New snow lands look badass or maybe Icehide Golem is worth playing in burn. Sorry I'm not sure...
It's not worth playing unfortunately. No haste means it is easily removed before it has a chance to deal damage.
Agree... though if Icehide was a 3/3 or a 3/2 maybe...
I'm still not sure about the use of snow lands. I know my mono red EDH build has snow lands. Yeah, I have +30 snow mountains in the deck, but I'm doing it because of scrying sheets, but I wouldn't use scrying sheets in a legacy burn build because it's too damn slow.
Agree... though if Icehide was a 3/3 or a 3/2 maybe...
I'm still not sure about the use of snow lands. I know my mono red EDH build has snow lands. Yeah, I have +30 snow mountains in the deck, but I'm doing it because of scrying sheets, but I wouldn't use scrying sheets in a legacy burn build because it's too damn slow.
I like running snow lands bc they look cool and sometimes I get the occasional opponent that gets thrown off for a bit and thinks I'm running some secret skred tech. Even the golem was a 3/x it still wouldn't be good enough without haste. For reference, not even creatures as efficient as tarmogoyf are worthy of inclusion in the deck. The creatures we do run just happen to be burn spells on a stick due to either their haste abilities, or in the case of Eidolon, immediately dealing damage to your opponent if they try to play anything. Without these abilities, it's too easy for a creature to get bolted/plowed/pathed/pushed/decayed before your next turn rolls around, and then you've just spent mana on a card that dealt zero damage.
Agree... though if Icehide was a 3/3 or a 3/2 maybe...
I'm still not sure about the use of snow lands. I know my mono red EDH build has snow lands. Yeah, I have +30 snow mountains in the deck, but I'm doing it because of scrying sheets, but I wouldn't use scrying sheets in a legacy burn build because it's too damn slow.
I like running snow lands bc they look cool and sometimes I get the occasional opponent that gets thrown off for a bit and thinks I'm running some secret skred tech. Even the golem was a 3/x it still wouldn't be good enough without haste. For reference, not even creatures as efficient as tarmogoyf are worthy of inclusion in the deck. The creatures we do run just happen to be burn spells on a stick due to either their haste abilities, or in the case of Eidolon, immediately dealing damage to your opponent if they try to play anything. Without these abilities, it's too easy for a creature to get bolted/plowed/pathed/pushed/decayed before your next turn rolls around, and then you've just spent mana on a card that dealt zero damage.
I tend to believe low cost (especially for 1 mana) high power fits into mono red. It's the key to make the deck successful. Sure haste is awesome but not every creature has haste. But *we are often limiting ours to haste bears (2/2 creatures), and sometimes get trampled over during the longer gameplay. *we as in burn players...
I think Icehide is a rotten creature compared to Goblin Guide and Swiftspear. Because it's power level is closer to those creatures and it has no haste. But on the other hand, I'm not sure if Icehide would suck if it's a 3/3 or a 3/x because it would offer additional point of attack for the lost cost of 1 mana. Sadly, the only creature that comes close to this is VD. I know most players don't like VD because of the browbeat clause, I feel that they don't understand how to make it work for their advantage. But I'm not getting into that argument because it's a bash your head against the wall battle. I get it that nobody on this form likes VD... I do see my self dropping VD if icehide was a 3/3 or a 3/x and the only thing I had to do to my deck was add snowlands.
Please note if Delver of Secrets was red, it would be a main burn creature in our burn deck! This is why I believe that RU Devler is a stronger burn deck
I tend to believe low cost (especially for 1 mana) high power fits into mono red. It's the key to make the deck successful. Sure haste is awesome but not every creature has haste. But *we are often limiting ours to haste bears (2/2 creatures), and sometimes get trampled over during the longer gameplay. *we as in burn players...
I think Icehide is a rotten creature compared to Goblin Guide and Swiftspear. Because it's power level is closer to those creatures and it has no haste. But on the other hand, I'm not sure if Icehide would suck if it's a 3/3 or a 3/x because it would offer additional point of attack for the lost cost of 1 mana. Sadly, the only creature that comes close to this is VD. I know most players don't like VD because of the browbeat clause, I feel that they don't understand how to make it work for their advantage. But I'm not getting into that argument because it's a bash your head against the wall battle. I get it that nobody on this form likes VD... I do see my self dropping VD if icehide was a 3/3 or a 3/x and the only thing I had to do to my deck was add snowlands.
Please note if Delver of Secrets was red, it would be a main burn creature in our burn deck! This is why I believe that RU Devler is a stronger burn deck
If your remark on Delver was true, we would have been playing copies of Zurgo Bellstriker back when that card was first released right alongside Monastery Swiftspear. Or better yet, we would have been splashing black to run Bump in the Night and possibly even Death's Shadow for a way better late game, Burn really wants to come out of the gate swinging and we like to start our opponents off at 18 or 17 when possible. Burn was never meant for the longer game. Sure, things like canopy lands and Grim Lavamancer give us extra reach later in the game, but you need to play this deck aware that your chances of winning drop dramatically for each subsequent turn beyond turn 5 no matter what. That's just how aggro has been set up and balanced throughout Magic's history. You either win fast or you don't win at all.
U/R delver is not a burn deck at all. It's a tempo deck that relies on blue to stay one step ahead of your opponent. Delver would be a no go in burn if it was mono red because not only is it not hasty, but the 1/1 body is way too easy to remove and we don't have library manipulation to make it flip. We can't protect delver with Daze or make Delver flip during our upkeep with Brainstorm; and thus there's no guarantee that Delver would give us the damage we paid our mana for. The point of the deck is that it uses blue cards to interfere with the opponent's gameplan just enough to stay ahead and win a damage race; while we try and win damage races through early brute force and sheer threat density. The blue cards in that deck are supposed to make up for it being slower than us (they're slower in exchange for consistency through library manipulation and so they can run Force of Will) and having less threat density than us. Thinking U/R Delver is a burn deck that just runs blue and not a full blown tempo strategy is a mistake, both as a pilot and as an opponent playing against the deck.
I've always loved playing the deck. To me the big problem with burn has always been that it inflicts too much cumulative self damage to be truly consistent in way. Cards like Sulfuric Vortex and Pyrostatic Pillar have always been hit or miss. And Grim Lavamancer relies too much on fetchlands which will drain your life as quick as your opponent, not too mention that it's still pretty slow for the format. So no, taking a bunch of damage hoping to finish him off first is not a consistent play.
What I'd want is a deck that takes out all the self inflicted damage, but still pack the punch to finish him off by turn three. My card here is Ankh of Mishra given that legacy is a heavy land based format, it'll inflict a decent amount of damage without hurting myself. I'm hoping that the early drop will start draining the opponent's life before unloading my hand since by then I'll be top decking the rest of the way I won't be taking the damage myself. The deck only needs the three lands to unload the hand.
Goblin Guide and Monastery Swiftspear are still my winning draws. These are consistent winners every time I grab them in my initial hand. The rest of the deck is packed with the usual one mana bullets. Price of Progress can be particularly lethal in legacy, so I'm also aiming to maximize its use by not having fetchlands waiting around on the table I may or may not use because I don't want to pinch myself, which is yet another cumulative self damage I'd like to avoid.
Light Up the Stage still seems too slow for the deck. It's yet another card that relies too much on fetchlanchs to be truly effective, but can still be used to grab one or two of those creatures which I want to continue pounding with. So there's that. That's pretty much it. Tell me what you guys think.
1) 18 land, is not enough.
2) Ankh of Mishra, instead of Eidolon, is a mistake.
3) 4 Fireblasts, is 1 too many
4) it is missing a sideboard
5) Skewer the Critics isnt quite good enough.
6) LutS getting a Fireblast or Riftbolt is really annoying.
7) But not as annoying as drawing 1, or 4+ Mountains
And 3 mountains gets pretty sucky too if you start to draw more of them.
So, 2 Mountains, 5 spells and you are good to go.
Ah,.. Provided those 5 spells are not LutS, Fireblast x2, & Ankh x2. And Skewer the Critics in that lot does not help either.
Getting an Ankh on table against a Combo deck often does nothing
My life total is irrelevant in about 40-60% of the time.
Ankh is the only disenchant target, Eidolon is too I spoze, but at least they still take 2. Mostly. And artifact destruction does exist, a bit.
Turn 2 Griselbrand
or Dark Depths Combo
Or Silly Storm
Will make you sad.
Ankh of Mishra just for starters. Assuming you're facing tempo more often than not. It would be moved out after the first game when facing combo. Or could be the other way around. I'd like to use a sideboard that can lock down combo even if it's not strictly a burn spell. Blood Moon comes to mind.
Eidolon of the Great Revel is a great play, but it takes away a noncreature spot I could use to pump the Monastery Swiftspear. Having it hit for three by the second turn is crucial, That's ten life I would have the opponent down by turn two, and a sure kill by turn three. Increasing the chances for a third turn kill is a must. By turn four things usually go downhill. A third turn Monastery Swiftspear combined with a regular spell and a Flame Rift can also hit for another ten, so that gives me another card that will increase the chances for a three turn win along with the Fireblast.
It's the deck that made the semifinals at the Grand Prix in Atlanta last month. It has no self damage. Great to see the deck make it that far at a Grand Prix of all tourneys. Eidolon of the Great Revel is way too dominant not to play, but also the fact that the deck won't lose life fetching lands makes all the difference in the world. It's an extra spell or two you're able to play against the Eidolon. Exquisite Firecraft is deadly hitting for four late game no matter what. One of the most underrated cards in Magic right now. It can't be understated how huge the counterspell hate is for burn, which has been historically weak against control. Just a solid finisher both in Legacy and Modern. Add Price of Progress hitting cleanly for six or eight or even ten, plus Fireblast. Real potential for raising the deck to a top tier.
It's the deck that made the semifinals at the Grand Prix in Atlanta last month. It has no self damage. Great to see the deck make it that far at a Grand Prix of all tourneys. Eidolon of the Great Revel is way too dominant not to play, but also the fact that the deck won't lose life fetching lands makes all the difference in the world. It's an extra spell or two you're able to play against the Eidolon. Exquisite Firecraft is deadly hitting for four late game no matter what. One of the most underrated cards in Magic right now. It can't be understated how huge the counterspell hate is for burn, which has been historically weak against control. Just a solid finisher both in Legacy and Modern. Add Price of Progress hitting cleanly for six or eight or even ten, plus Fireblast. Real potential for raising the deck to a top tier.
Interesting, Exquisite Firecraft was a good card when countertop was a deck. Nice to see it make a showing, but I'm not sure how long that will last. Usually, Searing blaze/blood is in that spot, and there is a good number of targets for those cards.
It's the deck that made the semifinals at the Grand Prix in Atlanta last month. It has no self damage. Great to see the deck make it that far at a Grand Prix of all tourneys. Eidolon of the Great Revel is way too dominant not to play, but also the fact that the deck won't lose life fetching lands makes all the difference in the world. It's an extra spell or two you're able to play against the Eidolon. Exquisite Firecraft is deadly hitting for four late game no matter what. One of the most underrated cards in Magic right now. It can't be understated how huge the counterspell hate is for burn, which has been historically weak against control. Just a solid finisher both in Legacy and Modern. Add Price of Progress hitting cleanly for six or eight or even ten, plus Fireblast. Real potential for raising the deck to a top tier.
Interesting, Exquisite Firecraft was a good card when countertop was a deck. Nice to see it make a showing, but I'm not sure how long that will last. Usually, Searing blaze/blood is in that spot, and there is a good number of targets for those cards.
The common thinking is that if burn can't win by turn 4 then it won't win at all. Exquisite Firecraft allows you to win turn 5 and take the game deep. That's pretty much what it does. Instead of taking the risk of sacrificing land to Fireblast and be countered, which usually ends badly, Firecraft can wait another turn. And with only two of them, you'll drain half his life. Your opponent can cantrip all he wants. You already know he's dead. It's what makes it a great finisher. Players love to accomodate cards like Grim Lavamancer that look great on paper and once in a while they win a game or two, but burn is going nowhere with the Lavamancer. It's too slow and too high maintenance. I think burn just needs to play it straight and main deck cards like Firecraft so you don't fall behind against control and you can win those easy matches, especially in a meta completely dominated by Delver.
Searing Blaze is great against Delver too, so you easily cruise by it, but it has a clear cut drawback. It can become a dead card in your hand against the wrong deck, and you're already taking that same risk with Price of Progress. Progress is still worth enough to main deck. Blaze is better off as a sideboard.
The common thinking is that if burn can't win by turn 4 then it won't win at all. Exquisite Firecraft allows you to win turn 5 and take the game deep. That's pretty much what it does. Instead of taking the risk of sacrificing land to Fireblast and be countered, which usually ends badly, Firecraft can wait another turn. And with only two of them, you'll drain half his life. Your opponent can cantrip all he wants. You already know he's dead. It's what makes it a great finisher. Players love to accomodate cards like Grim Lavamancer that look great on paper and once in a while they win a game or two, but burn is going nowhere with the Lavamancer. It's too slow and too high maintenance. I think burn just needs to play it straight and main deck cards like Firecraft so you don't fall behind against control and you can win those easy matches, especially in a meta completely dominated by Delver.
lol... I don't fall in to that category that believes that burn wins by turn 4 or bust.
Why a 3 mana spell is usually bad? If you consider a one card per turn draw, without cantrips (or other such help), that an opening hand must have at least 2 lands and then we assume that the next 3 draws (hopefully on turn 3) is a land card. Otherwise, you're stuck holding a 3 mana spell. In a casual game, you can afford a two land holdout for a few turn. But in a tournament setting, where winning is important, you cannot afford to take that risk.
Searing Blaze is great against Delver too, so you easily cruise by it, but it has a clear cut drawback. It can become a dead card in your hand against the wrong deck, and you're already taking that same risk with Price of Progress. Progress is still worth enough to main deck. Blaze is better off as a sideboard.
wow... Searing cards have a good number of targets, not just delver. You have more targets with searing cards then you would have with Price of Progress, especially if you consider the high cost of dual lands.
The reasons why a good number of players move away from searing cards, it's two mana and hard to maneuver with swiftspear, especially if you play swiftspear on turn 2.
On the other hand, swiftspear is a bad burn card because half the deck don't make swiftspear grow! And there are cards you're not going to cast just to make swiftspear grow (such as an early turn fireblast or Price of Progress)... I don't play swiftspear... but I understand why players like it, it can become a heavy hitter... but then again to make swiftspear a heavy hitter you not playing Eidolon.
The common thinking is that if burn can't win by turn 4 then it won't win at all. Exquisite Firecraft allows you to win turn 5 and take the game deep. That's pretty much what it does. Instead of taking the risk of sacrificing land to Fireblast and be countered, which usually ends badly, Firecraft can wait another turn. And with only two of them, you'll drain half his life. Your opponent can cantrip all he wants. You already know he's dead. It's what makes it a great finisher. Players love to accomodate cards like Grim Lavamancer that look great on paper and once in a while they win a game or two, but burn is going nowhere with the Lavamancer. It's too slow and too high maintenance. I think burn just needs to play it straight and main deck cards like Firecraft so you don't fall behind against control and you can win those easy matches, especially in a meta completely dominated by Delver.
lol... I don't fall in to that category that believes that burn wins by turn 4 or bust.
Why a 3 mana spell is usually bad? If you consider a one card per turn draw, without cantrips (or other such help), that an opening hand must have at least 2 lands and then we assume that the next 3 draws (hopefully on turn 3) is a land card. Otherwise, you're stuck holding a 3 mana spell. In a casual game, you can afford a two land holdout for a few turn. But in a tournament setting, where winning is important, you cannot afford to take that risk.
Searing Blaze is great against Delver too, so you easily cruise by it, but it has a clear cut drawback. It can become a dead card in your hand against the wrong deck, and you're already taking that same risk with Price of Progress. Progress is still worth enough to main deck. Blaze is better off as a sideboard.
wow... Searing cards have a good number of targets, not just delver. You have more targets with searing cards then you would have with Price of Progress, especially if you consider the high cost of dual lands.
The reasons why a good number of players move away from searing cards, it's two mana and hard to maneuver with swiftspear, especially if you play swiftspear on turn 2.
On the other hand, swiftspear is a bad burn card because half the deck don't make swiftspear grow! And there are cards you're not going to cast just to make swiftspear grow (such as an early turn fireblast or Price of Progress)... I don't play swiftspear... but I understand why players like it, it can become a heavy hitter... but then again to make swiftspear a heavy hitter you not playing Eidolon.
Swiftspear? There's Lighning Bolt, Chain Lighning and Lava Spike all which will consistently pump it up big real fast. Rift Bolt is less quick but just as effective. You'll draw plenty of those all the time. Swiftspear will potentially hit for 7 or 8 by turn 3, plus all those spells you've already shot you can turn it into an easy 3 turn kill. That's massive damage very quickly. Even more than Goblin Guide. Goblin is less conditioned, but Swiftpear will hit for more. If you're hitting for all that damage then Eidolon can always wait another turn. In fact, you'll probably won't even need it. There's no point in pinning your opponent down that quickly when you're already doing massive damage anyway.
Searing Blaze is insanely good. It wins games. I guess it's just a matter of taking the risk against combo. You can always grab it from the sideboard and finish the match with it just to play it safe. But the card is so good that I can't disagree with you there.
As for the 3 mana spell, I can't agree more. Still it's common for burn to open at least a spot for a 3 mana spell. It used to be Sulfuric Vortex, and Ensnaring Bridge remains a popular sideboard. If the card creates a winning condition that's too good to pass up, then I think the deck can afford it. And you still need that extra land to win. If you get mana screwed with only 2 lands, you're still a long way from winning. You can survive an extra turn or two, but you'll still need the land.
Swiftspear hitting for 7 or 8? What meta are you playing in?!
Sounds like perfect hand/draw scenario world. Like when you goldfish a few games.
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
Swiftspear hitting for 7 or 8? What meta are you playing in?!
Sounds like perfect hand/draw scenario world. Like when you goldfish a few games.
Pick one. Legacy's or Modern's. The only perfect hand/draw scenario you need here is that you draw the Swiftspear in your intial hand. Your opponent will clearly have plenty of answers in between, but even if he drops a creature turn 2 or 3, you're still swinging with a 3/4 or 4/5 Swiftspear and they'll be forced to block. The deck is simply designed that way. More than half of all your burn spells are single mana spells. You'll draw more than plenty to pump it. And if you don't then it won't make a difference since you'll likely have drawn the Eidolon anyway. It's just how deadly the Swistspear can be in your initial hand when it can regularly hit for 7 or 8 in those early turns. Really no different than playing another Goblin. You even find yourself playing Swiptspear before Goblin. That's just the way the deck runs.
Swiftspear hitting for 7 or 8? What meta are you playing in?!
Sounds like perfect hand/draw scenario world. Like when you goldfish a few games.
Pick one. Legacy's or Modern's. The only perfect hand/draw scenario you need here is that you draw the Swiftspear in your intial hand. Your opponent will clearly have plenty of answers in between, but even if he drops a creature turn 2 or 3, you're still swinging with a 3/4 or 4/5 Swiftspear and they'll be forced to block. The deck is simply designed that way. More than half of all your burn spells are single mana spells. You'll draw more than plenty to pump it. And if you don't then it won't make a difference since you'll likely have drawn the Eidolon anyway. It's just how deadly the Swistspear can be in your initial hand when it can regularly hit for 7 or 8 in those early turns. Really no different than playing another Goblin. You even find yourself playing Swiptspear before Goblin. That's just the way the deck runs.
It just never works out that way. Generally you attack for 1 on turn 1. Turn 2 at best you hit for 3. After that it's either dead or dealing with something bigger and badder. In burn you tend to run out of spells. I can't ever see you going off with 6 spells to make this hit for 7. Or 5 to hit for 6, or 4 to hit for 5. You just don't have the card draw to have all of these spells to cast. Would be much more likely in a UR shell.
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
Swiftspear hitting for 7 or 8? What meta are you playing in?!
Sounds like perfect hand/draw scenario world. Like when you goldfish a few games.
Pick one. Legacy's or Modern's. The only perfect hand/draw scenario you need here is that you draw the Swiftspear in your intial hand. Your opponent will clearly have plenty of answers in between, but even if he drops a creature turn 2 or 3, you're still swinging with a 3/4 or 4/5 Swiftspear and they'll be forced to block. The deck is simply designed that way. More than half of all your burn spells are single mana spells. You'll draw more than plenty to pump it. And if you don't then it won't make a difference since you'll likely have drawn the Eidolon anyway. It's just how deadly the Swistspear can be in your initial hand when it can regularly hit for 7 or 8 in those early turns. Really no different than playing another Goblin. You even find yourself playing Swiptspear before Goblin. That's just the way the deck runs.
It just never works out that way. Generally you attack for 1 on turn 1. Turn 2 at best you hit for 3. After that it's either dead or dealing with something bigger and badder. In burn you tend to run out of spells. I can't ever see you going off with 6 spells to make this hit for 7. Or 5 to hit for 6, or 4 to hit for 5. You just don't have the card draw to have all of these spells to cast. Would be much more likely in a UR shell.
By turn 2 your opponent is down to 10 by your own math and you've only played half your hand. That's pretty common with the Swiftspear. You're not beating the odds on that one. You're right that by turn 3 your opponent already has an answer, but he's now half his life short and you still have a slew of spells to play with. Drop the Eidolon and it's game over.
Do you think the new card Roiling Vortex is playable in Legacy burn ?
I’ve been thinking about it, it seems pretty meh compared to Sulfuric Vortex but the free spell hate makes it a bit interesting.
Honestly the card that I can truly see transforming Legacy burn is Magmatic Channeler. The card is pretty much a Bazaar of Baghdad effect for burn, which is an insane ability to have when you're top decking deep in a game. It means you won't have to worry about drawing a land when you're desperate for a spell. With this card not anymore. You can now discard it and draw two cards and choose one for zero cost. You'll have your entire mana pool to keep shooting whatever else you got. I can't begin to describe how big that is for burn.
On top he's also a 4/4 creature for two mana with no drawbacks. This card is an absolute beast. I'm definitely moving those Eidolons to the sideboard and going with this. Eidolon of the Great Revel is one of the most overrated cards in Magic. Great card, but that's just about it. In most cases, the opponent will simply kill it and take the two damage. Two damage and a removal spell. That's all the damage that the Eidolon usually makes. Not remotely enough to beat a slew of superior decks. Better for Modern. Not for Legacy. It's time to debunk the myth that Eidolon is one of the best cards in Magic. It's not even close. Pyrostatic Pillar was always an average sideboard card to begin with. Eidolon being a creature makes it a better version, but not much more than that.
So er... there IS a cost to magmatic channeler. It needs to tap (i.e. NOT do 4 damage) for you to draw. It's a trap card, i feel, though i've no real evidence to back it up aside from my hunch/hypothesis.
If you're on topdeck mode, wouldn't you just be going in for 4 damage each turn instead of drawing 1 extra? It's 3-4 damage possibly (unless you draw double lander), at the cost of a 4 damage swing.
Also, not all decks have removal for the eidolon. Also, don't we normally play pyrostatic pillar too? against xerox decks, it can be a real killer.
It feels to me that rolling vortex can be good, but it's basically good against force, daze, LED, petals. So maybe as a sideboard option against storm and RUG?
So er... there IS a cost to magmatic channeler. It needs to tap (i.e. NOT do 4 damage) for you to draw. It's a trap card, i feel, though i've no real evidence to back it up aside from my hunch/hypothesis.
If you're on topdeck mode, wouldn't you just be going in for 4 damage each turn instead of drawing 1 extra? It's 3-4 damage possibly (unless you draw double lander), at the cost of a 4 damage swing.
Also, not all decks have removal for the eidolon. Also, don't we normally play pyrostatic pillar too? against xerox decks, it can be a real killer.
It feels to me that rolling vortex can be good, but it's basically good against force, daze, LED, petals. So maybe as a sideboard option against storm and RUG?
How is it any different from Grim Lavamancer? Lavamancer taps with a cost. Assuming that you'll likely draw a Lava Spike or Lightning Bolt or Chain Lightning, which in all likelihood you will, you'll be hitting your opponent for 3 instead, or if you draw a Price of Progress, you'll be hitting for 6. And even if you end up removing two lands, those are two dead cards that you'll still be removing from your library. Best case scenario you'll be able to swing for 4 like you said, but that won't always be the case. It's the flexibility the card offers that makes it so deadly. Either hitting for 4, or hitting for 3, or removing lands from the top of the deck, with cards like Fiery Islet thrown into the mix, you'll be top decking burn spells virtually every turn.
As for the Eidolon, it's always been hit or miss depending which deck you're playing against. Against decks like Dredge or Delver archetypes it's completely useless. These deck roll over it like it's just another creature. And by the time you sideboard against those decks you're likely playing from behind already. Too many things have to go right for the Eidolon to win. It's not like it's proven to have much success to begin with. Burn remains at the very bottom of the metagame, not even close to the top tiers. You'd think that players would be playing the Eidolon more often if they thought the card was as good as advertised. My experience with the card has been mixed at best.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Agree... though if Icehide was a 3/3 or a 3/2 maybe...
I'm still not sure about the use of snow lands. I know my mono red EDH build has snow lands. Yeah, I have +30 snow mountains in the deck, but I'm doing it because of scrying sheets, but I wouldn't use scrying sheets in a legacy burn build because it's too damn slow.
I like running snow lands bc they look cool and sometimes I get the occasional opponent that gets thrown off for a bit and thinks I'm running some secret skred tech. Even the golem was a 3/x it still wouldn't be good enough without haste. For reference, not even creatures as efficient as tarmogoyf are worthy of inclusion in the deck. The creatures we do run just happen to be burn spells on a stick due to either their haste abilities, or in the case of Eidolon, immediately dealing damage to your opponent if they try to play anything. Without these abilities, it's too easy for a creature to get bolted/plowed/pathed/pushed/decayed before your next turn rolls around, and then you've just spent mana on a card that dealt zero damage.
I tend to believe low cost (especially for 1 mana) high power fits into mono red. It's the key to make the deck successful. Sure haste is awesome but not every creature has haste. But *we are often limiting ours to haste bears (2/2 creatures), and sometimes get trampled over during the longer gameplay. *we as in burn players...
I think Icehide is a rotten creature compared to Goblin Guide and Swiftspear. Because it's power level is closer to those creatures and it has no haste. But on the other hand, I'm not sure if Icehide would suck if it's a 3/3 or a 3/x because it would offer additional point of attack for the lost cost of 1 mana. Sadly, the only creature that comes close to this is VD. I know most players don't like VD because of the browbeat clause, I feel that they don't understand how to make it work for their advantage. But I'm not getting into that argument because it's a bash your head against the wall battle. I get it that nobody on this form likes VD... I do see my self dropping VD if icehide was a 3/3 or a 3/x and the only thing I had to do to my deck was add snowlands.
Please note if Delver of Secrets was red, it would be a main burn creature in our burn deck! This is why I believe that RU Devler is a stronger burn deck
If your remark on Delver was true, we would have been playing copies of Zurgo Bellstriker back when that card was first released right alongside Monastery Swiftspear. Or better yet, we would have been splashing black to run Bump in the Night and possibly even Death's Shadow for a way better late game, Burn really wants to come out of the gate swinging and we like to start our opponents off at 18 or 17 when possible. Burn was never meant for the longer game. Sure, things like canopy lands and Grim Lavamancer give us extra reach later in the game, but you need to play this deck aware that your chances of winning drop dramatically for each subsequent turn beyond turn 5 no matter what. That's just how aggro has been set up and balanced throughout Magic's history. You either win fast or you don't win at all.
U/R delver is not a burn deck at all. It's a tempo deck that relies on blue to stay one step ahead of your opponent. Delver would be a no go in burn if it was mono red because not only is it not hasty, but the 1/1 body is way too easy to remove and we don't have library manipulation to make it flip. We can't protect delver with Daze or make Delver flip during our upkeep with Brainstorm; and thus there's no guarantee that Delver would give us the damage we paid our mana for. The point of the deck is that it uses blue cards to interfere with the opponent's gameplan just enough to stay ahead and win a damage race; while we try and win damage races through early brute force and sheer threat density. The blue cards in that deck are supposed to make up for it being slower than us (they're slower in exchange for consistency through library manipulation and so they can run Force of Will) and having less threat density than us. Thinking U/R Delver is a burn deck that just runs blue and not a full blown tempo strategy is a mistake, both as a pilot and as an opponent playing against the deck.
What I'd want is a deck that takes out all the self inflicted damage, but still pack the punch to finish him off by turn three. My card here is Ankh of Mishra given that legacy is a heavy land based format, it'll inflict a decent amount of damage without hurting myself. I'm hoping that the early drop will start draining the opponent's life before unloading my hand since by then I'll be top decking the rest of the way I won't be taking the damage myself. The deck only needs the three lands to unload the hand.
Goblin Guide and Monastery Swiftspear are still my winning draws. These are consistent winners every time I grab them in my initial hand. The rest of the deck is packed with the usual one mana bullets. Price of Progress can be particularly lethal in legacy, so I'm also aiming to maximize its use by not having fetchlands waiting around on the table I may or may not use because I don't want to pinch myself, which is yet another cumulative self damage I'd like to avoid.
Creatures:
Goblin Guide x4
Monastery Swiftspear x4
Artifacts:
Ankh of Mishra x4
Spells:
Lightning Bolt x4
Chain Lightning x4
Lava Spike x4
Fireblast x4
Price of Progress x4
Rift Bolt x4
Skewer the Critics x4
Light Up the Stage x2
Lands:
Mountain x18
Light Up the Stage still seems too slow for the deck. It's yet another card that relies too much on fetchlanchs to be truly effective, but can still be used to grab one or two of those creatures which I want to continue pounding with. So there's that. That's pretty much it. Tell me what you guys think.
1) 18 land, is not enough.
2) Ankh of Mishra, instead of Eidolon, is a mistake.
3) 4 Fireblasts, is 1 too many
4) it is missing a sideboard
5) Skewer the Critics isnt quite good enough.
6) LutS getting a Fireblast or Riftbolt is really annoying.
7) But not as annoying as drawing 1, or 4+ Mountains
And 3 mountains gets pretty sucky too if you start to draw more of them.
So, 2 Mountains, 5 spells and you are good to go.
Ah,.. Provided those 5 spells are not LutS, Fireblast x2, & Ankh x2. And Skewer the Critics in that lot does not help either.
Getting an Ankh on table against a Combo deck often does nothing
My life total is irrelevant in about 40-60% of the time.
Ankh is the only disenchant target, Eidolon is too I spoze, but at least they still take 2. Mostly. And artifact destruction does exist, a bit.
Turn 2 Griselbrand
or Dark Depths Combo
Or Silly Storm
Will make you sad.
Eidolon of the Great Revel is a great play, but it takes away a noncreature spot I could use to pump the Monastery Swiftspear. Having it hit for three by the second turn is crucial, That's ten life I would have the opponent down by turn two, and a sure kill by turn three. Increasing the chances for a third turn kill is a must. By turn four things usually go downhill. A third turn Monastery Swiftspear combined with a regular spell and a Flame Rift can also hit for another ten, so that gives me another card that will increase the chances for a three turn win along with the Fireblast.
Creatures:
Goblin Guide x4
Monastery Swiftspear x4
Eidolon of the Great Revel x4
Spells:
Lightning Bolt x4
Chain Lightning x4
Lava Spike x4
Rift Bolt x4
Fireblast x4
Price of Progress x4
Exquisite Firecraft x4
Lands:
Mountain x20
Sideboard:
Leyline of the Void x4
Alpine Moon x2
Sulfuric Vortex x2
Dead x1
Searing Blood x1
Skewer the Critics x1
Smash to Smithereens x4
Burn is good when it's quick!
Interesting, Exquisite Firecraft was a good card when countertop was a deck. Nice to see it make a showing, but I'm not sure how long that will last. Usually, Searing blaze/blood is in that spot, and there is a good number of targets for those cards.
The common thinking is that if burn can't win by turn 4 then it won't win at all. Exquisite Firecraft allows you to win turn 5 and take the game deep. That's pretty much what it does. Instead of taking the risk of sacrificing land to Fireblast and be countered, which usually ends badly, Firecraft can wait another turn. And with only two of them, you'll drain half his life. Your opponent can cantrip all he wants. You already know he's dead. It's what makes it a great finisher. Players love to accomodate cards like Grim Lavamancer that look great on paper and once in a while they win a game or two, but burn is going nowhere with the Lavamancer. It's too slow and too high maintenance. I think burn just needs to play it straight and main deck cards like Firecraft so you don't fall behind against control and you can win those easy matches, especially in a meta completely dominated by Delver.
Searing Blaze is great against Delver too, so you easily cruise by it, but it has a clear cut drawback. It can become a dead card in your hand against the wrong deck, and you're already taking that same risk with Price of Progress. Progress is still worth enough to main deck. Blaze is better off as a sideboard.
lol... I don't fall in to that category that believes that burn wins by turn 4 or bust.
Why a 3 mana spell is usually bad? If you consider a one card per turn draw, without cantrips (or other such help), that an opening hand must have at least 2 lands and then we assume that the next 3 draws (hopefully on turn 3) is a land card. Otherwise, you're stuck holding a 3 mana spell. In a casual game, you can afford a two land holdout for a few turn. But in a tournament setting, where winning is important, you cannot afford to take that risk.
wow... Searing cards have a good number of targets, not just delver. You have more targets with searing cards then you would have with Price of Progress, especially if you consider the high cost of dual lands.
The reasons why a good number of players move away from searing cards, it's two mana and hard to maneuver with swiftspear, especially if you play swiftspear on turn 2.
On the other hand, swiftspear is a bad burn card because half the deck don't make swiftspear grow! And there are cards you're not going to cast just to make swiftspear grow (such as an early turn fireblast or Price of Progress)... I don't play swiftspear... but I understand why players like it, it can become a heavy hitter... but then again to make swiftspear a heavy hitter you not playing Eidolon.
Swiftspear? There's Lighning Bolt, Chain Lighning and Lava Spike all which will consistently pump it up big real fast. Rift Bolt is less quick but just as effective. You'll draw plenty of those all the time. Swiftspear will potentially hit for 7 or 8 by turn 3, plus all those spells you've already shot you can turn it into an easy 3 turn kill. That's massive damage very quickly. Even more than Goblin Guide. Goblin is less conditioned, but Swiftpear will hit for more. If you're hitting for all that damage then Eidolon can always wait another turn. In fact, you'll probably won't even need it. There's no point in pinning your opponent down that quickly when you're already doing massive damage anyway.
Searing Blaze is insanely good. It wins games. I guess it's just a matter of taking the risk against combo. You can always grab it from the sideboard and finish the match with it just to play it safe. But the card is so good that I can't disagree with you there.
As for the 3 mana spell, I can't agree more. Still it's common for burn to open at least a spot for a 3 mana spell. It used to be Sulfuric Vortex, and Ensnaring Bridge remains a popular sideboard. If the card creates a winning condition that's too good to pass up, then I think the deck can afford it. And you still need that extra land to win. If you get mana screwed with only 2 lands, you're still a long way from winning. You can survive an extra turn or two, but you'll still need the land.
Sounds like perfect hand/draw scenario world. Like when you goldfish a few games.
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
Pick one. Legacy's or Modern's. The only perfect hand/draw scenario you need here is that you draw the Swiftspear in your intial hand. Your opponent will clearly have plenty of answers in between, but even if he drops a creature turn 2 or 3, you're still swinging with a 3/4 or 4/5 Swiftspear and they'll be forced to block. The deck is simply designed that way. More than half of all your burn spells are single mana spells. You'll draw more than plenty to pump it. And if you don't then it won't make a difference since you'll likely have drawn the Eidolon anyway. It's just how deadly the Swistspear can be in your initial hand when it can regularly hit for 7 or 8 in those early turns. Really no different than playing another Goblin. You even find yourself playing Swiptspear before Goblin. That's just the way the deck runs.
It just never works out that way. Generally you attack for 1 on turn 1. Turn 2 at best you hit for 3. After that it's either dead or dealing with something bigger and badder. In burn you tend to run out of spells. I can't ever see you going off with 6 spells to make this hit for 7. Or 5 to hit for 6, or 4 to hit for 5. You just don't have the card draw to have all of these spells to cast. Would be much more likely in a UR shell.
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
By turn 2 your opponent is down to 10 by your own math and you've only played half your hand. That's pretty common with the Swiftspear. You're not beating the odds on that one. You're right that by turn 3 your opponent already has an answer, but he's now half his life short and you still have a slew of spells to play with. Drop the Eidolon and it's game over.
I’ve been thinking about it, it seems pretty meh compared to Sulfuric Vortex but the free spell hate makes it a bit interesting.
Honestly the card that I can truly see transforming Legacy burn is Magmatic Channeler. The card is pretty much a Bazaar of Baghdad effect for burn, which is an insane ability to have when you're top decking deep in a game. It means you won't have to worry about drawing a land when you're desperate for a spell. With this card not anymore. You can now discard it and draw two cards and choose one for zero cost. You'll have your entire mana pool to keep shooting whatever else you got. I can't begin to describe how big that is for burn.
On top he's also a 4/4 creature for two mana with no drawbacks. This card is an absolute beast. I'm definitely moving those Eidolons to the sideboard and going with this. Eidolon of the Great Revel is one of the most overrated cards in Magic. Great card, but that's just about it. In most cases, the opponent will simply kill it and take the two damage. Two damage and a removal spell. That's all the damage that the Eidolon usually makes. Not remotely enough to beat a slew of superior decks. Better for Modern. Not for Legacy. It's time to debunk the myth that Eidolon is one of the best cards in Magic. It's not even close. Pyrostatic Pillar was always an average sideboard card to begin with. Eidolon being a creature makes it a better version, but not much more than that.
If you're on topdeck mode, wouldn't you just be going in for 4 damage each turn instead of drawing 1 extra? It's 3-4 damage possibly (unless you draw double lander), at the cost of a 4 damage swing.
Also, not all decks have removal for the eidolon. Also, don't we normally play pyrostatic pillar too? against xerox decks, it can be a real killer.
It feels to me that rolling vortex can be good, but it's basically good against force, daze, LED, petals. So maybe as a sideboard option against storm and RUG?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
How is it any different from Grim Lavamancer? Lavamancer taps with a cost. Assuming that you'll likely draw a Lava Spike or Lightning Bolt or Chain Lightning, which in all likelihood you will, you'll be hitting your opponent for 3 instead, or if you draw a Price of Progress, you'll be hitting for 6. And even if you end up removing two lands, those are two dead cards that you'll still be removing from your library. Best case scenario you'll be able to swing for 4 like you said, but that won't always be the case. It's the flexibility the card offers that makes it so deadly. Either hitting for 4, or hitting for 3, or removing lands from the top of the deck, with cards like Fiery Islet thrown into the mix, you'll be top decking burn spells virtually every turn.
As for the Eidolon, it's always been hit or miss depending which deck you're playing against. Against decks like Dredge or Delver archetypes it's completely useless. These deck roll over it like it's just another creature. And by the time you sideboard against those decks you're likely playing from behind already. Too many things have to go right for the Eidolon to win. It's not like it's proven to have much success to begin with. Burn remains at the very bottom of the metagame, not even close to the top tiers. You'd think that players would be playing the Eidolon more often if they thought the card was as good as advertised. My experience with the card has been mixed at best.