Magic: The Gathering

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

I still think Kaboomist's rulestext is a fucking mess. Basically he's there to fill space and give me a sense of how the thing actually plays in a deck. So far he hasn't pulled any weight and is basically a 1/2 that has a 50% chance of killing itself every upkeep. Seems more suited to a deck built around Sharpnel Blast.

Likewise Chandra is there as a test case and to fill space. She's only shown up once and immediately got blasted with Hero's Downfall so I've yet to see how useful she actually is. Might go up to two still, but Obelisk has proven to pull its weight whenever it hits the board.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on Hot Soup because all I'm seeing is dead weight that costs a lot of mana I could be spending on goblins instead. I guess it gets the Rabblemaster through but I'd just as soon go with Prowler's Helm, and that card's been pretty awful in constructed from my brief attempts to make it playable.

As a general rule though, my sideboard is a fucking mess. I'm very much in need of tutelage when it comes to constructing a proper sideboard.

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

I still think Kaboomist's rulestext is a fucking mess. Basically he's there to fill space and give me a sense of how the thing actually plays in a deck. So far he hasn't pulled any weight and is basically a 1/2 that has a 50% chance of killing itself every upkeep. Seems more suited to a deck built around Sharpnel Blast.

He's just not a particularly strong card in general. He's only really useful if you can get him an extra point of toughness so that he can't self-destruct when you lose the coin flip. I'd drop him.

Likewise Chandra is there as a test case and to fill space. She's only shown up once and immediately got blasted with Hero's Downfall so I've yet to see how useful she actually is.

She's a free card draw every turn, something every red deck would kill for. What's not to like?

Might go up to two still, but Obelisk has proven to pull its weight whenever it hits the board.

Obelisk is high risk/high reward. I could see running 1 and being OK. 2 seems excessive unless you want an extra one in the sideboard when playing against a deck without artifact destruction.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on Hot Soup because all I'm seeing is dead weight that costs a lot of mana I could be spending on goblins instead. I guess it gets the Rabblemaster through but I'd just as soon go with Prowler's Helm, and that card's been pretty awful in constructed from my brief attempts to make it playable.

There's a significant difference between Hot Soup and Prowler's Helm, though. Even though the mana costs seem similar, they occupy completely different rungs in the mana curve. Hot Soup you can drop on the table with 1 spare point of mana and still leave mana open for something like Skullcrack or Shock as a viable threat. The higher equip cost can be annoying, but you're using it late game to push for the last few points of damage to win, not in the early game where you'd rather cast something that deals damage.

As a general rule though, my sideboard is a fucking mess. I'm very much in need of tutelage when it comes to constructing a proper sideboard.

Sideboard is always:
Step 1: What deck/card do you lose to?
Step 2: When you lose to that deck/card, what card do you most wish you would have drawn that's not in your deck? This is the card you add to your sideboard.
Step 3: When you lose to that deck/card, what card are you least happy to see from your main decklist? This is the card you rotate out for your sideboard.

Repeat for all 15 sideboard slots.


Icemage

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

She's a free card draw every turn, something every red deck would kill for. What's not to like?

Four mana cost in a deck that wants to be dropping two threats instead of a fragile utility card. I don't dispute for a minute that it's a fucking fantastic card for Red, just whether or not it truly fits in this deck better than other things I could put in its place.

Obelisk is high risk/high reward. I could see running 1 and being OK. 2 seems excessive unless you want an extra one in the sideboard when playing against a deck without artifact destruction.

It provides more than just the +2/+2 in my experience. This is a deck that wants to have things with convoke if for no other reason than as an outlet to prevent goblins from kamikaze-ing once Rabblemaster is on the board. There are board states where you want to hold off from swinging with goblins, and this is a perfect outlet for that because next turn they'll run in there and not have to die. Needs more testing, but so far it's been useful and I wouldn't hesitate to add a second copy.

Good advice on the Hot Soup, I'll look into fitting it in somewhere for testing.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Chandra, Pyromaster was an excellent 2-of in the deck I used her in almost a year ago.

Of course I'm pretty done with Magic in general for a variety of reasons now so.

[Malacite]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Red's always seemed an odd color to sideboard for IMO.

It's *much* simpler for the other colors, especially white and blue as they have very specific answers to problems that need addressing. It's not that they're better colors, just Red often seems to be lacking in ways to deal with problems outside of BURN EVERYTHING!!!

That said, I find insurrection-like cards to be a fun sideboard option in case you run into the odd Green fatty deck etc. Skullcrack also strikes me as a very good sideboard card rather than mainboard. Yes it pushes damage just fine on it's own, but there are other cards that do that and the main thing to skullcrack is denying the healing in response to something like Sphinx's Revelation. I guess it depends on the prevalence of life gain/damage prevention in your meta.


Has anyone seen the "nazi" legend in Khans?! Guy's just bonkers, love him





Gotta say I'm happy to see Khans is basically doing Alara again but with the color pairings that didn't get used.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

I agree with you on mono Red being weird for sideboarding. Every other color gets a variety of answers. For the most part Red just gets direct damage, which it was already mainboarding. It's part of why I hate Indestructible with a passion. Red's answer to things is to destroy them, so everything that word appears on may as well read "Protection from Red" as well.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

Stuffy Doll, as the favored plaything of Big Red decks gone by, would beg to disagree with your assessment.

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

I like Perilous Vault as an answer to many of Red's problems from M2015. It's an artifact that has to be respected when it hits the board, and it keeps both players from over-extending (or paying the penalty if you do).


Icemage

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

It requires five mana on the board, that's not an answer to anything. If I have five land on the board then I've already lost.

[Malacite]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

I agree with you on mono Red being weird for sideboarding. Every other color gets a variety of answers. For the most part Red just gets direct damage, which it was already mainboarding. It's part of why I hate Indestructible with a passion. Red's answer to things is to destroy them, so everything that word appears on may as well read "Protection from Red" as well.

like 90% of the time yeah it's just nuke it, occasionally steal it (usually temporarily) or that last like 1% of the time there's the odd random jank pray to whatever your luck holds out because it'll be horrible if it doesn't (Kaboomist is an example of this though far from the most drastic I'm sure. Nothing specific comes to mind atm but I'm reasonably sure Red's had some ridiculous gamble cards in the past. I would say final fortune technically fits but was a card you wouldn't play if you're not gonna win anyway. Actually, Kaboom from Onslaught fits the bill nicely)

It requires five mana on the board, that's not an answer to anything. If I have five land on the board then I've already lost.

Sounds like someone misses Thundermaw.

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

It requires five mana on the board, that's not an answer to anything. If I have five land on the board then I've already lost.

That's an awfully shortsighted philosophy. There are decks that you're going to run long draws against simply because they put out a lot of blockers and/or have a lot of life gain (see: Courser of Kruphix). If you don't have a way of blowing their stuff off the table so you can resume attacking (yeah yeah Seismic Stomp, but seriously...) you're just going to lose to those decks. If someone gets out an indestructible/pro-red blocker, are you just going to give up and concede?


Icemage

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

You've seen the deck I'm running, if I don't blitz them down before they stabilize then there is no avenue for making a comeback. That's kind of the whole weakness of Red and the deck archetype I'm running in particular, if you don't just go balls to the wall race then you lose to everything once your opponent makes it to the long game.

[Icemage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

You've seen the deck I'm running, if I don't blitz them down before they stabilize then there is no avenue for making a comeback. That's kind of the whole weakness of Red and the deck archetype I'm running in particular, if you don't just go balls to the wall race then you lose to everything once your opponent makes it to the long game.

That's not the point. Some decks WILL beat you at the race once they get access to their sideboard, and you need a Plan B when that happens. That's what sideboards are for.

I'm not suggesting you run Perilous Vault main deck, but in the sideboard? You'd better believe it. It's a handy way to blow Master of Waves off the table, if nothing else.


Icemage

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

A good-enough Red deck should be able to out-race Master of Waves, anyway. Speaking from personal experience.

Not sure what you should expect post-rotation when you'd presumably be losing stuff like Mutavault and Guttersnipe, but I can't imagine it being terribly different. Master of Waves, being a 4-drop, just plain isn't that big a deal to mono-Red blitz (and whatever 5-drop Artifact y'all were talking about would incidentally be that much more ineffective against it, anyway). Master of Waves caused tons of trouble to Fanatic of Mogis decks, but that's because those weren't good Red decks in the first place.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Magic: The Gathering

That's not the point. Some decks WILL beat you at the race once they get access to their sideboard, and you need a Plan B when that happens. That's what sideboards are for.

I'm not suggesting you run Perilous Vault main deck, but in the sideboard? You'd better believe it. It's a handy way to blow Master of Waves off the table, if nothing else.


Icemage

Or I could run Ratchet Bomb, or Scouring Sands, or more Seismic Stomps.
If I have five mana on the board and enough time to tap out two turns in a row for one artifiact then my hand is empty and I've already lost.

Trust me on this one Icemage, I've run Apocalypse in the sideboard of my Ye Olde Goblin deck for years and that type of effect does not perform the way you envision it. It's a reckless gamble at best.