Game Plan against the TnN: Serve the beatdown, FAST. Turn 3 Kodama is quite a fast clock, and so is a turn 2 Troll Ascetic or Iwamori.
Against MUC: Sneak an untargetable creature into play, and beat him up. Don't play Isao or Iwamori for them to steal and block your creatures. Try to resolve more untargetable creatures by baiting with Enshrined Memories, Beacons of Creation and Witnesses.
Against B/X: Play creatures that are hard to deal with, like Troll, Isao, Beacon of Creation insects. Refill your hand with Enshrined Memories. This thing draws insane amounts of cards late game.
WW: Say hi to Troll Ascetic and Isao. Who can beat down faster? Depends. Sideboard should have some amounts of Artifact hate.
RDW: Untargetable/Regenerating/Big and Fat stuff just pwns. Try to go for one hit KO's, or risk getting killed by the infamous Pulse of the Forge.
EDIT: Testing needs to be carried out. I don't like this deck though, since I can't build it (look at the money rares!) and the fact that it looks good enough to beat MUC up. Or maybe we should keep this low-profile, and use it to surprise lots of lots of people when the BIG tournament rolls around. Considering that MUC is eventually going to become the no. 1 deck in Standard, once the metagame stabilises.
I fail to see how Zo-Zu works better if you have mana denial. With or without land d, your opponent is still going to play those lands anyways. Unless your opponent thinks hes fine with 4 lands, so be it, you are still using 1 Zo-Zu to stop him from developing his mana base any further. Virtual Advantage.
It all depends on the metagame you are in. Land Destruction can only serve as stalling, since most of the decks are green and will break out of the mana denial stage anyways. A land d plan just to screw your opponent won't work, but the Land D strategy to stall your opponent from dealing with your creatures (much more potent with an active AEther Vial) does work. I find the Land D + AEther Vial route very strong, because burn won't do much against Green/X decks anyways.
Sidenote:
The aim is to play a creature that is difficult to answer like an Arc-Slogger or a Slith Firewalker on the first to third turn, and attack with it while using burn spells to impede the opponent’s ability to deal with the creature. Since this is done during turns 1 to 3, your opponent has to dedicate an abnormally large amount of resouces to remove the threat(creatures don't work, echoing decay don't work), the plan being that by the time your opponent has dealt with the creatures, a couple of burn spells like a Shrapnel Blast will be able to finish him off.
Well against BG, its a little overcosted creature, if they Echoing Decay it. Otherwise, it will deal about 4 damage for its short life span. I think Zo-Zu is better mainboard unless you are in aggro metagame, where you are more the control than the aggro.
Have you tested the deck? Do that first, thanks. That will save up a lot of time here. And use the exact list I provided. And remember to take into account what your opponent does, and you find yourself winning 75% of the time. Its just sad that there are rarely standard tournaments in my area.
Aggro Zombies: Zo-zu should be run main. No Land D should be played. Zo-Zu is a strong creature beating for 2 and dealing at least 6+ damage if your opponent is not running black, but land D is merely stalling. Today's format is filled with green even post-ban, so land d is not a good idea. Let me elaborate. You will want to play creatures turn 1-2, which is definite, but in order for Land D to work you need to cast it repeatedly to make way for your creatures. The deck cannot both run burn and land D, you need to make a choice based on your metagame.
With control metagame, cut most of the burn except probably Magma Jet, get AEther Vials to free up mana so you can cast about 12++ Land D spells. For Aggro metagame just stick with what we have here and it should be fine, but no Land D sideboard.
BTW I never came in claiming that this deck was better than your sligh builds. I came in to defend Legacy Weapons list, because you guys just dismissed it as nonsense without even testing out a representative build of what the deck can do.
All that your list has in common with RDW is Mountains and burn.
Other than that, you go by completely different routes of winning.
Afterall, you never saw Sligh play things like Mana Flare did you (the equivalent of your Seething Song+Desperate Ritual crap at the time)?
I'm tiring of the endless arguing.
1. Just because your deck has a very rare first turn combo doesn't make it RDW
2. Just because you have red in the deck doesn't make it RDW
3. Just because you run Mountains doesn't make it RDW
4. It's a sub-par version of Big Red at that
5. It's still in the wrong thread
I never said that my deck is RDW because it has a first turn combo. I said it was RDW, because it was versatile, and won regardless of what your opponent did. I didn't say it was RDW because it was red. Rather, being red is a criteria for calling a deck RDW. I didn't call it RDW because it had Mountains. IT isn't a sub-par version of Big Red. Big Red can't deal with TnN, BG Cloud, and depending on the nature of the deck, UG and MUC. And its still in the right thread.
Ahh, 1 shot mana superiority that creates a board advantage. Rishadan POrt didn't create mana superiority. RDW just played early creature, then attempt to mana screw your opponent by using Port Tangle Wire and Wasteland to delay your opponent's answers to the creature. Instead of doing that, I just play a Larger creature, that your opponent can't deal with for at least another 3 turns. Notice that RDW when using Rishadan Port comes out with less than 1 mana than the opponent. Does that mean mana superiority? No. My deck isn't a crappy combo. It is a good combo, just inconsistent However, please do me a favour and stop looking at the potential turn 1 Slogger. I get turn 1-3 Sloggers half the time only. I still win very often. Desperate Rituals and Seething Songs still work.
Indeed, ignoring a cease and desist order from a moderator is a warnable offense. Same thing if I'm ignoring an unreasonable cease and desist order from a moderator. Lets argue on another topic. You haven't actually told me to buzz off. You have been arguing with me on whether this deck is RDW or not. If you think you can warn me, then you have to warn yourself too. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. My points are still valid, you are hitting one statement at a time. Why don't you go deconstruct my argument since it is so faulty and tell me why I am wrong? I don't think you will do that.
My deck isn't Big Red, isn't DeadGuyRed, isn't slight and isn't Geeba. But my deck is RDW. You don't need the turn 1 slogger to win, and don't give any scenarios either, they don't exactly prove your point that this is a one-trick-pony.
You can't just do that. There is something called interactivity. Now, if I had this play against your "god hand", who will win in the end? Me, because I had a Slogger that just stops you from playing that Viashino Sandstalker and Slith Firewalker. In that scenario I will have virtual card advantage, because I am using the Slogger to stop you from playing any more creatures.
Similarly, if I draw an average hand, and you drew that hand, who will win? Still me. I burn your creatures using E-bolt and Jet, stabilising when I play Slogger (Kumano should be burned off, 4 toughness is really bad). If the game drags on any longer, Pulse of the Forge and Shrapnel Blast will take the win. The acceleration cards aren't bad. They fuel your early threats, like playing Firewalker and burning 2 creatures, or help you play around counters, or even make a huge fireball.
Sligh is worse against BG than my deck. BG has Echoing Decay etc. And Barter in Blood hurts you more than it hurts me. You might say, "I have burn as my back-up plan." but then again, my deck has better burn than your deck. Against aggro, if they manage to go past your burn, what do you have left? I at least still have Pulse of the Forge, a card that everyone knows wins games by itself.
I don't doubt the Sligh deck. I like beating down with red creatures and burning stuff out of the way, giving you this feeling that your deck worked together to produce the win. But Speed Slogger (the name I shall now give this deck so that it won't be confused with your Red Aggro decks) wins with more style, wins faster, better, and more reliable.
In no way, is my deck another attempt at pulling out some stupid turn 1 combo like the Shoal deck. That is VERY inconsistent, whereas this deck doesn't mind late Sloggers or acceleration. I just treat the acceleration as wonder cards early game, and as mountains late game.
I don't want to argue about this anymore. I still stand by my point that this deck is RDW, and not the other names you people have provided. But I'm just leaving this thread because there really isn't any point in arguing about a silly name. Leaving this thread so you people can work on Sligh, and not waste any time. Same for me. I'm sure the burn spells my deck can be tweaked, and sideboard definitely can be edited.
And Butteblue18, can you kindly change the thread name to Sligh? Well, you guys wanted to work on a deck with a smooth mana curve. With Sligh I would have no reason to be here. Maybe I should just go check out the other discussions.
EDIT:
Butteblue18, did you read my earlier posts? RDW is the name given to the deck in extended because it was really a killer deck, pulling out ridiculous wins, thats all. It just happened that mana advantage, card advantage were characteristic of it, but they are not the reasons why it was called RDW. My deck has most of the characteristics of RDW, early threats, burn to clear the way, and efficient/reusable burn. Your deck doesn't have mana advantage and card advantage, so its called RDW simply because it has early threats?
Attributes of RDW:
Early creatures
Mana Advantage, specifically tempo advantage
Card Advantage, or rather reusable burn
Burn to clear the way.
Notice that its Early creatures, not Small creatures. I shall not argue this point further, because you seem to be incapable of realising that Early creatures does not mean Small Inexpensive creatures.
And I still haven't violated any forum guidelines.
Ok, RDW isn't sligh alright? You got confused about that. What mana curve is there? There isn't one, just a large emphasis on 1 drops then suddenly a medium amount of cards in the 3 and 4 slot.
Same for my deck. All of the cards casting cost are below 3. Only 6 was at 5. And, Grim Lavamancer was supposed to be reusable damage source, not as a creature, there are tons of better combat based Creatures. Blistering Firecat was a 4 mana sorcery that hits for 7. So what do we have left? 4 Mogg Fanatic, which is more of a burn spell, and 4 Jackal Pup.
ButteBlues18: Warning me eh? Sure, you are a moderator, and I'm like biting my toenails off because I'm going to receive a warning. I should start backing up my posts then. go look at the Big Red thread. My deck definitely does not belong there. Tell me then, what is my deck then? Yes. Everyone here disagrees with me and therefore I am the one wrong and the majority is right? How am I deluding myself?
Alright, do me a favour and answer these few questions, and I might just leave this thread alone.
"It" here refers to my deck.
Is it Aggresive?
Does it use burn to clear the way?
Does it have the element of mana Advantage?
And then for RDW:
Is it Aggresive?
Does it use burn to clear the way?
Does it have the element of mana Advantage?
Next question:
Is my deck RDW?
Big Red does not sacrifice cards for speed and power. Mine does. According to the Big Red thread, my deck does not belong there and I believe that too. Tell me where my deck belongs then. And what forum guidelines am I violating? We are discussing a deck here, nothing more.
EDIT: By the way, its Legacy Weapon and me on this side, and you, Chalupa and IbeatTomGuevin on the other side. I'm not the only one who believes that this deck belongs here. I'm not saying that Big Red is the same as RDW. I'm saying that my deck is RDW and not Big Red.
Let me reiterate that my deck is not a control deck. It is an aggro deck, forcing your opponent to make play choices he normally wouldn't. I don't control his threats. I play mine, and force my opponent to respond to it. If he can't, I am going to win. This deck is indeed Red Deck Wins. You haven't told me how my deck was different. RDW wasn't based on early small creatures. It was based on reusable burn. It went all the way to make card advantage. Grim Lavamancer, Cursed Scroll, and a Jackal Pup with burn. If you keep burning his creatures, you may be maintaing card parity, but hes losing life, whereas you aren't. This is virtual card advantage. My deck does the same thing too. It is based on card advantage. If I played an Arc-Slogger on turn 2 or 3, you will not play that weenie in your hand. Normal removal can't kill it, but delay it. If you play Sakura, I just pitch a burn spell or burn it out, and swing for 4 damage which is 1/5 of your life total. That's a good trade for me. Thats card advantage. 1 card on my side that stops you from playing 3-4 cards in your hand.
My deck IS similar to RDW. You haven't proven otherwise. You keep telling me that RDW was based on small creatures and burn to clear the way. It wasn't. Go check out the cards. It was based on mana advantage, and card advantage.
You have only given me 1 scenario. White Weenie and Raffinity cannot deal with that hand. No way. They can't win the damage race either. BG can't do anything either. Lets say, he plays a Sakura turn 2. He has already taken 4 damage. Back to me, I kill the Sakura, and swing in for another 4. He has taken 8, and I have another 3 mana. Next turn, he has 2 options. Barter in Blood and Death Cloud. Death Cloud makes him take 1, and no matter what he does, hes going to take another 4 damage from activations. What have you achieved? He has taken a total 8 from combat damage, 6 from Arc-Slogger activations, and 1 from Death Cloud.
He's at 5 life now, and can't Death Cloud anymore. I definitely have more cards in hand, that deal at least 5 damage. Who's in the winning position? Definitely me. This happens if I get a turn 1 Slogger.
Basically, as turns pass, the damage potential remains the same. Early game, you use a lot of resources, and you deal massive damage. If you don't do this, late game you have a lot of resources, and can deal that same amount of damage too. It all depends on the way you build the deck.
Another scenario. If I am playing against Mono Blue, my acceleration cards help me avoid the counters. They can't really do much, but delay me. The only real threat is Vedalken Shackles, but I can still win with burn.
My deck is not MRC or Big Red. Big Red wasn't called Big Red because it had Big creatures in it. Big creatures were the Finishers, only after the deck has set up card advantage slowly. MRC just controls your opponent threats, and use Pulse of the Forge to win. Mine serves to replace the aggro deck, with a deck that spits out early un-answerable threats that has a backup plan in the form of burn.
I don't intend to discuss my deck. I know that the deck works and wins for me. I came here to argue that this deck belongs in the thread, and deserves a look at. I don't need you to criticize my deck. You have already shut your ears, believing that Seething Song and Desperate Rituals are crap when they are not. You aren't fit to judge how the deck works without trying it out. You even made up scenarios that don't happen anywhere near what really happens with the deck in real life. I listed out the strategy, you guys tell me that "based on a few scenarios, this deck cannot be RDW, because it didn't play an early threat". And since when did decks that play less than 12 creatures be counted as control decks?
Will Raffinity still be called Raffinity if it didn't draw Arcbound Ravager in the entire game? I think so.
I realise that you people never talk about the points I make. You just continue to argue that my deck does not belong here, which is untrue. Nevertheless, if I really intended to discuss my deck, I wouldn't do it here. Nobody has tested it out, and just gave comments based on the mindset of the majority, that this card is bad and that card is good.
In the end, I find that it was actually enjoyable to post here, because firstly: You make funny comments and believe them to be right, without giving any explanation, and ignore my explained points, and secondly: You people have no idea how important looking at other cards objectively are.
Thank you for spending time to look at this pointless post,
There definitely is nothing wrong with calling Affinity ADW. But, Raffinity is more representative than ADW. RDW does not mean that top of mana curve must be 3. You fail to rebut my definition of what RDW truly means. You guys just crap on about what RDW is, but not why it is called RDW.
My deck is called RDW. I call it RDW because it just wins again and again, like Raffinity on crack. I haven't seen it lose a match except when I play against Raffinity on more crack. It just pwns all the deck in its current form, earlier versions were definitely not as good.
You guys also argue about how the deck doesn't belong in here when it does. You completely dismiss it as trash, because it has supposedly crap cards in it. I have given many examples, but you guys just post a comment or 2 on just 1 small point, whereas I have spent time, responding to each statement you have said.
I can compare this to Arcbound Ravager. Notice how Raffinity sacrifices most of its permanents to just 1 creature? My deck does that too. Spending, or rather *investing* resources into a single creature. You guys always give me a single specific solution to a scenario. I can do that too. If I play turn 1 land, turn 2 growth, turn 3 persecute naming red and turn 4 hideous laughter, won't your deck be screwed all over? I'm not saying this point is valid.
I completely disagree with your post except for 1 thing: it is a waste of time.
You should have just told me to get the hell out not because my deck wasn't RDW, but rather you guys wanted to discuss a deck that has more than 12 creatures. Go ahead and be narrow-minded. Restrict your deck construction. Fail to try out other suggestions. Reflect that in your thread name, so people like Legacy Weapon won't make a small post and get "flamed" all over for it. I believe I made a valid suggestion. I suggested that large creatures are better than a bunch of small ones. Black has something called Hideous Laughter. You tell me that you have burn to pave the way out. What do you intend to burn? Eternal Witness? Sakura-Tribe Elder? Hah. Aggro creatures eh? Turn 2 Slogger ain't aggro enough? 1 fat creature on the board isn't aggro? Forcing your opponent to counter your cards isn't aggro?
I am not the one confused, but rather you guys. I am also entitled to my opinion that my deck belongs in this thread, unless you guys convince me otherwise. Go check up on the history of RDW. It was called RDW, but early not small creatures backed up with burn and the element of mana denial was characteristic of it. Mine just has early but large creatures backed up with burn and the element of mana denial in the form of acceleration. Whether or not RDW means red deck wins again and again or a bunch of early creatures does not matter, what I know is that my deck is very similar to how RDW functions.
Finally, someone decided to make a comprehensive post.
Extremely aggresive? Turn 2-3 Sloggers aren't extremely Aggresive? My deck isn't creature-based? Whats considered as creature-based? My deck is an Aggro deck with Burn as backup. Red Deck Wins wasn't the name of the deck because "it was extremely aggresive". It was rather because it was just a deck that won again and again no matter what you did. It was a very strong deck.
Goblins can be called RDW. But some people wanted to discuss RDW with the element of reusable damage and mana denial, whereas other people wanted to discuss decks with the goblin engine and mana denial.
I have stated earlier that RDW uses mana denial when it has a board advantage to secure the win, whereas my deck uses acceleration to get a board advantage when your opponent is still developing his mana base. RDW does not run lots of weenies. Exclude Blistering Firecat please, it was more like a 4 mana sorcery deal 7 damage spell.
RDW uses efficient burn. As I have said, Fireball is a late game thing. It is to throw your accumulated Seething Songs and Desperate Rituals you have no use of late game. I have powerful burn. Electrostatic Bolt is the most efficient you can get. Magma Jet over Volcanic Hammer because I burn creatures, not the person normally, and there are rarely Creatures with toughness more than 2. Hit the whole deck, not just one card. I can say "Barter in Blood is useless, because they have Sakura-Tribe Elder, and Meloku which can negate the removal." True or not? I don't think so.
SDT the worst card in Kamigawa Block? Use of exaggeration here, to make your point seem valid. It is very important in this deck. Granted, the cards in here seem like crap. Used together you get a powerhouse. SDT gets rid of cards you do not need in different situations. I do not want a Desperate Ritual later than turn 4. I need that Magma Jet now. RDW didn't need any library manipulation because all their cards serve similar role i.e. they are a single solution to multiple scenarios. Seal of Fire and Lava Dart. Rishadan Port, Wasteland, and Tangle Wire. Grim Lavamancer and Cursed Scroll.
If you intend to compare both my deck and RDW of Extended, let me compare this thread's decks and the RDW deck. I do not see any form of Control besides the burn. A white player can easily stall using a Genju of the Fields, after which Wrath of God wipes your board clean. What do we have now? My deck negates that disadvantage by using 1 large creature instead of using multiple small creatures.
Alright. I challenge you. Break down my argument. Tell me why my deck is Big Red. Tell me where my definitions are wrong.
Definition of Big Red: It is a deck that controls the board, and plays large creatures that win the game.
My deck uses Creatures to Control the board. These creatures force your opponent to make play choices he normally wouldn't. I.E. You are the Aggro player, controlling what your opponent does.
Rebut that definition. Tell me why my deck isn't RDW. The only scenario where my deck isn't RDW is when it does not win again and again.
I just see people telling that my deck doesn't belong here because it isn't RDW. And they stop there. They try to scare me by saying "go look for definition and whatever". In the end does that happen? No. Theres no point in making an argument if there is no evidence for the argument.
Basically my point: My deck belongs here, unless you change your thread name.
Definition of RDW: Given to an extended deck, because it wins again and again.
Definition of Red Aggro: Deck that uses creatures to win, and burn to clear the way and as a backup plan.
My deck fits the above definitions and belong here.
Heard of mana burn? They reduce you to lower life than your opponent.
BG used to run Echoing Decay and Barter in Blood. Thats all. Before BiB hits, Slogger WILL deal at least 10 damage, 1 swing and 3 activations. And do you realise that Death Cloud Makes You Lose Life? So if they Death Cloud for 3, I'm not supposed to have any land? And I don't have any Chrome Moxen? If you oxidize it, you must do it turn 1 since you will be accelerating to kill my Slogger than slow that 1 turn down.
This deck is not Big Red. You haven't argued against my definition. In fact, nobody has, but instead keep telling me that this deck isn't RDW. And this deck does not just beat Affinity. It beats a lot of other stuff. The only reason why people don't play this deck is because it has 4 Mox, which is frowned upon because its Artifact-hate season and its price. It has 4 Desperate Ritual and 4 Seething Song and so its bad because "pros say card advantage is important".
You may end your argument, but I see many flaws in yours. You haven't poked any holes in mine either.
EDIT: Give me a definition of RDW then. Tell me why its called RDW. I tell you its called RDW because its a Red Deck, and it simply WINS. Not because it has at least 12 creatures. If you want to do it that way, kindly change your thread name. Change it to "[Official Thread] RDW that has at least 12 creatures because I do not want to look at possible alternatives that has less than 12. I like limiting my deck construction choices." That will help everybody here.
Cause you guys are coming in here SAYING BIG RED is better then RDW. It could be in your meta game but that isnt always true.
UG: If you beat UG in MUC with Pulse of the feilds im very intrested to know how it gets past a counter spell?
Death Cloud: does play Rend Fleshs.
MBC. Consumes half its life back.
And i have playtested With and against Big Red. And mu friend runs a close build to yours and he got crushed. I also beat him with BG death cloud. I don't see how your getting that Big red is so good, when it loses to half the decks in type 2.
I'm Being Negative towards you cause you are coming into this form Preaching your deck, and telling us to play it. And then say your deck can beat everything in wich it can't?
and Guerilla Tactics when was having 3 in your hand possible? and if you are planing on uses these finding a better reason behind it. After they Death cloud if you have a Top in play or not you just lost the game.
Read posts carefully. That saves a lot of time. I recall saying something about Pulse of the Forge and Boseiju. I never said that this deck you call "Big Red" is better than your deck that you like to call "RDW", the name of which I do not oppose. You are giving me multiple solutions to only 1 scenario. But can you give me 1 solution to multiple scenarios? I doubt it. MBC cannot consume half its life back. Are you telling me it has 12 mana before the game hits turn 7 or earlier? I don't think so. I never said you were negative to me. I said you were being negative to Legacy Weapon. You must have mixed me up with him somehow.
I don't tell you guys to play this deck. I'm only telling you guys that this deck isn't bad, but actually really good. I don't need 3 guerilla tactics in my hand to win against a Cloud. Just 1 is enough to kill you.
Scenario: You have taken at least 8 from an Arc-Slogger and burn. You Death Cloud for 3ish. I discard just 1 Guerilla Tactics. you take 15. I just need to burn you for 5 which is fairly simple.
How close is your friend's build? People in this forum are already doubting my card choices without testing them. I dare bet that your friend's build does not include such comprehensive answers to decks in today's format. You have to see why every card in the deck helps kill your opponent. I have played BG Cloud for a long long time. since Sakura-Tribe Elder and Kokusho was released on the spoiler over at MtgNews. But I just couldn't beat this deck. He had answers for everything. With this deck, you can't be the control. You have to be the aggro. You have to use a minimal amount of resources to force your opponent to spend a larger amount.
I'm disgusted by the fact that you just treated this deck as trash just because it was different, just called it jank. People did that for Broodstar Affinity. People said that when TnN won Pro Tour Kobe. People didn't think that Broodstar will be replaced by Arcbound Ravager. What happened in the end? TnN dominated standard. Ravager became the powerhouse we all know today. Broodstar simply won against control back then. Being different does not mean worse. It just means a whole plethora of new choices.
EDIT: RDW is the name given to this deck because it wins again and again and again. Just that. Not because it had small creatures and creature control or whatever.
Lets compare the decks shall we? Slith Firewalker is the Jackal Pup of this standard. It hits in for more damage then a Jackal Pup. RDW tries to play a Jackal Pup then control the board, letting the Pup swing for usually 8+ damage. Same for my deck. RDW has 4 Ports and 4 Wastelands, and 4 Tangle Wire. I don't think these can be replaced, and don't see any point in trying to build an old archetype. But instead of that, look at my deck.
Extended RDW denies both players mana, but has a board advantage, putting itself in a better position.
My RDW gets 5++ mana on turn 1 to 3, while you have only 1-3 mana. I have a MUCH better board advantage.
Arc-Slogger is the reusable source of burn, like Cursed Scroll and Lavamancer. I don't care if my deck is different from the old kind, since both are for different metagmes. Comparison is pointless. If you guys say my deck isn't a RDW deck, I have to say that yours isn't too. I don't see how your decks control an opponent's plays the way Rishadan Port and Friends do. My deck does on the back of Arc-Slogger, Kumano and Pulse of the Forge.
Vs. UG control:
You1: Slith/mox
UG: nothing
UG2: Bounce(end of your turn 2)
you2: either you get your Seething/slogger counter or you attack...
you3: Something coutered
UG: Reach/elder
you4: Slogger
UG: Shackles "LOL"
you5:
UG: hrmm few more turns untill Awakening
MUC: is the same as UG but worse
BG: Kills all your creatures, then drops Kokusho, and then procideds to Death Cloud all your presious cards.
MBC: Everthing you play dies... they consume you good..
ANything else????
How should I start responding to this post? Firstly you are giving me hypothetical scenarios. These does not happen in actual game play. I can give you this pile of scenarios back for your own deck too. Does that mean your deck is bad? It doesn't. I shall not bother about your scenarios, but instead talk about how this deck counters each of these different decks. Blue is countered using Pulse of the Forge and Boseiju. These 2 means a win usually. BG can't kill a turn 2 slogger. Sakura DOES get burned away. Its just a trade of 2 potential damage to the dome with 4 actual damage from Arc-Slogger.
Death Cloud? Thats why I said BG was a little more problematic. Guerilla Tactics solve that problem. I have seen Sensei's Divining Top pile 3 of those into your hand. Death Cloud is not the solution to everything. If I burn you down to 7 life, how do you pull a death cloud that doesn't help kill you?
MBC can't counter burn spells. The only thing scary for this deck is actually a turn 3 Persecute when it doesn't have a Divining top in play.
Another question: How come you didn't answer my questions not pertaining to the deck but to your negative responses? And knowing how the deck works does not equal actually winning with it.
EDIT: Fireball is for the times when multiple Seething Songs and Rituals pile up your hand. I see fireballs for 9 points when this happens.
Definition of Big Red: It is a deck that controls the board, and plays large creatures that win the game. Close enough?
RDW: Stands for Red Deck Wins. Given to the deck in Extended simply becuase "it wins again and again and again". Well, this deck certainly wins again and again and again, so I see no problem calling it RDW. Get out of the mindset that RDW has tiny creatures. I can start another post on how similar RDW and this deck are. They are actually rather startling.
Sligh: Named after the guy who created the deck, Paul Sligh (if I am not wrong). He simply built a deck based on a certain mana curve and did VERY well with it. Basically a deck with a good mana curve i.e. small creatures but no more than the casting cost of 3.
Aggro Red: Just a deck chock-ful of red creatures. Does not have to follow the Sligh strategy, but may do so.
I only call this deck RDW and not Big Red. This deck plays Sloggers on turns 1-2, and control the board. Just like you guys. You play lots of small creatures and burn out the way, I just play 1 large creature and burn out the way.
Posts here are really funny. My friend plays a deck similar to this, but has major important differences in terms of cards, otherwise strategy-wise it is the same.
The name RDW does not imply playing tiny creatures, and playing burn spells to pave the way out for your creatures. It simply means Red Deck Wins. And his deck does win, so I don't see any problem with him calling it RDW. His deck is indeed Red Aggro.
The deck does not lose to UG and the various other decks you list.
And if you would play test RDW you would this deck plays a lot better then it looks. Stop trying to look like you know everything and call are decks Jank when you post a bad version of Big Red.
Dude, have you even tested this deck? It seems like you haven't or you wouldn't be either "flaming" him or calling this deck jank. And since when did
so poo on you :grin2:
count as flaming? This isn't Big Red, and it certainly isn't a bad version of it.
Maybe I should describe the strategy instead.This deck dedicates a medium amount of resources to putting an early threat into play. The resources here would be Lands, Chrome Moxen, Desperate Rituals, and Seething Songs. The Early threat would be the Arc-Slogger, Slith Firewalker, or the random Kumano. This threat will force your opponent to dedicate as much, if not more, cards to *try* to remove it. Most of the times, this does not happen.
Aggro decks will have a lot of trouble. Simply because this deck will just burn creature after creature as Slith Firewalker swings in turn after turn. Or the fat Slogger just gunning down each creature and mauling your opponent for a decent 4 damage. There is no way for Aggro decks to kill an early Slogger. Here this deck scores a point.
Control decks will have less trouble, depending on the colours. Blue is the best colour to combat this deck. Just 1 spell stops the early threat. The rest folds easily. Tell me, what can you do against an early Slogger or Slith Firewalker when the opponent still has 3-4 cards in his hand? Nothing much.
Raffinity was this deck's best matchup, followed by White Weenie and TnN. It definitely had problems against BG, but sideboard quickly solved that problem. Mono Blue is a problem, but that is also a problem for everyone else. UG posed a slightly tougher problem then BG but otherwise its still beatable. I shall now post that decklist. By the way, it was pre-banning.
Stop trying to look like you know everything and call are decks Jank when you post a bad version of (edit)RDW(/edit).
EDIT:
IbeatTomGuevin: I would just like to remind you that the bannings only take place after March 20. Until then, Ravager is still a force to be reckoned with.
4 Humble Budoka
4 Sakura-Tribe Elder
2 Isao, Enlightened Bushi
4 Troll Ascetic
4 Eternal Witness
3 Iwamori of the Open Fist
4 Kodama of the North Tree
4 Chrome Mox
4 Enshrined Memories
4 Beacon of Creation
Lands:
22 Forest
1 Boseiju, Who Shelters All
Game Plan against the TnN: Serve the beatdown, FAST. Turn 3 Kodama is quite a fast clock, and so is a turn 2 Troll Ascetic or Iwamori.
Against MUC: Sneak an untargetable creature into play, and beat him up. Don't play Isao or Iwamori for them to steal and block your creatures. Try to resolve more untargetable creatures by baiting with Enshrined Memories, Beacons of Creation and Witnesses.
Against B/X: Play creatures that are hard to deal with, like Troll, Isao, Beacon of Creation insects. Refill your hand with Enshrined Memories. This thing draws insane amounts of cards late game.
WW: Say hi to Troll Ascetic and Isao. Who can beat down faster? Depends. Sideboard should have some amounts of Artifact hate.
RDW: Untargetable/Regenerating/Big and Fat stuff just pwns. Try to go for one hit KO's, or risk getting killed by the infamous Pulse of the Forge.
EDIT: Testing needs to be carried out. I don't like this deck though, since I can't build it (look at the money rares!) and the fact that it looks good enough to beat MUC up. Or maybe we should keep this low-profile, and use it to surprise lots of lots of people when the BIG tournament rolls around. Considering that MUC is eventually going to become the no. 1 deck in Standard, once the metagame stabilises.
It all depends on the metagame you are in. Land Destruction can only serve as stalling, since most of the decks are green and will break out of the mana denial stage anyways. A land d plan just to screw your opponent won't work, but the Land D strategy to stall your opponent from dealing with your creatures (much more potent with an active AEther Vial) does work. I find the Land D + AEther Vial route very strong, because burn won't do much against Green/X decks anyways.
Sidenote:
The aim is to play a creature that is difficult to answer like an Arc-Slogger or a Slith Firewalker on the first to third turn, and attack with it while using burn spells to impede the opponent’s ability to deal with the creature. Since this is done during turns 1 to 3, your opponent has to dedicate an abnormally large amount of resouces to remove the threat(creatures don't work, echoing decay don't work), the plan being that by the time your opponent has dealt with the creatures, a couple of burn spells like a Shrapnel Blast will be able to finish him off.
Aggro Zombies: Zo-zu should be run main. No Land D should be played. Zo-Zu is a strong creature beating for 2 and dealing at least 6+ damage if your opponent is not running black, but land D is merely stalling. Today's format is filled with green even post-ban, so land d is not a good idea. Let me elaborate. You will want to play creatures turn 1-2, which is definite, but in order for Land D to work you need to cast it repeatedly to make way for your creatures. The deck cannot both run burn and land D, you need to make a choice based on your metagame.
With control metagame, cut most of the burn except probably Magma Jet, get AEther Vials to free up mana so you can cast about 12++ Land D spells. For Aggro metagame just stick with what we have here and it should be fine, but no Land D sideboard.
BTW I never came in claiming that this deck was better than your sligh builds. I came in to defend Legacy Weapons list, because you guys just dismissed it as nonsense without even testing out a representative build of what the deck can do.
I never said that my deck is RDW because it has a first turn combo. I said it was RDW, because it was versatile, and won regardless of what your opponent did. I didn't say it was RDW because it was red. Rather, being red is a criteria for calling a deck RDW. I didn't call it RDW because it had Mountains. IT isn't a sub-par version of Big Red. Big Red can't deal with TnN, BG Cloud, and depending on the nature of the deck, UG and MUC. And its still in the right thread.
Ahh, 1 shot mana superiority that creates a board advantage. Rishadan POrt didn't create mana superiority. RDW just played early creature, then attempt to mana screw your opponent by using Port Tangle Wire and Wasteland to delay your opponent's answers to the creature. Instead of doing that, I just play a Larger creature, that your opponent can't deal with for at least another 3 turns. Notice that RDW when using Rishadan Port comes out with less than 1 mana than the opponent. Does that mean mana superiority? No. My deck isn't a crappy combo. It is a good combo, just inconsistent However, please do me a favour and stop looking at the potential turn 1 Slogger. I get turn 1-3 Sloggers half the time only. I still win very often. Desperate Rituals and Seething Songs still work.
Indeed, ignoring a cease and desist order from a moderator is a warnable offense. Same thing if I'm ignoring an unreasonable cease and desist order from a moderator. Lets argue on another topic. You haven't actually told me to buzz off. You have been arguing with me on whether this deck is RDW or not. If you think you can warn me, then you have to warn yourself too. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. My points are still valid, you are hitting one statement at a time. Why don't you go deconstruct my argument since it is so faulty and tell me why I am wrong? I don't think you will do that.
You can't just do that. There is something called interactivity. Now, if I had this play against your "god hand", who will win in the end? Me, because I had a Slogger that just stops you from playing that Viashino Sandstalker and Slith Firewalker. In that scenario I will have virtual card advantage, because I am using the Slogger to stop you from playing any more creatures.
Similarly, if I draw an average hand, and you drew that hand, who will win? Still me. I burn your creatures using E-bolt and Jet, stabilising when I play Slogger (Kumano should be burned off, 4 toughness is really bad). If the game drags on any longer, Pulse of the Forge and Shrapnel Blast will take the win. The acceleration cards aren't bad. They fuel your early threats, like playing Firewalker and burning 2 creatures, or help you play around counters, or even make a huge fireball.
Sligh is worse against BG than my deck. BG has Echoing Decay etc. And Barter in Blood hurts you more than it hurts me. You might say, "I have burn as my back-up plan." but then again, my deck has better burn than your deck. Against aggro, if they manage to go past your burn, what do you have left? I at least still have Pulse of the Forge, a card that everyone knows wins games by itself.
I don't doubt the Sligh deck. I like beating down with red creatures and burning stuff out of the way, giving you this feeling that your deck worked together to produce the win. But Speed Slogger (the name I shall now give this deck so that it won't be confused with your Red Aggro decks) wins with more style, wins faster, better, and more reliable.
In no way, is my deck another attempt at pulling out some stupid turn 1 combo like the Shoal deck. That is VERY inconsistent, whereas this deck doesn't mind late Sloggers or acceleration. I just treat the acceleration as wonder cards early game, and as mountains late game.
I don't want to argue about this anymore. I still stand by my point that this deck is RDW, and not the other names you people have provided. But I'm just leaving this thread because there really isn't any point in arguing about a silly name. Leaving this thread so you people can work on Sligh, and not waste any time. Same for me. I'm sure the burn spells my deck can be tweaked, and sideboard definitely can be edited.
And Butteblue18, can you kindly change the thread name to Sligh? Well, you guys wanted to work on a deck with a smooth mana curve. With Sligh I would have no reason to be here. Maybe I should just go check out the other discussions.
EDIT:
Butteblue18, did you read my earlier posts? RDW is the name given to the deck in extended because it was really a killer deck, pulling out ridiculous wins, thats all. It just happened that mana advantage, card advantage were characteristic of it, but they are not the reasons why it was called RDW. My deck has most of the characteristics of RDW, early threats, burn to clear the way, and efficient/reusable burn. Your deck doesn't have mana advantage and card advantage, so its called RDW simply because it has early threats?
Attributes of RDW:
Early creatures
Mana Advantage, specifically tempo advantage
Card Advantage, or rather reusable burn
Burn to clear the way.
Notice that its Early creatures, not Small creatures. I shall not argue this point further, because you seem to be incapable of realising that Early creatures does not mean Small Inexpensive creatures.
And I still haven't violated any forum guidelines.
Ok, RDW isn't sligh alright? You got confused about that. What mana curve is there? There isn't one, just a large emphasis on 1 drops then suddenly a medium amount of cards in the 3 and 4 slot.
Same for my deck. All of the cards casting cost are below 3. Only 6 was at 5. And, Grim Lavamancer was supposed to be reusable damage source, not as a creature, there are tons of better combat based Creatures. Blistering Firecat was a 4 mana sorcery that hits for 7. So what do we have left? 4 Mogg Fanatic, which is more of a burn spell, and 4 Jackal Pup.
Alright, do me a favour and answer these few questions, and I might just leave this thread alone.
"It" here refers to my deck.
Is it Aggresive?
Does it use burn to clear the way?
Does it have the element of mana Advantage?
And then for RDW:
Is it Aggresive?
Does it use burn to clear the way?
Does it have the element of mana Advantage?
Next question:
Is my deck RDW?
Big Red does not sacrifice cards for speed and power. Mine does. According to the Big Red thread, my deck does not belong there and I believe that too. Tell me where my deck belongs then. And what forum guidelines am I violating? We are discussing a deck here, nothing more.
EDIT: By the way, its Legacy Weapon and me on this side, and you, Chalupa and IbeatTomGuevin on the other side. I'm not the only one who believes that this deck belongs here. I'm not saying that Big Red is the same as RDW. I'm saying that my deck is RDW and not Big Red.
Let me reiterate that my deck is not a control deck. It is an aggro deck, forcing your opponent to make play choices he normally wouldn't. I don't control his threats. I play mine, and force my opponent to respond to it. If he can't, I am going to win. This deck is indeed Red Deck Wins. You haven't told me how my deck was different. RDW wasn't based on early small creatures. It was based on reusable burn. It went all the way to make card advantage. Grim Lavamancer, Cursed Scroll, and a Jackal Pup with burn. If you keep burning his creatures, you may be maintaing card parity, but hes losing life, whereas you aren't. This is virtual card advantage. My deck does the same thing too. It is based on card advantage. If I played an Arc-Slogger on turn 2 or 3, you will not play that weenie in your hand. Normal removal can't kill it, but delay it. If you play Sakura, I just pitch a burn spell or burn it out, and swing for 4 damage which is 1/5 of your life total. That's a good trade for me. Thats card advantage. 1 card on my side that stops you from playing 3-4 cards in your hand.
My deck IS similar to RDW. You haven't proven otherwise. You keep telling me that RDW was based on small creatures and burn to clear the way. It wasn't. Go check out the cards. It was based on mana advantage, and card advantage.
You have only given me 1 scenario. White Weenie and Raffinity cannot deal with that hand. No way. They can't win the damage race either. BG can't do anything either. Lets say, he plays a Sakura turn 2. He has already taken 4 damage. Back to me, I kill the Sakura, and swing in for another 4. He has taken 8, and I have another 3 mana. Next turn, he has 2 options. Barter in Blood and Death Cloud. Death Cloud makes him take 1, and no matter what he does, hes going to take another 4 damage from activations. What have you achieved? He has taken a total 8 from combat damage, 6 from Arc-Slogger activations, and 1 from Death Cloud.
He's at 5 life now, and can't Death Cloud anymore. I definitely have more cards in hand, that deal at least 5 damage. Who's in the winning position? Definitely me. This happens if I get a turn 1 Slogger.
Basically, as turns pass, the damage potential remains the same. Early game, you use a lot of resources, and you deal massive damage. If you don't do this, late game you have a lot of resources, and can deal that same amount of damage too. It all depends on the way you build the deck.
Another scenario. If I am playing against Mono Blue, my acceleration cards help me avoid the counters. They can't really do much, but delay me. The only real threat is Vedalken Shackles, but I can still win with burn.
My deck is not MRC or Big Red. Big Red wasn't called Big Red because it had Big creatures in it. Big creatures were the Finishers, only after the deck has set up card advantage slowly. MRC just controls your opponent threats, and use Pulse of the Forge to win. Mine serves to replace the aggro deck, with a deck that spits out early un-answerable threats that has a backup plan in the form of burn.
I don't intend to discuss my deck. I know that the deck works and wins for me. I came here to argue that this deck belongs in the thread, and deserves a look at. I don't need you to criticize my deck. You have already shut your ears, believing that Seething Song and Desperate Rituals are crap when they are not. You aren't fit to judge how the deck works without trying it out. You even made up scenarios that don't happen anywhere near what really happens with the deck in real life. I listed out the strategy, you guys tell me that "based on a few scenarios, this deck cannot be RDW, because it didn't play an early threat". And since when did decks that play less than 12 creatures be counted as control decks?
Will Raffinity still be called Raffinity if it didn't draw Arcbound Ravager in the entire game? I think so.
I realise that you people never talk about the points I make. You just continue to argue that my deck does not belong here, which is untrue. Nevertheless, if I really intended to discuss my deck, I wouldn't do it here. Nobody has tested it out, and just gave comments based on the mindset of the majority, that this card is bad and that card is good.
In the end, I find that it was actually enjoyable to post here, because firstly: You make funny comments and believe them to be right, without giving any explanation, and ignore my explained points, and secondly: You people have no idea how important looking at other cards objectively are.
Thank you for spending time to look at this pointless post,
blym
My deck is called RDW. I call it RDW because it just wins again and again, like Raffinity on crack. I haven't seen it lose a match except when I play against Raffinity on more crack. It just pwns all the deck in its current form, earlier versions were definitely not as good.
You guys also argue about how the deck doesn't belong in here when it does. You completely dismiss it as trash, because it has supposedly crap cards in it. I have given many examples, but you guys just post a comment or 2 on just 1 small point, whereas I have spent time, responding to each statement you have said.
I can compare this to Arcbound Ravager. Notice how Raffinity sacrifices most of its permanents to just 1 creature? My deck does that too. Spending, or rather *investing* resources into a single creature. You guys always give me a single specific solution to a scenario. I can do that too. If I play turn 1 land, turn 2 growth, turn 3 persecute naming red and turn 4 hideous laughter, won't your deck be screwed all over? I'm not saying this point is valid.
I completely disagree with your post except for 1 thing: it is a waste of time.
You should have just told me to get the hell out not because my deck wasn't RDW, but rather you guys wanted to discuss a deck that has more than 12 creatures. Go ahead and be narrow-minded. Restrict your deck construction. Fail to try out other suggestions. Reflect that in your thread name, so people like Legacy Weapon won't make a small post and get "flamed" all over for it. I believe I made a valid suggestion. I suggested that large creatures are better than a bunch of small ones. Black has something called Hideous Laughter. You tell me that you have burn to pave the way out. What do you intend to burn? Eternal Witness? Sakura-Tribe Elder? Hah. Aggro creatures eh? Turn 2 Slogger ain't aggro enough? 1 fat creature on the board isn't aggro? Forcing your opponent to counter your cards isn't aggro?
I am not the one confused, but rather you guys. I am also entitled to my opinion that my deck belongs in this thread, unless you guys convince me otherwise. Go check up on the history of RDW. It was called RDW, but early not small creatures backed up with burn and the element of mana denial was characteristic of it. Mine just has early but large creatures backed up with burn and the element of mana denial in the form of acceleration. Whether or not RDW means red deck wins again and again or a bunch of early creatures does not matter, what I know is that my deck is very similar to how RDW functions.
Extremely aggresive? Turn 2-3 Sloggers aren't extremely Aggresive? My deck isn't creature-based? Whats considered as creature-based? My deck is an Aggro deck with Burn as backup. Red Deck Wins wasn't the name of the deck because "it was extremely aggresive". It was rather because it was just a deck that won again and again no matter what you did. It was a very strong deck.
Goblins can be called RDW. But some people wanted to discuss RDW with the element of reusable damage and mana denial, whereas other people wanted to discuss decks with the goblin engine and mana denial.
I have stated earlier that RDW uses mana denial when it has a board advantage to secure the win, whereas my deck uses acceleration to get a board advantage when your opponent is still developing his mana base. RDW does not run lots of weenies. Exclude Blistering Firecat please, it was more like a 4 mana sorcery deal 7 damage spell.
RDW uses efficient burn. As I have said, Fireball is a late game thing. It is to throw your accumulated Seething Songs and Desperate Rituals you have no use of late game. I have powerful burn. Electrostatic Bolt is the most efficient you can get. Magma Jet over Volcanic Hammer because I burn creatures, not the person normally, and there are rarely Creatures with toughness more than 2. Hit the whole deck, not just one card. I can say "Barter in Blood is useless, because they have Sakura-Tribe Elder, and Meloku which can negate the removal." True or not? I don't think so.
SDT the worst card in Kamigawa Block? Use of exaggeration here, to make your point seem valid. It is very important in this deck. Granted, the cards in here seem like crap. Used together you get a powerhouse. SDT gets rid of cards you do not need in different situations. I do not want a Desperate Ritual later than turn 4. I need that Magma Jet now. RDW didn't need any library manipulation because all their cards serve similar role i.e. they are a single solution to multiple scenarios. Seal of Fire and Lava Dart. Rishadan Port, Wasteland, and Tangle Wire. Grim Lavamancer and Cursed Scroll.
If you intend to compare both my deck and RDW of Extended, let me compare this thread's decks and the RDW deck. I do not see any form of Control besides the burn. A white player can easily stall using a Genju of the Fields, after which Wrath of God wipes your board clean. What do we have now? My deck negates that disadvantage by using 1 large creature instead of using multiple small creatures.
Definition of Big Red: It is a deck that controls the board, and plays large creatures that win the game.
My deck uses Creatures to Control the board. These creatures force your opponent to make play choices he normally wouldn't. I.E. You are the Aggro player, controlling what your opponent does.
Rebut that definition. Tell me why my deck isn't RDW. The only scenario where my deck isn't RDW is when it does not win again and again.
I just see people telling that my deck doesn't belong here because it isn't RDW. And they stop there. They try to scare me by saying "go look for definition and whatever". In the end does that happen? No. Theres no point in making an argument if there is no evidence for the argument.
Basically my point: My deck belongs here, unless you change your thread name.
Definition of RDW: Given to an extended deck, because it wins again and again.
Definition of Red Aggro: Deck that uses creatures to win, and burn to clear the way and as a backup plan.
My deck fits the above definitions and belong here.
Challenge my defintion.
BG used to run Echoing Decay and Barter in Blood. Thats all. Before BiB hits, Slogger WILL deal at least 10 damage, 1 swing and 3 activations. And do you realise that Death Cloud Makes You Lose Life? So if they Death Cloud for 3, I'm not supposed to have any land? And I don't have any Chrome Moxen? If you oxidize it, you must do it turn 1 since you will be accelerating to kill my Slogger than slow that 1 turn down.
This deck is not Big Red. You haven't argued against my definition. In fact, nobody has, but instead keep telling me that this deck isn't RDW. And this deck does not just beat Affinity. It beats a lot of other stuff. The only reason why people don't play this deck is because it has 4 Mox, which is frowned upon because its Artifact-hate season and its price. It has 4 Desperate Ritual and 4 Seething Song and so its bad because "pros say card advantage is important".
You may end your argument, but I see many flaws in yours. You haven't poked any holes in mine either.
EDIT: Give me a definition of RDW then. Tell me why its called RDW. I tell you its called RDW because its a Red Deck, and it simply WINS. Not because it has at least 12 creatures. If you want to do it that way, kindly change your thread name. Change it to "[Official Thread] RDW that has at least 12 creatures because I do not want to look at possible alternatives that has less than 12. I like limiting my deck construction choices." That will help everybody here.
Read posts carefully. That saves a lot of time. I recall saying something about Pulse of the Forge and Boseiju. I never said that this deck you call "Big Red" is better than your deck that you like to call "RDW", the name of which I do not oppose. You are giving me multiple solutions to only 1 scenario. But can you give me 1 solution to multiple scenarios? I doubt it. MBC cannot consume half its life back. Are you telling me it has 12 mana before the game hits turn 7 or earlier? I don't think so. I never said you were negative to me. I said you were being negative to Legacy Weapon. You must have mixed me up with him somehow.
I don't tell you guys to play this deck. I'm only telling you guys that this deck isn't bad, but actually really good. I don't need 3 guerilla tactics in my hand to win against a Cloud. Just 1 is enough to kill you.
Scenario: You have taken at least 8 from an Arc-Slogger and burn. You Death Cloud for 3ish. I discard just 1 Guerilla Tactics. you take 15. I just need to burn you for 5 which is fairly simple.
How close is your friend's build? People in this forum are already doubting my card choices without testing them. I dare bet that your friend's build does not include such comprehensive answers to decks in today's format. You have to see why every card in the deck helps kill your opponent. I have played BG Cloud for a long long time. since Sakura-Tribe Elder and Kokusho was released on the spoiler over at MtgNews. But I just couldn't beat this deck. He had answers for everything. With this deck, you can't be the control. You have to be the aggro. You have to use a minimal amount of resources to force your opponent to spend a larger amount.
I'm disgusted by the fact that you just treated this deck as trash just because it was different, just called it jank. People did that for Broodstar Affinity. People said that when TnN won Pro Tour Kobe. People didn't think that Broodstar will be replaced by Arcbound Ravager. What happened in the end? TnN dominated standard. Ravager became the powerhouse we all know today. Broodstar simply won against control back then. Being different does not mean worse. It just means a whole plethora of new choices.
EDIT: RDW is the name given to this deck because it wins again and again and again. Just that. Not because it had small creatures and creature control or whatever.
Lets compare the decks shall we? Slith Firewalker is the Jackal Pup of this standard. It hits in for more damage then a Jackal Pup. RDW tries to play a Jackal Pup then control the board, letting the Pup swing for usually 8+ damage. Same for my deck. RDW has 4 Ports and 4 Wastelands, and 4 Tangle Wire. I don't think these can be replaced, and don't see any point in trying to build an old archetype. But instead of that, look at my deck.
Extended RDW denies both players mana, but has a board advantage, putting itself in a better position.
My RDW gets 5++ mana on turn 1 to 3, while you have only 1-3 mana. I have a MUCH better board advantage.
Arc-Slogger is the reusable source of burn, like Cursed Scroll and Lavamancer. I don't care if my deck is different from the old kind, since both are for different metagmes. Comparison is pointless. If you guys say my deck isn't a RDW deck, I have to say that yours isn't too. I don't see how your decks control an opponent's plays the way Rishadan Port and Friends do. My deck does on the back of Arc-Slogger, Kumano and Pulse of the Forge.
How should I start responding to this post? Firstly you are giving me hypothetical scenarios. These does not happen in actual game play. I can give you this pile of scenarios back for your own deck too. Does that mean your deck is bad? It doesn't. I shall not bother about your scenarios, but instead talk about how this deck counters each of these different decks. Blue is countered using Pulse of the Forge and Boseiju. These 2 means a win usually. BG can't kill a turn 2 slogger. Sakura DOES get burned away. Its just a trade of 2 potential damage to the dome with 4 actual damage from Arc-Slogger.
Death Cloud? Thats why I said BG was a little more problematic. Guerilla Tactics solve that problem. I have seen Sensei's Divining Top pile 3 of those into your hand. Death Cloud is not the solution to everything. If I burn you down to 7 life, how do you pull a death cloud that doesn't help kill you?
MBC can't counter burn spells. The only thing scary for this deck is actually a turn 3 Persecute when it doesn't have a Divining top in play.
Another question: How come you didn't answer my questions not pertaining to the deck but to your negative responses? And knowing how the deck works does not equal actually winning with it.
EDIT: Fireball is for the times when multiple Seething Songs and Rituals pile up your hand. I see fireballs for 9 points when this happens.
Definition of Big Red: It is a deck that controls the board, and plays large creatures that win the game. Close enough?
RDW: Stands for Red Deck Wins. Given to the deck in Extended simply becuase "it wins again and again and again". Well, this deck certainly wins again and again and again, so I see no problem calling it RDW. Get out of the mindset that RDW has tiny creatures. I can start another post on how similar RDW and this deck are. They are actually rather startling.
Sligh: Named after the guy who created the deck, Paul Sligh (if I am not wrong). He simply built a deck based on a certain mana curve and did VERY well with it. Basically a deck with a good mana curve i.e. small creatures but no more than the casting cost of 3.
Aggro Red: Just a deck chock-ful of red creatures. Does not have to follow the Sligh strategy, but may do so.
I only call this deck RDW and not Big Red. This deck plays Sloggers on turns 1-2, and control the board. Just like you guys. You play lots of small creatures and burn out the way, I just play 1 large creature and burn out the way.
I think you are the confused person, not me.
The name RDW does not imply playing tiny creatures, and playing burn spells to pave the way out for your creatures. It simply means Red Deck Wins. And his deck does win, so I don't see any problem with him calling it RDW. His deck is indeed Red Aggro.
The deck does not lose to UG and the various other decks you list. Dude, have you even tested this deck? It seems like you haven't or you wouldn't be either "flaming" him or calling this deck jank. And since when did count as flaming? This isn't Big Red, and it certainly isn't a bad version of it.
Maybe I should describe the strategy instead.This deck dedicates a medium amount of resources to putting an early threat into play. The resources here would be Lands, Chrome Moxen, Desperate Rituals, and Seething Songs. The Early threat would be the Arc-Slogger, Slith Firewalker, or the random Kumano. This threat will force your opponent to dedicate as much, if not more, cards to *try* to remove it. Most of the times, this does not happen.
Aggro decks will have a lot of trouble. Simply because this deck will just burn creature after creature as Slith Firewalker swings in turn after turn. Or the fat Slogger just gunning down each creature and mauling your opponent for a decent 4 damage. There is no way for Aggro decks to kill an early Slogger. Here this deck scores a point.
Control decks will have less trouble, depending on the colours. Blue is the best colour to combat this deck. Just 1 spell stops the early threat. The rest folds easily. Tell me, what can you do against an early Slogger or Slith Firewalker when the opponent still has 3-4 cards in his hand? Nothing much.
Raffinity was this deck's best matchup, followed by White Weenie and TnN. It definitely had problems against BG, but sideboard quickly solved that problem. Mono Blue is a problem, but that is also a problem for everyone else. UG posed a slightly tougher problem then BG but otherwise its still beatable. I shall now post that decklist. By the way, it was pre-banning.
4 Great Furnace
4 Blinkmoth Nexus
12 Mountain
Creatures
4 Arc-Slogger
2 Kumano, Master Yamabushi
4 Slith Firewalker
Spells
4 Chrome Mox
3 Sensei's Divining Top
3 Electrostatic Bolt
2 Fireball
4 Magma Jet
4 Shrapnel Blast
4 Desperate Ritual
4 Seething Song
2 Pulse of the Forge
2 Pulse of the Forge
4 Guerilla Tactics
3 Boseiju, Who Shelters All
3 Zo-Zu the Punisher
3 Sowing Salt <----This is just filler
That's it. It's suprisingly consistent.
I would like to end off here with a quote.
EDIT:
IbeatTomGuevin: I would just like to remind you that the bannings only take place after March 20. Until then, Ravager is still a force to be reckoned with.