Vexing Devil or Stromkirk Noble?

44 posts / 0 new
Last post
I'm debating my 1 drop for my Red Deck, and while I like Rakdos Cackler, I am not sure if Stromkirk Noble is better than Vexing Devil. Unanswered, Stromkirk is pretty good. However, I'm not sure if it'll do 4 at a drop. Late game, eh, I don't think it matters all that much. I shouldn't be getting to the late game, anyway.

So between the one drops, which one would you run?
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)
It really depends on your deck. Think about it this way, Vexing Devil almost always just deals 4 damage and then completes its purpose. But in a typical game with your deck, will Stromkirk on average be able to deal less or more than 4 damage before it is killed off or controlled? Ask the same question for Rakdos Cackler, and make your decision based on how much damage it should normally deal before it's done.
I vote Noble and Cackler for your 1-drops.

(at)MrEnglish22

Assuming you're going for basic Red Deck Wins, I would try to make room for both.  Vexing Devil isn't actually that good turn one, I've seen much better plays saving him for later.  Specifically, turn four you can play Devils (when they're getting low on life so it's a hard choice), and if they take 4 you can Brimstone Volley to make it 9.
since vexing devil is an awful magic card, i would say go with noble

Blue is the best color ever. How do you deal?  ------------------------------  Team GFG - "gulf, foxtrot, gulf" 

 

 

I produce Dubstep and House beats:

https://soundcloud.com/burning_forest

 

Best Pauper Deck in the format, not close:

http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2974646#comment-49713276

 

Photobucket

If you are playing RUG Splinterfright, then Vexing Devil is worth the consideration because you get value out of dumping creatures into the graveyard. In a vacuum though, it's 4 damage and a wasted creature card or a creature that is likely to get stopped by a sweeper or bigger creature, and outside of some awkward synergy that isn't enough value on a card per card basis.

Stromkirk Noble on the otherhand is a rapidly snowballing threat that guts another major aggro deck and also has a habit of baiting removal rather quickly, which leaves your opponent with fewer tools to deal with your other threats.
IMAGE(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af108/acatan/sigwynzermancopy.png) Signature by IMAGE(http://www.poke-amph.com/heartgoldsoulsilver/sprites/258.png)
Stromkirk Noble  the oneyou want since humans are popular and u can side in vexing if need be
Stromkirk Noble the oneyou want since humans are popular and u can side in vexing if need be



i can't imagine being in a match and thinking to myself "i need more vexing devil in this matchup"

Blue is the best color ever. How do you deal?  ------------------------------  Team GFG - "gulf, foxtrot, gulf" 

 

 

I produce Dubstep and House beats:

https://soundcloud.com/burning_forest

 

Best Pauper Deck in the format, not close:

http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2974646#comment-49713276

 

Photobucket

Stromkirk Noble the oneyou want since humans are popular and u can side in vexing if need be



i can't imagine being in a match and thinking to myself "i need more vexing devil in this matchup"


Except for the one where I'm playing Ranger of Eos with it =P.

That said, Devil is actually a very good card in some decks. But as pointed out above, it's not really a 1-drop.

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGS1AL.png) Sig by zpikduM.

Vexing is a better late game card. I think the choice falls on your creatures/spells ratio. Vexing is better in a burn deck, Noble is better in a heavy creature deck. Noble needs a few turns to matter. Vexing either has an immediate or next turn effect. In my experience, Noble does little vs humans. Fiend hunter owns him badly.

It varies with your deck, but Vexing is generally better.
Check out my cube!
Show
My sig was so awesome it broke Browsers, [url= http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29455423/For_some_reason...]I had to remove it.[/url] Support Magic Fiction! Or Bolas will eat you
57193048 wrote:
You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:
We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:
69511863 wrote:
Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME! Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha lol
56734518 wrote:
Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
I have 6917 Planeswalker points, that's probably more than you. [c=Hero's Resolve]"Destiny, chance, fate, fortune, mana screw; they're all just ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures." Gerrard of the Weatherlight[/c]
That is just wrong - Vexing Devil is bad to the point of unplayable, just like every other punisher card.

But Stromkirk Noble is much worse now than he was a month ago. The number of Humans around is minimal, and he's frequently going to have to compete in size and evasion with Lotleth.

Assuming you're rigidly married to playing RDW (which is not simply suboptimal but actively bad right now), Noble is probably your second, or Stonewright.
P.S. caring about a 'late game' in RDW is doing it wrong.
Both devil and noble are bad. But being forced to make a choice, I would run devil in anything other than vampire theme deck. 

P.S. caring about a 'late game' in RDW is doing it wrong.


This is false. If you cant run to the finish line, you can't win. Note: I dont mean adding big spells to the deck for 'lategame', but that opponent making it hard for you to win and the game dragging out must be planned for as well.  Deck should be designed so that it allows you to apply damage constantly regardless what opponent plays. Speed is overrated at reliabilitys expense. Most people who don't play aggro think that aggro is all about speed. 

Example of reliability: rakdos keyrune instead of flailer because keyrune dodges terminus, supreme verdict, bonfire, pillar of flame, dreadbore, etc and wrestles thragtusks all day long.

There used to be matchups where you could only win by speed, but thankfully those are now gone (valakut and similar superstrong and impossible to disrupt wincon)  
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional." Proud member of the Rakdos guild
P.S. caring about a 'late game' in RDW is doing it wrong.


Late game for RDW is turn 4 or 5. Noble needs to live for a few turns to be effective. The punisher debate is as old as Judgement. I;m not really interested in having it out again, but for the newer players, I'll summarize.

 I'm on the side of punisher cards are good when both sides are aggressive. browbeat is one of the few of the original for which this is true. Vexing devil is even better in this regard. Also, it's important to recognize that you will always get the worst side. For browbeat this was usually the five damage, since three cards should enable RDW to do six damage. vexing devil's biggest flaw is that sometimes it's just going to block a 5/5, or, worse, come down the turn after a thragtusk. It's best to think of it as a one-mana player only burn spell that fails if your opponent has easy removal or a strong board.

Ultimately, the question is not "Is vexing devil good or bad," but "Is vexing devil better than my alternative, or opportunity cost?" If noble is your alternative, Vexing is the clear winner. rakdos crackler is less clear, since it matches vexing in only a few turns. lava spike vs vexing would be an interesting question, but that's not really relevant.
Check out my cube!
Show
My sig was so awesome it broke Browsers, [url= http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29455423/For_some_reason...]I had to remove it.[/url] Support Magic Fiction! Or Bolas will eat you
57193048 wrote:
You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:
We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:
69511863 wrote:
Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME! Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha lol
56734518 wrote:
Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
I have 6917 Planeswalker points, that's probably more than you. [c=Hero's Resolve]"Destiny, chance, fate, fortune, mana screw; they're all just ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures." Gerrard of the Weatherlight[/c]
Browbeat is neither aggressive nor good.

I will agree that Vexing Devil is the best of them, but it is still intrinsically worse than an equivalent non-punisher card.

I also agree that the parameters of the question as written are "is vexing devil better than alternatives?" To which I disagree with your affirmative answer, but if you're at the point of asking that question you're begging the real question which is "should I be trying either of these at all"? If you're forced by the format to run bad cards, you're just running a bad deck and should jump ship.
Re: RDW Lategame.

It doesnt have one... By design. The RDW strategy ends in the midgame, which is why your curve never goes over 4. The reason is that every card you add that strengthens your late-game dies so at the expense of an early game. RDW deliberately uses less powerful cards overall because those cards are also undercosted and outpower the competitors early game equivalents. Running the card that is better early, regardless if it being worse late, is paramount. Your entire deck is built in the assumption that the game is decided by Turn 6 at the absolute latest. As soon as you change that assumption, you need to completely scrap the entire deck and rebuild.

There are two take home points here. First, because RDW will not win a game that goes long with any level of consistency, you should not make card choices that either only improve that part of the game, since the marginal return is so low, or increase the likelihood the game will go that long.

The second upshot is that if the format means that you will frequently be forced to play a long game, then no matter how well built it is, RDW will never be a winning deck choice. You have to build a completely different deck (red, or otherwise).

Late game for RDW is turn 4 or 5.



Must be nice to think you always play against goldfish. 

ps. I  don't agree with  anything mrindigo said, except about browbeat and deck choice.

pps. For the record, the original RDW piloted by Dave Price with the name "red deck wins 2000"
was not only fast, it was reliable and grindy, and it cursed scrolled you to  death.
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional." Proud member of the Rakdos guild
First off, I want to thank you for all the opinions and debate. I'll steer away from Vexing Devil, and will keep the Noble around till Boros replaces it with something in Gatecrash.

Secondly, in response to Bloodartist. Yes. It doesn't really matter what your opponent's board state is, the majority of the time, you are going to just smash face. You treat your opponent as a Goldfish, no matter how controlly or agro their state is. The builds of RDW available with the current card pool are a variant of Suicide Black. Clear the way, swing with critters, burn for the kill. Functionally, very little differences between the two deck styles.

Also, if there was something akin to Cursed Scroll, I think you'd find most decks would run it. As it stands, Guttersnipe is close enough for some builds.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)

Secondly, in response to Bloodartist. Yes. It doesn't really matter what your opponent's board state is, the majority of the time, you are going to just smash face. You treat your opponent as a Goldfish, no matter how controlly or agro their state is. The builds of RDW available with the current card pool are a variant of Suicide Black. Clear the way, swing with critters, burn for the kill. Functionally, very little differences between the two deck styles.



What I am against is the idea that if you don't  win game quickly with aggro, you don't win it at all. 

No wonder people write off aggros so quickly. "Oh no, opponent played thragtusk, I guess we can move to next game now."
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional." Proud member of the Rakdos guild
just felt like throwing this out there, but i tend to think that red decks are at least one good burn spell away from being playable.  burn is pretty slim pickings right now

Blue is the best color ever. How do you deal?  ------------------------------  Team GFG - "gulf, foxtrot, gulf" 

 

 

I produce Dubstep and House beats:

https://soundcloud.com/burning_forest

 

Best Pauper Deck in the format, not close:

http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2974646#comment-49713276

 

Photobucket

Maybe you don't get how hard it is to deal 20 damage, let alone 25 or worse 30 damage.

Vexing Devil is OKAY, because its the best punisher card ever printed. That said, it isn't a good card in Standard, because we don't have a good, reliable way to deal 20 damage. Think about it like this:

T1: You cast Vexing Devil, they take 4
T2: You cast... what, another Devil and a 1 mana 2/2? They take 4 again and dear god a 2/2 what will they do.
T3: Lets say you got the ZOMG BBQ GOD HAND and cast double Vexing Devil, they take 4 and let one resolve. If not, they either have counterspells or will be casting things that are good blockers, or Centaur Healer, which is a blocker AND negates one of your burn spells!
T4: If I'm correct, Zombies is killing you at this point because they are running better cards.
T5: If you didn't die yet, Zombies will definitely kill you this turn. If you aren't against Zombies, they are either running counterspells, removal, or are casting a Thragtusk, and have already cast stuff that trades with Vexing Devils.

Name the burn spells that make you want to play Vexing Devil. Cards like Lightning Bolt, Flame Rift, Lava Spike, Price of Progress. Things that either deal 3 damage for 1 or 4+ damage for two.

Why do you want cards that deal 3 for 1 or 4+ for two? BECAUSE YOU ONLY GET 7 CARDS IN YOUR OPENING HAND, AND YOU STILL HAVE TO RACE YOUR OPPONENT. If you generally don't kill your opponent by T3 or T4, you aren't going to win, because you will be out of cards in your hand.

You noobs want to know what your "late game" is in mono-red burn? GRIM LAVAMANCER. Thats right, a repeatable shock that works from your graveyard is your lategame reach, because by the time you cast it you have 2 lands in play and 7+ in your graveyard, and every single turn longer you take to kill your opponent decreases your chances of winning. Other options are things like a lucky topdeck, an x-spell, or similar.

The whole point I'm trying to make here is that VEXING DEVIL IS BAD IN STANDARD. It is DECENT IN LEGACY and DECENT IN MODERN.




Now for this little gem of knowledge:



What I am against is the idea that if you don't win game quickly with aggro, you don't win it at all.

No wonder people write off aggros so quickly. "Oh no, opponent played thragtusk, I guess we can move to next game now."



If your deck isn't designed to win as quickly as possible, it isn't an aggro deck. I won't grace this with a response beyond that, because it really shouldn't need one. 

The reason people write off aggro is because most of the time it gets trumped by other decks that get bigger than it faster than the aggro decks can kill it, or because they can't beat the decks around them.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but this past standard was one of the most aggressive in Magic history. Zombies was a top deck (a decidedly aggro deck at the time) and Delver, an "aggro-control," or as WotC calls it, "tempo" deck was the top deck of the format. People play aggro all the time, and it sometimes does become a force in the meta. But THOSE DECKS DONT RUN VEXING DEVIL.

/rant 

(at)MrEnglish22



T1: You cast Vexing Devil, they take 4
T2: You cast... what, another Devil and a 1 mana 2/2? They take 4 again and dear god a 2/2 what will they do.
T3: Lets say you got the ZOMG BBQ GOD HAND and cast double Vexing Devil, they take 4 and let one resolve. If not, they either have counterspells or will be casting things that are good blockers, or Centaur Healer, which is a blocker AND negates one of your burn spells!
T4: If I'm correct, Zombies is killing you at this point because they are running better cards.
T5: If you didn't die yet, Zombies will definitely kill you this turn. If you aren't against Zombies, they are either running counterspells, removal, or are casting a Thragtusk, and have already cast stuff that trades with Vexing Devils.
 


So I guess this is that deck that's all Vexing Devils and Mountains?  Yeah, in that deck he's bad.  But in a normal RDW you can actually do things to interact with your opponent.

Aggro is meant to win as fast as possible, but it's just dumb to not have a plan for late game.   Shrine of Burning Rage did a great job at it recently.  Every RDW list ran some, and it is very much not an aggro card - it takes 5 mana to do something, and takes multiple turns to build it up.  But it was exactly the reach/late game that the deck needed to be viable.  I can agree that mono-red doesn't really have anything good for their late game right now, but it's absolutely necessary that you have a way to win a game that's forced to go long. Otherwise your aggro deck is bad.
Give me a deck list for a mono red deck that runs 4 Vexing Devil. Then I'll give you a million reasons why you should either not play that deck or play something different.

I would also like to take this time to point out that if you have 4 vexing devil in your draws during your first 3 turns, that would mean you have (assuming you are on the play) 6 other cards from your deck. Also said 1 was a 1 mana 2/2, which you should be running if you are going to play a mono red deck. That leaves 5 more cards, at least 2 of which HAVE to be lands that tap for red. Leaves 3 cards up for debate. What 3 cards would you have in that situation that would be good?

So I guess that you shouldn't make assumptions about hypothetical situations? Yeah, that's bad. Just like Vexing Devil. 


Shrine of Burning Rage was good because it provided inevitability, which is something that mono-red decks rarely really have. It was also very much an aggro card in the same way that Flame Rift, Lava Spike, Lightning Bolt, or any other multitude of burn spells are aggro cards. THEY PROVIDE REACH. Shrine is a burn spell. Period. Trying to justify it as a "late game spell" is silly. It was a rather terrible topdeck in most games.
And while it did cost 5 mana to cast and activate, the only relevant cost of the spell was the initial 2 mana investment, because by the time you want to activate shrine, you should either be out of mana and/or the shrine is big enough to kill your opponent. The activation cost was irrelevant.
[Insert piece about "you're an idiot if you want to argue hypothetical artifact removal situations" because I'm not in the mood] 
Shrine was a rather uniqe card for red decks, and I'm assuming you haven't been playing very long, so you should know that generally, mono-red decks don't have that kind of thing.

Also, if you are wanting to play mono-red because you are budget, there are better budget options, such as UW Humans (or GW Humans). If you are assuming "teh infinite monies," then you have many better options than limiting yourself to a card like Vexing Devil.
 

(at)MrEnglish22

To be honest, I'm playing Mono-Red because I like aggro, and I don't like zombies. Call it an irrational hatred, if you will. I like playing with Dragons more than I do dead bodies.

It's not like I couldn't go with the GW Mid-range plan. I have the Thrags, I have the Restro's, I got what I need. The problem is, I don't think it's good. I think, in fact, that the deck is just plain awful. I'd rather be running GW Tokens over GW Midrange.

Right this moment, I am trying to decide between Kastle's Turbored Brew, and my own Flying Ghoosts (Ghosts just need that extra o) brew... which is less Ghost Like than it used to be, but is at least as solid as the Turbored plan. When the prices come down a tad bit after Opening Weekend Fever, I'll probably switch it up and move towards a Seance Combo deck, because I really like Seance.

That said, Vexing Devils was less a budget choice for me, and a entertaining thought between different playsets of 1 drops.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)
Saying you like playing Dragons more than Zombies isn't say a lot. Dargons should be everyone's favorite tribe, because you get to play Form of the Dragon and yell "I'M A DARGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON"

Your ghost build seems a tad slow, and I have no clue what Kastle's current brew is, nor have a clue where to find it.

Seance combo seems cool, but I'm worried it will get too much splash hate (or direct hate, I guess) from Reanimator and Zombies.

And I just really, really hate Vexing Devil. A lot. Even though I traded away like 10 at their super inflated 15 dollar pricemark they were at, I really hate that card. 

(at)MrEnglish22

You're allowed to hate Vexing Devil. I empower you to hate the thing. I'm good with that.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)
That flying ghosts deck is cute. It'd be scary if you cut the 10 non creature cards not named Detention Sphere for other action. Almost anything else will suffice. Azorious Charm, Thought Scour, Detain-Cantrip... you'll prolly use the charm for lifelink to win races often.

Hell I may go test that real quick.

EDIT: Cut Welkin Tern. Use Mindshrieker. Synergy with azorious charm is not a wretched thing.

EDIT2:  WTF is Snapcaster?

Here's something I'd play since I know Lyev Skyknight is a huge dickinz.

4 Nibilis of the Urn
4 Lyev Skyknight
3 Dungeon Geists
3 Snapcaster Mage
3 Skymark Roc
3 Serra Avenger
4 MindShrieker

4 Azorious Charm
4 Thought Scour
4 Detention Sphere

24 Lands 

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Thank you for the feedback, Niche. I'm not sold on Thought Scour (Don't want to mill me, don't want to give my opponent salvage), but the rest look good. Might be a while till I get Snappies, but I can live with the rest.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)


Here's something I'd play ...


24 Lands [that don't tap for black]



Now I'm confused ...

Maybe you haven't noticed, but this past standard was one of the most aggressive in Magic history.
 



It certainly wasn't. I've been playing standard for 18 years or however long standard has  existed. The scars-innistrad standard was pitiful in terms of aggressiveness. I don't think I can offhand remember any standard, that was weaker than scars-innistrad in terms of aggressiveness. Maybe some kamigawa block when I was on a hiatus. 

The  current standard will be more aggressive. It already is. 

But, since we apparently were talking about different things; you were talking about how the decks should be built, and I was talking about how decks function, its best that we don't continue the argument.

It is possible that the red decks in new standard will be aggressive enough to consider vexing devil a valid play.  
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional." Proud member of the Rakdos guild
Zombies is not playing faster cards than red.  Red eats zombies because of its lack of ability of block and pillar of flame, zombies does better overall because of its resilience to removal.  Supreme verdict kills RDW and forces it to restart or hope it gets enough burn for reach, it's a speed bump for zombies.

That said, my one drops of choice are stromkirk (blows when they drop turn 2 centaur or elephant, but otherwise tends to snowball out of control), rakdos cackler, and stonewright (who is awesome with hasty guys as the game goes on, and especially awesome with hasty guys with first strike, but is weaker turn one than the other one drops.).
Stonewright is awful. The only time you would ever have mana to firebreath would be in the lategame, and there are better things to do then. No, the 1-drops are cackler and stromkirk noble. Noble is decent at least in the red aggromirror because the creatures that normally CAN block in an unleash deck, zealot and shred-freak, can't actually block noble because they are humans. Noble is ok as long as it isn't  the ONLY  1-drop like in previous standard..

Currently I am not in any shape or form, afraid of supreme verdict. Thats like, "K, take five" and then next turn whoopsie!

I played against a grixis control in last FNM and I pretty much molested it. I love having cards that actually have multi-functional uses against control. But tbh controls aren't very tuned yet. They will be perfectly viable eventually for sure. I think meta will  be somewhat like, control beats midrange, midrange beats aggro, aggro beats control. Standard is going to be sooo fun! 

I also think that there is no reason to play mono-red over rakdos color aggro. BR just gets so many goodies, and doesn't give anything up  besides ability to play black 1-drops like diregraf ghoul. Apart from that it can play everything that mono-red can, and tons of good stuff from black besides. BR is quite reliable enough mana-wise. I can barely believe how many interesting deckbuilding options I have and standard is at its smallest!
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional." Proud member of the Rakdos guild
Taking my thread and continuing to move it off topic, I don't give a rats patootie about Zombies anymore, and I'm almost ready to jump outta agro. I don't know *where* this deck came from, as I didn't see anyone talking about it anywhere, but I saw too many tables trashed by Loxidon Smiter last night. A turn 2 4/4 is just unreal.

Oh, sure, Mizzium Mortars will take care of it, but geeze. Time to work on a control deck...
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)
stop wasting your time and play either Geralf's Messenger and some janky Zombie itteration, or blink some Thragtusks in some random shell.  Stop trying so hard making decks for standard.  It's a complete joke.  Just have 28 creatures and make 4 of them either thragtusk or geralf.  Awful
Stonewright is awful.



Going to have to disagree.  I had Stonewright get over 10 damage in for me when I mana flooded and the game reached turn 6 after a thragtusk hit turn 5. It was relevant early on a few different occasions because I paired it with Ash Zealot making it impossible for them to block profitably and it was useful against control because it allowed me to just fireball every turn without overextending into terminus/supreme verdict while leaving some gas in my hand (in one particular game it was lightning mauler and rakdos cackler, giving me the last 4 damage I needed).

The only time you would ever have mana to firebreath would be in the lategame, and there are better things to do then.



Things that are also useful in the early game?

No, the 1-drops are cackler and stromkirk noble. Noble is decent at least in the red aggromirror because the creatures that normally CAN block in an unleash deck, zealot and shred-freak, can't actually block noble because they are humans. Noble is ok as long as it isn't  the ONLY  1-drop like in previous standard..



I run 12 one drops in my red based rakdos deck, you should too.  I dropped Vexing devil for Stonewright.


Edit:  And to back my point...

#12 at SCG this weekend, top "mostly red" deck.


Maybe you haven't noticed, but this past standard was one of the most aggressive in Magic history.
 



It certainly wasn't. I've been playing standard for 18 years or however long standard has  existed. The scars-innistrad standard was pitiful in terms of aggressiveness. I don't think I can offhand remember any standard, that was weaker than scars-innistrad in terms of aggressiveness. Maybe some kamigawa block when I was on a hiatus. 

The  current standard will be more aggressive. It already is. 

But, since we apparently were talking about different things; you were talking about how the decks should be built, and I was talking about how decks function, its best that we don't continue the argument.

It is possible that the red decks in new standard will be aggressive enough to consider vexing devil a valid play.  




Fair, won't continue to argue, but this is a serious question:
Beyond obviously rediculous combo decks (Academy, Affinity) what aggro decks were able to consistently win on turns 4-5 in standard? Maybe the earliest RDW decks, and maybe mono-green stompy on a good day, but I'm drawing blanks.

(at)MrEnglish22

White Weenie, Boros, Zoo, Gruul, Affinity, Suicide Black all goldfish Turn 4 or better.
White Weenie, Boros, Zoo, Gruul, Affinity, Suicide Black all goldfish Turn 4 or better.



I would also like to point out that Affinity, Zoo, Boros and Gruul all came off of each other back to back there was never a time when a T4 Agro deck was not in Standard for the entire time between Kamigawa and till Lorwyn rotated in and replaced Ravnica.
And it's said that youth's ,well only tragedy Is being unoriginal
89522235 wrote:
niche's solution to everything is always MOAR BLACK! "ok, my legacy mono black control deck is getting hated out by light of day..." "MOAR BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Are we seriously using goldfishing as the baseline for the aggressiveness of the format? REALLY?

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGS1AL.png) Sig by zpikduM.

White Weenie, Boros, Zoo, Gruul, Affinity, Suicide Black all goldfish Turn 4 or better.



i've been turn 3'ed by infect

Blue is the best color ever. How do you deal?  ------------------------------  Team GFG - "gulf, foxtrot, gulf" 

 

 

I produce Dubstep and House beats:

https://soundcloud.com/burning_forest

 

Best Pauper Deck in the format, not close:

http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2974646#comment-49713276

 

Photobucket

Are we seriously using goldfishing as the baseline for the aggressiveness of the format? REALLY?



Damn strait.

And I'm playing Scepters this season.