[Primer] RDW

[rcwraspy]

The list looks really good. As helpful as Flames of the Firebrand seems, what do you think of moving it to the maindeck? It's a lot more relevant than it used to be in a format full of X/1s and X/2s, especially since you're playing Chandra's Phoenix where pinging the player for one to get it back is often a good line of play.

As for Ash Zealot, she's really good in the mirror, but terrible against the decks that just go bigger, and those kind of decks are becoming more popular. You could fit in a couple of extra spells maindeck and run the full set of Pyromancer, but I think your updated list is just better.

It sounds a little contradictory that you'd want to include Flames of the Firebrand because of all the X/1s and X/2s in the format but
also cut Ash Zealot because a lot of decks are going bigger.

[RDW]

Johnny, I think 19/3 is the correct split for your lands. Additionally, I think the Brimstone Volleys and at least one Pillar of Flame can become some combination of Stonewright (still good with 19 red sources, even better with a flying buddy), Legion Loyalist (relevant betallion effects and an additional creature to get as many Firefist Striker betallion effects as possible), or MB Burning Earth (this card is insane, really). Just some food for thought, very nice work.

[RDW]

The list looks really good. As helpful as Flames of the Firebrand seems, what do you think of moving it to the maindeck? It's a lot more relevant than it used to be in a format full of X/1s and X/2s, especially since you're playing Chandra's Phoenix where pinging the player for one to get it back is often a good line of play.

As for Ash Zealot, she's really good in the mirror, but terrible against the decks that just go bigger, and those kind of decks are becoming more popular. You could fit in a couple of extra spells maindeck and run the full set of Pyromancer, but I think your updated list is just better.

It sounds a little contradictory that you'd want to include Flames of the Firebrand because of all the X/1s and X/2s in the format but also cut Ash Zealot because a lot of decks are going bigger.

Flames of the Firebrand (proactively) deals with X/1, X/2, and X/3 creatures. Ash Zealot can only attack into the first two reliably.

[Valdarith]

The list looks really good. As helpful as Flames of the Firebrand seems, what do you think of moving it to the maindeck? It's a lot more relevant than it used to be in a format full of X/1s and X/2s, especially since you're playing Chandra's Phoenix where pinging the player for one to get it back is often a good line of play.

As for Ash Zealot, she's really good in the mirror, but terrible against the decks that just go bigger, and those kind of decks are becoming more popular. You could fit in a couple of extra spells maindeck and run the full set of Pyromancer, but I think your updated list is
just better.

It sounds a little contradictory that you'd want to include Flames of the Firebrand because of all the X/1s and X/2s in the format but also cut Ash Zealot because a lot of decks are going bigger.

Not really. Flames of the Firebrand can actually answer threats a lot more effectively than Ash Zealot can against bigger decks. Kalonian Tusker, Lifebane Zombie, Augur of Bolas, and the ability to burn mana dorks away AND go to the face makes Flames a flexible choice. A lot of the X/1s in the format are mana dorks. Ash Zealot can't do anything about those.

What you really should be doing is comparing Brimstone Volley with Flames of the Firebrand. I loved Brimstone Volley in my Dos Rakis deck with Falkenrath Aristocrat, and it was also nice to suicide some of my guys in and burn for the kill, but in a deck like this utilizing Chandra's Phoenix AND taking into consideration the evolution of the meta, I think Flames is better positioned now.

[RDW]

+ What he said; FotF also goes in my list of replacements for BV/PoF.

[Platypus]

Based on the discussions above, how about this?

[deck]Lands (22)
19 Mountain
3 Mutavault

Creatures (29)
4 Rakdos Cackler
4 Stromkirk Noble
2 Stonewright
4 Burning-Tree Emissary
4 Lightning Mauler
3 Firefist Striker
4 Chandra's Phoenix
4 Hellrider

Spells (9)
3 Pillar of Flame
4 Searing Spear
2 Flames of the Firebrand

Sideboard (15)
3 Burning Earth
3 Mizzium Mortars
2 Traitorous Blood
3 Skullcrack
4 Volcanic Strength
[/deck]

[Valdarith]

I like that a lot more. I'd probably want the full set of Firefist Striker though. I always want to see him. I'm a huge Stonewright advocate but I actually think a fourth Striker and Mutavault would be better. That would leave room for a fourth Pillar maindeck. I think that's a superior setup.

[zemanjaski]

People crack the sads when you maindeck Flames, which I love.

[Platypus]

I wanted to see if I could fit in the Stonewrights. Perhaps 4 Firefist Strikers and 3 Chandra's Phoenixes instead, if we keep the Stonewrights. But yeah, a fourth Pillar (more spells for the Phoenix) and Mutavault instead would be ok.

[RDW]

As I mentioned above, the 19/3 land split is technically correct. We definitely don't want 23 lands without Thundermaw Hellkite, and can't get down to 18 mountains for BTE reliably. I actually think -1 Pillar of Flame -> +1 Firefist Striker would be perfect in the maindeck. Look at the recent opens and you'll see why Pillar of Flame isn't necessary as a 3- to 4-of, and why Firefist Striker likely is. The sideboard looks fine, but definitely tune it to your meta'.

[Jack]

This feels like the old RDW thread on Sally. Bright minds and ideas, logical arguments and good discussion; I like it!

[Jack]

And now for my contribution: Since we are currently playing in an 8 set Standard meta, removal is very good. Because of this, it may be more sensible to play Pyreheart Wolf over Chandra's Phoenix.
Comparison of the two creatures:
Phoenix:
Haste-unlike Wolf, this can do something the turn it comes out.
Flying-Gets through fairly often, but when cast on curve, Wolf will often push through about as many points of damage.
Recursion-Can turn Searing Spear into Lava Axe. Very good with Flames against certain decks. I can't say too much, since I have yet to play the card in Standard.
Wolf:
Undying-He can chump block and still swing. In order to kill him, your opponent must let up to 4 attacks go through. Using non-pillar instant/sorcery removal on him is card disadvantage.
"Can't Block" ability-You sacrifice additional damage on turn 3 in order to deal more on turn 4. Curving into Hellrider is usually a
game win, since letting either of the two live to see another combat step can be lethal.

[RDW]

Freedom, you bring up some good points. Maybe we can run a split of the two somehow, since both seem relevant. Another thing to consider is that Chandra's Phoenix makes your Pillar of Flames and Flames of the Firebrand relevant in the control match-up.

[Jack]

I wouldn't let that influence my decision on what to play, as both Flames and Pillars are bad cards in the control MU (ones we will almost always side out), and Pyreheart Wolf is a better creature than Chandra's Phoenix vs. the popular control decks in Standard.

[Platypus]

freedom, your point about a removal heavy meta coupled with some recent comments in the clan thread, made me realize that Stonewright might not be worth adding. Both Wolf and Phoenix are more resiliant to removal. With a higher spell count in the deck Chandra's Phoenix might have an advantage over Pyreheart Wolf, but here I think that Pyreheart wins out. At least in my meta I think it's the better choice as well.

So, this decklist (SB is made with my meta in mind) then:

[deck]Lands (22)
19 Mountain
3 Mutavault

Creatures (28)
4 Rakdos Cackler
4 Stromkirk Noble
4 Burning-Tree Emissary
4 Lightning Mauler
4 Firefist Striker
4 Pyreheart Wolf
4 Hellrider

Spells (10)
4 Pillar of Flame
4 Searing Spear
2 Flames of the Firebrand

Sideboard (15)
3 Burning Earth
3 Mizzium Mortars
2 Traitorous Blood
3 Skullcrack
4 Volcanic Strength
[/deck]

[Lightning_Dolt]

I like BSV in the main. You're basically putting pressure on them so they have to block, then oh, something died, eat 5. It's a one time Thundermaw that doesn't die to doom blade that you can play on a lower land count.

Flames swap in for the BSV in matches where it is crippling. Really only in matches with x/1's etc. In most matches I think BSV is just better.

[RedNihilist]

<- will be thinking about maindecking FotF without Phoenix.
Smart people think about things.

[Platypus]

I could go with a sideboard like this as well:

[deck]SB (15)
2 Burning Earth
2 Brimstone Volley
3 Mizzium Mortars
2 Traitorous Blood
3 Skullcrack
3 Volcanic Strength[/deck]

[Lightning_Dolt]

<- will be thinking about maindecking FotF without Phoenix.
Smart people think about things.

Also think about which is better vs the two dominant decks in the meta.

[Platypus]

<- will be thinking about maindecking FotF without Phoenix.
Smart people think about things.

Also think about which is better vs the two dominant decks in the meta.

A good reminder. Looking at the decks from WC it's quite easy to see that FotF is pretty wasted against most of them, and Volley would be the better choice as a maindeck card. That is, as long as Jund and UWr is dominant. Against various aggro decks FotF might be better. So you're probably right about that maindeck Volley and FotF in the sideboard.

[Valdarith]

I'm not sure why you'd think FotF isn't the better card vs Jund. Lifebane Zombie, Scavenging Ooze, dorks, Thragtusk, Huntmaster...those all seem like good reasons to run flames to me.

[Platypus]

Well, only one of the Jund decks in the top 16 had any dorks, two Arbor Elves, don't know how common that is though. Lifebane Zombie and Ooze yes, but those dies just as well to Pillar and Spear. The Ooze might be bigger than 3 toughness, and then Volley is better. The point is, all the creatures dies to Volley as well, same CC and damage (let's ignore the Morbid) but an instant. They have Olivia as well, which often goes over 3 toughness as well. So against those Jund decks I just don't see the point of FotF.

[Jack]

@Platypus: Congratulations, you're now playing KDW!

[Jack]

KDW has really changed, though. We don't play Ash Zealot, Stonewright, or GHC, and we even started playing BTE, a card we refused to play even past the release of Dragon's Maze. Although you could argue that mono-red wasn't even a viable deck at the time (I wasn't playing).
Platypus: In your SB, you have 2 Burning Earth and 3 VStrength. You cut one of each to make room for a pair of Brimstone Volleys. We play both cards (VS and Earth) for the very same reasons (make it very, very hard for them to stay alive). Given that Burning Earth may even be a bigger blowout (unless you manage to put the VStrength on a Noble), along with the fact that it is a card we want to bring in versus a larger portion of the meta, why are you only playing 2 of them; and why did you cut that, over everything else, to fit in Volley? Volley is both good removal and good damage, but in the match ups where we would want to have Volley, Burning
Earth will usually do more damage, and Mizzium Mortars already acts as good removal. I remember a post from way back (around November) when the prospect of Volley in the board was brought up, and someone replied that it's a fine card, but they'd rarely be willing to cut something from their mainboard to make room for it game 2/3.

[Valdarith]

Well, only one of the Jund decks in the top 16 had any dorks, two Arbor Elves, don't know how common that is though. Lifebane Zombie and Ooze yes, but those dies just as well to Pillar and Spear. The Ooze might be bigger than 3 toughness, and then Volley is better. The point is, all the creatures dies to Volley as well, same CC and damage (let's ignore the Morbid) but an instant. They have Olivia as well, which often goes over 3 toughness as well. So against those Jund decks I just don't see the point of FotF.

You aren't analyzing the problem correctly.

1) The whole point of running FotF is to have redundancy. You can't say "Well those creatures die to Pillar and Spear so nah." That's very bad analysis.

2) A creature has
to die for Volley to do five damage. In extreme situations you can use this to do lethal, but on average FotF is going to net you more card advantage (both virtual and actual) in the long run.

3) A morbid Volley killing a creature with more than toughness 3 is a moot point. Typically our Jund foe is going to block one of our weenies with their dude and force us to have the removal instead of playing another dude, resulting in a loss of tempo. Here, Volley does exactly what Flames does, since a 4/4 or 5/5 would have two damage on it already and FotF would simply finish off the damage. Against a 4/4, Flames is actually better.

So no, Volley is definitely inferior in the vast majority of cases.

[Jack]

You said it better than I did, Val. I just proved that Volley's bad in our sideboard; you proved that it's a bad card for us in general. I'll add that it's also easy as fuck to predict if they already know that you're playing the card. Flames is as well, but you don't leave 3 mana open and divert your game plan by leaving creatures open to block for Flames.

[Lightning_Dolt]

I'm not sure why you'd think FotF isn't the better card vs Jund. Lifebane Zombie, Scavenging Ooze, dorks, Thragtusk, Huntmaster...those all seem like good reasons to run flames to me.

I'd rather have BSV. It's been really good for me.

[Valdarith]

I'm not sure why you'd think FotF isn't the better card vs Jund. Lifebane Zombie, Scavenging Ooze, dorks, Thragtusk, Huntmaster...those all seem like good reasons to run flames to me.

I'd rather have BSV. It's been really good for me.

Elaborate.

[Lightning_Dolt]

It's 5 points of reach. That's a lot of reach. If they block you volley them.

[Platypus]

Val and freedom, you bring up good points. This is where my lack of proper playtest opportunities shows. With playtesting I might have seen those points myself, but staring at just the cards it isn't always obvious how the game will play out. I'll have to think about this some more, there's more to it than I first thought.

[Valdarith]

It's 5 points of reach. That's a lot of reach. If they block you volley them.

This is a poor elaboration, especially considering the depth of my last two posts.

[RDW]

We don't need to be so abrasive towards one another; this is just discussion. Though, Johnny, Valdarith is right: if we're to establish a most-efficient base for this deck, then all decisions have to be efficiently-made. To do this, we need strong arguments for the inclusion of any card. Brimstone Volley's nice, but it's (1) reactive, (2) expensive, and (3) stiff.

[LP, of the Fires]

I'd prefer Brimstone maindeck myself for whatever that's worth, though I see the applications of flames.

Volley is flexible, and provides lots of reach if clunky at times and it kills things like Olivia, Resto, and Flipped huntmasters.

Flames has more blowout potential and can catch people off guard, but...it's a sorcery. The 1 point you get from volley killing a 2 power guy and doming them for 1 in my experience is less worthwhile then the meaty 5 you get from volleying their face. It's got that good char feeling.

Lastly, to fend of arguments about people blocking and blah blah blah, people only block in constructed if it can be done very profitably, or if they're gonna die otherwise so unless you expect to play againt multiple X/1s, I don't like flames as a main deck card.

Edit: I also think Lifebane Zombie is a fad in Jund unless you're playing that farseekless version that top 8'd GP calvary. Remember
Worlds Week was a different type of tourney and the decks where fairly inbred by nature.

[Valdarith]

It's not my intention to be abrasive. We just need to make very thorough descriptions of why we want certain cards over others. LPs description is a good example of that, though I disagree with the blocking thing. In my experience with BV vs Jund, if I wasn't delivering the knockout blow with it then I wasn't winning anyway. If they don't have to block with Olivia, Thragtusk, etc then we are losing. I actually feel like that comment validates my opinion.

[zemanjaski]

^ I'm in the Flames camp as well; but the election exposes a preference to a certain style of play - if you've got BV you play to engineer board states where it's good; if you have Flames you do likewise.

I will say this - creatures are so efficient at doing damage that burn is increasingly more about removing blockers than it is providing reach; burn goes to the face only where removing a blocker would be less efficient, and even then it has to be substantially so, or presenting lethal.

Consider these lines:
- burn the face for 3; your creature can't get past their blocker
- kill their creature; your creature swings for 2

This is the VCA conundrum. The second line is basically 'kill their creature, draw a card'; if you can see why you'll be starting to understand how design philosophy is having to change these days.

The days if reliably burning someone of from 10 are over; we're in trench warfare mode
now.

[LP, of the Fires]

^Basically yeah.

I like the more aggressive volley because in the matches where both cards are mediocre/bad(jund/UWR) the extra reach is very relevant whereas the VCA isn't and the games you lose are going to be very lopsided whereas the games you win are going to be decided by a slim few points of damage or will be blowouts.

Against everything else they're either even or flames is slightly better, but I don't care about the other matchups as much. I just want to beat Jund, and UWR and I can always have flames in my board if I want that type of affect.

I think your feelings are flawed in your last statement val because you either aren't thinking about or don't have experience with all the different types of games you have against jund and the how's of the winning and losing.

Edit: Waxing Philosophical, I think the design shift of magic regarding the way red decks works is a net positive, though I don't want
a char/flame javelingesque card to be appeased.

[zemanjaski]

I should caveat my statements; watchers of my streams will know I have an excessively grindy style, even when playing aggro vs control. My card selection and sideboard philosophy reflect that. So what I say isn't always 'correct', it just works for me.

[zemanjaski]

Fucking reprint Koth. I want my free-wins.

Looking forward to rotation and the format slowing down, it promotes Chandra and Mortars in value (think the old 'GoodStuffRed' sideboard plan, but as a maindeck).

[LP, of the Fires]

Aussie Complains about grindy midrange decks.

Looks forward to playing grindy red midrange deck

But yes, I also want my koth reprint. I don't even want him to have a new fancy name. I just want koth of the mother fucking hammer(also, only walker with better Duels of the Planeswalker art imo).

[zemanjaski]

I actually like killing people with the -2 the most.

"You're at 10? Ok take lethal"