I'd cut 1 fircraft for 1 more smash. There are alot of relevant artifacts that you need to deal with, tromod's crypt is also better as a broad grave hate then Leyeline, since any Leyline's that aren't in your opening hand becomes dead cards. If you decide to go with crypt instead of Leylines, you can also cut one out for another red blast which is very relevant against delver/blue decks. These recommendations are for unknown metas, so take it with a grain of salt.
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback! I'm going to go with Crypt instead of the Leylines. I'm also adding one more Blast because, like you said, I expect lots of Delver.
Usually you get a turn either way, and both are strong. The problem is that Macabre only hits up to two cards and is more easily attacked with discard, while Crypt can be removed before ideal activation time, or hit with countermagic. Neither play well vs Stifle. It might indeed be a good plan to play a mix.
What deck would you bring in grave hate for that would run stifle? As far as the discard I also see it in a different way, if you go up against reanimator, or other black based combo they run duress to save on the life loss, so they would hit crypt if they go first, before you get to play it. Therapy will hit both so in that case your point is legit.
a 2/2 split is good.
Well, you're going to know your local meta better than any of us, but here are my thoughts:
1. Relic is better in Modern, Crypt or Macabre is better in Legacy. In Modern, the decks are a bit slower, and the 2 mana is a fine cost for cantripping as well as the option to slowly erode the graveyard. In Legacy, that 2 mana can be a death sentance, as turn 2 reanimation is quite common.
2. If you're already running fetches, the cost of adding a Taiga is low. However, that cost does include Wasteland vulnerability. Id you're going to rely on this approach, replace a second non-land with an additional Taiga, or it is possible your Revelry becomes stranded and uncastable.
I prefer mono-red, but that's just me. If the meta is filled with enchantments that I can't beat, I probably shouldn't be playing Burn, and Revelry isn't going to change that.
3. Finally, you have 3 Blaze, 3 Firecraft, and 1 Fallout. The latter overlaps with both of the former. I'm not sure what your meta is to justify that configuration. Additionally, 3 toughness is a weird spot for creatures in Legacy anyway. I'd be more likely to go 3 Fallout, 2 Firecraft, and +2 Smash.
If you're gonna splash green you might want to consider leaving the Taiga in your sideboard, and bringing it in along with the revs. Immunity to wasteland is a great reason to play this deck.
If you're gonna splash green you might want to consider leaving the Taiga in your sideboard, and bringing it in along with the revs. Immunity to wasteland is a great reason to play this deck.
Why waste a sideboard slot. I would think 1 taiga is ok and fetchland the dual when needed.
There were many times, when I splashed green, that I would end up with Taiga being the second land in my starting seven against a wasteland deck, and would get blown out for it, against delver that tempo loss is massive. So I moved it to the sideboard. I usually bring Rev in against non wasteland decks any ways, even though it seems like a waste of space, this situation has become relevant much more than you would think. In the end ts a personal call, one sideboard slot, or minor weakness to wasteland.
New to Legacy, adding cards to make my Modern Burn deck a Legacy one.
Wondering about the Mana Base. I read in the primer that 20-22 seems to be the correct number. But as Burn has a very stable and consistent mana base, could this deck possibly run 1-2 Wastelands?
2. If you're already running fetches, the cost of adding a Taiga is low. However, that cost does include Wasteland vulnerability. Id you're going to rely on this approach, replace a second non-land with an additional Taiga, or it is possible your Revelry becomes stranded and uncastable.
I find this to not be a big problem because you'll usually want to Revelry on 2. Where I have a problem is with Atarka's Command, which really does need the second Taiga though I only run 1, and there's basically no reason to not run Atarka's once you've added some green.
Wondering about the Mana Base. I read in the primer that 20-22 seems to be the correct number. But as Burn has a very stable and consistent mana base, could this deck possibly run 1-2 Wastelands?
Wasteland depends on how high your colored needs are. I'm going to lean towards no though because the land count is actually for the consistency of getting your first 2 lands down, which almost always need to be red/red and Wasteland would hurt that. Also, you don't really want to use Wasteland because it means your opponent will now have fewer non basics for your Price of Progress to hit. Every Wasteland you activate effectively gives them 2 life.
2. If you're already running fetches, the cost of adding a Taiga is low. However, that cost does include Wasteland vulnerability. Id you're going to rely on this approach, replace a second non-land with an additional Taiga, or it is possible your Revelry becomes stranded and uncastable.
I find this to not be a big problem because you'll usually want to Revelry on 2. Where I have a problem is with Atarka's Command, which really does need the second Taiga though I only run 1, and there's basically no reason to not run Atarka's once you've added some green.
There is a good reason, and that reason is Wasteland. Every turn your Taiga sits out there, it is vulnerable. This isn't necessarily terrible if you only ever expect to cast one spell needing G, and to cast it on the same turn. However, if you are also running Atarka's Command, you're now relying on having that G available when you need it for potentially multiple spells. At this point, you should be at least running a full playset of Taigas in addition to 9+ fetches.
Yet I must ask: why would you bother with AC anyway? Is the odd shot of 2-for-5 worth all the vulnerability that comes along the rest of the time? And what are you playing it over?
Wondering about the Mana Base. I read in the primer that 20-22 seems to be the correct number. But as Burn has a very stable and consistent mana base, could this deck possibly run 1-2 Wastelands?
Wasteland depends on how high your colored needs are. I'm going to lean towards no though because the land count is actually for the consistency of getting your first 2 lands down, which almost always need to be red/red and Wasteland would hurt that. Also, you don't really want to use Wasteland because it means your opponent will now have fewer non basics for your Price of Progress to hit. Every Wasteland you activate effectively gives them 2 life.
Pretty much. You generally want about 19-20 sources of R, because you really want to have RR no later than turn 2. You have little use for colorless mana. This means that Wasteland must replace a spell, not a land. Thus, you are potentially slowing yourself down and decreasing your damage density. (Historical anecdote: overdrawing Wastelands has been costing red mages games since 1998. Refer to Price vs Linde in US Nationals that year).
Usually, we just spend those slots on Price of Progress, and are plenty happy with it.
There is a good reason, and that reason is Wasteland. Every turn your Taiga sits out there, it is vulnerable. This isn't necessarily terrible if you only ever expect to cast one spell needing G, and to cast it on the same turn. However, if you are also running Atarka's Command, you're now relying on having that G available when you need it for potentially multiple spells. At this point, you should be at least running a full playset of Taigas in addition to 9+ fetches.
Yet I must ask: why would you bother with AC anyway? Is the odd shot of 2-for-5 worth all the vulnerability that comes along the rest of the time? And what are you playing it over?
Once you've gotten a green mana out of Taiga, anything else is a bonus. You can think of green spells as having the Shard Volley clause attached, and when it doesn't happen you get a bonus.
It's very much worthwhile though because it's almost always worth atleast 4 damage for 2 mana, and there's a limit of 4 PoP's. And often times it can be worth 5 when you count stopping lifegain.
There is a good reason, and that reason is Wasteland. Every turn your Taiga sits out there, it is vulnerable. This isn't necessarily terrible if you only ever expect to cast one spell needing G, and to cast it on the same turn. However, if you are also running Atarka's Command, you're now relying on having that G available when you need it for potentially multiple spells. At this point, you should be at least running a full playset of Taigas in addition to 9+ fetches.
Yet I must ask: why would you bother with AC anyway? Is the odd shot of 2-for-5 worth all the vulnerability that comes along the rest of the time? And what are you playing it over?
Once you've gotten a green mana out of Taiga, anything else is a bonus. You can think of green spells as having the Shard Volley clause attached, and when it doesn't happen you get a bonus.
It's very much worthwhile though because it's almost always worth atleast 4 damage for 2 mana, and there's a limit of 4 PoP's. And often times it can be worth 5 when you count stopping lifegain.
We already have tools in mono-red to stop lifegain (In fact, Sulfuric Vortex auto-wins us games 90% of the time if it isn't removed). The card is versatile but does an extra land or team pump really justify the potential of a wasteland blowout to you? The difference between Shard Volley and this is that you choose when the land goes away when you cast Shard Volley, and believe me that is a huge difference when your land gets wasted on turn 3.
As for running Wasteland, playing Grixis delver has changed my perspective on the card. Wasteland is basically a 0CMC uncounterable spell that destroys target nonbasic land since colorless mana isn't really relevant to us. Therefore it's not a relevant effect since it doesn't deal damage to our opponents. Wasteland was played in mono-red a long time ago because the spells weren't as efficient (they had higher CMC and had colorless mana requirements that wasteland could fulfil), and slowing them down by destroying land helped the red decks do well since the decks then were slower than they are now. I asked the same question about running wasteland a while ago. That said, it is pretty solid as a sideboard card should certain decks become dominant in your local meta.
We already have tools in mono-red to stop lifegain (In fact, Sulfuric Vortex auto-wins us games 90% of the time if it isn't removed). The card is versatile but does an extra land or team pump really justify the potential of a wasteland blowout to you?
I use Sulfuric Vortex too. The difference though is 3 mana and 2 life to deal 4 damage over 2 turns vs 2 mana to deal 4 damage that turn.
I don't play many of them, just 2 but since I'm running the green for Revelry anyways I figured why not. It works out well enough but you do have to pay more attention to sequencing.
I don't like playing Barb ring with Grim, I would actually cut that for something. If you have lots of creature decks in your meta the 1 of forked bolt will come in handy, but in a more grindy match up top does some amazing things. You know your meta, make the call.
We already have tools in mono-red to stop lifegain (In fact, Sulfuric Vortex auto-wins us games 90% of the time if it isn't removed). The card is versatile but does an extra land or team pump really justify the potential of a wasteland blowout to you?
I use Sulfuric Vortex too. The difference though is 3 mana and 2 life to deal 4 damage over 2 turns vs 2 mana to deal 4 damage that turn.
I don't play many of them, just 2 but since I'm running the green for Revelry anyways I figured why not. It works out well enough but you do have to pay more attention to sequencing.
This is what I said on splashing for revelry (and by extention Atarka's command too I guess) a few pages ago. Sometimes you're just in a situation where you can't sequence or hold back your taigas if you want to cast spells on time. Also, I feel that Vortex, as a non-targeted recurring source of damage is more efficient than Atarka's command if a game goes long. What did you even cut for that card anyway?
I don't like splashing either color just to get enchantment hate (I'm copying and pasting this upcoming spiel from my tappedout decklist btw). Not only do you give up percentage points against DNT/MUD/Eldrazi (decks you want to bring D-rev/Wear/tear in against) due to Wasteland, you also give up points against any random deck running Wasteland that you don't even bring D-rev in against.
I was playtesting my Grixis Delver deck (yeah, I've been taking a break from playing burn) against a burn player who ran the Revelry splash package and there were a few games I won because he got mana screwed after I wasted his Taiga (In those scenarios, he naturally drew it and needed to play it in order to cast his spells on time). In addition, the 1 extra damage you get from Smash to Smithereens is relevant and was the difference between victory and defeat against MUD for me at least one time. As a result, I've decided to write off problematic enchantments (Leyline of Sanctity isn't one of them) as unwinnable because you lose too much against the rest of the field trying to beat said enchantments.
Chill isn't even too bad as you can still blow it up with Red Elemental Blast. Heck, my deck doesn't run REB and I still beat Shardless BUG players that have played that card against me anyway. Enchantments like Leyline and Chill constrict my options to the point where my window for punting games via incorrect decisions becomes very small or even nonexistant since they slow me down so much. I've faced both cards enough to where I'm not even worried about playing against either enchantment at this point to be honest.
TL;DR: The best solution IMO is to not worry about it as long as the only available solutions involve making your manabase worse (if Wizards ever prints mono-red enchantment hate though that's subject to change lol). I even have a song to help you with that if needed lol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD6AfcoG4o8
Had a pretty amusing mirror match last night. Game 2 I had pyrostatic pillar and my opponent played both an Eidolon and a pillar. I almost Fireblasted his Eidolon but held off. I was at 15 and he was at 7. I went ahead and Flame Rifted taking him to 3 and I took 10 to go to 5. We played draw go for awhile, just discarded straight to the GY eventually anytime we drew non-land. Finally he figured he could take me out and cast Fireblast, takin me to 1. I took it, then he tried to blast me again. I had been holding that single Fireblast and never found another, so I responded w/the kill. He had had a major brainfart and w/all the pillars forgot Eidolon could attack and I didn't remind him of that until after the game. Flame Rifting myself for 10 was pretty nuts and it was cool that the kill plan I had in my head ended up working.
Had a pretty amusing mirror match last night. Game 2 I had pyrostatic pillar and my opponent played both an Eidolon and a pillar. I almost Fireblasted his Eidolon but held off. I was at 15 and he was at 7. I went ahead and Flame Rifted taking him to 3 and I took 10 to go to 5. We played draw go for awhile, just discarded straight to the GY eventually anytime we drew non-land. Finally he figured he could take me out and cast Fireblast, takin me to 1. I took it, then he tried to blast me again. I had been holding that single Fireblast and never found another, so I responded w/the kill. He had had a major brainfart and w/all the pillars forgot Eidolon could attack and I didn't remind him of that until after the game. Flame Rifting myself for 10 was pretty nuts and it was cool that the kill plan I had in my head ended up working.
This is why you don't run Flame Rift and Eidolon in the same deck (taking 10 while he only takes 4 is extremely risky regardless of life totals here). Also, if you just Fireblasted him when he made his Eidolon/Pyrostatic play, he'd be straight up locked out of the game and his only out would be Eidolon attacks; even then you have 2x his life total and any burn spell or creature on your end almost wins you the game.
I have a question about Fireblast, why run 4 copies?
With only 20-22 lands, perhaps fetches, it seems like drawing 1 copy is great, 2 might cause one to get stuck in your hand, and almost impossible to cast a third copy. If true, would running 3 copies not make more sense?
Three copies are certainly playable. Four is usually played because the spell is so powerful. You can only really win on turn 3 with something like Fireblast. That said, people who use a lot of library manipulation (like SDT) tend to be playing slower games anyway, and are okay with 3 since they can easily find the 1 per game they want.
I have always played 4, and don't expect that to change.
I have a question about Fireblast, why run 4 copies?
With only 20-22 lands, perhaps fetches, it seems like drawing 1 copy is great, 2 might cause one to get stuck in your hand, and almost impossible to cast a third copy. If true, would running 3 copies not make more sense?
If you're interested in running tops, these are usually the cuts:
+top -> -mountain
+top -> -fireblast
+top -> lava spike
The faster burn lists run 4 fireblasts because we usually need one to kill non-interactive decks T3-T4. You're right, the price we pay is that the second and third copies are progressively worse. This is one of my arguments for running tops, as it just increases your consistency because you can go longer by filtering your draws.
Wondering about the Mana Base. I read in the primer that 20-22 seems to be the correct number. But as Burn has a very stable and consistent mana base, could this deck possibly run 1-2 Wastelands?
Somewhat curious why you'd want Wastelands. Glacial Chasm is a thing, but what cards are both powerful enough and popular enough to justify diluting the deck? (And would options that turn off damage prevention be better?)
Wondering about the Mana Base. I read in the primer that 20-22 seems to be the correct number. But as Burn has a very stable and consistent mana base, could this deck possibly run 1-2 Wastelands?
Somewhat curious why you'd want Wastelands. Glacial Chasm is a thing, but what cards are both powerful enough and popular enough to justify diluting the deck? (And would options that turn off damage prevention be better?)
I'm very new to Legacy, only really experienced with Modern. I know Wasteland is a powerful card that can wreck some decks, but as it is not modern legal I am still unfamiliar with it and was wondering if it might be worth it to find room in Burn.
After reading the responses on here and examining the deck lists it seems unwise to me to try Wasteland in this deck. Just asking questions and trying to make them good ones and not waste(land) anyone's time
This is what I said on splashing for revelry (and by extention Atarka's command too I guess) a few pages ago. Sometimes you're just in a situation where you can't sequence or hold back your taigas if you want to cast spells on time. Also, I feel that Vortex, as a non-targeted recurring source of damage is more efficient than Atarka's command if a game goes long. What did you even cut for that card anyway?
I'm coming around on Atarka's Command as a result of my simulator which is on the main Legacy page. The card isn't actually rating very well. I've never had problems with it, but I'm biased towards wanting to play it and the optimal mana looks like you can't reliably have green.
As for my cuts, I've never been a fan of Lava Spike, and I've been known to cut Rift Bolts from time to time as well. That's where I make room for SDT as well.
My simulator is giving me a lot to think about with regards to optimal deck construction though. It's just playing in a goldfish right now but it has resulted in a few interesting tidbits of information such as manabase construction, the value of Fireblast/Firecraft, rating hands for mulligans, and even how many fetch lands is ideal for Grim Lavamancer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good luck and welcome to Legacy!
RIP Karn EDH
I'll give a report on how it goes.
Modern: Merfolk UU // Green Devotion GG // SkRed Red RR
Legacy: Death & Taxes WW // Burn RR // Death's Shadow Delver UB
Commander: Brago UW // Karlov WB
a 2/2 split is good.
RIP Karn EDH
1. Relic is better in Modern, Crypt or Macabre is better in Legacy. In Modern, the decks are a bit slower, and the 2 mana is a fine cost for cantripping as well as the option to slowly erode the graveyard. In Legacy, that 2 mana can be a death sentance, as turn 2 reanimation is quite common.
2. If you're already running fetches, the cost of adding a Taiga is low. However, that cost does include Wasteland vulnerability. Id you're going to rely on this approach, replace a second non-land with an additional Taiga, or it is possible your Revelry becomes stranded and uncastable.
I prefer mono-red, but that's just me. If the meta is filled with enchantments that I can't beat, I probably shouldn't be playing Burn, and Revelry isn't going to change that.
3. Finally, you have 3 Blaze, 3 Firecraft, and 1 Fallout. The latter overlaps with both of the former. I'm not sure what your meta is to justify that configuration. Additionally, 3 toughness is a weird spot for creatures in Legacy anyway. I'd be more likely to go 3 Fallout, 2 Firecraft, and +2 Smash.
Modern: Merfolk UU // Green Devotion GG // SkRed Red RR
Legacy: Death & Taxes WW // Burn RR // Death's Shadow Delver UB
Commander: Brago UW // Karlov WB
RIP Karn EDH
Why waste a sideboard slot. I would think 1 taiga is ok and fetchland the dual when needed.
RIP Karn EDH
Wondering about the Mana Base. I read in the primer that 20-22 seems to be the correct number. But as Burn has a very stable and consistent mana base, could this deck possibly run 1-2 Wastelands?
I find this to not be a big problem because you'll usually want to Revelry on 2. Where I have a problem is with Atarka's Command, which really does need the second Taiga though I only run 1, and there's basically no reason to not run Atarka's once you've added some green.
Wasteland depends on how high your colored needs are. I'm going to lean towards no though because the land count is actually for the consistency of getting your first 2 lands down, which almost always need to be red/red and Wasteland would hurt that. Also, you don't really want to use Wasteland because it means your opponent will now have fewer non basics for your Price of Progress to hit. Every Wasteland you activate effectively gives them 2 life.
There is a good reason, and that reason is Wasteland. Every turn your Taiga sits out there, it is vulnerable. This isn't necessarily terrible if you only ever expect to cast one spell needing G, and to cast it on the same turn. However, if you are also running Atarka's Command, you're now relying on having that G available when you need it for potentially multiple spells. At this point, you should be at least running a full playset of Taigas in addition to 9+ fetches.
Yet I must ask: why would you bother with AC anyway? Is the odd shot of 2-for-5 worth all the vulnerability that comes along the rest of the time? And what are you playing it over?
Pretty much. You generally want about 19-20 sources of R, because you really want to have RR no later than turn 2. You have little use for colorless mana. This means that Wasteland must replace a spell, not a land. Thus, you are potentially slowing yourself down and decreasing your damage density. (Historical anecdote: overdrawing Wastelands has been costing red mages games since 1998. Refer to Price vs Linde in US Nationals that year).
Usually, we just spend those slots on Price of Progress, and are plenty happy with it.
Modern: Merfolk UU // Green Devotion GG // SkRed Red RR
Legacy: Death & Taxes WW // Burn RR // Death's Shadow Delver UB
Commander: Brago UW // Karlov WB
Once you've gotten a green mana out of Taiga, anything else is a bonus. You can think of green spells as having the Shard Volley clause attached, and when it doesn't happen you get a bonus.
It's very much worthwhile though because it's almost always worth atleast 4 damage for 2 mana, and there's a limit of 4 PoP's. And often times it can be worth 5 when you count stopping lifegain.
We already have tools in mono-red to stop lifegain (In fact, Sulfuric Vortex auto-wins us games 90% of the time if it isn't removed). The card is versatile but does an extra land or team pump really justify the potential of a wasteland blowout to you? The difference between Shard Volley and this is that you choose when the land goes away when you cast Shard Volley, and believe me that is a huge difference when your land gets wasted on turn 3.
As for running Wasteland, playing Grixis delver has changed my perspective on the card. Wasteland is basically a 0CMC uncounterable spell that destroys target nonbasic land since colorless mana isn't really relevant to us. Therefore it's not a relevant effect since it doesn't deal damage to our opponents. Wasteland was played in mono-red a long time ago because the spells weren't as efficient (they had higher CMC and had colorless mana requirements that wasteland could fulfil), and slowing them down by destroying land helped the red decks do well since the decks then were slower than they are now. I asked the same question about running wasteland a while ago. That said, it is pretty solid as a sideboard card should certain decks become dominant in your local meta.
I use Sulfuric Vortex too. The difference though is 3 mana and 2 life to deal 4 damage over 2 turns vs 2 mana to deal 4 damage that turn.
I don't play many of them, just 2 but since I'm running the green for Revelry anyways I figured why not. It works out well enough but you do have to pay more attention to sequencing.
RIP Karn EDH
This is what I said on splashing for revelry (and by extention Atarka's command too I guess) a few pages ago. Sometimes you're just in a situation where you can't sequence or hold back your taigas if you want to cast spells on time. Also, I feel that Vortex, as a non-targeted recurring source of damage is more efficient than Atarka's command if a game goes long. What did you even cut for that card anyway?
This is why you don't run Flame Rift and Eidolon in the same deck (taking 10 while he only takes 4 is extremely risky regardless of life totals here). Also, if you just Fireblasted him when he made his Eidolon/Pyrostatic play, he'd be straight up locked out of the game and his only out would be Eidolon attacks; even then you have 2x his life total and any burn spell or creature on your end almost wins you the game.
With only 20-22 lands, perhaps fetches, it seems like drawing 1 copy is great, 2 might cause one to get stuck in your hand, and almost impossible to cast a third copy. If true, would running 3 copies not make more sense?
I have always played 4, and don't expect that to change.
Modern: Merfolk UU // Green Devotion GG // SkRed Red RR
Legacy: Death & Taxes WW // Burn RR // Death's Shadow Delver UB
Commander: Brago UW // Karlov WB
If you're interested in running tops, these are usually the cuts:
+top -> -mountain
+top -> -fireblast
+top -> lava spike
The faster burn lists run 4 fireblasts because we usually need one to kill non-interactive decks T3-T4. You're right, the price we pay is that the second and third copies are progressively worse. This is one of my arguments for running tops, as it just increases your consistency because you can go longer by filtering your draws.
And apparently I've changed my name: Ugh
Somewhat curious why you'd want Wastelands. Glacial Chasm is a thing, but what cards are both powerful enough and popular enough to justify diluting the deck? (And would options that turn off damage prevention be better?)
2) Use the right number of each card.
3) Know your probabilities.
4) Print your deck lists; make yourself and your judges happier.
I'm very new to Legacy, only really experienced with Modern. I know Wasteland is a powerful card that can wreck some decks, but as it is not modern legal I am still unfamiliar with it and was wondering if it might be worth it to find room in Burn.
After reading the responses on here and examining the deck lists it seems unwise to me to try Wasteland in this deck. Just asking questions and trying to make them good ones and not waste(land) anyone's time
I'm coming around on Atarka's Command as a result of my simulator which is on the main Legacy page. The card isn't actually rating very well. I've never had problems with it, but I'm biased towards wanting to play it and the optimal mana looks like you can't reliably have green.
As for my cuts, I've never been a fan of Lava Spike, and I've been known to cut Rift Bolts from time to time as well. That's where I make room for SDT as well.
My simulator is giving me a lot to think about with regards to optimal deck construction though. It's just playing in a goldfish right now but it has resulted in a few interesting tidbits of information such as manabase construction, the value of Fireblast/Firecraft, rating hands for mulligans, and even how many fetch lands is ideal for Grim Lavamancer.