Here is a question for the burn experts. Does shard volley belong in the same deck as Barbarian Ring? Both involve sacrificing lands and both are considered "finishers." Should it be a one or the other thing?
In my opinion it is too Un-synergistic. Between Sinkhole, and Wasteland against Barbarian Ring (Oh and I forgot Stifle) Shard Volley just seems like too much of a risk to our mana base to run along side B-Ring. Not to mention our need for a few extra lands to pop a fireblast.
Any thoughts?
I also would like to point out to anyone bringing a burn deck for everyone to give an opinion on to TAILOR TO YOUR META!!!! Just because we may criticize some cards doesn't mean they aren't viable. There are plenty of meta reasons for running certain cards over others.
I run a legacy competitive burn deck that is the terror of my circle.
I also maindeck SIX sweepers! Yes, 6. Two flamebreak and four Volcanic Fallout. This is because my meta is made up of lots and lots of weenie aggro. Some matchups that I continually face are Soldier Weenie, Rebels (which does surprisingly well), Zoo, Survival, Goblins, Red Sligh, and Merfolk. I have to face down tons of weenie aggro, thus I run six sweepers to tailor to my meta. They can be sided out easily for the matchups they aren't needed.
Nor do I run shard volley because I go up against quite a few land destruction decks that pack sinkhole and rain of tears.
This is my meta choice. If I took my deck to another tourney, namely a grand prix or something more competetive, I'd change it. What i am saying is you are not limited to the decks posted in the primer. They are suggestions and have been created to formulate the best burn deck for a GENERIC meta. If you know your meta and can tailor to it, by all means do it. Post the results and tell us what worked well against certain decks. That way we can all know what works and what doesn't.
Here is a question for the burn experts. Does shard volley belong in the same deck as Barbarian Ring? Both involve sacrificing lands and both are considered "finishers." Should it be a one or the other thing?
In my opinion it is too Un-synergistic. Between Sinkhole, and Wasteland against Barbarian Ring (Oh and I forgot Stifle) Shard Volley just seems like too much of a risk to our mana base to run along side B-Ring. Not to mention our need for a few extra lands to pop a fireblast.
Any thoughts?
lol... I've never had luck with Barbarian Ring as a finisher since I'd seldom see treashold, and with better burn spells its less likely for me.
Strategicly thinking it might be better not to play any nonbasics since you can make wastelands and Stifle dead cards (although I'm not sure about the limits on Stifle against other burn spells).
I'm playing 2 Shard Volley, I dont really like it since its tosting a land but I feel safe to play 2 since they are not getting in the way.
speaking about strategic ideas... what about main decking 3 Faerie Macabre? I think it can become an advantage since there is a better set of odds to play against somebody using cards from the graveyard. what do you think?
I don't know why everyone is hating on Barbarian Ring these days. It's colorless, uncounterable damage. Yes it is a viable option for Wasteland and Stifle. But when it pops its soo satisfyingly good. The synergy with Shard Volley is fine, because you are able to sac the Ring to Volley if you need to or you can sac a mountain and get two cards in the graveyard to get closer to threshold. The self damage is negligible with Vortex. I see no problems with running two Rings with multiple Hellsparks, Volleys, Vortexs and even multiple self damaging sweepers. I wouldn't run more than two Rings though, and my deck uses 2 Rings, 3 Volleys, 3 Fireblast, 3 Hellspark, and usually 2-3 Vortex.
Currently testing with FotBH, Im still leaning towards Vortex. Nothing major has come up yet, but I will continue to test with it.
Don't MD Macabre, unless your meta is got a bunch of Reanimator. Just like if there is a bunch of artifacts in your meta you can MD StS...
@ Yug typically a burn deck runs between 19 to 17 lands (usually with hopes to reduce top decking land draws for cheap spells) and typically a player will have 3 mountains in play during the corse of the game, it sucks for the player if they have 1 mountain and 2 Barbarian Rings in play, no threshold and you cannot use the free fireblast for the win. Although this is rare it did happen to me at least 3 times.
I like Vortex because its speeds up the kill.
I need to get some Hellsparks (I thought I own some but I cannot find it with my heap of cards)
Macabre hits more then just reanimator. He could take out anger/squee or genisis, Dread Return, cards worth fetching with Ill gotten gains is just a few reasons I can think.
Artifacts a common in Legacy even the cheapest builds has equipments and top also non basics is common too. So its smart to md pop and sts...
Enchantress was horrible. I won the first but lost second and third, didn't even see Nevinyrral's disk, thought it wouldn't have helped (he had aura of silence and seal of primordium in battlefield).
They usually run AoS and seal as 1-ofs with a 1x Oblivion Ring too. For Disk to even be useful, they must have managed to drop and upkeep Solitary Confinement, which is a feat in itself against our clock. If that buys them enough time to get their engine running and get removal, then there's really nothing we can do. It might be that Pithing Needle on Sterling Grove is actually a stronger play than Disk for this reason, unless you manage to drop Disk in the window of opportunity where they've dropped Confinement but not yet solidified their board position.
Merfolk was UW version with Sejiri merfolk (it really works, believe me!), and got raped by lifegain -.- second game was close, but I ended topdecking Powder keg when I needed anything that deals damage, so it was basically bad luck. Goblins won the first round, but lost second and third due the Powder keg (Keg at 3 is nice in lategame, as he had 2 chieftains in battlefield, and 1 of them and 2 goblin matrons in hand)
QFT. This is why you can only SB about 6 non-damaging spells in Burn. Powder Keg is awesomeness most of the time, but when you need to top deck burn to finish the opponent it's horrible. What good are answers when you're not asking questions yourself? This is also why you shouldn't run non-burning stuff in the main, like the suggested Faerie Macabre.
So, what do you think of the main deck? Better than my last list maybe?
I like it. Now go play with it and tell us how it fares!
Here is a question for the burn experts. Does shard volley belong in the same deck as Barbarian Ring? Both involve sacrificing lands and both are considered "finishers." Should it be a one or the other thing?
On the contrary, Volley supports Barbarian Ring in creating +1 threshold when used. If you have to many sacrificial spells to go with ring, just sacrifice ring to Shard Volley instead. If all the land you see in a game is 2x Mountain + 1x Barbarian Ring and you draw one each of Fireblast + Shard Volley, you won't be using Ring. If you draw Fireblast OR Shard Volley (far more common), you can still use Ring. If you draw neither, you probably won't be able to deploy Ring as soon, since you need to cast 7 spells instead of 5-6 to get it on-line. This is why a 4x Volley + 3x Fireblast split with 17 Mountain + 3 Ring is recommended if you wish to play Barbarian Ring. Double Fireblast remains problematic of course (even with straight Mountains), but that's why it should be a 3-of and Magma Jet also helps fix things here.
Nor do I run shard volley because I go up against quite a few land destruction decks that pack sinkhole and rain of tears.
I agree completely with your comment about tailoring to your meta, and the strength of 6 sweepers against aggro etc. But you can use Shard Volley quite well even against Sinkhole. Just use it in response to their spell - it throws off your timing a bit, but let's face it - that would happen anyway. At least you can exploit the land loss by getting a bolt with no drawbacks out of the deal.
I don't know why everyone is hating on Barbarian Ring these days. It's colorless, uncounterable damage.
I still think they are good. I'm on a synergy rampage right now though - I think the Legacy Burn card pool is pretty settled, and what's left is to find the most synergistic combination... Like Thorhammer puts it:
Either hellspark, ring and FotBH,
OR Hellspark and Vortex,
OR Barbarian Ring and Vortex.
This is my working hypothesis too. Hellspark and Vortex is the only combination without any synergy issues, and my first hand choice right now. Hellspark, Ring and FotBH seems sexy, if FotBH can replace Vortex - but I doubt it. Ring and Vortex seems the least synergistic of the three, though you could argue that if you land Vortex, you might not need Ring.
So the questions is really - which is the lesser of two evils? Optimizing for synergy even though it means not running powerful stuff like either Sulfuric Vortex or Barbarian Ring? Or just playing all the strong cards despite slight dissynergy making them weaker? At present, I feel giving up Rings is the least problematic choice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A series of seven articles using Magic to explore the very stuff of the Universe! "At least for those who can play cards, their present incarnation is not quite wasted." [Click here for the articles!]
Someone in the old topic used Dragon's Claw when he expected a bit o' burn in his meta and said it had great results.
Chain Lightning becomes way crazier for both sides.
That would have been me. It was crazy how lop sided that match was game 2. I dropped it on T2 and it was pretty much instant GG. With bolts only doing 2 damage to me on top of my own life gain I stayed around 20 life even after seeing 4 bolts. However in a serious event I probably wouldn't think of running it unless I knew burn was going to be everywhere.
I am just reading through this thread right now trying to play catchup. I keep considering putting this together on MTGO so I can do some serious testing for GP Columbus.
I wondered if I could get an opinion on Quest for Pure Flame - on the surface it looks like it could be a decent finisher. An unblocked Keldon Marauders would put three of the necessary four counters in just two turns, and we play enough one-drops even without Marauders adding counters. Six-point Bolt? Eight-point Fireblast?! Price of Progress??!! How about all three IN THE SAME TURN???!!! (read the fine print of QfPF - once sacked, -all- your sources deal double damage until the end of your turn)
The other half of my mind can see the downside - enchantment means more fuel for Goyf, your clock is slowed by one by playing this instead of a Bolt, and if you draw this late game it could be a dead draw unless you have enough land to drop your hand in one shot.
quest might be ok in a deck that depends on attacking with more reliable sources of damage. It's still a win more card. given that most decks don't really have a reliable life gain source (jitte aside), think about it. requires 4 different sources to activate, such that: you play 4 bolts (12 damage), and then you can sacrifice it to make something else better, say another bolt for a total of 18 damage. that's 6 cards for 18 damage and it slows you down a turn. Now, if you were to do just add in a 6th bolt, you get 6x3=18 damage, and it doesn't slow you down. admittedly, it can do a lot of damage in one turn, but there are few times you'd need that kind of damage and after 6 cards, you're already running low on gas and your opponent is running low on life, if not already dead. wouldn't you rather have just another bolt at that point? All I say is that in my opinion, it's a waste of space.
quest might be ok in a deck that depends on attacking with more reliable sources of damage. It's still a win more card. given that most decks don't really have a reliable life gain source (jitte aside), think about it. requires 4 different sources to activate, such that: you play 4 bolts (12 damage), and then you can sacrifice it to make something else better, say another bolt for a total of 18 damage. that's 6 cards for 18 damage and it slows you down a turn. Now, if you were to do just add in a 6th bolt, you get 6x3=18 damage, and it doesn't slow you down. admittedly, it can do a lot of damage in one turn, but there are few times you'd need that kind of damage and after 6 cards, you're already running low on gas and your opponent is running low on life, if not already dead. wouldn't you rather have just another bolt at that point? All I say is that in my opinion, it's a waste of space.
Like I said, I'm honestly of two minds of this card, but unless I'm wrong your example of "play four bolts THEN sac for the fifth and sixth" isn't exactly right, although that play is perfectly legal. I could be wrong (and if I am by all means correct me), but in your example wouldn't you be able to play your fourth Bolt which means you'd be able to use the ability of Quest to add the necessary fourth counter, THEN immediately sac it to pump up the fourth Bolt while everything is still on the stack?
Like I said, I'm honestly of two minds of this card, but unless I'm wrong your example of "play four bolts THEN sac for the fifth and sixth" isn't exactly right, although that play is perfectly legal. I could be wrong (and if I am by all means correct me), but in your example wouldn't you be able to play your fourth Bolt which means you'd be able to use the ability of Quest to add the necessary fourth counter, THEN immediately sac it to pump up the fourth Bolt while everything is still on the stack?
no. the point is, and perhaps I should have made it clearer, is that you need the quest on the battlefield first. (1 card)
4 damage sources to get all the counters on it (4 bolts...they're the most likely) (5 cards total)
sacrifice it to deal damage with at least one more card (likely another bolt...6 cards total)
that's 4x3+1x3x2 (damage twice here) for 18 damage total.
or you could just play 6 bolts and for 6x3=18 damage anyways. The bolt isn't a bad late game topdeck, whereas the quest is. See my point?
I think what redshoe is saying is that the trigger will resolve before the 4th spell, letting you activate Quest first so that you actually get to duplicate the 4th spell as well.
I think that's correct, but does this make it good? Fork let's you duplicate any spell right now, but isn't run either. Not because it has a bad mana-to-damage ration, but because it isn't a burn spell.
It so easy to evaluate if a card belongs MD in Burn. It must be able to deal damage to your opponent. Can Fork do this? Nope. Can Quest? Nope. It's good to sit down and do the math like weltkrieg, but the first question should be - does it deal damage? If it doesn't, the Quest goes on...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A series of seven articles using Magic to explore the very stuff of the Universe! "At least for those who can play cards, their present incarnation is not quite wasted." [Click here for the articles!]
it only triggers upon damage being dealt. that is to say, the damage is dealt as the spell resolves, then the trigger resolves. one bolt can't deal damage twice, so no, it would only work after you've had damage dealt 4 times, then you could sacrifice it for it's effect.
I am of the opinion that every card that is brought up as a possibility for burn can be evaluated by one very simple sentence.
"IS IT A BAD TOP-DECK?"
Evaluate any card by simply imagining drawing it when your opponent is at 1 life and you have no cards in hand. Would you want to draw a fork? Quest for the pure fire?
The answer is a resounding no. As urdjur pointed out, you want cards that deal damage at all times.
99% of the suggestions that appear to be discussed can be eliminated with that question. I hate to beat a dead horse (I know you hate it too urdjur) but most red cards can be forgotten by asking this question.
I am of the opinion that every card that is brought up as a possibility for burn can be evaluated by one very simple sentence.
"IS IT A BAD TOP-DECK?"
Evaluate any card by simply imagining drawing it when your opponent is at 1 life and you have no cards in hand.
I don't know if that's "the best" way to evaluate a card for burn decks, though I agree with you in the sense that it should be included as "one of" the questions to ask yourself. For example, if we use your evaluation (bad topdeck?) and your hypothetical situation (topdecking with opponent at one life), Chandra Nalaar fits the bill. The problem, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that you need five open mana to cast her. I can't get my Excel to work, so I can't do the hypergeometric distribution for you (perhaps someone else could?), but I feel confident in saying the probability of having the necessary five mana in time is low enough to make it too risky. You'd also have to get rid of your Fireblast and Shard Volley since you can't really be sacking land in this scenario. Chandra Ablaze would also qualify, but would require even more open mana for the topdeck win (+1 more to cast, at least +1 more to cast your drawn burn spell(s)).
Well, I think we also have to think about permanents vs. non-permanents and how the only card this card would run at 4cmc is Disk, and that's only one card in the side against heavy permanent-control decks.
Unless we get a better PW (at 3cmc and Shocks/Bolts for -1....?)
Guys, I have never been an ANT player, and I only played against it seven times once. So I don't know what destroys that deck.
But I wondered if Skullscorch is the card we need to slow them down. I mean, is hand destruction okay? Does that stop them? Otherwise we'll do 7 damage in two turns....and they should go off after that.
Could be a good possibility. My only qualm with it is the same qualm I have with browbeat. With "choice" cards, they always choose the one that you don't want them to. If we need the damage, they discard, if they have the cards, they take the damage.
Hmm seems like it would be dangerous to me. Plus where does it fit in the sideboard?
AnT was an easier match up for me, i ran a straight burn deck. you just have to keep cards in your hand with mana on the table. make sure to hit them often but mainly the eot. lightning bolt is one of your best friends for this matchup. i was running 3 StS in my board over shattering spree at the time. now i run a 2-1 split. just make sure to keep the cards you need to win in your hand. Its like the enchantress match-up. (played it 2 times in one day) you need to keep what you need to win in your hand. i got lucky and beat it once cause he didnt hit confinement game one and game 2 he miscalculated my burn in hand and let it die get an enchantment on the draw. the other player was much better and kept the combo up and running... though i did kill his enchantress' a few times with fallout. but its about there playing errors and making them think all the burn in your hand is instant speed.
It fits into "80% of my meta is ANT but I still want to play Burn."
It's a bad choice. It's one damage better than incinerate except that it's conditional. Run pyrostatic pillar instead, since it's almost guaranteed to do 6+ damage against combo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Warden" »
rsaunder has beautiful eyes. Think of a sunset, sunrise, and cool breeze at the beach rolled into one moment. Now make that moment blue...because those are his eyes
Oh man, I know the feeling. I'm sorry it didn't work out well for you. Some times the shuffling gods just have it out for you and you end up mana screwed or flooded way more often than is typical. Nothing you can do but plod along and hope the next one is better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
| U Merfolk | UR Delver Burn| B Reanimator| B Landless Dredge |
Played in a small tourney this past Sunday. Ended up going 2-2 with a bye, so not as good as I'd like to do. Quick summary below. My memory of each game isn't perfect but I'll do my best.
Round 1: Blue/White tempo deck
Running Weathered Wayfarer, Kira, Stoneforge and of course Jitte with the usual counter suite. I took the first game with a fairly standard hand, I think it was a turn 4 kill. Didn't see a lot of counters so I considered myself lucky. Game two he sided in a LOT of red hate. I saw two Forge Tenders, a Runed Halo on Fireblast and a Jitte. Needless to say I was unprepared for that much hate and lost once he got a couple of them to stick. I brought in Pithing Needles, Powder Kegs and REB to try and deal with his stuff. I sided out my Fireblasts since I figured he'd name them again if he drew another Halo. Game 3 was a but closer, but in the end multiple Jittes took it for him after I dealt with one using a Powder Keg.
0-1
Round 2: Countertop Variant
Game one he made a play error when he removed his counterbalance with a Force instead of the card he wanted to, but didn't realize it until the next turn. That was enough to give the game to me. Game two wasn't much different but this time my deck crapped out on me and twin Goyfs beat me down. Game three I spent too much time trying to deal with a Counterbalance that he landed because I drew two REBs and he countered the first one. We both ended up with no cards in hand except he had a Goyf on the board and I couldn't draw the 6 or so damage I needed before it killed me.
0-2
Round 3: Bye. I went to get some chips. Awesome.
1-2
Round 4: Reanimator
In a surprising turn of events, I took games two and three by drawing my Macabres both games. Both games he couldn't build up to another reanimation before I burned him out.
2-2
Overall I wasn't too pleased with my performance, but the deck itself did fine I think. I'd blame a bad first round matchup and a couple of errors on my part.
Edit: Whoops, totally forgot a decklist so we can actually, yknow, maybe learn something here.
It's a fairly standard built, except I'm running both Hellspark and Barbarian Rings. Haven't really decided which I want to stick with yet so I'm going to keep it that way until I start to hate one of them. I made the gamble to not include Vortexes this time and bank on not seeing a lot of lifegain. Aside from my first round it worked out well. Wouldn't suggest it normally though.
On browbeat: I know many people have this insane hate against the card. However, it's not always as straight as you put it. Against control, aggro control and aggro (if paired with 4 flamebreak) it is just too efficient: in the first 3 turns you should already have dealt them 9-12 damage, plus fetchlands damages. Giving you 3 cards in that situation can spell 9 damage, or a free fireblast. Taking 5 damage spells "gg", unless they have 2 8/9 goyfs out (in that case, you would lose even with no browbeat), stops them from cracking additional fetchlands, puts them at fireblast risk.
Sure, it is not THAT good, but it is far from bad and can find its place in the deck as a 2 of. I've always played it and it's bad only against combo that can win in response or that only need that turn to win.
Ah, but suppose they're at 3 or so and have a pair of goyfs ready to beat down, and you topdeck Browbeat. If you're racing an aggro deck, it usually comes down to the wire - you can't afford to topdeck a draw spell. Thus, against aggro or combo it's inferior. I might consider it against control if it were an instant...
As a connoisseur of fun, interesting matches, I still to this day have not been able to craft that "perfect deck"; the deck that I can play and have fun over time, doesn't get boring, but simultaneously is fun to play against. I honestly don't think it exists. It's like a unicorn. A ninja unicorn.
I'd like to go over Leyline of the Void as a sideboard option again if that's alright.
Against Dredge the only common answer is chain of vapor, correct? It seems like a pretty long shot if they have no shortcuts to grabbing one. Is there a drawback over Faerie Macabre that I'm missing?
I can see Reanimator having an easier time dealing with it because they can tutor for the bounce they need, so it might be arguably worse than Macabre. Still, they have to spend considerable resources to deal with something that costs you just one card and no mana.
What other common legacy archtypes get wrecked by leyline?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: UR Guttersnipe & Talrand
Modern: U Merfolk (in progress)
Legacy: RBurn
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In my opinion it is too Un-synergistic. Between Sinkhole, and Wasteland against Barbarian Ring (Oh and I forgot Stifle) Shard Volley just seems like too much of a risk to our mana base to run along side B-Ring. Not to mention our need for a few extra lands to pop a fireblast.
Any thoughts?
I also would like to point out to anyone bringing a burn deck for everyone to give an opinion on to TAILOR TO YOUR META!!!! Just because we may criticize some cards doesn't mean they aren't viable. There are plenty of meta reasons for running certain cards over others.
I run a legacy competitive burn deck that is the terror of my circle.
I run incinerate, a card that is listed as borderline in the primer but I use it because there are too many Swords to Plowshares running around for Hellspark Elemental to be useful.
I also maindeck SIX sweepers! Yes, 6. Two flamebreak and four Volcanic Fallout. This is because my meta is made up of lots and lots of weenie aggro. Some matchups that I continually face are Soldier Weenie, Rebels (which does surprisingly well), Zoo, Survival, Goblins, Red Sligh, and Merfolk. I have to face down tons of weenie aggro, thus I run six sweepers to tailor to my meta. They can be sided out easily for the matchups they aren't needed.
Nor do I run shard volley because I go up against quite a few land destruction decks that pack sinkhole and rain of tears.
This is my meta choice. If I took my deck to another tourney, namely a grand prix or something more competetive, I'd change it. What i am saying is you are not limited to the decks posted in the primer. They are suggestions and have been created to formulate the best burn deck for a GENERIC meta. If you know your meta and can tailor to it, by all means do it. Post the results and tell us what worked well against certain decks. That way we can all know what works and what doesn't.
lol... I've never had luck with Barbarian Ring as a finisher since I'd seldom see treashold, and with better burn spells its less likely for me.
Strategicly thinking it might be better not to play any nonbasics since you can make wastelands and Stifle dead cards (although I'm not sure about the limits on Stifle against other burn spells).
I'm playing 2 Shard Volley, I dont really like it since its tosting a land but I feel safe to play 2 since they are not getting in the way.
speaking about strategic ideas... what about main decking 3 Faerie Macabre? I think it can become an advantage since there is a better set of odds to play against somebody using cards from the graveyard. what do you think?
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
Currently testing with FotBH, Im still leaning towards Vortex. Nothing major has come up yet, but I will continue to test with it.
Don't MD Macabre, unless your meta is got a bunch of Reanimator. Just like if there is a bunch of artifacts in your meta you can MD StS...
I like Vortex because its speeds up the kill.
I need to get some Hellsparks (I thought I own some but I cannot find it with my heap of cards)
Macabre hits more then just reanimator. He could take out anger/squee or genisis, Dread Return, cards worth fetching with Ill gotten gains is just a few reasons I can think.
Artifacts a common in Legacy even the cheapest builds has equipments and top also non basics is common too. So its smart to md pop and sts...
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
They usually run AoS and seal as 1-ofs with a 1x Oblivion Ring too. For Disk to even be useful, they must have managed to drop and upkeep Solitary Confinement, which is a feat in itself against our clock. If that buys them enough time to get their engine running and get removal, then there's really nothing we can do. It might be that Pithing Needle on Sterling Grove is actually a stronger play than Disk for this reason, unless you manage to drop Disk in the window of opportunity where they've dropped Confinement but not yet solidified their board position.
QFT. This is why you can only SB about 6 non-damaging spells in Burn. Powder Keg is awesomeness most of the time, but when you need to top deck burn to finish the opponent it's horrible. What good are answers when you're not asking questions yourself? This is also why you shouldn't run non-burning stuff in the main, like the suggested Faerie Macabre.
I like it. Now go play with it and tell us how it fares!
On the contrary, Volley supports Barbarian Ring in creating +1 threshold when used. If you have to many sacrificial spells to go with ring, just sacrifice ring to Shard Volley instead. If all the land you see in a game is 2x Mountain + 1x Barbarian Ring and you draw one each of Fireblast + Shard Volley, you won't be using Ring. If you draw Fireblast OR Shard Volley (far more common), you can still use Ring. If you draw neither, you probably won't be able to deploy Ring as soon, since you need to cast 7 spells instead of 5-6 to get it on-line. This is why a 4x Volley + 3x Fireblast split with 17 Mountain + 3 Ring is recommended if you wish to play Barbarian Ring. Double Fireblast remains problematic of course (even with straight Mountains), but that's why it should be a 3-of and Magma Jet also helps fix things here.
I agree completely with your comment about tailoring to your meta, and the strength of 6 sweepers against aggro etc. But you can use Shard Volley quite well even against Sinkhole. Just use it in response to their spell - it throws off your timing a bit, but let's face it - that would happen anyway. At least you can exploit the land loss by getting a bolt with no drawbacks out of the deal.
I still think they are good. I'm on a synergy rampage right now though - I think the Legacy Burn card pool is pretty settled, and what's left is to find the most synergistic combination... Like Thorhammer puts it:
This is my working hypothesis too. Hellspark and Vortex is the only combination without any synergy issues, and my first hand choice right now. Hellspark, Ring and FotBH seems sexy, if FotBH can replace Vortex - but I doubt it. Ring and Vortex seems the least synergistic of the three, though you could argue that if you land Vortex, you might not need Ring.
So the questions is really - which is the lesser of two evils? Optimizing for synergy even though it means not running powerful stuff like either Sulfuric Vortex or Barbarian Ring? Or just playing all the strong cards despite slight dissynergy making them weaker? At present, I feel giving up Rings is the least problematic choice.
A series of seven articles using Magic to explore the very stuff of the Universe!
"At least for those who can play cards, their present incarnation is not quite wasted."
[Click here for the articles!]
That would have been me. It was crazy how lop sided that match was game 2. I dropped it on T2 and it was pretty much instant GG. With bolts only doing 2 damage to me on top of my own life gain I stayed around 20 life even after seeing 4 bolts. However in a serious event I probably wouldn't think of running it unless I knew burn was going to be everywhere.
I am just reading through this thread right now trying to play catchup. I keep considering putting this together on MTGO so I can do some serious testing for GP Columbus.
Modern:
GWR Naya Allies RWG
R Burn R
The other half of my mind can see the downside - enchantment means more fuel for Goyf, your clock is slowed by one by playing this instead of a Bolt, and if you draw this late game it could be a dead draw unless you have enough land to drop your hand in one shot.
Has anyone used this? What are your results?
Credit to DolZero for this awesome sig!
Like I said, I'm honestly of two minds of this card, but unless I'm wrong your example of "play four bolts THEN sac for the fifth and sixth" isn't exactly right, although that play is perfectly legal. I could be wrong (and if I am by all means correct me), but in your example wouldn't you be able to play your fourth Bolt which means you'd be able to use the ability of Quest to add the necessary fourth counter, THEN immediately sac it to pump up the fourth Bolt while everything is still on the stack?
no. the point is, and perhaps I should have made it clearer, is that you need the quest on the battlefield first. (1 card)
4 damage sources to get all the counters on it (4 bolts...they're the most likely) (5 cards total)
sacrifice it to deal damage with at least one more card (likely another bolt...6 cards total)
that's 4x3+1x3x2 (damage twice here) for 18 damage total.
or you could just play 6 bolts and for 6x3=18 damage anyways. The bolt isn't a bad late game topdeck, whereas the quest is. See my point?
Credit to DolZero for this awesome sig!
I think that's correct, but does this make it good? Fork let's you duplicate any spell right now, but isn't run either. Not because it has a bad mana-to-damage ration, but because it isn't a burn spell.
It so easy to evaluate if a card belongs MD in Burn. It must be able to deal damage to your opponent. Can Fork do this? Nope. Can Quest? Nope. It's good to sit down and do the math like weltkrieg, but the first question should be - does it deal damage? If it doesn't, the Quest goes on...
A series of seven articles using Magic to explore the very stuff of the Universe!
"At least for those who can play cards, their present incarnation is not quite wasted."
[Click here for the articles!]
Credit to DolZero for this awesome sig!
Clever urdjur. Very clever.
I am of the opinion that every card that is brought up as a possibility for burn can be evaluated by one very simple sentence.
"IS IT A BAD TOP-DECK?"
Evaluate any card by simply imagining drawing it when your opponent is at 1 life and you have no cards in hand. Would you want to draw a fork? Quest for the pure fire?
The answer is a resounding no. As urdjur pointed out, you want cards that deal damage at all times.
99% of the suggestions that appear to be discussed can be eliminated with that question. I hate to beat a dead horse (I know you hate it too urdjur) but most red cards can be forgotten by asking this question.
I don't know if that's "the best" way to evaluate a card for burn decks, though I agree with you in the sense that it should be included as "one of" the questions to ask yourself. For example, if we use your evaluation (bad topdeck?) and your hypothetical situation (topdecking with opponent at one life), Chandra Nalaar fits the bill. The problem, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that you need five open mana to cast her. I can't get my Excel to work, so I can't do the hypergeometric distribution for you (perhaps someone else could?), but I feel confident in saying the probability of having the necessary five mana in time is low enough to make it too risky. You'd also have to get rid of your Fireblast and Shard Volley since you can't really be sacking land in this scenario. Chandra Ablaze would also qualify, but would require even more open mana for the topdeck win (+1 more to cast, at least +1 more to cast your drawn burn spell(s)).
Unless we get a better PW (at 3cmc and Shocks/Bolts for -1....?)
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
But I wondered if Skullscorch is the card we need to slow them down. I mean, is hand destruction okay? Does that stop them? Otherwise we'll do 7 damage in two turns....and they should go off after that.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Hmm seems like it would be dangerous to me. Plus where does it fit in the sideboard?
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Sig and Avvy by Heroes of the Plane Studios
Ninjas
Fish
Dredge
EDH
Sharuum
It's a bad choice. It's one damage better than incinerate except that it's conditional. Run pyrostatic pillar instead, since it's almost guaranteed to do 6+ damage against combo.
I'm here to kick ass and play card games.
BZK Level 4 Bad Guy
| U Merfolk | UR Delver Burn| B Reanimator| B Landless Dredge |
Round 1: Blue/White tempo deck
Running Weathered Wayfarer, Kira, Stoneforge and of course Jitte with the usual counter suite. I took the first game with a fairly standard hand, I think it was a turn 4 kill. Didn't see a lot of counters so I considered myself lucky. Game two he sided in a LOT of red hate. I saw two Forge Tenders, a Runed Halo on Fireblast and a Jitte. Needless to say I was unprepared for that much hate and lost once he got a couple of them to stick. I brought in Pithing Needles, Powder Kegs and REB to try and deal with his stuff. I sided out my Fireblasts since I figured he'd name them again if he drew another Halo. Game 3 was a but closer, but in the end multiple Jittes took it for him after I dealt with one using a Powder Keg.
0-1
Round 2: Countertop Variant
Game one he made a play error when he removed his counterbalance with a Force instead of the card he wanted to, but didn't realize it until the next turn. That was enough to give the game to me. Game two wasn't much different but this time my deck crapped out on me and twin Goyfs beat me down. Game three I spent too much time trying to deal with a Counterbalance that he landed because I drew two REBs and he countered the first one. We both ended up with no cards in hand except he had a Goyf on the board and I couldn't draw the 6 or so damage I needed before it killed me.
0-2
Round 3: Bye. I went to get some chips. Awesome.
1-2
Round 4: Reanimator
In a surprising turn of events, I took games two and three by drawing my Macabres both games. Both games he couldn't build up to another reanimation before I burned him out.
2-2
Overall I wasn't too pleased with my performance, but the deck itself did fine I think. I'd blame a bad first round matchup and a couple of errors on my part.
Edit: Whoops, totally forgot a decklist so we can actually, yknow, maybe learn something here.
4 Keldon Marauders
2 Hellspark Elemental
4 Magma Jet
4 Flamebreak
3 Price of Progress
3 Fireblast
3 Barbarian Ring
3 Pithing Needle
3 Powder Keg
3 Red Elemental Blast
3 Faerie Macabre
3 Smash to Smithereens
It's a fairly standard built, except I'm running both Hellspark and Barbarian Rings. Haven't really decided which I want to stick with yet so I'm going to keep it that way until I start to hate one of them. I made the gamble to not include Vortexes this time and bank on not seeing a lot of lifegain. Aside from my first round it worked out well. Wouldn't suggest it normally though.
Modern: U Merfolk (in progress)
Legacy: RBurn
Ah, but suppose they're at 3 or so and have a pair of goyfs ready to beat down, and you topdeck Browbeat. If you're racing an aggro deck, it usually comes down to the wire - you can't afford to topdeck a draw spell. Thus, against aggro or combo it's inferior. I might consider it against control if it were an instant...
Against Dredge the only common answer is chain of vapor, correct? It seems like a pretty long shot if they have no shortcuts to grabbing one. Is there a drawback over Faerie Macabre that I'm missing?
I can see Reanimator having an easier time dealing with it because they can tutor for the bounce they need, so it might be arguably worse than Macabre. Still, they have to spend considerable resources to deal with something that costs you just one card and no mana.
What other common legacy archtypes get wrecked by leyline?
Modern: U Merfolk (in progress)
Legacy: RBurn