Mandrills matches up better or as well to everything except like Swords to Plowshares and Dismember as Nimble Mongoose and Nimble Mongoose has still been able to weather the test of time and still sees play. To say that Mandrills don't even warrant testing (which is more or less what you're saying) is laughable.
Yes, but Eidolon wont win you games vs Sneak and Show, Oops All Spells, Reanimator etc. Only Storm.
It won't win the game directly against Sneak and Show and Reanimator, but it does put a lot of pressure on them. If they have a cantrip heavy hand an Eidolon can very much be the card that wins you the game.
If you want to run Grim Lavamancer and/or Seering Blaze fetchlands are more or less a necessity.
These aren't unanimous inclusions in the deck (not to mention Seering Blaze can easily be replaced with Seering Blood for a similar effect) and the deck is still very much competitive without these cards.
Goblin Guide isn't much better (if at all) off the top.
I'm not so sure of it though. It can potentially outdamage Goblin Guide by turn 3 (casting two burn spells turn two, and at least two more turn 3), but there are also many scenarios where it's dealing less in the same time frame (say, dropping an Eidolon and Sulfuric Vortex, you've only pumped him once by turn 3), and it's forcing you to play out all of your spells.
I don't think the Scavenger compares as well to Tombstalker as Hooting Mandrills. Being in the same color means it's more directly competing with Tombstalker, and this fails to dodge Bolt like Tombstalker and Mandrills, while also trading with Delver. It's 1-2 mana cheaper than Tombstalker, costing the same as Mandrills, but I think the Mandrills are overall better for the same cmc.
I do hope they continue to use Delve throughout the block though, and hopefully give us some more aggressively costed Delve cards. Imagine if Scavenger or Mandrills costed even one less, it would be a massive increase in power and reliability.
I don't think Hooting Mandrills are better than Tombstalker, but then again they shouldn't be better than Tombstalker; they are significantly easier to cast so a drop in power is expected.
But this is Legacy, and as we all know, efficiency is worth a LOT when it comes to evaluating cards. The apes can be reliably cast on turn 2 if you build to do so (though like I said in an earlier post, this involves the likes of Thought Scour, so it might just be worse than a standard Brainstorm + Ponder, and cast it on turn 3). Costing one or two mana cheaper at all points in the game, and only one colored mana symbol cannot be understated though.
I was already running Shared Discovery in the flex slot of Grixis Delver (testing showed that it really didn't matter what the card was, so Shared Discovery was a fun pet card that I've always wanted to cast... and casting it feels amazing). Treasure Cruise is basically just better and more reliable. Hell, even casting it as a powered up Divination is fine, but ever reaching Threshold and getting an Ancestral out of it is pure gas.
It's definitely not surprising that Delve is the mechanic getting a lot of the buzz for Legacy playables, but it's a shame that Delve has such diminishing returns. It removes almost all of the potential for these cards to be anything aside from minor roleplayers. That, and the graveyard already has a lot of competition when it comes to using it as a resource.
It's a shame Delve is such a weak mechanic in multiples.
Otherwise I could see this being a fantastic threat, to run in the place of say, Nimble Mongoose. At four toughness and 6cmc it dodges Bolt and Abrupt Decay/Counterbalance/Engineered Explosives, and with trample it gets past TNN (not to mention it triggers Ferocious for aforementioned Adamant Negation).
Drawing more than one copy though is bound to be pretty rough though, unless you're running it alongside something like Thought Scour. Thought Scour enables the apes to be easily played turn 2, but now you're running Thought Scour... which likely makes this too cute.
Maybe there's some UGx brew that can pair the apes alongside a Stifle + Dreadnought with Vision Charm triggering Dreadnought and Delve (this exact deck already exists in a UBx shell and Tombstalker, maybe green has its advantages though). Dreadnought also triggers Adamant Negation which could be pretty good in the shell.
Searing Blaze/Blood being key alongside Eidolon is pretty straight forwards.
Eidolon has made the deck more creature focused than ever, moreso than any of the other creatures ran in Burn over its history (be it Mauraders, Hellspark, Lavamancer, etc). On average, Burn can expect more damage to come from creatures in each game than ever. With the greater emphasis on creatures being played in Burn Searing Blaze/Blood are just logical inclusions for their ability to clear out blockers without sacrificing damage to the dome. Clearing out a blocker with Blaze/Blood and then swinging in with Eidolon is an effective five damage play.
But that's not the only reason. Blaze/Blood are just naturally strong in the current meta. There are a good number of kill-on-sight creatures and having a way to kill them while still going to the dome is invaluable. Just the threat of Deathrite Shaman gaining several life over the course of the game is enough reason to clear him out whenever he comes down, but having to use a Bolt to do so has still effectively gained your opponent three life. Same with Stoneforge Mystic. And in many cases Thalia threatens to slow you down so heavily that she often must be killed ASAP as well. Hell, even the Burn mirror is common enough and an opposing Eidolon can be a problem. Delver, Mom, and many more creatures can be problematic too.
Lastly, there's a historical reason; Blaze has been around for quite a while but was rarely if ever run in the mainboard outside of very specific metas. It's basically dead against combo decks (corner cases against *cheat fatties into play* decks aside), as well as Miracles. But, those are also matchups that Eidolon is absolutely fantastic against. In a sense, Eidolon shoring up the matchups where Blaze/Blood are dead against makes running them in the main more reasonable.
I don't think Adamant Negation + Batterskull is as clearly strong as Adamant Negation + Goyf/KotR. Reason being, Batterskull's power is so closely tied to Stoneforge Mystic, and Spell Pierce does a better job of protecting her.
Another thing to think of is how this will interact with other equipment and ways of pumping in general though. Stoneforge Mystic doesn't necessarily have to find Batterskull to help trigger Ferocity. A Jitte with a few counters does the job just fine. There can even be situations where you start your turn by swinging with a three power creature, trigger Exalted from Noble Heirarch, and now moving into your second main phase you have a Ferocity empowered Adamant Negation to protect whatever it is you are casting, a Jace for example, from opposing countermagic. In the blue mirror little tricks like that can be very game changing.
I think it needs more than just Goyf alongside it to be worth playing. With just Goyf to power it up I think it's too unreliable, and at that point Spell Pierce would just be better for the consistency. Playing around a one mana soft counter is far easier than a two mana soft counter.
But if you can more readily activate Ferocious I think it can very much find a Legacy home.
Particularly, I think this could be exactly what an old, mostly forgotten archetype needs to maybe be relevant again.
Bant has really fallen by the wayside, but Goyf + KotR used to be a common pairing back in the day, and are probably the most reliable ways to activate Ferocious in the format.
As for Murderous Cut, I like it. I think it will find a home. It's never going to be a staple removal spell in the way that Bolt and Plow are, but it has its niche. As mentioned, this is exactly the kind of spell Grixis Delver variants have wanted. I've almost always had Dismember to supplement Bolt in my Grixis list, to handle threats like Goyf that Bolt can't hit. But Dismember has its flaws, particularly missing out on threats like large KotR's, and Griselbrands (and the occasional very large Goyf). I would definitely run Ghastly Demise in the place of Dismember if it could hit key cards like Bob, DRS, Germ tokens, and the like, but not hitting black creatures is relevant enough that it really makes Ghastly Demise a liability. I think one or two copies of Murderous Cut is very much worth testing.
I think Jitte is fine against Miracles.
Not as good as a Sword of X and Y would be, but equipment has traditionally been strong against control decks and Miracles is no exception.
It allows you to commit less to the board while still giving you a pretty significant boost in pressure. It lessens the impact of Terminus and Plow + Snapcaster, just in that it can make even a lone Cursecatcher post sweeper a virtual 3/3.
Sword if Fire and Ice is better specifically against Miracles (and maybe War and Peace is even better than that, giving you protection from Plow and an immensely threatening clock from whatever it's equipped to), but Jitte is more versatile than any of the Swords, while also being more efficiently costed.
Obviously Burn isn't an actual combo deck. Nobody is making that claim.
But when you really think about it, it plays similarly to a combo deck. Bolt to the face is a play that doesn't actually do anything on its own. Turn 1 Bolt you is just as dead of a play as casting a turn 1 Dark Ritual without using the mana to do anything. That is to say, you've basically advanced the board just as much to make either play. Tendrils doesn't really do anything unless you have enough cards to power it up to lethal. Lava Spike doesn't really do anything unless you have enough additional burn spells to create lethal damage.
Burn is almost just as much a critical mass deck as Storm, Belcher, and the like. Almost being the key, because Burn does have Goblin Guide, and Eidolon which can theoretically end the game on their own given enough time and a lack of appropriate interaction from the opponent. Think about it this way: you don't need to stop every spell from resolving against Storm, only the Tutor/Wish/Ad Nauseam/etc. Because they are a critical mass deck, stopping the big game ending spell effectively negates the effect of every spell they cast before it. None of Burn's spells actually matter except the one that kills you. If you eat six bolts to the face and prevent them from dealing the final two points of damage you've in a sense made those first six bolts do nothing.
Obviously it's not a 1-1 comparison, but I would say it's pretty apt. Okay yes, Burn can topdeck any number of single cards that still potentially kill you, whereas a deck like Storm has to rebuild its spellcount over the course of multiple turns to try again to win. But again, that's why we don't say Burn is a true combo deck, rather it plays like a combo deck.
I think the best reasoning I've heard for Burn being closer to a combo deck than an aggro deck is that ideally, Burn aims to have every game play out in the (almost) exact same way much like true combo decks. TES wishes to use fast mana to cast Ad Nauseam to fuel Tendrils, Show and Tell and Reanimator are looking to cheat Griselbrand into play, Painter is looking to deck you with Grindstone, etc. Similarly, Burn just wants to throw efficient spells at your dome until you die, and it does this just about every single game. The variance in Burn comes from which burn spells they use to accomplish this, but the gameplan is the same each time.
Compare this to something like RUG where they sometimes play an early Delver and ride it to victory, sometimes play a longer game with Nimble Mongoose, sometimes cast several threats in an attempt to end the game ASAP, sometimes the opponent stabilizes so you dig for Bolts, etc. Even Zoo has more variance game to game than Burn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It won't win the game directly against Sneak and Show and Reanimator, but it does put a lot of pressure on them. If they have a cantrip heavy hand an Eidolon can very much be the card that wins you the game.
These aren't unanimous inclusions in the deck (not to mention Seering Blaze can easily be replaced with Seering Blood for a similar effect) and the deck is still very much competitive without these cards.
I'm not so sure of it though. It can potentially outdamage Goblin Guide by turn 3 (casting two burn spells turn two, and at least two more turn 3), but there are also many scenarios where it's dealing less in the same time frame (say, dropping an Eidolon and Sulfuric Vortex, you've only pumped him once by turn 3), and it's forcing you to play out all of your spells.
I don't think the Scavenger compares as well to Tombstalker as Hooting Mandrills. Being in the same color means it's more directly competing with Tombstalker, and this fails to dodge Bolt like Tombstalker and Mandrills, while also trading with Delver. It's 1-2 mana cheaper than Tombstalker, costing the same as Mandrills, but I think the Mandrills are overall better for the same cmc.
I do hope they continue to use Delve throughout the block though, and hopefully give us some more aggressively costed Delve cards. Imagine if Scavenger or Mandrills costed even one less, it would be a massive increase in power and reliability.
But this is Legacy, and as we all know, efficiency is worth a LOT when it comes to evaluating cards. The apes can be reliably cast on turn 2 if you build to do so (though like I said in an earlier post, this involves the likes of Thought Scour, so it might just be worse than a standard Brainstorm + Ponder, and cast it on turn 3). Costing one or two mana cheaper at all points in the game, and only one colored mana symbol cannot be understated though.
It's definitely not surprising that Delve is the mechanic getting a lot of the buzz for Legacy playables, but it's a shame that Delve has such diminishing returns. It removes almost all of the potential for these cards to be anything aside from minor roleplayers. That, and the graveyard already has a lot of competition when it comes to using it as a resource.
It's a shame Delve is such a weak mechanic in multiples.
Otherwise I could see this being a fantastic threat, to run in the place of say, Nimble Mongoose. At four toughness and 6cmc it dodges Bolt and Abrupt Decay/Counterbalance/Engineered Explosives, and with trample it gets past TNN (not to mention it triggers Ferocious for aforementioned Adamant Negation).
Drawing more than one copy though is bound to be pretty rough though, unless you're running it alongside something like Thought Scour. Thought Scour enables the apes to be easily played turn 2, but now you're running Thought Scour... which likely makes this too cute.
Maybe there's some UGx brew that can pair the apes alongside a Stifle + Dreadnought with Vision Charm triggering Dreadnought and Delve (this exact deck already exists in a UBx shell and Tombstalker, maybe green has its advantages though). Dreadnought also triggers Adamant Negation which could be pretty good in the shell.
Eidolon has made the deck more creature focused than ever, moreso than any of the other creatures ran in Burn over its history (be it Mauraders, Hellspark, Lavamancer, etc). On average, Burn can expect more damage to come from creatures in each game than ever. With the greater emphasis on creatures being played in Burn Searing Blaze/Blood are just logical inclusions for their ability to clear out blockers without sacrificing damage to the dome. Clearing out a blocker with Blaze/Blood and then swinging in with Eidolon is an effective five damage play.
But that's not the only reason. Blaze/Blood are just naturally strong in the current meta. There are a good number of kill-on-sight creatures and having a way to kill them while still going to the dome is invaluable. Just the threat of Deathrite Shaman gaining several life over the course of the game is enough reason to clear him out whenever he comes down, but having to use a Bolt to do so has still effectively gained your opponent three life. Same with Stoneforge Mystic. And in many cases Thalia threatens to slow you down so heavily that she often must be killed ASAP as well. Hell, even the Burn mirror is common enough and an opposing Eidolon can be a problem. Delver, Mom, and many more creatures can be problematic too.
Lastly, there's a historical reason; Blaze has been around for quite a while but was rarely if ever run in the mainboard outside of very specific metas. It's basically dead against combo decks (corner cases against *cheat fatties into play* decks aside), as well as Miracles. But, those are also matchups that Eidolon is absolutely fantastic against. In a sense, Eidolon shoring up the matchups where Blaze/Blood are dead against makes running them in the main more reasonable.
Another thing to think of is how this will interact with other equipment and ways of pumping in general though. Stoneforge Mystic doesn't necessarily have to find Batterskull to help trigger Ferocity. A Jitte with a few counters does the job just fine. There can even be situations where you start your turn by swinging with a three power creature, trigger Exalted from Noble Heirarch, and now moving into your second main phase you have a Ferocity empowered Adamant Negation to protect whatever it is you are casting, a Jace for example, from opposing countermagic. In the blue mirror little tricks like that can be very game changing.
But if you can more readily activate Ferocious I think it can very much find a Legacy home.
Particularly, I think this could be exactly what an old, mostly forgotten archetype needs to maybe be relevant again.
Bant has really fallen by the wayside, but Goyf + KotR used to be a common pairing back in the day, and are probably the most reliable ways to activate Ferocious in the format.
As for Murderous Cut, I like it. I think it will find a home. It's never going to be a staple removal spell in the way that Bolt and Plow are, but it has its niche. As mentioned, this is exactly the kind of spell Grixis Delver variants have wanted. I've almost always had Dismember to supplement Bolt in my Grixis list, to handle threats like Goyf that Bolt can't hit. But Dismember has its flaws, particularly missing out on threats like large KotR's, and Griselbrands (and the occasional very large Goyf). I would definitely run Ghastly Demise in the place of Dismember if it could hit key cards like Bob, DRS, Germ tokens, and the like, but not hitting black creatures is relevant enough that it really makes Ghastly Demise a liability. I think one or two copies of Murderous Cut is very much worth testing.
Not as good as a Sword of X and Y would be, but equipment has traditionally been strong against control decks and Miracles is no exception.
It allows you to commit less to the board while still giving you a pretty significant boost in pressure. It lessens the impact of Terminus and Plow + Snapcaster, just in that it can make even a lone Cursecatcher post sweeper a virtual 3/3.
Sword if Fire and Ice is better specifically against Miracles (and maybe War and Peace is even better than that, giving you protection from Plow and an immensely threatening clock from whatever it's equipped to), but Jitte is more versatile than any of the Swords, while also being more efficiently costed.
But when you really think about it, it plays similarly to a combo deck. Bolt to the face is a play that doesn't actually do anything on its own. Turn 1 Bolt you is just as dead of a play as casting a turn 1 Dark Ritual without using the mana to do anything. That is to say, you've basically advanced the board just as much to make either play. Tendrils doesn't really do anything unless you have enough cards to power it up to lethal. Lava Spike doesn't really do anything unless you have enough additional burn spells to create lethal damage.
Burn is almost just as much a critical mass deck as Storm, Belcher, and the like. Almost being the key, because Burn does have Goblin Guide, and Eidolon which can theoretically end the game on their own given enough time and a lack of appropriate interaction from the opponent. Think about it this way: you don't need to stop every spell from resolving against Storm, only the Tutor/Wish/Ad Nauseam/etc. Because they are a critical mass deck, stopping the big game ending spell effectively negates the effect of every spell they cast before it. None of Burn's spells actually matter except the one that kills you. If you eat six bolts to the face and prevent them from dealing the final two points of damage you've in a sense made those first six bolts do nothing.
Obviously it's not a 1-1 comparison, but I would say it's pretty apt. Okay yes, Burn can topdeck any number of single cards that still potentially kill you, whereas a deck like Storm has to rebuild its spellcount over the course of multiple turns to try again to win. But again, that's why we don't say Burn is a true combo deck, rather it plays like a combo deck.
Compare this to something like RUG where they sometimes play an early Delver and ride it to victory, sometimes play a longer game with Nimble Mongoose, sometimes cast several threats in an attempt to end the game ASAP, sometimes the opponent stabilizes so you dig for Bolts, etc. Even Zoo has more variance game to game than Burn.