[Primer] Devotion Red

[LP, of the Fires]

Agreed.

I decided to put a Mogis deck together and jammed a bunch of games and I discovered to my chagrin that Chandra is not maindeck worthy. She, alongside mogis makes you slightly too top heavy and leads to clunky hands.

I'll post a list shortly, but I will note that more board will be crazy as usual. I'm 95% to have 4 shocks in my board.

Couple versions:

[deck]4 Boros Reckoner
4 Chandra's Phoenix
4 Fanatic of Mogis
4 Lightning Strike
4 Magma Jet
21 Mountain
4 Rakdos Cackler
1 Hammer of Purphoros
4 Firedrinker Satyr
4 Burning-Tree Emissary
4 Firefist Striker
2 Mutavault

Board:
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
1 Hammer of Purphoros
4 Shock
4 Peak Eruption
2 Seismic Stomp
2 Traitorous Instinct[/deck]

This lets you hedge vs. control and agro. 2 extra lands in muta's to make up for playing reckoner vs. control.

[deck]4 Boros Reckoner
4 Chandra's Phoenix
4 Fanatic of Mogis
4 Lightning Strike
n4 Magma Jet
21 Mountain
4 Rakdos Cackler
1 Hammer of Purphoros
4 Firedrinker Satyr
4 Shock
4 Ash Zealot
2 Goblin Shorcutter

2 Chandra, Pyromaster
1 Hammer of Purphoros
4 Skullcrack
8 Cards[/deck]

Expecting agro mirrors? Shocks and shortcutters for their reckoners. Ash zealot is higher card quality in general, and while a liability vs. opposing reckoners, beats out everything else in combat and demands an answer when you're in shield mode. Less lands=more vitual CA.

I actually like just taking the first list and cutting muta's for shortcutters, but there's a lot of U/x control at my store so meh. One things for sure though; seismic stomp is a beating and so is peak eruption. Grinded games vs. dega and GW mid and while the latter is mostly unwinnable(can't kill witchstalker and Ajani minus with courage is a thing that happens...friends a d-bag) seismic stomp+threaten wins games when your in a board stall and is basically mogis 5-8.

[Zooligan]

I think you're better off running a single Stormbreath over a single Chandra; it's just another bomb to draw into as the game stalls out.

So in this list

[deck]Hasty Devoted Fanatic[/deck]

we're talking -2 Chandra, +1 Fanatic, +1 Stormbreath mainboard?

and for SB -3 Pithing Needle, -??, +??

[Zooligan]

I'm with freedom, honestly if esper is your most problematic match-up and you are confident in being able to outplay other opponents at your LGS level, you'd be better off playing pyrored with mutavaults which crushes esper pretty hard.

Esper as a deck is my most problematic matchup. Biggest single problem card is that fucking flying 6/6 demon that's all over the place. Treason effects coupled with burn seem like the best solution for him, plus having tokens to sac. Maybe the Pyro deck is the way to go.

Is the latest version PyroSligh 1.3 that Zman posted in the other thread?

[Lightning_Dolt]

Gentlemen, I've been brewing, and I believe this may be the next level. Comments, constructive criticism and critique appreciated.

[deck]
Creatures (30)
4 Firedrinker Satyr
4 Rakdos Cackler
4 Burning-Tree Emissary
4 Firefist Striker
2 Goblin Shortcutter
4 Boros Reckoner
4 Chandra's Phoenix
4 Fanatic of Mogis

Spells (8)
4 Lightning Strike
4 Magma Jet

Land (22)
20 Mountain
2 Mutavault

Sideboard (15)
2 Mutavault
3 Mizzium Mortars
2 Act of Treason
3 Flames of the Firebrand
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
3 Stormbreath Dragon
[/deck]

Sideboarding

VS GW: -4 Firedrinker Satyr, -4 Rakdos Cackler, -4 Magma Jet
+2 Mutavault,+3 Mizzium Mortars, +2 Act of Treason, +2 Chandra, Pyromaster, +3 Stormbreath Dragon
Plan: Falter effects, steal effects, and fucking dragons.

nVS UW: -4 Firefist Striker, -2 Goblin Shortcutter, -4 Boros Reckoner
+2 Mutavault, +3 Flames of the Firebrand, +2 Chandra, Pyromaster, +3 Stormbreath Dragon
Plan: Early pressure, midgame phoenixes with recursion, later game dragons, which they can not answer, with anything other than Elspeth.

VS the Mirror: -4 Firedrinker Satyr, -4 Fanatic of Mogis
+3 Flames of the Firebrand, +3 Mizzium Mortars, +2 Chandra, Pyromaster
Plan: Aggressively trade resources and grind them out with Chandra / 2 for 1's.

VS Random Stuff: No changes.
Plan: Just stomp.

[Khaospawn]

MOGIS!

[Narcasus]

Gentlemen, I've been brewing, and I believe this may be the next level. Comments, constructive criticism and critique appreciated.

[deck]
Creatures (30)
4 Firedrinker Satyr
4 Rakdos Cackler
4 Burning-Tree Emissary
4 Firefist Striker
2 Goblin Shortcutter
4 Boros Reckoner
4 Chandra's Phoenix
4 Fanatic of Mogis

Spells (8)
4 Lightning Strike
4 Magma Jet

Land (22)
20 Mountain
2 Mutavault

Sideboard (15)
2 Mutavault
3 Mizzium Mortars
2 Act of Treason
3 Flames of the Firebrand
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
3 Stormbreath Dragon
[/deck]

Sideboarding

VS GW: -4 Firedrinker Satyr, -4 Rakdos Cackler, -4 Magma Jet
+2 Mutavault,+3
Mizzium Mortars, +2 Act of Treason, +2 Chandra, Pyromaster, +3 Stormbreath Dragon
Plan: Falter effects, steal effects, and fucking dragons.

VS UW: -4 Firefist Striker, -2 Goblin Shortcutter, -4 Boros Reckoner
+2 Mutavault, +3 Flames of the Firebrand, +2 Chandra, Pyromaster, +3 Stormbreath Dragon
Plan: Early pressure, midgame phoenixes with recursion, later game dragons, which they can not answer, with anything other than Elspeth.

VS the Mirror: -4 Firedrinker Satyr, -4 Fanatic of Mogis
+3 Flames of the Firebrand, +3 Mizzium Mortars, +2 Chandra, Pyromaster
Plan: Aggressively trade resources and grind them out with Chandra / 2 for 1's.

VS Random Stuff: No changes.
Plan: Just stomp.

This was
something i was thinking about last night and on the train to work. This plan seems exactly what i was trying to come up with, but i think using the dragon is the key i was missing. I agree with the earlier posts that i would have chandra in my hand in non control matchups and if i played her, she just didnt do enough, where a stormdragon might have made the difference.

Ill test this tonight when i get home on modo and try to get back with some actual gameplay experiance.

[Helios]

Going to 24 lands, I think 4 Mutavaults seems greedy. Especially with Reckoners.

@Narcus: Chandra is excellent in non-control matchups.

[Lightning_Dolt]

Going to 24 lands, I think 4 Mutavaults seems greedy. Especially with Reckoners.

@Narcus: Chandra is excellent in non-control matchups.

Sideboard lands can change (if need be) to 1 Vault, 1 Mountain. You aren't cutting any mountains when you bring vaults in though, they're mostly for control, where you will be siding reckoners out. It is a little greedy to use reckoners with less than 21 red sources, so it is likely correct to split them in the SB.

[Shardoon]

I was just grinding a devotion red list on Cockatrice and was thinking "Double Mogis is as much fun as double Hellrider." Amirite?

[deck]
Mountains
23 Mountain

Threats
4 Chandra's Phoenix
4 Rakdos Cackler
4 Firedrinker Satyr
4 Boros Reckoner
4 Ash Zealot
4 Rakdos Shred-Freak
4 Fanatic of Mogis

Burn
4 Shock
4 Lightning Strike

Stuff
1 Hammer of Purphoros

Sideboard
3 Act of Treason
3 Skullcrack
2 Peak Eruption
3 Burning Earth
4 Mizzium Mortars[/deck]

My thoughts on Shock vs. Magma Jet: Shock deals same damage, one less mana, but doesn't scry.
With the Devoted Red build and no mutavaults, I'm running hasty creatures and a full 23 mountains just trying to get to 4 . . . making the scry a lot less necessary imho. 4 Shock mainboard gives me an edge Game #1 vs. other aggro builds (monowhite is there as well as the mirror). 4
shocks MB along with 8 other one-drops also gives me 12 solid turn-one plays. Grinding this deck, I've sided in moarters for the shocks, skullcracks for the shocks, basically I side anything on my list in exchange for Shocks. This makes shocks a great trade-up option, but still solid mainboard 4-of for this build in this meta - amirite?

[Helios]

Sideboard lands can change (if need be) to 1 Vault, 1 Mountain. You aren't cutting any mountains when you bring vaults in though, they're mostly for control, where you will be siding reckoners out. It is a little greedy to use reckoners with less than 21 red sources, so it is likely correct to split them in the SB.

I understand that you aren't cutting mountains, I just wouldn't want to side into 24 sources for Big Red, still need Reckoners, and not be able to hit 3 colored sources. 1 Mountain, 1 Vault is probably correct iff. you want Stormbreaths against decks where you will also want Reckoner (which I think you do).

[Elricity]

Wouldn't 21 mountan/1 vault main and 3 vault sideboard be correct if you're mainboarding reckoner?

[Lightning_Dolt]

Wouldn't 21 mountan/1 vault main and 3 vault sideboard be correct if you're mainboarding reckoner?

It could be. I like vault a lot though, and I want it in most match ups, especially with FFS.

[Lightning_Dolt]

Sideboard lands can change (if need be) to 1 Vault, 1 Mountain. You aren't cutting any mountains when you bring vaults in though, they're mostly for control, where you will be siding reckoners out. It is a little greedy to use reckoners with less than 21 red sources, so it is likely correct to split them in the SB.

I understand that you aren't cutting mountains, I just wouldn't want to side into 24 sources for Big Red, still need Reckoners, and not be able to hit 3 colored sources. 1 Mountain, 1 Vault is probably correct iff. you want Stormbreaths against decks where you will also want
Reckoner (which I think you do).

Probability of hitting three mountains does not change.

[DarthStabber]

Probability of hitting three mountains does not change.

While this is very true it will cause moments where you feel it does. You are going to have a moment or two where you will draw vault as your third land and feel like you were screwed. This is not a reason not to put them in, it's just psychologically demoralizing.

[LP, of the Fires]

Probability of hitting three mountains does not change.

While this is very true it will cause moments where you feel it does. You are going to have a moment or two where you will draw vault as your third land and feel like you were screwed. This is not a reason not to put them in, it's just psychologically demoralizing.

Not REALLY a valid point as Vault is really just your "extra" land anyways and there will be instances where your opener is 1 drop, bunch of twos, mountain, and vault, and the vault is the extra land you decided to play over a spell
making your hand keepable.

Or whatever.

[DarthStabber]

You're right, i'm just saying it can occasionally cause some psychological "feelbads" where you wanted a mountain. It's not an actual issue, just a psych one. I bring it up not to dissuade people from doing it, but to point out that it might feel wrong. And still be right.

[toddulent]

I have been trying to find something I can run without Boros Reckoner, Chandra, Pyromaster and Mutavault since I don't have any and won't for a few weeks. I tried running a BTE-less haste variant with Rakdos Shredfreak and found him underwhelming. Looking at Khaospawn's theoretical list (plus having played his KDW list last season to much success) and adjusting based on comments by Fate, here is what I came up with to replace what I had been playing.

[deck]
Creatures (27)
4 Firedrinker Satyr
4 Rakdos Cackler
4 Ash Zealot
3 Goblin Shortcutter
4 Chandra's Phoenix
4 Pyrewild Shaman
4 Fanatic of Mogis

Spells (10)
2 Shock
4 Lightning Strike
4 Magma Jet

Land (23)
23 Mountain

Sideboard (15)
2 Hammer of Purphoros
4 Frostburn Weird
3 Act of Treason
4 Skullcrack
2 Mizzium Mortars
[/deck]

With the lists I ran this weekend (2-2 Friday and 0-2 drop Saturday), GW aggro Unflinching Courage decks were my
bane. I did beat a Ashiok/Big Jace deck Friday night 2-0, frustrating the hell out of him. (He's a really good player and I could never beat his mono-Blue control with my Burn in Legacy.)

In the SB, I was only running 1 Act of Treason and always wished I would actually see it. I like 3. I think cutting Burning Earth in the side is a good call. Running 4 this weekend, I managed to get 2 onboard against 3-color and it slowed him down, but he still managed to get Unflinching Courage out on something. With that stupid card being prevalent, I think Skullcrack becomes relevant again.

[Helios]

Sideboard lands can change (if need be) to 1 Vault, 1 Mountain. You aren't cutting any mountains when you bring vaults in though, they're mostly for control, where you will be siding reckoners out. It is a little greedy to use reckoners with less than 21 red sources, so it is likely correct to split them in the SB.

1 Mountain, 1 Vault is probably correct iff. you want Stormbreaths against decks where you will also want Reckoner (which I
think you do).

Probability of hitting three mountains does not change.

If you have 21 mountains, 3 Vaults vs. 20 mountains, 4 Vaults?

[Elricity]

Only on game 2/3 if a mountain is in your sideboard

[Jack]

I remember from back around December when ham crunched the numbers for Ash Zealot and found that we wanted to be playing at least 21 mountains in order to reliably cast her on turn two. No matter how many Helion Crucibles you chose to add, the safe starting point was 21 mountains. Now we need to curve out to three, and people are cutting mountains. This is stupid. Granted, Mutavault is a more powerful card than Crucible, but I still feel that your starting point should be no less than 22 mountains.

[zemanjaski]

I thought it was 21 for RRR and 18 for RR?

[DarthStabber]

If you aren't main decking reckoner then 21 is plenty sufficient. I may be the only one not maindecking him, but believe it's the right call. He's just so slow, and you get so much speed with pheonix in it's place. As good as fanatic is, you don't need to squeeze every little bit out of him.

[Zooligan]

I think this is what you are looking for:

[LP, of the Fires]

Yup. 17 and 21 for ash and reckoner respectively.

[Jack]

I'm not sure that's correct, LP. On 21 mountains, you have under a 68% chance to play reckoner on curve when you see it in your hand. I say under because, if you have a Reckoner in hand on turn 3, then there are only eight other cards that could possibly be mountains. Of course, what you should run is entirely based off of personal preference. I personally don't rely on Mutavault that much, and the card generally doesn't work too well with the strategy of this deck.

[Lightning_Dolt]

In the most recent SCGO, the two top 16 Devotion Red builds were:

21 Lands, 1 Mutavault, 4 Reckoners

23 Lands (1 mountain in SB), 4 Mutavaults, 3 Reckoners (1 in sideboard)

If we extrapolate from there, it seems:

Two Reckoners were possible on 18 red lands

Three would be possible on 19 red lands

Four are possible on 20 red lands

I know an open isn't everything, but I wonder if maybe we aren't being greedy enough.

[Lightning_Dolt]

Sideboard lands can change (if need be) to 1 Vault, 1 Mountain. You aren't cutting any mountains when you bring vaults in though, they're mostly for control, where you will be siding reckoners out. It is a little greedy to use reckoners with less than 21 red sources, so it is likely correct
to split them in the SB.

1 Mountain, 1 Vault is probably correct iff. you want Stormbreaths against decks where you will also want Reckoner (which I think you do).

Probability of hitting three mountains does not change.

If you have 21 mountains, 3 Vaults vs. 20 mountains, 4 Vaults?

That will change it, but I'm taking about:

20 Mountains, 2 Mutavaults MB

20 Mountains, 4 Mutavaults Post-SB

Same chance to draw a mountain (1 in 3).

[zemanjaski]

FWIW in Pyro I have 20 mountain plus 4 Reckoner. It's ok but I've list games to not hitting RRR soon enough.

[Khaospawn]

I remember from back around December when ham crunched the numbers for Ash Zealot and found that we wanted to be playing at least 21 mountains in order to reliably cast her on turn two. No matter how many Helion Crucibles you chose to add, the safe starting point was 21 mountains. Now we need to curve out to three, and people are cutting mountains. This is stupid. Granted, Mutavault is a more powerful card than Crucible, but I still feel that your starting point should be no less than 22 mountains.

Thank you, freedom!

Redbros,

The deck does not want a colorless land until you get to turn 4. And at that point, that colorless may just as well come from a Nykthos.

The deck HAS to be able to cast Reckoner on turn 3.

Being
consistent means making a few sacrifices every now and then to ensure the main plan happens often.

The plan for a Mogis deck is play dudes, turn them sideways, build devotion, and then win. It doesn't want to leave too many options open available for the long haul. Sure, it has cards that enable it to go long, like the Hammer and Chandra - but they also enable the main strategy.

Trying to shove more than 1 Mutavault into this deck is dumb. It wants 22 Mountains.

Honestly ask yourself this:

DO YOU WANT TO PLAY MUTAVAULT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT AND THAT ANY DECK COULD JUST AFFORD TO PLAY IT BECAUSE, WELL, IT'S FUCKING MUTAVAULT?

Then play it. Lean on your crutch. Play the cards because you spent money on them. Do it because it makes you feel happy. Don't let me talk you out of it.

Still with me??? Good, because this must mean you want to "unlearn what you have learned." Believe it or not, this deck is quite fragile. The pillar of it's strength is that it can reliably cast
threats. Which is quite the opposite when compared to Young Peezy builds. P$ doesn't reliably cast threats. It casts "card advantage engines" in the form of Pyromancer, Phoenix, and Chandra, coupled with Burn. Mutavault is the perfect addition because you can reasonably play it turn 2 and cast Young P-Money to start building advantage. The cool thing is that because Mutavault hindered you the slightest bit on turn 2, you were able to stay on curve and build an eventual "nest egg" in the form of an extra creature as early as turn 3.

You can't afford that in Devotion Red. You MUST play your threats on curve. You either build an insurmountable army that wins with a Mogis and attacking or you get stuck on land and die. It's that simple.

The whole reason to play Mogis is to hit harder earlier. Think Mike Tyson for this deck. You want to win in the 1st or 2nd round by delivering a staggeringly powerful uppercut. Young Peezy decks opt for the Muhammad Ali approach: float like a
butterfly, sting like a bee. Except that the sting from this Queen Bee is enough to bring you down permanently.

So what are you? Mike or Ali? Going "Tyson" means you want eschew the fancy tricks and go right for the ear...er, throat. Being pretty means going the distance and having those fancy dance steps. It's hard to be Ali, but to win like him is to do it in style.It's all a matter of choice.

The problem with everyone and the majority of the Mogis decks is that they're trying to do some weird amalgamation of the two best decks: Z's and Bertorelli's. Anything that doesn't fit that category is a bad Turtenwald deck.

Here's a tip: stay focused.

Red is passionate, but it's consistent. Red is deadly when it can be complex. Each deck is capable of doing exactly that. Just don't confuse the two, and the deck will build itself.

[DarthStabber]

@khaospawn: Your argument is dead on except for one niggling little issue: reckoner is not necessarily an auto include. If you are main decking him then you are quite right about needing to hit him on curve. If you aren't (which is a perfectly valid option if you want more speed) you can easily get by on 21 mountains +2 vaults, provided you have the 22nd mountain in your board for when reckoner come in. You can have your cake and eat it too. Reckoner is a nice 3 devotion, but a 3 drop 2 devotion card that makes you faster is worth fanatic hitting for 1 less. You can't rely on fanatic to win games for you, some games are going to come down to playing and swinging with haste dudes, that's part of why we're in this list instead of bte oriented deck. Reckoner absolutely comes in vs. other aggressive decks, and some midrange decks. Heck he's the best play you have against gw and naya, but I feel like he really slows
down your maindeck gameplan of pile-in. Some will main deck him and board him out when hems less relevant, I'm just going to do the opposite.

[Khaospawn]

@khaospawn: Your argument is dead on except for one niggling little issue: reckoner is not necessarily an auto include. If you are main decking him then you are quite right about needing to hit him on curve. If you aren't (which is a perfectly valid option if you want more speed) you can easily get by on 21 mountains +2 vaults, provided you have the 22nd mountain in your board for when reckoner come in. You can have your cake and eat it too. Reckoner is a nice 3 devotion, but a 3 drop 2 devotion card that makes you faster is worth fanatic hitting for 1 less. You can't rely on fanatic to win games for you, some games are going to come down to playing and swinging with haste dudes, that's part of why we're in this list instead of bte oriented
deck. Reckoner absolutely comes in vs. other aggressive decks, and some midrange decks. Heck he's the best play you have against gw and naya, but I feel like he really slows down your maindeck gameplan of pile-in. Some will main deck him and board him out when hems less relevant, I'm just going to do the opposite.

He's so good right now that you want 3-4 in your deck no matter what. In Pyro Red, he's SB material. In Mogis, he auto-include maindeck because he synergizes so well with then deck's namesake card. Devotion kills, brah.

[Lightning_Dolt]

I remember from back around December when ham crunched the numbers for Ash Zealot and found that we wanted to be playing at least 21 mountains in order to reliably cast her on turn two. No matter how many Helion Crucibles you chose to add, the safe starting point was 21 mountains. Now we need to curve out to three, and people are cutting mountains. This is stupid. Granted, Mutavault is a more powerful card than Crucible, but I still feel that your starting point should be no less than 22 mountains.

Thank you, freedom!

Redbros,

The deck does not want a colorless
land until you get to turn 4. And at that point, that colorless may just as well come from a Nykthos.

The deck HAS to be able to cast Reckoner on turn 3.

Being consistent means making a few sacrifices every now and then to ensure the main plan happens often.

The plan for a Mogis deck is play dudes, turn them sideways, build devotion, and then win. It doesn't want to leave too many options open available for the long haul. Sure, it has cards that enable it to go long, like the Hammer and Chandra - but they also enable the main strategy.

Trying to shove more than 1 Mutavault into this deck is dumb. It wants 22 Mountains.

Honestly ask yourself this:

DO YOU WANT TO PLAY MUTAVAULT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT AND THAT ANY DECK COULD JUST AFFORD TO PLAY IT BECAUSE, WELL, IT'S FUCKING MUTAVAULT?

Then play it. Lean on your crutch. Play the cards because you spent money on them. Do it because it makes you feel happy. Don't let me talk you out of it.

Still with me??? Good, because this
must mean you want to "unlearn what you have learned." Believe it or not, this deck is quite fragile. The pillar of it's strength is that it can reliably cast threats. Which is quite the opposite when compared to Young Peezy builds. P$ doesn't reliably cast threats. It casts "card advantage engines" in the form of Pyromancer, Phoenix, and Chandra, coupled with Burn. Mutavault is the perfect addition because you can reasonably play it turn 2 and cast Young P-Money to start building advantage. The cool thing is that because Mutavault hindered you the slightest bit on turn 2, you were able to stay on curve and build an eventual "nest egg" in the form of an extra creature as early as turn 3.

You can't afford that in Devotion Red. You MUST play your threats on curve. You either build an insurmountable army that wins with a Mogis and attacking or you get stuck on land and die. It's that simple.

The whole reason to play Mogis is to hit harder earlier. Think Mike Tyson for
this deck. You want to win in the 1st or 2nd round by delivering a staggeringly powerful uppercut. Young Peezy decks opt for the Muhammad Ali approach: float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Except that the sting from this Queen Bee is enough to bring you down permanently.

So what are you? Mike or Ali? Going "Tyson" means you want eschew the fancy tricks and go right for the ear...er, throat. Being pretty means going the distance and having those fancy dance steps. It's hard to be Ali, but to win like him is to do it in style.It's all a matter of choice.

The problem with everyone and the majority of the Mogis decks is that they're trying to do some weird amalgamation of the two best decks: Z's and Bertorelli's. Anything that doesn't fit that category is a bad Turtenwald deck.

Here's a tip: stay focused.

Red is passionate, but it's consistent. Red is deadly when it can be complex. Each deck is capable of doing exactly that. Just don't confuse the two, and the deck will
build itself.

No. I do not just want to play mutavault because I have them.

I want to play them because:

A) They are strictly better than your 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th mountain in play.

B) My list is preboarded for midrange / aggro mirrors. The deck has serious problems with sweepers. We need to improve our control m/u

C) When going big and siding in more land, I'd like them to do something more than tap for R

D) Other people are able to make it work (scgo, both top 16 lists with mv). If they can get away with it, why can't we?

E) We can't run hammer in a deck with Dragons. MV is flood insurance.

F) Nykthos was terrible in testing.

G) Makes FFS a lot better.

If I after testing it becomes a problem I will run 22 mountains in the MB and two vaults in the SB.

[DarthStabber]

He's so good right now that you want 3-4 in your deck no matter what. In Pyro Red, he's SB material. In Mogis, he auto-include maindeck because he synergizes so well with then deck's namesake card. Devotion kills, brah.

I am not arguing he isn't good, i'm not a complete moron. 3-4 definitely belong in your 75, divide them how you wish between main and board, but "synergy" is only 1 damage more than chandra's phoenix or hammer of purphoros, and over two turns a phoenix will deal 4 damage, the reckoner 3 meaning that with the one extra damage it allows fanatic to deal they break even, and any more than 2 turns of survival is just not dependable with all the removal out there. It also feels like you might be overvaluing fanatic. He'
s great, but you won't have him every game, and sometimes you are going to durdle him out on to an empty board, ping them, and be happy to have 4/2 body, and other times you are going to drop him for the kill. You have to hope for the later, but be comfortable with the former.

[Helios]

Reckoner, Phoenix, and Hammer all serve completely different purposes. You're also neglecting that most of the removal for Reckoner will hit your opponent back/kill a creature/stonewall attacks.

[Khaospawn]

I remember from back around December when ham crunched the numbers for Ash Zealot and found that we wanted to be playing at least 21 mountains in order to reliably cast her on turn two. No matter how many Helion Crucibles you chose to add, the safe starting point was 21 mountains. Now we need to curve out to three, and people are cutting mountains. This is stupid. Granted, Mutavault is a more powerful card than
Crucible, but I still feel that your starting point should be no less than 22 mountains.

Thank you, freedom!

Redbros,

The deck does not want a colorless land until you get to turn 4. And at that point, that colorless may just as well come from a Nykthos.

The deck HAS to be able to cast Reckoner on turn 3.

Being consistent means making a few sacrifices every now and then to ensure the main plan happens often.

The plan for a Mogis deck is play dudes, turn them sideways, build devotion, and then win. It doesn't want to leave too many options open available for the long haul. Sure, it has cards that enable it to go long, like the Hammer and Chandra - but they also enable the main strategy.

Trying to shove more than 1 Mutavault into this deck is dumb. It wants 22 Mountains.

Honestly ask yourself this:

DO YOU WANT TO PLAY MUTAVAULT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT AND THAT ANY DECK COULD JUST AFFORD TO PLAY IT BECAUSE, WELL, IT'S FUCKING MUTAVAULT?

Then play it. Lean on
your crutch. Play the cards because you spent money on them. Do it because it makes you feel happy. Don't let me talk you out of it.

Still with me??? Good, because this must mean you want to "unlearn what you have learned." Believe it or not, this deck is quite fragile. The pillar of it's strength is that it can reliably cast threats. Which is quite the opposite when compared to Young Peezy builds. P$ doesn't reliably cast threats. It casts "card advantage engines" in the form of Pyromancer, Phoenix, and Chandra, coupled with Burn. Mutavault is the perfect addition because you can reasonably play it turn 2 and cast Young P-Money to start building advantage. The cool thing is that because Mutavault hindered you the slightest bit on turn 2, you were able to stay on curve and build an eventual "nest egg" in the form of an extra creature as early as turn 3.

You can't afford that in Devotion Red. You MUST play your threats on curve. You either build an insurmountable army
that wins with a Mogis and attacking or you get stuck on land and die. It's that simple.

The whole reason to play Mogis is to hit harder earlier. Think Mike Tyson for this deck. You want to win in the 1st or 2nd round by delivering a staggeringly powerful uppercut. Young Peezy decks opt for the Muhammad Ali approach: float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Except that the sting from this Queen Bee is enough to bring you down permanently.

So what are you? Mike or Ali? Going "Tyson" means you want eschew the fancy tricks and go right for the ear...er, throat. Being pretty means going the distance and having those fancy dance steps. It's hard to be Ali, but to win like him is to do it in style.It's all a matter of choice.

The problem with everyone and the majority of the Mogis decks is that they're trying to do some weird amalgamation of the two best decks: Z's and Bertorelli's. Anything that doesn't fit that category is a bad Turtenwald deck.

Here's a tip: stay focused.

nRed is passionate, but it's consistent. Red is deadly when it can be complex. Each deck is capable of doing exactly that. Just don't confuse the two, and the deck will build itself.

No. I do not just want to play mutavault because I have them.

I want to play them because:

A) They are strictly better than your 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th mountain in play.

B) My list is preboarded for midrange / aggro mirrors. The deck has serious problems with sweepers. We need to improve our control m/u

C) When going big and siding in more land, I'd like them to do something more than tap for R

D) Other people are able to make it work (scgo, both top 16 lists with mv). If they can get away with it, why can't we?

E) We can't run hammer in a deck with Dragons. MV is flood insurance.

F) Nykthos was terrible in testing.

G) Makes FFS a lot better.

If I after testing it becomes a problem I will run 22 mountains in the MB and two vaults in the SB.

Here's my
abstract answer to this:

Who is going "big" and why? Who the fuck mentioned Dragons? Firefist Striker is not meant for this deck. Personally, I'd rather have Shred-Freak if you can believe that (and I invite the criticism for this). Hammer is our answer for Verdicts/Control (plays nice with Mogis). Nykthos didn't work for you because you played like 3 games with it (which is still 3 more games than my testing with it...so... ).

And most importantly, who gives a shit about other people? Really? We picked apart Bertorelli's list like a pack of Wild Mongrels and he won a fucking event. Nobody else has flat-out won one with a Mogis list since (granted, it's only been a week or two). And that muthafucka didn't need a Mutavault. So really, why do we feel like we have to have it???

We don't.


I could see myself playing one, I could. But you know what? Hammer works better
than Mutavault in THIS deck.

Not trying to be defensive, but your response came off like we were Assembling the Legion on my own post in our own home.

I truly believe, with the most conviction that I can muster, more than 1 Mutavault in this deck is going to FUCK anybody.

[Lightning_Dolt]

Ran some simulations and the 2x vault in the mainboard creates mana issues about 15% of the time. That is a number that I think I'm not ok with. Will likely make the change to 22 mountains main, 2x vault side.

[Zooligan]

You're also neglecting that most of the removal for Reckoner will hit your opponent back/kill a creature/stonewall attacks.

Except for all the bounce/destroy/edict/-X toughness effects Esper uses.

[DarthStabber]

Reckoner, Phoenix, and Hammer all serve completely different purposes. You're also neglecting that most of the removal for Reckoner will hit your opponent back/kill a creature/stonewall attacks.

1) doomblade is back, and hero's downfall is a thing.
2) dsphere and supreme verdict haven't left us.
3) chained to the rocks is the new swords to plowshares.
4) there are several very relevant edict effects floating around.
5) baconnator is way playable.

[DarthStabber]

I truly believe, with the most conviction that I can muster, more than 1 Mutavault in this deck is going to FUCK anybody.

I truely believe with all the conviction that I can muster that with reckoners and an extra mountain in the sideboard that 2 vaults will not fuck you over. Am I preboarding for control? A little, but local meta favors it, were I playing at an invitational or PT I would go more generalist.

[Helios]

A 0% chance of drawing a 2-vault hand is significantly less than a 10-15% one (citing Johnny's tests). Are you comfortable with 1/10 hands being sub-par? I'm not.