When I wrote "Why would anyone sideboard in Abrupt Decay or Ass Trophy against a Burn deck?"
It clearly refers to them putting MORE copies of Abrupt Decay & Ass trophy into their their deck from sideboard.
Why would they need more?
Them taking their base deck Abrupt Decay & Ass trophy OUT would make a whole lot of sense.
Ensnaring Bridge is WOEFUL in the matchup, but nothing else in the standard burn base deck or sideboard card pool is an effective permanent, so I spoze keeping a copy might have some justification.
Feel free to explain why DD would keep them main deck.
I'm surprised magic geek didn't consider Pithing Needle already. It works against a lot of other good decks that use activated abilities like DNT, and you can just plop it down turn 1 and name Thespian's Stage to stop the combo. Win-win in my book, but yeah anyway if you're a serious competitive player, getting attached to a pet deck is just bad and if you know your local meta is stacked against you, the best way to adapt is to play something else. You play burn because there's certain decks it's very good against and if the meta is mostly those certain decks, burn is the best deck to exploit those deck's weaknesses.
Yeah, pithing needle is a good card. Agree the combo is tough, but slowing the combo is more a burn advantage. I think stopping the deck from working is out of focus. So worrying about answers to pithing needle or such is not going to help burn from winning. Idea focus is play a card and make them deal with it. (this response is aimed depths ability to remove pithing needle and such cards from play)
Anyway, the main thing I want to post about is the new canopy lands that got spoiled in Modern Horizons. We now have access to up to 8 lands that we can sacrifice to draw us cards (Sunbaked Canyon and Fiery Islet), which is huge for us, as using our lands to draw extra cards shores up a major weakness with this deck. However, since they're nonbasic, make Price of Progress and Fireblast worse, and using them for mana costs us life (Negligible at first but if you get 2-3 of them out early, it adds up), I don't feel like 8 canopy lands is the right number for us. I wonder what everyone else who plays this deck thinks the right number should be?
I think red canopy lands are going to work with modern burn, unless there's a modern version of fireblast. If we really want free draws, we have Street Wraith and at one time we had Gitaxian Probe - and these cards were almost never used in burn. I think using a non-basic lands (unfetchable and unblastable) just to maybe draw a card (which cost mana to activate) is not a good idea in legacy burn.
My gut feeling is telling me that 4-6 is the sweet spot for us, but maybe someone here with more experience with the deck or more experience number crunching can give me a better or more statistically sound answer. I'm not worried about them not being fetchable, firstly because my deck is built with 20 mountains anyway, and secondly if I decide I want to put Grim Lavamancer back in my deck again, these canopy lands fuel him just like fetches do.
I doubt it... Think of this, tap a land for mana and lose another land to draw a card... When are you going to play this on turn 4. Burn is mana sensitive, every mana is counted. why not play 4 Street Wraith all you need to do is pay 2 life and discard a Street Wraith to draw a card...
My Burn deck BEATS Dark Depths.
I just looked at a meta study of the latest big tournament, and burn is going about 1/3rd. Bad Times.
Against Dark Depths it went 0/6. (cant be arsed looking for it, besides, eh.)
ZERO wins from Six matches for the big boys, and My Burn Deck just beat it.
Okay, cool, you can beat turbo Depths (except for the times in your tournament reports where you didn't). How do you do against other decks in the format? Can you beat DNT? Delver? U/W/x variants? I've come across those decks way more often than turbo Depths and while my odds of beating those decks are better than beating turbo Depths, I still need help from my sideboard to win consistently. I am genuinely curious to know how well you do against other decks with your current sideboard configuration.
Because of the Fireblast clash, I think decks that play them wont play the full 4 Fireblasts.
Fueling Lavamancer is good, they also help Barbarian Ring .
They are a minor improvement, as always, but they will become a standard part of the deck in a level similar to the use of Barbarian Ring.
They are definitely good enough to be in basedeck.
I would go for about 2 of them basedeck, replacing a land and a spell.
They're untapped lands that give us red mana. I would just cut mountains, no spells. I also personally think 4 should be the minimum we use assuming a standard 20 land build, but I think it could be possible to run 5 or 6. It may actually be possible that the correct number is meta dependent and not static, where running more than 4 while cutting copies of Fireblast for Grim Lavamancer is correct if the meta favors longer games, while running 4 or less and retaining all 4 fireblast copies is correct if the meta favors shorter games.
I think red canopy lands are going to work with modern burn, unless there's a modern version of fireblast. If we really want free draws, we have Street Wraith and at one time we had Gitaxian Probe - and these cards were almost never used in burn. I think using a non-basic lands (unfetchable and unblastable) just to maybe draw a card (which cost mana to activate) is not a good idea in legacy burn.
I doubt it... Think of this, tap a land for mana and lose another land to draw a card... When are you going to play this on turn 4. Burn is mana sensitive, every mana is counted. why not play 4 Street Wraith all you need to do is pay 2 life and discard a Street Wraith to draw a card...
The reason we don't play Street Wraith is because it makes our mulligan decisions horrible. We either have to cut land or cut threat density to run that card, which is not what you want when presented with a sketchy hand that contains one or more copies of Wraith. With the canopy lands, since they are also lands that tap for red mana, we can straight up just cut mountains for them and not screw up our ratios.
You're also not looking at these lands with the right mindset. The vast majority of games I've lost with burn have been to mana flooding. I still remember a match in this local tournament I was in 2 years ago against Pox that I lost because I flooded hard all 3 games. On one of the games I ended up drawing 6 mountains in a row without seeing another spell before I got cursed scroll'd to death. Needless to say I'm still salty about losing what should have been an excellent matchup due to mana flood, especially since that was my only loss that night. The draw ability is meant for those situations. If you go past turn 4, you're out of gas, and you're starting to flood, you can use the ability to give yourself another chance to draw more gas. Running these lands also means we're most likely okay going up to 20-21 land from 18-19, reducing our odds of mana screw early on in the game as well. These lands are not meant to be used to draw cards early on; they're meant to be used in the late game as a way to address what is arguably Burn's biggest weakness as a deck.
He doesn't beat other decks. His sole purpose in life is to beat Depths. And he only does it every so often. Take everything he says with 8 million grains of salt.
And yes, Barbarian Ring just replaces a Mountain, and you can probably shave a Fireblast.
Lost the final round on Thursday.
I won the first 3 rounds against Reanimator, Lions's Eye Storm, and Stoneblade
(There is something special about winning while having two Maze of Ith untapping Enormous Flying Monsters.)
Lost the final to Painted servant sillyness.
First turn on the play he cast a Trinisphere
Second game was a turn 1 Chalice for 1, which I Smashed!, so he cast another Chalice for 1, and I drew bolts.
Got him in the social 3rd
Hey GPash, how is it you know so much about my experiences, that I don't?
You should cut down on your salt, you seem a bit agitated.
.
Regarding the Horizon land, I think BasedFuster might be missing part of why the Horizon land are good.
This type of land allows land to be converted into spells.
Having the ability to convert land into spells, means more land than normal can be played. It allows more stability, less mana screw, and less mulligans. Those reasons are why I play some Barbarian rings. Maybe Barbarian rings are more what you should play, they skip the part where you draw a card and go straight to damage. There is something good about on table damage that can't be counterspelled, or discarded. Being Bloodmoon-ed and then sacrificing Barbarian Rings to Fireblast is funny.
If you draw the perfect amount of land, and some of them are Horizon land, all you have done is hurt yourself.
If you draw the right amount, and they start counterspelling or discarding your spells, the Horizon land allow you to go slightly longer.
If you are playing MORE LAND, you get fewer 'No Land' or 'One Land' mulligans.
If you play more land, and get flooded, you get to convert them into spells. Yes, this slows you down.
Horizon land allow stability, if you play more.
Horizon land allow greed, if you play the same amount of land.
If you wish to just be greedy, I wish you luck, but your Fireblasts and Price of Progress might just bite you.
I'm not sure about the Horizon land because you cannot fetch them. So you have no control in having them in play. And at worst it would suck if you have 3 lands in play, 1 mountain and 2 Horizon lands and your stuck with a fireblast in your hand.
I'm not sure about the Horizon land because you cannot fetch them. So you have no control in having them in play. And at worst it would suck if you have 3 lands in play, 1 mountain and 2 Horizon lands and your stuck with a fireblast in your hand.
in that situation, wouldn't you just sacc one of the horizon lands to draw into either more gas or a mountain? i don't really think it's going to be bad, per se, but being locked out by moons, or worse yet BTB seems pretty bad.
Makes splashing a second colour possibly worth it though. Not sure what the best would be. Blue for card draw, i guess? black for discard?
I'm not sure about the Horizon land because you cannot fetch them. So you have no control in having them in play. And at worst it would suck if you have 3 lands in play, 1 mountain and 2 Horizon lands and your stuck with a fireblast in your hand.
in that situation, wouldn't you just sacc one of the horizon lands to draw into either more gas or a mountain? i don't really think it's going to be bad, per se, but being locked out by moons, or worse yet BTB seems pretty bad.
Makes splashing a second colour possibly worth it though. Not sure what the best would be. Blue for card draw, i guess? black for discard?
Blood moon against us is useless even with the canopy lands. If your board is really just 2 canopy lands and a mountain, a blood moon would be a bad play because it lets us play fireblast, and if it doesn't, all it does is stop us from using the land to drawing cards. It doesn't keep us off mana like it would against Sultai. As for B2B, it doesn't prevent us from sacing the lands to let us draw cards. I don't think the hate would be as bad as you guys think. Worst that could happen is we play one early and it gets wastelanded, which isn't the worst thing when you're running a couple extra land cards anyway.
I'd personally rather not have control over when we have these lands in play than not have control over being flooded out with no possible way to convert excess land into extra cards. If we only run 4 of them I don't think we're going to end up in a situation where we can't fireblast someone very often.
Regarding the Horizon land, I think BasedFuster might be missing part of why the Horizon land are good.
This type of land allows land to be converted into spells.
Having the ability to convert land into spells, means more land than normal can be played. It allows more stability, less mana screw, and less mulligans.
I literally said you could go up from 18-19 lands to 20-21 lands in an earlier post. I didn't miss anything.
My list has been:
19 mountain
16 bolts
12 creatures (eidolon, guide, swiftspear)
3 pop
4 fireblast
4 light up the stage
2 vortex
I've been pretty happy with the list, but now that I have 4 sunbaked canyons, I'm interested in going up to 20 lands.
My first thought was to go down to 3 fireblast.
My 2 "fringe" cards, luts and vortex have been pretty helpful...
Luts gives me access to more cards, helps with mana screw, and protects cards from discard.
I run into alot of life gain when I play online. The vortexes are worth it to me for that alone, the damage is like a bonus.
I do want to see a fireblast every game, but usually not 2 and never early on.
Light up the stage and now sunbaked canyon let me see more of my deck in any given game then ever before.
Is it reasonable to drop a fireblast to fit in the 20th land?
Or do I stay at 19 lands?
@ox4: Cut a Fireblast, because you wouldn't be running 20 Mountains, anyway. Your setup would be 16 Mountains and 4 Sunbaked Canyons. The Canyons can't be sac'd to cast the Fireblasts, so it's best to cut one. Just be careful not to get bitten by your PoPs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
Thanks for your reply, and catching the mistake in my post.
That's what I've been running online the past few days, and it's going pretty well.
4 seems like a good number of these lands to me. does anyone have an opinion on weather it's better to play 4 sunbaked canyons, or 2 canyons and 2 fiery islets?
In one game I played, someone turned off my canyons. I think it was with pithing needle.
On the other hand, playing 4 copies of one helps disguise my hand/ draws a little when people are looking at my cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My decks. Feel free to make suggestions. The Precious B___U___G___R___W
4 Sunbaked Canyon works wonders. 20 lands : 1 Ring, 4 fetches, 4 Canyon and 11 Mountains is my take and I'm not looking back. The card draw fron Canyon is amazing.
has anyone else been having a problem with some kind of pain in the ass artifact deck, where they turn all of your lands into artifacts and then karn makes it so you cant tap your artifacts?
has anyone had any luck with pulverize or crash? like a fireblast for artifacts....i think they would work because you dont have to tap the lands, but it would take up spots in the sideboard, i dont know if they can really be a replacement for smash to smithereens.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Has anyone tested Dreadhorde Arcanist? Seems like it could work, but seems like it could be clunky too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing: Standard:
Nothing, the format Bores me! Legacy: RBurn (Made on the Cheap!)R RGBelcherRG WSoldier StompyW BReanimatorB EDH: BUGRWSliver OverlordWRGUB BGeth, Lord of the VaultB
4/0, (2xIntentional Draws, then loss in quarterfinals)
2/2
3/1
It is an interesting deck to play for me purely because I play all formats. Vintage, Legacy, Modern, Standard, and the best format, Highlander (Australian Highlander , not EDH or Commander). I have even played a little draft recently, but, I don't play each format much.
Not knowing a format intensely, or being focussed on one set of decktypes makes it much harder to get really good at complex decks. As example, the format I have played the most recently was Highlander, and remembering which creatures are in the deck so the Green Sun's Zenith works properly is quite difficult.
Being able to play like this means I always have a deck ready for each format, just grab and play.
It also means I just don't get to know a lot about what everyone else is playing.
Frustratingly, I am yet to play against Dark Depths. Slowly, the hatred I am playing against Dark Depths is fading.
I played against a DD player last night, and he wasn't playing DD. D'oh
Burn sideboarding is a little different to other sideboarding. I do not agree about trying to improve the deck a little by gently massaging numbers. Burn cards are mostly interchangeable between each other. Rift bolt or Lava spike or chain lightning isnt a huge difference. Goblin or Swiftspear isn't massively different.
Eidolon is different, as is Sulphuric Vortex, but not hugely so.
The mana base in Burn is incredibly blah. Fetchlands or not depends on grim lavamancer (& Searing Blaze).
The only other choices are if Horizon canopy lands, or Barbarian Ring should be included. Including either means the 4th Fireblast should be replaced.
Barbarian ring has been Excellent.
At a conceptual level, it seems far better than a Horizon land, but very similar. If the horizon land is needed to tap for mana, it can, and hurts. Exactly like a B-Ring If there is too much land, pay a mana and draw a burn card, well, 2/3rds of a burn card. And 2/3rds of 3 = 2
Barabrian Ring does exactly the same thing, 2 damage.
The reason B-Ring is better is because it can't be counterspelled, (or discarded), and because it does not need more mana to actually cause the damage. The lightning bolt drawn from the horizon land still needs a mana to cast.
Either way, 18 land is just not enough. 20 is so much more comfortable.
I am quite happy playing 4 Barbarian rings.
Light up the Stage is a mana source, sorta.
Turn one riftbolt, M-SSpear or Goblin means Light Up can be cast on turn 2 from a single mana. Seeing a one land hand and keeping it can be done, sometimes. Maybe you will draw a second on turn 1 or 2. Maybe LutS will show a 2nd. And maybe you will just lose, it happens.
Currently I am playing 2x LutS.
Skewer the critics hasn't worked for me.
Sideboard is more interesting. Smash to Smithereens deserves a full 4 of. Smashing Chalice of the void is good. So is breaking a batterskull, or sword of Ice & fire from a Stoneforge
Searing Blaze also deserves a full 4 of. It works good. Burning a delver, snapcaster, Strix, Stoneforge, goblin, or whatever is a really good thing. It works.
The other 7 cards in sideboard can be anything.
Anyhoo, I have been play a couple of weird sirdboard cards, and they have been working.
Last night I played against a turn 1 Trimisphere, and a turn 2 Chandra.
Ball Lightning is an AWESOME way to kill Chandra.
Then Smash to Smithereens, Bang, bang, bang.clunk. His Ancient Tomb certainly helped, but he was casting a lot of 3 cost Goblin makers and would have got me on his next turn.
I highly reccomend a Ball lightning or two in the board. Against all in strategies, it does get thru.
Pyrostatic pillar has won me a game against storm.
Sulphuric Vortex does work if forced into a long game.
Alpine Moon is still a 4 of for me, and I am still boarding an Island of Wak-Wak, come on Dark Depths.
Currently Playing: Standard:
Nothing, the format Bores me! Legacy: RBurn (Made on the Cheap!)R RGBelcherRG WSoldier StompyW BReanimatorB EDH: BUGRWSliver OverlordWRGUB BGeth, Lord of the VaultB
And some base deck.
https://www.mtgtop8.com/archetype?a=555
When I wrote "Why would anyone sideboard in Abrupt Decay or Ass Trophy against a Burn deck?"
It clearly refers to them putting MORE copies of Abrupt Decay & Ass trophy into their their deck from sideboard.
Why would they need more?
Them taking their base deck Abrupt Decay & Ass trophy OUT would make a whole lot of sense.
Ensnaring Bridge is WOEFUL in the matchup, but nothing else in the standard burn base deck or sideboard card pool is an effective permanent, so I spoze keeping a copy might have some justification.
Feel free to explain why DD would keep them main deck.
Yeah, pithing needle is a good card. Agree the combo is tough, but slowing the combo is more a burn advantage. I think stopping the deck from working is out of focus. So worrying about answers to pithing needle or such is not going to help burn from winning. Idea focus is play a card and make them deal with it. (this response is aimed depths ability to remove pithing needle and such cards from play)
I think red canopy lands are going to work with modern burn, unless there's a modern version of fireblast. If we really want free draws, we have Street Wraith and at one time we had Gitaxian Probe - and these cards were almost never used in burn. I think using a non-basic lands (unfetchable and unblastable) just to maybe draw a card (which cost mana to activate) is not a good idea in legacy burn.
I doubt it... Think of this, tap a land for mana and lose another land to draw a card... When are you going to play this on turn 4. Burn is mana sensitive, every mana is counted. why not play 4 Street Wraith all you need to do is pay 2 life and discard a Street Wraith to draw a card...
Okay, cool, you can beat turbo Depths (except for the times in your tournament reports where you didn't). How do you do against other decks in the format? Can you beat DNT? Delver? U/W/x variants? I've come across those decks way more often than turbo Depths and while my odds of beating those decks are better than beating turbo Depths, I still need help from my sideboard to win consistently. I am genuinely curious to know how well you do against other decks with your current sideboard configuration.
They're untapped lands that give us red mana. I would just cut mountains, no spells. I also personally think 4 should be the minimum we use assuming a standard 20 land build, but I think it could be possible to run 5 or 6. It may actually be possible that the correct number is meta dependent and not static, where running more than 4 while cutting copies of Fireblast for Grim Lavamancer is correct if the meta favors longer games, while running 4 or less and retaining all 4 fireblast copies is correct if the meta favors shorter games.
The reason we don't play Street Wraith is because it makes our mulligan decisions horrible. We either have to cut land or cut threat density to run that card, which is not what you want when presented with a sketchy hand that contains one or more copies of Wraith. With the canopy lands, since they are also lands that tap for red mana, we can straight up just cut mountains for them and not screw up our ratios.
You're also not looking at these lands with the right mindset. The vast majority of games I've lost with burn have been to mana flooding. I still remember a match in this local tournament I was in 2 years ago against Pox that I lost because I flooded hard all 3 games. On one of the games I ended up drawing 6 mountains in a row without seeing another spell before I got cursed scroll'd to death. Needless to say I'm still salty about losing what should have been an excellent matchup due to mana flood, especially since that was my only loss that night. The draw ability is meant for those situations. If you go past turn 4, you're out of gas, and you're starting to flood, you can use the ability to give yourself another chance to draw more gas. Running these lands also means we're most likely okay going up to 20-21 land from 18-19, reducing our odds of mana screw early on in the game as well. These lands are not meant to be used to draw cards early on; they're meant to be used in the late game as a way to address what is arguably Burn's biggest weakness as a deck.
And yes, Barbarian Ring just replaces a Mountain, and you can probably shave a Fireblast.
I won the first 3 rounds against Reanimator, Lions's Eye Storm, and Stoneblade
(There is something special about winning while having two Maze of Ith untapping Enormous Flying Monsters.)
Lost the final to Painted servant sillyness.
First turn on the play he cast a Trinisphere
Second game was a turn 1 Chalice for 1, which I Smashed!, so he cast another Chalice for 1, and I drew bolts.
Got him in the social 3rd
Hey GPash, how is it you know so much about my experiences, that I don't?
You should cut down on your salt, you seem a bit agitated.
.
Regarding the Horizon land, I think BasedFuster might be missing part of why the Horizon land are good.
This type of land allows land to be converted into spells.
Having the ability to convert land into spells, means more land than normal can be played. It allows more stability, less mana screw, and less mulligans. Those reasons are why I play some Barbarian rings. Maybe Barbarian rings are more what you should play, they skip the part where you draw a card and go straight to damage. There is something good about on table damage that can't be counterspelled, or discarded. Being Bloodmoon-ed and then sacrificing Barbarian Rings to Fireblast is funny.
If you draw the perfect amount of land, and some of them are Horizon land, all you have done is hurt yourself.
If you draw the right amount, and they start counterspelling or discarding your spells, the Horizon land allow you to go slightly longer.
If you are playing MORE LAND, you get fewer 'No Land' or 'One Land' mulligans.
If you play more land, and get flooded, you get to convert them into spells. Yes, this slows you down.
Horizon land allow stability, if you play more.
Horizon land allow greed, if you play the same amount of land.
If you wish to just be greedy, I wish you luck, but your Fireblasts and Price of Progress might just bite you.
in that situation, wouldn't you just sacc one of the horizon lands to draw into either more gas or a mountain? i don't really think it's going to be bad, per se, but being locked out by moons, or worse yet BTB seems pretty bad.
Makes splashing a second colour possibly worth it though. Not sure what the best would be. Blue for card draw, i guess? black for discard?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Blood moon against us is useless even with the canopy lands. If your board is really just 2 canopy lands and a mountain, a blood moon would be a bad play because it lets us play fireblast, and if it doesn't, all it does is stop us from using the land to drawing cards. It doesn't keep us off mana like it would against Sultai. As for B2B, it doesn't prevent us from sacing the lands to let us draw cards. I don't think the hate would be as bad as you guys think. Worst that could happen is we play one early and it gets wastelanded, which isn't the worst thing when you're running a couple extra land cards anyway.
I'd personally rather not have control over when we have these lands in play than not have control over being flooded out with no possible way to convert excess land into extra cards. If we only run 4 of them I don't think we're going to end up in a situation where we can't fireblast someone very often.
I literally said you could go up from 18-19 lands to 20-21 lands in an earlier post. I didn't miss anything.
My list has been:
19 mountain
16 bolts
12 creatures (eidolon, guide, swiftspear)
3 pop
4 fireblast
4 light up the stage
2 vortex
I've been pretty happy with the list, but now that I have 4 sunbaked canyons, I'm interested in going up to 20 lands.
My first thought was to go down to 3 fireblast.
My 2 "fringe" cards, luts and vortex have been pretty helpful...
Luts gives me access to more cards, helps with mana screw, and protects cards from discard.
I run into alot of life gain when I play online. The vortexes are worth it to me for that alone, the damage is like a bonus.
I do want to see a fireblast every game, but usually not 2 and never early on.
Light up the stage and now sunbaked canyon let me see more of my deck in any given game then ever before.
Is it reasonable to drop a fireblast to fit in the 20th land?
Or do I stay at 19 lands?
Thanks for your thoughts.
The Precious
B___U___G___R___W
That's what I've been running online the past few days, and it's going pretty well.
4 seems like a good number of these lands to me. does anyone have an opinion on weather it's better to play 4 sunbaked canyons, or 2 canyons and 2 fiery islets?
In one game I played, someone turned off my canyons. I think it was with pithing needle.
On the other hand, playing 4 copies of one helps disguise my hand/ draws a little when people are looking at my cards.
The Precious
B___U___G___R___W
Aggro: Naya Burn RWG
Combo: Scapeshift RG
Control: Jeskai Control UWR
Legacy
Control: Miracles UW
Aggro: Burn R
has anyone had any luck with pulverize or crash? like a fireblast for artifacts....i think they would work because you dont have to tap the lands, but it would take up spots in the sideboard, i dont know if they can really be a replacement for smash to smithereens.
Thanks for your thoughts.
The Precious
B___U___G___R___W
Currently Playing:
Standard:
Nothing, the format Bores me!
Legacy:
RBurn (Made on the Cheap!)R
RGBelcherRG
WSoldier StompyW
BReanimatorB
EDH:
BUGRWSliver OverlordWRGUB
BGeth, Lord of the VaultB
4/0, (2xIntentional Draws, then loss in quarterfinals)
2/2
3/1
It is an interesting deck to play for me purely because I play all formats. Vintage, Legacy, Modern, Standard, and the best format, Highlander (Australian Highlander , not EDH or Commander). I have even played a little draft recently, but, I don't play each format much.
Not knowing a format intensely, or being focussed on one set of decktypes makes it much harder to get really good at complex decks. As example, the format I have played the most recently was Highlander, and remembering which creatures are in the deck so the Green Sun's Zenith works properly is quite difficult.
Being able to play like this means I always have a deck ready for each format, just grab and play.
It also means I just don't get to know a lot about what everyone else is playing.
Frustratingly, I am yet to play against Dark Depths. Slowly, the hatred I am playing against Dark Depths is fading.
I played against a DD player last night, and he wasn't playing DD. D'oh
Burn sideboarding is a little different to other sideboarding. I do not agree about trying to improve the deck a little by gently massaging numbers. Burn cards are mostly interchangeable between each other. Rift bolt or Lava spike or chain lightning isnt a huge difference. Goblin or Swiftspear isn't massively different.
Eidolon is different, as is Sulphuric Vortex, but not hugely so.
The mana base in Burn is incredibly blah. Fetchlands or not depends on grim lavamancer (& Searing Blaze).
The only other choices are if Horizon canopy lands, or Barbarian Ring should be included. Including either means the 4th Fireblast should be replaced.
Barbarian ring has been Excellent.
At a conceptual level, it seems far better than a Horizon land, but very similar. If the horizon land is needed to tap for mana, it can, and hurts. Exactly like a B-Ring If there is too much land, pay a mana and draw a burn card, well, 2/3rds of a burn card. And 2/3rds of 3 = 2
Barabrian Ring does exactly the same thing, 2 damage.
The reason B-Ring is better is because it can't be counterspelled, (or discarded), and because it does not need more mana to actually cause the damage. The lightning bolt drawn from the horizon land still needs a mana to cast.
Either way, 18 land is just not enough. 20 is so much more comfortable.
I am quite happy playing 4 Barbarian rings.
Light up the Stage is a mana source, sorta.
Turn one riftbolt, M-SSpear or Goblin means Light Up can be cast on turn 2 from a single mana. Seeing a one land hand and keeping it can be done, sometimes. Maybe you will draw a second on turn 1 or 2. Maybe LutS will show a 2nd. And maybe you will just lose, it happens.
Currently I am playing 2x LutS.
Skewer the critics hasn't worked for me.
Sideboard is more interesting.
Smash to Smithereens deserves a full 4 of. Smashing Chalice of the void is good. So is breaking a batterskull, or sword of Ice & fire from a Stoneforge
Searing Blaze also deserves a full 4 of. It works good. Burning a delver, snapcaster, Strix, Stoneforge, goblin, or whatever is a really good thing. It works.
The other 7 cards in sideboard can be anything.
Anyhoo, I have been play a couple of weird sirdboard cards, and they have been working.
Last night I played against a turn 1 Trimisphere, and a turn 2 Chandra.
Ball Lightning is an AWESOME way to kill Chandra.
Then Smash to Smithereens, Bang, bang, bang.clunk. His Ancient Tomb certainly helped, but he was casting a lot of 3 cost Goblin makers and would have got me on his next turn.
I highly reccomend a Ball lightning or two in the board. Against all in strategies, it does get thru.
Pyrostatic pillar has won me a game against storm.
Sulphuric Vortex does work if forced into a long game.
Alpine Moon is still a 4 of for me, and I am still boarding an Island of Wak-Wak, come on Dark Depths.
There doesnt seem to be any cards in the deck that benefit from snow covered lands.
I'm looking for reasons why.
So far I've heard that it is to make it harder to use Predict against you.
Does anyone know any other reasons?
Thanks
The Precious
B___U___G___R___W
I’m still refining the mana base, but the Horizon Lands have been very good to me, I’d say they won me several games seeing extra cards.
20 lands seems appropriate.
I now need to try Barbarian Ring.
Still hesitant on how many Light Up the Stage is the right number, too.
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Goblin Guide
4 Chain Lightning
2 Light Up the Stage
3 Searing Blaze
3 Fireblast
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Price of Progress
2 Skewer the Critics
2 Rift Bolt
1 Sulfuric Vortex
4 Arid Mesa
1 Bloodstained Mire
1 Wooded Foothills
2 Fiery Islet
2 Sunbaked Canyon
Match-ups?
Currently Playing:
Standard:
Nothing, the format Bores me!
Legacy:
RBurn (Made on the Cheap!)R
RGBelcherRG
WSoldier StompyW
BReanimatorB
EDH:
BUGRWSliver OverlordWRGUB
BGeth, Lord of the VaultB
It's not worth playing unfortunately. No haste means it is easily removed before it has a chance to deal damage.