Do you think the lack of Garruk is a hinderance to this deck? After all, wouldn't it be possible to simply push in some more forests in place of mountains considering the flexible costs of a number of your cards? After all, that'd give you the lategame overrun ability, and it'd also allow for chameleon colossus, which I've found to be exemplary as a two-of. However, my deck DOES run less burn than yours, so you may not need such a manahungry finisher, and thus the heavy red basis of your deck is more stable. Thoughts? Also: Why no reflecting pools?
Do you think the lack of Garruk is a hinderance to this deck? After all, wouldn't it be possible to simply push in some more forests in place of mountains considering the flexible costs of a number of your cards? After all, that'd give you the lategame overrun ability, and it'd also allow for chameleon colossus, which I've found to be exemplary as a two-of. However, my deck DOES run less burn than yours, so you may not need such a manahungry finisher, and thus the heavy red basis of your deck is more stable. Thoughts? Also: Why no reflecting pools?
firstly the 3x 4cc spot which is currently being occupied by murederous redcap is by no way fixed and i can see it being replaces as i feel there may be better cards for that slot, however, testing will tell. in regards to garruk, i look at the decks key aim, being: get in for early beats to single digits and burn the rest of the way. for this reason every card in this deck focuses on this goal, there was an article written by Flores (or maybe chapin) which discussed the idea that an aggro deck shouldnt have a back up plan. i believe garruk is going to do two things to the deck, make it more reactive, and less pro active by making me play cards that dont help me,in essence while he is amazing, i dont see him fitting in with this deck a.k.a doing damage NOW. the other problem is that he is double green, and while this is not neccesarily a problem, i do have a big problem with losing consistancy, a mana base supporting a turn four garruk MAY cause me to lose key plays early, get flodded with green, or not cast my javelin on turn three (or 4 for that matter) - but like i said, testing will tell and i will test garruk, and like you said i dont need such a mana hungry finsisher/overrun ablitly as i do have more burn,
and as to why no reflecting pools, my answer is simple, the deck simply does not need them, at any given time i need to be able to produce triple red and one green, if i had reflecting pools, for it to do what i want to do, i would already have to have another green source, so accordingly i dont play them, especially as they may create problematic situations e.g drawing 2 as my only lands, or having one and a fire-lit thicket, in this deck, mountains are just infinately better, and as you can see, this mana base is watertight at the moment, i have not had a single problem with it, but as i said, i generally test with the most reliable mana base possible,
here is the list i am currently testing at the moment,NB:still in very early stages and is a VERY ROUGH draft but i played Gruul throughout all of RAV/TSP and have been playing RDW ever since RAV left, (ive only been playing since RAV so G/R is basically all ive played)
anywho to the list,
Old School Gruul (OSG);
Land (21) 4xKarplusan Forest 4xFirelit Thicket 13xMountain -3 Mountain +1 Pendelhaven +3 Treetop Village
no man-lands yet, i need to test the decks base and resiliance before i even think of adding tap lands of colourless mana to the mix, however i have played about 9 games with it so far and havent had a problem casting anything so for the mean time its sweet the way it is, especially as i like to test with the most stable mana base possible
creatures are working really well at the moment , not 100% sure on the redcap, but i havent had a problem casting it and it works in really with the core concept of the deck, the rest are all self explanitory
Redcap is absolutely unplayable. -IF- there are 4cc cards in Gruul, they should be played only if they're good enough to win the game. Stuff like Stonewood Invocation, Garruk, Boartusk Liege. As Mr_Indigo said on another thread, "Redcap is what I'd like a 2-drop to be. -MAYBE- a 3-drop. As a 4-drop, it's absolutely unplayable." What he said is right. While the Redcap -CAN- create 2-for-1 situations, or burn them for 2, you'll be much happier running... well... anything.
0Firearm0 wrote:
16 burn spells seem to be a good mix at the moment , any more and you tend to draw handfulls of burn, which is ok but the critters really need to get your opponent down to about 10 by the 3rd turn and then just burn face, which it does really well,
Absolutely right. I've found 14 burn spells to work well for me, but if you can fit in 16, by all means do. Over 16 means that you should really consider turning it into Red Deck Wins with 24+ burn spells.
0Firearm0 wrote:
i think that this deck is going to be a real competitor for the regionals/nationals season and i am going to be a real advocate of it. i really dont think that RDW/RDL variants are going to be viable options with the amount of lifegain
I agree with you and look forward to your thoughtful and intelligent (I can already tell they will be, ) posts here! Gruul Beats is definitely back. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BurnBait wrote:
Do you think the lack of Garruk is a hinderance to this deck? After all, wouldn't it be possible to simply push in some more forests in place of mountains considering the flexible costs of a number of your cards? After all, that'd give you the lategame overrun ability, and it'd also allow for chameleon colossus, which I've found to be exemplary as a two-of. However, my deck DOES run less burn than yours, so you may not need such a manahungry finisher, and thus the heavy red basis of your deck is more stable. Thoughts? Also: Why no reflecting pools?
Reflecting Pool is very good. I recommend running it as a 3-of.
Garruk is very good, but needs to be tested in this deck to see if we have better options as a 4cc slot. Burn is also very good. It really depends on the meta / card preference you choose. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0Firearm0 wrote:
firstly the 3x 4cc spot which is currently being occupied by murederous redcap is by no way fixed and i can see it being replaces as i feel there may be better cards for that slot, however, testing will tell. in regards to garruk, i look at the decks key aim, being: get in for early beats to single digits and burn the rest of the way. for this reason every card in this deck focuses on this goal, there was an article written by Flores (or maybe chapin) which discussed the idea that an aggro deck shouldnt have a back up plan. i believe garruk is going to do two things to the deck, make it more reactive, and less pro active by making me play cards that dont help me,in essence while he is amazing, i dont see him fitting in with this deck a.k.a doing damage NOW.
Very, very good point. You're probably right, but I think Garruk needs to be tested thoroughly before we can disregard him so easily.
0Firearm0 wrote:
the other problem is that he is double green, and while this is not neccesarily a problem, i do have a big problem with losing consistancy, a mana base supporting a turn four garruk MAY cause me to lose key plays early, get flodded with green, or not cast my javelin on turn three (or 4 for that matter) - but like i said, testing will tell and i will test garruk, and like you said i dont need such a mana hungry finsisher/overrun ablitly as i do have more burn,
Well, I don't really have too much of a problem with the double green. The only hard-to-cast spell in the deck is Flame Javelin, which is why your deck should be base red, but other than that, running " for " lands shouldn't be a problem because most other spells are .
0Firearm0 wrote:
and as to why no reflecting pools, my answer is simple, the deck simply does not need them, at any given time i need to be able to produce triple red and one green, if i had reflecting pools, for it to do what i want to do, i would already have to have another green source, so accordingly i dont play them, especially as they may create problematic situations e.g drawing 2 as my only lands, or having one and a fire-lit thicket, in this deck, mountains are just infinately better, and as you can see, this mana base is watertight at the moment, i have not had a single problem with it, but as i said, i generally test with the most reliable mana base possible,
I disagree a little bit here, but I do think running an "as consistent as possible" land base is a good idea to start off. I've already moved onto 3x Reflecting Pool and 3x Treetop Village, because I already have experience playing with them in sligh. Eventually, we'll find the right base. My list looks very similar to yours, Firearm, so we can work together on that, :D. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for all of the great insight! This archetype is off to a great start, and most o the cards havent even been released yet, .
Ok... i have a decklist now... completely different from before, after talking with banksy about card choices... but i have the same problem... I need to cut one card... anyways here's the list... Benjerman's Gruul deck wins
you actually need the permission of an FL (I think) to put an archetype tag in your thread. If you indeed have the permission then I will fully endorse this service.
You don't need permission to put the tag on, you just need permission to be on the official list... at least thats how i remember it from when i started my DtB... Either way, Banksy you probably want to talk to Atma about this...
I have to disagree with you. Before, I thought the same thing, and planned on making a GR Aggro (Gruul and Warriors) thread without the Red Deck Wins.
However, I really noticed that RDW is a pretty basic deck idea. You run some creatures and burn, or no creatures, and burn. The good burn spells are known universally, there really isn't any discussion about which burn spells are good and which are bad. There's no need to discuss it because it's obvious. There's no need to experiment with anything new because A)Nothing new is experiment-worthy, and B)The deck is already winning without the new experimental stuff. The RDW decklists are pretty much set it stone, and there's not much to discuss about them. All there is to discuss is that "here is a decklist, play this." The last few pages of the thread are all about BR and GR aggro anyway. Instead of having a thread for GR Warriors that will include almost all of the same cards as Classic Gruul, having a RDW thread that will only discuss new experimental things (*Classic Gruul*), and having a Classic Gruul thread, let's roll it all into one, the GR Aggro Archetype, because, we're all more or less playing and talking about very similar decks. Beat face, burn face, win.
it's almost insulting that you think that the RDW decklist is set in stone. others and i have spent many hours working on those lists, and while new cards have decreased diversity due to how awesome they are, this doesn't mean that experimentation isn't good. remember when it used to be a rule to have 3+ keldon megaliths? that turned out to be a dud. the metagame is shifting all of the time, and now that there's a new set coming out, i doubt that we will abandon talking about new ways to approach the deck because "it's 100% perfect".
i know you want people to visit your thread because it makes you feel cool, but we have a RDW thread, and i think if anyone wanted to talk about it they would talk about it there. i'm 100% positive that RDW players don't want their conversations bundled with RG Warriors, or decks running llanowar elves and troll ascetic.
also, isn't there a Warriors thread also? why are you combining a bunch of different decks into one thread?
it's almost insulting that you think that the RDW decklist is set in stone. others and i have spent many hours working on those lists, and while new cards have decreased diversity due to how awesome they are, this doesn't mean that experimentation isn't good. remember when it used to be a rule to have 3+ keldon megaliths? that turned out to be a dud. the metagame is shifting all of the time, and now that there's a new set coming out, i doubt that we will abandon talking about new ways to approach the deck because "it's 100% perfect".
i know you want people to visit your thread because it makes you feel cool, but we have a RDW thread, and i think if anyone wanted to talk about it they would talk about it there. i'm 100% positive that RDW players don't want their conversations bundled with RG Warriors, or decks running llanowar elves and troll ascetic.
also, isn't there a Warriors thread also? why are you combining a bunch of different decks into one thread?
This is what I said:
Banksy]However, I really noticed that RDW is a pretty basic deck idea. You run some creatures and burn, or no creatures, and burn.
Is this not correct? The deck is usually 20+ burn spells and 16- creatures, or very little creatures and around 32+ burn spells. At least, the most successful builds that I've seen have been either one or the other.
However, I really noticed that RDW is a pretty basic deck idea. You run some creatures and burn, or no creatures, and burn.[/quote] Is this not correct? The deck is usually 20+ burn spells and 16- creatures, or very little creatures and around 32+ burn spells. At least, the most successful builds that I've seen have been either one or the other.
Banksy]The good burn spells are known universally, there really isn't any discussion about which burn spells are good and which are bad. There's no need to discuss it because it's obvious.
I can't see how you can argue with this...
The good burn spells are known universally, there really isn't any discussion about which burn spells are good and which are bad. There's no need to discuss it because it's obvious.[/quote] I can't see how you can argue with this...
Banksy]There's no need to experiment with anything new because A)Nothing new is experiment-worthy, and B)The deck is already winning without the new experimental stuff. The RDW decklists are pretty much set it stone, and there's not much to discuss about them. All there is to discuss is that "here is a decklist, play this."
I assume this was a little bit too harsh, and I apologize. However, out of the current card pool in Type 2, I really do not think that any new card is significant enough to take the slot of an already existing card in the deck. The deck uses the best creatures and burn available, and doesn't need anything else. The posts on the thread are becoming more and more R/x Aggro based, and I thought that it would be a good idea to flat-out make a database thread for all RG Aggro, because most of the lists are VERY VERY VERY similar, focusing on - Beat face, burn face, win.
People on the DtB Maintenence thread have been debating how we should re-organize the DtB thread so that there are not 999,999 threads about essentially the same decks floating around, and I thought this could be the answer. I'm sorry if you disagree.
There's no need to experiment with anything new because A)Nothing new is experiment-worthy, and B)The deck is already winning without the new experimental stuff. The RDW decklists are pretty much set it stone, and there's not much to discuss about them. All there is to discuss is that "here is a decklist, play this."[/quote] I assume this was a little bit too harsh, and I apologize. However, out of the current card pool in Type 2, I really do not think that any new card is significant enough to take the slot of an already existing card in the deck. The deck uses the best creatures and burn available, and doesn't need anything else. The posts on the thread are becoming more and more R/x Aggro based, and I thought that it would be a good idea to flat-out make a database thread for all RG Aggro, because most of the lists are VERY VERY VERY similar, focusing on - Beat face, burn face, win.
People on the DtB Maintenence thread have been debating how we should re-organize the DtB thread so that there are not 999,999 threads about essentially the same decks floating around, and I thought this could be the answer. I'm sorry if you disagree.
DanLuckey wrote:
it's almost insulting that you think that the RDW decklist is set in stone. others and i have spent many hours working on those lists, and while new cards have decreased diversity due to how awesome they are, this doesn't mean that experimentation isn't good.
I'm not saying that experimentation isn't good. I'm saying that with the current card pool, there isn't much stuff to experiment with! Enough experimenting has been done, and the deck is moving up to being one of the best decks in the type 2 format!!!
DanLuckey wrote:
remember when it used to be a rule to have 3+ keldon megaliths? that turned out to be a dud.
Okay, but that really is not something to discuss in an entirely different thread, is it?
DanLuckey wrote:
the metagame is shifting all of the time, and now that there's a new set coming out, i doubt that we will abandon talking about new ways to approach the deck because "it's 100% perfect".
I'm not and never said it was 100% perfect, and I realize that the meta is constantly changing, but the only thing that came out for RDW was SB matierial! It just happens that that SB material is the same SB material that will be discussed in all RG aggro threads. Should we have 3 threads for 3 groups of people discussing the same cards? I'd rather not and combine all of our ideas together in one thread. Feel free to disagree.
DanLuckey wrote:
i know you want people to visit your thread because it makes you feel cool,
Nope, not really. I'm trying to solve a problem that has been discussed on the DtB Maintenance thread for quite some time, and the personal attacks don't solve anything.
DanLuckey wrote:
but we have a RDW thread, and i think if anyone wanted to talk about it they would talk about it there. i'm 100% positive that RDW players don't want their conversations bundled with RG Warriors, or decks running llanowar elves and troll ascetic.
If that really is the case, then the RDW folks will stick to the RDW forum, and this will gradually become a RG Gruul Warriors thread. However, I think that it can all easily be condensed into one. I'm not requiring you to use this thread, I'm just putting it out there for the higher ranked officials on this site to decide what to do with it. If it gets abandoned with all of the other posts, so be it. However, I think that it can be successful. Only time will tell.
DanLuckey wrote:
also, isn't there a Warriors thread also? why are you combining a bunch of different decks into one thread?
Don't think I need to repeat myself again, see above.
Is this not correct? The deck is usually 20+ burn spells and 16- creatures, or very little creatures and around 32+ burn spells. At least, the most successful builds that I've seen have been either one or the other.
i think most builds run ~24 creatures and ~15 burn spells. i think you're think of RDL. (which, coincidently, has it's own thread too.)
The good burn spells are known universally, there really isn't any discussion about which burn spells are good and which are bad. There's no need to discuss it because it's obvious.
I can't see how you can argue with this...
if there's no need to discuss it, then why are you on a forum for discussing magic decks? lots of decks are "pretty obvious", so should we combine those threads too? Elves, kithkin, and faeries are pretty obvious, so should we have a "[Pre-Archtype] Tribal" thread?
besides, if RDW was so obvious, why do you have 6 browbeats in your 3 lists, when most smart RDW players are unimpressed with it? in fact, you don't have any pure RDW decks in your lists, just 2RDL and 1 RDW deck with too much burn to be considered RDW.
I assume this was a little bit too harsh, and I apologize. However, out of the current card pool in Type 2, I really do not think that any new card is significant enough to take the slot of an already existing card in the deck. The deck uses the best creatures and burn available, and doesn't need anything else. The posts on the thread are becoming more and more R/x Aggro based, and I thought that it would be a good idea to flat-out make a database thread for all RG Aggro, because most of the lists are VERY VERY VERY similar, focusing on - Beat face, burn face, win.
the only non-land cards that are the same are lashout and incinerate.
This is why we have multiple threads. i don't want to read about chameleon colossus and wren's run vanquishers in my RDW decklist.
People on the DtB Maintenence thread have been debating how we should re-organize the DtB thread so that there are not 999,999 threads about essentially the same decks floating around, and I thought this could be the answer. I'm sorry if you disagree.
there are only two threads in the DtB section that are anywhere near close, and that's Doran, Doran and The Rock. why in the world would be put RG Warriors in the DtB section, or "Classic Gruul", a deck that has not yet seen any results?
I'm not saying that experimentation isn't good. I'm saying that with the current card pool, there isn't much stuff to experiment with! Enough experimenting has been done, and the deck is moving up to being one of the best decks in the type 2 format!!!
decks can come close to optimization during certain times, however, because of the nature of metagame dynamics, there's no way it could ever stay optimal. hence, why we have threads, and why we have discussion.
I'm not and never said it was 100% perfect, and I realize that the meta is constantly changing, but the only thing that came out for RDW was SB matierial! It just happens that that SB material is the same SB material that will be discussed in all RG aggro threads. Should we have 3 threads for 3 groups of people discussing the same cards? I'd rather not and combine all of our ideas together in one thread. Feel free to disagree.
are you talking about shadowmoor? because i think that RDW gets quite a bit of maindeck material from SHM. if you disagree, which is fine, you have not played RDW, looked at any of the last pages in the RDW thread, or seen all of the shadowmoor cards.
Nope, not really. I'm trying to solve a problem that has been discussed on the DtB Maintenance thread for quite some time, and the personal attacks don't solve anything.
it's not a personal attack. it's an observation i'm sure most would find apparent. please look at the DtB forum and find 2 threads that should merge. (other than the rock and doran, doran, which should not be merged, but The Rock should drop down to the standard section.) there are only 14 threads total. you don't even have to scroll down to get to the last thread!
If that really is the case, then the RDW folks will stick to the RDW forum, and this will gradually become a RG Gruul Warriors thread. However, I think that it can all easily be condensed into one. I'm not requiring you to use this thread, I'm just putting it out there for the higher ranked officials on this site to decide what to do with it. If it gets abandoned with all of the other posts, so be it. However, I think that it can be successful. Only time will tell.
that's my point. there's a warrior thread and there's a RDW thread, both of which are doing fine, and probably don't want the other in it. just try it. post a RDW deck in the warrior thread and a warrior deck in the RDW thread. the posters will politely nudge you in the right direction, and everyone will be better off. it's not like more threads are taking up precious internet space. There are only 12 threads for decks in the DtB forum, which is how it should be. Tier 1 decks, and maybe a few good tier 2 decks.
if you want to make a "Gruul" thread, you have that opportunity.
i think most builds run ~24 creatures and ~15 burn spells. i think you're think of RDL. (which, coincidently, has it's own thread too.)
To be honest, I thought I had a clearer view of what RDW was, and I guess I was mistaken to think that it was more like RDL. But, wait... Doesn't this prove my point even more? I see lists on the RDW thread using Call of the Herd and Troll Ascetic. Most of the RG lists on the last few pages look like this:
4x Tattermunge 4x Fanatic 4x Keldon 4x Goyf
4x Tarfire 4x Incinerate 4x Flame Javelin
and other cards that a deck like Gruul would not use. 28 cards, plus another 22 lands that will be rather the same except that Gruul will have more green sources, that leaves around 10 cards difference. More burn, Countryside Crusher, or Greater Gargadon for RDW, More creatures and Pump for Gruul. Would you argue that these two decks are -SO- different?
DanLuckey wrote:
if there's no need to discuss it, then why are you on a forum for discussing magic decks? lots of decks are "pretty obvious", so should we combine those threads too? Elves, kithkin, and faeries are pretty obvious, so should we have a "[Pre-Archtype] Tribal" thread?
I don't think you could have missed my point any more than you already have. I was saying that selection of "BURN SPELLS" is something that does not need discussion. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that you ask any intelligent magic player what burn spells he's use the most of in an aggro deck that was base red, he'd say: Javelin, Incinerate, Tarfire/Shock, and then some of the lesser burn spells such as Lash Out, Sudden Shock, etc... I have to admit that my picture of RDW was more of what RDL is, and that's why I made this point. I think we all agree that there is not too much discussion going on in the RDL thread, and that's probably why it wasn't bumped as often until just recently.
DanLuckey wrote:
besides, if RDW was so obvious, why do you have 6 browbeats in your 3 lists, when most smart RDW players are unimpressed with it? in fact, you don't have any pure RDW decks in your lists, just 2RDL and 1 RDW deck with too much burn to be considered RDW.
Again, I never said that RDW was an obvious deck. See above. I have Browbeats listed listed in the decks, because those decks placed rather well, and included Browbeats in their lists. I know these are more RDL decklists, and thats why I posted them. Besides, the proof is in the pudding.
DanLuckey wrote:
here are two lists you have:
*DECKS HERE*
the only non-land cards that are the same are lashout and incinerate.
This is why we have multiple threads. i don't want to read about chameleon colossus and wren's run vanquishers in my RDW decklist.
I now realize those decklists probably shouldn't be listed in this thread in the first place, and will edit them later. You have a good point about not discussing Chameleon Colossus and Vanquishers.
DanLuckey wrote:
there are only two threads in the DtB section that are anywhere near close, and that's Doran, Doran and The Rock. why in the world would be put RG Warriors in the DtB section, or "Classic Gruul", a deck that has not yet seen any results?
Again, I was merely trying to organize RG Aggro in a single thread. While Classic Gruul has not yet made any results, it has been testing quite well, and has been getting a LOT of buzz, and I strongly feel that it will grow in popularity after Shadowmoor is officially released.
DanLuckey wrote:
decks can come close to optimization during certain times, however, because of the nature of metagame dynamics, there's no way it could ever stay optimal. hence, why we have threads, and why we have discussion.
I agree, and I don't think I ever said anything against that statement...
DanLuckey wrote:
are you talking about shadowmoor? because i think that RDW gets quite a bit of maindeck material from SHM. if you disagree, which is fine, you have not played RDW, looked at any of the last pages in the RDW thread, or seen all of the shadowmoor cards.
Again, I was thinking of RDW as more of a RDL deck. However, if you really think there is a lot of MD material from Shadowmoor going into RDW, I predict Gruul and RDW becoming even closer to eachother than they are now.
DanLuckey wrote:
it's not a personal attack. it's an observation i'm sure most would find apparent. please look at the DtB forum and find 2 threads that should merge. (other than the rock and doran, doran, which should not be merged, but The Rock should drop down to the standard section.) there are only 14 threads total. you don't even have to scroll down to get to the last thread!
Call it whatever you like, I don't appreciate comments like that. In regards to the DtB, I started this thread before all of the other DtB (below the current) were moved out. It was more clustered (why the debate about organization was going on), and was why I decided to make this. Currently, I don't think any of the current DtB should merge (Except for Rock/Doran, but we've already clarified that). It's no longer a space issue, really. It's that if there are two threads playing more or less the same deck, then it's just bad for both threads if discussion happens on one and not the other.
DanLuckey wrote:
that's my point. there's a warrior thread and there's a RDW thread, both of which are doing fine, and probably don't want the other in it. just try it. post a RDW deck in the warrior thread and a warrior deck in the RDW thread. the posters will politely nudge you in the right direction, and everyone will be better off. it's not like more threads are taking up precious internet space. There are only 12 threads for decks in the DtB forum, which is how it should be. Tier 1 decks, and maybe a few good tier 2 decks.
That's true currently, but there's a lot of new MD and SB material from Shadowmoor that will most likely push the two decks together. I don't want to be checking back and forth between two threads for information on SB cards to see what each group of people have produced. Condensing eliminates this.
I think I beat you by a day (here) but this is a pretty well put together thread. Also, you need permission before you can use the Pre-Archetype heading. And my list:
) posts here! Gruul Beats is definitely back.
for 
" lands shouldn't be a problem because most other spells are 
.
