This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Squandered Resources: Burn and Budget Legacy. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
How does this fare against something like Zoo that can play a bunch of 3+ powered creatures every game? Lava Spike doesn't really match up well against Nacatl...
Aside from that, Burn seems pretty well positioned at the moment, now that Stoneblade with Misstep is no longer all over the place.
This article was informative but overall not very interesting. The play mechanics section of the article didn't really tell me anything new. If you're not a total scrub, you should have already known everything in that section: play your expensive spells first, play your creatures when they don't have blockers, play more restrictive spells before less restrictive ones. These are the basics to competitive Magic.
Your overview of the burn vs. Fish matchup is heavily flawed. As a Fish player, I laugh at your overview of the matchup. Volcanic Fallout does very little against a competent Merfolk player, who will simply sit on his Lords until he can play more than one in a turn using Aether Vial. When your opponent taps 3 to play his Merrow Reejerey with an untapped vial at 2, do you fire off the Fallout? Do you fire it off in response to the Reejerey or after Reejerey resolves? If you really want to beat Merfolk with burn, you have to either throw more burn at their face than they can race (this is actually not as difficult to do as it sounds; Fish and Burn have similar clocks and the matchup basically comes down to variance, particularly now that Misstep is no more) or play non-burn sweepers like Firespout (which is a heck of a lot better than Fallout, as it can wrath them through 2 lords).
Regarding Bob: Most of your deck costs 1 and deals 3. Bob is still net damage positive. If you're in a race (and you always are), you want to be as fast as you can be; as long as your plays are net damage positive, you probably want to do them. If your opponent Plows Bob, you just got ahead in the race. If they Path Bob, you have more mana to run out your burn spells. If they do nothing about Bob, he effectively Shocks them every turn he's left alive. I see no reason not to play Bob if you're already playing black. If you're afraid of hitting Fireblast, do what Team America did when they added Bob to a Tombstalker deck and cut the Tombstalkers. I don't know if you'd rather play Bob and not Fireblast over Fireblast and not Bob, but my inclination is that you want to play both Bob and Fireblast and curse variance every time you lose because of it, the same way Team America does whenever they flip Force of Will.
Regarding other black cards: A simple question for you: Would you rather play monored splash black and not lose to Wasteland by having to play a bunch of basics that don't make the color of mana you really want, or would you rather play full-on red/black and lose to Wasteland? If the former, you don't want cards like Forgotten Wastes and Rain of Gore, you just want to play the same deck you've always played except adding in Bobs and Bump in the Night.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old terminology reference:
Play (noun): Battlefield
Play (verb): Cast/Play
RFG: Exile
CIP: Enters the Battlefield
I wouldn't recommend Burn as a deck to introduce yourself to legacy with. Not because it's bad, but because you're not getting the full legacy experience. You're not going to learn the format by going Guide, Bolt, Bolt, Price, Fireblast or just 3ing your opponent's face 7 times.
I would suggest starting with something like Merfolk or a Taxes deck (mono-White, BW or GW). They will be more expensive, but if you meet local legacy players you should be able to borrow Wastelands or Forces as not every deck runs them.
While I disagree with the message, it was a well-written article
How does this fare against something like Zoo that can play a bunch of 3+ powered creatures every game? Lava Spike doesn't really match up well against Nacatl...
its an interesting match-up to be sure. It all comes down to 2 cards. Keldon marauders and Price of progress. Marauders is a blocker that also trades with nacatl, either they attack and loose a creature or they don't attack. Either way you are buying yourself time. Price of progress is one of the cards that makes this matchup win-able. They will be fetching for duel lands to pump their cats and they run very few basics anyways. Price is a house here. Of course, there are other factors, but these are usually what end up being the most important.
This article was informative but overall not very interesting. The play mechanics section of the article didn't really tell me anything new. If you're not a total scrub, you should have already known everything in that section: play your expensive spells first, play your creatures when they don't have blockers, play more restrictive spells before less restrictive ones. These are the basics to competitive Magic.
Your overview of the burn vs. Fish matchup is heavily flawed. As a Fish player, I laugh at your overview of the matchup. Volcanic Fallout does very little against a competent Merfolk player, who will simply sit on his Lords until he can play more than one in a turn using Aether Vial. When your opponent taps 3 to play his Merrow Reejerey with an untapped vial at 2, do you fire off the Fallout? Do you fire it off in response to the Reejerey or after Reejerey resolves? If you really want to beat Merfolk with burn, you have to either throw more burn at their face than they can race (this is actually not as difficult to do as it sounds; Fish and Burn have similar clocks and the matchup basically comes down to variance, particularly now that Misstep is no more) or play non-burn sweepers like Firespout (which is a heck of a lot better than Fallout, as it can wrath them through 2 lords).
Regarding Bob: Most of your deck costs 1 and deals 3. Bob is still net damage positive. If you're in a race (and you always are), you want to be as fast as you can be; as long as your plays are net damage positive, you probably want to do them. If your opponent Plows Bob, you just got ahead in the race. If they Path Bob, you have more mana to run out your burn spells. If they do nothing about Bob, he effectively Shocks them every turn he's left alive. I see no reason not to play Bob if you're already playing black. If you're afraid of hitting Fireblast, do what Team America did when they added Bob to a Tombstalker deck and cut the Tombstalkers. I don't know if you'd rather play Bob and not Fireblast over Fireblast and not Bob, but my inclination is that you want to play both Bob and Fireblast and curse variance every time you lose because of it, the same way Team America does whenever they flip Force of Will.
Regarding other black cards: A simple question for you: Would you rather play monored splash black and not lose to Wasteland by having to play a bunch of basics that don't make the color of mana you really want, or would you rather play full-on red/black and lose to Wasteland? If the former, you don't want cards like Forgotten Wastes and Rain of Gore, you just want to play the same deck you've always played except adding in Bobs and Bump in the Night.
im sorry you didnt get what you wanted out of the article. =/ I wrote the play mechanics section of the article because, whether you think its true or not, most people do not know how to play burn correctly. As I said in the article, its more than just throwing lightning bolts at your opponent, but most people think it is. If you already knew this then that portion of the article is not for you.
After playing many matches against fish I believe fallout is very good against merfolk. Is it a blowout card? Of course not. however, the card is an uncounterable board wipe in a matchups against a tribe deck that uses counter spells, how can it be bad? At the very least its a 2 for 1 and is better than bolt.
Your argument situation presented seems to be very unique and, well, situational. if you have a vial at 2, 2 lords on the field and another in hand there is not much i can do about that. But again, how likely is it that you have all of those things? Merfolk players have more than just lords in their deck. Also if you are holding lords in fear of fallout then the card is doing its job far before i even play it. Im surviving long enough to kill you. if vial is at 2 then thats at least 2 turns that i was given to burn you. I would gladly spend 3 mana to at least 2 for 1 a merfolk player who has any combination of cursecatcher, adept and non-leveled commander in play. Did i just blow him out? no, of course not, but like i just said, if i can get a 2 for 1 value out of the card and still burn you for something then i am happy. Im doing what i need to do. Its better than just using a lightning bolt or Magma jet on one of them. If i wasnt clear enough in the section im sorry, but overall i think fallout is a factor that improves the matchup. To quote myself, it was "that little extra push" the deck needed in the match-up.
regarding bob, your arguments seem sound on paper, but I must ask you to go out and test it. I know of people who have tried it before, it just doesnt work.
Maybe i wasnt too clear in my additional black cards section. =/ I meant to discuss the sideboard options that adding black could potentially give us. I didnt mean to imply that any of those cards would be used main-board.
Thanks for the criticism though, I learned some things and I believe it will improve me as a writer.
This card seems like a good choice if you want to avoid at least some of the damage you might take from bob while also still forwarding your win condition. I have no actually experience with the deck so I could be wrong.
After playing many matches against fish I believe fallout is very good against merfolk. Is it a blowout card? Of course not. however, the card is an uncounterable board wipe in a matchups against a tribe deck that uses counter spells, how can it be bad? At the very least its a 2 for 1 and is better than bolt.
Not true. At the very least it's a 0-for-1 because you can't play around a lord without gassing yourself out. This is the problem with burn players; they think they have enough burn to kill every creature and still kill the opponent. This is simply untrue when you are playing do-nothings (from a board impact perspective) like Lava Spike and Flame Rift in your deck. Whenever I play against burn with Fish, I always hope my opponent Lightning Bolts my Silvergill Adept. It's the best feeling in the world when your opponent is on the draw and they open turn 1 mountain, go, eot bolt your Silvergill Adept.
Your argument situation presented seems to be very unique and, well, situational. if you have a vial at 2, 2 lords on the field and another in hand there is not much i can do about that. But again, how likely is it that you have all of those things? Merfolk players have more than just lords in their deck. Also if you are holding lords in fear of fallout then the card is doing its job far before i even play it. Im surviving long enough to kill you. if vial is at 2 then thats at least 2 turns that i was given to burn you. I would gladly spend 3 mana to at least 2 for 1 a merfolk player who has any combination of cursecatcher, adept and non-leveled commander in play. Did i just blow him out? no, of course not, but like i just said, if i can get a 2 for 1 value out of the card and still burn you for something then i am happy. Im doing what i need to do. Its better than just using a lightning bolt or Magma jet on one of them. If i wasnt clear enough in the section im sorry, but overall i think fallout is a factor that improves the matchup. To quote myself, it was "that little extra push" the deck needed in the match-up.
Um...all I said was that you have creatures in play (any number of them), a Reejerey, and another Lord in hand with a Vial set to instant-speed cast the other Lord in hand. The Reejerey could actually be replaced by Lord of Atlantis as well, if you insist, and can also be replaced by an in-play Coralhelm Commander on 2 or more counters if you so choose. This game state happens in almost every game with Fish, so it's probably a good thing you learn how to play it when it happens.
The fact is, though, that there are very few good Fish players, just as there are very few good Burn players, and most people won't know how to play around Fallout. It's probably good enough if you're not playing at a GP level, but once you get up to that level...well, if you're at that level you probably won't be playing burn anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old terminology reference:
Play (noun): Battlefield
Play (verb): Cast/Play
RFG: Exile
CIP: Enters the Battlefield
This article was informative but overall not very interesting. The play mechanics section of the article didn't really tell me anything new. If you're not a total scrub, you should have already known everything in that section: play your expensive spells first, play your creatures when they don't have blockers, play more restrictive spells before less restrictive ones. These are the basics to competitive Magic.
Your overview of the burn vs. Fish matchup is heavily flawed. As a Fish player, I laugh at your overview of the matchup. Volcanic Fallout does very little against a competent Merfolk player, who will simply sit on his Lords until he can play more than one in a turn using Aether Vial. When your opponent taps 3 to play his Merrow Reejerey with an untapped vial at 2, do you fire off the Fallout? Do you fire it off in response to the Reejerey or after Reejerey resolves? If you really want to beat Merfolk with burn, you have to either throw more burn at their face than they can race (this is actually not as difficult to do as it sounds; Fish and Burn have similar clocks and the matchup basically comes down to variance, particularly now that Misstep is no more) or play non-burn sweepers like Firespout (which is a heck of a lot better than Fallout, as it can wrath them through 2 lords).
Regarding Bob: Most of your deck costs 1 and deals 3. Bob is still net damage positive. If you're in a race (and you always are), you want to be as fast as you can be; as long as your plays are net damage positive, you probably want to do them. If your opponent Plows Bob, you just got ahead in the race. If they Path Bob, you have more mana to run out your burn spells. If they do nothing about Bob, he effectively Shocks them every turn he's left alive. I see no reason not to play Bob if you're already playing black. If you're afraid of hitting Fireblast, do what Team America did when they added Bob to a Tombstalker deck and cut the Tombstalkers. I don't know if you'd rather play Bob and not Fireblast over Fireblast and not Bob, but my inclination is that you want to play both Bob and Fireblast and curse variance every time you lose because of it, the same way Team America does whenever they flip Force of Will.
Regarding other black cards: A simple question for you: Would you rather play monored splash black and not lose to Wasteland by having to play a bunch of basics that don't make the color of mana you really want, or would you rather play full-on red/black and lose to Wasteland? If the former, you don't want cards like Forgotten Wastes and Rain of Gore, you just want to play the same deck you've always played except adding in Bobs and Bump in the Night.
As a burn player I've found Grim Lavamancer more effective against Merfolk than Volcanic fallout. What do you think as a fish player? Have you played the burn matchup before? I usually do well against Merfolk by bolting a single lord then spending the rest of my burn going for the kill. Burn can just race Merfolk well and can cheaply disrupt their board slowing them down a turn or two.
As for Confidant, I agree that he seems amazing on paper: he may get in for 2 a few times and in a deck with such a high density of burn he will likely net you a burn spell each turn, so an extra ~3 damage or so, and you're right the argument against him because of Fireblast is weak, rarely will you flip a Fireblast, and if you do who cares? It's only relevant against agressive decks that you'd likely side him out against anyway.
I played ~25 games splashing black for Confidant and Bump but he wasn't as amazing as I'd hoped. The 2-mana cost is actually kind of slow for a creature in this kind of deck (I'm also not a fan of Marauders or Hellspark in this list). I found him to be only good against slow control decks, but most of the legacy control decks run so many non-basics that you can get the job done with Price of Progress usually.
The main thing I didn't like though was having to splash black, opening you up to wastelands. Since burn has to spend mana to do damage (as opposed to Creature based decks which require mana spent up front then no mana to keep them going) losing that extra land will often either slow you down too much or clog up your hand so you can't even cast spells.
I went back to mono-red for now, but I may experiment with the black splash later again. Leading off Goblin Guide into Dark Confidant backed up with a ton of burn is just too sweet to not try to make work.
Not true. At the very least it's a 0-for-1 because you can't play around a lord without gassing yourself out. This is the problem with burn players; they think they have enough burn to kill every creature and still kill the opponent. This is simply untrue when you are playing do-nothings (from a board impact perspective) like Lava Spike and Flame Rift in your deck. Whenever I play against burn with Fish, I always hope my opponent Lightning Bolts my Silvergill Adept. It's the best feeling in the world when your opponent is on the draw and they open turn 1 mountain, go, eot bolt your Silvergill Adept.
Spooky said nothing about burning a silvergill adept. In fact, he stated that that is absolutely NOT what you want to be doing. If you actually took the time to read the article you would see this section.
"Normally their strategy is to swarm the field with as many creatures as possible so that you waste your burn spells on those. The idea being you are hoping to get rid of Jitte threats with your burn spells rather than using them on your opponent's dome. Fallout helps you control the number of creatures that can be equipped with Jitte just enough to allow you to actually hit your opponent."
Obviously he thinks using burn on creatures is a bad idea.
The fact is, though, that there are very few good Fish players, just as there are very few good Burn players, and most people won't know how to play around Fallout. It's probably good enough if you're not playing at a GP level, but once you get up to that level...well, if you're at that level you probably won't be playing burn anyway.
I was at every tournament he played in with this deck and he played against very seasoned fish players. people who regularly go to GP's and SCG opens. They all lost to Volcanic Fallout. your thoughts of how to beat it may work in your head, but put it in practice its not as easy as you think, especially when its a seasoned BURN player. he's not going to cast his fallout until its necessary. if you hold your lord in your hand waiting for the fallout, just the fear of the fallout has held back large amounts of damage. That is immediate cards advantage and net gain. In reality, he only has to wait until you try to play the second lord, and respond to that with a fallout, not you waiting for him to fallout. He wins the race when you keep lords in your hand, plain and simple, and fallout is what makes you do that.
Also, Bob does not go in the deck period. Fire blast is WAY too good to drop to him, and the life gain/land gain from him getting pathed or swords to plowshared is negligible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” -Sun Tzu
Decks I Play EDH RStarke of Rath chaosR UBGrim Grin Zombie TribalUB UWHanna Ship's NavigatorUW Legacy WMono-White Stax/ Armageddon StaxW RWRed/White Goblin Welder StaxRW XMUDX
Not true. At the very least it's a 0-for-1 because you can't play around a lord without gassing yourself out. This is the problem with burn players; they think they have enough burn to kill every creature and still kill the opponent. This is simply untrue when you are playing do-nothings (from a board impact perspective) like Lava Spike and Flame Rift in your deck. Whenever I play against burn with Fish, I always hope my opponent Lightning Bolts my Silvergill Adept. It's the best feeling in the world when your opponent is on the draw and they open turn 1 mountain, go, eot bolt your Silvergill Adept.
Um...all I said was that you have creatures in play (any number of them), a Reejerey, and another Lord in hand with a Vial set to instant-speed cast the other Lord in hand. The Reejerey could actually be replaced by Lord of Atlantis as well, if you insist, and can also be replaced by an in-play Coralhelm Commander on 2 or more counters if you so choose. This game state happens in almost every game with Fish, so it's probably a good thing you learn how to play it when it happens.
The fact is, though, that there are very few good Fish players, just as there are very few good Burn players, and most people won't know how to play around Fallout. It's probably good enough if you're not playing at a GP level, but once you get up to that level...well, if you're at that level you probably won't be playing burn anyway.
I never said I had enough burn to kill all your guys and you as well, in fact, that's the entire reason I run fallout, I don't have enough spells. Also, I would never bolt an adept, it gets me nothing. Killing a lord is much more realistic, as lords are much more important targets. Even then, a lord wouldn't be bolted unless it was going to cause a problem. working off of that, if I don't bolt the lord, I lose, so it can't be said that it is a mistake to do so when I need to. Aside from this fallout also does 2 damage to you, which means its never a 0 for 1.
I can understand your argument here. The problem I see with the argument is the time at which it happens. If you are on 3 mana then you are most likely in range to die very soon. Even if you vial in a lord and make your other lords out of range of lethal damaged I was still able to deal 2 damage to you, which gets you even closer to death when your guys have summoning sickness and my burn spells don't. If you don't vial in a lord then you lose you lesser merfolk and board state. Either way, I'm getting closer to my goal.
That's just my take on it though. I wouldn't doubt for a second that there are fish players out there who are much better at magic than I am. In this sense I am sure that fallout would have less of an impact on the game if I were to cast it against them, as apposed to a less qualified player. At the same time though, as I have said before, Casting fallout can ONLY get me further ahead, or at least, closer to my goal in one way or another, especially in the tribal match-up, which is why I use it.
This article was wonderful... and wonderfully out of date.
Fast-forward to today. When was the last time you saw a Rhox War Monk? What about a deck with Counterbalance and Sensei's Divining Top used together in the main board? Unless your meta is stuck in 2009-10 it's been a while, I'm sure. Due in large part to Mental Misstep the format both slowed down greatly and lost the vast majority of all Counterbalance- based decks, and it hasn't fully sprung back yet. It is because of both the absence of Counterbalance and Rhox War Monk, as well as the slower pace of the format in general, that Burn decks can... well... burn.
Sadly for burn, Counterballence is making a come back, MM is banned, and people on this forum are discussing if NO RUG is still better than NO Bant...
You say Patrick Sullivan made some deckbuilding mistakes and suggest a deck that, as far as I have seen, has never performed well (burn with no lavamancer or FoD). Patrick and many others have done well with fetches and lavamancer for a reason: they are good.
I am sorry, but saying grim lavamancer is bad is about as ridiculous as the thread a while back saying necropotence was bad cause you had to pay life to draw cards. He is one of the stongest parts of burn, no in legacy. He blocks, he can repeatedly remove creatures, or deal damage through potential blockers all game long. Unlike say goblin guide that usually only gets about 4-6 damage in, if not removed before they get a bigger blocker, lavamancer will be getting in 2 damage a turn all game, UNTIL removed or you have to block something with him.
He doesn't even trade with a Wild Nacatl.
That is not true at all, he can block and then deal 2 damage to it.
This is where Lavamancer comes in. The second he hits the field he immediately makes every removal card in your opponent's deck usable.
Your opponent's remove is no more useful with/without him if you still running marauder and guide (which you should be).
PoP should be 4 of, theres really no reason not to unless your meta is full of people running basics.
Tormod's crypt is unnecessary, the non-LED dredge match up isn't that bad (if you have LED-dredge in you meta you might want it). They will never stick a bridge since you can just burn out your own creatures (lavamancer helps incredibly here) and you will have faster clock than their icorid and stinkweed beats put on you. Fearie macabre is the way to go for reanimator if that's what your worried about. Your crypt will just get countered.
I do like the sided pilliars, its a card that is very often overlooked in burn sideboards and hoses combo decks.
It's a good article for some one just getting into legacy, but it is kind of misleading. I would have thought it was fine if you said dont include lavamancer cause it necessitates fetches and that makes it a more expensive deck to get into. But Lavamancer should be included if you want your deck to perform its best.
EDIT: Haha I just remembered my avatar is lavamancer.
This article was wonderful... and wonderfully out of date.
Sadly for burn, Counterballence is making a come back, MM is banned, and people on this forum are discussing if NO RUG is still better than NO Bant...
You may be right. The thing is, we don't know. As of right now counterbalance is indeed making a comeback, but we don't know if that will be a permanent comeback. It all depends on what the rest of the meta does. Different control decks are built to control different kinds of metas. We just need to wait and see what kind of meta comes out of all of this.
If nothing else the deck can still be used as a personal meta choice. If counterbalance comes back it doesnt mean it will be in every meta, people just need to make a decision based on local metas as well.
also, you have to understand that I began working on this article before MM was banned, as I had to gather data to make sure I could back up my claims, I.E going to 5 weekly tournaments. After that I had to actually build the article, so it took me a bit. Also, during this time I honestly did not think MM would get banned until after worlds. But that's my mistake/poor assumption.
I guess we just have to wait and see what happens. thanks for saying this though, because it had to be said. I tried to discuss it to some degree in my future of burn section, but its good to discuss it here as well.
I don't know, judging by the SCG open there was very little countertop. The success of storm and reanimator means we might see more next time but I wouldn't call it a comeback yet.
That is not true at all, he can block and then deal 2 damage to it.
...have you honestly not heard about the rules change yet?
I don't think you should be offering strategic advice.
Yes I have, looks like you need to read them again. The lavamancer isn't removed from combat by tapping after being declared a blocker. If he was a mogg fanatic and had to sac himself as cost, he would be no longer in combat and deal no combat damage now that it doesnt use the stack.
You say Patrick Sullivan made some deckbuilding mistakes and suggest a deck that, as far as I have seen, has never performed well (burn with no lavamancer or FoD). Patrick and many others have done well with fetches and lavamancer for a reason: they are good.
I am sorry, but saying grim lavamancer is bad is about as ridiculous as the thread a while back saying necropotence was bad cause you had to pay life to draw cards. He is one of the stongest parts of burn, no in legacy. He blocks, he can repeatedly remove creatures, or deal damage through potential blockers all game long. Unlike say goblin guide that usually only gets about 4-6 damage in, if not removed before they get a bigger blocker, lavamancer will be getting in 2 damage a turn all game, UNTIL removed or you have to block something with him.
That is not true at all, he can block and then deal 2 damage to it.
Your opponent's remove is no more useful with/without him if you still running marauder and guide (which you should be).
PoP should be 4 of, theres really no reason not to unless your meta is full of people running basics.
Tormod's crypt is unnecessary, the non-LED dredge match up isn't that bad (if you have LED-dredge in you meta you might want it). They will never stick a bridge since you can just burn out your own creatures (lavamancer helps incredibly here) and you will have faster clock than their icorid and stinkweed beats put on you. Fearie macabre is the way to go for reanimator if that's what your worried about. Your crypt will just get countered.
I do like the sided pilliars, its a card that is very often overlooked in burn sideboards and hoses combo decks.
It's a good article for some one just getting into legacy, but it is kind of misleading. I would have thought it was fine if you said dont include lavamancer cause it necessitates fetches and that makes it a more expensive deck to get into. But Lavamancer should be included if you want your deck to perform its best.
EDIT: Haha I just remembered my avatar is lavamancer.
I have had personal success with this build. While I cannot argue that Sullivan did do pretty decently in the tournament, I could also point you to lists similar to mine that have done just as well.
We have different opinions on the power level of lavamancer. My arguement to you would be that 1-Lavamancer simply will not last as long as you want him to, and 2-Goblin guide and keldon marauders still do damage if they are removed (guide has haste), lavamancer does not, so its not the same to say they make your opponents removal useful in the same way lavamancer does.
PoP usually shouldn't be a 4 of simply because of the fact that there are matches where it is a dead card. Yes its very powerful, but in a meta where people know that burn uses it and fetch for basics, or simply don't even use non-basics, its not something you want a full play set of. If your meta has no basic lands then by all means use 4, otherwise you risk dead draws or sub-optimal burn.
I don't think you give dredge enough credit. It's much faster than you think, especially if the dredge player knows the match-up. If you are wasting burn on your own creatures all you are doing is giving a combo deck more time. I was just in a tournament a couple days ago piloting dredge and I demolished a burn player who tried exactly what you are saying. He simply was not faster than a turn 1 tribe into a turn 2 troll dredge and breakthrough dredge. If the dredge player keeps the faster hands that would normally be risky in other match-ups he can just out race the burn player. burn needs to be able to interact on some level other than getting rid of some bridges. crypt is even more needed in the reanimator match-up where 1 card shuts down our whole deck.
I guess overall we have different views on the matter. That's not a bad thing by any means, its what helps the game be so diverse, but at the same time I feel I needed to defend my standpoint.
also, I noticed the grim lavamancer avatar and instantly went "aww crap, here we go."
Your opponent's remove is no more useful with/without him if you still running marauder and guide (which you should be).
The main difference is that if Guide or Marauder are removed, they have still dealt damage no matter the situation, (well maybe not guide, but he is the sickest thing to have happened to burn in a long time. Too good to not run) Marauder on the other hand deals guaranteed damage when he enters the battlefield and when he leaves. So even if removed, damage is still dealt, the same is not true for Grim Lavamancer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” -Sun Tzu
Decks I Play EDH RStarke of Rath chaosR UBGrim Grin Zombie TribalUB UWHanna Ship's NavigatorUW Legacy WMono-White Stax/ Armageddon StaxW RWRed/White Goblin Welder StaxRW XMUDX
also, I noticed the grim lavamancer avatar and instantly went "aww crap, here we go."
Haha I do actually play burn, but I made him my avatar just cause when I first got really into MTG lavamancer, wildmongrol madness was my favorite deck.
We have different opinions on the power level of lavamancer. My arguement to you would be that 1-Lavamancer simply will not last as long as you want him to, and 2-Goblin guide and keldon marauders still do damage if they are removed (guide has haste), lavamancer does not, so its not the same to say they make your opponents removal useful in the same way lavamancer does.
That's not the end of the world though. At the least you trade a card for a card and make them invest mana in removal. At the best you drop him turn 1 and kill 3-5 potential blockers or deal 6-10 damage to the dome. He also makes them make an important choice: side out removal for something better against burn, or keep in removal JUST for lavamancer. For some decks there might be a better choice, and they might choose wrong.
PoP usually shouldn't be a 4 of simply because of the fact that there are matches where it is a dead card. Yes its very powerful, but in a meta where people know that burn uses it and fetch for basics, or simply don't even use non-basics, its not something you want a full play set of. If your meta has no basic lands then by all means use 4, otherwise you risk dead draws or sub-optimal burn.
Its soooo good in the MUs you need want it though. And the MUs its bad are ones that are already pretty favorable for you (tribal aggro and janky mono black decks). Monowhite/Death and taxes I would want PoP in for wastes, ports and karakas.
I guess overall we have different views on the matter. That's not a bad thing by any means, its what helps the game be so diverse, but at the same time I feel I needed to defend my standpoint.
I agree that is key and discussion is good! Sorry if I came off otherwise.
I don't think you give dredge enough credit. It's much faster than you think, especially if the dredge player knows the match-up. If you are wasting burn on your own creatures all you are doing is giving a combo deck more time. I was just in a tournament a couple days ago piloting dredge and I demolished a burn player who tried exactly what you are saying. He simply was not faster than a turn 1 tribe into a turn 2 troll dredge and breakthrough dredge. If the dredge player keeps the faster hands that would normally be risky in other match-ups he can just out race the burn player. burn needs to be able to interact on some level other than getting rid of some bridges. crypt is even more needed in the reanimator match-up where 1 card shuts down our whole deck.
I kind of forgot about tireless tribe since pre-MM banning a lot of people switched to manaless. He hoses burn :/ I still think faerie macabre is a better choice for GY hate. It slows down dredge alot, exiling dredgers early (if theres only 2) or if its too late, their bridges. Also crypt kinda sucks against reanimator cause its the only thing they have to counter and if you save it till you have pyroblast protection it can be too late. The faeries discard ability is uncounterable, though.
Yes I have, looks like you need to read them again. The lavamancer isn't removed from combat by tapping after being declared a blocker. If he was a mogg fanatic and had to sac himself as cost, he would be no longer in combat and deal no combat damage now that it doesnt use the stack.
lmao I apologize. I was confused and completely in the wrong.
Counterbalance was being played in SCG as well as Storm and Reanimator. How does it deal with Sphinx or the angels on turn 2-3 besides Tormod's?
Tormod's DOESN'T deal with those things at all cause it just eats on of the 8+ manaless counterspells reanimator has. That's why Faerie Macabre is better. You should really finish my sentence before you post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Like Squandered Resources on Facebook for updates on article releases, deck lists, and more!
Getting Started in Legacy and Legacy Budget Primer 5!
Special thanks to Bornnover for the banner used in those articles.
Please keep it up.
Aside from that, Burn seems pretty well positioned at the moment, now that Stoneblade with Misstep is no longer all over the place.
Cool article, keep up the good work!
Note: I ask because I have not ever gotten a clear response.
Thanks to PurpleD from Left Play Designs for the banner:D
Your overview of the burn vs. Fish matchup is heavily flawed. As a Fish player, I laugh at your overview of the matchup. Volcanic Fallout does very little against a competent Merfolk player, who will simply sit on his Lords until he can play more than one in a turn using Aether Vial. When your opponent taps 3 to play his Merrow Reejerey with an untapped vial at 2, do you fire off the Fallout? Do you fire it off in response to the Reejerey or after Reejerey resolves? If you really want to beat Merfolk with burn, you have to either throw more burn at their face than they can race (this is actually not as difficult to do as it sounds; Fish and Burn have similar clocks and the matchup basically comes down to variance, particularly now that Misstep is no more) or play non-burn sweepers like Firespout (which is a heck of a lot better than Fallout, as it can wrath them through 2 lords).
Regarding Bob: Most of your deck costs 1 and deals 3. Bob is still net damage positive. If you're in a race (and you always are), you want to be as fast as you can be; as long as your plays are net damage positive, you probably want to do them. If your opponent Plows Bob, you just got ahead in the race. If they Path Bob, you have more mana to run out your burn spells. If they do nothing about Bob, he effectively Shocks them every turn he's left alive. I see no reason not to play Bob if you're already playing black. If you're afraid of hitting Fireblast, do what Team America did when they added Bob to a Tombstalker deck and cut the Tombstalkers. I don't know if you'd rather play Bob and not Fireblast over Fireblast and not Bob, but my inclination is that you want to play both Bob and Fireblast and curse variance every time you lose because of it, the same way Team America does whenever they flip Force of Will.
Regarding other black cards: A simple question for you: Would you rather play monored splash black and not lose to Wasteland by having to play a bunch of basics that don't make the color of mana you really want, or would you rather play full-on red/black and lose to Wasteland? If the former, you don't want cards like Forgotten Wastes and Rain of Gore, you just want to play the same deck you've always played except adding in Bobs and Bump in the Night.
Play (verb): Cast/Play
RFG: Exile
CIP: Enters the Battlefield
Fetchland: Arid Mesa
Shockland: Watery Grave
M10 Dual: Glacial Fortress
I would suggest starting with something like Merfolk or a Taxes deck (mono-White, BW or GW). They will be more expensive, but if you meet local legacy players you should be able to borrow Wastelands or Forces as not every deck runs them.
While I disagree with the message, it was a well-written article
Lover of EDH, hater of whiny EDH players.
thanks, it means a lot to me.
its an interesting match-up to be sure. It all comes down to 2 cards. Keldon marauders and Price of progress. Marauders is a blocker that also trades with nacatl, either they attack and loose a creature or they don't attack. Either way you are buying yourself time. Price of progress is one of the cards that makes this matchup win-able. They will be fetching for duel lands to pump their cats and they run very few basics anyways. Price is a house here. Of course, there are other factors, but these are usually what end up being the most important.
im sorry you didnt get what you wanted out of the article. =/ I wrote the play mechanics section of the article because, whether you think its true or not, most people do not know how to play burn correctly. As I said in the article, its more than just throwing lightning bolts at your opponent, but most people think it is. If you already knew this then that portion of the article is not for you.
After playing many matches against fish I believe fallout is very good against merfolk. Is it a blowout card? Of course not. however, the card is an uncounterable board wipe in a matchups against a tribe deck that uses counter spells, how can it be bad? At the very least its a 2 for 1 and is better than bolt.
Your argument situation presented seems to be very unique and, well, situational. if you have a vial at 2, 2 lords on the field and another in hand there is not much i can do about that. But again, how likely is it that you have all of those things? Merfolk players have more than just lords in their deck. Also if you are holding lords in fear of fallout then the card is doing its job far before i even play it. Im surviving long enough to kill you. if vial is at 2 then thats at least 2 turns that i was given to burn you. I would gladly spend 3 mana to at least 2 for 1 a merfolk player who has any combination of cursecatcher, adept and non-leveled commander in play. Did i just blow him out? no, of course not, but like i just said, if i can get a 2 for 1 value out of the card and still burn you for something then i am happy. Im doing what i need to do. Its better than just using a lightning bolt or Magma jet on one of them. If i wasnt clear enough in the section im sorry, but overall i think fallout is a factor that improves the matchup. To quote myself, it was "that little extra push" the deck needed in the match-up.
regarding bob, your arguments seem sound on paper, but I must ask you to go out and test it. I know of people who have tried it before, it just doesnt work.
Maybe i wasnt too clear in my additional black cards section. =/ I meant to discuss the sideboard options that adding black could potentially give us. I didnt mean to imply that any of those cards would be used main-board.
Thanks for the criticism though, I learned some things and I believe it will improve me as a writer.
Like Squandered Resources on Facebook for updates on article releases, deck lists, and more!
Getting Started in Legacy and Legacy Budget Primer 5!
Special thanks to Bornnover for the banner used in those articles.
This card seems like a good choice if you want to avoid at least some of the damage you might take from bob while also still forwarding your win condition. I have no actually experience with the deck so I could be wrong.
Not true. At the very least it's a 0-for-1 because you can't play around a lord without gassing yourself out. This is the problem with burn players; they think they have enough burn to kill every creature and still kill the opponent. This is simply untrue when you are playing do-nothings (from a board impact perspective) like Lava Spike and Flame Rift in your deck. Whenever I play against burn with Fish, I always hope my opponent Lightning Bolts my Silvergill Adept. It's the best feeling in the world when your opponent is on the draw and they open turn 1 mountain, go, eot bolt your Silvergill Adept.
Um...all I said was that you have creatures in play (any number of them), a Reejerey, and another Lord in hand with a Vial set to instant-speed cast the other Lord in hand. The Reejerey could actually be replaced by Lord of Atlantis as well, if you insist, and can also be replaced by an in-play Coralhelm Commander on 2 or more counters if you so choose. This game state happens in almost every game with Fish, so it's probably a good thing you learn how to play it when it happens.
The fact is, though, that there are very few good Fish players, just as there are very few good Burn players, and most people won't know how to play around Fallout. It's probably good enough if you're not playing at a GP level, but once you get up to that level...well, if you're at that level you probably won't be playing burn anyway.
Play (verb): Cast/Play
RFG: Exile
CIP: Enters the Battlefield
Fetchland: Arid Mesa
Shockland: Watery Grave
M10 Dual: Glacial Fortress
As a burn player I've found Grim Lavamancer more effective against Merfolk than Volcanic fallout. What do you think as a fish player? Have you played the burn matchup before? I usually do well against Merfolk by bolting a single lord then spending the rest of my burn going for the kill. Burn can just race Merfolk well and can cheaply disrupt their board slowing them down a turn or two.
As for Confidant, I agree that he seems amazing on paper: he may get in for 2 a few times and in a deck with such a high density of burn he will likely net you a burn spell each turn, so an extra ~3 damage or so, and you're right the argument against him because of Fireblast is weak, rarely will you flip a Fireblast, and if you do who cares? It's only relevant against agressive decks that you'd likely side him out against anyway.
I played ~25 games splashing black for Confidant and Bump but he wasn't as amazing as I'd hoped. The 2-mana cost is actually kind of slow for a creature in this kind of deck (I'm also not a fan of Marauders or Hellspark in this list). I found him to be only good against slow control decks, but most of the legacy control decks run so many non-basics that you can get the job done with Price of Progress usually.
The main thing I didn't like though was having to splash black, opening you up to wastelands. Since burn has to spend mana to do damage (as opposed to Creature based decks which require mana spent up front then no mana to keep them going) losing that extra land will often either slow you down too much or clog up your hand so you can't even cast spells.
I went back to mono-red for now, but I may experiment with the black splash later again. Leading off Goblin Guide into Dark Confidant backed up with a ton of burn is just too sweet to not try to make work.
Spooky said nothing about burning a silvergill adept. In fact, he stated that that is absolutely NOT what you want to be doing. If you actually took the time to read the article you would see this section.
"Normally their strategy is to swarm the field with as many creatures as possible so that you waste your burn spells on those. The idea being you are hoping to get rid of Jitte threats with your burn spells rather than using them on your opponent's dome. Fallout helps you control the number of creatures that can be equipped with Jitte just enough to allow you to actually hit your opponent."
Obviously he thinks using burn on creatures is a bad idea.
I was at every tournament he played in with this deck and he played against very seasoned fish players. people who regularly go to GP's and SCG opens. They all lost to Volcanic Fallout. your thoughts of how to beat it may work in your head, but put it in practice its not as easy as you think, especially when its a seasoned BURN player. he's not going to cast his fallout until its necessary. if you hold your lord in your hand waiting for the fallout, just the fear of the fallout has held back large amounts of damage. That is immediate cards advantage and net gain. In reality, he only has to wait until you try to play the second lord, and respond to that with a fallout, not you waiting for him to fallout. He wins the race when you keep lords in your hand, plain and simple, and fallout is what makes you do that.
Also, Bob does not go in the deck period. Fire blast is WAY too good to drop to him, and the life gain/land gain from him getting pathed or swords to plowshared is negligible.
-Sun Tzu
Decks I Play
EDH
RStarke of Rath chaosR
UBGrim Grin Zombie TribalUB
UWHanna Ship's NavigatorUW
Legacy
WMono-White Stax/ Armageddon StaxW
RWRed/White Goblin Welder StaxRW
XMUDX
I never said I had enough burn to kill all your guys and you as well, in fact, that's the entire reason I run fallout, I don't have enough spells. Also, I would never bolt an adept, it gets me nothing. Killing a lord is much more realistic, as lords are much more important targets. Even then, a lord wouldn't be bolted unless it was going to cause a problem. working off of that, if I don't bolt the lord, I lose, so it can't be said that it is a mistake to do so when I need to. Aside from this fallout also does 2 damage to you, which means its never a 0 for 1.
I can understand your argument here. The problem I see with the argument is the time at which it happens. If you are on 3 mana then you are most likely in range to die very soon. Even if you vial in a lord and make your other lords out of range of lethal damaged I was still able to deal 2 damage to you, which gets you even closer to death when your guys have summoning sickness and my burn spells don't. If you don't vial in a lord then you lose you lesser merfolk and board state. Either way, I'm getting closer to my goal.
That's just my take on it though. I wouldn't doubt for a second that there are fish players out there who are much better at magic than I am. In this sense I am sure that fallout would have less of an impact on the game if I were to cast it against them, as apposed to a less qualified player. At the same time though, as I have said before, Casting fallout can ONLY get me further ahead, or at least, closer to my goal in one way or another, especially in the tribal match-up, which is why I use it.
Like Squandered Resources on Facebook for updates on article releases, deck lists, and more!
Getting Started in Legacy and Legacy Budget Primer 5!
Special thanks to Bornnover for the banner used in those articles.
Sadly for burn, Counterballence is making a come back, MM is banned, and people on this forum are discussing if NO RUG is still better than NO Bant...
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
I am sorry, but saying grim lavamancer is bad is about as ridiculous as the thread a while back saying necropotence was bad cause you had to pay life to draw cards. He is one of the stongest parts of burn, no in legacy. He blocks, he can repeatedly remove creatures, or deal damage through potential blockers all game long. Unlike say goblin guide that usually only gets about 4-6 damage in, if not removed before they get a bigger blocker, lavamancer will be getting in 2 damage a turn all game, UNTIL removed or you have to block something with him.
That is not true at all, he can block and then deal 2 damage to it.
Your opponent's remove is no more useful with/without him if you still running marauder and guide (which you should be).
PoP should be 4 of, theres really no reason not to unless your meta is full of people running basics.
Tormod's crypt is unnecessary, the non-LED dredge match up isn't that bad (if you have LED-dredge in you meta you might want it). They will never stick a bridge since you can just burn out your own creatures (lavamancer helps incredibly here) and you will have faster clock than their icorid and stinkweed beats put on you. Fearie macabre is the way to go for reanimator if that's what your worried about. Your crypt will just get countered.
I do like the sided pilliars, its a card that is very often overlooked in burn sideboards and hoses combo decks.
It's a good article for some one just getting into legacy, but it is kind of misleading. I would have thought it was fine if you said dont include lavamancer cause it necessitates fetches and that makes it a more expensive deck to get into. But Lavamancer should be included if you want your deck to perform its best.
EDIT: Haha I just remembered my avatar is lavamancer.
You may be right. The thing is, we don't know. As of right now counterbalance is indeed making a comeback, but we don't know if that will be a permanent comeback. It all depends on what the rest of the meta does. Different control decks are built to control different kinds of metas. We just need to wait and see what kind of meta comes out of all of this.
If nothing else the deck can still be used as a personal meta choice. If counterbalance comes back it doesnt mean it will be in every meta, people just need to make a decision based on local metas as well.
also, you have to understand that I began working on this article before MM was banned, as I had to gather data to make sure I could back up my claims, I.E going to 5 weekly tournaments. After that I had to actually build the article, so it took me a bit. Also, during this time I honestly did not think MM would get banned until after worlds. But that's my mistake/poor assumption.
I guess we just have to wait and see what happens. thanks for saying this though, because it had to be said. I tried to discuss it to some degree in my future of burn section, but its good to discuss it here as well.
Like Squandered Resources on Facebook for updates on article releases, deck lists, and more!
Getting Started in Legacy and Legacy Budget Primer 5!
Special thanks to Bornnover for the banner used in those articles.
...have you honestly not heard about the rules change yet?
I don't think you should be offering strategic advice.
Yes I have, looks like you need to read them again. The lavamancer isn't removed from combat by tapping after being declared a blocker. If he was a mogg fanatic and had to sac himself as cost, he would be no longer in combat and deal no combat damage now that it doesnt use the stack.
I have had personal success with this build. While I cannot argue that Sullivan did do pretty decently in the tournament, I could also point you to lists similar to mine that have done just as well.
We have different opinions on the power level of lavamancer. My arguement to you would be that 1-Lavamancer simply will not last as long as you want him to, and 2-Goblin guide and keldon marauders still do damage if they are removed (guide has haste), lavamancer does not, so its not the same to say they make your opponents removal useful in the same way lavamancer does.
PoP usually shouldn't be a 4 of simply because of the fact that there are matches where it is a dead card. Yes its very powerful, but in a meta where people know that burn uses it and fetch for basics, or simply don't even use non-basics, its not something you want a full play set of. If your meta has no basic lands then by all means use 4, otherwise you risk dead draws or sub-optimal burn.
I don't think you give dredge enough credit. It's much faster than you think, especially if the dredge player knows the match-up. If you are wasting burn on your own creatures all you are doing is giving a combo deck more time. I was just in a tournament a couple days ago piloting dredge and I demolished a burn player who tried exactly what you are saying. He simply was not faster than a turn 1 tribe into a turn 2 troll dredge and breakthrough dredge. If the dredge player keeps the faster hands that would normally be risky in other match-ups he can just out race the burn player. burn needs to be able to interact on some level other than getting rid of some bridges. crypt is even more needed in the reanimator match-up where 1 card shuts down our whole deck.
I guess overall we have different views on the matter. That's not a bad thing by any means, its what helps the game be so diverse, but at the same time I feel I needed to defend my standpoint.
also, I noticed the grim lavamancer avatar and instantly went "aww crap, here we go."
Like Squandered Resources on Facebook for updates on article releases, deck lists, and more!
Getting Started in Legacy and Legacy Budget Primer 5!
Special thanks to Bornnover for the banner used in those articles.
The main difference is that if Guide or Marauder are removed, they have still dealt damage no matter the situation, (well maybe not guide, but he is the sickest thing to have happened to burn in a long time. Too good to not run) Marauder on the other hand deals guaranteed damage when he enters the battlefield and when he leaves. So even if removed, damage is still dealt, the same is not true for Grim Lavamancer.
-Sun Tzu
Decks I Play
EDH
RStarke of Rath chaosR
UBGrim Grin Zombie TribalUB
UWHanna Ship's NavigatorUW
Legacy
WMono-White Stax/ Armageddon StaxW
RWRed/White Goblin Welder StaxRW
XMUDX
Haha I do actually play burn, but I made him my avatar just cause when I first got really into MTG lavamancer, wildmongrol madness was my favorite deck.
That's not the end of the world though. At the least you trade a card for a card and make them invest mana in removal. At the best you drop him turn 1 and kill 3-5 potential blockers or deal 6-10 damage to the dome. He also makes them make an important choice: side out removal for something better against burn, or keep in removal JUST for lavamancer. For some decks there might be a better choice, and they might choose wrong.
Its soooo good in the MUs you need want it though. And the MUs its bad are ones that are already pretty favorable for you (tribal aggro and janky mono black decks). Monowhite/Death and taxes I would want PoP in for wastes, ports and karakas.
I agree that is key and discussion is good! Sorry if I came off otherwise.
I kind of forgot about tireless tribe since pre-MM banning a lot of people switched to manaless. He hoses burn :/ I still think faerie macabre is a better choice for GY hate. It slows down dredge alot, exiling dredgers early (if theres only 2) or if its too late, their bridges. Also crypt kinda sucks against reanimator cause its the only thing they have to counter and if you save it till you have pyroblast protection it can be too late. The faeries discard ability is uncounterable, though.
lmao I apologize. I was confused and completely in the wrong.
Its alright, happens to all of us. I know how my lavamancer works haha!
Tormod's DOESN'T deal with those things at all cause it just eats on of the 8+ manaless counterspells reanimator has. That's why Faerie Macabre is better. You should really finish my sentence before you post.