has access to Azorious Charm (which is actually more popular, more widespread, and far more likely to be run into than almost any card previously listed as a Shred Freak counter) which is actually an incredibly strong play against Chainwalker. Guess what card it is NOT good against? That's right, Shred Freak.
People keep making points that Chainwalker is better, but they fail to realize the following:
You are arguing that Shred Freak is bad against cards that aren't played or aren't brought in for this match-up, forgetting that some of the most played cards in the format (Supreme Verdict, Terminus, Azorous Charm) actually favor us playing Shred Freak.
Gore-House Chainwalker does more damage because it doesn't get blocked as often, and the Faithmender blocks/kills Shred-Freak. The same logic could be applied in reverse, if you attack with the Chainwalker and they block with Faithmender then you could pay 1 mana to exile the Faithmender with a Pillar.
Please be realistic, G/W players don't block on turn 2 with their mana dorks.
So this list that was provided that put two mana dorks as reasons why Shred Freak is bad is actually just two less reasons not to play Shred Freak... That was my point. The list that was provided as reasoning behind not playing Shred Freak had maybe 2 cards on it that actually matter in the meta game. If they have a Faithmender and you are attacking a Chainwalker into it, then you can Searing Spear it just as easily as you can Pillar it. Difference is, if you don't have the turn 2 Chainwalker, but they have the turn 3 Faithmender, which card is going to be better to draw later? The answer is most likely Shred Freak.
Also, most of this discussion is irrelevant, because how often are you going to only have one creature attacking? How often is your turn 1 drop going to be Cackler and give them easy decisions when choosing what to block? How often would you realistically want to actually play Chainwalker before Ash Zealot? Especially if you have Pyreheart Wolf in hand? In this scenario which one is better, Shred Freak or Chainwalker?
Please, do not ask me to be realistic without actually understanding the logic behind my arguments. You clearly didn't put two and two together when talking about mana dorks blocking, insisting it seems that I am a moron, instead of actually understanding I'm making the argument as to why mana dorks aren't a "counter" to Shred Freak, as was previously suggested.
Edit: Regarding GW. Neither creature is good in this mtach-up, and I have sided both out when playing against GW in favor of cards that actually do something.
commonly played cards off the top of my head where I'd much rather have gore-house in hand than shred-freak. Gore-house chainwalker is just much better than shred-freak against alot of the popular cards of the format which is what I personally prefer in a maindeck creature. Not to say rakdos shred-freak is bad, since he can be a strong sideboard option against tempo or control decks if they make up a large part of your meta.
Shred Freak is almost always a better top deck. Shred Freak is better after a turn 4 Hellrider. Shred Freak is better after a turn 3 Pyreheart Wolf on turn 4 if you end up having to play two 2 drops. Shred Freak is better in the mirror if you need to block to survive. Shred Freak forces your opponent to decide how important their turn 1 mana dork is, and sometimes killing it on turn 2 is important. In fact, since we're talking about the mana dorks, lets look at a common line of play:
Turn 1 Mountain, Cackler
Turn 1 Forest, Pilgrim
Turn 2 Mountain, Shred Freak swing for 4. Do they block? If they do, you just prevented the turn 2 Smiter. If they played an Arbor Elf you prevented a turn 2 Ooze.
Now, imagine this is your turn 2:
Mountain, Chainwalker swing 2. No blocks
Turn 2 Plains Smiter.
Suddenly that Chainwalker looks pretty bad. Smiter is just as common in the G/x decks as mana dorks. Or, why would they trade when they have the opportunity to cast a turn 3 Huntmaster? Or Restoration Angel? If you ask me, I'd rather them block my Shred Freak on two, which buys me a whole turn to cast my Pyreheart into Hellrider and win the game. At that point, the turn 2 Shred Freak actually allowed you to maintain on offensive mind set, whereas if you played a Chainwalker, suddenly you have a 3/2 who can't block their 4/4 Smiter. You know who wins those races? The 4/4 who gets Rancor'ed and Sublimed.
I can't actually think of one match-up where I would legitimately want Chainwalker over Shred Freak, EXCEPT for the Junk Tokens match-up. How many Junk Tokens were at the last SCG Invitational? 4% of the meta.
I'm actually X-0 against Lingering Souls decks at FNM in two weeks. I've also never lost to a Lingering Souls online. The cards I'm losing to are Smiters, Silverblade Paladins and multiple Thragtusks. Chainwalker doesn't actually help against any of those cards.
Chip? No, but whatever. Boys will be boys.
Vexing Devil is an easy explanation, and it was given. Probably took the poster about 2 minutes to type. The same length of time that it probably took Zem to type out his post about not wanting to talk about it.
Shred Freak? Numbers and results don't lie, and it seems as though the card is worth discussing still.
It's 4 of 20 in a 600 person tournament. While not "conclusive" it's certainly more than we've seen in the past two months.
The argument isn't even Shred-Freak or Chainwalker anymore, so much as 2/1 Haste guys vs. Chainwalker. I think the 2/1 Haste guys are vastly superior than Chainwalker. The data shows that 2/1 haste guys aren't "strictly" worse than Chainwalker, even though that has been the argument lately, and then the fact that decks running 2/1 haste guys and no chainwalkers are doing fine (winning 600 people tournaments) means that Chainwalker vs. 2/1 guys isn't even relevant, as obviously if 2/1 haste guys were so much worse than Chainwalker, either this is the best deck in the format by a large margin to where suboptimal choices don't matter, OR the difference between the two is negligible.
@Lauphiette - Modo vs. Tournaments depends on what you are playing in on MODO. 2 mans have about the same value as casual play at the kitchen table. 8 Mans are about the equivalent of a super casual FNM. Not until you get into DE's do you really start getting results.
Most importantly I want to touch on the way card evaluation works. If two weeks ago my experience playing a deck and with a card leads me to believe Mauler is bad, then two weeks ago, my opinion is that Mauler is bad. Since that point in time, I've had 14 days where I can play Magic and opinions can change. Oddly enough, Chainwalker has decreased even more in value to me, as I never want it after turn 2 and I never want it in multiples. This means that I have to play four to see it reasonably on turn two, but I never want more than two in the deck so I can only see it once in a game. Shred Freak and Mauler both have increasing value over Chainwalker the longer the games goes along.
As for not playing four Brimstone Volley, it is the most mana efficient burn spell in the format when a creature dies. In this deck, that happens a lot. Five to the dome has won me countless games, both online and in real life.
Regardless, I believe at this point, I will only come back to the forums when a Red deck makes headlines. Doing so I can further point to the direction the format dictates the deck go, but I can also dodge having to deal with people who seem to be more apt and prone to negativity. It strikes me as odd that the only people any of the main Chainwalker supporters are kind towards, are in fact, other Chainwalker supporters. Obviously you all discussed the deck at a critical moment in it's development, thus developing a bond with each other.
Here's some advice, free of charge. You are on a forum. People aren't going to read through 35 pages of anything unless they truly want too. Most are coming here with a singular question that sifting through 35 pages would create an inefficient return of information. Answer their questions. If they start arguing, or making counter points, feel free to point them in the correct decision, but when it's a simple question such as, "why not play Vexing Devil in the current metagame?", answering it would be a lot less of a "douche bag" moment than getting all up in a tissy over the question and then typing out the tissy you are having and then still not answering said question. It would make you seem less like a jerk if you took two minutes to type a TL;DR version of why you should or shouldn't play such cards, then if they want to talk about direct them to the area's where points have been made for or against. Just saying. Throwing a fit when someone asks and going far enough as to TYPE it out is pretty bad.
It's funny how you call what I posted a "chip" on my shoulder, yet you don't even acknowledge the fact that these decks just placed in the top 20 of a 600+ player tournament. Thousands of MODO matches means zero if you aren't turning them into tournament results. Like the four individuals who played these decks and these cards have done this weekend.
The issue with my argument was that I was making an argument for a card without making the most important one. The match-ups where Shred-Freak is better than Chainwalker are match-ups where your two drop is actually important. The match-ups where Chainwalker is better than Shred-Freak, it's only marginally better and neither card is good in the match-up to begin with. Not to mention all the x/3 stuff that Chainwalker trades with probably shouldn't even be on the board, as the actual best way to play the deck is use your burn spells to remove the one creature a turn they are putting out and killing them with 2/x's. The cards your burn spells can't beat are cards that are equally as good against Shred-Freak AND Chainwalker.
Summary;
Chainwalker is better against Green based decks. These decks are our worst match-up. Chainwalker probably should be sided out in this match-up regardless, in favor of cards like Mizzium Mortars, Conscripts, and other Threaten effects.
Shred-Freak is better against control decks. These decks tend to stabilize beginning on turn 3, where Chainwalker would be blanked damage wise. They also run a very thin line for a while, where at any point in time you could have them at the point where any damage off the top is enough to finish them off. Shred-Freak provides instantaneous damage post Wrath effect, where Chainwalker gives them an opportunity to have mana available for an answer, i.e, Charms and Angels.
Lightning Mauler is better in the R/x mirror as it increases the speed of your deck in comparison to theirs. In this match-up the faster deck is the winning deck, and missing an attack can be bad.
Finally, Shred-Freak off the top in a topdeck war is far more advantageous than a Chainwalker more often than not.
Thousands of games on MODO? Well, I've been grinding MODO and FNM in preparation for the SCG in Dallas. I've lost games because I didn't have Shred Freak and instead had Chainwalker. I've had games where I lost because I had Shred-Freak and not Chainwalker. I can tell you though that the games I lost where I had Shred-Freak and not Chainwalker, those games would have been incredibly rough regardless. The games I've lost where I was missing Shred-Freak? Those were games that were OVER if I had a Shred-Freak instead of the Chainwalker, instead of just advantageous.
I really just wanted to pop in and show the results of 2/1 haste guys vice 3/2 no haste in the two drop slot. I should have guessed that you would find a way to make a 600+ person tournament seem like the drop of a hat to you, but I also know that you've never even made top 16 of even a semi-large event. FNM and MODO are two very different places compared to GP's, SCG's, PTQ's and PT's.
Oh, and finally, I like how you respond to people who are asking for advice... They come to the forums and ask questions because it's convenient and it generates discussion. A lot better than just ALT + F and reading a bunch of out of context discussions from weeks ago. Not that you are interested in sharing information, or even discussing it, being that you are the end all be all of Mono Red, but you should probably work on your response a little bit. I mean, if you don't want to talk about something with someone, then you should probably not take the time to respond. It's a waste of everyone's time and effort. Not to mention it actually is a violation of forum rules, because it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.
11 Lightning Mauler
6 Rakdos Shred-Freak
8 Gorehouse Chainwalker
Ash Zealot was a 4 of in every RDW in the Top 20.
Also, I don't know if you've played in a SCG Event, but you can only "get lucky" so many rounds before you actually have to concentrate during matches. Even if he dodged bad match-ups all day, he still has to be competent enough to win the event. His deck looked very strong.
All I have to say is 4 decks in the top 20, only 8 Chainwalkers. Seems like I'm not the only person who doubts this cards credibility. While Shred-Freak was less played than Chainwalker, 2/1 haste guys were over 2 to 1 in numbers over a 3/2 without haste.
In the match-ups where getting to five mana is reasonable, Conscripts does a lot more work than Hound and Thundermaw would do, as it can steal PW's, Angels, Thragtusks, etc. A Conscripts represents generally 6 points of damage or more in the match-ups its relevant in, while Hound and Thundermaw, in the same match-ups represent less damage. While Thundermaw and Hound both have their match-ups, my guess is that the pilot decided to sacrifice points in those match-ups to increase the match-up against stuff like Jund and Naya, where Thundermaw isn't finishing anyone off, and Conscripts can potentially get a ton of work done.
Normally when one reads an article talking about decks from a previous tournament, it's safe to assume the top placing deck is the one that will be highlighted. Mental shortcuts aside, I didn't read the title of the deck list when it was posted that said it was 9th place.
In aggressive v aggressive match-ups, the game can stalemate. The 4/5 turn clock is against decks that run multiple Thrags and Sphix Revelations, and killing them before those come online is absolutely necessary to ensure victory. However, you can beat a single Thrag, and if they try to Verdict/Terminus you, having Shred Freak over Chainwalker helps you actually have something resembling reach. It lets you win games that don't end on turn 5. In the aggressive match-ups, the games very rarely end on turn 4/5 because dudes will be trading, and you should be trading burn spells for their guys, which lengthens your clock a bit.
Anyway, it's stupid to continue discussing this. I made a mistake, and took a mental shortcut, and you aren't the kind of person I try to associate with anyway, since aggressive and rude comments directed at an individual are something you condone. Way to represent yourself bud.
Again, I didn't even look at what I was reading. The list is from Matt Hoey, who finished 9th. I got the list from Patrick Chapin's article dissecting the decks that performed at the Invitational.
The problem I'm having with the discussion is that I don't understand the logic people are presenting. Until tonight at FNM, while talking about the list with some buddies, did I realize exactly why Shred Freak is better. I'm going to make a final attempt to explain my reasoning behind playing Shred Freak over Chainwalker before I let you play the cards you choose.
To start, no, I'm not mad. I actually don't have any opinion on what other people play. It makes no difference, as the outcome of your matches means absolutely nothing to the outcome of mine. In fact, the more "optimal" other people's lists are, the less likely I am in future events to do well... the more well tuned versions of whatever I'm playing that do well, the more well prepared people will be for whatever it is I'm playing. So, Neophyte, I'm not mad, I just don't like wasting time, and this discussion is borderline a waste of time at this point.
In a vacuum, Shred Freak will do more damage by the start of turn four than Chainwalker. On the play against "mana dork" decks, Shred Freak will at the very least get one attack in before they shut him down. The cards that do so are Wolfir Avenger, Centaur Healer, and that Ooze card that beat my face in tonight (though, it was because he turn 2'd it then turn 3'd triple Rancor...), just as a quick few cards. These cards all have something in common though, they trade with Chainwalker. Now, what does that mean? Trading with anything is bad. Getting shut down is worse but trading is almost as bad. Why? Well, this deck relies on consistent pressure. You aren't going to curve out perfectly every time. In fact, chances are very likely you won't curve out. So, keeping dudes on the table is incredibly important. What does Centaur Healer and Avenger have in common? They both die to Searing Spear. This is key here, because in a deck that only runs one three drop, spending a turn to Spear is actually fine. Not to mention, trading a 3 damage spell for 2 damage with Shred Freak is actually just fine. This is because now you've actually just blanked them a turn.
Then there is the fact that every single turn after the second Chainwalker loses value. On turn three Chainwalker is pretty bad, and it gets significantly worse every turn after that... In the midrangy match-ups, like the BG decks or even Jund Midrange, the games come down to a bunch of trades, whether it be dudes for dudes, or dudes for spells. In this match, the more consistently you can deal damage, the better. When you get into a top deck war against a Midrange deck, Chainwalker is about the last card you actually want to draw. Shred Freak is super strong off the top, and even better if you manage to survive past turn four and keep your Hellrider.
Now, the biggest conclusion I was guided to, was that if you play Shred Freak, your one drops have to change a bit. Maybe not change, but you have to play Stonewright. This makes your turn three that much stronger, and if you turn one Stonewright, and turn two Shred Freak, you actually just force your opponent to do so much more than they normally would want to, and you actually get to conserve cards for when you need to have cards in hand.
The last thing I want to comment on, because it's late and I'm not even sure I'm making sense anymore, is the reason why I would play Shred Freak over Lightning Mauler. The cards I run in the deck that don't have Haste already are my one drops and Pyreheart Wolf. I think giving those haste and it mattering vs. not having Haste in a top deck battle is close, however, I think if you want to play a 2/1 haste, it's because you want to be able to play it off the top if you draw it on three and don't have a Pyreheart Wolf. So, if you are playing it with dudes in play, Lightning Mauler is better because it gives more options the longer it stays in play. However, in the situations where Shred Freak is better than Chainwalker, Shred Freak is also better than Lightning Mauler. AKA after the initial warzone on the front lines has settled and you and your opponent are playing off the top, or when your Bant opponent hits that Blind Miracled Terminus the turn they were gonna die without having proper mana to cast a Supreme Verdict (I'm not bitter I swear) because they missplayed their mana.
Anyway, like I said, I'm not really into the debate mind set. I don't like to spend too much time on a forum, mostly because at the end of the day card selection changes based on the pilot, and arguing over nuances is insignificant in the long haul. You guys keep Chainwalking, and I'll keep on Shred Freaking (I play two Chainwalkers in my list).
I know for a fact tonight that at least three games were won off Shred Freaking enough times in a top deck war, and I actually lost a game because my turn 2 was Chainwalker and NOT Shred Freak. I did win a game off Chainwalker because my opponent top decked an Ooze and couldn't swing with it (he was at 3) and had to keep it back to block my Chainwalker... giving me enough time to draw into the burn spell to win the game. Oh, and once I had a Brimstone Volley and I couldn't turn it on because I had a Chainwalker who got chump blocked by Lotlath Troll or w//e. It ended up not mattering though, and most of the time, nothing really mattered as I was just playing dudes and bashing, not really caring what the card was.
----------------------------------
I do have one question not related to the two drop slot... Pillar maindeck or no? I've seen lists with it, and some without, and I was curious. It seemed underwhelming in most of my matches and I've considered moving it to the board.
Oh, and I missed Todd Andersons deck. The list I saw from the Top 8 was the one that finished better than him, and it ran 0 Augurs. Reid Duke ran 3 and not 2 like I initially said, I looked at an older list, and the Esper Deck finished in the Top 8 of an Invitational and was played by an extremely skilled pilot, so saying their list is "garbage" or whatever you said is pretty arrogant, considering you are on a forum talking about a mono red deck, so clearly you didn't top 8 an invitational. I'm just saying.... When talking about deck lists, until you have some real credentials, you shouldn't call successful decks "garbage." Obviously they did something right.
Good then we agree that your two drop shouldn't be in the sideboard.
A 2/1 with haste is not bad. Let me repeat this again. It is on par with strong one drops and bad three drops in terms of stats for cost and efficiency. Let me also remind you that constructed and limited are vastly different formats where different cards are playable. There a plethora of two and three drops in limited that eat Shred Freak that are not good in constructed because they don't contain enough value. Shred Freak is naturally bad in Limited the same way that 2/1's often are. Just because a creature is bad in limited however, does not make it bad in constructed. For example, Delver of Secrets, one of the strongest creatures in the past three years is absolutely abysmal in limited outside of very gimmicky draft decks. Now, regarding the creatures that will be blocking Shred Freak:
Centaur Healer - Not heavily played any longer. If you have SCG Premium you can read Patrick Chapins discussions on the meta game and how Healer has all but been replaced by Faithmender.
Dreg Mangler - Not played
Wolfir Avenger - Not played
Staticaster - In the decks that run it main deck, it's just as good against Chainwalker if not better because of Peddler. The decks that run it in the board won't be bringing it in for this match-up however, as it doesn't kill anything other than Shred Freak.
Knight of Glory - Hit or miss. Some GW lists run it, some do not.
Lingering Souls - All but extinct from the format
Mana Dorks - I'll gladly trade my Shred Freak for your Mana Dork on turn 1. After that I don't even care if you trade it with my Shred Freak because I'm ending the game on turn 4-5 every single game. So, at that point it doesn't even matter anymore. I, as well as any other mono red deck, is aiming to end the game on turn 4 off Hellrider. Turn 5 is considered pretty slow, and if I'm killing them on turn 6 or later, I can assure you it's not Chainwalker or Shred Freak doing the killing.
I don't build my magic decks around sub optimal lines of play. So, I will never build a magic deck with Lightning Mauler because it induces sub-optimal lines of play. Such as playing a 2/1 non-hasted creature on turn 2 because I don't want to bond with my one drop, or skipping my three drop in favor of a second one drop and a two drop. Those are the plays that make Lightning Mauler good, and therefor, I will never play this card. Giving Pyreheart Wolf haste is pretty bad when you are doing it to swing for 5. Not to mention the same cards that are stopping Shred Freak and going to stop your Pyreheart Wolf on turn 3 just as often.
Summary, Lightning Maulers "benefits" are the type of benefits that are only beneficial when making sub-optimal lines of play. Far more common is Supreme Verdict and Terminus than is a reason to give my Pyreheart Haste.
I actually switched from Bant Control to this. I did very well at GP San Antonio with Bant Control, and I ran 2 Augurs. This is also the norm in Bant Control. The actual chance of me casting an Augur on turn 2 vice casting a Farseek is very, very low. Even in the Mono Red match-up. If I'm on the play and I know they have Shred Freak, I'm probably still casting a turn 2 Farseek so I can still cast my turn 3 Faithmender. You know what card stops a turn 2 Chainwalker? A turn 3 Faithmender. I mean, you can attack into it, but I'm going to be gaining 2 life. You know what stops a turn 2 Shred Freak? Not a turn 3 Faithmender, at least, until turn 3. So instead of giving me two life, I'll be losing two life. Oh, and you can still swing Shred Freak in on an alpha strike to get the Hellrider trigger because well, if you are killing them with the trigger it doesn't even matter if it dies. Oh, also, Brimstone Volley would like a word. You know what doesn't turn on Volley? A Chainwalker swinging into a Faithmender. You know what does? A Shred Freak running into a Faithmender. Thats how you are killing them on turn 6 if you get to that point.
Esper is the flavor of the month on Modo after it top 8'ed? or Top 16'ed (I can't remember) the SCG Invitational.
Junk is a non-factor in the metagame. GW is not a Midrange deck because they are killing you on turn four 11 different ways. And is our worst match-up regardless. Naya is awkward right now and UWR is awful for our two drops not named Ash Zealot regardless (because they are perfectly fine trading Snapcaster for a guy). Jund is also non-existent since it's abysmal showing at San Antonio.
This is an opinion. I've stated reasons why Shred Freak is better than Chainwalker in a ton of match-ups, i.e, the ones that actually matter, whereas you are making claims with no actual arguments to back up your statement. Because I said so is not a valid point. Just thought I'd clear that up.
Staticaster is awful against us. Shred Freak is the only card it kills, so chances are very likely they aren't going to be siding it in against us. In the match-ups where it's actually main decked (Peddler reanimator), Peddler + Staticaster kills both equally. Difference being Shred Freak attacks for 2 first, and sometimes, it gets to attack twice.
They are dead on four or five, otherwise we're losing the game. So, a freshly played one drop is actually a blank. It teams up well sure, but what are the realistic chances of it living until turn 4? It gets one activation. By that point I've already swung for a ton. If they are wasting time playing a Staticaster that does nothing on its own then I'd say we're pretty happy about that. Against hyper aggressive decks, the best way to beat them is resource management, and all the decks that have access to Staticaster want to be doing just about anything else in the world besides durdling around with a Staticaster. Theoretically speaking Staticaster is "fine," but there is a reason why you have to playtest games and not work in theory. I've probably played close to 50 games against Staticaster in the past two months, both with and against. How many have you?
The UWR decks from the Invitational ran 0 Augurs. Staticaster is bad against this deck, but if you believe it to be good, I hope you are my opponent every round.
Care to share what you believe the meta to be? Because I'm pretty sure after Red decks the remaining meta game consists of top end control decks (OmniDoor, Esper, Bant), Reanimator variants, and G/x decks. Against how many of these decks is Chainwalker actually better than Shred Freak? Half the G/x decks? All things being equal, that makes it better in 25% of the match-ups.
Except nobody is running Augur. Faithmender comes down on turn 3 at the earliest, which, on the draw, means you aren't swinging with Chainwalker even one time, against Thragtusk they are definitely okay with the trade, and I can assure you once again, that having to use two cards to deal with every card in the deck makes Staticaster bad in this match-up. If it takes them two cards to kill one, then they are dying on turn 4-5. Games are not ending on turn 4-5 when I play Chainwalker. They are when I play Shred Freak.
Lightning Mauler does not have haste on turn two, unless you are sacrificing value. I covered it more above. After their turn 4 Supreme Verdict, my Shred Freak is putting them back on the ropes, whereas Lightning Mauler is essentially a time walk for them.
First, if you aren't playing maindeck Shred Freak, you shouldn't be playing it at all. There are much better situational cards against control, including Stonewright.
Now, a 2/1 Haste for 2 is not bad. In fact, in this format there aren't many things Shred Freak won't attack into on turn 2 and even turn 3 on the play.
My comment regarding which you play first was an attempt to show how different game play scenario's lead to different lines of play where different cards are better/worse than counter-parts, and not an actual question... rhetoric question that attempted to put a different spin on a discussion that's being met with a brick wall.
Let me make this clear. Shred Freak is going to be better than Lightning Mauler almost every single time. Lightning Mauler does less damage than Shred Freak unless you waste the soulbond with your one drop who's already attacking, and the only time I would say Lightning Mauler is better is in versions that already run Chainwalker anyway, as it turns your Chainwalker into a 3/2 with haste on turn 4 if you don't have Hellrider.
As for the meta game, the most popular control deck (and the one that just won the inventational) is Bant Control. Also the Esper Control list has been popping up in the past week, and Omni Door was played by LSV to a 4-0 record in a daily, which has in turn spiked it's popularity. Those are all top heavy control decks where Shred Freak is better than Chainwalker. Then there are the mindrange decks where you have to have them dead by turn 5 at the latest before their end game is online and your drawing dead, and in that match-up Shred Freak hits faster than Chainwalker. Finally, in the GW match-up, game one Chainwalker would be better. However, I'm siding out both regardless in this match-up for more removal, so why would I play a card that's better in one match-up (that's poor for us) who is going to be sided out in said match-up every single time anyway. You are talking about minute percentages here where Chainwalker is "better" than Shred Freak, and the amount of gain you get from playing Chainwalker over Shred Freak does not negate OR equal the amount of advantage you gain from playing Shred Freak over Chainwalker.
Regarding Staticaster (and a lesser extend, Peddler combo) Shred Freak and Chainwalker are actually equal here. Especially considering I don't think siding in Staticaster is actually good in this match-up, especially since it deals with exactly one card that they may or may not have seen in game one. These are also the same match-ups where our opponent has access to Azorious Charm (which is actually more popular, more widespread, and far more likely to be run into than almost any card previously listed as a Shred Freak counter) which is actually an incredibly strong play against Chainwalker. Guess what card it is NOT good against? That's right, Shred Freak.
People keep making points that Chainwalker is better, but they fail to realize the following:
You are arguing that Shred Freak is bad against cards that aren't played or aren't brought in for this match-up, forgetting that some of the most played cards in the format (Supreme Verdict, Terminus, Azorous Charm) actually favor us playing Shred Freak.
So this list that was provided that put two mana dorks as reasons why Shred Freak is bad is actually just two less reasons not to play Shred Freak... That was my point. The list that was provided as reasoning behind not playing Shred Freak had maybe 2 cards on it that actually matter in the meta game. If they have a Faithmender and you are attacking a Chainwalker into it, then you can Searing Spear it just as easily as you can Pillar it. Difference is, if you don't have the turn 2 Chainwalker, but they have the turn 3 Faithmender, which card is going to be better to draw later? The answer is most likely Shred Freak.
Also, most of this discussion is irrelevant, because how often are you going to only have one creature attacking? How often is your turn 1 drop going to be Cackler and give them easy decisions when choosing what to block? How often would you realistically want to actually play Chainwalker before Ash Zealot? Especially if you have Pyreheart Wolf in hand? In this scenario which one is better, Shred Freak or Chainwalker?
Please, do not ask me to be realistic without actually understanding the logic behind my arguments. You clearly didn't put two and two together when talking about mana dorks blocking, insisting it seems that I am a moron, instead of actually understanding I'm making the argument as to why mana dorks aren't a "counter" to Shred Freak, as was previously suggested.
Edit: Regarding GW. Neither creature is good in this mtach-up, and I have sided both out when playing against GW in favor of cards that actually do something.
Avacyn's Pilgrim
Arbor Elf
Augur of Bolas - Non existent
Lingering Souls - Minimal play (not even in Reanimator anymore)
Centaur Healer - Replaced with Faithmender
Pyreheart Wolf - Mirror matches I'd rather have Shred Freak
Sorin, Lord of Innistrad - Non existent
Thragtusk - They should be dead before they cast this, OR you'll have a Pyreheart or enough dudes that what two drop you played is irrelevant.
Shred Freak is almost always a better top deck. Shred Freak is better after a turn 4 Hellrider. Shred Freak is better after a turn 3 Pyreheart Wolf on turn 4 if you end up having to play two 2 drops. Shred Freak is better in the mirror if you need to block to survive. Shred Freak forces your opponent to decide how important their turn 1 mana dork is, and sometimes killing it on turn 2 is important. In fact, since we're talking about the mana dorks, lets look at a common line of play:
Turn 1 Mountain, Cackler
Turn 1 Forest, Pilgrim
Turn 2 Mountain, Shred Freak swing for 4. Do they block? If they do, you just prevented the turn 2 Smiter. If they played an Arbor Elf you prevented a turn 2 Ooze.
Now, imagine this is your turn 2:
Mountain, Chainwalker swing 2. No blocks
Turn 2 Plains Smiter.
Suddenly that Chainwalker looks pretty bad. Smiter is just as common in the G/x decks as mana dorks. Or, why would they trade when they have the opportunity to cast a turn 3 Huntmaster? Or Restoration Angel? If you ask me, I'd rather them block my Shred Freak on two, which buys me a whole turn to cast my Pyreheart into Hellrider and win the game. At that point, the turn 2 Shred Freak actually allowed you to maintain on offensive mind set, whereas if you played a Chainwalker, suddenly you have a 3/2 who can't block their 4/4 Smiter. You know who wins those races? The 4/4 who gets Rancor'ed and Sublimed.
I can't actually think of one match-up where I would legitimately want Chainwalker over Shred Freak, EXCEPT for the Junk Tokens match-up. How many Junk Tokens were at the last SCG Invitational? 4% of the meta.
I'm actually X-0 against Lingering Souls decks at FNM in two weeks. I've also never lost to a Lingering Souls online. The cards I'm losing to are Smiters, Silverblade Paladins and multiple Thragtusks. Chainwalker doesn't actually help against any of those cards.