|
AlternateNu posted:Do you guys think it is worth it to splash B in Modern R/w burn for Bump/Rakdos Charm? And how many Rending Volley's would you sideboard for the Twin match? The RB version of burn is just less good. Bump is just Lava Spike that's only castable off a shock in the VAST majority of matchups, Rakdos Charm is an answer that only domes Twin most of the time. Honestly, the white for Boros Charm/Lightning Helix is so much more resilient and gives you more options (like Kor Firewalker out of the board, which becomes nearly uncastable in Mardu burn) that black just comes up a little bit short.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Do you guys think it is worth it to splash B in Modern R/w burn for Bump/Rakdos Charm? And how many Rending Volley's would you sideboard for the Twin match? Bump in the Night is just a bad lava spike (it's never going to be flashed back and matter). For twin, I prefer things like Combust (it also kills Siege Rhinos and Baneslayer Angels), Destructive Revelry, Wear // Tear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Do you guys think it is worth it to splash B in Modern R/w burn for Bump/Rakdos Charm? And how many Rending Volley's would you sideboard for the Twin match? Swiftspear is a much better creature than the decks that ran Bump had access to. The raw efficiency of a 1 CMC 3 Damage sorcery isn't as vital to getting there as it used to be because a Swiftspear is going to reliably get you some good damage. That leaves room for more 2CMC spells with utility like a full grip of Boros Charm which wasn't always the norm back then, which makes taking Helix easier, and then you can tailor some other options like Shard Volley for more interaction at instant speed. Without Bump in the list, Rakdos Charm gets a lot less compelling, and as far as Rending Volley is concerned. I don't know, I'd have to test it but my initial gut feeling is zero. The twin match-up is close, and I honestly don't think its getting better by putting in a card that does zero damage to players. For perspective I feel similarly about it from Twin's perspective, and the only cards I have in my board that come in against Burn are a single Negate and a Single Dispel to replace 2 Cryptic Commands. Those are barely any better though and are actually in the board for other matchups. I have nothing in the board with Burn in mind, its a 50/50 game and I try to tilt the odds in my favor by knowing the matchup more than reaching for something out of the board.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
The reason Rending Volley is better than Destructive Revelry or Combust is that it costs 1 mana. If you hold up two mana for Revelry, they can just tap a land down with Pestermite/Deceiver Exarch and win while you stare at them with Destructive Revelry in hand. You can try and counter this by holding up 3 mana at all times, but playing a burn deck that ends its turn with untapped lands isn't super, and that's assuming they can't just cut you off green/black for Revelry/Rakdos Charm. Plus, Twin isn't stupid. They know they can't race you or value-attack for several turns, and their counters (specifically Remand) are dreadful against you, so the Twin plan stays in, and you'll be forced to respect it all game. If you only have to hold up single red, they have to respect you at all times, while you can continue your game plan. Yes, spending R to deal 0 damage to the opponent (and likely 2 damage to yourself via Eidolon) isn't great, but Twin is more than 15% of the meta and the best deck in the format right now. If you're serious about Burn, you're gonna be at the top tables, where you're likely to encounter Twin, which means you need a stone-cold answer for it. With R open and Rending Volley in the format, you've effectively blanked Twin's main path to victory. They are now a lovely tempo deck that's gonna have to try and get by with Electrolyze and Snapcaster Mage while you are playing big-boy burn spells. They cannot win against that. Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Everblight posted:With R open and Rending Volley in the format, you've effectively blanked Twin's main path to victory. They are now a lovely tempo deck that's gonna have to try and get by with Electrolyze and Snapcaster Mage while you are playing big-boy burn spells. They cannot win against that. Ask any Twin player and they will tell you they win an absurd number of their games by being a "lovely tempo deck" in fact its how I win almost all of my burn matchups. I think I've beaten burn with the actual combo maybe 1 time. I can't tell you how often Burn rolls over me Game 1 before going to the board and making themselves worse. Playing around the Combo suddenly means they've got cards in their hands that aren't hitting me in the dome, Remand is suddenly amazing because when I counter a Burn spell for the draw, instead of immediately getting hit again they hold back so they can have mana for their Combo hoser. I love nothing more than stabilizing at 4-6 Life and winning with Clique beats and Bolts because my opponent drew a Destructive Revelry/Wear//Tear and a Path or something else they brought in for the Combo or they waited too long to to Combust a Pestermite and suddenly I was in Doulbe Bolt range of winning. IMO stuff in the Sideboard like Revelry/Path is for the truly unbeatable poo poo, to blow up a Leyline, or get rid of an Iona, it's wasted in the Twin matchup. The best that deck can manage is a T4 kill, under ideal conditions. Burn can do that with greater consistency. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Its almost like what I have been saying all along. Sometimes hoping they don't have it is a legit start, and I ton of people over think burn side boarding. A bunch of control or tempo players also don't play burn aggressive enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Speaking of Burn, I took second place in a local Legacy tournament on Sunday with this list below. The highlight of the tourney was fighting my way out from under a Trinisphere by continuing to throw bolts and attack with a Guide until I drew into a Smash. 17x Mountain 3x Lotus Petal 4x Goblin Guide 4x Monastery Swiftspear 4x Eidolon of the Great Revel 4x Lightning Bolt 4x Chain Lightning 4x Lava Spike 4x Rift Bolt 4x Fireblast 4x Flame Rift 4x Price of Progress SB: 4x Vexing Shusher 4x Searing Blaze 3x Sulfuric Vortex 3x Smash to Smithereens 1x Mountain
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Kraus posted:17x Mountain
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Everblight posted:No fetches? Fetches do nothing for his deck he doesn't have grim? E: he does have blaze in the board but none main. Seems reasonable to me. Sigma-X fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Fetches do nothing for his deck he doesn't have grim? he has searing blaze in the side
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Zoness posted:he has searing blaze in the side I should really replace those with Searing Bloods. I think I just ran with them because they were sleeved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Fetches do nothing for his deck he doesn't have grim? I know the "fetches don't thin" argument, but that goes for normal decks, not the very, very extremes that Burn is. At the very least, given the presence of Monastery Swiftspear, I figured 4 Lotus Petal would be an auto-include.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I know the "fetches don't thin" argument, but that goes for normal decks, not the very, very extremes that Burn is. At the very least, given the presence of Monastery Swiftspear, I figured 4 Lotus Petal would be an auto-include. Yeah, the thinning thing applies to burn too. I already have a 66.6% chance of drawing a spell (very roughly speaking), the fetches would only grow that infinitesimally. There's an argument to have them to turn on Searing Blaze, but if I'm aggressively racing to the kill, why would I leave a fetch unpopped? Edit: The Petals are there primarily for the chance of first turn Eidolon. You can have a really cute opening of Mountain, Swiftspear, Petal, Bolt, and demoralize your opponent by dealing them 6 right off the bat, but too many Petals can leave you with poo poo hands. I have to throw back hands have have a Petal instead of a Mountain, so I need my chances of getting one to be decent, but not four-of great. Kraus fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Kraus posted:Yeah, the thinning thing applies to burn too. I already have a 66.6% chance of drawing a spell (very roughly speaking), the fetches would only grow that infinitesimally. There's an argument to have them to turn on Searing Blaze, but if I'm aggressively racing to the kill, why would I leave a fetch unpopped? Well I mean there's real value in representing a bolt in my experience playing against burn. Also burn requires a spell count that's pretty similar to that of other decks, there's nothing special about burn that makes fetching more or less "thinning-relevant" than for another deck that runs a similar land-spell ratio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Well I mean there's real value in representing a bolt in my experience playing against burn. I've never been much of a bluffer. Either I have the kill or I don't. Fetches are for mana fixing or feeding delve or Grims. Thinning isn't a thing, especially not in a deck that won't see even a quarter of its cards if everything goes right. Land floods do happen, but that's variance for ya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I know the "fetches don't thin" argument, but that goes for normal decks, not the very, very extremes that Burn is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I know the "fetches don't thin" argument, but that goes for normal decks, not the very, very extremes that Burn is. At the very least, given the presence of Monastery Swiftspear, I figured 4 Lotus Petal would be an auto-include. You have to go to like turn 8 and take 4-5 damage off of fetches to draw a full card. e: my recollection of the math is way off and it's even worse!) In a deck running 4 flame rift and 4 eidolon main you are going to take a lot of self damage. There are plenty of metas where the ~2 life per game that running 8-10 fetches would cost is not worth the e2: there's also the benefit of reducing the effectiveness of enemy deathrites, especially when they're paired with tarmogoyfs. Sigma-X fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Anyone playing Thunderous Wrath in Legacy Burn? I've been trying a 3 of and I don't pull them in my opening hand too often. I guess mathematically 1-2 is probably a safer number to run. I mean - yes, 0 is probably the correct number but I've been trying to look through gatherer for some potential oddball cards for burn. Likewise, Runeflare Trap seems to be a fairly good "answer" to any decks playing Brainstorm. It's a 1:1 trap that will likely hit them for at least 3 while not triggering your Eidolons. Going back to pre-8th Edition cards: Skullscorch seems pretty nuts. Even though Browbeat effects tend to give your opponent too much choice, doesn't Dash Hopes see some non-zero amount of play? Sonic Seizure and Sonic Burst both seem like fairly interesting effects, especially with something like Fiery Temper - I could see a deck playing 4-ofs and attempting to sequence its plays to play out the rest of the "normal" part of the hand as quickly as possible. These would have been pretty sweet back when burn was splashing blue for Treasure Cruise, but I'm not sure there's enough cards now that could take advantage of spells being in the graveyard. Maybe it would fit a Madness style deck a bit better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Thunderous wrath is bad. Jesus Christ, why is burn such a trap. You want to win by turn 4, so you are seeing 7+4 cards in a game. Thunderous wrath has a greater chance of being in your opener and dead than it does being miracled. Thinning matters less in a burn deck than any other. The only deck I know of where thinning is a real thing is modern storm, and that's only because you draw 60 cards a game. Even then its a small effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Don't listen to them. Play all 4 Thunderous Wrath. My Stifles need a target. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
eSporks posted:Thunderous wrath is bad. Jesus Christ, why is burn such a trap. You want to win by turn 4, so you are seeing 7+4 cards in a game. Thunderous wrath has a greater chance of being in your opener and dead than it does being miracled. I've been playing a stock list online for a while now - no weird alterations, standard creature/spell load-out, etc. I'm far from a new player - not even a new burn player. That goal makes sense, but do you know if there are any actual numbers on how long games with decks playing burn take against the average opponent? I'm sure it varies by deck more wildly in Legacy than most formats, but it would be interesting to look at. Assuming you have 2-3 Mountains in that starting 7+4 (reasonable assuming you're playing 18-20), you're ideally playing out 7-8 spells that are intended to do an average of 3 damage to your opponent. Now, that's a good hand - the sequence works and you get to drop them by turn 4. What happens when the game stretches on for another 2-3 turns? What happens if you keep a 2-land hand and top-deck 2-3 lands? What happens if you mulligan? Writing off Thunderous Wrath, do Sonic Seizure and Sonic Burst seem playable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Don't listen to them. Play all 4 Thunderous Wrath. My Stifles need a target. Stifle doesn't hit a card being cast for its Miracle cost - it's an alternate cost with no trigger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:Stifle doesn't hit a card being cast for its Miracle cost - it's an alternate cost with no trigger. false 702.93a Miracle is a static ability linked to a triggered ability (see rule 603.10). "Miracle [cost]" means "You may reveal this card from your hand as you draw it if it's the first card you've drawn this turn. When you reveal this card this way, you may cast it by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost." The bolded part specifically is a triggered ability. Technically if you're already casting the card it can't be stifled since you've already resolved the miracle ability but I mean that's not something you can handwave past with a shortcut. I.e. if you stifle the trigger the spell just sits in their hand. Zoness fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
And this is why we check the comp rules for unfamiliar keyword mechanics rather than *just* the oracle text. EDIT: I missed out on Innistrad block and haven't had much exposure to the Miracle cards until recently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:Stifle doesn't hit a card being cast for its Miracle cost - it's an alternate cost with no trigger. Oh man do I know some Miracles players who are going to be mad. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Also you can cast an instant for its regular cost in response to its miracle trigger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:I've been playing a stock list online for a while now - no weird alterations, standard creature/spell load-out, etc. I'm far from a new player - not even a new burn player. Thunderous Wrath is absolutely 100% dead if its in your opening hand. Assuming the game goes 6 turns, you have 7 chances to draw Wrath in your opening hand, and 6 chance to miracle it. Its going to be a dead card more often than not. I had to look up Sonic Seizure, and I now I think you are just trolling. What happens if you top deck one? Why would you even run this over shard volley anyways? Burn does not win by trying to be cute. Burn wins by drawing 7 lightning bolts (7x3=21) and 3 lands. EDIT: You have to be trolling. If you keep a 2 land hand then topdeck 2 lands, you certainly aren't Miracling a Wrath. eSporks fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Yeah game one is usually who top decks best but game 2 Jund should sideboard in maelstrom pulse, life from the loam and ancient grudge. Jund has a strong top deck with bloodbraid elf so it shouldn't be that one sided in pox's favor as well as having access to sylvan library for draw. I haven't played against your specific build and it does look brutal. He did hit me with Maelstrom and Grudge (usually against Lily, Top, and The Rack, which were not big deals), but I didn't see Life from the Loam. Thanks for the compliment on the deck, it catches people off guard and it's a lot of fun to play. Abrupt came out a LOT during the games, but really, there aren't any lynchpins in my permanents. When he would try to Surgical my Bloodghasts, I'd crack a Bloodstained I'd left aside for that purpose. The only thing that I think would would really ruin my day would be a Extirpate or Surgical on Pox, but he never thought to do that. Even if that did happen, I'd likely have already cast it once, which is usually what brings the win within reach for me. Tricerapowerbottom fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:
I got somebody with a Runeflare Trap the first weekend Griselbrand was legal and showing up in Sneak and Show lists. Play four (don't play this card).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
eSporks posted:I had to look up Sonic Seizure, and I now I think you are just trolling. What happens if you top deck one? Why would you even run this over shard volley anyways? He's asking about cards that aren't run in burn that he thinks are good. This is a learning experience. Some people actually want to understand why cards are bad instead of just trusting the judgment of the internet collective. Sonic Seizure was printed in Torment Block specifically to enable the Fiery Temper (and the 1RRR arc lightning spell) in burn decks. It's not a good enough card for legacy but asking "why" is not trolling, it's learning. Anyhow, Thunderous Wrath is not really playable because it's dead if it's in your opener. Your goal is to be as consistent as possible in hitting the T4 (or earlier) Goldfish, and if it is in your opener it's effectively like you mulliganed. Sonic Seizure is a lightning bolt that costs you another card. It's like you cast two half-lightning bolts. You're a deck that can run all of the printed lightning bolts, so lava spike, lightning bolt, chain lightning, and rift bolt are all better than it easily. Fiery Temper is ONLY a lightning bolt when you have sonic seizure, so you're playing a 2 card combo that requires both cards in hand and certain conditions to be met before it deals 6 damage. In comparison, other 2 card combos in Legacy are Show and Tell & Emrakul, Entomb + Reanimate, etc - ie, way more powerful than getting two lightning bolts for RR (in a deck that can run at least 16 bolts without tangible drawbacks).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Atarka's Command is not just worse than Boros Charm, it is hilarously worse. Boros Charm has all three modes relevant, deals more damage and is cute against Firespout and friends to boot. I got downvoted to hell pre-states for saying Atarka's Command is bad (on /r/spikes of all places, where they don't do 'cute') and was told instead that burn should play Become Immense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:My point was that if Skullcrack is essentially always preferable to "deal 4 damage" (I don't think it is) then you probably want Command as extra copies of Skullcrack even if it's worse. If it is not then Atarka's Command offers extra flexibility over Skullcrack and is worthy of consideration. Skull crack does 3 damage. It's a difference of 1 damage. Except it requires a creature to be attacking and be unblocked. Whereas you can cast skull crack in response to a kitchen finks or siege rhino trigger instead of only as a combat trick against life linkers. And it requires you to gently caress up your manabase to cast the command.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Atarka's Command can also be cast in response to a Siege Rhino or Finks trigger, I don't understand what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Why doesn't burn play delver and wild nacatyl? I mean they play goblin guide which is a 2/2 with downside, but delver and nacatyl are like 3/3's all time time with no downside? They are way better than Goblin Guide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
eSporks posted:Why doesn't burn play delver and wild nacatyl? I mean they play goblin guide which is a 2/2 with downside, but delver and nacatyl are like 3/3's all time time with no downside? They are way better than Goblin Guide. The downside is that they don't cost R or have haste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Learning how to evaluate why cards that look like they could be in the deck aren't in the deck is all I'm trying to do. There are some really obscure cards out there that people don't know exist that may be the answer to specific problems with the deck (or other decks) in the current meta. I'm not saying they are - I'm asking if other people who have played the deck have had any sort of experience with them. There are some new cards out there that may be playable in burn just out of DTK and FRF. Not saying that they are playable, but experimentation is how decks get better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
eSporks posted:Why doesn't burn play delver and wild nacatyl? I mean they play goblin guide which is a 2/2 with downside, but delver and nacatyl are like 3/3's all time time with no downside? They are way better than Goblin Guide. you joke, but people really truly did play Blue Zoo
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
AgentSythe posted:you joke, but people really truly did play Blue Zoo Catfish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Ask any Twin player and they will tell you they win an absurd number of their games by being a "lovely tempo deck" in fact its how I win almost all of my burn matchups. Agreed: it's very hard to beat burn "fairly" pre-board, but it's much easier post board when you bring in the dispels/negates and they overboard to protect against the combo. I've yet to play a burn player who made their deck better with sideboarding instead of worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
whateverfor posted:Agreed: it's very hard to beat burn "fairly" pre-board, but it's much easier post board when you bring in the dispels/negates and they overboard to protect against the combo. I've yet to play a burn player who made their deck better with sideboarding instead of worse. So knowing that a lot of twin players will dance around the combo hate, I wonder if it isn't a bad idea as the burn player to not board against it game 2? Especially if you're up a game. Go full sideboard inception until you see that the twin player is still willing to go for combo after boarding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:14
|
|
