[Deck] Red Death

[feuerizer]

Telling him what slots NOT to test Confidant in really doesn't help. If you don't think he should test Bob in either the Burn or Sinkhole slots, tell him where it should be tested and why. If you are simply saying that you like the current build better than any Confidant build, that is fine, but isn't really useful to someone who clearly wants to test the card in this deck.

It is not my intention to be negative or counter-productive.

The Confidant issue has been discussed for a long time and been dismissed.

In my opinion you have to put Confidant in the weakest spot in order to improve the deck. This spot is anurid. Well, Anurid is just one card.

Confidant is a card for a more controlish deck type. There is a deck for him and that is Deadguy Ale aka Bw Confidant.

[Firebrothers]

I also find myself boarding in jitte in just about every matchup and am thinking about including them in the main deck. Could the extra removal and versatility of 2-3 jitte main deck be enough to cut one chain lightning, sinkholes and wastelands for 4 chrome mox, 3 bob and 2 jitte.

A few times in my games I have opened first turn land, mox, dude, Second turn land, ritual, jitte, equip swing. That is pretty strong and I think it is about time red death sped up a little to keep up with the fast combo and fast aggro decks without completely losing to mid to late game decks.

[feuerizer]

Could the extra removal and versatility of 2-3 jitte main deck be enough to cut one chain lightning, sinkholes and wastelands for 4 chrome mox, 3 bob and 2 jitte.

The problem with Jitte as a removal is, that it needs to connect at least twice to kill a creature with toughness 3. Chain Lightning does kill directly.
The other thing is, Jitte is slow.

Otherwise in combination with Chrome Mox it speeds up.

Just try your version!
The extra speed may rescue the card disadvantage.

I am very interesting in hearing your results!

[Anarky87]

Withered Wretch is better than Dark Confidant:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showp...&postcount=400

Rakdos Guildmage is better than Dark Confidant:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showp...&postcount=437

It is discussed with a final result, Dark Condifdant does not belong in Red Death:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showp...&postcount=455

Even drawing a Burn spell from Dark Confidant won't deal any damage at all:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=64

As I've come to expect, that post was of no use. Like, at all. Only a few people saying why they wouldn't play Confidant. I'm not one of them and I think the deck needs tightened up so it can adapt in the new meta.

The Confidant issue has been discussed for a long time and been dismissed.

Discussed, I would agree with. Dismissed, I don't entirely agree with. Sexy Rector played a version MDing Confidant to a first place win at trial side event and I'm willing to try this out because the deck needs some way to replenish its early rush.

In my opinion you have to put Confidant in the weakest spot in order to improve the deck. This spot is anurid. Well, Anurid is just one card.

Ever since I've picked up the deck, I've never felt Anurid to be a weak spot. What I haven't been impressed with here recently is Hypnotic Specter. I love ritualing him out turn 1 and beating down while he disrupts, but casting him turn 3 is down right retarded. I like the Specter for what he does against Control and that he has evasion, but to me he has been the weakest among the creatures.

Confidant is a card for a more controlish deck type. There is a deck for him and that is Deadguy Ale aka Bw Confidant.

Confidant fits right in with a deck that spends turns 1-4/5 playing disruption spells and fast beats. Ironically, that's what this deck is: Fast disruption and big beats to finish the game. When you've exhausted those resources, you'll want something to help you rebuild and keep the pressure up. I see Confidant fitting this bill.

I've played this deck for a long time and I contributed to this thread in the past. But when the deck started underperforming for me, I put it aside and pursued other decks. I've always seen people complaining about needing some manipulation and then immediately write off the dude who can help solve that. The only thing I can tell you is actually try him out in the deck for an extended period and then make your judgement from there. That's what I'm doing.

[Tao]

either you didnt read my links or your sarcasm detector needs to be repaired ... i like confiant!

i suggested him a hundred times and always got flamed

[feuerizer]

Ever since I've picked up the deck, I've never felt Anurid to be a weak spot. What I haven't been impressed with here recently is Hypnotic Specter. I love ritualing him out turn 1 and beating down while he disrupts, but casting him turn 3 is down right retarded. I like the Specter for what he does against Control and that he has evasion, but to me he has been the weakest among the creatures.

Your argument concerning playing Specter on turn 3 is right. In such a situation he is only good when you have intensively disrupted your opponent. So it is a winmore card.

Ok, lets give Confidant another try.

Maybe this configuration:

-1 Anurid
-2 Specter

+3 Confidant

What do You think??

[Galroth]

Your argument concerning playing Specter on turn 3 is right. In such a situation he is only good when you have intensively disrupted your opponent. So it is a winmore card.

I'm not sure I understand/agree with your logic here.

To my mind Hypnotic Specter, when played on turn 3, is best when you have NOT intensively disrupted your opponent. If you haven't disrupted your opponent they are likely maintaining a decent hand. When could you need Specter more? I don't believe Specter counts as a win-more card in this circumstance. That is not to say he isn't also good when they have 0 cards in hand and you're forcing your opponent to play his (or her...) draw every turn.

Red Death's strategy is disruption with fast efficient beats. Admittedly Specter is not the best of either world, but he combines the two better than any other card, imo. I highly recommend he stays, I'm quite frankly surprised this is even a consideration. If evidence is needed examine the creature base of every Red Death deck to t8. 12 creatures in every deck that has placed are the same; Specter is one of them. Don't let a streak of bad luck or unfortunate events convince you otherwise.

That said I'll refrain from discussing the real issue at hand; Confidant.

[feuerizer]

I'm not sure I understand/agree with your logic here.

I mean that a Specter on turn 3 is very often dead before it is even able to attack.
If the hand and land of your opponent got disrupted, Specter´s survival chance is higher. Thus he helps you to continue the disruption.

Otherwise you can play a Negator and use your disruption spells to protect him.

Don´t get me wrong, I like Specter, but when I have to choose between playing him and a bigger creature I normally choose the bigger one.

Do you think the standard list is the right one?

[thefreakaccident]

Hi, new to the discussion.... but I have been following for a couple of days now.

I used to pilot pikula every once and again, Confidant is a staple in that deck due to the fact that it needs to draw into more disruption to seal the game.

this deck does not, it disrupts the gamestate just enough to make your opponent unresponsive so you can kill them quickly with your awesome beatsticks.

Confidant is unnessessary in this deck!

he does not put preesures on the opponents board/life, which is what your creatures should be most worried about.

he does not help your bad MUs, and is a winmore against control (This is control's worst nightmare BTW). Confidant NEVER survives long enough to draw a single card against goblins (which is the most prominent deck in the format, just in case you did not know). I would run wretched anurid/giant instead, seeing as the other best creatures for the deck are already here (Negator, shade, hippie... yes he needs to stay).

[Galroth]

It's quite true that on turn 3 if you haven't already disrupted your opponent, then your Specter will not live to make use of his ability. I discounted this because the same would apply for Negator, Shade, etc.

I know this wasn't brought up, so it's not by any means meant to refute what you said; however, if I have my choice of a turn 3 creature to play, I would almost always toss out Specter first. If they have removal, better Specter takes it than Negator or Shade the next turn. If they don't, then Specter's disruption is generally better than having the extra few points of damage Negator or Shade may provide. Again these are generalizations, context would always determine my play. This doesn't address the issue of where or not Specter is better than other black creatures (I do think he is). Red Death requires disruption elements, there is not another creature out there that also provides the kind of disruption that Specter can.

Do I think the standard list is the right one... This should be fun to answer :)

I have a bias towards rogue decks. I love innovation and I like to see the use of large card pools to create metas with massive diversity. Basically this is the reason I choose to play legacy. While I do like innovation, I think Red Death's standard list is very close to optimal. The weakest creature spots are undeniably Giants/Annurids in my opinion. Could they be replaced with Confidant? Well, they have been and to a degree of success, but I imagine it depends on your meta. I'm in agreement with Anwar that Confidant is not a threat and he replaces tempo with card advantage. This is probably needed in a control/combo heavy field where you need constant disruption. It matters very little if your clock is a turn or 2 quicker because the really important point is to stall them. Confidant + Discard is simply better in that kind of environment. Against aggro... well the current list runs a couple of Jitte. I think that move probably isn't warranted unless you're constantly facing Gobbos and the like. In an aggro environment you need fat creatures and quicker tempo so that you're playing the beatdown. I think Confidant is the wrong choice here.

Like I mentioned earlier, Red Death really has two elements: Disruption and Efficient beats. Depending on the meta these elements need different balances. Confidant is not an efficient beat (though he may draw you into more). However, he does bring a constant stream of disruption to your opponenet.

My current expirementation with Red Death: I think Flesh Reaver warrants more consideration. He is a huge risk, but in my experience the risk is marginally better than worse. I think I'd cut the Jitte and sideboard it for Goblins, etc. I'd probably go to 3 Reaver and 3 Confidant. I don't really want to see 2 of either in my opening hand, and I've never been fully comfortable with just 16 creatures; 18 is more to my liking.

I must admit I haven't played Red Death in awhile. I've been toying primarily with a Sui-Black build that runs about 2/3rds of the same cards as Red Death. And I've been tinkering with ideas for Green Death, none of which have panned out yet. Green just provides some direction to the deck which Red is incapable of taking, while still maintaining a tempo near equal to Red Death. EDIT: Oh, and Discard... always playing Discard. No, it's good! Really!

[Anarky87]

either you didnt read my links or your sarcasm detector needs to be repaired ... i like confiant!

i suggested him a hundred times and always got flamed

Sorry, I was at work and they weren't working. I just assumed (wrongly) that they were something against Confidant. My apologies.

Confidant is unnessessary in this deck!

I disagree with this. Confidant works in Deadguy because it allows them to continually put disruption pieces into their hand to compensate for the deck blowing itself out on resources early in the game. It plays Shade and it plays Specter, and it also plays a big beat stick in Grunt. Confidant is excellent here because after exploding with Duress, Hymn, Sinkhole, maybe Vindicate or a creature, you can throw down a Confidant and rebuild your hand and keep your tempo going while your opponent will most likely rely on the top of their deck. I fail to see how this use for Confidant can't be ported to RD.

he does not put preesures on the opponents board/life, which is what your creatures should be most worried about.

In addition to Confidant, you also play 4 Negators, 4 Shades, 3 Giants, and an Anurid. Their either 5/5's, 3/3's, or have the ability to be ginormous. While you're beating face with Negator/Shade/Giant/etc Confidant can also be putting more creatures/disruption/removal into your hand in addition to attacking.

he does not help your bad MUs

That hasn't been determined because so far I've only heard conjecture. Yet someone who did try it in the deck did extremely well with it. What bad matchups are we talking about? Loam? Reanimtor? None of your other creatures helped there either.

and is a winmore against control (This is control's worst nightmare BTW).

I can't see him being win more against Control. You put him down, he draws you cards, which is what you want against control. Everytime I've beaten Red Death with Landstill, was because I was able to stablize with a bomb, kill their board and leave them scrambling for answers off the top. Confidant helps this. I did it last night when I had 2 Confidants in play attacking. Even though he Deeded them away, they had put even more creatures in my hand, letting me seal the deal. So far he's been an all-star against control.

Confidant NEVER survives long enough to draw a single card against goblins (which is the most prominent deck in the format, just in case you did not know).

Never? I mean, really? Never?! Every time you've played him they've had an answer or he's never survived an upkeep? Do you shuffle your opponents deck? I'm gonna have to disagree, because I've played games where he has survived and has drawn me cards. They have the potential to nuke him early, but not every single time. This is conjecture more than anything, and pretty poor at that. That's not a way to make an argument (in case you didn't know).

If evidence is needed examine the creature base of every Red Death deck to t8. 12 creatures in every deck that has placed are the same; Specter is one of them. Don't let a streak of bad luck or unfortunate events convince you otherwise.

That doesn't mean the creature base can't be altered. To me, Specter seems to do the least amount of work for the deck. The deck has been described as disruption and fast/efficient beats. Specter is not fast unless he's powered out turn 1 or 2. While a turn 3 Specter gives the opponent enough time to handle him if needed. Especially, as you described, if you haven't significantly disrupted the opponent.

I don't know how to fit him in, but I haven't been missing Specter in testing.

[nitewolf9]

Hypnotic specter has been gold for me so many times. The evasion is priceless and his ability is devastating, and he also carries a jitte like a champ (post board). He is excellent against goblins where confidant just sits there and dies to fanatic/gempalm, or just can't get damage through because every goblin blocks him on the ground and kills him. He's a conditional draw spell in a format where every deck needs to deal with a 1/1 on turn 1. I disagree with the inclusion of confidant in this deck, even though I may have tried it in the past, simply because it ignores the mantra of red death; tempo, tempo, tempo. Confidant does not help you with tempo and puts cards in your hand (if you're lucky) that become progressively worse as the game goes on. Having an ass of 2+ makes a huge difference.
Confidant is in fact extremely powerful with the right strategy but I don't think his home is here. That's at least my view of it.

[feuerizer]

I'm in agreement with Anwar that Confidant is not a threat and he replaces tempo with card advantage.

Right.

But there is still the problem that an recovering opponent can kill you easily while you sit there and draw crap (in that situation).

Could they be replaced with Confidant?

To me its quite difficult to squeeze Confidant in the deck because every card in the deck is needed.



I think we just have to discuss on a basis of facts, therefore I encourage serious testing.

[tylerwylie]

Right.

But there is still the problem that an recovering opponent can kill you easily while you sit there and draw crap (in that situation).



To me its quite difficult to squeeze Confidant in the deck because every card in the deck is needed.



I think we just have to discuss on a basis of facts, therefore I encourage serious testing.

I can't wait to get my hands on some Badlands to play this deck. I think Confidant is more a personal preference then a better or worse card. It can draw you the disruption you need, but what if he was already a piece of disruption? Sure he holds Jitte fine, but I'm not too sure about him, but he's definitely good enough to go in this deck, and if you don't play him there's good reason for that as well.

[feuerizer]

I can't wait to get my hands on some Badlands to play this deck.

It will be pure fun, I promise!

Nothing is better than trampling with a Negator over a red-player.

You ripped his hand, killed his creatures and all he can do is shoot his lonely topdecked bolts at your Negator which never stops being hungry for flesh.

[blackguard90]

I play:

4x gator
4x shade
4x hyppy
3x giant
3x confidant

3x Chain lightning
4x L-bolt
4x duress
4x dark
4x hymn
3x umezawa's jitte

7x fetches
4x badlands
9x swamp

I found this too be very good, more geared towards aggro, but retaining disruption. I found that in several match-ups, sinkholes and wastelands would have helped. The sideboard helps greatly against combo or control, while the main deck is a lot more aggressive than the traditional 8x LD red death.Confidant is good, but most of the time, he gets smoked the turn he comes into play. And jitte is fricking amazing... Active jitte = win against 75% of decks, and with 7 pieces of burn as removal and reach being drawn by confidant, you are much more agressive.

[264505]

Does this deck still need manabase disruption? Sinkholes are rarely seen ,probably cause they run like 20 each, but since combo is on the rise you could run the stuff were debating over in its spot like bob or jitte. Could sinkhloe be the card thats dropped to make room? Maybe moved to the board?

[Nihil Credo]

Sinkholes without Wastelands are nigh-worthless, and vice-versa. However, I still prefer to keep them both in, especially since Urborg alleviates the colorscrew issues. I prefer to get one more turn of beatdown against control before they sweep the board than hope I get to recover from the sweeper on the back of a 2/1.

[feuerizer]

Sinkholes without Wastelands are nigh-worthless, and vice-versa.

Concerning the Sinkholes, I agree with you.

But a well-timed Wasteland can easily buy you a turn in certain situations.

Thus I would keep 3 or 4 Wastelands, just for the luck of pushing a mana screwed opponent over the edge.

[264505]

Heres my list ive been testing with, any suggestions?

// Lands
4 [ON] Bloodstained Mire
3 [ON] Polluted Delta
3 [B] Badlands
5 [UG] Swamp
4 [TE] Wasteland
1 [PC] Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth

// Creatures
4 [UD] Phyrexian Negator
4 [TO] Nantuko Shade
4 [9E] Hypnotic Specter
4 [RAV] Dark Confidant
2 [OD] Rotting Giant
1 [ON] Wretched Anurid

// Spells
4 [US] Dark Ritual
4 [US] Duress
4 [AT] Hymn to Tourach
2 [BOK] Umezawa's Jitte
4 [4E] Lightning Bolt
3 [LG] Chain Lightning

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [7E] Engineered Plague
SB: 4 [GP] Leyline of the Void
SB: 3 [AL] Contagion
SB: 4 [AL] Dystopia