PDA

View Full Version : [Article] - The Red Death Primer



Machinus
07-31-2007, 12:07 AM
Finally!!!

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14540.html

MattH
07-31-2007, 12:31 AM
This was a good article and I liked it, so please don't take offense at the few criticisms I am about to offer.


"Order of the Ebon Hand/Knight of Stromgald/Stromgald Crusader

These creatures suffer from the same problems as all 1 toughness creatures of just dying to any and all removal. "
The whole reason to even consider playing these guys is immunity to STP.


These artifacts are either simply too costly (Chrome Mox), unworkable (Mox Diamond) or just worse than Dark Ritual (Lotus Petal).
But what about playing Petal in addition to Dark Ritual? Not as a full set, because the deck can't support that, but one or two Petals might be worth it. I mean you do have a lot of 2cc spells that would benefit from a turn's boost.

You explained the maindeck disinclusion of Wretch and Confidant well, but I also would have liked to see a discussion on their usage as sideboard cards. Also, Extirpate and Pithing Needle were noticeably absent from the discussion of possible SB cards.

Overall, this was a good rundown and summary of the deck (which is the primary purpose of a primer) but lacking much for the advanced Legacy player. For example, a discussion on what to sac to Negator (given various board positions and hands) would have been something new that isn't found elsewhere. If you do a part 2, definitely explain your thoughts on that.

Anusien
07-31-2007, 12:46 AM
Out of curiosity, how did this come under the "Unlocking Legacy" moniker?

Anyway, I look forward to reading this tomorrow.

I do have to ask one question based on the way you laid things out in the article:
If you're behind against Threshold, behind to event versus combo and ahead versus Goblins, why not just play Thresh?

I would suggest talking more about how Tarmogoyf changes the Red Death matchup; you qualify that too much for me to feel certain about your response.

Did you ever consider splashing Tarmogoyfs?

Citrus-God
07-31-2007, 12:56 AM
I really like this Primer. Red Death has been a very fun deck to play in my experience, and I look forward to winning a big event with it, or at least a monthly Top 4 at a Top 4 prize draft tournament.

outsideangel
07-31-2007, 01:41 AM
A fine article clearly aimed at players with little to no experience with Red Death, I think you clearly and concisely explained the basics. I would love to see a Part 2 discussing the more advanced strategies behind playing the deck, too.

Nihil Credo
07-31-2007, 06:31 AM
Concise and clear. Can't ask much more than that, at least nothing that can go in a family-friendly website.

On another topic, the default RD list (the one in the article) currently runs one or two suboptimal cards - the Wretched Anurid is one, and I consider the fourth Shade to be the other (personal preference, I just hate how it clogs your hand in multiples in the early game). Would you agree that this slot(s) is bad enough that the deck would improve by replacing it with a Street Wraith, especially considering that it can realistically be hardcast?

I've put 2 in when FS came out and haven't looked back, but at the time there was more important stuff to deal with in Legacy than discussing a minor tweak :wink: so I'd like to start talking about it now.

Edit: Although you didn't put it in the default list, I think there is currently no reason to even consider Tormod's Crypt when you can play Extirpate. Thanks to 'Goyf, Crypt is now almost useless against Threshold, Extirpate is just a lot better against all form of recursion decks (mainly LftL, but also Crucible "locks" with manlands) and Ichorid is more than prepared to face Crypt (Needle, Chalice).

nitewolf9
07-31-2007, 10:42 AM
I do have to ask one question based on the way you laid things out in the article:
If you're behind against Threshold, behind to event versus combo and ahead versus Goblins, why not just play Thresh?

I would suggest talking more about how Tarmogoyf changes the Red Death matchup; you qualify that too much for me to feel certain about your response.

Did you ever consider splashing Tarmogoyfs?

While Threshold is definitely the better anti-combo deck, and can most certainly be a very rough matchup for red death, a myriad of board control decks seem to be popping up, such as landstill for instance, to answer the current best deck in the format (threshold) while having a good combo matchup as well. Red death generally has a good control matchup and has the tools to fight combo as well, along with having a good goblins matchup. I think it can be very good in the right metagame. Dystopia is also completely nuts against threshold.

Splashing for goyf could also easily be done.

AnwarA101
07-31-2007, 11:16 AM
The whole reason to even consider playing these guys is immunity to STP.


You are right I did leave out their immunity to STP. It was an oversight and my statement does seem a bit broad in the context of STP. Though I still find the creatures unacceptable especially in comparison with Shade as well as their inability to pump their toughness.



But what about playing Petal in addition to Dark Ritual? Not as a full set, because the deck can't support that, but one or two Petals might be worth it. I mean you do have a lot of 2cc spells that would benefit from a turn's boost.


While you would benefit from the temporary boost of Lotus Petal it would not be worth the cost. Lotus Petal is one more card that creates card disadvantage in addition to Dark Ritual without the same devastating impact that Dark Ritual has. Red Death burns through its card in hand pretty quickly and increasing this pace is worse at the cost of slight boost that a petal or two would give you. Its not that Red Death is overly concerned with card disadvantage, but you have to have enough spells that have an effect on the game as opposed to just acceleration. Lotus Petal would also be worse against control decks as that would leave you with one less spell that you can attack them with. It would make you more suspectible to removal (Swamp, Lotus Petal, Giant followed by STP or Bolt makes for very bad times). Finally Lotus Petal would have to be cut for either a Land or business spell which means either you lower your land count or your spell count both of which are dangerous as the deck is playing close to the minimum lands it can afford and it still needs virtually every spell it has. What would you cut for Lotus Petal?



You explained the maindeck disinclusion of Wretch and Confidant well, but I also would have liked to see a discussion on their usage as sideboard cards. Also, Extirpate and Pithing Needle were noticeably absent from the discussion of possible SB cards.

Overall, this was a good rundown and summary of the deck (which is the primary purpose of a primer) but lacking much for the advanced Legacy player. For example, a discussion on what to sac to Negator (given various board positions and hands) would have been something new that isn't found elsewhere. If you do a part 2, definitely explain your thoughts on that.

Wretch and Confidant have been considered sideboard cards briefly, but all the sideboard cards I mentioned have always been better at dealing with specific strategies than those cards. I've never really wanted to board either one.



I do have to ask one question based on the way you laid things out in the article:
If you're behind against Threshold, behind to event versus combo and ahead versus Goblins, why not just play Thresh?


I have to agree with everything nitewolf9 said. The deck is better against Control decks in my opinion, but I think you are mistaken about the deck's combo matchup.

In general Red Death is very good against combo and I state that as one of the main reasons for playing the deck. Belcher represents an interesting case of combo where the combo is built around turn 1 (Belcher or ETW) and that makes it tough on the draw when you aren't playing Force of Will. Provided you get a turn you will have a good opportunity to disrupt them. Most combo decks are behind against Red Death and even more so post-board.

Threshold is an amazing deck. I can never recommend not playing. There are a couple of differences. First the control matchup seems to be better for Red Death. The other major thing is that since Threshold is widely played people have specific sideboard cards for it such as Chalice of the Void and Tormod's Crypt which do much less against Red Death. Avoiding hate while still playing a somewhat similar strategy can have benefits. I've actually had people board in Tormod's Crypt and I've won through Chalice of the Void as well. I'm not sure I would have won those games while playing Threshold.



I would suggest talking more about how Tarmogoyf changes the Red Death matchup; you qualify that too much for me to feel certain about your response.

Did you ever consider splashing Tarmogoyfs?


Tarmogoyf makes Threshold a much tougher matchup. I stated that in article as well. It also reduces the usefulness of cards like Tormod's Crypt. As for splashing green for Tarmogoyf, its something that I've actively worked on but I have no conclusive results or confidence in any such list.



On another topic, the default RD list (the one in the article) currently runs one or two suboptimal cards - the Wretched Anurid is one, and I consider the fourth Shade to be the other (personal preference, I just hate how it clogs your hand in multiples in the early game). Would you agree that this slot(s) is bad enough that the deck would improve by replacing it with a Street Wraith, especially considering that it can realistically be hardcast?


I disagree that Anurid and Shade are suboptimal, but less assume for the sake of the argument that they are. Street Wraith doesn't really fix this problem. Let's say that you draw a Street Wraith in your opening hand along with one other creature. You play your one creature, but now you want to add your second creature to the battlefield, but you can't because Wraith costs 3BB or you can cycle him but drawing one card doesn't seem to guarantee that you will draw into another creature with only 14 creatures left in the deck. I don't think Street Wraith will do much of anything especially since even in the mid game he will be worse than Shade and only slightly better than Anurid with almost 3 times the cost.

Tacosnape
07-31-2007, 11:42 AM
On another topic, the default RD list (the one in the article) currently runs one or two suboptimal cards - the Wretched Anurid is one, and I consider the fourth Shade to be the other (personal preference, I just hate how it clogs your hand in multiples in the early game). Would you agree that this slot(s) is bad enough that the deck would improve by replacing it with a Street Wraith, especially considering that it can realistically be hardcast?

Why on earth would you cut a quality card for a card that has the intent purpose of helping you draw your quality cards?

AnwarA101
07-31-2007, 12:07 PM
I just noticed the link that Machinus posted only links to the discussion about the article. The article can be found here -

The Red Death Primer (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14540.html)

Machinus
07-31-2007, 01:39 PM
Ah, my bad! I was excited and copied the wrong URL. I fixed it anyway.

Nihil Credo
07-31-2007, 02:35 PM
I disagree that Anurid and Shade are suboptimal, but less assume for the sake of the argument that they are. Street Wraith doesn't really fix this problem. Let's say that you draw a Street Wraith in your opening hand along with one other creature. You play your one creature, but now you want to add your second creature to the battlefield, but you can't because Wraith costs 3BB or you can cycle him but drawing one card doesn't seem to guarantee that you will draw into another creature with only 14 creatures left in the deck. I don't think Street Wraith will do much of anything especially since even in the mid game he will be worse than Shade and only slightly better than Anurid with almost 3 times the cost.
The way you put it is a bit convoluted, but your point is essentially that 16/60 creatures is already skirting it for this deck and it would be a bad idea to go down to 15/59 or 14/58? If so, fair enough. I don't agree, but we're again going into judgment calls.


Why on earth would you cut a quality card for a card that has the intent purpose of helping you draw your quality cards?
I assume you're talking specifically of the Shade replacement. Look at it this way: I'd rather run 3 Shades in 59 cards than 4 Shades in 60 cards (disregarding the life cost, but that's not what you were objecting to).

Silverdragon
07-31-2007, 03:09 PM
The way you put it is a bit convoluted, but your point is essentially that 16/60 creatures is already skirting it for this deck and it would be a bad idea to go down to 15/59 or 14/58? If so, fair enough. I don't agree, but we're again going into judgment calls.


I assume you're talking specifically of the Shade replacement. Look at it this way: I'd rather run 3 Shades in 59 cards than 4 Shades in 60 cards (disregarding the life cost, but that's not what you were objecting to).

FYI The chance of drawing a 4-of in your starting hand with 60 cards total is about 40% and the chance of drawing a 3-of with 59 cards total is about 32%.
With 16 creatures in a 60 card deck the chance of drawing one in your opening 7 is about 90%. 15/59 lowers this to 89%, 14/58 goes down to 87%.

Btw. the primer was good. Well written and informative.

Barsoom
07-31-2007, 03:18 PM
If Carnophage and Sarcomancy "just don’t belong in Suicide Black" at all, and Order of the Ebon Hand & Stromgald Crusader "suffer from the same problems as all 1 toughness creatures of just dying to any and all removal" why this deck (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/gpcol07/welcome#6), played by bill stark, Top 4 at Gp Columbus with 4x maindeck of all 4 cards?
luck? good matchups? or a different meta full of flash decks?

AnwarA101
07-31-2007, 03:45 PM
If Carnophage and Sarcomancy "just don’t belong in Suicide Black" at all, and Order of the Ebon Hand & Stromgald Crusader "suffer from the same problems as all 1 toughness creatures of just dying to any and all removal" why this deck (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/gpcol07/welcome#6), played by bill stark, Top 4 at Gp Columbus with 4x maindeck of all 4 cards?
luck? good matchups? or a different meta full of flash decks?

That format was not Legacy it was Flash. That deck had a good game against Fish decks while trying to have a decent game against Flash. I can't say much about the format Flash. It only existed for 6 weeks and has almost no relationship to modern Legacy.

ForceofWill
07-31-2007, 03:55 PM
The deck is terrible it only did good because of the flash metagame. When people try playing that deck now they get absolutely destroyed.

MattH
07-31-2007, 07:06 PM
What would you cut for Lotus Petal?
Probably the Wretched Anurid.


I disagree that Anurid and Shade are suboptimal, but less assume for the sake of the argument that they are. Street Wraith doesn't really fix this problem.
I agree that SW isn't the answer. Personally I would try Confidant as a 1- or 2-of.

Joon
08-01-2007, 05:41 AM
Personally I would try Confidant as a 1- or 2-of.

Nice idea. I were often in situations, in that a topdecked Confidant would have at least saved my beaters from removal because the opponent don't want you to draw much faster than normal more critter or burn. What would you guys cut? Anurid and...?

Citrus-God
08-01-2007, 06:54 AM
Wait... this deck has so much disruption, it shouldnt matter. Usually you tend to use Rotting Giants and such as bait, then you throw out the more efficient threats, like Negator or Shade when the opponent used up his Removal card against your Giants/Specters. Besides, this isnt the deck to wait, it wants to win now, or never. Why do you think TES cut Confidant from it's Sideboard? It is because it wants to win now, not later.

Hummingbird TG
08-01-2007, 10:01 AM
But Dark Confidant takes up a creature slot, where it helps you to draw more burn in situations where your opponent has stabilized at low life...

TheCramp
08-01-2007, 11:37 AM
Goyf seems strictly better than Rotting Giant, and I like the idea of trying to fit it in. BUT beyond just messing up a perfectly good land base, you also can't dark ritual it out. Turn one- Sac Land, Dark Ritual, Duress, Giant is a huge play. Goyf can't play like that.

Zilla
08-01-2007, 01:35 PM
Goyf seems strictly better than Rotting Giant, and I like the idea of trying to fit it in. BUT beyond just messing up a perfectly good land base, you also can't dark ritual it out. Turn one- Sac Land, Dark Ritual, Duress, Giant is a huge play. Goyf can't play like that.
You could always play Lotus Petal over Ritual. Anwar mentioned in his article that it is inferior to Dark Ritual, but that's working under the assumption that you're staying nearly mono-black. I can see trying Petal over Ritual in a 3c build.

zulander
08-01-2007, 02:26 PM
If you gut dark rits for goyf and add confidant, why not just play gagomy?

Zilla
08-01-2007, 03:24 PM
If you gut dark rits for goyf and add confidant, why not just play gagomy?
You would be. This was the exact line of thinking that led to Gagomy's development. The question was "what happens when I splash green in Red Death for Tarmogoyf" and Gagomy was the result. So to answer your question, there's no distinguishable difference. This is akin to asking why you would play board control when you could just play Landstill.

zulander
08-01-2007, 03:33 PM
This was the exact line of thinking that led to Gagomy's development. The question was "what happens when I splash green in Red Death for Tarmogoyf" and Gagomy was the result
Not really. What led to Gagomy's development was the thinking "I want to play negator, kird ape and goyf in a deck with some bolts for burn, and of course duress.

Zilla
08-01-2007, 03:49 PM
Not really. What led to Gagomy's development was the thinking "I want to play negator, kird ape and goyf in a deck with some bolts for burn, and of course duress.
I guess I don't really see the distinction. The disruption and threat bases between the two decks are so similar I sort of assumed the one was a natural evolution of the other.

zulander
08-01-2007, 03:59 PM
I guess I don't really see the distinction. The disruption and threat bases between the two decks are so similar I sort of assumed the one was a natural evolution of the other.
They are really similar, coincidentally when gagomy was created there was already b/r aggro disruption in the form of Red Death.

Zilla
08-01-2007, 04:26 PM
They are really similar, coincidentally when gagomy was created there was already b/r aggro disruption in the form of Red Death.
And you're friends with Anwar, so I assumed he might have had some input on the matter.

Citrus-God
08-01-2007, 04:27 PM
But Dark Confidant takes up a creature slot, where it helps you to draw more burn in situations where your opponent has stabilized at low life...

Which wouldnt matter much because, because the deck thinning from the fetchlands are bound to topdeck a Burn card for you in that situation anyway.

AnwarA101
08-01-2007, 04:54 PM
And you're friends with Anwar, so I assumed he might have had some input on the matter.

GAGOMY does look like Red Death with the green splash with some notable exceptions. I'm not sure exactly what caused the creation of GAGOMY other than Tarmogoyf being amazing. I've considered placing Tarmogoyf in Red Death and have done some preliminary testing, but it never quite felt right to me. Perhaps having a non-ritual creature is a bit of an issue in addition to playing a 3 color mana base with Wasteland. I'm not really sure, but perhaps it would drift into GAGOMY anyway. Its hard to say if the lists could stay indepedent of each other.

Citrus-God
08-01-2007, 04:56 PM
GAGOMY does look like Red Death with the green splash with some notable exceptions. I'm not sure exactly what caused the creation of GAGOMY other than Tarmogoyf being amazing. I've considered placing Tarmogoyf in Red Death and have done some preliminary testing, but it never quite felt right to me. Perhaps having a non-ritual creature is a bit of an issue in addition to playing a 3 color mana base with Wasteland. I'm not really sure, but perhaps it would drift into GAGOMY anyway. Its hard to say if the lists could stay indepedent of each other.

You do run 8 fetchlands, I dont see it hurting much really... IMO, you could do this

-2 Swamp
-1 Fetchland

+3 Bayou

Of course, it probably makes the broken openings a bit harder to pull off which can be a problem.

Zilla
08-01-2007, 08:23 PM
Like I said, you could always run Petal over Ritual. A little less powerful, but it goes a long way towards stabilizing the 3 color manabase, not to mention the fact that it has strong synergy with Tarmogoyf.

On a vaguely related note, I'm surprised that no one is running Hidden Gibbons in their sideboards these days. It's rock solid against just about every deck besides Goblins, and being an enchantment, ahs potential synergy with Tarmogoyf. Just saying.

Citrus-God
08-01-2007, 10:15 PM
On a vaguely related note, I'm surprised that no one is running Hidden Gibbons in their sideboards these days. It's rock solid against just about every deck besides Goblins, and being an enchantment, ahs potential synergy with Tarmogoyf. Just saying.

I'm suprised Threshold doesnt run it....

Zilla
08-02-2007, 02:29 AM
I'm suprised Threshold doesnt run it....
I've actually been really tempted to run it in my UGR Thresh sideboard primarily for the UGW mirror... but Threads of Disloyalty, Spellsnare, and even Price of Progress are also really good there, so it's a tough call.

Nihil Credo
08-02-2007, 06:35 AM
On a vaguely related note, I'm surprised that no one is running Hidden Gibbons in their sideboards these days. It's rock solid against just about every deck besides Goblins, and being an enchantment, ahs potential synergy with Tarmogoyf. Just saying.
I played it in the SBs of both Feinstein RG aggro and UGW Threshold. I dropped it from the former because I had to dedicate the whole SB to fight stuff like Jitte, enchantments, or Storm. I dropped it from the latter because the opponent only needed to trigger it if I had another creature on board; this left me open to a nice 2-for-1 against control, so Hidden Gibbons ended up good only vs. aggro-control. But against a-c, Counterbalance was just better.

Citrus-God
08-02-2007, 06:44 AM
I've actually been really tempted to run it in my UGR Thresh sideboard primarily for the UGW mirror... but Threads of Disloyalty, Spellsnare, and even Price of Progress are also really good there, so it's a tough call.

I guess it's just because there isnt enough space for Gibbons in the Sideboard. There's also more stuff like Control Magic and Counterbalance. I guess when the meta gears more towards Aggro-Control, it might be considered.

Lukas Preuss
08-02-2007, 06:54 AM
I'm suprised Threshold doesnt run it....

People around here have been running Hidden Gibbons in Threshold sideboards for at least a year.

Citrus-God
08-02-2007, 07:14 AM
People around here have been running Hidden Gibbons in Threshold sideboards for at least a year.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I guess I was so into the U.S. metagame that I forgot to look at tech in Europe. Sadly, the only time I ever research decks from Europe is when I researched T1T and TPS in Vintage.

Zilla
08-02-2007, 05:12 PM
I guess it's just because there isnt enough space for Gibbons in the Sideboard. There's also more stuff like Control Magic and Counterbalance. I guess when the meta gears more towards Aggro-Control, it might be considered.
Control Magic is just worse than Threads, in my opinion, since the only things I'm really going to want to steal are Jotun Grunt or Tarmogoyf anyway.

As for Counterbalance, I personally find it to be vastly overrated, at least as an SB option for Thresh. Every time I have it brought in against me it seems like I'm either able to answer it or effectively play around it. Particularly in Thresh, where you only have about 12 slots available to counter-style disruption, I'd much rather have a guaranteed answer to the most important threats than a potential answer to all of them.

Citrus-God
08-02-2007, 08:54 PM
Control Magic is just worse than Threads, in my opinion, since the only things I'm really going to want to steal are Jotun Grunt or Tarmogoyf anyway.

Not really. Most games I recall losing are against a resolved Mystic Enforcer. Control Magic makes it possible to steal Enforcer.


As for Counterbalance, I personally find it to be vastly overrated, at least as an SB option for Thresh.

It's rather hard to play around it. Now a days, most games I've won involved Counterbalance.


Every time I have it brought in against me it seems like I'm either able to answer it or effectively play around it.

You answered it. That shows the fear and power level of the card. Besides, playing around it is very hard when up against a strong player who knows the best timing to assemble it.


Particularly in Thresh, where you only have about 12 slots available to counter-style disruption, I'd much rather have a guaranteed answer to the most important threats than a potential answer to all of them.

In the Hatfield variant, there's 10 1cc cantrips, and I tend to set it up early with tons of disruption backed up. Post-board, I treat the deck as a more flexible Scepter Chant with an Aggro mode.

Personally, I find Counterbalance to be very underrated, but that could be going back towards the Portent debate. Oh well, I dont see others doing well with that card other than those in the East Coast, and a handful in the midwest and West Coast.

Zilla
08-02-2007, 09:20 PM
You answered it.
I answered it because it was easy to answer. Sometimes I answer a Birds of Paradise with a Fire/Ice because I have nothing better to do with a Fire/Ice. That doesn't mean that Birds is a powerhouse of a card; I just want to deny my opponent his resources. Counterbalance is a resource and is no different. Sometimes I answer Top+Counterbalance with a Needle because I have nothing else to use a Needle on in the Thresh matchup. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying Counterbalance is a bad card, and I'm not saying it's not worth answering. I'm saying that in my experience, both testing with and against it, it's simply too unreliable to be worth the slots it takes up, when guaranteed counters on my opponent's most important threats tend to be just as effective, if not moreso.

Citrus-God
08-03-2007, 05:47 PM
I answered it because it was easy to answer. Sometimes I answer a Birds of Paradise with a Fire/Ice because I have nothing better to do with a Fire/Ice. That doesn't mean that Birds is a powerhouse of a card; I just want to deny my opponent his resources.

This is true. I have randomly threw out Needles before just to answer something because it was there. It's a resource and you have an answer. May as well answer it.


Counterbalance is a resource and is no different. Sometimes I answer Top+Counterbalance with a Needle because I have nothing else to use a Needle on in the Thresh matchup.

I've done that before. Usually when up against the Counterbalance mirror, I tend to just answer Top, then proceed playing around Counterbalance.


Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying Counterbalance is a bad card, and I'm not saying it's not worth answering. I'm saying that in my experience, both testing with and against it, it's simply too unreliable to be worth the slots it takes up, when guaranteed counters on my opponent's most important threats tend to be just as effective, if not moreso.

Personally, I think it's worth the spaces it takes up, considering the fact I side it in against just about every non-Goblin deck in the format, I think it's a good card to have in trouble matches, especially when you run 10 1cc cantrips, which help you assemble the Combo rather quickly. But that's my opinion, and experience with the card. Thank you for sharing yours.