Dies to Removal

I keep seeing these builds running no Stonewright and cannot fathom why someone would choose not to run him, so I'm going to make the case for why you should be running at least two in the main.

I've actually tried various versions of RDW and RB aggro since RtR, including builds without Stonewright, and in every build with less than three I always end up wanting more Stonewright.

I see a lot of people provide the following retort when I inquire about the lack of Stonewright in their build:

"He's bad in the early game."

It is true that he represents fewer damage than Rakdos Cackler as a turn one drop, but he plays so well with the other one and two drops that we play that I feel like his inclusion is mandatory. Let me explain:

1) Bonding with a Rakdos Cackler on turn two represents three damage on that
turn. In any hand with which I don't have an Ash Zealot or Gore-House Chainwalker, that is going to be my play unless I have a mana dork I need to Pillar of Flame, in which case I will still be dropping Stonewright on turn two.

2) Bonding with any creature allows the bonded creature and Stonewright to trade with any non first striking creature. This is a big deal against decks that run Centaur Healer and Rhox Faithmender to counter our gameplan.

3) Bonding with Ash Zealot or Hound of Griselbrand is flat-out unfair. Bonding with the latter is an immediate swing in the board state that must be answered quickly by our opponent and means that our Hound cannot be allowed to go unblocked, and if he does, every one mana spent to pump him is a Pillar of Flame to the dome without having to pay a card.

4) Bonding in the early
game vs control running sweepers and few creatures allows us to keep two creatures on the board and demand an answer from our opponent. We can comfortably sit back without overextending into a Supreme Verdict or hardcasted Bonfire of the Damned if we don't have the god hand of Cackler, GHC, Zealot, Hellrider.

5) He is a tremendous topdeck if we have a creature to pair him with in the late game and his firebreathing ability represents a sort of pseudo-haste that our opponent must respect. Going back to point number 4, following a board sweeper on turn four, if we have a Stonewright and Ash Zealot to play on turn five, that's four damage that our opponent CANNOT respond to on our turn.

In short, Stonewright represents more damage over the entire game and affects the board state more CONSISTENTLY than any other one drop we can play.

I've actually been experimenting with a deck running all three of our one
drops (Cackler, Noble, and Stonewright) and the results so far have been wonderful for me. My deck has gained a great deal of consistency and I've taken fewer mulligans since I have so many more avenues of early game play now. I urge any of you not playing at least two Stonewright in your maindeck to give it a shot, even if you're only running 22 lands.

6.) He is a win condition.

Great thread. I really like Stonewright a lot; it's one of the subtlety powerful cards that makes red good right now.

Also

7) every time you swing for lethal with him, you get to shout: Hadouken!

Great thread. I really like Stonewright a lot; it's one of the subtlety powerful cards that makes red good right now.

Also

7) every time you swing for lethal with him, you get to shout: Hadouken!

I have done that a few times and it has yet to get old.

#8: If you are playing the more traditional Red Deck Wins (8-12 Burn spells), you can hold your Burn spells back a lot later. This way, your opponent is forced to deal with having to wipe the board when they are around 10 life, in fear of lethal. And if you're playing the Aggro variants, it means that you can hold back the Searing Spear until you absolutely need to use it.

#9: Card's busted as fuck. When Soulbound, it guarantees Virtual Card Advantage, and often forces spot removal that would otherwise eat a Hellrider.

What about decks with access to Kessig Wolf Run instead?

or are the two not even comparable in function.

I just feel like there's R/g sligh which can't run stonewright on 18-19 lands... and then when you go bigger you might as well have KWR as a utility land that can't be removed?

I'm not knocking stonewright he's obviously busted for MonoR and the rest, just don't know if he's the best thing for what he does in that slot when you can run KWR instead

What about decks with access to Kessig Wolf Run instead?

You run Kessig Wolf Run in decks that are primarily based in other colors but have access to red. You run Stonewright in a deck based heavily out of red. Otherwise, for basically all intents and purpose, they serve exactly the same function, with Kessig Wolf Run being slightly better due to trample, yet worse by committing you to another color.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and carrots. While they are both delicious, they're part of different food groups.

I'm fully on the Stonewright train in RDW mono-red. Especially lists with 20+ land.

I'm on the fence leaning away from Stonewright in Gruul sligh. Argument being that a bloodrushed Ghor-Clan Rampager offers 4/4 and trample for RG while Stonewright would cost RRRR for 4/0 and no trample.

I'm fully on the Stonewright train in RDW mono-red. Especially lists with 20+ land.

I'm on the fence leaning away from Stonewright in Gruul sligh. Argument being that a bloodrushed Ghor-Clan Rampager offers 4/4 and trample for RG while Stonewright would cost RRRR for 4/0 and no trample.

Sure, but bloodrushing Ghor-Clan Rampager leaves you with one less body compared to Stonewright, and it only works for one turn. Bloodrushing a blocker might have a similar effect on the board state for one turn, but over many turns, Stonewright does more damage.

18-land Gruul Sligh is a much different deck than mono red though. It tends to lack the resilience that Mono Red has so it's a lot more all-in. For these types of decks Stonewright probably
is not the correct card to play.

I'm fully on the Stonewright train in RDW mono-red. Especially lists with 20+ land.

I'm on the fence leaning away from Stonewright in Gruul sligh. Argument being that a bloodrushed Ghor-Clan Rampager offers 4/4 and trample for RG while Stonewright would cost RRRR for 4/0 and no trample.

Sure, but bloodrushing Ghor-Clan Rampager leaves you with one less body compared to Stonewright, and it only works for one turn. Bloodrushing a blocker might have a similar effect on the board state for one turn, but over many turns, Stonewright does more damage.

18-land Gruul Sligh
is a much different deck than mono red though. It tends to lack the resilience that Mono Red has so it's a lot more all-in. For these types of decks Stonewright probably is not the correct card to play.

You can't bloodrush a blocker. Unless you mean Bloodrush to KILL a blocker.

Yes, that is what I mean. You typically bloodrush the blocked creature to kill the blocker and get damage through while keeping your creature in the process.