[Deck] Red Death (B/r Suicide)

[AnwarA101]

The deck is an evolution of my work on Suicide Black. At the last Duel for Duals I placed 9th with Suicide Black. The discussion for that deck can be found here ( http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3451) in the New and Developmental Forum. Feeling that the deck didn’t perform as well as I hoped I moved on in the months following the event in February to try other decks, but I kept this deck in the back of my mind. I knew that there were at least two problems with the deck, as it existed in February one it lacked reach meaning that if your creatures were stalled that you would just lose and two that the deck often times had too many dead cards specifically Vendetta, Diabolic Edict, and sometimes Duress. I searched for answers in Black because I really felt that splashing a color would not only wreck the consistency of the mana base but would also turn a strength of the deck into a weakness. Without too much success in Black I opened my options up to different colors. Red seemed the most natural fit because it allowed me to play removal without it being dead against decks without creatures. I worried about Duress being dead against aggro, but decided to keep it because of its incredible power against combo and control. I do want to thank Powergamer1003 and ObfuscateFreely for both encouragement on the original deck and for always offering good ideas. Evil Roopey also suggested adding Red to the deck when he was working on a similar deck.

Red Death

//Disruption
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole

//Creatures
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Nantuko Shade
4 Hypnotic Specter
3 Rotting Giant
1 Wretched Anurid

//Removal and Reach
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning

//Mana and Lands
7 Swamp
3 Badlands
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Polluted Delta
4 Wasteland
4 Dark Ritual

//Sideboard
4 Infest
4 Dystopia
4 Cabal Therapy
3 Meltdown

Most of these card choices are explained in the older Suicide Black thread so I won’t restate them, but I will go over most of the changes and how some of them impact the way this deck plays. The main difference ofcourse is the inclusion of different removal spells.

Lightning Bolt – This card represents pretty much everything I want in a removal spell. It costs 1 and kills almost every turn 1 play in the format except Nimble Mongoose. It also doubles as reach against all decks especially control decks.

Chain Lightning – This was a much tougher choice mainly because it is sorcery. The fact isn’t an instant is a big deal, because you aren’t able to take down something like Goblin Warchief immediately or even catch a control player who has tapped out to play a spell. I looked at something like Magma Jet, but I decided that playing something that again costs only 1 mana for 3 damage was too good of a ratio to turn down. Since there were only 7 spots for removal in the orginial deck and so this one is only run as a 3 of since it is worse than Lightning Bolt.

Rotting Giant – I was never quite happy with my 4th creature. I jumped back and forth between Wretched Anurid and Flesh Reaver. I was never satisfied with either but with the addition of both fetchlands to support Red and the additional burn in the new version Rotting Giant became a great alternative to either Anurid or Flesh Reaver. There are only 3 in the deck to prevent drawing too many of them at the same time and thus the 1 Anurid is included to round out the creatures. Playing only 3 was Powergamer1003’s idea. My original list had 4. I remember asking ObfuscateFreely if he thought I could run Rotting Giant in Suicide Black, but he told me I would need to run fetchlands. Looks like he was right.

The sideboard can obviously vary based on a metagame, but I did decide to run Meltdown as a way to answer artifacts as well as a way to beat Affinity if necessary. After watching Powergamer1003 play Rise/Fall against Solidarity and finding that it seemed less than stellar I decided to look for a replacement. I was going to run Distress but was unable to find any and instead opted for Cabal Therapy and it turned out really well against combo.

I finalized this list only a few days before the Duel for Duals so we did not have time to test it. We also realized that while it was untested it could definitely be a big surprise. Though its similarity to my Suicide Black list made me feel pretty comfortable.

The name for this deck is inspired by the short story “The Masque of the Red Death” by Edgar Allan Poe. That could be the name for the deck (and if you want to call it that I like that as well), but I know that long names rarely ever catch on. Red Death is succinct enough while still being descriptive.

I will post a brief tournament report as well later. But I did want to kick off discussion of this deck and hope to see everyone’s input.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I was going to suggest calling the deck Bloody Murder, but I can't really say no to Poe references.

I like how the burn spells make up for Sui's historic lack of good turn 1 plays sans Ritual. That in mind, was Grim Lavamancer tested any? It seems to fit in the deck's strategies really well.

[SuckerPunch]

Congrats on the success and thanks for the explanation. The build makes a lot more sense when you compare it to standard Sui Black.

I was curious.

How has negator been. It seems like a bad idea in a format dominated by creatures and burn, but your much success both at last D4D and this one suggests otherwise.

Have you considered Grim Lavamancer. You may have to cut Rotting Giant but Lavamancer is one of the best creatures ever printed esp in a format filled with creatures like this one.

Any reason you didn't run Dark Confidant. He does so much.

What did you do when an opponent cast a Jitte or SOFI. This deck doesn't seem to have any options against them.

What about Sedge Troll. In a format full of creatures, this seems like a great choice. Possibly to replace Negator.

Also before opting for the red splaash, did you consider something like Jitte instead. It can fulfill a lot of the same functions that red serves.

Decklist deleted. Please suggest specific card choices without posting entire decklists. It clutters up the thread and creates confusion about which list is being discussed. -Zilla

I would ask about Magma Jet too but it clearly doesn't fit the curve.

[noobslayer]

I'd suggest Grim Lavamancer. My only worry would be the correct boarding options against you of engineered plague for wizard at that point.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

With Lavamancer as the only Wizard?

[kicks_422]

Confidant is a Wizard too, if you play it... But would you really board in Plagues against 8 creatures of your opponents?

What were your match-ups in the D4D? It looks really solid... :tongue:

[Mr. Nipples]

The name for this deck is inspired by the short story “The Masque of the Red Death” by Edgar Allan Poe.
This is kind of ironic because there is an entire museum in Richmond dedicated to Edgar Allan Poe that my parents visited that weekend.


//Creatures
6 Phyrexian Negator/Hypnotic Specter/Nantuko Shade/Jitte
I think that making Hypnotic Specter anything less than a 4-of isn't a good idea especially since it's one of the better cards in the deck. I do like the idea of adding Jitte though. It can act as removal, and is just an all around awesome card.

[My Name Is Scott]

Any reason you didn't run Dark Confidant. He does so much.
...
//Creatures
4 Dark Confidant

Some of us were actually betting on how long it would take for someone to suggest running dark confidant. Whoever said that someone would post the idea before the deck was even posted just out of principle was actually the closest.

Here are the posts I could find that best clarify the reasons that dark confidant shouldn't be in this deck:
one (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70257&postcount=82)
two (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=65468&postcount=22)
three (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=73014&postcount=128)

[SuckerPunch]

a. You're running 4 Negators. So it's clear that you aren't worried about blockers and plan to burn them. If that's the case, the fact that Confidant doesn't have evasion shouldn't be a big factor. If you can support Negator, you can support Confidant.

b. I'm not saying to run Dark Confidant in Hippie's slot. I'm saying run it in Rotting Giant's slot. So statements as to why Hippie is better aren't relevent. I fully support running a full playset of Hippies.

c. Confidant is actually a lot stronger in this than in standard Sui. This is because it will often get you an extra burn spell or two per game and thus helps you kill your opponent faster. It also lets you get extra duress etc which can really help with disruption.

[Benie Bederios]

I hate to quote myself but this is the reaon not to play Confidant in Sui


Yes I've played Bw Confidant. In that deck he really shines. But this deck is quite different than Sui-black. Bw Confidant is a control deck, this is aggro, with some control elements. This deck plays more creatures and less disruption. Your late game is bad, whether you have Confidant or not.

All land and hand disruption loose there power overtime. The disruption looses his power after turn 5. As I said before, a sinkhole doesn't hurt when your opponent has 4 lands in play. Hymn to Tourach is bad when you're opponent played his entire hand. Diabolic Edict is not that powerfull if you're opponent has 2 or more creatures. Vendetta will become worse, when you're opponent plays more expensive threaths. So you need to kill as fast as possible, before you're creatures and disruption loose their strength. So Confidant will draw into disruption that becomes weaker and weaker, while the other creatures have a faster clock, or denies you're opponent from cards.

Bw-Confidant plays Engineered Plague, Cursed Scroll, Swords to Plowshare and Vindicate. The first two are reasonably late game and the last two are just great.

[powergamer1003]

a. You're running 4 Negators. So it's clear that you aren't worried about blockers and plan to burn them. If that's the case, the fact that Confidant doesn't have evasion shouldn't be a big factor. If you can support Negator, you can support Confidant.

b. I'm not saying to run Dark Confidant in Hippie's slot. I'm saying run it in Rotting Giant's slot. So statements as to why Hippie is better aren't relevent. I fully support running a full playset of Hippies.

c. Confidant is actually a lot stronger in this than in standard Sui. This is because it will often get you an extra burn spell or two per game and thus helps you kill your opponent faster. It also lets you get extra duress etc which can really help with disruption.

Wow Scott that was fast. Was that a whole 13 minutes before someone suggested confidant.

The Reason one can compare him to negator is that we ARE still worried about blockers. The plan is not to burn the out and swing with negator, but for negator to plow right through them. The deck can take the loss of lands. I often times let negator plow right through lackey's and warchiefs.

The real problem with confidant is the loss of tempo. Out side of getting burn, confidant really does not help this deck's late game plan. Rotting giant does things like fight with anything an live, which is very helpful in the goblins matchup. I found when playing this deck that you need to put goblins on the defensive to win, which is what makes the matchup favorable. In addition, while he does get your cards faster, they are really dead in the late game. Remeber, this deck comes out of the flood gates, but many of its cards are not as strong in the late game.

To see my tournament report you can view it here: http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3786

[Whit3 Ghost]

How has Duress been? I would think a one drop a la Sarcomancy might be better. Confidant shouldn't be run, I definately agree with that. What about Sedge Troll, a personal favorite? Magma Jet also deserves testing.

[SuckerPunch]

Setting Confidant aside (you can run Wretched Anurid or Sedge Troll in it's place)

What about Lavamancer?

If it gets burned or StPed, atleast thats a burn spell it directed away from something Hypnotic Spectar or Negator, which is often worse.

It does 2 damage for each red mana you put into it. It actually does a lot more damage than Lightning Bolt in just 2-3 turns. And any game with this deck will last atleast 5 turns if not more.

It's actually golden against goblins since Goblins hardly runs any removal, and it will kill off a differnt goblin each turn, for just one mana.

But I'm not saying to replace Chain Lightning with. I was wondering why it can't supplement the burn as it does in the list I posted above.

[Shysh]

If by this you mean that I sent you a list for this deck like 2 months ago? Then yes, that is exactly what happened. I'm sick of you people being retarded and not gettin your facts straight.

Chill out, man.

Anyway, I'm glad the deck placed well, Anwar. The list is looking pretty solid, though I hope that when we discuss card choices we won't have to run into another Confidant debate. And, as always, I'm delighted at the inclusion of Phyrexian Negator (not just a personal favorite, but also a very underused card, in my opinion. I loved sacrificing copies of Sarcomancy to this guy... and useless lands).

But the question I wanted to ask was: how's the sideboard been working out for you? Were there times where you wished there were different cards in the slots?

[AnwarA101]

Setting Confidant aside (you can run Wretched Anurid or Sedge Troll in it's place)

What about Lavamancer?

If it gets burned or StPed, atleast thats a burn spell it directed away from something Hypnotic Spectar or Negator, which is often worse.

It does 2 damage for each red mana you put into it. It actually does a lot more damage than Lightning Bolt in just 2-3 turns. And any game with this deck will last atleast 5 turns if not more.

It's actually golden against goblins since Goblins hardly runs any removal, and it will kill off a differnt goblin each turn, for just one mana.

But I'm not saying to replace Chain Lightning with. I was wondering why it can't supplement the burn as it does in the list I posted above.


I'm skeptical about Grim Lavamancer mainly because he probably will not be active as soon as turn 2. He is also very brittle and dies to every removal spell. The biggest problem I have with him is having to keep a red open when I want to use up all my mana on all the early turns. So I won't be burning my opponent until like turn 4 when I have extra mana to use. In the mean time he is only swinging for 1 and that doesn't seem like enough pressure to put your opponent on the defensive. I disagree that Grim Lavamancer would be good against Goblins. Mogg Fanatic kills him on the spot and Gempalm does a really good job too.

I believe the issue of Dark Confidant has been discussed earlier and I agree with most of the posts that offer reasons for his exclusion.

[Whit3 Ghost]

I know I said this already, was Sedge Troll and or Magma Jet tested? I agree with Roop running Carnophage/sarcomancy over some of the disruption, although cutting all of the disruption is a bad idea(something I found out at Kadi's DLD).

[Shysh]

Someone please shut me up if I'm just not getting something, but I could never see the usefulness of Sedge Troll. A Trained Armodon that can regenerate? This is just my two cents, but this is how I see it: The deck has good 3/3s already. They're cheap and get the job done. Regeneration implies there's something of equal size or bigger on the table, which is a problem in itself for this deck (if it's out of the burn's reach). On top of that, you can't ritual it out, meaning it'll always be attacking on the fourth turn, if at all.

To sum things up, it's my opinion that Sedge Troll is just to slow for a deck like Red Death, and doesn't have the substance to compensate for its speed in a deck that is all about laying the shit storm quick.

[Whit3 Ghost]

I see your point about troll, but it is huge against things that play big creatures(Thresh, Affinity) because it can regenerate and is undercosted. Against Thresh, you are actually slower then they are without Ritual. Troll allows you to hold off/trade with Geese and Bears, while you build up creatures and disrupt them as much as possilbe, then alpha strike

[SuckerPunch]

Anwar, Regarding Grim Lavamancer as I advocate on the third post.

As far as removal like Magma Jet. Let's put it this way, would you rather that Jet was used to take out Lavamancer, or to take out the Hippie which you invested 3 mana to cast?

Mogg Fanatic is about the only removal where Lavamancer hurts more than running something else. Even then, if that Fanatic didn't sac itself early to take out Lavamancer, it would have dealt 2 damage to Negator costing you 2 lands, 2 lands you would rather be saccing to some 2 power blocker instead.

Nantuko Shade is just as easy to burn out early on, and it takes a 2 mana investment with it. Lavamancer atleast deals 2 damage to blockers and such each turn that it's around.

Yes, this deck aims for the head, but I've played it a bit in the past day and it does have a spare mana or two even early on (that's why you ran Shade I'm assuming). Lavamancer is not bad early like Shade often is, and I find it helps out in a lot of situations that you can't even anticipate.

[AnwarA101]

Anwar, Regarding Grim Lavamancer as I advocate on the third post.

As far as removal like Magma Jet. Let's put it this way, would you rather that Jet was used to take out Lavamancer, or to take out the Hippie which you invested 3 mana to cast?

Mogg Fanatic is about the only removal where Lavamancer hurts more than running something else. Even then, if that Fanatic didn't sac itself early to take out Lavamancer, it would have dealt 2 damage to Negator costing you 2 lands, 2 lands you would rather be saccing to some 2 power blocker instead.

Nantuko Shade is just as easy to burn out early on, and it takes a 2 mana investment with it. Lavamancer atleast deals 2 damage to blockers and such each turn that it's around.

Yes, this deck aims for the head, but I've played it a bit in the past day and it does have a spare mana or two even early on (that's why you ran Shade I'm assuming). Lavamancer is not bad early like Shade often is, and I find it helps out in a lot of situations that you can't even anticipate.


Nantuko Shade has great synergy with extra Dark Rituals. Shade can do immense amount of damage starting as early as turn 3. He can swing for 5. Lavamancer only does 2 a turn though he can kill creatures. But I think the Goblin matchup is one of the main reasons to not run Lavamancer because he is so easily killed in that matchup. You need threats in this deck that can win the game all by themselves. Grim Lavamancer seems hardly like to do that when any and all removal beats him. Any Legacy deck that can't answer 1/1 is probably bound to lose to you anyway.

What creature configuration would you run? I'm skeptical about Sedge Troll as well because you can't Ritual into him. That seems to make him a bit slow. Making ritual less explosive seems poor.

[SuckerPunch]

Well like I said, the burn that takes out Lavamancer would have just taken out Hippie or something else instead.

But if you're sure you don't like it, it's your call. It's your deck after all.


What creature configuration would you run?

//Creatures
4 Phyrexian Negator (Or Sedge Troll)
4 Hypnotic Spectar
4 Wretched Anurid (Or Dark Confidant)
4 Grim Lavamancer

//Disruption, Burn and Removal
Same as you +1 Chain Lightning.

//Mana
4 Dark Ritual
4 Wastelands
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Polluted Delta
4 Badlands
4 Swamp

Yeah I'm not sure about Sedge Troll. It's much better in matchups where Negator is a huge liability but else where, Negator is better in the 3 drop slot.

[AnwarA101]

Well like I said, the burn that takes out Lavamancer would have just taken out Hippie or something else instead.

But if you're sure you don't like it, it's your call. It's your deck after all.



You don't have to feel this way this. I don't dismiss your opinion because its not your deck. I'm just skeptical about Lavamancer against Goblins. I would want to test him in that matchup before cutting Shade. What matchup does Lavamancer make better? I don't think Goblins and he can't really hit any of Threshold's creatures. What matchup did you have him in mind for?



//Creatures
4 Phyrexian Negator (Or Sedge Troll)
4 Hypnotic Spectar
4 Wretched Anurid (Or Dark Confidant)
4 Grim Lavamancer

//Disruption, Burn and Removal
Same as you +1 Chain Lightning.

//Mana
4 Dark Ritual
4 Wastelands
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Polluted Delta
4 Badlands
4 Swamp

Yeah I'm not sure about Sedge Troll. It's much better in matchups where Negator is a huge liability but else where, Negator is better in the 3 drop slot.

You would be suprised how rarely I board out Negator. I did not board him out on Sunday even against Goblins. His drawback is quite severe but is usually only relevant in games you were already going to lose. If Goblins can quickly expand its board via Goblin Lackey or Warchief followed by multiple Goblins then Negator will be very bad, but if you are able to get the advantage against Goblins and force him to block Negator with creatures with a power of 1 then they will be in bad shape. Sedge Troll while not having the drawback of Negator has the draw back of never being cast before turn 3 and that is a huge drawback because you just can't get the early jump on your opponent.

[Zilla]

I agree with Anwar on the Sedge Troll issue. This isn't nearly as ponderous and controlling as something that seems very similar to it like Deadguy Ale. Survivability of your creatures in a deck like this is far less relevant than aggressiveness. Pound for pound, Negator is faster and far more aggressive than Troll, and that's what a strategy like this needs, because it simply doesn't have the backbone it needs to survive into the long game.

The same argument is relevant as it pertains to cards like Lavamancer and Confidant, although to a lesser degree. These are fantastic cards, but compared with the rest of the deck, they're quite slow and significantly less aggressive than the other threats in the deck.

[Whit3 Ghost]

I'm not advocating Troll in place of Negator, If I were to play him, it would be over something like wasteland. My list would look something like this:

Darkest Hour(Red Death) Version 3.0

//Disruption
4 Duress
3 Hymn to Tourach


//Creatures

3 Nantuko Shade
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Hypnotic Specter
3 Rotting Giant
1 Wretched Anurid
3 Sedge Troll
4 Carnophage


//Removal and Reach
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning/Jet

//Mana and Lands
10 Swamp
3 Badlands
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Polluted Delta

4 Dark Ritual

//Sideboard
4 Infest/Clasm
4 Perish
4 Tormod's Crypt
3 Meltdown

Is the LD really necessary? It seems sort of trivial. I've tested a RB decks with Sinkhole and Waste and I felt that the slot should go to another beater or a different means of disruption.

[Volt]

I really like this deck. I agree that Dark Confidant doesn't fit the deck's style, and Sedge Troll just isn't that great. It does seem like Magma Jet would be an improvement over Chain Lightning, though.

[Evil Roopey]

I think you should be running Reaver over Shade for many reasons.

1. The addition of cheap removal makes Reaver better.
2. The addition of burn makes Reaver better.
3. They cost the same amount of mana, except Shade has a cummulative upkeep of 2 in order for it to deal the same amount of damage.
4. It has no extra costs, so your mana can be spent to keeping your plan going, while still providing a decent clock.
5. It doesn't die to Mogg Fanatic. (I thought we already went over 2cc 1 toughness creatures: see Dark Confidant)

[Whit3 Ghost]

Reaver seems interesting, but is the life loss too great against agro, especially Goblins? Or can you disrupt them enough to make the life loss trivial?

[matyburger]

Personally, I'd think of Reaver as a liability against Goblins (especially since people have started to play *shudder* Smart Goblins *shudder*)... I could see Reaver biting an STP, and the life loss being particularly relevant when facing down a horde of little red men. Having watched the deck play last weekend (and losing to it twice), it seemed as though only one threat was necessary at a time in order to win the game. The mana being sunk into Shade is particularly irrelevant when the deck was consistently having mana open anyway.

Also, I suppose Reaver makes Burn an auto-loss, although I'm pretty sure it was already one to begin with. Meh.

[Ewokslayer]

Wouldn't the addition of STP in Goblins make Flesh Reaver better since them removing it that way pretty much removes its drawback.

[Shysh]

The current state of Legacy seems to suggest that Flesh Reaver might not be playable. It's not that there aren't decks he doesn't thrash (Solidarity, Rifter, most mono-anything control), it's just that there's so many decks where he's going to end up chewing on your nuts. Yes, the 7-8 burn cards help out with clearing a path, but a lot of people wouldn't feel reluctant if they hadn't been in a situation where they've got a Flesher Reaver and the other player had 2-3 little winnies on the board.

I admit, he kicks ass with support, but what about the situations where the support isn't there or, hell, isn't beneficial? What if you're staring down Mongeese? Or Trolls?

Nantuko Shade may be mana-intensive, but it all comes down to situation. And whether it's against control or creatures, Shade is usually a safe bet. Perhaps not as ass-kicking as Flesh Reaver can be at times, but flexible. For me, it's a sheer matter of situation, and I think that there'll be too many times when Flesh Reaver's a liability to give him the slot. Anyhow, that's my opinion.

[SuckerPunch]

The 1 toughness of shade is an interesting point though, he's very vulnerable, atleast the turn he comes out and on many occasions as well.

But Reaver seems to be too great a liability.

Perhaps a full complement of Wretched Anurid should be run along with the 3 Rotting Giant cutting Shade.

Anurid only loses one life a turn on avg against even the most aggro decks, has no drawback against burn decks, and has a but big enough to block most goblins and live.

[Shysh]

Perhaps a full complement of Wretched Anurid should be run along with the 3 Rotting Giant cutting Shade.

I suspect not. Shade may have one toughness when not pumped, but I've seen him do some pretty retarded stuff (end the game, etc.)

[Zilla]

Thread cleaned up. Further discussion of overtly dramatic off-topic bullshit will result in my stabbing the offender in the back of the face. - Zilla

[AnwarA101]

The 1 toughness of shade is an interesting point though, he's very vulnerable, atleast the turn he comes out and on many occasions as well.

But Reaver seems to be too great a liability.

Perhaps a full complement of Wretched Anurid should be run along with the 3 Rotting Giant cutting Shade.

Anurid only loses one life a turn on avg against even the most aggro decks, has no drawback against burn decks, and has a but big enough to block most goblins and live.

Shade is only vulnerable on turn 2 against Goblins. But I rarely play him on turn 2 given that I have Hymn, Sinkhole, and Rotting Giant as well as any Ritual that I might have drawn for the turn. After that he becomes very difficult to handle because he can start swinging for 5 a turn or more on turn 3.

I've always like Flesh Reaver, but he often does get blocked and can really hurt you in the life race. I might want to try him back in the deck but I'm really happy with the current configuration.

Wretched Anurid is a much easier on the life total than Reaver, but he also never deals more than 3 damage which isn't true of Shade.

[dre4m]

I've always like Flesh Reaver, but he often does get blocked and can really hurt you in the life race. I might want to try him back in the deck but I'm really happy with the current configuration.

You reject the life loss of Flesh Reaver but you accept the permanent loss of Negator? This seems a little backwards to me, as you're playing Sui, after all, and you life total tends not to matter as much as your ability to keep supplying threats, to which Negator is very counterproductive.

[Grollub]

Mmm. I've never been really fond of splashing in suicide, but it looks pretty sexy. Can't really come with any suggestions as I pretty much agree with everything in the list. Good job!


You reject the life loss of Flesh Reaver but you accept the permanent loss of Negator? This seems a little backwards to me, as you're playing Sui, after all, and you life total tends not to matter as much as your ability to keep supplying threats, to which Negator is very counterproductive.

Negator posses a question much greater than Flesh Reaver, and is much harder to keep contained (ie. Trample). Life is more important now, than it was back in the old days of Suicide, as other decks can easier race you - especially when you hurt youself 4 a turn.

The Negator offers an immense tempo boost, due to it's gigantic size and trample compared to it's mana cost and the moment it's on the table it instantly asks the question: "Can you handle me after getting hit by a barrage of disruption? Or will you lose?"

You don't just play Negator into a rain of burn spells, cycling goblins etcetera. However, I never sided Negator out when I played Suicide in T1, even back in the ancient days of Sligh. He is that game-ending.
(At least from my experience)

In T2 I stopped siding him out against Sligh too, when Duress was printed. *snicker*


note: these are my opinions from running Suicide since the printing of Hatred in T2 and until Negator rotated out. I haven't had the luxury to play it in Legacy, yet - but now I think I most certainly will give it a go. :grin:

[Evil Roopey]

I would much rather lose 4 life a turn, while still dealing 4 to my opponent mind you, than to lose te threat I played on turn 2 to a Mogg Fanatic. Even still, Reaver is out of burn range in general, where half of the time Shade is not. When Swords, you automatically gain 4 life, you don't have to sink more mana to gain more life. You run 7 burn spells, which should be 8, and should easily, alongside Sinkhole, Hymn, and Duress, be able to keep them well of balance for the fact that Reaver is bigger than Shade to matter.

[AnwarA101]

You reject the life loss of Flesh Reaver but you accept the permanent loss of Negator? This seems a little backwards to me, as you're playing Sui, after all, and you life total tends not to matter as much as your ability to keep supplying threats, to which Negator is very counterproductive.

Negator is not stopped when he is blocked. Negator still deals damage every turn unlike Flesh Reaver. I'm not averse to Flesh Reaver's life loss (I ran him in my original list), but I thought that Rotting Giant would be a good replacement because I could adequately fuel my yard. Flesh Reaver probably needs to be tested in the new list. In the old list I found him very good, but sometimes he became self-defeating.

I have yet to test the matchups with the new build. I don't really have percentages because like I said I finalized the list only a few days before the Duel for Duals. Hopefully this weekend with more testing I'll have better results.

[dre4m]

Negator is not stopped when he is blocked. Negator still deals damage every turn unlike Flesh Reaver.

Negator might still deal a few points of damage, but if he is blocked, you will lose, at the very least, the lands you need to provide pressure or, at most, your entire board, including the Negator. Flesh Reaver will kill the blocker and lose you some life, and you'll still be free to drop more threats when your combat phase is over.

[Ewokslayer]

That is assuming that your opponent is going to be able to put on the board significant creature power which is highly unlikely.
Yes against Burn, Negator is bad and it is probably a liability post board against Goblins with the threat of Pyrokinesis. However, there are few decks in Legacy that can force the Negator's controller from having to sack more than one permanent a turn in the first 2-3 turns of the game. At that point the opponent is near death considering the other threats and burn this deck packs.

[URABAHN]

Negator might still deal a few points of damage, but if he is blocked, you will lose, at the very least, the lands you need to provide pressure or, at most, your entire board, including the Negator. Flesh Reaver will kill the blocker and lose you some life, and you'll still be free to drop more threats when your combat phase is over.

A few points of damage!? Have you even bothered to test with Negator? 5 points of damage every swing seems like an awful lot to me. Red Death made Top 8 both days at the D4D even with Goblins running rampant and Burn decks roasting players on an open fire.

Throw a Mogg Fanatic at Negator and the SuiBlack player will gladly sac a land because there's still a 5/5 Trampling creature in play. Negator is the only thing in the deck that costs more than 2 mana, losing a land or two isn't going to destroy a deck that runs Dark Ritual and lots of 1-2 drops.

[Shysh]

As usual, the inclusion of Phyrexian Negator becomes debatable/controversial, but I think it might be safe to assume, given past discussion that stretches far, far back, that this really is a matter of preference. Sure, I could talk about the time I won a game on turn three because of two Negators, but that will mean little to the person who played with him and got their faces gnawed off by them against the Goblin player time and time again.

I guess my statement is that I'm really not so sure it's ever going to be a certainty that Phrexian Negator is viable, since it never seems to be a solid conclusion. And though I'll continue to observe this querying to see if something contradicts that, I'm thinking right now that it's only a matter of preference.

And Flesh Reaver... as I said in a previous post, I have my reasons why I think Nantuko Shade is more sufficient for its flexibility, but I'm not against this card completely... (just in replacement of Shade). I've always liked Flesh Reaver when I pick it up and look at it, but, like I mentioned beforehand, does the current state of Legacy negate (pardon the pun) his usefulness? There are so many little critters running around here, and my biggest fear is that the burn or the deck itself won't be able to really support Reaver when the time comes.

Those are my thoughts, anyway.

[AnwarA101]

As usual, the inclusion of Phyrexian Negator becomes debatable/controversial, but I think it might be safe to assume, given past discussion that stretches far, far back, that this really is a matter of preference. Sure, I could talk about the time I won a game on turn three because of two Negators, but that will mean little to the person who played with him and got their faces gnawed off by them against the Goblin player time and time again.

I guess my statement is that I'm really not so sure it's ever going to be a certainty that Phrexian Negator is viable, since it never seems to be a solid conclusion. And though I'll continue to observe this querying to see if something contradicts that, I'm thinking right now that it's only a matter of preference.


I don't agree with your assessment of Phyrexian Negator. By the word preference you seem to imply that there is another atlernative that is just as viable as Negator. I don't believe that alternative exists and if it does what is it? Grinning Demon costs 4 mana and doesn't trample the same with Juzam Djinn. These aren't viable alternative mainly because they don't trample and don't cost 3 mana which means you can't play them off a ritual on turn 1. I play Negator because there is no alternative to what he does at his cost.

Why are you not sure Negator is ever going to be viable? With all due respect it was viable this past weekend when both Powergamer1003 and myself made top8. I'm not sure what else will lead to more convincing than being successful with Negator. I've played him many times in Legacy and I've rarely been unhappy with him.

[Shysh]

Oh, by all means, I'd never play Suicide without him. I've seen what he can do and always enjoy seeing him utilized to the best of his abilities. And as my first post in this thread entailed:


Anyway, I'm glad the deck placed well, Anwar. The list is looking pretty solid, though I hope that when we discuss card choices we won't have to run into another Confidant debate. And, as always, I'm delighted at the inclusion of Phyrexian Negator (not just a personal favorite, but also a very underused card, in my opinion. I loved sacrificing copies of Sarcomancy to this guy... and useless lands).

The reason I made the post about Negator being a preference was that it seems there's always an air of uncertainty regarding his solid placement in the deck. Some people get irked by burn and run Phyrexian War Beast, instead. When I said preference, I insinuated that not everyone passes off his vulnerability with ease, and occasionally exclude him from the deck altogether.

I would never play this deck without him, but there are a lot of people who aren't sold yet, even after pages and pages of perspective, and thus, my statement conveying Phyrexian Negator being a personal choice, not a necessity (though I sincerely wish it otherwise).

[AnwarA101]

The reason I made the post about Negator being a preference was that it seems there's always an air of uncertainty regarding his solid placement in the deck. Some people get irked by burn and run Phyrexian War Beast, instead. When I said preference, I insinuated that not everyone passes off his vulnerability with ease, and occasionally exclude him from the deck altogether.

I would never play this deck without him, but there are a lot of people who aren't sold yet, even after pages and pages of perspective, and thus, my statement conveying Phyrexian Negator being a personal choice, not a necessity (though I sincerely wish it otherwise).

I misunderstood your statement. You were saying that people feel uncertain about Negator being in the deck, but you personally don't feel that way. I gotcha ya now.

I couldn't agree with you more. I would never play this deck without him either. People who find him too risky to play him probably find this deck too risky to play at all. When you play this deck you do take some chances with the drawbacks of Negator but you gain many benefits as well. I think people fail to see the upside of Negator and always focus on his down side.

[Whit3 Ghost]

After a quick bit of testing, Negator is 100% needed, and it's drawback isn;t that bad, especially because Swords is still the prevalent removal in the format.

[Shysh]

Anwar, would the addition of card draw be possible? In my past experience, it's never been a bad thing to have a little on hand for when you really need it. As for myself, I use one or two copies of Night's Whisper, and that seems to work alright. But do you think it would better the deck to add some? And, if so, what could be taken out?

[Krieger]

This deck is all about tempo. If you are casting Night's Whisper then that means you are not casting a creature or not disrupting them. This deck must do that within the first few turns to survive. Suicide has an awful late game so it must win in the midgame. There will never be a point in time that you would want to cast Night's Whisper because you would want to cast Hymn or Sinkhole first or lay another creature.

A chance to quote myself I think that describes it well.

Also Congrats To Anwar and Powergamer for their Top 8 finishes with the Deck.

On another note I want to ask how much your gro match up is affected by the removal now more specificly the white build. Edict seems like it is obviously stronger but it is also not dead against any deck and doubles as reach if it gets to the late game. How much is this match up weekeded by the new removal?

[AnwarA101]

Anwar, would the addition of card draw be possible? In my past experience, it's never been a bad thing to have a little on hand for when you really need it. As for myself, I use one or two copies of Night's Whisper, and that seems to work alright. But do you think it would better the deck to add some? And, if so, what could be taken out?

I would only want card draw against control decks where having more threats matters most. Against aggro this deck needs to be on the offensive in the early turns and having draw spells in your hand only clogs your hand. Against combo draw would not be very effective because you need early disruption to slow down combo decks because without that you will lose anyway. Control decks are the only decks that draw seems to be best against. The interesting part here is that this deck is quite good against Control decks in my experience. So boarding for your most favorable matchup isn't a pressing matter. But again I haven't tested the new build extensively so that should happen before deciding what does or doesn't belong. In short, draw doesn't seem to be what the deck wants most.

[AnwarA101]

I've done some recent testing with Red Death and this is what I got. No sideboard games were tested.

Vial Goblins 30/70 - Did not seem favorable despite having multiple answers to the first turn Lackey. Once reaching the mid to late game Goblins card advantage and removal spells just caught up to me. I know that post-board gets much better with Infest as a sweeper. This matchup is always very swingy especially in game 1 where Dark Ritual and Aether Vial become very important.

UGW Thresh/Gro 20/80 - My testing partner always found Mystice Enforcer and played it. The games I did win were due to generating early pressure and putting him in an unwinnable position. I imagine other Gro variants are easier because you don't just lose to Enforcer. Again sideboard helps out here with Dystopia being a one-sided Abyss.

Solidarity 60/40 - This matchup was favorable, but not overwhelmingly so. The games I lost were the ones that I was Remanded to Death. By this I mean multiple Remands starting on turn 2. Otherwise you should be okay. Bringing in Cabal Therapy from the board should solidify this matchup. I didn't lose a game to Solidarity all day on Day 2 until I played Ewokslayer in Top8 were he beat me in 3 games.

Iggy Pop 50/50 - This deck wasn't as nearly affected by discard as Solidarity is. But having a quick clock usually doesn't allow them too much time to find the IGG or Intuition to go off. Post-board you should have some artifact destruction to hamper their plans even more.

I didn't find it overwhelmingly positive in the current metagame, but its recent success can't be overlooked. I believe its post-board games solidify some of its more dicey matchups. Its amazing against control decks if anyone is still trying to play them.

[MasterBlaster]

@Anwar-Have you considered running a couple maindeck copies of Engineered Plague? It would greatly help the Goblin matchup as it did for Chris Pikula at GP Philly and it would also help against Thresh as it lets you kill unthreshed creatures or makes threshed Werebears the right size for a Lightning Bolt. Just a thought.

[AnwarA101]

@Anwar-Have you considered running a couple maindeck copies of Engineered Plague? It would greatly help the Goblin matchup as it did for Chris Pikula at GP Philly and it would also help against Thresh as it lets you kill unthreshed creatures or makes threshed Werebears the right size for a Lightning Bolt. Just a thought.

I've always given consideration to Engineered Plague but I've never actually run the card for a couple of reasons. First this deck has no way to draw extra cards meaning that you have to randomly draw the Plague for your draw step unlike Pikula's deck which had Dark Confidant. Secondly, plague is defensive card in this hyper aggressive deck. It really doesn't fit your strategy. Finally, it being completely dead against almost the rest of the field makes it a horrible main deck choice. I think GP Philly was probably the best time to play main deck plague because so many people were playing Goblins (25%) that day. I'm not sure that is ever the case anymore.

[MasterBlaster]

I agree with the points you made but I don't think that Engineered Plague is necessarily dead versus the rest of the field. Many decks have X/1 creatures. For instance against Angel Stompy you could play a Plague naming Cleric and preemptively take out 4 Mother of Runes and 4 Soltari Priests. That would give your opponent quite a few dead draws in their deck.

[AnwarA101]

I agree with the points you made but I don't think that Engineered Plague is necessarily dead versus the rest of the field. Many decks have X/1 creatures. For instance against Angel Stompy you could play a Plague naming Cleric and preemptively take out 4 Mother of Runes and 4 Soltari Priests. That would give your opponent quite a few dead draws in their deck.

I do see your point and that is why the card has been considered but its so situational. If you end up playing against Rifter, Solidarity, or anything without a reasonable plague target then this becomes a dead draw for you. This version of the deck was trying to move away from removal spells that couldn't double as reach. I think the burn has helped the deck give it that reach the deck so desperately wants.

Any thoughts on the sideboard? I'm still not sure that running artifact destruction like Meltdown is really necessary in the metgame. Its great against Iggy Pop but that is hardly a metagame consideration. I'm not sure what other decks its really good against except ofcourse Ravager.

[MasterBlaster]

Meltdown does seem like a very weak choice for the sideboard but I don't know what should replace it.

How are the matchups for Red Death?(I skimmed the thread and I don't think its been discussed yet.)

[Anarky87]

Meltdown does seem like a very weak choice for the sideboard but I don't know what should replace it.

How are the matchups for Red Death?(I skimmed the thread and I don't think its been discussed yet.)


Vial Goblins 30/70 - Did not seem favorable despite having multiple answers to the first turn Lackey. Once reaching the mid to late game Goblins card advantage and removal spells just caught up to me. I know that post-board gets much better with Infest as a sweeper. This matchup is always very swingy especially in game 1 where Dark Ritual and Aether Vial become very important.

UGW Thresh/Gro 20/80 - My testing partner always found Mystice Enforcer and played it. The games I did win were due to generating early pressure and putting him in an unwinnable position. I imagine other Gro variants are easier because you don't just lose to Enforcer. Again sideboard helps out here with Dystopia being a one-sided Abyss.

Solidarity 60/40 - This matchup was favorable, but not overwhelmingly so. The games I lost were the ones that I was Remanded to Death. By this I mean multiple Remands starting on turn 2. Otherwise you should be okay. Bringing in Cabal Therapy from the board should solidify this matchup. I didn't lose a game to Solidarity all day on Day 2 until I played Ewokslayer in Top8 were he beat me in 3 games.

Iggy Pop 50/50 - This deck wasn't as nearly affected by discard as Solidarity is. But having a quick clock usually doesn't allow them too much time to find the IGG or Intuition to go off. Post-board you should have some artifact destruction to hamper their plans even more.

I didn't find it overwhelmingly positive in the current metagame, but its recent success can't be overlooked. I believe its post-board games solidify some of its more dicey matchups. Its amazing against control decks if anyone is still trying to play them.

Those were his test games so far, all preboarded. But I suppose you were looking for matches both preboard and post?

[Ninj4]

I like spellshocks in the side. and Leylines of the void. They're kinda self explanatory so yea. they both wreak combo and thresh.

for other slots, i like perish, kills the goose, the bears, and everthing in 8 land stompy. Infest stays too obv. it kills random stuffs.

and Wrench mind is like mini-hymm against most decks. I like it.

except for affinity, are there any artifacts that really wreak you? Vial, but u have other cards for anti gobs. I like the dystopias, but I don't own any so I have tested it. seems good against Confinement.

[AnwarA101]

Sexy Rector just placed with this deck with some notable exceptions.

His report can be found here - http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3899

My opinion of Confidant is well known, but the inclusion of Jitte is interesting and I've always wanted to fit it in, but I think cutting creatures and adding Jitte seems a little suspect. Jitte makes almost any creature a threat and perhaps that can off-set the weakness that Confidant has as a threat. But Confidant and Jitte do give the deck more of a late game, but at the expense of the early game.

[nitewolf9]

Anwar,

First off, hello, this is Dan from the lucky frog last weekend (was playing suicide black). It was great to meet all of you guys and I will definitly be coming back in the near future.

I was wondering if you had considered first off replacing chain lightning with umezawa's jitte's. With your creature base you can definitly support it, and I think it's just too nuts not to include if you can use it properly. More removal and reach is good, but if a jitte sticks it's game. Plus it's colorless, meaning you're that less vulnerable to wasteland, and it's pretty much removal by itself (especially against decks like angel stompy or WW or the like that pack pro-red creatures for goblins).

I am toying with a white version of this deck (white instead of red), replacing the chain lightnings with jitte, and replacing lightning bolt with STP. What are your thoughts on this? It has been testing well for me. Burn is obviously great for its reach and the fact that it speeds up the deck's ability to kill, but stp is far superior on the removal side of things. I think with your threats, especially negator, your clock is plenty fast...having an out against a first game mystic enforcer, being able to clear pretty much everything out of the way that you want (won't kill mongoose, but bolt won't either...and stp hits wearbear), and random reanimator/game matchups become better. Also, you have more options for the board.

Anyway, I'm not sure if it's a more optimal build, but it's worth testing.

-Dan

[SuckerPunch]

Yeah, Confidant and Jitte sound like they have potential.

Umm, wasn't there some guy that suggested Jitte and Confidant on the first page. Lol. :tongue:

Back to topic, If you cut Chain Lightnings for Jitte, can you really justify a red splash soley for 4 Lightning Bolt. I'm not sure. you're now splashing a color and making your mana base more vulnerable to everything from Wasteland to Pithing Needle, Stifle and Suppression Field for just one card. Yes it gives you reach, but isn't there some other black card that costs 3 mana and takes 5 life from your opponent or something that could fulfill a similar purpose.

And if you opt for a white splash, I think theres little question that you eventually end up with Pikula with 4 Stps and 4 Negators, which i suggested and which is actually being discussed at the Pikula thread right now.

[nitewolf9]

Adding a white splash for STP by no means makes the deck like pikulas. It's still suicide black, just with a more efficient removal package and a little more vulnerability on the manabase. The focus remains the same; it is not a resource denial/control deck, it's a do 20 to your opponents face as quickly as possible without giving them a chance to recover from your disruption or find an answer to your big monster(s) in time.

The only real question about the white splash I think would be whether or not the added vulnerability to wasteland is worth the inclusion of the most versatile spell in the format. I think it could be. The only thing I would be worried about is the life gain from stp, which might make the red version better in this case...I'd still want to test it however. I'm still all for jitte (but not confidant) in this deck either way though, and I'm thinking 4x bolt might still be worth the splash.

Oh, and k.'s spite is interesting, but I think you pretty much need to run some sort of removal in this deck for the format. At 1cc, black really doesn't give you what you need sadly, but white and red definitly do.

[AnwarA101]

Adding a white splash for STP by no means makes the deck like pikulas. It's still suicide black, just with a more efficient removal package and a little more vulnerability on the manabase. The focus remains the same; it is not a resource denial/control deck, it's a do 20 to your opponents face as quickly as possible without giving them a chance to recover from your disruption or find an answer to your big monster(s) in time.

The only real question about the white splash I think would be whether or not the added vulnerability to wasteland is worth the inclusion of the most versatile spell in the format. I think it could be. The only thing I would be worried about is the life gain from stp, which might make the red version better in this case...I'd still want to test it however. I'm still all for jitte (but not confidant) in this deck either way though, and I'm thinking 4x bolt might still be worth the splash.

Oh, and k.'s spite is interesting, but I think you pretty much need to run some sort of removal in this deck for the format. At 1cc, black really doesn't give you what you need sadly, but white and red definitly do.


Welcome to the Source! It was nice meeting you as well as having you on The Source. Having another fan of Sui Black is always good. I don't like the inclusion of white. Specifically because STP gives your opponent life and that is the last thing this deck is trying to do. Yes STP is the best removal spell, but it doesn't seem best to me in this deck. Its also something I was trying to move the deck away from which is cards that can be dead in certain matchups.

I like the idea of Jitte as well and perhaps it is worth testing. Dark Confidant just seems so fragile, but he is a great card advantage engine if he sticks around (which isn't likely in this format!). Splashing for 4 Bolts might be worth it because it provides reach as well as 1cc removal as well as being an instant. I really like Bolt in this deck.

[nitewolf9]

Yes, after thinking about it more I would definitly agree that bolt is much better than stp here. I think the only thing I would really try is +3 jitte, -3 chain lightning and +2 Sword of Fire/Ice in the board. That could be interesting.

[Tacosnape]

Equipment is too slow. Speed is everything in Suicide. Chain is the optimal second burn spell, even though it's not even remotely in Lightning Bolt's class. It still deals 3 to the head in a Combo/Control Match, and does so quite inexpensively.

I'm also going to make a case against Dark Confidant, Carnophage, Sarcomancy, and Grim Lavamancer all at once with a simple rule. If it's a creature in a suicide deck it had better be capable of dealing more than 2 damage per turn. 2 per turn on a threat is not a sufficient clock ever, and the longer any game goes the less pretty it turns for Suicide. Carnophage and Sarcomancy are awful, and Grim Lavamancer's completely terrible with Rotting Giant, as they both have to tap into the same resource to be effective. Confidant -almost- circumvents this rule with ridiculous card advantage, but not quite.

[Phantom]

Equipment is too slow. Speed is everything in Suicide. Chain is the optimal second burn spell, even though it's not even remotely in Lightning Bolt's class. It still deals 3 to the head in a Combo/Control Match, and does so quite inexpensively.

I'm also going to make a case against Dark Confidant, Carnophage, Sarcomancy, and Grim Lavamancer all at once with a simple rule. If it's a creature in a suicide deck it had better be capable of dealing more than 2 damage per turn. 2 per turn on a threat is not a sufficient clock ever, and the longer any game goes the less pretty it turns for Suicide. Carnophage and Sarcomancy are awful, and Grim Lavamancer's completely terrible with Rotting Giant, as they both have to tap into the same resource to be effective. Confidant -almost- circumvents this rule with ridiculous card advantage, but not quite.

Pretty good stuff, but I think some things were over simplified. I agree that if you want to run an equipment heavy build, you need to run Stompy like mana base (i.e. Ancient Tombs), but I actually think Sui can ran 2-3 Jitte to good results.

Chain Lightning over Incinerate and Magma Jet is sadly the correct call.

I agree that 'Phage and Sarcomancy have no place here. Grim Lavamancer doesn't belong either, but can be looked at differently than a creature that does 2 damage a turn. It can also be viewed as a reusable burn spell.

Confidant is much tougher of a call. Sure, he only does two damage a turn, but if he draws you into a bolt, then he did five. Still, pretty much everything that can be said has been said in this debate, so I'm going to leave it as a personal call.

[PTBNL]

how about phyrexian warbeast? less drawback than negator and still castable with ritual.

[jwk]

I agree with Anwar on the Sedge Troll issue. This isn't nearly as ponderous and controlling as something that seems very similar to it like Deadguy Ale. Survivability of your creatures in a deck like this is far less relevant than aggressiveness. Pound for pound, Negator is faster and far more aggressive than Troll, and that's what a strategy like this needs, because it simply doesn't have the backbone it needs to survive into the long game.

The same argument is relevant as it pertains to cards like Lavamancer and Confidant, although to a lesser degree. These are fantastic cards, but compared with the rest of the deck, they're quite slow and significantly less aggressive than the other threats in the deck.

I didn't see anyone else mention this, sorry in advance if somebody did
Sedge Troll could be cast on turn 2.
Turn 1 Swamp into Duress
Turn 2 Fetch->Badlands Dark Rit (BBB in pool) Tap Badlands for R (RBBB in pool) Cast Sedge Troll (B in pool) and then Regenerate it or cast Duress or burn for 1.
or it could be Dark Rit then Duress then cast Sedge Troll

And I agree that Lavamancer really wouldn't be effective until the LATE game and then you may be two far behind. And it is too easy to remove :frown:

Wretched Anurid? 1) I'd never thought that card see compitive play. 2) isn't there something better? Why not consider Sedge Troll over in the place as a one of. Or Withered Wrench in its spot.

My other problem with this deck is no basic mountain. I feel you should have 1 (removing a Badland or Polluted Delta) with all the ports and wastes in the environment.

This seems like a deck high on potental. It just needs a lot of work to determine what cards are good what cards fill the needs and what cards don't.

[bigbear102]

I don't see why you would even think about Sedge Troll over Wretched Anurid. This guy is a beast at 3/3 for 2. Sure you would take him out against Goblins and maybe survival, but against Gro, Control, and combo he is a house that trades with geese and beats the face in the other two matches. Sedge Troll on the other hand is a trained armodon with regenerate.... ooooo.

[jwk]

I don't see why you would even think about Sedge Troll over Wretched Anurid. This guy is a beast at 3/3 for 2. Sure you would take him out against Goblins and maybe survival, but against Gro, Control, and combo he is a house that trades with geese and beats the face in the other two matches. Sedge Troll on the other hand is a trained armodon with regenerate.... ooooo.

Um I had thought that Sedge Troll was a 3/3 for some reason, its not; measly little 2/2. No point in even considering it.

But the more important piont isn't Withered Wretch better in the sense that is can take away Threshold from the opponent so his goose and bears are 1/1's?

ps read the T2 tourny report and the guy makes a great case for Bob in the deck.

[noobslayer]

If you'd read the card, it's a 3/3 when you control a swamp. Last time I checked, Badlands was a Swamp.

[jwk]

If you'd read the card, it's a 3/3 when you control a swamp. Last time I checked, Badlands was a Swamp.

DOOH!! :tongue: Man every day I just sound dumb and dumberererer

[dre4m]

That being said, I think that Anurid would still be better if the creature slot is in debate. I want to know what led Anwar to forsake this deck at the DLD. A meta call would be my guess, but how does he think this would do at Gencon, I wonder?

[Ch33bs]

I perfer Sedge Troll over Wretched Anurid because the losing life could result into killing yourself and plus it can't regenerate.

[dre4m]

I perfer Sedge Troll over Wretched Anurid because the losing life could result into killing yourself and plus it can't regenerate.
Sedge Troll is also a whole turn slower, which can be all the difference in the world in Sui. Coincidentally, "Suicide Black" is called that for a reason, so to hell with the life loss. Unless you're staring down a Decree of Justice, I wouldn't my boxers in a twist about it.

[lillelassie]

Regarding Infest in the board for the goblins matchup, I think that Fire Covenant is FAR more superior.

1) Fire Covenant doesn't kill you own creatures.

2) Fire Covenant is an instant, and can be cast after they play Warchief + x goblins. Its just so bad to cast infest, and then be smashed in the face by a hasty gobli9n the turn after.

3) Fire covenant is also usefull against decks that have creatures with greater toughness and 2. It could be the mirror or whatever.

The bad thing is that it doesn't kill silver knigt etc. but in that case, your creatures are bigger anyways.

[dre4m]

2) Fire Covenant is an instant, and can be cast after they play Warchief + x goblins.
If you ever find yourself in the situation that you need to pay life equal to the number of goblins in play times two, you are probably going to lose the game within two turns, unless your hand contains upwards of three lightning bolt, in which case you should have used those on the goblins.


3) Fire covenant is also usefull against decks that have creatures with greater toughness
Unless they are untargetable, indestructable, or the amount of life you would have to pay would lose you the game. If you are playing against aggro, your resources and life are already going to be depleted by nature of your deck, so a card that forces you to pay dearly for removal would probably not be a great idea.

[lillelassie]

I understand your concerns Dre4ms, but you have clearly not played this card against goblins. It absolutely crushes them. I would gladly pay say 6 life for a one-sided Wrath of God. The fact that its an instant is very huge + it doesn't kill your Confidants, Hypnotic Specters, Shades and even x/3 creatures if they have a mogg fanatic in play.

[AnwarA101]

I understand your concerns Dre4ms, but you have clearly not played this card against goblins. It absolutely crushes them. I would gladly pay say 6 life for a one-sided Wrath of God. The fact that its an instant is very huge + it doesn't kill your Confidants, Hypnotic Specters, Shades and even x/3 creatures if they have a mogg fanatic in play.

My main concern here would be against Angel Stompy. The Angel Stompy matchup isn't very good and the burn spells are horrible. Replacing them with Infest improves the matchup, but running Fire Covenant would make it so that you had one less card to bring in this matchup.

For those wondering why I didn't play Red Death in Syracuse the only answer I can provide is that I thought I would have more fun playing Iggy Pop. I actually have a blast playing both decks, but the morning of the tournament I was just feeling Iggy Pop. In retrospect, my only losses were to Belcher and Solidarity so perhaps Red Death would have been a better call, but I have no regrets.

[lillelassie]

Indeed, Fire Covenant is bad against Angel Stompy. I just looked through some random decklist and spotted the card Massacre. This card is a house against angel stompy, and as far as I know 80% of the Goblins decks are splashing white these days.

Infest just seems a little to slow and clumsy I think. Also pyroclasm can come down a turn earlier. Dunno but I don't think Infest is the right call with those wastelands running around.

[scrumdogg]

Massacre is infinitely better against Angel Stompy (free is good...) as well as Goblin decks with a Plateau out, except that you NEED for them to have the Plateau out. Otherwise it is a turn slower, which can be fatal & such versus Goblins. Jitte seems like a good call, as it attaches to everything & is another way to shank opposing aggro with all the other attending benefits Jitte always brings...

EDIT: I meant to ask, for the fourth creature slot debate, has anyone considered Jagged Poppet or Rakdos Augermage? Sui Black ends up in topdeck mode anyway, why not take advantage of that? Both creatures, while a bit slower than Rotting Giant or Anurid or Flesh Reaver, do not have their drawbacks and have an impact on the hand of combo. Thoughts? I ask because they have been extremely good to me in the B/R Legacy Rakdos deck I have been running off & on since it became legal.

[Galroth]

I'm a particular fan of the poppet as well. However, the main reason I think it isn't being run (and shouldn't be run) is the mana curve. Auramage and Poppet, in addition to requiring red are also 3 mana each. The deck is simply smoother and more consistent with 2cc black creatures. I know poppet can be an absolute bomb in the right situations, and his body of 4 makes him all around great. But his cost is too much of a hindrance for inclusion. If anybody really wants to run poppet, I'd recommend first trying him as a 2 of.

[scrumdogg]

Between the duals & the fetches, aving red isn't much of an issue & we have the ubiquitous Dark Ritual, friend of casting evil stuff earlier than normal.... I'm not advocating them as 4 ofs in the deck, but they have an effect against every archetype and are efficient for their cost (if not quite as undercosted as thing deck seems to want). But in the fourth creature slot, I would be happy to run 2x Poppet, 2x Jitte...or 2x Augermage replacing either.

[laststepdown]

With this deck making 9th place at the Legacy Championships, what is everyone's feelings on the direction of this deck? Do you feel that the top build metagamed properly? What kept this deck from making top 8?

[Evil Roopey]

What kept this deck from making top 8?

Tiebreakers?

[dre4m]

What kept this deck from making top 8?
Bad luck? Karma?

...Get it? Karma was a joke...

Tiebreakers, for real. I personally wouldn't have the balls to bring this deck to what I knew to be a random aggro metagame, however. At least, not with maindeck Negators.

[Tacosnape]

Tiebreakers?

QFT. Red Death and its Suicide Black ancestors T9 almost every legacy event in existence.

[AnwarA101]

QFT. Red Death and its Suicide Black ancestors T9 almost every legacy event in existence.

While this is true, its also true that Red Death has done very well in its short history. It debuted at the back to back Duel for Duals in July. It placed Top4 (PowerGamer1003) on day1 and Top8 (me) on day2. It was played by 1 player on day1 and 2 players on day2. I don't know how many people played it at worlds, but I imagine not too many and it made 9th there. For a deck being around 2 months, its on a bit of a hot streak. Sexy Rector also played it at the side event at Nationals (60 players) and made Top2. I would call that pretty impressive.

[powergamer1003]

Red death, has clearly proven it self now, in a variety of metagames, overcomming many decks. I think, that even though it has had a short, life it will be played much in the months to come

[Firebrothers]

what did the board look like when he t9ed with it at the championship, what was changed?

[laststepdown]

All I remember from Gencon when walking the tables is someone tapping a badlands and 2 swamps to cast delerium skeins. with a negator out.

[SuckerPunch]

This may be slightly off topic, but it is somewhat relevent to this discussion as comparing similar decks that have had some success and learning from them is a critical part of evolvign a deck.

This is what I posted about Deadguy Ale aka. Pikula's BW deck.


More importantly though, this deck is getting a lot of bad hype, on account of all the articles saying that it tests poorly, and the lack of significant results since Pikula's run.

If the status quo remains, the days of this decks presence in the Metagame forum are numbered. If we want it to get more respect, we either need to...

A.) Post any solid organized testing results that we have that honestly assess this decks matchups in the current metagame.

B.) If the results are poor, find a way to innovate and improve the deck... Another is to try and learn from the repeated success of Red Death.

As I mentioned before, the only differences between this deck and Red Death are...

4 Vindicate
4 Dark Confidant
2 Gerrard's Verdict
2 Engineered Plague
2 Cursed Scroll
1 Swamp

vs.

4 Negator
4 Rotting Giant/Wretched Anurid
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning

I'm by no means saying that the decks are strategically similar.

But there's no denying the fact the disruption base is near identical, the only difference is in how the two decks go about winning the game once the disruption has had it's toll.

Deadguy goes for a slow controllish type game that tries to maintain the initial card advantage with board control elements.

Red Death goes for the throat and hopes to finish of the opponent by the time they recover from the initial onslaught of disruption.

Red Death has had continued success from multiple players in the past two months, Deadguy hasn't had too much success in the past six months.

So there likely is something to Red Death's strategy. The problem with Red however is that it offers nothing that even compares to the incredible synergy and versatility that Vindicate has with the rest of the deck. It can supplement the land destruction strategy, or can serve as removal. In my experience, it by itself justifies the White splash.

I've already suggested that this deck try running 4 Negators for a fast win and 3 Swords so that it has 7 removal pieces just like Red Death to supplement the Negators. It's been discussed so I wont go down the route again.

But I do think comparing and contrasting the two decks and learning from each is a very key element in putting this deck back on top. I would love to hear your guy's feedback on this issue.

I want to hear what input or advice you guys have learned from this deck for people who want to play this same archeatype with a white splash for versatile all around answer/disruption that is Vindicate.

Do you think Deadguy Ale may be improved by cutting slower control elements like Cursed Scroll, Engineered Plague, Gerrard's Verdict/Swords and possibly even Dark Confidant in favor of fat beatsticks like Negator and Rotting Giant? All while retaining the better disruption, mana denial and removal piece that white offers in Vindicate.

P.S. As an aside, I want to hear what advice you guys have to players that want to continue running traditional sui black with the same build in terms of what to run in place. of the 7 pieces of burn, Contagion, Vendetta, Edict, Sarcomancy, more Wretched Anurid?

[AnwarA101]

This may be slightly off topic, but it is somewhat relevent to this discussion as comparing similar decks that have had some success and learning from them is a critical part of evolvign a deck.

I want to hear what input or advice you guys have learned from this deck for people who want to play this same archeatype with a white splash for versatile all around answer/disruption that is Vindicate.

Do you think Deadguy Ale may be improved by cutting slower control elements like Cursed Scroll, Engineered Plague, Gerrard's Verdict/Swords and possibly even Dark Confidant in favor of fat beatsticks like Negator and Rotting Giant? All while retaining the better disruption, mana denial and removal piece that white offers in Vindicate.

P.S. As an aside, I want to hear what advice you guys have to players that want to continue running traditional sui black with the same build in terms of what to run in place. of the 7 pieces of burn, Contagion, Vendetta, Edict, Sarcomancy, more Wretched Anurid?

This is actually quite off-topic. Vindicate while being a versatile card is also a very expensive one. Its 3 mana to destroy anything - for creatures this is slow and for lands its worse than Sinkhole. While its nice to be able to hit other cards like artifacts or enchantments I've found the card just very slow.

If you cut most of the cards in Deadguy Ale for bigger creatures ala Red Death but keep something like Vindicate that's fine. It would just seem like Suicide with white splash for Vindicate. Which is fine, but then it wouldn't really be Deadguy Ale which is more based on Dark Confidant and generating card advantage and using that to fuel a disruption engine that should win the game on its own.

Why run the white splash when you can just run the red splash? If Vindicate is only reason that's fine, but I just think Red is better mainly because you can finish off your opponent with it.

This goes back to my fairly long post asking why try to turn one deck into another? I believe Red Death is the best Suicide deck in Legacy. I might be wrong, but I'm not convinced that the white splash would be any better and in fact I believe it would be much worse.

[troopatroop]

Considered Persecute in the board over cabal therapy? turn 2 persecute would be hawt.

[Krieger]

what did the board look like when he t9ed with it at the championship, what was changed?


The board was:
4 Dystopia
4 Cabal therapy
4 Infest
3 Overload
The only changes from Anwar's Build are -3 meltdown + 3 Overload

Considered Persecute in the board over cabal therapy? turn 2 persecute would be hawt.

Unfortunatly that would be the only time it would be good. Cabal Therapy is good beacuse it can be played early and continue disrupting them. without ritual it is weak. Thus the reason Cabal therapy is played as the additional disruption.

[Hanni]

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread but I do know that alot of what I put together has been argued against, alot. This is my version of B/r Sui: it's more control based than the current B/r Sui list but less control based than B/w Deadguy Ale is.

B/r Sui Control

Creatures (15)
4 Sarcomancy
4 Dark Confidant
3 Nantuko Shade
3 Rotting Giant
1 Grim Lavamancer

Spells (25)
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Magma Jet
2 Umezawa's Jitte

Lands (20)
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Polluted Delta
4 Badlands
5 Swamps
4 Wasteland

Just figured I'd toss this out there although I know 99% of everyone will deem this list as far inferior. I posted this deck on TMD, you can read my card choices there if your interested: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29831.0

[Eldariel]

I dunno, Flooded Strand seems kinda weak in a deck without Islands and Plains. It's pretty interesting overall, but the split between Lavamancers, Giants (they eat the grave) and Shades seems a bit weird.

[laststepdown]

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread

Yeah, about that-do it.

Flooded Strand is definitely a dead card. Pay 1 life, sacrifice, to go find nothing. Not so good at all. Why Magma Jet over Chain Lightning or Incinerate? For Bob? This is pointless. Nothing in your build costs more than 2. Lavamancer+Giant=Not good synergy. I suggest a Wretched Anurid if you're only going to run one 3/3 for 2. If you're worried about life loss(in sui, nonetheless), run Sarcomancy over Carnophage. You're running 15 creatures with 3 Jittes-I'd fix that, cut 1 or 2 Jittes, or add more creatures.

Red Death is a sui deck, not an aggro/control deck. I'm not dismissing your build. Please don't dismiss the common build for this deck as inferior to your list either. I would just like to see some matchup results that would verify how it could possibly perform better than the current build (which, since you didn't read the thread, you may not know Red Death got 9th at this year's Legacy Champs). I read your post at TMD, and you confessed there that you haven't played with this deck yet, or constructed a sideboard-you merely mentioned E Plague. While Deadguy Ale needs all the help it can get against Goblins, we don't need an answer for turn 1 Lackey-we run Infest in sideboard(a one-sided wrath against goblins) while almost all of our creatures are x/3 or more-not to mention the faster removal package than Ale can muster up.

Once again, please read the thread, and spare everyone on the thread from reitterating everything previously stated for the past 5 pages.

[Hanni]

laststepdown, I did read alot of this thread, just not all of it. I know it T9'd. I just figured I'd put a different list together and see what everyone thought about.

I think Jitte is really good in the deck, at least my list anyway. 3 might be overkill with only 15 creatures since I haven't extensively tested it. I'll drop 1 for 1 Magma Jet but I don't wanna go lower than 2 Jitte.

Thanks for pointing out Flooded Strand. It's supposed to be Polluted Delta, my mistake.

I like Magma Jet because it gives the deck slightly better draws and the Bolts already hit for 3. Instead of drawing land that you don't need next turn, you can draw a creature or something. The synergy it has with Confidant is just an added bonus and not the main reason I added it. I've always liked Magma Jet and it seems very useful in this deck.

As for sideboard options, Infest probably wouldn't work as well in my list. Regardless, I'm not going to attempt any sideboard options yet.

I never was dismissing the B/r Sui build that is currently posted, I just wanted to put the deck in a different direction and see if it would work. I haven't invested alot of time into the deck so I'm not highly experienced with the build. I basically just wanted to remove the Negators and Hyppies for Confidants and Jittes.

As for Carnophages vs Sarcomancy's, I prefer the Carnophages because Sarcomancy will bleed me to death after the token dies. The Carnophages probably wont last very long anyway. Regardless, it seems a little trivial as to which one is better in my list so either or would be fine with me.

Looking at it now, I think 3 Rotting Giant would be better than 3 Grim Lavamancer in my build so I'm gonna switch them.

With more Rotting Giants, Sarcomancy would be the better option.

[URABAHN]

laststepdown, I did read alot of this thread, just not all of it. I know it T9'd. I just figured I'd put a different list together and see what everyone thought about.

Your control-ish version of the deck can't even be considered Sui and really belongs in it's own thread. Red Death doesn't want or need to draw cards, Dark Confidant will only serve to help your opponent kill you than draw relevant cards.


I think Jitte is really good in the deck, at least my list anyway. 3 might be overkill with only 15 creatures since I haven't extensively tested it. I'll drop 1 for 1 Magma Jet but I don't wanna go lower than 2 Jitte.

Jitte wins games all by itself, but I'm not sure I'd cut a thing in the deck to add 2 Jitte.


I like Magma Jet because it gives the deck slightly better draws and the Bolts already hit for 3. Instead of drawing land that you don't need next turn, you can draw a creature or something. The synergy it has with Confidant is just an added bonus and not the main reason I added it. I've always liked Magma Jet and it seems very useful in this deck.

Like a classic aggro deck, Red Death doesn't run many lands which means most of the time, you'll draw a creature or something. I dislike having a third burn spell in the deck that costs 2 and doesn't do 3 damage.


As for sideboard options, Infest probably wouldn't work as well in my list. Regardless, I'm not going to attempt any sideboard options yet.

If you're going to run Carnophage and Sarcomany which are not only bad with Infest, but bad with Pyroclasm, then maybe you shouldn't be running 2/2 Zombies anyway.


I never was dismissing the B/r Sui build that is currently posted, I just wanted to put the deck in a different direction and see if it would work. I haven't invested alot of time into the deck so I'm not highly experienced with the build. I basically just wanted to remove the Negators and Hyppies for Confidants and Jittes.

Maybe you should try the deck out before you gut 10+ cards. Hypnotic Specter is a evasive, disruptive Shock to your opponent's head nearly every single time it swings. Confidant is a 2/1 body that trades tempo and pressure for mid to late game card drawing if it survives that helps your opponent kill you faster. You are sorely underrating the usefulness of a 5/5 Trampler for 3 mana in the form of Phyrexian Negator, I suggest you try it before cutting it.


As for Carnophages vs Sarcomancy's, I prefer the Carnophages because Sarcomancy will bleed me to death after the token dies. The Carnophages probably wont last very long anyway. Regardless, it seems a little trivial as to which one is better in my list so either or would be fine with me.

If the Carnophages won't last very long, what makes you think another 2/2 Zombie in the form of Sarcomany is any better? What's worse is that either one in conjunction with Dark Confidant = too much life loss. Furthermore you can't get rid of Sarcomancy if someone kills your token.


Looking at it now, I think 3 Rotting Giant would be better than 3 Grim Lavamancer in my build so I'm gonna switch them.

Rotting Giant + Grim Lavamancer is not a combo. Why would you want to remove cards in your 'yard from the game when you need those cards to block and attack with Rotting Giant? Why would you only play a single Grim Lavamancer when you'd want to see it ASAP for dealing damage?

This is B/r Sui, not "B/r let's play little 2/2 threats, draw some cards for mid-late game and hope to win".

[laststepdown]

This is B/r Sui, not "B/r let's play little 2/2 threats, draw some cards for mid-late game and hope to win".

QFT. This is exactly why I asked him to see some matchup results before dismissing/gutting the list that has already performed well at many tournaments. This arguement really serves no purpose to advance the deck-furthermore, you can not expect a deck with 2/2's (that arent paired with Æther vial or have a creature type 'goblins') and expensive burn to perform well. Now, I've asked twice to see some match results-none have been shown.
Mark my words. I'll eat my own shoe if it performs better than the original build.

[Hanni]

I never said this deck was or was not going to perform better than the current list. I never attacked the ideas presented in the current decklist. I posted a different version of the deck to add food for thought. Yet I am being attacked for presenting some ideas that I thought would be beneficial to the deck?

How is this not extremely similar to the other deck? If I post a deck called B/r Sui, which is exactly what the deck still is, I'm almost positive the threads would have been merged. Why would I post a completely new B/r Sui thread when one already exists?

Regardless, I'd rather not post anything further on this thread anyway.

[AnwarA101]

I never said this deck was or was not going to perform better than the current list. I never attacked the ideas presented in the current decklist. I posted a different version of the deck to add food for thought. Yet I am being attacked for presenting some ideas that I thought would be beneficial to the deck?

How is this not extremely similar to the other deck? If I post a deck called B/r Sui, which is exactly what the deck still is, I'm almost positive the threads would have been merged. Why would I post a completely new B/r Sui thread when one already exists?

Regardless, I'd rather not post anything further on this thread anyway.

Don't give up! I would have never posted this decklist if I were discouraged by people who didn't agree with me. They all told me to play Confidant but they were wrong.

You are not being attacked, but your list and ideas are. There is a difference. Most players want to know why they should consider your list over the list that I posted and that is a reasonable question.

To be very honest I don't like your list much either. I just don't think cards like Dark Confidant and Grim Lavamancer generate any pressure against any type of deck in this format. They are just too weak to put up any decent type of clock (see Deadguy Ale and why it has problems in this format). Magma Jet just isn't very efficient at dealing damage despite its great interaction with Dark Confidant. I would also encourage you to read an article I wrote about threats in Legacy. This is the link -

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11600.html

I believe this will give you insight into why I don't think cards like Dark Confidant and Grim Lavamancer are threats in Legacy.

Please continue to post and add your ideas to this thread. I always appreciate different points of view even if I don't agree with them.

[laststepdown]

Anwar: You have a way with saying things to people that I wish i could accomplish-nicely put.

As stated before, I'd like to see some tests with the other build, to see if it even has a chance-merely to prove that Bob does not belong here-which I'm not happy about either...but it's the right call. Sui doesn't care about getting into late game, so why bother? Regardless, I'm still mad that I don't own Chain Lightnings, so I have to run Incinerate-testing on MWS vs. cardboard, there really is a difference in 1 mana for this deck. It's quite suprising.


Hanni-You should definitely be running more Rotting Giants, and I still don't agree with removing Negator. That is all.

[Bane of the Living]

I think players should run Dark Confidant on their own merrit. Its incorrect to say, this version of sui shouldnt run bob because hes not a threat. Anwar Your a very solid player but I dont think that holds up as an arguement against Confidant. When playing against Red Death on MWS even with White Thresh, your better matchup, I got my opponent down to no cards in hand, 0 threats on board many times. Thats why you want reach. Burn is reach but not if your in top deck mode and your opponent isnt at 3-6. If Dark Confidant gets stp'd in my eyes it just means Negator didnt. Rotting Giant is a very weak card in my eyes. His vanilla 3/3 body doesnt give him the push to fight with the best. I would rather even play Carnaphage if your aiming at speed over quality.

[AnwarA101]

I think players should run Dark Confidant on their own merrit. Its incorrect to say, this version of sui shouldnt run bob because hes not a threat. Anwar Your a very solid player but I dont think that holds up as an arguement against Confidant. When playing against Red Death on MWS even with White Thresh, your better matchup, I got my opponent down to no cards in hand, 0 threats on board many times. Thats why you want reach. Burn is reach but not if your in top deck mode and your opponent isnt at 3-6. If Dark Confidant gets stp'd in my eyes it just means Negator didnt. Rotting Giant is a very weak card in my eyes. His vanilla 3/3 body doesnt give him the push to fight with the best. I would rather even play Carnaphage if your aiming at speed over quality.

The problem with Confidant is that even if he doesn't get STP'd or killed by Fanatic or any removal spell, that he only puts cards in your hand and not in play. In every sense, he is tempo loss. He can't block because he will die. He can't attack because he will die. He does nothing until your next upkeep. Even if he gets to your next upkeep he hasn't improved your board position. He puts a card into your hand, but if you aren't able to play both spells that turn you've lost tempo. If you are able to play 2 spells that turn its because of dark ritual and often you want to ritual into spells to gain tempo not to lose it.

Rotting Giant can block, attack, and survive combat unlike Dark Confidant. He improves your board position and most of all he helps you directly with your main goal - killing your opponent.

[Hanni]

Anwar,

I disagree with you about Dark Confidant in your SCG article. While Dark Confidant may be prone to 1 damage removal and while he may die to 1 power creatures in combat, his "threat" factor goes deeper than that. He gives you card advantage... meaning over the course of a few turns you will have drawn into more creatures and more disruption. A tempo loss of 1B isn't that bad... but drawing into multiple threats rather than relying on topdeck mode is well worth it. One major fault to playing B/r Sui is how fast it can empty it's hand. If the opponent defends well against your disruption and removals your threats, you go into topdeck mode and you never have the ability to rebuild your hand. I just don't understand why you would not run him, he just does so much.

The only reason why I don't like Phyrexian Negator is because a simple Lightning Bolt will completely remove your board position most of the time while any opposing aggro that blocks can do the same. 5/5 trample does help push damage through and it is a great card in the right metagame. He does satisfy the aggressive nature of the deck. I'm not trying to make an argument against him, I'm just not sure if he's the best card choice for a metagame that's heavy in aggro and removal. Have you ever considered Grinning Demon or Juzaam Djinn in your testing as a replacement?

I think Rotting Giant is great in this deck. Grim Lavamancer is also a great card but the size of Rotting Giant makes him a much better choice and I agree completely with running 3-4 of him.

However, I still think that the deck can benefit greatly from Dark Confidant. Without Confidant or Jitte, you rely solely on your initial aggression... after that, it's topdeck. I definitely think you should fit him in somewhere, seriously.

You may be right that Chain Lightning is more effecient than Magma Jet because it does more damage for a cheaper cc. My fear with Chain Lightning is that it may be problematic against other red decks, such as Goblins, Zoo, or even UGr Threshold. I'm also not too keen on sorcery speed burn.

I think the deck could also benefit from 1cc creature drops. 2/2 may not seem as impressive as 3/3 but it goes back to the argument of Incinerate over Chain Lightning regarding the importance of mana costs. It gives the deck a first turn play when you don't have Ritual or Duress (because I don't see why you'd Bolt the opponent on turn 1). With Sarcomancy, you have more Negator targets as well. I'm not saying that 1cc creature drops are necessary but I do think they could be very beneficial.

I still believe that Umezawa's Jitte is amazing in this deck, especially when you have enough lands mid-late game and few spells to play.

I don't think that Nantuko Shade should be a 4 of... I do understand that 4 will increase your probability of drawing into him but more than 1 in play seems counterproductive... they compete for mana sources. 3-of sounds good, though I think testing it as a 2-of wouldn't hurt.

Here's a slightly different list than my original:

Lands (19)
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Polluted Delta
4 Badlands
4 Swamp
4 Wasteland

Creatures (17)
4 Sarcomancy
4 Dark Confidant
2 Nantuko Shade
3 Rotting Giant
3 Phyrexian Negator
1 Juzaam Djinn

Spells (24)
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Chain Lightning
2 Umezawa's Jitte

I've seen the argument of Dark Confidant vs Hypnotic Specter. However, I've played against B/r Sui and I know that the discard that Specter provides is often worthless when I have few to no cards in hand (which happens frequently... many decks empty their hands fast and even those that don't still get wiped from Duress and Hymn). I realize that he has evasion and Confidant does not... but packed with early game burn or a mid-late game Jitte, they can both swing. Hypnotic Specter is most devastating when he is played turn 1 off of a Ritual. The card advantage that Dark Confidant provides will be amazing throughout the entire matchup (unless your close to death). Even if Dark Confidant only stays around for a few turns, you still gained a few cards of advantage that your opponent has not (and an even larger advantage if you played Hymn to Tourach). I don't want to open up the debate of Specter vs Confidant but, personally, I'd rather run Confidant over Specter.

I kept the Negators in.

19 lands is probably questionable but I think it should be sufficient, especially since the deck runs a low cc curve and an additional 4 Dark Rituals as mana producers.

The lone Juzaam Djinn could be a 4th Negator but I like the 3/1 split.

Sarcomancy gives the deck a 1cc creature drop and additional targets for Negator.

2 Nantuko Shades is probably very questionable to everyone but I think the deck can put a sufficient aggro clock on without them and I know that playing 4 often feels like having 4 Jittes in the sense that drawing multiples is oftentimes dead weight. With 2, the deck should see them often enough (especially with the additional draw of Confidant) while not drawing into multiples often enough. I realize that running 4 isn't bad in the sense that it gives backup copies when they get removaled... but I'm not sold on how important he is anyways... he competes for early game mana sources that you want to dedicate to disruption and other creatures (and when you don't dedicate mana sources, he has the same body as Confidant).

3 Rotting Giant was already in the original list. I don't really like Wretched Anurid at all and the deck already has 9 2cc creature drops anyway.

The deck loses 1 Chain Lightning but gains 2 Jitte. The burn is much quicker but the Jitte makes for a much better late game. I realize that the concept presented for this deck is that it wants to win asap and expects to lose if it goes into the late game... however, the problem is that this deck will go into the late game more often than alot of people think (I've playtested it and found this happening more often than I expected). I never piloted this deck to a 9th place finish at a big tournament but I think that adding a few cards that promote a better late game would help the deck perform better (because going into the late game will happen from time to time).

With all that said, keep in mind that this is all my biased opinion... I have no tournament records to prove or disprove anything I've said. This is just random food for thought.

[laststepdown]

*applauds new list*

Much better. If I was going to run equipment though, I'd use Sword of Fire and Ice, because the card draw is sick-and on a Hyppie, he becomes a 5/5 flying shocking Dimir Cutpurse. Granted it costs 1 more mana to get on the board, the benefits are immediate-which Sui strives for. All this of course is if you're running equipment.

As for the arguement of Chain Lightning, you're running 8 spots for LD and the best discard package ever printed (Duress and Hymn). That situation can be easily avoided with careful timing of your Wasteland/Sinkhole targets.

That's all I have for now-it's way too late/early, and I don't know what I'm still doing awake.

[Hanni]

Well, my list doesn't run any evasion (aside from the trample of Negator) and Sword of Fire and Ice is a bit harder to play (the extra 1 mana makes a huge difference from my testing of SoFI and Jitte in other decks). The additional draw of SoFI is great but I'm hoping the Dark Confidant's are sufficient enough draw. I personally like Jitte better in this deck but I haven't tested with SoFI yet. Another great thing about Jitte is that it makes the Burn matchup a bit better via lifegain (I haven't played against Burn but I read somewhere that this deck has problems with Burn).

Anyway, thanks for the comments laststepdown.
Anwar, what do you think?

[AnwarA101]

I would love to run Dark Confidant, but in my experience he's just been too fragile to run. I really think the Goblins matchup isn't the best and adding Confidant pushes it over the edge.

As for your build, its okay. I'm not overly excited. Sarcomancy is a decent 1 drop, but can hardly win the game by itself.

I guess Dark Confidant changes the nature of the deck because you can actually hope to draw more than 1 card per turn. I'm not sure how valid that hope is, but at least its there. You see decks that can draw cards usually have more than 1 draw spell. Decks like Gro or Solidarity have a full draw engine. Confidant while being a draw spell is only 4 cards out of 60. Since you may not draw him when it matters, he can often just be a bad creature. The inconsistency of black decks in some way can be fixed by Dark Confidant, but in other ways it isn't. The reason is that there is no other card like Dark Confidant and so you can overly rely on him as your draw engine. When you don't draw him or more likely when he dies to your opponents creature removal, you are back to where you started a black deck with no draw and now you don't have any tempo advantage either. That's in essence my problem with Dark Confidant.

I actually think Dark Confidant is pretty good in UGB Gro, because he only supplements a draw engine and isn't the complete draw engine himself. His inability to attack in that deck also doesn't matter because it plays Mongooses and Werebears for that purpose.

But I also disagree with dropping Hypnotic Specter, his ability is unrivaled as well as being an evasive 2/2 creature. Also you seem to be running less black sources than me. You are down to 15 permanents black sources, but perhaps you can shave lands because you have Confidant?

There maybe a really good black based deck around Dark Confidant, but I'm not sure Red Death is that deck or even that it can be made into that deck. But I would love to be proven wrong.

[Hanni]

I'd just like to say that black also has Night's Whisper and Skeletal Scrying as additional draw if the deck needed the draw that badly.

I realize that without Confidant, the deck is back to topdeck mode. That still doesn't mean that Confidant isn't amazing when he's sees play. The fact the deck runs 8 LD and 8 Discard effects should give at least somewhat of a protective shell for Dark Confidant... even just a few extra draws from him is going to give you an advantage. Playing Hypnotic Specter to have him removaled is going to be the same amount of tempo loss as a Dark Confidant being removaled if not more so... he costs an extra 1cc.

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I just think that Dark Confidant would be amazing in this deck... this is exactly the sort of deck where Dark Confidant shines (low cc's, empties hand fast, etc).

On another note, I'm not quite sure how Confidant is going to weaken your Goblin matchup. Aside from the opponent's removal, drawing into additional threats is amazing for the Goblin matchup. It gives you more answers to their threats and helps match threat vs threat on the board. If Goblins is a problematic matchup, black also offers Engineered Plague (my favorite Goblin hoser). I think that the addition of Confidant and Jitte should actually increase the Goblin matchup.

Your welcome to test this version out, although I'm sure you've probably tested something similar already. It's just something different to consider.

[laststepdown]

Goblins has never been a hard matchup because of Infest. As for Confidant in a Goblins matchup, they love to see Bob cry-Gempalm Incinerator will always take him out as soon as they Vial/cast a Lackey. The reason I'm not running Confidant is this-Hypnotic Specter blocks Lackey, kills Lackey, and lives. Confidant doesn't live through combat, so he will never be a blocking option. Keep in mind that's just against goblins.

Also, please note that I do not run any equipment in my build. The deck is much faster than that. I could warrant Jitte or SoF/I in sideboard, but putting it in main would be the only 4 drop (Jitte) in the deck, and I personally feel that's just over the desired curve. I'd rather run Rise/Fall or Terminate if I was looking for a random 2-of in the deck(which is how Jitte feels currently). That's just my humble opinion.

We could get into pages of Confidant/Jitte discussion. There are people who love those cards, people who despise those cards, and people who feel they don't belong in Sui. I have to confess to being the latter. After playing Deadguy for a year or so, and having Bob die on me every time I needed his 'counciling', I'd rather not waste a spot in the deck on 'maybe this guy will give me card advantage'. The deck lives off of tempo, and Bob counteracts the blood of the deck. Bane_of_the_Living was right however-run him at your own warrant. Just be aware that x/1's don't live very long at all, and playing around keeping Bob alive may hurt the deck more than it helps.

[Evil Roopey]

Playing Hypnotic Specter to have him removaled is going to be the same amount of tempo loss as a Dark Confidant being removaled if not more so... he costs an extra 1cc.

Except for the fact that if Hyppie stays in play he furthers your game plan for free. If Confidant stays in play he furthers your gameplan for a cost. this makes Hyppie a better option. Not only that but Hyppie has an ass of 2 so is less vulnurable and he flies meaning he will most likely deal damage. Bob is bad in this deck because he can't attack or block when there is anything on the other side of the table, which is actually controversial to your gameplan which is to attack without fear of anything.

[AnwarA101]

Given the creature discussion we've been having, I've been asked about Flesh Reaver (via pm). I'm interested in running him and I'm considering the following changes -

-1 Anurid
-1 Shade

+2 Reaver

My reasoning here is that Anurid is just unspectacular and Shade often isn't the best creature in multiples. With a 2 of Reaver, it might be just the right number. Reaver in multiples is too much against life loss against aggro, but often drawing him can often end the game sooner. I would love to run 4 Reavers, but having to board them out against aggro and going down to only 12 threats is too low for a deck without draw. Any thoughts?

[nitewolf9]

Would flesh reaver actually improve any of your bad matchups? He's great against combo, but he's really bad against other aggro decks from what I recall (I used to run him in sui a while back).

I'm not sure though, he could be really good (especially as a 2 count, just to get extra damage through). He seems like he'd be kinda good against thresh because he trades with all of their threats outside of enforcer, and they usually don't like loosing creatures due to the relatively low threat count they run. Goblins is the tier one I'd be concerned with, but like negator, this guy could be really good against them...stressing could.

I think he could potentially be like negator; on the surface he seems too risky, but he ends games so quickly that your opponents don't really get a chance to take advantage of his drawback. He definitly fits with the deck's strategy, and I think the burn you run makes him very playable (negator analogy again). I'd try him, could be worth it. Plus I absolutely love the card.

[CleverPetriDish]

I have played with Flesh Reaver and found it to be too damned dangerous. If the opponent blocks it even once, and you can't sac it, you are well behind in the damage race. SB versus Solidarity only imo, but then if you are going to devote some slots just to beating that deck stuff like Chains of Mephistopheles works better at the same price.

[quicksilver]

It doesn't even help against Iggy pop since you'll be taking so much damage, they can just play a couple spells and tendrils to kill you wihtout really going off, plus even if they can;t kill you with one tendrils, the life swing from tendrils will keep this guy from being able to swing in for the kill.

[AnwarA101]

Flesh Reaver plus burn can be a quick finish for any deck. I know that he's been very hit or miss for me in most situations, but that is also because with 4 you often draw 2 of them. While 2 Reavers are amazing against control, they aren't so hot against aggro if you get stalled. If you don't get stalled they end games, which is usually what this deck is trying to do. I always prefer to go faster rather than slower when given the opportunity.

The weakness against Iggy Pop isn't much of a concern because very few people play Iggy Pop. The added speed against combo also makes him pretty useful because you have less time to top deck the win which is what Iggy Pop tries to do against this deck.

[Ninj4]

i think he could be pretty good - I tested him out back when the deck was mono-black but i remember it not panning out so hot. it was also back when the deck ran vendetta's and 4 anurids.

with the inclusion of the 7 burn spells, i think he deserves a second test run. the only thing that hurts you other than the reaver is the painlands. I like the cut of Anurid and Shade in compensation.

Anurid because thats one less soruce of dmg for you, and shade because I hate seeing the guy more than once. I will always trade 4 of my life for 4 of theirs, esp since the reaver dmg resolves before its trigger goes on the stack so it CAN swing for the win.

its also backed by burn, so your opponent may allow reaver to swing for free a few times to bring both the life totals down before getting burned out.

anywho, thats just my take. I'll give it a test run soon, prolly at the next Legacy Tourney around here.

[Tacosnape]

In Non-Confidant builds of this deck (because losing 5 is teh suck), has anyone tried out Contagion in the sideboard?

I'm in the process of just getting into this deck after finally giving up on Deadguy Ale being what I want it to be. I've done a little testing with it (but not much), and so far I've found it to be really really sexy as it allows me to spend the 3 mana I'd be using to Infest on something like dropping another Negator, a Specter, a Shade and a Chain, etc. Plus it makes for an incredible instant-speed trick if someone decides, as they often do, to gangblock a Negator.

(Then again, I love pitch spells a little too much for my own good, as evidenced by the fact that I run Fury of the Horde in my Goblin sideboard, but hey.)

[Hanni]

B/r Stompy

Lands (23)
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Polluted Delta
4 Badlands
4 Swamp
4 Ancient Tomb
4 Wasteland

Creatures (16)
4 Sarcomancy
3 Rotting Giant
1 Nantuko Shade
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Plague Sliver / Juzaam Djinn

Spells (21)
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Magma Jet / Chain Lightning
3 Umezawa's Jitte

This is a slightly different approach for the deck, focusing less on land destruction (no Sinkholes) and discard (no Hypnotic Specters) for a more aggressive creature build (Plague Sliver). The deck easily supports the mana investment of Jitte now, and the creature base is intended to stomp face.

I'm running Sarcomancy because of it's synergy with Phyrexian Negator, adds to the additional amount of turn 1 drops, and is a solid 2/2 for 1cc. It helps apply aggro pressure and gives the deck more early game threats for the opponent to deal with (keeping up with spot removal).

I don't think this decklist is any better or worse than traditional B/r Sui but it seems like it could do well.

[URABAHN]

B/r Stompy

Lands (23)
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Polluted Delta
4 Badlands
4 Swamp
4 Ancient Tomb
4 Wasteland

Creatures (16)
4 Sarcomancy
3 Rotting Giant
1 Nantuko Shade
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Plague Sliver / Juzaam Djinn

Spells (21)
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Magma Jet / Chain Lightning
3 Umezawa's Jitte

This is a slightly different approach for the deck, focusing less on land destruction (no Sinkholes) and discard (no Hypnotic Specters) for a more aggressive creature build (Plague Sliver). The deck easily supports the mana investment of Jitte now, and the creature base is intended to stomp face.

I'm running Sarcomancy because of it's synergy with Phyrexian Negator, adds to the additional amount of turn 1 drops, and is a solid 2/2 for 1cc. It helps apply aggro pressure and gives the deck more early game threats for the opponent to deal with (keeping up with spot removal).

I don't think this decklist is any better or worse than traditional B/r Sui but it seems like it could do well.

I don't agree with your card choices and feel like you're trying to build a different deck altogether, in which case, you ought to start your own thread in the New and Developmental Forum (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=25).

Sinkhole can make the other player lose tempo against Red Death. It's a cheap spell that can cut off a color of mana or prevent someone from getting to their 3rd land. Sinkhole is even better in multiples.

Hypnotic Specter is not something you cut from Red Death and most Suicide Black builds. It's a threat because it flies, disrupts your opponent's hand for free, and can kill your opponent because it's a 2/2 with an evasive ability. Turn 1 Ritual Hypnotic Specter can hurt a lot of decks that need to keep the cards in their hand, like Solidarity. It helps keep Gro in check by making them discard one of the 10 creatures or counterspells in their deck.

Juzam Djinn/Plague Sliver + Ancient Tomb + Sarcomancy + 7 Fetchlands means significant life loss. Playing Phyrexian Negator turn 2 is impressive, but why pay two life for it with Ancient Tomb? It comes out just fine on Turn 1 with Ritual and is just as solid on Turn 3. I think the addition of 4cc creatures is just wrong, especially with Phyrexian Negator. At some point you're probably going to lose a land or two from Phyrexian Negator. At some point, you're going to activate Wasteland to destroy a land. Both of which makes getting 4 land that much more difficult. Ritual helps, but you'll probably be playing your Rituals on Turn 1. Lemme put it this way, if I had my choice of Turn 1 Hypnotic Specter, or Turn 2 Juzam Djinn, I'd go with the Hypnotic Specter.

Sarcomancy is a card I would stay far, far away from. Sure it's a 1-drop, but it's the only 2/2 creature in the deck! 2/2 toughness creatures with no abilities aren't any good in this format. Sarcomancy is even worse when the token is removed, and the next, and possibly the next. Can you handle that life loss combined with Ancient Tomb and Juzam Djinn?

You mention that you don't think your build is any better or worse than the traditional B/r Sui. Then why do you even bother suggesting it? This thread is for the development of Red Death. As per the forum description, "If your deck has proven itself in a varied meta environment and you feel it is upper-tier quality, this is the forum for you." B/r Stompy hasn't proven a thing. If you want to make a deck called B/r Stompy and you'd like people to chime in on it, head to the New and Developmental Forum (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=25).

[scrumdogg]

Has any consideration gone to replacing Anurid/Giant slots with Sangrophage or is the life loss too much for the deck to handle? I believe in a version like Hanni's with Jittes that it would balance out. Unconditional beats seem better than conditional beats, even at a price.

[AnwarA101]

B/r Stompy

Lands (23)
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Polluted Delta
4 Badlands
4 Swamp
4 Ancient Tomb
4 Wasteland

Creatures (16)
4 Sarcomancy
3 Rotting Giant
1 Nantuko Shade
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Plague Sliver / Juzaam Djinn

Spells (21)
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Magma Jet / Chain Lightning
3 Umezawa's Jitte



Why not cut all the discard? You only have Duress and Hymn. This does start to turn into another deck, but I guess you felt that the idea was close enough to Red Death that it might spur some conversation in this forum. I've actually been considering a similar deck, but with more a Suicide Sligh type of deck. You could cut your discard and add more creatures perhaps like Mogg Fanatic (killing an opponents Mogg Fanatic would be hot) and even more burn like a full compliment of Chain Lightning. Does this sound interesting?

[Hanni]

I don't agree with your card choices and feel like you're trying to build a different deck altogether, in which case, you ought to start your own thread in the New and Developmental Forum.



You mention that you don't think your build is any better or worse than the traditional B/r Sui. Then why do you even bother suggesting it? This thread is for the development of Red Death. As per the forum description, "If your deck has proven itself in a varied meta environment and you feel it is upper-tier quality, this is the forum for you." B/r Stompy hasn't proven a thing. If you want to make a deck called B/r Stompy and you'd like people to chime in on it, head to the New and Developmental Forum.

I thought it was close enough to B/r Sui that I would just post it here. I haven't done much testing either so some of my card choices probably aren't optimal. I just came up with the idea that turning it into a Stompy-style deck could be beneficial, since the basic premise of B/r Sui was fast-based aggro with disruption. I'm still packing disruption, I only dropped the Sinkholes and Hypnotic Specters, which I replaced with a more beatdown oriented strategy. I'm not implying that this is list is better, I was just tossing the idea out to see what Anwar thought.

@ Anwar

Well, the reason I left the discard in is because it hurts blue-based aggro control like Threshold and combo decks like Solidarity. Without a discard package, it's going to have a much harder time against those decks. I was even considering Cabal Therapy in the sideboard.

[freakish777]

Has any consideration gone to replacing Anurid/Giant slots with Sangrophage or is the life loss too much for the deck to handle?

Sangrophage isn't that great. Raving Oni Slave has an easier casting cost (not that it really matters here, but...) and if its going to be sticking around for more than 3 turns is better on the life loss (this probably metagame dependant, if you've got a lot of control decks that are gunning your creatures down, go with Sangrophage, but if not and your life is an issue, Slave is probably better).


Also, if you're going to try for bigger fatter creatures instead of disruption like Specter, you've got creatures like:

Grinning Demon
Yukora
Liege of the Pit

to possibly cut back on the Slave's draw back (? I'm not sure how great of a suggestion this is, as all 3 of those have their own drawbacks... although I do think it would be hysterical to unmorph Liege on turn 3 off of Chrome Mox).

[AnwarA101]

@ Anwar

Well, the reason I left the discard in is because it hurts blue-based aggro control like Threshold and combo decks like Solidarity. Without a discard package, it's going to have a much harder time against those decks. I was even considering Cabal Therapy in the sideboard.

Another way to beat Threshold and Solidarity is to go busted aggro against them. This is the reason something like Stompy is a decent choice in that type of metagame. Both decks essentially want to play control early, Gro counters your relevant spells and Solidarity tries to buy time with Remand and Force of Will until it can go off. Trying to win as fast as possible and possibly being able to play multiple threats in a turn is one way to beat both of these decks.

This ofcourse is not the strategy that Red Death takes. It tries to use disruption to give its creatures time to win the game. Its like an aggro deck with control elements because it simply isn't fast enough of an aggro deck. If you make more aggro oriented deck the control elements may not be necessary and in fact get in the way of you winning because you don't want to spend turn 2 playing Hymn when you could drop a threat and a burn spell.

[al the great]

Just droppin in to say a regular here won a black lotus tourney with this deck yesterday.

Heavy goblins in the tourney and heavy combo.

I'll see if he ran anything different and post.

[nitewolf9]

After this weekend and playing with the deck, I am pretty much convinced that the main deck is optimized, or very close to it.

(for reference, here is what I ran...which is essentially the list on page one:
4x dark ritual
4x sinkhole
4x hymn to tourach
4x duress
4x lightning bolt
3x chain lightning
4x negator
4x hyppie
4x shade
3x rotting giant
1x wretched anurid
4x wasteland
4x polluted delta (had 4 of these and 3 mires, doesn't really matter)
3x bloodstained mire
3x badlands (not quite sure if 4 is the correct number after all, but I think anwar made a good case for running only 3 to combat things like wasteland due to not drawing into them and instead relying of fetches to grab em)
7x swamp)

What I would like to start a discussion on is sideboard choices.
Once again for reference, in the sideboard I ran:
4x dystopia (solid spot, probably not changing)
4x Infest (could be fire covenant, but I prefer infest for two reasons: not as vulnerable to goblins' mana denial, and doesn't force you to use your life total as a resource in an already tight matchup. It is an instant however, and lets your shades and hyppies stick around, so I'm not sure)
4x Cabal Therapy (Don't know if I want to change this spot or not)
3x Null Rod (these seemed really solid. Hits equipment based decks, that usually run mox's as well, and provides a huge hinderance to iggy. Also hoses vial, and salvagers game to an extent...should this be pithing needle though?)


The main slots in debate are the Therapy and null rod spots. Dystopia is amazing, I would never not run it. It hurts thresh so badly and answers annoying enchantments like moat, humility, etc. Infest is my personal call, but could be fire covenant or possibly plague. Not too much variance in that spot though.

As far as the cabal therapy slots, I'm not sold on them. It's great to go in with dystopia against thresh, because while the dystopia is stranding their threats in their hands, you wipe them out with therapy. However, Tormod's crypt is just as devastating and allows you to have another good answer to random things like ichorid and loam control, as well as being great in the thresh matchup in and of itself. Crypt is definitly not nearly as good against solidarity however, and even though the match is in your favor, they can still win. Especially if you draw lots of burn instead of more disruption. Therapy I suppose wins out because of these arguments, but would there be anything better in this slot (considering what therapy does for you)?

The null rod slots I think are solid, but what about pithing needle? Both provide a good answer to artifacts, but null rod is much more broad, hoses ALL equipment instead of just one, hits mana producers, rapes affinity, and seems to be a good all around answer to things this deck doesn't want to see.
I think I am convinced there needs to be an artifact answer in this spot, but
is null rod the best choice? Or does the 1cc of needle and the ability to hit things like gempalm incinerator, a.salvagers, etc. make it better?

Alternatively, maybe there should be an altogether different approach to the last 7 spots that I am missing. I would love to hear peoples' ideas.

[AnwarA101]

I'm pretty impressed with Fire Covenant. I know that losing life against Goblins is risky, but this card lets you not worry about hitting your own creatures with Infest. I was simply happy to see it against Goblins when I drew it. Infest has a few things going for it as well. The first is that it is Wrath of God against Goblins for 3 mana. Fire Covenant may cost too much in certain points in the game to help you recover from Goblins onslaught. Though I believe that Fire Covenant complements the aggressive nature of Red Death more than Infest. You can play your creatures without worrying about the consequences of Infesting them away (ofcourse Giant and Negator are not killed and Shade depending on how much mana you have). Infest not being red also makes a better choice against decks like Angel Stompy because of the pro-red nature of their creatures. Its a close call. Any thoughts?

[nitewolf9]

I think the best part of fire covenant, while it lets your weaker creatures live, is the fact that it's an instant. They drop warchief, you ruin their day. I think it's a more power for more risk kinda thing. Did you find at any point during the day that you wanted to have an infest over the covenent Anwar?

[AnwarA101]

I think the best part of fire covenant, while it lets your weaker creatures live, is the fact that it's an instant. They drop warchief, you ruin their day. I think it's a more power for more risk kinda thing. Did you find at any point during the day that you wanted to have an infest over the covenent Anwar?

Not really. Though I only played Goblins twice and basically didn't play another aggro deck all day. First time I played Goblins, Covenant would have been amazing but I didn't draw it. Second time I played Goblins, it was good but only hit a couple of creatures since that is all he had out. We should probably do some testing to figure out which one is better especially in the Goblin matchup.

[nitewolf9]

We should probably do some testing to figure out which one is better especially in the Goblin matchup.


Agreed.

[Obfuscate Freely]

I thought it might be worth pointing out that while Fire Covenant is prone to being shut down by Wasteland, Infest is prone to being shut down by Rishadan Port. Fire Covenant's weakness is also partially solveable; you could try squeezing a basic Mountain into the board to sub in for a Wasteland.

I know Infest is strong out of the board, but its tendency to kill your own creatures makes me want to run Covenant instead. Covenant will always be able to generate board and tempo advantage, which is exactly what you want; Infest is sometimes more of a reset button, which is too symmetrical and gives Goblins the opportunity to out-topdeck you (which they will almost always do).

[Alfred]

I'm pretty impressed with Fire Covenant. I know that losing life against Goblins is risky, but this card lets you not worry about hitting your own creatures with Infest. I was simply happy to see it against Goblins when I drew it. Infest has a few things going for it as well. The first is that it is Wrath of God against Goblins for 3 mana. Fire Covenant may cost too much in certain points in the game to help you recover from Goblins onslaught. Though I believe that Fire Covenant complements the aggressive nature of Red Death more than Infest. You can play your creatures without worrying about the consequences of Infesting them away (ofcourse Giant and Negator are not killed and Shade depending on how much mana you have). Infest not being red also makes a better choice against decks like Angel Stompy because of the pro-red nature of their creatures. Its a close call. Any thoughts?

Fire Convenant is an instant, Infest is not. Fire Covenant can also remove Werebears and things bigger than 2/2s. I like FC a lot, so keep trying with that until you get some definitive test results.

[nitewolf9]

I thought it might be worth pointing out that while Fire Covenant is prone to being shut down by Wasteland, Infest is prone to being shut down by Rishadan Port. Fire Covenant's weakness is also partially solveable; you could try squeezing a basic Mountain into the board to sub in for a Wasteland.

That's true. Then again, you're telling this to the man who completely neglected to bolt the goblin player during his upkeep because of rishadan port and going on tilt :rolleyes:

I think there is definitly a very strong argument for covenant over infest. The only matchup I see infest being strictly better is in the fairy stompy matchup, but then again we do have dystopia and null rod for that one (and I'm not so sure FS is something that we should be focusing on very much really).

I suppose the only thing that keeps me weary about fire covenant is that it can't really pull out those wins against gobs when you top deck it at low life. Sometimes I've noticed I infest at very low life after top decking it to get myself out of an extremely bad board position, and my rotting giant/anurid/negators stick around to end the game. I guess it depends on when you draw it.

But yeah, fire covenant helps you win quickly, which is pretty much right along the deck's strategy. It just seems to fit. Testing will tell though...

[nitewolf9]

Fire Convenant is an instant, Infest is not. Fire Covenant can also remove Werebears and things bigger than 2/2s. I like FC a lot, so keep trying with that until you get some definitive test results.

Would you honestly board in fire covenant against thresh? (Dystopia...cabal therapy...)


Also, since that spot in the board is pretty much down to a debate over two distinct options, does anyone have any ideas about the other slots? (namely null rod and therapy)

[nitewolf9]

What do you guys think of Chains of Mephistopheles in place of cabal therapy in the board? It's way more powerful against thresh/solidarity/landstill/anything with a draw engine and is completely one sided. It seems to me cabal therapy is potentially strong, but sometimes just comes up short. Thoughts?

[rsaunder]

I played chains in deadguy's SB for a while (and in Kidishack's 2nd DLD), but ended up taking them out. They were an annoyance to landstill, but most of the time, they justs didn't play the draw, killed my chains, or FOF'd away because that's uneffected. Against threshold, it sucked. They mostly just held thier cantrips, or were fine with the card disadvantage, holding cards they didn't want anyway. More than once it helped them hit threshold earlier. I just ran over solidarity too much to justify running them (I put in cranial extractions for combo, in the chains slot).

Rifter, on the other hand, was greatly affected by chains, having essentially no draw engine and no way to exchange useless cards like normal.

[nitewolf9]

^ I suppose that's pretty good to hear, cause they would be a pain in the ass to get. It seems like chains would be good, but if it was sup-par when you ran it in deadguy, it's probably gona be just as bad (if not worse) here.

[Anarky87]

^ I suppose that's pretty good to hear, cause they would be a pain in the ass to get. It seems like chains would be good, but if it was sup-par when you ran it in deadguy, it's probably gona be just as bad (if not worse) here.

I ran Chains in the SB of The Rock at Gencon, but prior to that in testing, it most definitely wrecks Solidarity. Other than that, there wasn't really anything else it affected that strongly, though I hadn't thought of Rifter. I'd stick with Therapy or work on putting something else in that slot.

[Ninj4]

i like leyline of the void and Pyrostatic pillar o-o.

[URABAHN]

I ran Chains in the SB of The Rock at Gencon, but prior to that in testing, it most definitely wrecks Solidarity. Other than that, there wasn't really anything else it affected that strongly, though I hadn't thought of Rifter. I'd stick with Therapy or work on putting something else in that slot.

That's a misconception. Chains alone does not wreck Solidarity. It's possible to get around it with Flash of Insight and Impulse which don't draw you cards.

[Anarky87]

That's a misconception. Chains alone does not wreck Solidarity. It's possible to get around it with Flash of Insight and Impulse which don't draw you cards.

Alone it doesn't, but backed by Duress, Therapy, Hymn, and Specter, it does. Impulse doesn't do awhole lot when it's been discarded.

[nitewolf9]

i like leyline of the void and Pyrostatic pillar o-o.

Pyrostatic pillar could be interesting. Against solidarity the fact that it hits everything you play is irrelevant, but against thresh I'm not sure. Could be solid, but between that and keeping dystopia around it might be too much life loss.
The one thing I like about therapy over the pillar though is the fact that it hurts control decks like landstill much more, so I think it's staying in that spot.

Distress could be an interesting alternative though, and I think it's the only other card I could see replacing therapy at this point. But therapy just has that potential to be really overpowered in alot of circumstances...

[Ninj4]

at my last tourney, Pyrostatic pillar absolutely wrecked thresh. Except for counters, they have no maindeck answer to it. and there isn't a spell except their finisher and FoW that doesn't get hit by it. remember, 10 hits from pillar kills you, and thats before painlands, FoW's, and your own burn/beats.

LEyline is amazing too, simply because it can't get Needled and its uncounterable if u have it opening hand and and un-meddling magable. also, there's a lot less enchantment hate than there is artifact hate.

[AnwarA101]

Distress could be an interesting alternative though, and I think it's the only other card I could see replacing therapy at this point. But therapy just has that potential to be really overpowered in alot of circumstances...

I was actually considering Distress initially when I suggested the deck to PowerGamer1003 before his T4 performance with the deck. We were so excited about adding Red that he tried Rise/Fall and it proved to be less than stellar. On Day2 of the Duel for Duals in July where I played the deck, I wasn't sure what to board, but I think it was Ewokslayer who suggested Cabal Therapy. I was skeptical about the card because most of my creatures are needed unlike other decks that run 20+ creatures. Cabal Therapy turned out to be a great card that day and in general. Not only did I play against 3 Solidarity decks that day, but Cabal Therapy was simply amazing. Not only because it combos with Duress, but because it turns extra creatures you draw against Solidarity into disruption spells. You can essentially turn any creature into a disruption spell. Turning one resource (creature) into another resource (disruption) is invaluable against combo decks. The main reason this is true is that Red Death has no way to manipulate its draw against combo. It might draw creatures when it needs disruption and it might draw disruption when it needs creatures. Cabal Therapy addresses one of those problems.

[nitewolf9]

The main reason this is true is that Red Death has no way to manipulate its draw against combo. It might draw creatures when it needs disruption and it might draw disruption when it needs creatures. Cabal Therapy addresses one of those problems.

I think that is probably the argument that makes me want to sitck with therapy. Besides, therapy is 1cc and distress is 2cc, which makes a huge difference.

[Avatar of Kokusho]

While playing this, I have realized one thing: Wretched Anurid sucks against aggro decks. There are times when you need a creature, and with my luck, that's the only one I end up with. Therefore, this guy is gone. I am also testing the cut of one Nantuko Shade, in favor of two Jittes.

Jitte pros and cons:

The Jitte, of course, serves multiple purposes. It can kill stuff, gain you life, or make one of your guys big enough to stomp on through for the win.
However, playing it is mana that's not being spent on creatures, burn, or other hate.
Jitte without something to equip it to is just another shiny metal object.
Jitte with something to equip it to is something a lot of players don't want to deal with. Sure, it dies to removal and can be Pithed. If they remove it or Needle it, well, that's resources not used to stop your other 14 threats.

As for the Cabal Therapy discussion, I think it's about 900% better than Rise/Fall. With as many creatures as you have, surely blowing one to hell in order to wreck your opponent's hand is well worth it. Also, Rise/Fall depends on red mana. I don't know about you guys, but there are times when mana can be rather hard to find, let alone the few red sources available. Black mana, however, is simpler and can't be Wasted.

[AnwarA101]

I was toying with an idea for the board. After my recent Duel for Duals experience where I hardly used Null Rod and Fire Covenant was not enough to save me against one of my Goblin opponents (I beat the other one). I was thinking that the only aggro deck that shows up in numbers seems to be Goblins and it might not be worth it to run Null Rod even though its simply amazing against Affinity, Angel Stompy, and Faerie Stompy. I've been resistant to put in Engineered Plague not just because you really need 2 of them to beat goblins, but with no draw its very hard to find the second. But I was thinking perhaps the Null Rod could be another aggro slot where it would complement Engineered Plague against Goblins. So I arrived at Masticore. He seems great against many forms of aggro and Masticore + 1 Plague = 2 Mana to destroy any Goblin. I want to fit in 4 Masticore and 4 Plague so I think dropping 1 Cabal Therapy might be okay. Since combo is one your better matchups and you only board 3 against Thresh anyway. Here's the board I'm considering -


4 Engineered Plague
4 Masticore
4 Dystopia
3 Cabal Therapy

My board plan against Goblins -

-4 Duress
-4 Sinkhole (I've been impressed with it less and less against Goblins)

+4 Masticore
+4 Plague

Adding 4 more threats makes you more likely to find one against Goblins and hopefully Masticore will be huge in the matchup with some nice synergy with Plague.

[Obfuscate Freely]

I don't know about Masticore. He breaks your curve both before and after he's in play, and eats your hand while he's at it. He's certainly going to be too inefficient if you don't have a Plague in play, and he also gets wrecked by STP (which a lot of Goblin decks seem to be running) and even Pyrokinesis/Disenchant, since keeping regeneration mana open will be tough.

If Masticore doesn't work out, I'd definitely try Darkblast. When you don't have a Plague, it still answers 1st-turn Lackeys and other x/1 Goblins, while giving you the option of killing a Warchief or Piledriver if you can afford to skip a draw step. Of course, when you do have a Plague, Darkblast becomes superb, killing any Goblin for just B, and recurring every turn if needed.

I do like the idea behind the new board, though. Hopefully it will test out better than the previous one.

[nitewolf9]

Masticore is definitly the nuts against goblins...if you can support him, and I agree that this deck probably can't. Most builds run white now and they can wait for you to pay his upkeep once and then swords him, or disenchant him when you don't have regen. mana up, etc. Now if you ran confidant that might be a different story...but I think we all know this deck doesn't want bob.

I like the idea of darkblast. It could be really good. But I also think running both infest AND engineered plague might be interesting. Infest hurts other aggro decks, like AS for instance, and would be a major beating to goblins. It would also give you time to find multiple plagues. Not sure if it's a good idea or not, I'm just throwing things out there.

Also, what about running engineered plague and cursed scrolls in the board? I think scroll might be pretty good in this deck. If you ran the board like this:

4 engineered plague
4 cursed scroll
4 dystopia
3 cabal therapy

What I would do against goblins with this board is take out 4 duress, 3 sinkhole, and 4 negator post board for plague, scroll, and 3 cabal therapy.
I find negator is amazing against goblins preboard, but becomes such a liability with pyrokenisis that he provides goblins with yet another way to just win. Scroll doubles as a threat and removal, and would be active early in a deck with no draw. Scroll and plague would turn this deck towards a more controllish route against goblins, and instead of trying to out aggro them, you could just keep every one of their creatures off the board and finish them with a big shade or scroll or whatever.

Might be worth a shot.

[Hanni]

Well, after actually doing a bit of playtesting with this deck, I retract some of my previous statements/suggestions:

Umezawa's Jitte does not fit in this deck. The deck wants to disrupt and beatdown early, with Jitte being far too slow. It's also difficult to curve at 4. It can be explosive with Ritual but the deck would much rather put more aggro on the table rather than try to establish control.

Dark Confidant does not fit in this deck. The deck wants to play beatdown and doesn't really have the time to sit on a Confidant to gain card advantage. He's not a great aggressor and the deck simply doesn't need him.

Onto other suggestions that I did find credible, Hypnotic Specter has been crappy for me. When you don't Ritual him into play turn 1, he sucks. He comes down on turn 3 and swings on turn 4, doing a mere 2 damage. Evasion is nice, discard is nice, but he seemed too subpar for the aggressive nature of this deck. Even against Solidarity, if you can't Ritual him out on turn 1, he sucks. He makes the curve of the deck much worse and completely goes against what this deck wants: more power than the cmc (ex: Giants power is 3 and his cmc is 2).

1cc drops are awesome. Not so much so the deck has a turn 1 drop but because they apply amazing early game pressure that can be hard to deal with, and because they allow the deck to use excess mana sources in a turn (such as turn 1 Ritual to Negator, turn 2 Sarcomancy and Bolt on a blocker, swing with Negator). The deck wants to apply early game pressure, the deck wants to win before the opponent stabalizes from the disruption. The 1cc creature drops make the deck not only faster but they also increase the consistency of the gameplan. It also makes them easy to drop in combination with disruption, allowing for plays like turn 2 Duress + Sarcomancy. Not only that, they are extremely synergistic with Negator as well.

As far as Negator goes, some times I love him and sometimes I hate him. Some games he straight up wins it for me and he does it very quickly. Other games, he is the sole reason why I lose. I'm probably losing due to inexperience with the deck or potentially bad matchups to play him against, but I do think he is important in the deck nevertheless.

Finally, I'm debating on whether Shock may be better than Chain Lightning. 1cc burn, I've come to realize, is important. However, I think 2 damage instant speed burn may be more important than 3 damage sorcery speed burn. I haven't done much testing with this though, so for now I'm gonna stick with the Chain Lightning's since it has sufficient testing behind it.

This is the current list I'm working on right now for B/r Sui, I think it's a big improvement from my other lists. Most of you probably won't agree with this, but this is what I've found to work well for me so far:

Lands (20)
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Polluted Delta
3 Badlands
5 Swamp
4 Wasteland

Creatures (13)
3 Carnophage
3 Rotting Giant
3 Nantuko Shade
4 Phyrexian Negator

Spells (27)
4 Sarcomancy
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning

7 1cc creature drops ensure I'm applying early pressure and provide targets for Negator. 10 Zombies in total supports Sarcomancy sufficiently. I removed the Hyppies. Everything else about the deck is pretty much the same.

The cc of this list is a bit lower than the standard list so the manabase has less strain on it.

I'd also like to point out that 1cc creatures rather than a 3cc creature does not make turn 1 Ritual plays worse. Turn 1 Sarcomancy and Hymn is nice, or 3 1cc creature drops, 1 1cc creature drop and a Nantuko Shade, etc etc.

[URABAHN]

As I've said before, a bunch of 2/2 Zombies that (can) make you lose life are not worth running in this deck. It's worth noting that Sarcomancy and Carnophage don't have any special abilities that make them worth running. I can't think of any decks that run 2/2 creatures without any special abilities, why would we want to ruin Red Death with any? If you're going to have permanents to throw away to Phyrexian Negator, how about running permanents that don't make you lose any life?

[Avatar of Kokusho]

You shouldn't worry overmuch about your Negator being hated out. It's a fact of the deck, sometimes you're going to turn one Rit-into-Negator and see your opponent drop a Mountain and Bolt it. It just happens sometimes. I really don't think that adding subpar permanents just to feed to its drawback is a good idea either. If you worry THAT much about it, don't play it unless you're sure your opponent doesn't have a way to get rid of it. Besides, it's far more common for you to drop your Negator and see it turned into a farmer.

I still like the idea of pro-white creatures, simply because I get damn tired of my guys being Plowed left and right.

As to the Shock vs Chain Lightning....I'd rather deal 3 damage at sorcery speed and kill more stuff, myself.

Any thoughts on adding a single basic mountain? Might make the mirror a bit easier to play...

[Hanni]

I put in my post that I knew I was going to get bashed for my suggestions. I always do. Anyways, here's my reply:

Well, before saying that 1cc 2/2's without special abilities aren't played, take a look at Zoo, G/R Beats, and Angel Stompy first. Then, try them in B/r Sui before bashing them. They make the deck flow alot more smoothly. In the standard list, the deck had no 1cc creature drops. It's nice to open with a 1cc 2/2 on turn 1, then follow that up with Hymns and Sinkholes on the following turns, so that the deck has a 2 damage clock during that time period. Also note that Sarcomancy does not cause life loss unless you have no zombies in play... my list has a total of 10 zombies to support it and that's also why I only run 3 Carnophage and not 4. Also consider that this this B/r Sui, which was originated on the concept that life is an expendable resource if you can kill the opponent faster than they can kill you. They aren't symetrical either, they do 2 damage and cause 1 loss of life (Carnophage in this scenario).

I've tested with them and they make the deck perform better, especially earlier on... at least from my playtesting experience. I hardly see how this "ruins" Red Death, even if they were not so great, which I think they are great anyway.

Also, I'm not running them simply because they can sac to Negator. It's just a very good synergy that they have with the Negator, which also allows the deck to perform better. Sarcomancy is a 2 permanent generator for 1cc, I can't really think of too many other cards that are as good as that for creating permanents to sac to Negator if necessary. Negator has already been iffy for me in testing... he's amazing when he's good but he's terrible when he's bad. Sarcomancy makes him that much better, so why not?

I also wasn't aware that life loss was a common problem this deck was worried about. I was under the impression that this deck wants to win quickly, before the opponent recovers from the disruption, and that the resource of life was expendable to reach these means. Maybe this deck isn't B/r Sui but instead B/r Beats with discard/LD?

All I'm saying is, so far I've been extremely impressed with having 7 1cc 2/2 drops. It has not only increased my clock but it has also increased my early game consistency. In fact, they make mid-late game consistency good too if you end up sac'ing lands to Negator (and are stuck on 1 land). It's made the deck flow alot smoother for me and they provide additional answers to a 1st turn Lackey (that cannot be fanatic'd away). If you don't like them, don't run them, but I think they are worth considering. I know I wouldn't play B/r Sui without them. It's also nice to playtesting something first before automatically dismissing it.

[nitewolf9]

Back to our discussion about the sideboard choices, plague spitter also seems very solid if we run plague. He seems much better than masticore, as with a plague out he reads "during your upkeep destroy all goblins in play".

Anticipating a pyrokenisis sideboarding plan by goblins, I'd do:
-4 negator, -4 duress, -3 sinkhole
+4 plague spitter, +4 engineered plague, +3 cabal therapy

Seems very strong. Another thing to test at least.

[AnwarA101]

Back to our discussion about the sideboard choices, plague spitter also seems very solid if we run plague. He seems much better than masticore, as with a plague out he reads "during your upkeep destroy all goblins in play".

Anticipating a pyrokenisis sideboarding plan by goblins, I'd do:
-4 negator, -4 duress, -3 sinkhole
+4 plague spitter, +4 engineered plague, +3 cabal therapy

Seems very strong. Another thing to test at least.

Plague Spitter seems better once an Engineered Plague is down since he doesn't get countered by Mogg Fanatic. That might cause them lots of problems and he basically does 3 damage a turn which is pretty good. Though without Plague he 's probably not very good mainly that Mogg Fanatic ends his day.

I was suprised by how many Goblin decks are running Pyrokinesis and getting your Negator hit by it can be game over. So it might be time to pull him post-board, but what to bring in? Cabal Therapy is an interesting idea, but I doubt you can flash it back.

[nitewolf9]

I definitly think we should test plague spitter with engineered plague as a post board plan. If we run the spitter he can be swapped out with the negator as he double as a threat and removal. He does make pyrokenisis better for them as they can hit more of your creatures, but it's nowhere near as bad as having a negator smacked around. Playing smart and not overextending is the solution to that problem anyway. The problem with mogg fanatic is not a very big one I don't think, it means at the very least he takes a goblin down with him (assuming they don't have any other 1/1's in play).

This option seems the best to me if we run plague. Darkblast can't do damage to the player and masticore just has too much of a drawback for this deck. I can't really think of anything else we would want to swap out with our negators in the matchup.

[URABAHN]

Well, before saying that 1cc 2/2's without special abilities aren't played, take a look at Zoo, G/R Beats, and Angel Stompy first. Then, try them in B/r Sui before bashing them. They make the deck flow alot more smoothly. In the standard list, the deck had no 1cc creature drops. It's nice to open with a 1cc 2/2 on turn 1, then follow that up with Hymns and Sinkholes on the following turns, so that the deck has a 2 damage clock during that time period. Also note that Sarcomancy does not cause life loss unless you have no zombies in play... my list has a total of 10 zombies to support it and that's also why I only run 3 Carnophage and not 4. Also consider that this this B/r Sui, which was originated on the concept that life is an expendable resource if you can kill the opponent faster than they can kill you. They aren't symetrical either, they do 2 damage and cause 1 loss of life (Carnophage in this scenario).

Hanni, I'd like to know more about your testing that makes you think 2/2s with no special abilities are good in Red Death. Care to give some examples? I'd also like to know how having these 2/2 increases your clock when just about everything in the format can block a 2/2 Zombie and survive? What creature decks did you play against? When you've 7 answers to Turn 1 Lackey, are you really that concerned about the power of Lackey that you need to run some 2/2 zombies?

Also, could you also give some examples of 2/2s with no special abilities in Zoo, G/R Beats, and Angel Stompy? Gray Ogre, Pearled Unicorn, and Headless Horseman?

While Red Death is a Suicide black deck, trying to claim that life-loss is an integral part of the Suicide strategy is false. In this case, the end does not justify the means. 2/2 Zombies that can make you lose life, usually won't be attacking, and probably won't be blocking (in the case of Carnophage). If you want to go the route of crazy life loss effects to end the game quickly, then Hatred or Lurking Evil might be up your alley. Bottom line, the extra life loss from Carnophage and/or Sarcomany will lead to your death.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Plague Spitter is another interesting compliment to Plague that I hadn't considered. It may be the way to go.

Still, Darkblast has the advantage of killing 1st-turn Lackeys, and it isn't vulnerable to creature removal or mana denial. I'm not sure if boarding in 8 3cc permanents can be optimal against Wastelands and Ports.

I think Masticore, Spitter, and Darkblast all look good enough to try, though.


Well, after actually doing a bit of playtesting with this deck, I retract some of my previous statements/suggestions:

Umezawa's Jitte does not fit in this deck. The deck wants to disrupt and beatdown early, with Jitte being far too slow. It's also difficult to curve at 4. It can be explosive with Ritual but the deck would much rather put more aggro on the table rather than try to establish control.

Dark Confidant does not fit in this deck. The deck wants to play beatdown and doesn't really have the time to sit on a Confidant to gain card advantage. He's not a great aggressor and the deck simply doesn't need him.
I'm glad to see someone outside of NoVa come to similar conclusions about these two cards. Thanks for sharing.


Onto other suggestions that I did find credible, Hypnotic Specter has been crappy for me. When you don't Ritual him into play turn 1, he sucks. He comes down on turn 3 and swings on turn 4, doing a mere 2 damage. Evasion is nice, discard is nice, but he seemed too subpar for the aggressive nature of this deck. Even against Solidarity, if you can't Ritual him out on turn 1, he sucks. He makes the curve of the deck much worse and completely goes against what this deck wants: more power than the cmc (ex: Giants power is 3 and his cmc is 2).
This paragraph is actually pretty difficult to disagree with. I've seen Hyppie be both amazing and amazingly weak, depending on the situation, but an awful lot of the arguments against Confidant apply to him as well.


1cc drops are awesome. Not so much so the deck has a turn 1 drop but because they apply amazing early game pressure that can be hard to deal with, and because they allow the deck to use excess mana sources in a turn (such as turn 1 Ritual to Negator, turn 2 Sarcomancy and Bolt on a blocker, swing with Negator). The deck wants to apply early game pressure, the deck wants to win before the opponent stabalizes from the disruption. The 1cc creature drops make the deck not only faster but they also increase the consistency of the gameplan. It also makes them easy to drop in combination with disruption, allowing for plays like turn 2 Duress + Sarcomancy. Not only that, they are extremely synergistic with Negator as well.
Everything here rings true, as well, although I'm still not sure whether the deck can afford to run the Zombies. What they represent is a trade of power for consistency, and Red Death often seems to need every resource it has to win a game. I've always assumed that the Zombies are simply weaker (efficiency aside) than whatever they could replace, and thus would cause the deck to run out of gas too often.

That said, I can imagine the improvement in how the deck plays with one-drops. A mana curve! What a concept!


As far as Negator goes, some times I love him and sometimes I hate him. Some games he straight up wins it for me and he does it very quickly. Other games, he is the sole reason why I lose. I'm probably losing due to inexperience with the deck or potentially bad matchups to play him against, but I do think he is important in the deck nevertheless.
As others have said, playing with Negator means occasionally losing because of him. It's just a high risk, high reward card.


Finally, I'm debating on whether Shock may be better than Chain Lightning. 1cc burn, I've come to realize, is important. However, I think 2 damage instant speed burn may be more important than 3 damage sorcery speed burn. I haven't done much testing with this though, so for now I'm gonna stick with the Chain Lightning's since it has sufficient testing behind it.
I've actually thought about this swap, as well. The reason I've never gone through with it is that it would weaken your reach so much. Shock may be equivalent to Lightning Bolt vs. most creatures in the format, but the same cannot be said vs. life totals.

I agree that the slot should likely remain occupied by a 1cc spell, so Chain Lightning is the best choice.


This is the current list I'm working on right now for B/r Sui, I think it's a big improvement from my other lists. Most of you probably won't agree with this, but this is what I've found to work well for me so far:

Lands (20)
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Polluted Delta
3 Badlands
5 Swamp
4 Wasteland

Creatures (13)
3 Carnophage
3 Rotting Giant
3 Nantuko Shade
4 Phyrexian Negator

Spells (27)
4 Sarcomancy
4 Dark Ritual
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning

7 1cc creature drops ensure I'm applying early pressure and provide targets for Negator. 10 Zombies in total supports Sarcomancy sufficiently. I removed the Hyppies. Everything else about the deck is pretty much the same.

The cc of this list is a bit lower than the standard list so the manabase has less strain on it.

I'd also like to point out that 1cc creatures rather than a 3cc creature does not make turn 1 Ritual plays worse. Turn 1 Sarcomancy and Hymn is nice, or 3 1cc creature drops, 1 1cc creature drop and a Nantuko Shade, etc etc.
That list is pretty attractive, if dropping Hyppies proves to be correct. The only thing I'd disagree with is cutting down to 16 black sources, since you still want BB on turn 2 just as badly as before. If you really need the extra dork, I think you ought to shave something else (maybe a Wasteland).

I definitely plan to test this out.

[Hanni]

@ URABAHN


Hanni, I'd like to know more about your testing that makes you think 2/2s with no special abilities are good in Red Death. Care to give some examples? I'd also like to know how having these 2/2 increases your clock when just about everything in the format can block a 2/2 Zombie and survive? What creature decks did you play against? When you've 7 answers to Turn 1 Lackey, are you really that concerned about the power of Lackey that you need to run some 2/2 zombies?

Also, could you also give some examples of 2/2s with no special abilities in Zoo, G/R Beats, and Angel Stompy? Gray Ogre, Pearled Unicorn, and Headless Horseman?

While Red Death is a Suicide black deck, trying to claim that life-loss is an integral part of the Suicide strategy is false. In this case, the end does not justify the means. 2/2 Zombies that can make you lose life, usually won't be attacking, and probably won't be blocking (in the case of Carnophage). If you want to go the route of crazy life loss effects to end the game quickly, then Hatred or Lurking Evil might be up your alley. Bottom line, the extra life loss from Carnophage and/or Sarcomany will lead to your death.

Well, I thought I had given enough examples but I'll re-explain myself.

Turn 1, you can play a Sarcomancy. Turn 2, you can cast Sinkhole. Turn 3, you can cast Hymn to Tourach and Carnophage. Emptying the hand faster to go on the assault much earlier puts alot more stress on your opponent and the fast weenie rush can often be hard to deal with. Not to mention the other bonuses, that I think I've explained thoroughly, that go along with them. It just helps round out the mana curve much, much better than playing a 3cc 2/2 flyer that causes the opponent to discard cards when they more than likely don't have a hand left or have dead weight cards left in their hand.

Why wouldn't a 1cc 2/2 increase the clock? It smacks earlier, it puts up aggression early, it causes the opponent to have enough blockers to deal with your assault. How can everything block a 2/2 in this format after you nail them with Lightning Bolt? I thought the whole purpose behind splashing red for burn was to nail early game blockers (and of course fling to the dome later on). I played against Goblins and won 2-0, I played against a few random jank aggro decks (like mono green beats decks), and a few others. I haven't tested against every single Tier 2 deck but I've noticed how well the deck performs early game by being able to use excess mana sources to play creatures and curve out every turn rather than leave sources open. The argument for blocking Lackey isn't the reason why I'm running 1cc 2/2's, it's just additional reasons why I'm running them... which goes along with the Negator thing and everything else. Looking at it from 1 of it's pro's and trying to discredit it isn't really making sense, since I've presented multiple reasons why I think they are good and have amazing synergy with the rest of the deck.

Examples of 2/2's with no abilities in Zoo, G/R Beats, and Angel Stompy? Hmm... I can't really think of anything like Isamaru, Savannah Lions, Jungle Lion, and those kinda guys. If I remember, I'll let you know.

I never claimed that life-loss was a good thing, I said that life was an expendable resource, and it is. I don't play cards because they say I lose life. I play them because they are significantly better than similar cards due to the loss of life. Take for example Confidant. I know he's not good in this deck, but because he loses life, does that make him suck? No. Greatness, at any cost. In this scenario, your getting a 2/2 for 1cc, which is typically 1/1, 1/2, or 2/1 unless it has some sort of drawback (like Isamaru being Legendary). If I can swing for 2 a turn and take 1 life loss, I'm gaining a 1 life point differential and ultimately putting my opponent that much closer to death. Hell, Sarcomancy doesn't even deal damage unless I run out of Zomies. How is Sarcomancy a crazy life loss card? Shit... the same can be said about Dysotopia, Fire Covenenant, and other cards run in this deck. Maybe we should drop the fetchlands too? I also laughed when you said Hatred. A 5cc spell that can be wrecked by countermagic or instant speed removal isn't really competitive in this format.

Regardless, if you don't like my suggestions than ignore them. Is it hurting you for me to present some information that I think may be valuable to the Legacy community?

@ Obfuscate Freely


That list is pretty attractive, if dropping Hyppies proves to be correct. The only thing I'd disagree with is cutting down to 16 black sources, since you still want BB on turn 2 just as badly as before. If you really need the extra dork, I think you ought to shave something else (maybe a Wasteland).

I definitely plan to test this out.

Well, I didn't have too much problems with the color sources in testing, and I did have my manabased strained against Goblins and a couple other decks, but I haven't extensively tested against LD decks. As far as I've seen so far, the deck hasn't had problems with 16 black sources. If it does seem to be too little, I'll drop some things and add some more Swamps.

Thanks for the positive feedback, let me know how your testing goes.

[AnwarA101]

Why wouldn't a 1cc 2/2 increase the clock? It smacks earlier, it puts up aggression early, it causes the opponent to have enough blockers to deal with your assault. How can everything block a 2/2 in this format after you nail them with Lightning Bolt? I thought the whole purpose behind splashing red for burn was to nail early game blockers (and of course fling to the dome later on). I played against Goblins and won 2-0, I played against a few random jank aggro decks (like mono green beats decks), and a few others. I haven't tested against every single Tier 2 deck but I've noticed how well the deck performs early game by being able to use excess mana sources to play creatures and curve out every turn rather than leave sources open. The argument for blocking Lackey isn't the reason why I'm running 1cc 2/2's, it's just additional reasons why I'm running them... which goes along with the Negator thing and everything else. Looking at it from 1 of it's pro's and trying to discredit it isn't really making sense, since I've presented multiple reasons why I think they are good and have amazing synergy with the rest of the deck.


I'm more worried about the 2/2 creatures getting stalled out. One of the main reasons I think the deck can win against Goblins is that for the most part its creatures are bigger or can get bigger (Shade) than your opponents creatures while still being undercosted. While 2/2 creatures swinging on turn 2 is a life advantage and tempo advantage that won't matter much if they get stalled on turn 3 or 4. I know you don't like Hypnotic Specter but even if he is overcosted for his size the fact that he has evasion makes it impossible for him to get stalled on the attack. I have not tested with the Zombies so I can't say for sure, but that is my concern.

[lillelassie]

This is gonna be a little off-topic but not much as this is to demonstrate the differences between deck philosophies..

Hanni I like your approach on the deck, and I can defenetly see the synergi between Negator and sacromancy.
In your case I do however believe you should run something like zoo. I think thats where you wanna take Anwar's original list. maybe this:

3 bayou
4 badlands
4 taiga
4 bloodstained mire
4 wooded foothills

3 flesh reaver (best sui creature ever)
4 carnophage
4 sacromancy
3 wild mongrel
3 rotting giant
3 scab-clan mauler
4 kird ape

3 rancor (so nice against Thresh)
3 cabal therapy
3 diabolic edict (so nice against Thresh)
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning


SB:
1 cabal therapy
2 duress
3 fire covenant
3 tin street hooligan
3 pithing needle
3 tormods crypt


This is a zoo/sligh deck that comes out very quickly. You only wanna play 2 lands max pre SB, so you can always pump mongrel. In my opinion this deck is stronger than yours Hanni. You have kind of chosen the middleway between this and BR-sui. I think this deck would suit your playstyle better.

- Regarding the sideboard discussion I plainly think that pyroclasm is the way to go. Also I would play 3 Massacre in my board. these are nice against ww and R/W goblins, as they will definitly search up there white mana, to cast StP/disenchant against you.

[Hanni]

@ Anwar

Well Anwar, I understand what you mean about stalling out. Once the opponent establishes bigger blockers, they can't really enter the red zone as well. Usually, burn compensates for this, but sometimes it will happen. Fortunately, they still amass on the table. This means that they accompany your Rotting Giants and Nantuko Shades so that when you swing, the opponent is either forced to block your bigger guys and chump, allowing the smaller guys to sneak damage through, or block your smaller guys and allow your bigger guys to swing more freely. Still though, they help knock your opponent's life total down a good few points early on that has often set me up for the win via burn later on.

Hypnotic Specter does provide evasion, and that is definitely a plus so that he doesn't stall. However, I think I'd run Dauthi Slayer rather than Hypnotic Specter for evasion since there is less Shadow in the format, you have Dystopia to wreck Soltari Priests, and it's 1cc less (which helps the curve). I like the Zombie plan though, it's been working well in testing. I've found the deck stalling out sometimes, but it usually does that when I play Negator when the opponent has a big blocker and I have no burn. Still, I see your point and it is valid.

All I wanted to do was bring the idea to your attention, since it has been working well for me in testing.

@ lillelassie

Well, the reason I splashed in the Zombies was because they made the cc curve better and allowed me to play disruption and muscle easier. Your list goes heavier on the aggression and lesser on control, which extremely weakens the decks game against combo. I personally like the Zombies in Red Death because the extra early aggression help it do the final points it needs to do to the opponent in the end.

Whether it's a good idea or not is to be determined by anyone who's willing to test it, since I haven't extensively tested the standard list and the one I presented. I believe it has merit, though.

[URABAHN]

Why wouldn't a 1cc 2/2 increase the clock? It smacks earlier, it puts up aggression early, it causes the opponent to have enough blockers to deal with your assault. How can everything block a 2/2 in this format after you nail them with Lightning Bolt? I thought the whole purpose behind splashing red for burn was to nail early game blockers (and of course fling to the dome later on). I played against Goblins and won 2-0, I played against a few random jank aggro decks (like mono green beats decks), and a few others. I haven't tested against every single Tier 2 deck but I've noticed how well the deck performs early game by being able to use excess mana sources to play creatures and curve out every turn rather than leave sources open. The argument for blocking Lackey isn't the reason why I'm running 1cc 2/2's, it's just additional reasons why I'm running them... which goes along with the Negator thing and everything else. Looking at it from 1 of it's pro's and trying to discredit it isn't really making sense, since I've presented multiple reasons why I think they are good and have amazing synergy with the rest of the deck.

Examples of 2/2's with no abilities in Zoo, G/R Beats, and Angel Stompy? Hmm... I can't really think of anything like Isamaru, Savannah Lions, Jungle Lion, and those kinda guys. If I remember, I'll let you know.


You won 2-0 v. Goblins and some other jank aggro decks and now you're convinced 2/2 Zombies are worth having? Post up a few MWS logs or something, I want to see just how helpful your Zombies were v. these aggro decks. Too many times you'll have to hold your 2/2 zombies back because the opposition is bigger.

You name a whopping 3 creatures in the entire format that see play. Isamaru and Savannah Lions are played in a deck with Mother of Runes, Parallax Wave, and StP. Jungle Lion sees play in 9-Land Stompy. I'd argue that Carnophage and Sarcomancy don't have the same protection in Red Death and sit on the bench waiting to do something when faced with bigger or same-sized creatures.

[Hanni]

The deck doesn't have Mom to protect the 2/2's, but it has burn to kill the blockers. If my opponent's want to waste their spot removal on my Zombies so that my Shades and Negators can swing freely, is that a bad thing?

They help apply more pressure early and they can be put into play during the same turns your trying to apply disruption. It's hard for the opponent to block with a fatter creature when you just blew up their lands so that they can't cast that FtK or whatever. Or even if you knock that Jotun Grunt out of their hand with Hymn to Tourach. Blindly, I can see how they may be retarded. This deck supports them with not only burn on blockers but disruption against the opponent's game plan via discard and LD. I realize this argument in itself doesn't warrant why I'd run them over a 3cc 2/2 flyer that discards, but I think that some of the other points I made make it a consideration... a consideration. Lackey blocker, permanents to sac to Negator, early aggro pressure to put them down a few more points than normally, etc etc etc.

I tested against more decks than that in the last few days, I just can't remember every single matchup I've played against. If you knew much about MWS though, nearly all of the decks people use there are aggro-based, albeit some are kinda shiity, but you will run into some good aggro decks. I agree that I don't have the same playtesting experience that Anwar has, but I've tried both versions and I liked how much, I kinda wanna say quicker, that the Zombie version is.

And shit, if they stall out and become worthless later on, at least they knocked my opponent back some points so that if my Shades/Negators/Giant's can't do them in, maybe my burn can. All I really did was drop Wretched Anurid (won't this do more damage than zombies?) and Hypnotic Specters and a few extras to accomodate them. Basically:

-2 Swamp
-1 Nantuko Shade
-1 Wretched Anurid
-4 Hypnotic Specter
+1 Polluted Delta
+4 Sarcomancy
+3 Carnophage

I've already explained why I didn't care too much for Hypnotic Specter, though he does have his merits and to each his own.

The 4th Shade is nice because it's a powerful win conditions... but extra's in play beyond the first are actually worse than the Zombies.

Wretched Anurid is awful, I'd much rather run a 4th Rotting Giant.

Since the cc curve is lower with the Zombies, I felt it was feasible to cut a land. I haven't noticed a big difference casting the BB spells yet, although it could be a problem I suppose. I like the extra fetchland cause it helps enable turn 1-2 Rotting Giants better, even if 1 extra fetchy is minute.

So basically, it's not really all that different. The biggest change was dropping 4 Specters for them. You should at least test them, not so much to see if they are better, but morely so that you can critique them after having tested them. It's kinda like Dark Confidant... I thought he was a perfect fit in this deck, but after I tested him, I found out that he wasn't. I think something similar applies here.

I'd also like to say that they actually same to make the Tier 1 matchups better. Against Solidarity, it puts a faster clock on them that they have to try and race (through disruption). It also allows muscle to be dropped while playing disruption and they make really nice targets for Cabal Therapy post board. Hypnotic Specter, when ritualed in, is amazing against them. Cast on turn 3 to swing turn 4 just seems too slow though.

Against Threshold, the opponent will more than likely not trade Mongooses and Werebears to them. After they establish Threshold, it keeps them either in the defensive position so that they can't swing, or it causes them to take damage anyway. Hypnotic Specter may be better here but usually by turn 4 their hand is low since, not only do their cantrips not create actual card advantage, but you've probably nailed them with Duress and Hymn (and possibly Therapy post board).

Against Goblins, it gives you extra early men to put on aggression. They block early Lackey's and require Fanatics to block them to actually die off. Goblins usually starts off slow (when Lackey doesn't connect) and that's usually your best time to swing... because later on, they probably have a massive army that you won't be able to swing through. They also block the 1/1's very nicely and trade with the 2/2's. Even though Specter may be able to swing for 2 each turn with Flying, I think that clock may be a bit too slow once Goblins goes explosive by turn 4+. Plus, how often will a Specter stay in play through their removal? I would definitely say that the Zombies are a much better improvement against Goblins than Specter is.

In general, I've always found Specter to be lacking against aggro. 1cc 2/2 drops usually work pretty well against aggro, trading early on with threats or putting them on a clock before their bigger beaters get into play. If you can get the opponent's life total low enough, burn to the dome is a great way to finish the game.

So basically, that's my point of view on it.

[nitewolf9]

@ hanni:

I've definitly considered running the 1cc zombies in this deck, but they always seemed unattractive. Perhaps that is because I am focusing on what suicide's original purpose was, and that was to beat the control decks that were wrecking type one at the time, although it could be that the zombies are just not as good period. I'm not going to say that hypnotic specter is dated, but I could see why having early 2/2's might be better than it seems in a format ripe with aggro. Stressing might. I don't think there has been significant testing to really compare the two strategies, but now I am curious to see if this approach has any merit.

I still am unconvinced and maintain that this deck needs creatures that can "win the game on their own", but I could be wrong. Let's test this out and stop speculating.

[Citrus-God]

I'm more worried about the 2/2 creatures getting stalled out. One of the main reasons I think the deck can win against Goblins is that for the most part its creatures are bigger or can get bigger (Shade) than your opponents creatures while still being undercosted. While 2/2 creatures swinging on turn 2 is a life advantage and tempo advantage that won't matter much if they get stalled on turn 3 or 4. I know you don't like Hypnotic Specter but even if he is overcosted for his size the fact that he has evasion makes it impossible for him to get stalled on the attack. I have not tested with the Zombies so I can't say for sure, but that is my concern.

So summerize what he said, I think he mean't this deck is a lot like The Rock; It uses discard to put your opponent off balance, and uses big creatures to win. Another way to describe the creature's role in this deck, by defining the creatures in general, is that, Red Death is a Midgame deck when it's paired against Aggro. With so much disruption, chances are, your opponent's creatures arent going to be better due to the fact you set him back by so many Draw Steps and Land Drops.

[AnwarA101]

I did some testing with the following board against Goblins -

-4 Duress
-4 Sinkhole
-3 Negator

+4 Engineered Plague
+4 Plague Spitter
+3 Cabal Therapy

Goblins was up 4 games to 3 (slightly ahead) before I stopped. The reason I stopped is that I realized that Plague Spitter is awful without Engineered Plague. He always dies to Mogg Fanatic or Gempalm Incinerator. He just isn't a threat. He dies when your goblin opponent sneezes. The plagues themselves are pretty decent, but 1 is often not enough. Nitewolf9 and I discussed using the following board plan -

-4 Duress
-4 Sinkhole
-2 Negator

+4 Engineered Plague
+2 Masticore
+2 Darkblast
+2 Cabal Therapy

I'm still not sure you should spend 8 slots in the board on this matchup, but both Darkblast and Masticore could come in against other aggro decks such as Angel Stompy. But I'm not sure those decks are really enough part of the metagame to really worry about. So this might be the equivalent of 8 slots for Goblins.

In my experience the matchup is slight unfavorable pre-board (40/60 Goblins) and about even post board. That isn't the best matchup. In tournament play, I've usually done pretty well with the deck, but that doesn't make up for the fact that it isn't the best matchup.

[Hanni]

I kinda like Sinkhole vs Goblins, since Goblins is such a mana hungry deck. If they don't have Vial, attacking their manabase can be amazing. Locking them out of double red can prevent them from playing Warchief, furthering the cripple on their manabase. Personally, I would sideboard in Pithing Needles to deal with Vial and Engineered Plague to slow their Goblin horde down.

That's probably personal opinion though. I've played with a few variants of Goblins before and I know how mana hungry the deck is. If the deck doesn't have Vial out and it's manabase is getting removed via Wasteland and Sinkhole, it can be really hard for Goblins to put up an assault. Backed with the burn and fast beats of B/r Sui, I would think the tempo generated in this manner would be enough to seal a win. I could be wrong.

[nitewolf9]

This last weekend I was able to play against landstill, and lost again to it (it beat me at the last D4D as well...could be from my lack of experience against the deck, but I think it's not as good of a matchup as it seems). I'm not sure if that deck is making a comeback or not, but I think the control matchup could still be a bit better. A card that would make that matchup better as well as help the goblins matchup is cursed scroll.

I am toying with a board like this:
4x dystopia, 4x cabal therapy, 4x infest (might be better as plague, not sure), 3x cursed scroll

With a sweeper like infest, scroll lets you hold on to your board position; sometimes goblins recovers too quickly from mass removal for even this deck to kill them. Also, your hand tends to shrink quite quickly, making scroll great whenever you get it. Against something like landstill that takes a long time to win and packs alot of creature hate, it's a recurring damage source that they will have a lot of trouble getting rid of.

Plague also makes scroll amazing, however, and is still very good with only one out. The fact that getting two plagues can just mean good game might be reason enough to run it over infest, even without draw. It's also good against angel stompy (although I think I'd board in dystopia over it).

The board plan against goblins would probably be something like:
-4 duress, -4 sinkhole, -3 negator
+4 infest/plague, +4 cabal therapy, +3 scroll

I'm not sure if boarding negator out is the right call; he can certainly win the game, but he can certainly lose the game as well (pyrokenisis...it's happened to me more often than you'd think it would).

With this board we have a much better control matchup, with a full 4 cabal therapies and 3 cursed scrolls. Scroll also acts like a less risky (but a bit less powerful) masticore in the aggro matchup.

I think it's worth at least testing a bit.

Oh and @ the sinkhole vs goblins debate: After playing the matchup a lot with red death, I can tell you that although sinkhole can sometimes punish the goblin player for keeping a hand with only one red source in it (after you smoke their lacky), it's bad just as often as it is good. Boarding it out is the correct choice I think, and something like cabal therapy is much better I feel.

[AnwarA101]

The board plan against goblins would probably be something like:
-4 duress, -4 sinkhole, -3 negator
+4 infest/plague, +4 cabal therapy, +3 scroll

I'm not sure if boarding negator out is the right call; he can certainly win the game, but he can certainly lose the game as well (pyrokenisis...it's happened to me more often than you'd think it would).


I'm not sold on cutting Negator. You can lose off his drawback via Pyrokinesis, but can you really afford to cut the one card that just ends the game. This weekend ObFreely saw me make a mistake against Quicksilver where I should have played Negator but I didn't because I was wary of FTK even though he only had 2 lands in play and couldn't FTK for another turn where Negator would have killed him in the following turn. Cutting Negator is conceeding that his drawback in the matchup is worse than his advantage. I'm not willing to concede that in the Goblin matchup. This deck never wins by being fearful especially worrying about cards your opponent does or does not have. If you back off with this deck then you've already lost. Sure I've lost to my own Negator, but think about how many times you've won with him and how many times you wished you had him in play. Every board plan that cuts Negator seems to me to be a plan to play a bad control deck. So I choose not to play a bad control deck and favor keeping Negator in.

Cursed Scroll is an interesting card and I've tried it before. With this card in the board you can definitely try the following -

-4 Duress
-4 Sinkhole

+4 Infest/Plague
+3 Cursed Scroll
+1 Cabal Therapy

That leaves you with 16 creatures plus 3 Scrolls that can deal damage. If you play with Infest. You can drop Infest and play Negator and win. This is often the case and I've done it many times. You might lose to a Kinesis, but you might also lose to not playing a great threat like Negator.

[nitewolf9]

Very valid point about negator, and yeah, I think I might be letting the fact that I've been hosed by him a few times (twice in the same tourney vs goblins) made me want to cut him post board, instead of looking at what would be optimum.

So with that said, would cursed scroll be better than pithing needle (the other option I would run)?

[AnwarA101]

Very valid point about negator, and yeah, I think I might be letting the fact that I've been hosed by him a few times (twice in the same tourney vs goblins) made me want to cut him post board, instead of looking at what would be optimum.

So with that said, would cursed scroll be better than pithing needle (the other option I would run)?

Do you think playing denial against Goblins is a better strategy than blowing up their creatures? I'm not sure which way to go. In game 1 you play beatdown with disruption. Game 2 can be a different strategy because you have access to both sweeper and possibly additional creature removal. If you play Pithing Needle then you should definitely play Sinkhole as well. Which leads you with cutting something else? I'm not sure what it would be, but its hard to know what you should cut? Hymn to Tourach is too good of a card to take out of the deck. So you are left with only Duress and possibly Sinkhole or maybe a Burn spell? Its hard to know what to take out.

[throst54]

I would have to say duress... Its subpar against goblins, good against solidarity, and against thresh it generally just grabs a cantrip. If you feel comfortable playing against thresh and solidarity w/o seeing thier hand, you could replace the duress w/ funeral charm. The extra 2 dmg you can give your dudes actually makes a difference, as well as killing off first turn lackeys etc etc.

[nitewolf9]

Duress is way too strong to cut.

And yeah, about playing pithing needle as resource denial; don't forget it also hits gempalm and siege gang commander, and protects your negators because of it. I don't think you need to play sinkhole with needle as well. You hit their vial and it slows them down to the point of having to go on the defensive...so instead of blowing up more land you play more threats and swing in.

I duno, scroll still seems really good though. The question is does needle help us enough with other problematic matchups?

[AnwarA101]

Duress is way too strong to cut.

And yeah, about playing pithing needle as resource denial; don't forget it also hits gempalm and siege gang commander, and protects your negators because of it. I don't think you need to play sinkhole with needle as well. You hit their vial and it slows them down to the point of having to go on the defensive...so instead of blowing up more land you play more threats and swing in.

I duno, scroll still seems really good though. The question is does needle help us enough with other problematic matchups?

Well Pithing Needle cuts off Goblins development and possibly their ability to kill your Negators (with Incinerator), but Cursed Scroll lets you kill Goblins at the cost of 3 mana per turn and possibly go to the head when they aren't able to play something. It probably depends on the game state which one you would rather have in play. But if we are going to try Engineered Plague, then Cursed Scroll maybe better because the synergy means that you only have to kill half as many goblins as before.

As for other matchups, its really hard to say. Pithing Needle hits equipment spells as well as other random things like Salvager's Game and Parallax Wave. But these matchups are secondary. You can't really be guaranteed to play these decks and you already have Dystopia for Angel Stompy and you are disruption based deck which should help you against something like Salvager's Game.

[Hanni]

Pithing Needle is just a randomly versatile to many things in the format you may run into, such as Survival based decks, etc.

It doesn't do much vs Threshold, aside from shutting off some fetchlands (and possibly E Explosives, though I doubt they will board that in). It doesn't do much vs Solidarity, aside from shutting off some fetchlands. However, it does affect Goblins, Affinity, Salvagers, Faerie Stompy (equipment), Survival based decks, etc.

It's a meta decision really, but I feel comfortable adding Pithing Needle into most decks I build, considering that a large tournament like GP Columbus will probably offer tons of randomness.

[AnwarA101]

I put together a board plan and goldfished some hands to try and see if even the hands looked decent. This is what I tried -

-4 Duress
-4 Sinkhole
-1 Negator
-1 Anurid

+4 Engineered Plague
+3 Cursed Scroll
+2 Cabal Therapy
+1 Mountain

My thinking was to go with the Plague plus Scroll plan. I also didn't want my curve to be completely shot to hell so I added in some Cabal Therapies as well as a basic mountain so that I would go up to 22 lands post board and also be able to use Therapy, Hymn, and Hyppie to protect Negator against Kinesis. I also cut 1 Negator because I didn't want too many things that costed 3 post board. Maybe Anurid could come back in and I could cut 1 more Negator for another Cabal Therapy? I really liked how Cabal Therapy could be used in conjunction with Plague to force your opponent to hold his spells and you could rip them out of his hand. With Cursed Scroll you often don't have to draw a creature for quite awhile since it really holds down the fort really well in addition to burn and the plagues. I don't think completely cutting Negator is ever the right call, but still having 2-3 post board is very strong. You also have many more permanents post-board such as plague and scroll so he isn't as vulnerable as he looks.

[Ewokslayer]

don't think completely cutting Negator is ever the right call, but still having 2-3 post board is very strong. You also have many more permanents post-board such as plague and scroll so he isn't as vulnerable as he looks. I am pretty sure having to sac a Plague because of Negator isn't quite as "awesome sauce" as you make it sound.

[nitewolf9]

^ it is if your negator is going to finish the game next turn, which is usually what the situation is. I like plague plus scroll, and I think scroll is the only card I could find that is amazing against goblins and great against almost everything else (aside from combo). And yeah, I have to agree that you should keep at least 2 or 3 negators in there to end the game. With that number I think you will usually wind up top decking him mid to late game when you have tons of permanents out and he can swing with reckless abandon.

[Tao]

^ it is if your negator is going to finish the game next turn, which is usually what the situation is.

Nearly all Goblin decks play 4x Pyrokinesis in the SB. Negator is situational (really often very bad) vs Goblins in game 1 even though it may steel some games.

But keeping Negator in the deck for game 2 facing 4 Pyrokinesis is pure Kamikaze.

[nitewolf9]

Nearly all Goblin decks play 4x Pyrokinesis in the SB. Negator is situational (really often very bad) vs Goblins in game 1 even though it may steel some games.

But keeping Negator in the deck for game 2 facing 4 Pyrokinesis is pure Kamikaze.

For one thing, they have no way of getting the kinesis into their hand aside from just drawing it off the top. Also, you still have hymn and cabal therapy to protect negator. Additionally, if you take out one or two negators, you will probably be playing him mid to late game, where kinesis still doesn't kill him. You need to play this deck with negator against goblins to understand what I'm talking about. I've survived having my negator blasted by pyrokenisis, where I sac 4 lands and swing over for the win. And game one he is a house, he is the one card in your deck that really forces them to play defense.

Granted I've also lost games because of him, and I think when I suggested taking him out altogether I was just basing my decision on the tournament that it happened to me twice in (they drew just what they needed on both occasions and the games were very close...one game he topdecked the kenisis and then a red card when he was at 2 life). This could have also been attributed to misplays on my part (not playing around kenisis effectively enough, hymning at the right times, etc.).

I think leaving in 2 is probably the right call. You just need to understand that they will have boarded in the kenisis against you and play smartly.

[Firebrothers]

Has anyone discussed Avatar of Discord for those people who are afraid to run 4 negators? I ran one Avatar as the 4th negator because of lack of a negator and found that the 5/3 flyer came in handy against goblins and random jank. If you keep goblins off its dudes early with the bolts then flying over them and discarding 2 cards is much better then trampling through them and sacing permenents. Although im still not completly sold on her im going to use it untill i find a 4th negator. What do ya'll think of this card choice?

[nitewolf9]

Avatar of discord can potentially be more devastating to you than negator I think. Getting 3 for 1'd from a removal spell is going to be bad news when you can't refill your hand. At least with Negator you can essentially turn extra lands into damage. I guess the same could be said about the avatar, but it sill seems way more risky to me.

Plus, the negator's drawback is not relevant in a lot of matchups...avatar's always is.

Which would you rather have against solidarity:

A 5 power beater for 3 that has no drawback, or a 5 power beater for 3 that will greatly hinder your disruption?

[Amon Amarth]

I recently built Red Death, because it is a blast to play and would be a shame to let my Rebecca Guay Dark Rituals sit in my box unused. I started my preliminary testing against U/G/W Threshold. Here are some of the things I discovered.

- First turn Dark Ritual-> Phyrexian Negator is freakin' amazing. Far better than I thought. He puts them on a very fast clock. Even if they have blockers they are just speedbumps to the trampling Phyrexian monstrosity. He tends to deal a ton of damage before they get Threshold. Late game he is just as good.

- Related to the first point, unanswered insane first turn Dark Rituals plays mean GG most of the time. This deck can be crazy fast and DR only makes it that much faster.

- Dystopia is the BEST SB card against Threshold. I was going to post it in the Thresh hate thread but I will say it here; Dystopia is a brick fucking house. Usually they never expect it. And it wrecks them. Kills all their creatures or you get nuts tempo where you win anyways and lose some life. It's far worse than 'between a rock and a hard place'. Think between OJ and Jacko. Yeah... no good decisions there.

-I think that saving your burn to go to the dome at the very end or double bolting Werebear or Mystic Enforcer to swing through unimpeded is the best strategy. I will say it now in case people don'y already know. Mystic Enforcer is a Pro-Black Dragon for 4 mana. Like "GG noobcakes board in yo hate" Fortunately your discard and LD should prevent it from seeing play.

- I think the proper turn 1 play, for example, between Turn 1 Duress/Hymn and Negator is the 5/5. Unlike it's B/w counterpart, this deck is very aggressive and against Threshold you have to be the aggro.

- The creature base is fantastic against Thresh. Either they have evasion, (Hyppie) are the same size as their threats (Giant) or are just plain bigger (Shade and Negator). Always play Nantuklo Shade last.

-Speaking of Nantuko Shade, he eats EVERYTHING and lives to tell about it. About the only creature he can't kill is an Akroma. I remember eating Morphlings with him in Vintage a very long time ago, and he is far better in Legacy. A very scary beast.

What are everyone else's experience playing against U/G/W Threshold? I found initially the matchup was pretty tricky to get the hang of it. I plan on doing more testing tomorrow against it. Any advice?

[nitewolf9]

Against a competent U/G/W thresh player, I find that the pre-board matches are in the thresh player's favor, pretty significantly. Mystic enforcer just wrecks you, and my testing partners usually find him against me. When they don't however, you still really need to go for the throat early. The games I win are usually due to big tempo swings (sinkholes, ritual, etc.) and a large threat on the board early on.

However, post-board, I feel like I just destroy them. Dystopia and cabal therapy is so brutal against them. Then again, you don't always find the dystopia you need...

So in conclusion, I really hate the matchup. It's so hard to calculate percentages because of the huge swings pre and post board. I can beat thresh, and I just leave it at that. I never like to play the matchup because it's such a headache, but I think it's a headache for them as well. The matchup is an abomination.

[Firebrothers]

What do you all find is good to take out for the thresh matchup. i run 3 cursed scroll maindeck because of my creature heavy meta and i think those are good to take out but im still not confident as to what to bring out besides those.

As a side note i was beating this guy down with a negator who was playing a goblin deck and about 5th turn after hymming a goblin gernade out of his hand and him wiffing one away with his ringleader he topdecks another gernade and hits my negator. Who playes goblin gernade anyway! Anyway just thought i would get that off my chest.

[AnwarA101]

What do you all find is good to take out for the thresh matchup. i run 3 cursed scroll maindeck because of my creature heavy meta and i think those are good to take out but im still not confident as to what to bring out besides those.

As a side note i was beating this guy down with a negator who was playing a goblin deck and about 5th turn after hymming a goblin gernade out of his hand and him wiffing one away with his ringleader he topdecks another gernade and hits my negator. Who playes goblin gernade anyway! Anyway just thought i would get that off my chest.

Losing to Goblin Grenade sucks. I lost to Goblin Grenade at GP Philly in Game 3. I also messed up recently when my opponent cast Goblin Grenade on my Negator and should have bolted my Negator in response so that I could save my board and my Rotting Giant (I believe that this would have won me the game). I think you shouldn't spend too much time on Goblin Grenade since its rarely played.

As for the the Thresh matchup, I cut 7 burn spells for 4 Dystopia and 3 Cabal Therapy. I feel that post-board I'm ahead in the matchup. If they play Meddling Mage main then I feel like I'm ahead pre-board as well (so keep playing Mage main!).

[jamest]

Minor suggestion - Gobhobbler Rats in place of Wretched Anurid. Casting cost BR means you can't accelerate it with Dark Ritual, but it's still a 2cc threat and with Hellbent becomes pretty strong.

Major suggestion - I'm always looking for Negator-like threats to either replace it or go along with it. Negator is big, fast, and evasive (trample) so I tried to look for cards with similar qualities. The best option I could think of is Rancor. It turns all your creatures into big tramplers without the drawback and it keeps coming back. I don't think we have to take the green splash as far as the RGB Aggro deck mentioned earlier. The deck could remain predominately black for Hymn, Sinkhole, Nantuko Shades, etc but with a little added aggro strength from green. What do you guys think?

[Vamore]

I personally wouldn't add another color, especially just for Rancor (and especially at the expense of cutting Negator).

Too many negatives for adding a 3rd color (weakens manabase, opens you up to non-basic hate, we're running tons of BB spells). Not enough positives (Rancor, while a good card, doesn't justify the dramatic changes to the core deck).

[Goblin Snowman]

Technicly Green also adds Kird Ape and more fat if you want it (along with better Board options like Naturalize and Root Maze). I don't play Red Death, so I do not know how it would work out if someone tested it. Likely the BB part is irrelevant, since only basic swamps would be dropped for Bayou and maybe 1-2 more fetches.

[lukatron2]

what you guys are talking about doing would make it an entirely different deck altogeather. Besides, although rancor rocks, if they remove the creature in response to your rancor, you just lost 2 cards for their 1 (bolt or swords or whatever) and you don't get the rancor back (always happens to me in my r/g beats)..
on a side note, how does bolting your negator save your board? is it because you give it lethal with bolt to kill it in response to neggators sacraficing effect? I thought that was interesting so I was just wondering cause I never knew you could do something that cool.

[AnwarA101]

what you guys are talking about doing would make it an entirely different deck altogeather. Besides, although rancor rocks, if they remove the creature in response to your rancor, you just lost 2 cards for their 1 (bolt or swords or whatever) and you don't get the rancor back (always happens to me in my r/g beats)..
on a side note, how does bolting your negator save your board? is it because you give it lethal with bolt to kill it in response to neggators sacraficing effect? I thought that was interesting so I was just wondering cause I never knew you could do something that cool.

My board position was that I had 4 lands, a Negator, and a Rotting Giant in play. My opponent sacrifices a goblin to goblin grenade my Negator. I have 1 red open and a Lightning Bolt in hand. I could have bolted my own Negator in response sacrifing it and 2 lands leaving me with 2 lands and a Rotting Giant. My opponent had a Goblin Lackey in play but he had no cards in hand. I could have swung the next turn with Rotting Giant because I drew a Nantuko Shade, but instead I sacrificed my board and lost the game. Yeah apparently bolting your own Negator can actually help you win. I didn't actually see the play but I was told after the match that I could have done that.

[gnurbel2000]

Did some tried 2-3 Unearth in the Maindeck? Since all your creatures cost 3
or less Mana you can "cast a creature" for a single B. It would help to come
back after a Negator killed your whole board.
Just an idea.

[Firebrothers]

Did some tried 2-3 Unearth in the Maindeck? Since all your creatures cost 3
or less Mana you can "cast a creature" for a single B. It would help to come
back after a Negator killed your whole board.
Just an idea.

Usually Rotting Giants eat up your yard. The list is fairly tight anyway as i play it plus if the deck dips into using the graveyard as a resource anyway it is always subject to the rampent graveyard hate running around legacy.
It could work though who knows.

[Happy Gilmore]

Did some tried 2-3 Unearth in the Maindeck? Since all your creatures cost 3
or less Mana you can "cast a creature" for a single B. It would help to come
back after a Negator killed your whole board.
Just an idea.

:smile: Unearth is definity one of my favorite cards in magic, but I dont think it would help in this deck. It comes down to the fact that whatever you are replacing is probably going to be better than unearth (every card is a threat). Not to mention that since StP is the most common removal spell its going to become less and less usefull. Its simply not on par with the other possible cards.

I like how your thinking though, it def. might be worth testing.

[nitewolf9]

After last weekend's tournament with this deck, I wanted to know what people's opinions are on Null Rod in the board as a 3 of. It seems to be narrow at first, but when you think about it, it swings some really bad matchups very drastically (angel stompy and affinity come to mind).

I'm pretty much convinced it's good but am still a bit unsure in the metagame right now (which is pretty diverse, save for the fact that goblins is still the deck to beat). I know before hand I was siding it in against goblins to shut down vial, which is a mistake. But I played against fairy stompy and it seemed to hose that deck (makes your other disruption so much more devastating). Equipment is so terribly bad for you that it is probably a solid choice. Oh, and not to mention the hilarity against affinity (not much of a concern of mine, but they definitly smash you badly if you are unprepared, and people do play the deck).

Anyway, thoughts? Could pithing needle be a better choice? Needle is definitly broader, but I don't think it helps you enough in the matchups you would bring null rod into. I know I've brought this up before but I think it's still worth discussing.

[AnwarA101]

After last weekend's tournament with this deck, I wanted to know what people's opinions are on Null Rod in the board as a 3 of. It seems to be narrow at first, but when you think about it, it swings some really bad matchups very drastically (angel stompy and affinity come to mind).

I'm pretty much convinced it's good but am still a bit unsure in the metagame right now (which is pretty diverse, save for the fact that goblins is still the deck to beat). I know before hand I was siding it in against goblins to shut down vial, which is a mistake. But I played against fairy stompy and it seemed to hose that deck (makes your other disruption so much more devastating). Equipment is so terribly bad for you that it is probably a solid choice. Oh, and not to mention the hilarity against affinity (not much of a concern of mine, but they definitly smash you badly if you are unprepared, and people do play the deck).

Anyway, thoughts? Could pithing needle be a better choice? Needle is definitly broader, but I don't think it helps you enough in the matchups you would bring null rod into. I know I've brought this up before but I think it's still worth discussing.


How did Null Rod work out for you? I heard you used it to help you beat Faerie Stompy. The main reason I suggested Null Rod awhile back was that it seemed like a versatile card that could hit decks that range from Angel Stompy to Iggy Pop. Its can sometimes compliment your LD strategy and help you in matchups that aren't easy.

I'm still up in the air on the sideboard issue. So far I like 4 Dystopia and at least 3 Cabal Therapy. The other 8 cards seem flexible. I know you used Engineered Plague, how was that? I'm not sure how many cards to commit to the Goblin matchup.

[nitewolf9]

Anwar:

Null rod was great against fairy stompy, and like you said, it definitly compliments your disruption (and it is some pretty serious card advantage against the decks you bring it in against...equipment-based stompy, affinity, iggy pop). The question is can you get by with only 4 or 5 slots devoted to the goblins matchup. I say you can.

This brings up another quesiton: is infest really better than plague in this deck? I will preface this with saying that I really like the board as I built it on saturday. Here is what I ran:

4x dystopia (no debate there)
3x cabal therapy (I think 3 is the right number)
4x engineered plague (I'll discuss this in a moment)
1x darkblast (see above)
3x null rod (mentioned)

The lone darkblast almost acts like plague number 5 in a way. It's just one additional card to bring in, although it might be better as something like cursed scroll (having 8 one card answers to lacky post-board is quite attractive though). If you get a plague down, it's golden. Without plague, it's still golden.

Engineered plague is a misunderstood card I think. It is definilty more in line with this deck's strategies than infest, which I feel is very reactive. Against goblins with this deck I feel like I am waaay ahead when I get just one to resolve. The thing is, it stays around. While infest does wipe their board entirely, plague almost does to goblins what dystopia does to threshold. It gives your threats the window of opportunity they need to seal their doom, and by the time they find the answer they are either within burn range or dead already. Being able to go "oops I win" with 2 plagues, especially considering not all goblin builds can answer them, is icing on the cake.

Plauge is proactive disruption against goblins. You drop it, it strands their threats (and can also mostly clear their board), and it does NOTHING to your creatuers (once again...infest kills half your creature base). You can drop plague with reckless abandon and keep on swinging. From my experience with this deck it's way better.

That is my take on things at least. Infest is still great, but it just seems to lack the power of plague. Plus, even though their disenchants are totally dead when you bring in infest, they still dilude the hell out of their deck when they bring them in. Ringleader is worse, and their deck becomes more reactive (I just love being the aggro against goblins, btw).

Anwar, I know you tried plague as well but seemed unhappy with the results. What is your take on it?

[URABAHN]

How did Null Rod work out for you? I heard you used it to help you beat Faerie Stompy. The main reason I suggested Null Rod awhile back was that it seemed like a versatile card that could hit decks that range from Angel Stompy to Iggy Pop. Its can sometimes compliment your LD strategy and help you in matchups that aren't easy.

I'm still up in the air on the sideboard issue. So far I like 4 Dystopia and at least 3 Cabal Therapy. The other 8 cards seem flexible. I know you used Engineered Plague, how was that? I'm not sure how many cards to commit to the Goblin matchup.

-4 Duress, +4 Engineered Plague and I think that's all you need. I've been advocating E. Plague for Goblins for awhile even though it only kills Matron, Fanatic, Gempalm, Siege-Gang tokens, and Lackey. It makes Goblins less offensive (no pun intended) because of the -1 power and turns them into "speedbumps" as nitewolf9 told me on Saturday. I've hated Fire Covenant for Goblins ever since The Mana Leak Open because it makes you lose life, makes you put a Badlands into play, and it doesn't stay on the board.

[nitewolf9]

It makes Goblins less offensive (no pun intended) because of the -1 power and turns them into "speedbumps" as nitewolf9 told me on Saturday.

There is nothing funnier to me than imagining a little 0/1 goblin piledriver trying to stop a big, pissed off phyrexian negator running at him. "What the hell was that?" -phyrexian negator

[Anarky87]

I think Plague is also the way to go. Infest is a nice board sweeper, but really only delays them. With even 1 Plague (I've done quite abit of testing back and forth between Deadguy and Red Death as I love how the decks playout) it's usually enough to give you what I call 'Breathing room.' It slows their game down and makes them play at or below the level that Red Death is playing; in a sense, brings them even with the field. They aren't continually shoving creatures down your throat. Assuming you land a Plague early, that kills:

4 Fanatics
4 Lackeys
4 Matrons
X Amount of Siege-Gang tokens
4 Gempalms (Or at least significantly lowers the amount of damage it would deal)
X Tinkerers
X Sharpshooters

Just one auto-kills 12+ of the creatures, and also turns Warchief, Piledriver, Ringleader, and SGC into chumps. Everyone knows what happens with two or more plagues. And I agree that 4 Plagues is really the only defense you need against Goblins, as post board that's: 4 Bolts, 4 Plagues, 3 Chain Lightnings, plus Hymn, which essentially reads: BB, Target Goblin player discards 2 Goblins at random.

I can't speak much for or against Null Rod as I don't have any, and therefore haven't tested it. But I can see where it would be huge against Affinity and equipment. By the way, Nitewolf, how'd did you do at the tournament, or did I miss it somewhere?

[nitewolf9]

I top 4'd then we split. I would up playing against fairy stompy, goblins, rabid wombat, burn (yikes...but I almost pulled off the win! won one round and lost the other I would have won due to ensnaring bridge. My negator did 10 damage and I was still coming! That's right folks, I play negator against burn. God that card is awesome...), and aluren combo in the top 8.

I lost to burn, ID'd with wombat, and beat the rest. And btw, the goblins match was not close...and it was a good player (you guys give Calosso such a hard time...).

[AnwarA101]

The lone darkblast almost acts like plague number 5 in a way. It's just one additional card to bring in, although it might be better as something like cursed scroll (having 8 one card answers to lacky post-board is quite attractive though). If you get a plague down, it's golden. Without plague, it's still golden.

Engineered plague is a misunderstood card I think. It is definilty more in line with this deck's strategies than infest, which I feel is very reactive. Against goblins with this deck I feel like I am waaay ahead when I get just one to resolve. The thing is, it stays around. While infest does wipe their board entirely, plague almost does to goblins what dystopia does to threshold. It gives your threats the window of opportunity they need to seal their doom, and by the time they find the answer they are either within burn range or dead already. Being able to go "oops I win" with 2 plagues, especially considering not all goblin builds can answer them, is icing on the cake.

Plauge is proactive disruption against goblins. You drop it, it strands their threats (and can also mostly clear their board), and it does NOTHING to your creatuers (once again...infest kills half your creature base). You can drop plague with reckless abandon and keep on swinging. From my experience with this deck it's way better.

That is my take on things at least. Infest is still great, but it just seems to lack the power of plague. Plus, even though their disenchants are totally dead when you bring in infest, they still dilude the hell out of their deck when they bring them in. Ringleader is worse, and their deck becomes more reactive (I just love being the aggro against goblins, btw).

Anwar, I know you tried plague as well but seemed unhappy with the results. What is your take on it?

Maybe my experience with Engineered Plague is less than spectacular, but maybe I was viewing it incorrectly. I always felt like I needed two to win the game instead of using it as a partial solution while my creatures and burn finish the job. It shouldn't be viewed as the way to win but perhaps another disruption spell that helps your creatures to finish the job. But I've had some unlucky games against Goblins lately (the main reason I haven't been playing the deck at the Frog).

A few weeks ago I played game one against goblins and for some reason I had the feeling that my Goblin opponent had the first turn lackey so I mulled a perfectly good 7 card hand trying to find an answer to Lackey, but I didn't find it and I was at like 5 cards when I stopped. He goes Lackey -> Sieg-Gang and I lose. Game 2 I have two E.Plagues in my seven card hand with two lands, but I never draw the 3rd land or a ritual. I lose with both of them in my hand. I know that in game 2 they wouldn't have been better as Infest, but its games like that leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

I know that URABAHN has been advocating E.Plague in the board as well and perhaps you guys are right. I've just had poor results with it whenever I run it in the board.

There is however one main drawback to playing E.Plague and that is getting paired against other creature based decks where Infest is better. I'm not sure these decks represent enough of the metagame to really consider playing Infest over Plague. If Plague is better against Goblins than Infest then I think Plague is the correct choice. Decks like Stompy, Angel Stompy, and random Zoo decks should be a secondary consideration. Stompy and Angel Stompy are also hit by Dystopia.

As a another suggestion I'll throw out the idea I had that I mentioned to nitewolf9 which was Gempalm Incinerator. He seems interesting because you can always use him as a 2 for 1 by hitting their best Goblin and getting to draw another card. I'm not sure how or even if he fits into the current board plan, but its something to consider.

[Anarky87]

Maybe my experience with Engineered Plague is less than spectacular, but maybe I was viewing it incorrectly. I always felt like I needed two to win the game instead of using it as a partial solution while my creatures and burn finish the job. It shouldn't be viewed as the way to win but perhaps another disruption spell that helps your creatures to finish the job. But I've had some unlucky games against Goblins lately (the main reason I haven't been playing the deck at the Frog).

That's the way I use it in Deadguy, usually in games 2/3. I look for at least 1 in my opening and a means to cast it within turns 1-3, as I know landing it will shut them down enough to possibly find another to really muck up their game or start my own beats/disruption. With Red Death, it should be like another piece of disruption: Landing 1, and then use burn/creatures to take out anything else they decide to get tricky with.

I think Infest and Plague kinda function on the same level, but with Plague pulling more duty: They both look to create a window in the game for you to try and steal the win. Whereas Infest provides a quick window, Plague provides a continual window of opportunity, with extra copies becoming devastating.


A few weeks ago I played game one against goblins and for some reason I had the feeling that my Goblin opponent had the first turn lackey so I mulled a perfectly good 7 card hand trying to find an answer to Lackey, but I didn't find it and I was at like 5 cards when I stopped. He goes Lackey -> Sieg-Gang and I lose. Game 2 I have two E.Plagues in my seven card hand with two lands, but I never draw the 3rd land or a ritual. I lose with both of them in my hand. I know that in game 2 they wouldn't have been better as Infest, but its games like that leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

Sometimes those games happen. I was playing Deadguy against IGG, but in my opening hand I only had a Waste and a Swamp, but also a Confidant, which I assumed would draw me into the second needed black source. I went on to draw 1 other Wasteland for the entire game, giving IGG more than enough time to just win through my desperate Duresses.

Against other non-tribal creatures, I think I'd just use my burn/creatures and boarded Dystopia's for any G or W Stompy varients. These decks, like you said, I don't think represent enough of the field to be too worried and also depends on how well they perform against the rest of the field as well.

[Firebrothers]

I choose e. plegue over infest mainly because the plegue stciks around. There are always those times where goblins will push through one plegue as you struggle to keep them off the piledrivers and warchiefs, thats just magic.

I like the idea of adding one or two darkblasts to my sideboard and it will help pump some rotting giants also.

Im not completly sold on null rod. Its a big help with equipment based decks but i think that red death has a good matchup against affinity. Wasteland hits all their lands and sinkhole should keep them off the colors then need. I dont think null rod is completly needed but then again there isnt a whole lot of angel stompy or any kind of stompy in the central texas meta.

[Happy Gilmore]

I've been testing this board kind of casually for the deck:

4 Dystopia
3 Fire Covenant
1 Mountain
3 Pithing Needle
4 ??? (some # of cabal therapy, Crypt, Withered Wretch)

I was thinking specifically for goblins and a wide open meta like GP Columbus is going to be. Pithing Needle is another card to bring in against goblins but it is only better than Nullrod in this matchup.

my plan vs goblins:
-4 Duress
-1 Chain Lighning (redirect can hurt)
-1 Wasteland
-1 Nantuko shade (taking out the most mana hungry of the creatures)

+3 Pithing Needle
+3 Fire Covenant
+1 Mountain

The power of Fire Covenant in the combat phase cannot be overstated. I find that goblins tries (in one turn) to put me on the defense using Piledrives and Warchiefs. I can negate this fairly well by killing the creatures in the begining of the attack phase or after attackes are declared, depending on the situation. The mountain helps keep the card in my hand active as much as possible and Pithing Needle takes out Gempalm and Vial (Port/waste, and burrows when neccessary). It seems like a strong strategy so far, but needs more testing. After reading some of the more recent results I might try something like this instead.

4 Dystopia
4 Fire Covenant
1 Mountain
2 Nullrod
3 Cabal Therapy
+ 1 Null Rod/Cabal Therapy

I think what I am trying to say here is Fire Covenant is the nutz. The rest you can take with a grain of salt. :wink:

[nitewolf9]

Im not completly sold on null rod. Its a big help with equipment based decks but i think that red death has a good matchup against affinity. Wasteland hits all their lands and sinkhole should keep them off the colors then need. I dont think null rod is completly needed but then again there isnt a whole lot of angel stompy or any kind of stompy in the central texas meta.

You could very well be right about null rod. The thing is, what would be the replacement? So far I think my board is pretty solid in the following cards:

4x dystopia
4x dedicated gob. hate (plague in my case)
3x cabal therapy

Then we have:
4x other

Now, in the 4x other slot, I've been running 3x null rod and 1x darkblast (the one piece of extra removal does seem to be signifant in the gobs matchup, but then again it might be better off as therapy number 4).

If we don't run null rod, I think hands down that spot needs to be dedicated to answering artifacts. Null rod is by no means narrow: it hits equipment based decks, which do tend to show up, iggy pop (which is seeing more play I think), and affinity (which I still think is not a good matchup, but I will test it more). When null rod is effective though, it is devastatingly effective. It's impact is huge. Something like pithing needle could replace it, perhaps again against equipment (with the added advantage of being great against goblins and a large variety of other threats), but the effect isn't as big.

I think I will leave my board unchanged until someone can suggest something for the 4 questionable slots that really has a compelling argument.

[Firebrothers]

If we don't run null rod, I think hands down that spot needs to be dedicated to answering artifacts. Null rod is by no means narrow: it hits equipment based decks, which do tend to show up, iggy pop (which is seeing more play I think), and affinity (which I still think is not a good matchup, but I will test it more). When null rod is effective though, it is devastatingly effective. It's impact is huge. Something like pithing needle could replace it, perhaps again against equipment (with the added advantage of being great against goblins and a large variety of other threats), but the effect isn't as big.


My board is this
4x dystopia
3x cabal therapy
4x Plague
1x darkblast
3x withered wretch

Now keep in mind that there are more graveyard based decks in my area then equpiment based decks, a few RGSA, LFTL based decks like the one that was played a Kobe or random reanimater. The withered wretch really helps in that department and it also helps the threshold matchup. Plus it fuels the cabal therapy and gives me more guys on the ground.

If i were to see some equipment decks pop up like angel stompy or faerie stompy or something then i would throw in a few null rods mabey pithing needle.

[Happy Gilmore]

In every post board game against goblins Fire Covenant is proving more and more versatile. The fact that its instant alone makes it extremely powerful, but the interaction with negator should definitly be addressed. Against any damage based boarding strategy Fire Covenant can save multiple resources by getting rid of both the Nagator and opposing creatures at the same time. With damage on the stack one point of damage from Fire Covenant to the Negator can negate having to sacrifice multiple permaments. It also works great against both Incinerator and Pyroblast (assuming you have mana open). Given this is definity not something you want to have to do, but it still reflects the versatility of the card in many situations that DO come up in this matchup.

[AnwarA101]

In every post board game against goblins Fire Covenant is proving more and more versatile. The fact that its instant alone makes it extremely powerful, but the interaction with negator should definitly be addressed. Against any damage based boarding strategy Fire Covenant can save multiple resources by getting rid of both the Nagator and opposing creatures at the same time. With damage on the stack one point of damage from Fire Covenant to the Negator can negate having to sacrifice multiple permaments. It also works great against both Incinerator and Pyroblast (assuming you have mana open). Given this is definity not something you want to have to do, but it still reflects the versatility of the card in many situations that DO come up in this matchup.

How many games did you test? What was your boarding strategy? I know that I've tried lately to board in some amount of Cabal Therapies against Goblins because you can protect Negator as well as hit their Ringleaders or Siege-Gang Commanders. Though Engineered Plague should help with Incinerator problems because they won't have very many Goblins out with even one Plague. Its good to get some more information about Fire Covenant. The one time I played it at the Duel for Duals it was strong against goblins.

[Happy Gilmore]

How many games did you test? What was your boarding strategy? I know that I've tried lately to board in some amount of Cabal Therapies against Goblins because you can protect Negator as well as hit their Ringleaders or Siege-Gang Commanders. Though Engineered Plague should help with Incinerator problems because they won't have very many Goblins out with even one Plague. Its good to get some more information about Fire Covenant. The one time I played it at the Duel for Duals it was strong against goblins.

In reality all the Goblin hate cards (Fire Covenant, Infest, and E-plague) are strong. But the advantage of not running E-plague is you render part of their boarding stratedy dead by not running enchantments they can take out with Disenchant. I'll admit that I havn't done nearly as much testing as I would like, but so far what Fire Covenant has shown is it has potential. Without doing three ten game sets (one with each card) its hard to tell which is more effective. Fire Covenant's dis-advantages are that it requires red and has a life loss component. I felt that boarding a moutain was neccessary for this reason. I have not done enough testing to be sure these factors are exceptable. And to be honest I never thought of bring in Cabal Therapy, so I might need to start over.

for reference my board and boarding stratedy:

SB: (current)
1 Mountain
4 Fire Covenant
3 Cabal Therapy
4 Dystopia
3 Withered Wretch

-1 Wasteland
-4 Duress
-2 Chain Lightning (not definite)
-1 Nantuko Shade (not Definite)

+4 Fire covenant
+1 Mountain
+3 Cabal Therapy

I am seriously considering going back to 3 fire Covenants instead of 4 simply because I dont like having too many three CC spells. However, I think for testing purposes four is fine.

[Firebrothers]

How hard is it to find the mountain in the goblin matchup? Are you testing against portwasteland goblins or just goblins with wasteland or what? I find it hard to stay keep badlands out or even keep a fetchland in my hand because i need to keep up with goblins by throwing down two creatures a turn or a creature and some burn. Do you just fetch for the mountain early? Im still not sold on this fire covenant but i suppose i should go do some testing before i take a side.

[nitewolf9]

What do people think about powder keg? I've been debating the last slots in my board for a while and I think powder keg hits a few very broad problems.
It can answer artifacts, and it is a good card to bring in against aggro decks.
Chalice of the void, aether vial, affinity's stuff, equipment...pretty versatile.

It seems busted against thresh, considering almost all of their threats are in the 1-2 cc range. And with dystopia, I don't see how they would be able to keep anything on the table. Its use against goblins is marginal I think, but it could be better than it seems. Anyway, here is the board I'm gona start playing with (pretty standard but with kegs):

4 dystopia
4 engineered plague (this is still my favorite)
4 powder keg
3 cabal therapy

Keg has been a staple item in suicide black's sideboard since its inception really, I think it deserves some testing.

[Anarky87]

Has anyone ever had any problem with graveyard based strategies? I was kinda mulling over whether to play this deck or Deadguy at an upcoming tournament and while Deadguy has Grunt, Red Death has nothing to combat that other than winning fast. Most of the upper tier decks aren't composed of GY mechanics, but I assume at a broad field like Columbus there will be more than a few Loam or Reanimator type things running around. So should we engineer something into the SB?

[AnwarA101]

Has anyone ever had any problem with graveyard based strategies? I was kinda mulling over whether to play this deck or Deadguy at an upcoming tournament and while Deadguy has Grunt, Red Death has nothing to combat that other than winning fast. Most of the upper tier decks aren't composed of GY mechanics, but I assume at a broad field like Columbus there will be more than a few Loam or Reanimator type things running around. So should we engineer something into the SB?

The real issue with running graveyard hate is that you aren't really sure what type of deck are you running it for. Are you worried about Reanimator and Loam decks when they are not very common? The real debate in the sideboard is the 4 slots that could be pretty much anything. Its hard to decide whether these cards should deal with artifacts or something else like the graveyard. Since this deck has sideboard plans for Goblins, Gro, and Solidarity the other slots should generally deal with the biggest weakness. Artifacts and graveyard both seem to be weak spots, but which of these is more likely to be an issue in a given tournament. Graveyard hate hits Loam, Reanimator, Iggy Pop, Salvagers Game etc. Artifacts hit Angel Stompy, Faerie Stompy, and Iggy Pop and others. I guess its a metagame call. I'm not really sure.

[Anarky87]

The real issue with running graveyard hate is that you aren't really sure what type of deck are you running it for. Are you worried about Reanimator and Loam decks when they are not very common? The real debate in the sideboard is the 4 slots that could be pretty much anything. Its hard to decide whether these cards should deal with artifacts or something else like the graveyard. Since this deck has sideboard plans for Goblins, Gro, and Solidarity the other slots should generally deal with the biggest weakness. Artifacts and graveyard both seem to be weak spots, but which of these is more likely to be an issue in a given tournament. Graveyard hate hits Loam, Reanimator, Iggy Pop, Salvagers Game etc. Artifacts hit Angel Stompy, Faerie Stompy, and Iggy Pop and others. I guess its a metagame call. I'm not really sure.

I've been running some GY hate in my board, because in my area things like Angel Stompy, Affinity, Faerie Stompy are entirely non-existant. But on the other hand, people are always toying around with a Loam variant or a Reanimator whatnot, so the GY hate helps a bit more than running something like Null Rod. I guess it would be a hard balance to keep taking it to a wide field, where you might hit one and not the other or both, or none at all.

I guess I could always just pack one and keep my fingers crossed about not hitting the other. Affinity never seems to die and I did play against Angel Stompy once at Gencon. So I guess we'll see, but thanks for comment.

[Firebrothers]

Has anyone ever had any problem with graveyard based strategies? I was kinda mulling over whether to play this deck or Deadguy at an upcoming tournament and while Deadguy has Grunt, Red Death has nothing to combat that other than winning fast. Most of the upper tier decks aren't composed of GY mechanics, but I assume at a broad field like Columbus there will be more than a few Loam or Reanimator type things running around. So should we engineer something into the SB?

I run withered wretch as a 3 of in the SB and one tormods crypt. I have a few loam based decks and a few survival decks and these 4 cards seem to do well against them. They can also be brought in against threshold if you feel your matchup is weak.

[Anarky87]

Well I feel confident in my pre-board matchup against Thresh, because RD has the capability to just have a better game plan. When you start out by stuffing huge fatties down their throat from turn 1, and couple that with hand and land destruction, that's a tough game to play. And I think it only gets better post board with 4 Dystopia (Damn good card against them) and 3 Therapy.

I think I'm eventually going to test both SB options and see which one proves more effective over time. Another problem I'm having is actually deciding whether to play Red Death or Deadguy. Red Death pumps out huge critters like Negator and Shade while tearing your opponent apart with Duress, Hymn, and Sink, while Deadguy plays a more controlling game with Vindicate and Confidant. I just can't really decide, but sometimes I feel Deadguy has more outs than Red Death. Sorry, kind of an unrelated tangent there.

As a side note not related to the deck discussion, is there any special version of Hymn to Tourach? I've recently begun pimping out Red Death and while I'm almost done, I haven't seen any special editions or variations on Hymn and I was just curious.

[nitewolf9]

I don't think there is a special version of hymn. Pretty much choose your favorite artwork and get those (that's what I do with everything pretty much). With respect to deadguy vs. red death I personally think dead guy lacks the strengths of red death and inherits many of its weaknesses. Instead of trying to play the suicide gameplan it tries to go half way and make up for the weaknesses by playing less aggressively. I feel (from playing both decks) that there is no comparison, but there could be some good builds of B/w for the metagame (the main strength I feel would be MD Jotun Grunt, but I mean comon...Negator is plain nuts).

As far as yard yate I think it's definitly a viable option for the last 3-4 slots, but we still have to carefully weigh our bad matchups in the metagame here. Let's assume this board is going to a GP. One of the things that really smashes us is equipment. SoFI is absolutely terrible for us, and jitte is not far behind. At least with something like loam or reanimator our disruption really hurts them (they tend to either be very fragile, like reanimator, or lacking in speed, like loam). Null Rod stops equipment cold and is pro-active card advantage. Affinity is also not a very good MU, and making them scoop to null rod post-board is pretty nice. Not to mention it is also very good against iggy pop, but so is yard hate so that's a moot point.

Like stated before pithing needle might be a more versatile option as well, but it too lacks the power of null rod. I think if I had to weigh the pros and cons null rod is ahead of yard hate for me simply because in the matches it helps, it helps tremendously (wretch and crypt also are great needle targets btw). This is my opinion based on a wide open field like a GP and I hope I've illustrated my argument clearly. I could be very wrong though.

[Anarky87]

I don't think there is a special version of hymn. Pretty much choose your favorite artwork and get those (that's what I do with everything pretty much). With respect to deadguy vs. red death I personally think dead guy lacks the strengths of red death and inherits many of its weaknesses. Instead of trying to play the suicide gameplan it tries to go half way and make up for the weaknesses by playing less aggressively. I feel (from playing both decks) that there is no comparison, but there could be some good builds of B/w for the metagame (the main strength I feel would be MD Jotun Grunt, but I mean comon...Negator is plain nuts).

As far as yard yate I think it's definitly a viable option for the last 3-4 slots, but we still have to carefully weigh our bad matchups in the metagame here. Let's assume this board is going to a GP. One of the things that really smashes us is equipment. SoFI is absolutely terrible for us, and jitte is not far behind. At least with something like loam or reanimator our disruption really hurts them (they tend to either be very fragile, like reanimator, or lacking in speed, like loam). Null Rod stops equipment cold and is pro-active card advantage. Affinity is also not a very good MU, and making them scoop to null rod post-board is pretty nice. Not to mention it is also very good against iggy pop, but so is yard hate so that's a moot point.

Like stated before pithing needle might be a more versatile option as well, but it too lacks the power of null rod. I think if I had to weigh the pros and cons null rod is ahead of yard hate for me simply because in the matches it helps, it helps tremendously (wretch and crypt also are great needle targets btw). This is my opinion based on a wide open field like a GP and I hope I've illustrated my argument clearly. I could be very wrong though.


Bah! I wish there was pimped version of it! Nothing like having the entire deck foiled except those 4 cards...

But I see your point about equipment. That would indeed wreck us, and Null Rod would work on a much larger scale than Needle (Which I'm running in Rod's place till I get some). Perhaps I just need to test this deck as much as I did Deadguy. I've never really had that much of a problem against any deck when playing Deadguy, and I found Red Death to just be a blast to play, so I picked it up. I might play this in our weekly tournament tomorrow night to get a better feel. Overall I really enjoy playing this.

[Happy Gilmore]

Null Rod is also very good against Iggy-pop. Shutting down 8 of their mana accelerants fits perfectly with the land hate. As well as being virtual card advantage. I think it could easily buy the one or two turns needed to finish them off. And unlike Pithing Needle, Null Rod stops every piece of equipment and Chrome Mox in Angel Stompy all at once (not that it is neccessary with Dystopia but it still helps). If your running Null Rod and Dystopia in the board I dont see a good reason to board crypt or Wretch IMO. Null Rod takes care of practically every combo deck (-solidarity) and Dystopia makes it impossible for Grow to kill you, threshold or no threshold it just doesnt matter. Besides, the ability to randomly hose an entire deck (affiniy) is just awsome.

On a side note after testing Infest, E-plague, and Fire Covenant the Plagues come out slightly ahead of the other two. But it was best when running 1-2 Dark Blast in the board as well. Like Anwar says, they dont kill your own creatures like Infest does. Although I still like the feel of Fire Covenant, instants are so imba.

[nitewolf9]

I think that you could still run a single copy of fire covenent in the darkblast slot. It can be awesome on it's own if you draw it, and if you have a single plague in play it would just wipe whatever x/2's they managed to draw and play for one life a creature. Although I still feel darkblast is probably the best bet, the single fire covenent could be randomly amazing (and it is still redundant, which that one slot should be).

Another option that has been brought up is lava dart for the one of. It does not cost you a draw to recur it, can go to the face in a pinch if you need that extra point of damage, and if goblins brings in kinesis (which they will) it can randomly save your board (dart negator in response; all of a sudden kinesis becomes card disadvantage, since you can play dart again from the grave). It is yet another card that can be randomly good.

Darkblast is still cool though, and my personal choice...as well as for the fact that it can feed multiple rotting giants, which is funny.

Honestly, any of those options is fine I think.

[Firebrothers]

So who is planning on playing red death for the grand prix. I know that if I am going I will definatly bring along this deck I love it so much. The first turn negator is so good against everything in the field and I feel confident playing against any deck. Except mabey madness, does anyone else have any trouble against that deck, especially pre board.

[Anarky87]

I'm definitely going to be playing it or Deadguy at the Grand Prix, but I think I need to do some more testing with the deck before then. I haven't tested against Madness, but I can see where the difficulty would be. Post board you'll get Dystopia and what have you against them. What I'm having trouble against is 4c Landstill. I've been testing the matchup all night (At least 20 games), and I've won maybe 2 or 3. They just seem to have tons of removal for my guys. I've tried playing my threats one at a time, but they either get StP'd, Edicted, Deeded, or countered. Anwar, I know you played against Nick when he was playing Landstill, do you have any tips?

[Eldariel]

I'm definitely going to be playing it or Deadguy at the Grand Prix, but I think I need to do some more testing with the deck before then. I haven't tested against Madness, but I can see where the difficulty would be. Post board you'll get Dystopia and what have you against them. What I'm having trouble against is 4c Landstill. I've been testing the matchup all night (At least 20 games), and I've won maybe 2 or 3. They just seem to have tons of removal for my guys. I've tried playing my threats one at a time, but they either get StP'd, Edicted, Deeded, or countered. Anwar, I know you played against Nick when he was playing Landstill, do you have any tips?

At least in my experience from Extended, you should just focus on LD. If you run a few Smallpoxes, aiming all your Sinkholes, Wastelands, Vindicates and Smallpoxes to their lands with the sole purpose of keeping them off relevant mana really hurts them. Now, you really want to start resolving key spells turn 2, so Duress is of course a key. I don't think you should really cast creatures much at all in that MU, kill your opponent first and deal damage as an afterthought.

[Anarky87]

At least in my experience from Extended, you should just focus on LD. If you run a few Smallpoxes, aiming all your Sinkholes, Wastelands, Vindicates and Smallpoxes to their lands with the sole purpose of keeping them off relevant mana really hurts them. Now, you really want to start resolving key spells turn 2, so Duress is of course a key. I don't think you should really cast creatures much at all in that MU, kill your opponent first and deal damage as an afterthought.

This is how I've been attacking the situation. All the games I won came from me hurling as much LD as I could at their land and Hymning everything else. But the key spell for them I think is Crucible, that one card single handedly undoes all the work your LD has accomplished. They can then start bringing back all their needed sources to Deed or StP or whatever, or just recur a blocker continuously until they hit the right cards. Even when I bring in Therapy, their answers are so diverse it's hard to know which card to name. I've tried eyeing what sources they're fetching for and name cards in that color, but that doesn't always work.

I'm gonna test it a bit more and try your strategy again, Eldariel, and see if I can better results.

[nitewolf9]

The landstill matchup is another reason I have considered running scroll in the sideboard. Having either a recurring big creature or colorless recurring source of damage is pretty huge against them I think (plus they take 8 years to kill you, so scroll is a clock). I will admit I have trouble with that matchup as well (not to mention madness, which just isn't a very good mu at all...and mongrel also gets around dystopia pretty effectively, which is lame). Scroll might help both matchups but I'm not sure if it's better than nullrod. The other key factor there is that with scroll on top of plagues your goblins matchup becomes even higher in your favor post board.

But yeah, I think I just might not know how to effectively fight that deck very well. You definitly need to keep your burn in post board. The reach is very important. Focus on land D and keeping them off of a color (white or black is the best I think). Don't overextend into deed and don't keep hands that are slow. Other than that I'm not sure. It seems like all of your cards are great against them on paper, but they do have tons of answers for you.
That's one matchup I will be testing alot, as well as the madness matchup (although I don't think madness will get very far at the GP, as goblins smashes it...we'll see though, it got lucky once). That landstill is also a bad matchup for threshold, and this deck plays very similarly to thresh. Once again though, yard hate might be some good against crucible...

[Firebrothers]

as well as the madness matchup (although I don't think madness will get very far at the GP, as goblins smashes it...we'll see though, it got lucky once)

I think some people will do a little research about the last major legacy tournement and throw together madness. Personally im not worried about goblins, threshold or and combo deck. Red Death seems to beat them all pretty good. The landstill matchup though also worries me. No one playes it in my area so im gonna throw a landstill deck together tonight and get my teammates to playtest. Does anyone have a good decklist I could use?

Also, since this is a Grand Prix, is anyone expecting or know about any new Pro Tech that may be comming out for legacy we would need to look out for?

[nitewolf9]

Check here for a good landstill list:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4930

Also, yes madness is not the best matchup and maybe it will see play, but I don't think it will be present in sufficient numbers to really devote any of the sideboard to it. Definitly test the matchup some, as you could potentially run into it, but also don't forget that they may not be prepared for you (so if you test enough, you'll learn things to do against them that they may not be ready for).

[Anarky87]

I'd like to post just to say that I split for first today at a 19 person tournament with this deck. I'm gonna write a report and will update this post with said report. As a side note, 43Lands.dec is also not an easy matchup ;)

Edit: Ok, so the monthly tournament at Parkland Community College was coming up and I knew I either wanted to play Deadguy or Red Death. I had been extensively playtesting Deadguy for the past month since the last Parkland tournament and felt confident enough to pilot that. Then my fascination with Red Death kicked in. I switched gears about a week before the tournament, throwing my effort and time into learning all the intricacies of the deck. Well the day finally came and I headed over to the college. My friends Nate, Jon, and David were all going to meet me over there. Nate had decided apparently that he was going to drop his love for blue and play his version of 43Land.dec, adding 2 extra lands. I thought Jon was going to play Iggy Pop, as he had been talking it up, but instead played Belcher, which made him T8 again. David played his old standby of Goblins and would also make T8. For reference, my list:

-Red Death-

7 Swamps
4 Badland
4 Wasteland
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Polluted Delta

4 Negator
4 Shade
4 Specter
3 Giant
1 Anurid

4 Duress
4 Hymn
4 Sinkhole
4 Ritual
4 Bolt
3 Chain

//SB//
4 Dystopia
4 Plague
3 Therapy
3 Null Rod
1 Darkblast

We get our decks registered and the tournament begins. I sit down to my round 1 opponent, sorry if I'm a little lost for names.

Round 1 Hanni Fish
Game 1: He wins the die roll, plays a Tundra and a Mother of Runes. On my turn I play a Badlands and Chain the Mom and pass. He plays another Mom, for which I don't have burn for and sends the turn to me. I go on to miss my 2nd land drop for about 5 or 6 turns, giving him enough time to land a Confidant, a Mage, and another Mom. I'm stuck on 2 lands with a bunch of 3cc dudes in my hand, so I scoop it up. Out -3 Chains, In +3 Dystopia.
Game 2: I was just on fire. I believe I had a turn 1 Negator, who was eventually StP'd. I then went on to get a Giant and Shade online and beat him down, wasting and Sinking his mana sources. I think I ended this game with a Negator along side Shade
Game 3: I played some Duresses and Hymns and a Sinkhole, getting a Negator StP'd and Shade Dazed. I landed another Negator and Giant and began the beats. He got out a Mom and 2 Mages, one on Lightning Bolt and the other on Giant. I draw for my turn and throw down a Dystopia and turn the game in my favor, as he sacs his Mom on his turn and I beat in with Negator ftw in the following turns.

1-0

Nate, Jon, and I believe David all won as well.

Round 2 My friend Nate with 45Lands.dec
Game 1: I was hoping not to get paired up against my friends, but it couldn't be helped. I hadn't tested this matchup at all, so I didn't know what to expect. I was able to get a turn 1 Negator, but that was shutdown by his turn 1 Maze. I played a Shade on my turn and attempted to beat him down for what I could. I managed to get him to 8 before he drew Mana Bond, dropped his whole hand, and locked me out of the game. I never saw anymore burn. I had nothing to side in.
Game 2: Wasn't even close as he was able to get the lock on me early and I didn't draw any pressure to help me and I lost.

1-1

Round 3 Unregged with B/W/r Braids Control?
Game 1: This deck did alot of things that I couldn't really figure out its strategy. I turn 1 Negator'd, which was answered the following turn with Swords. I again stuck on 1 land, which was Braided away and he was able to Animate Dead and Necromancy my discarded creatures and beat me. At this moment I figured I was going to be out of the tournament, but things were about to change. I didn't side.
Game 2: I mulliganed down to 5 and kept a no land hand with a Ritual and some business and after a turn I drew into 3 straight lands. He was able to play Lotus Petal and pull off a Terminate on my Negator, to which he then reanimated on his turn. I Chained the Negator on my turn and he sacced some perms and let the Negator die. I removed it with a Giant I had played and swung for 3. On his turn he Necromancies for the Negator again, I tell him there's no target as it was removed from the game with Giant and his spell fizzles. I play a Shade perhaps and end up beating him. Things are looking up.
Game 3: I was in control of the game as he was stuck on very little land, with me Sinkholing and Wasting all of his white sources again. A pretty uneventful game with me playing some beats and discarding anything that was relevant. I felt bad, because I know losing to mana screw just blows hardcore.

2-1

It's brought to our attention that all the 2-1 people can draw into the T8, so we do and get a free round waiting for the rest of the people to finish. The Top 8 was:
45Lands.dec (Which apparently pwned the meta)- Nate
Deadguy
U/W Landstill
Deadguy
Red Death - Me
Goblins - David
Iggy Pop
Belcher - Jon

2-1-1

Top 8 David with Goblins
Game 1: I had to play against my other friend and was a tad worried that he would just nut draw me out of contention, but it turned out to be the other way around. I kept a good hand that could handle a turn 1 Lackey and follow it up with an onslaught of beats. And that's pretty much the game. I bolted his turn 1 Lackey, got down a Shade and Negator and started beating. I Chained his other Lackey and killed a Piledriver and Warchief with negator and Shade and crushed him. Not really close.
Out -4 Duress, -1 Something, maybe Sinkhole, In +4 Plague and +1 Darkblast.
Game 2: I again get a hand that could handle a first turn lackey if need be, but he doesn't have one, so I start my beats. I control all the relevant threats he plays like Warchief and I think an eventual double Lackey. About mid game I land an Engineered Plague and Waste his only white source. A few turns later I draw a Darkblast and kill every creature he plays out from that point on, with the dredge being enough to fuel my Negator+Giant beats. Again, this match wasn't even close, with David being a very good Goblins player.

3-1-1

Top 4:

Iggy Pop vs. Deadguy
Red Death vs. 45Lands.dec

Top 4 Nate with 45Lands.dec
Game 1: I was a little disheartened having to play against this deck again as due to my previous match against it, I figured I would be knocked out now. Game 1 was pretty much the same as before, but without a lot of beats from me and him dropping Manabond -> Entire hand on the table locking me down.
Game 2: Game 2 went long, with him matching each threat I played for the first three turns with 3 Mazes of Ith. I beat down on him when I could, getting him down to 4 and then both of us stalemating. He does some dredging and Loaming and has the lock of Glacial Chasm and Maze. Finally I am able to squeak through some damage, putting him at 1 life. He has Wasted 3 of my red sources so far, so when I draw the last one, I hold it in my hand and wait for the burn spell. Extremely late in the game, when he's in a winning position, recurring Barbarian Rings each turn, I wait till his turn with my last red source on the board and him with no Waste in play, I wait till he sacrifices Chasm and then tap my Badlands. He asks, "Do you have the Bolt? Show it to me." and so I turn the Lightning Bolt around to show him and end the game. Very close.
Game 3: This wasn't a very close game and I majorly lucksacked my way through it. I was able to get a Negator and Specter out to beat for 7 a turn. He matches my first Negator with a Maze, to which I Waste and play the Specter. I then swing for 7 and he Loams back the Maze on his turn and plays it. I Waste again on my turn and beat for 7. He Loams the the Maze again and plays it, passing the turn. I put my hand on the top of my deck and think, "This needs to be another Waste or a Sinkhole"...It's a Wasteland. I smile and give a little chuckle and he asks, "Waste my Maze?" so I show him the Waste, nuke his Maze and swing for the win. Some savage lucksacking.

Finals:

Red Death vs. Iggy Pop

Since he's a guy I play with alot back home, we decided to split the prize and each get 2 Tundras and 3 packs. I'm not sure how that match would have gone, but we've playtested it alot and had it go either way. I also had plans with my g/f later that evening, so opting to split sounded good.

So that's it, I really liked the deck and even played it today at another local tournament. Unfortunately, there were only 7 people there, with the 7th person leaving after he had lost a few games before the tournament, saying, "I should just stick to T2." before tucking tail and going home. I ended up going 3-0 through the rounds, beating U/G/W Thresh, BHWC Landstill, and Angel Stax, putting me at top seed going in. But I lost the T4 match to Stax as he had a busted start game 1 that I couldn't deal with, and 2 turbo Angels in game 3 that just ate my face. But I think the deck is definitely strong, and I enjoyed playing it all day. I intend to be playing this deck for times to come. Great deck Anwar!

Props:

Parkland for hosting some excellent tournaments the past 3 times. Keep up the great work guys.
All my opponent for being polite and fun to play with.
Myself and my friends making up half of the Top 8 and 4.
Red Death and Negator, for being so brutal.
My g/f, for being amazingly understanding of my need to feed my inner geek at these events.
The few locals that did come to our tournament Sunday, thanks for supporting the format guys, keep coming!

Slops:

Negator for being StP'd just about everytime turn 1 Saturday, wtf?
1 land hands that even though contain awesome Ritual plays, never go anywhere.
Threshold, for making me stall out till I got a Dystopia to kill his Worship.
David for making T8 Saturday and 0-3 today, how do you do that?
Danville locals for not coming out and supporting your own tournaments and promoting the format. You guys are the reason Danville isn't taken seriously when it comes to Magic. Stop building and playing crappy decks and get with the program. The only reason you guys do good at T2 is because you play against other crap and don't promote understanding and good decks. MAJOR slops to you bums...

Thanks for reading anybody!

[Firebrothers]

I'd like to post just to say that I split for first today at a 19 person tournament with this deck. I'm gonna write a report and will update this post with said report. As a side note, 43Lands.dec is also not an easy matchup ;)


Congrats on the win dude, i like to see people doing well with this deck. I win regularly at my little 10-15 person weekly tournement. What is so bad about 43land.dec. I find that especially on the play you have an advantage. Just get down a threat like a hyppi or negator early and keep them off important land like maze of ith with sinkholes and wastelands. I also have withered wretch sb so that may be why i dont find it as hard as you. Anyway way to go.

[Anarky87]

Bump to include the report.

Note: I know bumping is against the site rules, but I don't know how to update my post with new info so that people know it's been updated. I don't want people to think nothing new has been posted. So could a mod clean this up? Thanks and sorry.

Anarky87

[AnwarA101]

1 land hands that even though contain awesome Ritual plays, never go


My best advice about this is to mulligan any hand without 2 black producing lands. I have tried in the past to keep hands with a ritual and 1 land and it never seems to work out. I am more than willing to mulligan for 2 lands than to risk the chance that I will just rip the land off the top. You do not want to lose tempo because you miss land drops. Not playing your spells on time with this deck is a recipe for disaster. I have found that a 6 card hand with 2 lands is almost always better than a 7 card hand without 2 lands even if you have a ritual (sometimes I keep a double ritual hand, but those are very rare anyway). Even the mulligan to 5 is often just better than keeping the iffy 6 card hand. I have always considered upping the land count, but I am reminded of those games where i draw straight land. 17 seems like a reasonable number in my experience with the deck.

I am glad to see that others are having success with the deck. Nitewolf9 made top8 at our local tournament here in Northern Virginia, but he lost game 3 to Solidarity in Top8. That matchup can be sometimes be difficult and I have lost it before as well.

[Jankwolf]

I was reading some of the posts earlier about how do deal with white or what not...I think it was about the Anjel stompy matchup...Has anyone Thought about running Virtue's Ruin? It costs one black and two colorless...The card says
"destroy all white creatures"...and in the Threshhold matchup has anyone tested out Perish...Not only does it kill off almost every green creature they have(except mage, but negator eats him alive) and its great against other decks that run green. Rock or loam or maybe that elf staff deck that runs around occasionaly...Dunno...Maybe I posted this at the wrong time, sorry.

[Anarky87]

My best advice about this is to mulligan any hand without 2 black producing lands. I have tried in the past to keep hands with a ritual and 1 land and it never seems to work out. I am more than willing to mulligan for 2 lands than to risk the chance that I will just rip the land off the top. You do not want to lose tempo because you miss land drops. Not playing your spells on time with this deck is a recipe for disaster. I have found that a 6 card hand with 2 lands is almost always better than a 7 card hand without 2 lands even if you have a ritual (sometimes I keep a double ritual hand, but those are very rare anyway). Even the mulligan to 5 is often just better than keeping the iffy 6 card hand. I have always considered upping the land count, but I am reminded of those games where i draw straight land. 17 seems like a reasonable number in my experience with the deck.

This is all 100% true, and I've since refused to keep any 1 land hands (Unless they are obscene Ritual hands. Today I kept a 1 land double Ritual+Negator+Hymn hand against Landstill, just because I knew it would totally wreck him). Not being able to get your assault on their resources started destroys your tempo and just buries you as you then top deck cards that don't aid you really anymore like Sinkhole to their board of 5 lands or Hymns to their empty hand.

But the deck is a very powerful weapon. My group concluded on the way home tonight that it tackles the meta so well because of its agressive nature. People watching matches may think it looks underpowered in the first few turns (Barring Ritual -> Negator/Specter beats) as you disrupt your opponent, but then it's like the game reaches a turning point and you just explode, churning out 3/3's and 5/5's on a now crippled opponent. I truly love the deck and will thoroughly enjoy foiling/pimping it out.


I am glad to see that others are having success with the deck. Nitewolf9 made top8 at our local tournament here in Northern Virginia, but he lost game 3 to Solidarity in Top8. That matchup can be sometimes be difficult and I have lost it before as well.

Congrats to Nitewolf. That matchup can be pretty tricky as there have been times where I've had an awesome hand and they've just Remanded me right out of the game and combo'd out. Still congrats on him making it!


I was reading some of the posts earlier about how do deal with white or what not...I think it was about the Anjel stompy matchup...Has anyone Thought about running Virtue's Ruin? It costs one black and two colorless...The card says
"destroy all white creatures"...and in the Threshhold matchup has anyone tested out Perish...Not only does it kill off almost every green creature they have(except mage, but negator eats him alive) and its great against other decks that run green. Rock or loam or maybe that elf staff deck that runs around occasionaly...Dunno...Maybe I posted this at the wrong time, sorry.

Perish and Virtue's Ruin are certainly options, but there's also a card called Dystopia, which is like a Perish and VR wrapped in one enchantment. It reads, "At the beginning of each players upkeep, if that player controls a white or green permanent, he or she sacrifices a white or green permamnent. Cumulative Upkeep: 1 life." While it does it more slowly then the one shot deal of Perish and VR, it's also able to hit Enchantments that can be troublesome such as Confinement or, as in my case today against Thresh, Worship. Dystopia also doesn't take up 5-8 slots in your SB like you would have to if you were boarding Perish and Virtue's Ruin.

[Jankwolf]

Yeah, I know about Dystopia. I was never really a fan of the life loss portion of it though...Dunno, I guess I'm baseing my point of view from my bad experience with pox...I really am a fan of Red Death and I'm looking forward to running it at my local tournament. I will be more than happy to post my results.

[Anarky87]

Yeah, I know about Dystopia. I was never really a fan of the life loss portion of it though...Dunno, I guess I'm baseing my point of view from my bad experience with pox...I really am a fan of Red Death and I'm looking forward to running it at my local tournament. I will be more than happy to post my results.

It's really not as bad as you think. You might lose perhaps 2-4 life, but in that time, you've already sent them back pedaling while jamming huge creatures down their throat. They're losing creatures while you still have yours, if not more. Against Angel Stompy, not all of their creatures are pro-red, so you can burn the ones that don't and make them sac the ones that do. And with Null Rod coming in, that will shut down their equipment, making them just a WW deck of the sorts. I'd give it a spin, I really enjoy it and it has never killed me. Goodluck at your local tournaments with the deck, it's hella fun to play.

[nitewolf9]

Dystopia is by far the best card in the sideboard. The thresh matchup is close pre board, but with this it is just stupid. You get the one-sided abyss and they get...naturalize? Anyway, don't forget dystopia also acts like a disenchant as well for many problematic enchantments.

As for my loss to solidarity, it was my fault and not the deck's. Game 1 I won with a mulligan to 5 (which is not bad to do with this deck if you get the fast start). Game 2 I was an idiot...I had him down to like 3 lands and 3 cards in hand, and instead of playing hypnotic specter I play negator (hyppie would have been the auto win, negator gave him the out to draw into the bustedness...which he did, because he's David fucking Gearheart). Game 3 I draw 6 or 7 lands in a row with no threats. Yeah, I guess that's how trainwreck feels in that matchup. Frownies :frown:

But yeah, the deck is awesome. There is also definitly a learning curve to it (as is shown, I have been playing the deck for a while now and I make stupid mistakes still). Keep playing with it if you plan on bringing it to the GP.

[Firebrothers]

B - Root of Evil
Instant
Split Second
Choose target card, other than a basic land in a graveyard. Search its controller's graveyard, hand and library for all cards with the same name and remove them from the game.

Possibly the best card i have seen in PC for this deck so far. Sideboard tech to beat just about any combo deck or main deck hate to disrupt anything else. Take out thresholds critters, goblins piledrivers, or whatever. Is this better then duress or cabal therapy or situational because something has to be in the graveyard to get rid of it. Great synergy with hymn and hippy. What do yall think?

[Anarky87]

I think it could make a pretty solid SB card, but I don't think it would belong in the MD and certainly not over Duress. The problem is, I think the SB is really tight as is right now, I wouldn't know what to cut, but there is no denying that this card is definitely another powerful took in Blacks arsenal.

[AnwarA101]

I think it could make a pretty solid SB card, but I don't think it would belong in the MD and certainly not over Duress. The problem is, I think the SB is really tight as is right now, I wouldn't know what to cut, but there is no denying that this card is definitely another powerful took in Blacks arsenal.

I'm thinking the same thing. It might be able to take the Null Rod spot which is the spot that has always been fairly debated. It doesn't do anything about artifacts themselves, but it seems to destroy graveyard based strategies. You are helped against Iggy Pop, Salvagers, and things like Life from the Loam and other graveyard based decks like Friggorid and others. I'm not sure you can afford to go without any answers to Equipment, but it seems like a very powerful card. This card might just make Cabal Therapy stronger as could you could possibly cast Cabal Therapy on Equipment based decks and then Extirpate it and not have to worry about their Equipment spell at all. This isn't all that impressive if your opponent runs both SOFI and Jitte like Angel Stompy and Faerie Stompy, but it might be a way to include this card in the sideboard over Null Rod, but again it doesn't exactly fit the same role so its hard to say. I wouldn't want to go without some type of answer for artifacts, but it might not be that bad of an idea.

[nitewolf9]

I think I would probably run this card in cabal therapy's slot. With the other discard, if you brought it in against high tide, you could nuke a key card for good (cunning wish, high tide, meditate...all would be bad for them). It seems like it would also own iggy pop and salvager's, as well as getting rid of a member of thresh's already tight threat base. Along with dystopia, this card could make sure that no creature of threshold's ever does anything. The question is whether or not it is as powerful as therapy. I think it could be.

[AnwarA101]

I think I would probably run this card in cabal therapy's slot. With the other discard, if you brought it in against high tide, you could nuke a key card for good (cunning wish, high tide, meditate...all would be bad for them). It seems like it would also own iggy pop and salvager's, as well as getting rid of a member of thresh's already tight threat base. Along with dystopia, this card could make sure that no creature of threshold's ever does anything. The question is whether or not it is as powerful as therapy. I think it could be.

The fact that it can't be countered could possibly make it stronger than Therapy as you often cannot flashback Therapy in many matchups except combo decks where you only need 1 threat to finish off your opponent. Cutting Therapy would be interesting idea especially since I've been so happy with the card, but perhaps this card is worth it. I would hate to run Null Rod in a big tournament and not use it (like I did at the Duel for Duals).

[Anarky87]

I guess testing will tell us which way to go. I can see trading Therapy for this card, but I'm not sure about Null Rod. I didn't use it in the tournament on Saturday except for the last round against Iggy Pop where I would have if I hadn't of split. I did board in Therapy on Sunday against Landstill and nabbed a StP, but other than that, nothing special with Therapy either.

But perhaps this is the GY hate that I thought the deck needed. I think I might agree with Nitewolf about this replacing Therapy. With Null Rod helping you against equipment and LED tricks, this could help round out the board against GY whatnot, being uncounterable and totally stripping decks of their entire strategy.

I know that:

4 Dystopia
4 Plague
1 Darkblast

feels like it's a mainstay, with maybe the other being 3 Null Rod and 3 Extirpate.

[nitewolf9]

Don't forget that against landstill you can nullify crucible to a degree (waste a manland, then get rid of it entirely). Null rod is a funny card in the board. It seems that it doesn't come in very often, but when you need it you're glad you have it.

[Happy Gilmore]

I guess testing will tell us which way to go. I can see trading Therapy for this card, but I'm not sure about Null Rod. I didn't use it in the tournament on Saturday except for the last round against Iggy Pop where I would have if I hadn't of split. I did board in Therapy on Sunday against Landstill and nabbed a StP, but other than that, nothing special with Therapy either.

But perhaps this is the GY hate that I thought the deck needed. I think I might agree with Nitewolf about this replacing Therapy. With Null Rod helping you against equipment and LED tricks, this could help round out the board against GY whatnot, being uncounterable and totally stripping decks of their entire strategy.

I know that:

4 Dystopia
4 Plague
1 Darkblast

feels like it's a mainstay, with maybe the other being 3 Null Rod and 3 Extirpate.

This is very much what I have been thinking. Instant speed disruption is very rare in black, and in many ways Extirpate is better than a blue counterspell. If Iggy-pop tries to go for the combo via Infernal Tutor you can just say no. If Solidarity tries to go for the early kill you can zap all the Resets or stop them from stacking their deck with Flash.

The ablility to know your opponents hand, his deck, and generate virtual card advantage is too much to pass up imo.

[laststepdown]

Anarky: Hymns are a hard card to specialize...I ended up getting my 'wolf picture' set signed by Susan Van Camp at Gencon last year, and I've waited a long time for that to happen. I recommend it though-her sig is small enough to fit sideways in the text box.

*ahem*

Back on topic, I haven't found a use for Null Rod, in this deck, ever. That could be just my meta, but I have Rise/Fall in its place (there's quite a lot of Iggy and Solidarity here).

[Eldariel]

Null Rod is amazing against Iggy. Just sayin'.