I guess... But the other dude should have played his spells, attacked after exalted trigger resolves Wasteland his own Savannah. That line of play gives Sullivan the least amount of outs. If i'm correct he would have needed double Fireblast. In which case it didn't matter what the other dude did.
But yeah Sullivan played it well and the other guy didn't.
Should have done this, shouldn't have done that, all this proves is that this game takes skill.
How difficult is this to grasp? I mean do we REALLY have that many Magic players in total denial?
At one time, I was SUCH a bad player that I played my Oath of Druids Vintage deck against a janky standard deck and almost lost.
I don't care how good your deck is. If you suck, you'll lose. And no matter how easy it is to play (relatively speaking) you'll still lose if you don't know what you're doing.
I am not trolling here, but how is your opponent making a play mistake an example of brilliant skill?
The finish wasn't the skillful play. Putting out the vortex in anticipation of Jitte was. He played the red deck using all of the resources at his disposal, squeezing every last drop of juice out of his game-time and cards.
His opponent, however, made no mistakes either. It was an interesting game and I don't think red decks take no skill to pilot but nevertheless I don't think it is such a big deal. His opponent couldn't believe that he lost? That's just arrogance.
Actually it totally was. He did have different lines available you realise. PSully needed to put him at 9 so that the vortex trigger threatened to put him at 7 - which increases significantly the number of card combinations that win instantly - so by taking the line he did, PSully forced the pridemage sacrifice.
The point is that if he has Bolt then he could just kill him immediately. The Maverick player made a blatant mistake of not knowing that there is effectively no difference between going to 3 and going to 1.
Good players don't make bad decks good, they just make them better.
The point is that it takes just as much skill to "close out" the game with a deck with a narrow objective like RDW (20-0), as it does to "survive" with a more control oriented or midrange deck and then win off one or a few, frankly irrelevant win condition(s) cause you have board control or massive card advantage.
Should have done this, shouldn't have done that, all this proves is that this game takes skill.
How difficult is this to grasp? I mean do we REALLY have that many Magic players in total denial?
At one time, I was SUCH a bad player that I played my Oath of Druids Vintage deck against a janky standard deck and almost lost.
I don't care how good your deck is. If you suck, you'll lose. And no matter how easy it is to play (relatively speaking) you'll still lose if you don't know what you're doing.
The elitism of Magic players boggles my mind.
What the heck is your argument? That you in fact get to make a decision when playing magic?
Magic has a hilariously low amount of skill involved compared to most games. Yes, it has skill, but to hit the peak of what your deck is capable of doing takes what? 2 weeks of playtesting? That's a joke.
The point is that it takes just as much skill to "close out" the game with a deck with a narrow objective like RDW (20-0), as it does to "survive" with a more control oriented or midrange deck and then win off one or a few, frankly irrelevant win condition(s) cause you have board control or massive card advantage.
DWI, haters.
No. Just flat out wrong. A narrow objective leads to a narrow decision tree, and a narrow decision tree means there is almost no possible way to get it wrong.
Burn is a meta choice. It's not a deck you play to outplay your opponent over many turns. It's a deck you pick when you believe the meta is lacking in disruption and has a slow clock. You've almost won or lost the game before the hands are even dealt with burn.
What the heck is your argument? That you in fact get to make a decision when playing magic?
Magic has a hilariously low amount of skill involved compared to most games. Yes, it has skill, but to hit the peak of what your deck is capable of doing takes what? 2 weeks of playtesting? That's a joke.
I myself have said that Magic is not chess. That's not the point. Given the amount of skill involved in Magic (and I am discovering it to be more than I originally thought) no one deck requires any more or less skill than another deck. Just different skills.
And that's my problem with both sides of the "red is mindless" versus "blue is for geniuses" argument and I'm sick of it. Everybody needs to come down from their ivory towers.
No, you don't need a PhD to play Magic well. You also can't have the IQ of a turnip. If I give a chimp a red deck he's going to lose...every game, even if you have somebody drop the cards for him and "play" the hand.
If blue players want to believe they're the second coming of Einstein (and I'm a blue player) then let them.
Conversely, if they want to think that red players are protozoa, power to them.
After 18 years of it, I'm sick of all the bigotry, elitism and animosity.
Blue and red players are neither geniuses or idiots. They semi skilled card game players who have to have a relative degree of smarts to play this game well no matter WHAT color or deck they're playing.
Those who can't understand and/or admit that need to reread the line above the paragraph above this one.
Well done to Patrick. Burn is not my kind of deck to play at all (If I wanted to play a deck that killed with spells, I'd play Storm instead as it is usually faster, is more satisfying to win with, has more interesting decision trees, etc) but I do respect the deck. I know that it is harder to play effectively than its affordable price tag and seemingly narrow strategy suggests.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Special thanks to Hakai Studios and SushiOtter for the sig!
Legacy:UR Sneak and Show IUBG Team America IX Metalworker MUD Modern:UBR Blue Jund IWBX Eldrazi Processors IX Affinity IWRG Nacatl Burn IGR Tron IUBR Grishoalbrand
Should have done this, shouldn't have done that, all this proves is that this game takes skill.
How difficult is this to grasp? I mean do we REALLY have that many Magic players in total denial?
At one time, I was SUCH a bad player that I played my Oath of Druids Vintage deck against a janky standard deck and almost lost.
I don't care how good your deck is. If you suck, you'll lose. And no matter how easy it is to play (relatively speaking) you'll still lose if you don't know what you're doing.
The elitism of Magic players boggles my mind.
Did you quote me for kicks? Because i didn't imply magic is a skill-less game. What i was saying is his opponents bad play had more to do with win then his good play.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Did you quote me for kicks? Because i didn't imply magic is a skill-less game. What i was saying is his opponents bad play had more to do with win then his good play.
No, I didn't quote you for kicks. Bad play, good play, it's all relative. It's still the degree of play skill of each player. And no, the better player doesn't always win because there is still an element of luck in this game (bad opening hand, mana screw/flood, etc.) but it's been proven in the long run that the better players do better over time. Otherwise, how do you explain the same names popping up on the pro tour all the time? It's not like you can buy your way into the winner's seat.
Kai Budde will play a "stupid" RDW deck better than I will. And that goes for any deck. How "easy" or "hard" a deck is to play in general is opinion only because everybody has a different skill. I know some people who couldn't play a red deck correctly to save their lives because they don't think that way. Their brain isn't wired for a red deck. But those same people will take a UR Storm combo deck and know exactly WHEN to hold off a turn and WHEN to go off.
Storm gives me fits. I never know when to attempt to go off. As a result, my games playing Storm are terrible, whereas my friend Rob almost always beats me with the same deck no matter what I play against it.
You can't pigeon hole decks any more than you can pigeon hole people.
I played Mono Black Control (not considered that great right now) to 4 percentage points of a top 8 finish at a GP Trial.
Two months before, I played RG Aggro (considered a much stronger deck) to a 1-4 finish.
I'm obviously not wired to be an aggro player. I never was.
Put a red deck in my hands and I might as well just concede...no matter how good the deck is. And I'm talking Legacy burn even.
So please, can we stop with the "this deck is stupid" and "this deck is for geniuses" nonsense?
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Enjoy fighting those Strawman, you sir are amazing at it.
Thank you. And I am sure you're an equally amazing Magic player.
Back on topic.
Obviously this is a subject that players won't agree on.
So let me ask you this, and I mean this seriously.
Has an actual study been made to determine the degree of difficulty of each deck and archetype or is all this "this deck is easy/hard" stuff just opinion?
If some study has been made, I'd love to see the data and how the determinations were made.
For example:
In a typical game of Magic between a red sligh deck and a MUC deck, the red deck will have to make X.Y decisions rated at Z difficulty while the MUC deck will make A.B decisions rated at C difficulty.
I don't even know if analysis such as this is even possible with all the variables involved in a game but it would be fascinating if some really smart person (certainly not me) could do something like this.
If not, again, this is all just opinion.
And that's fine. But please let's not state opinion as fact.
My opinion is that all decks are equally hard/easy to play.
My opinion is that all decks are equally hard/easy to play.
And yes, that's JUST my opinion.
This is something that can be proven to be false.
It's not a matter of opinion, it is raw fact that some decks are easier than others. It's not something up for debate, it's not a belief, it is something that is provable.
For example, do you believe burn is just as hard as doomsday fetch land tendrils?
It's not a matter of opinion, it is raw fact that some decks are easier than others. It's not something up for debate, it's not a belief, it is something that is provable.
For example, do you believe burn is just as hard as doomsday fetch land tendrils?
Then PROVE it! Show me the statistical evidence. Show me the studies.
Yes, the two are exactly as difficult to play as one another. Give a player with no prior experience with either archtype a legacy burn deck and a doomsday fetch tendrils deck at two tournaments up against the same meta, they will do equally as well.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
Yes, the two are exactly as difficult to play as one another. Give a player with no prior experience with either archtype a legacy burn deck and a doomsday fetch tendrils deck at two tournaments up against the same meta, they will do equally as well.
Care to provide proof to the opposite?
A simple proof that all decks do not have the same skill requirements:
Deck 1: 60 islands
Deck 2: Mill deck
Deck 1's optimal play is to mulligan to 0 to have the best chance of decking the opponent, and then play an island every turn.
Deck 2 immediately has more decisions to make every single turn, as it has the decision to play a land or not, and to cast the spells in it's hand or not, and these decisions have a definitive effect on how often the mill deck wins.
Thus, deck 1 is provably easier to play than deck 2.
Extending this to real decks takes a lot more work, but the same general idea holds true. Decks have more or less decisions to make than one another based on the cards in their and the opponent's list. Burn happens to have some of the least frequent, easiest to make decisions of competitive legacy decks.
A simple proof that all decks do not have the same skill requirements:
Deck 1: 60 islands
Deck 2: Mill deck
Deck 1's optimal play is to mulligan to 0 to have the best chance of decking the opponent, and then play an island every turn.
Deck 2 immediately has more decisions to make every single turn, as it has the decision to play a land or not, and to cast the spells in it's hand or not, and these decisions have a definitive effect on how often the mill deck wins.
Thus, deck 1 is provably easier to play than deck 2.
Extending this to real decks takes a lot more work, but the same general idea holds true. Decks have more or less decisions to make than one another based on the cards in their and the opponent's list. Burn happens to have some of the least frequent, easiest to make decisions of competitive legacy decks.
I'm sorry, and no disrespect intended, but after this response I can no longer take anything you say seriously.
Really? That's the example you give?
I stand by my opinion that all decks are equally as hard/easy to play and the only thing that makes one easier or harder for any particular player is...
1. The player's play skill.
2. The player's affinity for a certain archetype.
Until somebody can show me hard evidence to the contrary, my opinion stands as is.
I'm sorry, and no disrespect intended, but after this response I can no longer take anything you say seriously.
Really? That's the example you give?
I stand by my opinion that all decks are equally as hard/easy to play and the only thing that makes one easier or harder for any particular player is...
1. The player's play skill.
2. The player's affinity for a certain archetype.
Until somebody can show me hard evidence to the contrary, my opinion stands as is.
I just showed an example. What is wrong with my example? Magic is purely a game of decisions, and I showed two decks that had a clear difference in decisions that had to be made that actually could affect the game outcome.
Are you going to revise your claim that all decks require the same amount of skill or are you going to continue to argue in favor of your claim that has already been proven false?
I am not trolling here, but how is your opponent making a play mistake an example of brilliant skill?
What was the play mistake? Reducing the number out outs Patrick could conceivably have? That's terrible! PSully had to set up that play over two turns, letting himself be dead on board, while forcing his opponent to kill the Vortex - if he doesnt kill the vortex he is dead to blast + bolt which is much more likely. PSully sold "I have blast + bolt" and his opponent shut down that line of play, which ws not only correct based on his read, but also correct based on his knowledge of PSully's list. So you know, completely correct play by both players.
Quote from Commons »
I guess... But the other dude should have played his spells, attacked after exalted trigger resolves Wasteland his own Savannah. That line of play gives Sullivan the least amount of outs. If i'm correct he would have needed double Fireblast. In which case it didn't matter what the other dude did.
But yeah Sullivan played it well and the other guy didn't.
It actually gives PSully 3 extra outs after the damage from Vortex...this is why burn can be hard to play with and against. Also, Price of Progress is quite the magic card.
Quote from Grand Superior »
Well done to Patrick. Burn is not my kind of deck to play at all (If I wanted to play a deck that killed with spells, I'd play Storm instead as it is usually faster, is more satisfying to win with, has more interesting decision trees, etc) but I do respect the deck. I know that it is harder to play effectively than its affordable price tag and seemingly narrow strategy suggests.
Well said! I always like to joke that burn is the slowest combo deck in the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
What was the play mistake? Reducing the number out outs Patrick could conceivably have? That's terrible! PSully had to set up that play over two turns, letting himself be dead on board, while forcing his opponent to kill the Vortex - if he doesnt kill the vortex he is dead to blast + bolt which is much more likely. PSully sold "I have blast + bolt" and his opponent shut down that line of play, which ws not only correct based on his read, but also correct based on his knowledge of PSully's list. So you know, completely correct play by both players.
It actually gives PSully 3 extra outs after the damage from Vortex...this is why burn can be hard to play with and against. Also, Price of Progress is quite the magic card.
Well said! I always like to joke that burn is the slowest combo deck in the format.
A simple proof that all decks do not have the same skill requirements:
Deck 1: 60 islands
Deck 2: Mill deck
Deck 1's optimal play is to mulligan to 0 to have the best chance of decking the opponent, and then play an island every turn.
Deck 2 immediately has more decisions to make every single turn, as it has the decision to play a land or not, and to cast the spells in it's hand or not, and these decisions have a definitive effect on how often the mill deck wins.
Thus, deck 1 is provably easier to play than deck 2.
Extending this to real decks takes a lot more work, but the same general idea holds true. Decks have more or less decisions to make than one another based on the cards in their and the opponent's list. Burn happens to have some of the least frequent, easiest to make decisions of competitive legacy decks.
Now prove that burn has more or less decisions on an average turn than control. I dare you, because its a failing proposition.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
Should have done this, shouldn't have done that, all this proves is that this game takes skill.
How difficult is this to grasp? I mean do we REALLY have that many Magic players in total denial?
At one time, I was SUCH a bad player that I played my Oath of Druids Vintage deck against a janky standard deck and almost lost.
I don't care how good your deck is. If you suck, you'll lose. And no matter how easy it is to play (relatively speaking) you'll still lose if you don't know what you're doing.
The elitism of Magic players boggles my mind.
The finish wasn't the skillful play. Putting out the vortex in anticipation of Jitte was. He played the red deck using all of the resources at his disposal, squeezing every last drop of juice out of his game-time and cards.
His opponent, however, made no mistakes either. It was an interesting game and I don't think red decks take no skill to pilot but nevertheless I don't think it is such a big deal. His opponent couldn't believe that he lost? That's just arrogance.
The point is that if he has Bolt then he could just kill him immediately. The Maverick player made a blatant mistake of not knowing that there is effectively no difference between going to 3 and going to 1.
Good players don't make bad decks good, they just make them better.
DWI, haters.
What the heck is your argument? That you in fact get to make a decision when playing magic?
Magic has a hilariously low amount of skill involved compared to most games. Yes, it has skill, but to hit the peak of what your deck is capable of doing takes what? 2 weeks of playtesting? That's a joke.
No. Just flat out wrong. A narrow objective leads to a narrow decision tree, and a narrow decision tree means there is almost no possible way to get it wrong.
Burn is a meta choice. It's not a deck you play to outplay your opponent over many turns. It's a deck you pick when you believe the meta is lacking in disruption and has a slow clock. You've almost won or lost the game before the hands are even dealt with burn.
I myself have said that Magic is not chess. That's not the point. Given the amount of skill involved in Magic (and I am discovering it to be more than I originally thought) no one deck requires any more or less skill than another deck. Just different skills.
And that's my problem with both sides of the "red is mindless" versus "blue is for geniuses" argument and I'm sick of it. Everybody needs to come down from their ivory towers.
No, you don't need a PhD to play Magic well. You also can't have the IQ of a turnip. If I give a chimp a red deck he's going to lose...every game, even if you have somebody drop the cards for him and "play" the hand.
If blue players want to believe they're the second coming of Einstein (and I'm a blue player) then let them.
Conversely, if they want to think that red players are protozoa, power to them.
After 18 years of it, I'm sick of all the bigotry, elitism and animosity.
Blue and red players are neither geniuses or idiots. They semi skilled card game players who have to have a relative degree of smarts to play this game well no matter WHAT color or deck they're playing.
Those who can't understand and/or admit that need to reread the line above the paragraph above this one.
A traditional red creature is something like this..
or a even more mindless goblin or dwarf.
Add in the fact a majority of red players are more on the inpatient side and that's where the stereotype comes from.
aka Prey Upon
Special thanks to Hakai Studios and SushiOtter for the sig!
Legacy: UR Sneak and Show I UBG Team America I X Metalworker MUD
Modern: UBR Blue Jund I WBX Eldrazi Processors I X Affinity I WRG Nacatl Burn I GR Tron I UBR Grishoalbrand
Did you quote me for kicks? Because i didn't imply magic is a skill-less game. What i was saying is his opponents bad play had more to do with win then his good play.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
No, I didn't quote you for kicks. Bad play, good play, it's all relative. It's still the degree of play skill of each player. And no, the better player doesn't always win because there is still an element of luck in this game (bad opening hand, mana screw/flood, etc.) but it's been proven in the long run that the better players do better over time. Otherwise, how do you explain the same names popping up on the pro tour all the time? It's not like you can buy your way into the winner's seat.
Kai Budde will play a "stupid" RDW deck better than I will. And that goes for any deck. How "easy" or "hard" a deck is to play in general is opinion only because everybody has a different skill. I know some people who couldn't play a red deck correctly to save their lives because they don't think that way. Their brain isn't wired for a red deck. But those same people will take a UR Storm combo deck and know exactly WHEN to hold off a turn and WHEN to go off.
Storm gives me fits. I never know when to attempt to go off. As a result, my games playing Storm are terrible, whereas my friend Rob almost always beats me with the same deck no matter what I play against it.
You can't pigeon hole decks any more than you can pigeon hole people.
I played Mono Black Control (not considered that great right now) to 4 percentage points of a top 8 finish at a GP Trial.
Two months before, I played RG Aggro (considered a much stronger deck) to a 1-4 finish.
I'm obviously not wired to be an aggro player. I never was.
Put a red deck in my hands and I might as well just concede...no matter how good the deck is. And I'm talking Legacy burn even.
So please, can we stop with the "this deck is stupid" and "this deck is for geniuses" nonsense?
Because that's all it is...nonsense.
Enjoy fighting those Strawman, you sir are amazing at it.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Thank you. And I am sure you're an equally amazing Magic player.
Back on topic.
Obviously this is a subject that players won't agree on.
So let me ask you this, and I mean this seriously.
Has an actual study been made to determine the degree of difficulty of each deck and archetype or is all this "this deck is easy/hard" stuff just opinion?
If some study has been made, I'd love to see the data and how the determinations were made.
For example:
In a typical game of Magic between a red sligh deck and a MUC deck, the red deck will have to make X.Y decisions rated at Z difficulty while the MUC deck will make A.B decisions rated at C difficulty.
I don't even know if analysis such as this is even possible with all the variables involved in a game but it would be fascinating if some really smart person (certainly not me) could do something like this.
If not, again, this is all just opinion.
And that's fine. But please let's not state opinion as fact.
My opinion is that all decks are equally hard/easy to play.
And yes, that's JUST my opinion.
This is something that can be proven to be false.
It's not a matter of opinion, it is raw fact that some decks are easier than others. It's not something up for debate, it's not a belief, it is something that is provable.
For example, do you believe burn is just as hard as doomsday fetch land tendrils?
Then PROVE it! Show me the statistical evidence. Show me the studies.
Otherwise, again, it's just YOUR opinion.
Answer the question.
Yes, the two are exactly as difficult to play as one another. Give a player with no prior experience with either archtype a legacy burn deck and a doomsday fetch tendrils deck at two tournaments up against the same meta, they will do equally as well.
Care to provide proof to the opposite?
A simple proof that all decks do not have the same skill requirements:
Deck 1: 60 islands
Deck 2: Mill deck
Deck 1's optimal play is to mulligan to 0 to have the best chance of decking the opponent, and then play an island every turn.
Deck 2 immediately has more decisions to make every single turn, as it has the decision to play a land or not, and to cast the spells in it's hand or not, and these decisions have a definitive effect on how often the mill deck wins.
Thus, deck 1 is provably easier to play than deck 2.
Extending this to real decks takes a lot more work, but the same general idea holds true. Decks have more or less decisions to make than one another based on the cards in their and the opponent's list. Burn happens to have some of the least frequent, easiest to make decisions of competitive legacy decks.
I'm sorry, and no disrespect intended, but after this response I can no longer take anything you say seriously.
Really? That's the example you give?
I stand by my opinion that all decks are equally as hard/easy to play and the only thing that makes one easier or harder for any particular player is...
1. The player's play skill.
2. The player's affinity for a certain archetype.
Until somebody can show me hard evidence to the contrary, my opinion stands as is.
I just showed an example. What is wrong with my example? Magic is purely a game of decisions, and I showed two decks that had a clear difference in decisions that had to be made that actually could affect the game outcome.
Are you going to revise your claim that all decks require the same amount of skill or are you going to continue to argue in favor of your claim that has already been proven false?
It actually gives PSully 3 extra outs after the damage from Vortex...this is why burn can be hard to play with and against. Also, Price of Progress is quite the magic card.
Well said! I always like to joke that burn is the slowest combo deck in the format.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Name one out that destroying the vortex blocks.
Now prove that burn has more or less decisions on an average turn than control. I dare you, because its a failing proposition.
bolt, bolt, lavamancer
he only had 2 untapped mountains.
fireblast+1 mana spell
put simply, fireblast and nearly any card in the deck
That's 9 damage with Lavamancer.
However, it's ridiculous that we're actually arguing over this.
"Patrick's opponent made a mistake that he was deliberately manipulated and leaded into making over the course of two turns. LAME. HE MADE A MISTAKE!"
Thanks to Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery Signatures!