Well, it's official. Wizards' Future Future League was completely clueless about Collected Company. Maybe it was changed at the last minute (a lot of really broken cards are). They also completely missed Sylvan Advocate.
The gist seems to be that they still wanted red aggro to be viable, but underestimated Collected Company decks pushing it out of the metagame. They also were experimenting with putting power into non-aggro aspects of red to try to make it more diverse. Probably the two most important sentences:
"This format was a learning experience for us, and I think we have a better idea of how much and where to deploy cards for aggressive red decks in the future, which you will see as soon as Kaladesh. I don't know if they will immediately return as Pro Tour–winning decklists, but I am overall very happy with the additional space that red has claimed in the past year, and I think the color has a lot more interesting things to do in the future."
Nice to see them at least acknowledge that it is a problem.
The only decks I've smashed my head against the wall so far trying to beat have been black-heavy decks with lots of spot removal (Grasp of Darkness, Anguished Unmaking, Ruinous Path, Dead Weight, Languish, etc, etc) None of the other colours have this much removal.
B/W is pretty much an unwinnable matchup for Red-based aggro decks. I play B/R Vamps/Madness myself and I repeatedly get crushed by it on MODO. The problem is that they have cheap removal game 1. They are so geared toward beating smaller creatures that they might as well be pre-boarded against us.
OP: I'm thinking of going big post board. Side in Thunderbreak Regents and more removal and taking out my one-drops. You can not beat them on the ground. R/B Madness can play a lot of fliers so I'm thinking fliers+a ton of removal. Mono Red can do similar things.
Good riddance. Those cards were just rotten and degenerate. And boring!
I found that U/W control was rountinely my most exciting matchup. Have Satyrs deal 8 extra damage to offset Rev lifegain, holding my breath when they untapped and I had a Chandra in play, and the games were generally nail biters. I'll miss you Rev. You gave me some great games of magic.
The two best control finishers in the card pool are Elspeth and Sarkhan, without question. In Esper, Sphinx is miles better than the Ancient. I don't know if you have ever had a control deck Scry 3 on you, but it is a terrible feeling. Sphinx dodges targeted removal, has evasion, and lets you dig late game so you always draw relevant cards. Heck, Heliod, God of the Sun is better than PLA. He is indestructible and is the kind of mana sink a control deck loves.
Well, I was going to get back into MTGO after a few months hiatus with the release of Khans, but now I'll just wait and play paper and Cockatrice. The memory leak problem sounds especially scary.
You're drawing more cards, more mana to cast those extra cards helps you get far ahead and win. Yes Pain Seer becomes a mana dork but at that point you have an army.
So how do you get big creatures if you are punished for high CMC cards? You bestow. Everything is cheap even if the bestow cost isn't
Mono U in all probability looks to have taken the biggest knock out of the big 3. More than getting little from the set, what is most worrying is the further bolstering of UWx control and MBD, with WWx looming over the horizon, and none of those MU's we're particularly good to start with.
My biggest fear is how badly a hit Rx aggro strategies will be taking, since that was arguably our best MU aside from the nonexistent GW aggro. Even GW got tools to combat us a little better so I'm honestly not even sure of that MU anymore either.
RDW is probably dead. Decks will go bigger (24-25 land, Stormbreath, Exava) or go the AIR route. I am amazed that they so thoroughly screwed over red aggro decks and made Mono Black so much stronger. Yeah, I know they make sets in advance, but come on.
This is my thinking too, keep lightning strike, a couple of mortars and just swap some magma jets for searing blood.
@zemanjaski yes those are the kinds of creature I'm referring to. And what I'm saying is I don't really see this as a 2-1 at all in this situation. If I can deal with these creatures in a big red deck without running CIPT lands and the added inconsistency of splashing AND not over-committing to the board by running battalion creatures or goblin short cutter, then it sounds pretty main deckable to me. - especially considering it's obviously good against the smaller critters too.
Were you ever planning on burning a creature then doming them with the second burn spell? If not, it is a 2-for-1. That is basically what you are doing card advantage wise. There really is no reason to not splash a second color in a big aggro deck. You sacrifice a little inconsistency and gain so much power. Namely, the power to not have to resort to doing what you are describing to make using two burn spells on one creature less bad.
mutavault is not played in devotion decks so it's relevance is not important. reason why this is better is it gets rid of a creature and damages a player. you don't even have to kill the creature with the same spell. so it also deals 5 damage in total and now because of you we are going back in circles. its not about what its but the difference in toughness.*sigh* it's like arguing with a four year old because we keep coming back to points that I have already disproven or are easily disproven, you have no case. next meta would be a better time to rethink the effectiveness of strike
We are done here. You don't know how to be respectful and you are way too arrogant for someone who doesn't use capitalization.
when you play mono red it doesn't matter, all you do with this list is say strike is better like you have down syndrome, lets give each deck a proper evaluation from a actual magic player that doesn't have a yugioh name... (your starting to annoy me with your ignorance)
mono U: tidebinder mage, raptor, v.s. specter= blood wins
mono B: pack rat v.s specter= even game U/ control: planeswalker= strike wins B/ so many options that i can't even name them all v.s frontline medic= blood wins (this deck is the normal form of humans because of necromancer) R/ devotion: burning tree, cackler, fantic, phoenix v.s reckoner (which is not even smart)= blood wins UWB humans: i haven't even heard or seen this deck but blood would win G/ aggro: voice v.s lion (no one play chronicler)= tie game I would list more but i haven't seen much of the deck to make a fair assessment. Please pay more attention to the decks that you play against so you can make better assessments, instead of being stubborn about how i have proven that this card is better then strike in this. here's the final score Blood: 4 Strike: 1 Ties: 2
Strike hits everything that Blood hits. Also, G/W does play Chronicler: http://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/9047
Not always, but about half the time. You have to show why the 3 damage on a kill is more important than the 1 extra damage. And RR does matter. Again, have you ever played with Mutavault? You aren't running all Mountains. You are running a 19/2 split or a 19/4 split, etc. Situations come up. You can't just say it doesn't matter. And not being able to target a player? Very relevant and real drawback. You haven't told me why the 3 damage after a kill overcomes all that.
Edit: Did you actually bring up my username? Oh lord.
Costing RR doesn't matter for mono-red anything (obviously), so it's simply not as splashable as lightning strike.
Needing a creature isn't a problem in this meta, there's ALWAYS something you can kill with this card, if there isn't, you're probably winning anyways. Every deck runs at least one two-toughness creature.
It does matter. One reason: Mutavault. You are going to run into situations were you can't play something+Blood. U/W Control has no targets and B/W has one (Pack Rat), so not every deck will reliably have a target.
Lets go through the decks right now:
Mono U-Specter, Strike is better.
Mono B-Specter, Strike is better.
U/W-Strike is reach, Blood is nothing. Strike is better.
B/W-Blood has one target, occasionally provides value on a Blood Baron. Strike provides less value against Blood Baron, but can dome them. Strike is better.
R/w Devo-Strike hits Reckoner. While not ideal, you will have to do it sometimes. Strike is better.
Esper Humans-Look, the first deck where Blood might have the edge.
G/W Aggro-Strike hits Chronicler and Lion. Strike is better.
Mono red has a card called Chandra's Phoenix, strike does hit more creature but can't hit both a creature and a player, that's why blood is so much better
What about the other drawbacks? Needing a target creature? Costing RR?
The issue is that people would stop playing because they would feel that their investment in the format wouldn't be safe. Why spend cash on something if it could get banned in a week and become worthless overnight?
Their Future Future League is terrible. They constantly overrate control decks and lean far too heavily on previous formats when deck building.
Edit: Thinking Red aggro could compete with the current G/W buzzsaw is freaking stupid.
Nice to see them at least acknowledge that it is a problem.
B/W is pretty much an unwinnable matchup for Red-based aggro decks. I play B/R Vamps/Madness myself and I repeatedly get crushed by it on MODO. The problem is that they have cheap removal game 1. They are so geared toward beating smaller creatures that they might as well be pre-boarded against us.
OP: I'm thinking of going big post board. Side in Thunderbreak Regents and more removal and taking out my one-drops. You can not beat them on the ground. R/B Madness can play a lot of fliers so I'm thinking fliers+a ton of removal. Mono Red can do similar things.
I found that U/W control was rountinely my most exciting matchup. Have Satyrs deal 8 extra damage to offset Rev lifegain, holding my breath when they untapped and I had a Chandra in play, and the games were generally nail biters. I'll miss you Rev. You gave me some great games of magic.
But both Pain Seer and Drum are mediocre by themselves. Drawing one without the other is just bad.
RDW is probably dead. Decks will go bigger (24-25 land, Stormbreath, Exava) or go the AIR route. I am amazed that they so thoroughly screwed over red aggro decks and made Mono Black so much stronger. Yeah, I know they make sets in advance, but come on.
Were you ever planning on burning a creature then doming them with the second burn spell? If not, it is a 2-for-1. That is basically what you are doing card advantage wise. There really is no reason to not splash a second color in a big aggro deck. You sacrifice a little inconsistency and gain so much power. Namely, the power to not have to resort to doing what you are describing to make using two burn spells on one creature less bad.
We are done here. You don't know how to be respectful and you are way too arrogant for someone who doesn't use capitalization.
Strike hits everything that Blood hits. Also, G/W does play Chronicler:
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/9047
Not always, but about half the time. You have to show why the 3 damage on a kill is more important than the 1 extra damage. And RR does matter. Again, have you ever played with Mutavault? You aren't running all Mountains. You are running a 19/2 split or a 19/4 split, etc. Situations come up. You can't just say it doesn't matter. And not being able to target a player? Very relevant and real drawback. You haven't told me why the 3 damage after a kill overcomes all that.
Edit: Did you actually bring up my username? Oh lord.
It does matter. One reason: Mutavault. You are going to run into situations were you can't play something+Blood. U/W Control has no targets and B/W has one (Pack Rat), so not every deck will reliably have a target.
Lets go through the decks right now:
Mono U-Specter, Strike is better.
Mono B-Specter, Strike is better.
U/W-Strike is reach, Blood is nothing. Strike is better.
B/W-Blood has one target, occasionally provides value on a Blood Baron. Strike provides less value against Blood Baron, but can dome them. Strike is better.
R/w Devo-Strike hits Reckoner. While not ideal, you will have to do it sometimes. Strike is better.
Esper Humans-Look, the first deck where Blood might have the edge.
G/W Aggro-Strike hits Chronicler and Lion. Strike is better.
Strike is just better against way more decks.
What about the other drawbacks? Needing a target creature? Costing RR?