I literally don't know what the first line is saying. I'm sorry, but yes, you can be winning with your play method, and I can still be adamant that it is wrong. I literally used to think I could save life points and get relevant information by keeping Thoughtseize in a long time ago. For the most part it worked, until a friend I met several years back came in and literally stomped me every time we played. After several months of him stomping me, I asked him to help me test against Burn, luckily he did. It took a month of me arguing, play testing and recording results and things of note before I realized that he was right. There were some games that it helped me, but we noted that in most of those games, Thoughtseize generally wasn't what influenced the outcome. As far as they're concerned, it's a 0-mana play to deal 2 damage and cost a card in a deck where most of the cards are similar. Do they like playing Shock? No, but it still advances their goal, and since the deck absolutely relies on the top of its deck to kill opponents anyway, any play you make that reduces your life needs to have an immediate impact on your longevity or killing them. There were other issues with playing Thoughtseize, such as being a terrible top deck any point past turn 2 (think worse than lands), being absolute garbage on the draw, and sometimes just being fairly weak against certain openings for various reasons. Player skill also influences games just as much as deckbuilding because clearly the guy that mopped the floor with me was far better than all the other Burn players I had met up to that point. Very little has changed with Burn for me to question all of that history. So how can I make judgments on your idea with Thoughtseize just based on your match record?
As for your second point, if it doesn't help, then what's the point? Why even throw anything out there? You're just arguing points when you throw out your own reflections, and then claim the person you're responding to is biased. The person has literal records of what they did and why they think and do what they do. You don't even have the experience of watching someone play said card but make assessments that are just off base. Those assessments are arguments when you construct them as such because you are making a direct judgment based on them. For you to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You're right on your third point, but you literally have no reasonable basis from which to form an argument. At least not one, I believe, most would care about. If you don't like Experimental Frenzy, that's fine. I don't like it either. If this is what takes a different form of Jund to the top, I'm still interested.
You can do whatever you want with your results. Aazadan gave more than just match records. It wasn't a lot, but it was enough to form a rough picture if I were to delve into it myself.
Side note: If you don't know why Bloodbraid Elf is good, why do you even play it?
Are you arguing that Thoughtseize should be kept in against Burn? If so, you are flat out wrong. With Jund regulars and Pros taken into account we're talking (at least) hundreds of thousands of games tested on this subject and the conclusion is an unanimous board it out.
This is actually a great point I forgot. The collective information of many people shared through discussions, results as well as articles, reports, primers etc may help to come quite close to the actual truth about a certain topic. With TS this is a very old topic indeed where many people including pros have shared their experiences.
@FlyingDelver : Agree with all except that "Against Burn, which is aiming at your lifetotal, it makes sense that this is bad", thoughtseize not only make you lose life. If this shortcut is right that means bob is bad against humans because you lose life.
Well, I do believe Bob has better matchups than Humans. In that sense I think you are not wrong, Bob is indeed not the best vs Humans. Its the reason why we are trimming him down to 3 copies. Like one copy on the play is quite okay, to keep up with the pressure, but you really don't want 2 copies. But bob is quite dicey against humans imo. However, in a more general case, you cannot apply this simple shortcut of mine for this specific burn matchup to every other situation and matchup. Thats why I said its the short version for the burn matchup. Its a boiled down observation after the logic was applied for my understanding. For the Humans matchup there are other factors you need to consider which could boil down to a different shortcut on the assessment of bob for that specific matchup. This is not meant to be mistaken.
@chaos 021 : my first line is about experience, if i say i have experience and i say "X is right", do you believe me ? No. Hopefully.
"So how can I make judgments on your idea with Thoughtseize just based on your match record ?" Hopefully (and please) don't do that.
Like i said it to FlyingDelver, i think it's useless for us to discuss with you about thoughtseize against Burn/
You have experience with a version of Jund. That doesn't mean you understand how this version would work. I've watched it and tried a rough build myself when someone mentioned that there's even such a build to me. I clearly didn't know what I was doing but there was something to it that did feel powerful.
I have plenty of experience with older forms of Jund, and I'll be the first to tell you that Experimental Frenzy is not my cup of tea. My experience with
Jund doesn't help me with a build that is significantly different and tries to play differently. All my experience can give me is what I expect my opponents to do against a more traditional build of Jund. So if you find all of that reasonable, why would someone proclaim anything about this particular build without having done more work with it (or research)?
It's the samething, you think i can't argue without practice, i disagree. I failed to say in my previous posts to Aazadan, i don't like the card but that wasn't the point
With minor tweaks to forms of Jund that we know? Sure. Do you believe this build to be like typical builds?
So you care of his results no of mine, ok as you want. Sure he gave more than just records, i think his explications are biased and to positive, i talked probably too aggressively and too unconstructed. You disagree with why i say it and what i say, ok that's interesting for me but again i disagree and i guess it's useless to discuss more about that because we will just both loose our time. Moreover i have the feeling it's useless to put my result test with his list.
Not that I don't, but all you presented was a match record. A short record at that for something you want to derive something from regarding Thoughtseize. I'm a huge fan of information and statistics. If you want objective insights and information, I would assume you would offer some up if that's what you're interested in. Maybe that's a poor assumption on my part. I understand that it's a lot of work since it's something I've done before so I really appreciate it when anything like it comes along. However, in all the time you've spent talking about Thoughtseize being decent against Burn, you've never offered any results and/or match notes up that I'm aware of. I also believe you are the same person who brought up a similar discussion on Facebook's Jund City page also without offering up more than your thoughts.
Why i play BBE ? I did a test session with and without her, i did 18/22 without her and 32/9 with her and now my winrate is same as when i played Jund before. I don't understand why she's good, i have the feeling she's bad in this metagame (before AT) so i choosed with a bad math tool. Is it a good kind of choice ? No, can i do better ? I think no.
The problem is sitting in your own explanation: "The problem with experience is all of us have experience." So what? Your short experience with something told you something counter to what a random person said so you decide it's probably wrong. However, you don't want to listen to people who have properly tested or actually just do legitimate testing of your own and present your results. You don't want to listen to people who are talking theory or statistical represetations of how things generally work. In short, it seems like you're just arguing to argue. So what do you want then? I don't mean in general terms. I mean tell us in very explicit, literal terms what you want, and please do your best with spell checking and grammar. Otherwise, I'm chocking you up to be a troll.
Why would anyone keep TS in against Burn? I mean sure if you could grab lands I could see it, since they run a low curve with a low land count you could slow them down but it doesn't so what you going to get them to discard bolt and save yourself one damage? Burn works on a critical mass of cards taking out one of their many burn spells is not liable to stop them or seriously inconvenience them especially when you pay 2 life to do it.
There was a time when this thread was more about finding a proper build of Jund and less about being right. Could we not get this thread back on track for this?
You are all taking things so personally here - let's get this back on track and figure out where the deck should be headed instead. If someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they hate you - it just means they see it from a different point of view or has different experiences. This is good - not bad!
The last many pages have sadly been primarily arguing over "who is right" instead of finding the right build I find - and this in a time where so much interesting might be happening for our deck with new toys to play with. Let's get into a mindset where, when we disagree with each other we try to present our own point of view to better give the other person a chance to show us why we're wrong - instead of being adamant that they are the ones that are wrong. Being sure that you're right leaves you no room to grow as a person or a player.
I agree EPICAS22 - the frenzy list looks promising - and I think the stuff Azazadan has put forward looks very interesting. It is also clear to me that it looks like a very different deck however - as the entire deck needs to be built in a different way, that however does not make it look any less interesting. I'm looking forward to see the developments to the frenzy list.
Sadly I won't myself have too much time to test Jund in the next couple of months - I'm preparing for a Unified tournament where, as it stands right now, playing Jund is not going to be an option with the team I am playing. But Jund is still a deck I enjoy playing, and plan to return to.
I agree with you kastermaster, I dislike the posts over the last couple pages arguing/discussing something over who is right or wrong. Everyone is going to have different experiences and opinions. Better to let people do what they feel is best for them and there's no need to spend 2 forum pages trying to make someone agree with you.
What I am really interested in is Aazadan's list with experimental frenzy!
@Azazadan: your last list I saw had 4 copies of experimental frenzy, do you find that is too many? And do you have any situations where you would want to see multiple copies per game? (aside from when the first copy gets destroyed)
Also, very curious as to whether you have tried Faithless Looting in the deck? Or does frenzy give you sufficient card selection?
Haven't tried Looting, I don't think it's particularly good here.
4 copies felt like too many, which is another of the drawbacks of the card. It feels very weird to be playing a build around as only a 3 of.
Additional copies aren't completely dead, they're useful in the GY as a card type for Flayer and Goyf, but given an alternative you would rather not have to cast a second copy.
Frenzy is not card selection, it is pure card advantage. The reason I'm not a fan of Looting though is it's not really a great way to be clearing the top once Frenzy is out, it's hard to take advantage of the discard, and the draw does very little unless you can time it to clear a bad card (which you can't do when it's on top, and 3 is too much to pay to flashback for that effect). Interestingly, with Frenzy scry is a much, much stronger effect than looting, under Frenzy scry is effectively card draw. But there's not a good card with scry to use in our colors, Grim Flayer is the closest, and Flayer is quite good.
If Frenzy sticks for a couple turns, it doesn't really matter if the opponent can destroy it afterwards because the damage will have been done at that point and you'll be up by 10+ cards. I'm finding that the better play if you have a Frenzy in hand, is to use your discard to take out anything that can interact with it, rather than to try and disrupt the opponent.
I agree EPICAS22 - the frenzy list looks promising - and I think the stuff Azazadan has put forward looks very interesting. It is also clear to me that it looks like a very different deck however - as the entire deck needs to be built in a different way, that however does not make it look any less interesting. I'm looking forward to see the developments to the frenzy list.
Not that different. The same cards you're interested in cascading into from BBE are the same cards you're interested in having in your list for Frenzy. The only real functional differences are no 4 drop creature (in favor of Frenzy), and Flayer over Bob. I guess you can argue the manabase is quite different, but I'm still working on that, I suspect that Treetop Village will find its way back into my manabase, getting the mana right has been very tricky. Basically, it's all the same cards just with different numbers.
So am I understanding this correctly, the goal is to set up the top of our deck to have an ideal situation where your drawstep card is bad and the top of our deck is always good? Not that it can be done consistantly, but its the goal?
So am I understanding this correctly, the goal is to set up the top of our deck to have an ideal situation where your drawstep card is bad and the top of our deck is always good? Not that it can be done consistantly, but its the goal?
Not necessarily. Your drawstep card is irrelevant. You'll draw a card every turn, but then you'll be able to play the card off the top of your library, which is functionally no different than your draw step card as a new card for the turn. And then anything additional you get to play is basically free cards.
Occasionally however, if I've been limited on mana, I have used Grim Flayer to stack the deck so I draw the worst of the three, then get to play the next two that I want on the following turn. Though, Grim Flayer does make for some tricky optimal sequencing with fetchlands.
Incidentally, one interesting trick on your upkeep is to fire off a bunch of instants from the top in order to increase your chances of the draw step clearing something you don't want. This has come up for me several times with Lightning Bolt and Kolaghan's Command because I've been finding red mana to be the most frequent bottleneck.
b) you would need to do that in upkeep. Because if you wait until draw step, the first thing you do is actually draw the card before you get priority. and you can only cast an instant there.
a) On my opponent's turn if the top card of my deck is a sorcery or creature I can't cast either correct? (as in Experimental Frenzy doesn't allow me to cast spells outside of normal rules)
b) During my own draw phase: Can I look at my top card, crack a fetch, look at the top card again and then cast it and then look at the top card again before I draw it?
You can look at the top card of your library at any time. Normal timing restrictions still apply to playing the cards (as does the 1 land per turn rule).
Your second question works, but you need to do it during your upkeep not your draw phase. During your upkeep you can look at your top card, play it if timing allows, crack a fetch if you want, look at your card again, cast it if you're able, and then look at the next card on top. You can continue this for as long as you want and are able until you're ready to draw a card.
Edit: The upkeep trick with Frenzy seems to come up quite often with red spells, so Lightning Bolt and Kolaghan's Command. I once had it come up with Fatal Push. Red is the color that you will usually be most gated on (especially if you're leaving up the option of Ooze activations). There's only a Blood Crypt and Stomping Ground in the deck for later game untapped red sources (see my comments on the manabase needing work), so it is quite possible, especially after some Field of Ruins and such that you only have 1 red source available, this happens most often when you want the burn spell and you have an unused fetch that you can't use right then without losing the burn spell. This leads to situations where you'll get a Bolt on top and need to cast it on your next upkeep. I'm still thinking about solutions for this.
hey I created a list that's competitive and includes faithless looting. my win percentage on this one is close to 100% (seriously). notable synergy is below.
- faithless looting and leyline of the void is good. filter away extra
- lingering souls is good with looting and grim flayer
- grim flayer is not 4/4 all the time but I just use it to get card advantage from BBE, souls, looting.
- push can be a collective brutality due to synergy with souls
@guitar90X : nice list, it remember me the 4c list when jund was everywhere.
Can you detail your "100%" winrate (match-ups, where, etc ?) because it's obviously not the reality, i don't say you lie but you can't have a 100% winrate in "real" games.
no totally feel u but so far i haven't lost a game with it. heres the matches I've played.
3 tron
2 uw control
1 blue moon
1 infect
2 ur wizards
1 humans
2 burn
1 storm
2 jund vine
1 dredge
1 scapeshift
2 bg rock
1 elves
1 merfolk
2 pelt collector zoo
just had to post coz im so hyped about it. not here to convince anyone
decks composed of 3 fnm style tourney and cockatrice games.
I like this approach as well. Looting is a card which I also often come back to when the meta is too linear and consistant for which reason I also need more consistancy. I probably would play 3 Looting only though. That way you are commiting to having about 1 per game, which seems about right. Especially since you play 3 Souls only. The question is the mana though, it is proibably quite painful and I am not sure you can fulfill all the requirements.
I like this approach as well. Looting is a card which I also often come back to when the meta is too linear and consistant for which reason I also need more consistancy. I probably would play 3 Looting only though. That way you are commiting to having about 1 per game, which seems about right. Especially since you play 3 Souls only. The question is the mana though, it is proibably quite painful and I am not sure you can fulfill all the requirements.
I think I'll give it a spin.
it means a lot to me that you're trying it. your thoughts would be so valuable.
ur right on the looting part. it should be 4 looting/2 lily or 3 looting/3 lily. I found games where they clash together. the 4th bbe could be 4th souls too but found it would be too painful for the mana base.
I mostly didn't cast souls. I treated it as a black card. usually it got cascaded or discarded. it would be ok to run it without godless shrine to be honest but just put it in just incase I got stuck with it. only have 2 games where I had to cast the souls.
I had 2 blood crypt instead of having a mountain due to field of ruin. went down on overgrown tomb but put in a twilight mire so godless shrine/bloodcrypt/forest can produce more green. didn't try to jam in treetop in fear of taking too much damage.
I mostly didn't cast souls. I treated it as a black card. usually it got cascaded or discarded. it would be ok to run it without godless shrine to be honest but just put it in just incase I got stuck with it. only have 2 games where I had to cast the souls.
I mostly didn't cast souls. I treated it as a black card. usually it got cascaded or discarded. it would be ok to run it without godless shrine to be honest but just put it in just incase I got stuck with it. only have 2 games where I had to cast the souls.
I mostly didn't cast souls. I treated it as a black card. usually it got cascaded or discarded. it would be ok to run it without godless shrine to be honest but just put it in just incase I got stuck with it. only have 2 games where I had to cast the souls.
As for your second point, if it doesn't help, then what's the point? Why even throw anything out there? You're just arguing points when you throw out your own reflections, and then claim the person you're responding to is biased. The person has literal records of what they did and why they think and do what they do. You don't even have the experience of watching someone play said card but make assessments that are just off base. Those assessments are arguments when you construct them as such because you are making a direct judgment based on them. For you to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You're right on your third point, but you literally have no reasonable basis from which to form an argument. At least not one, I believe, most would care about. If you don't like Experimental Frenzy, that's fine. I don't like it either. If this is what takes a different form of Jund to the top, I'm still interested.
You can do whatever you want with your results. Aazadan gave more than just match records. It wasn't a lot, but it was enough to form a rough picture if I were to delve into it myself.
Side note: If you don't know why Bloodbraid Elf is good, why do you even play it?
I'm the one who played that against you.
This is actually a great point I forgot. The collective information of many people shared through discussions, results as well as articles, reports, primers etc may help to come quite close to the actual truth about a certain topic. With TS this is a very old topic indeed where many people including pros have shared their experiences.
Well, I do believe Bob has better matchups than Humans. In that sense I think you are not wrong, Bob is indeed not the best vs Humans. Its the reason why we are trimming him down to 3 copies. Like one copy on the play is quite okay, to keep up with the pressure, but you really don't want 2 copies. But bob is quite dicey against humans imo. However, in a more general case, you cannot apply this simple shortcut of mine for this specific burn matchup to every other situation and matchup. Thats why I said its the short version for the burn matchup. Its a boiled down observation after the logic was applied for my understanding. For the Humans matchup there are other factors you need to consider which could boil down to a different shortcut on the assessment of bob for that specific matchup. This is not meant to be mistaken.
You have experience with a version of Jund. That doesn't mean you understand how this version would work. I've watched it and tried a rough build myself when someone mentioned that there's even such a build to me. I clearly didn't know what I was doing but there was something to it that did feel powerful.
I have plenty of experience with older forms of Jund, and I'll be the first to tell you that Experimental Frenzy is not my cup of tea. My experience with
Jund doesn't help me with a build that is significantly different and tries to play differently. All my experience can give me is what I expect my opponents to do against a more traditional build of Jund. So if you find all of that reasonable, why would someone proclaim anything about this particular build without having done more work with it (or research)?
With minor tweaks to forms of Jund that we know? Sure. Do you believe this build to be like typical builds?
Not that I don't, but all you presented was a match record. A short record at that for something you want to derive something from regarding Thoughtseize. I'm a huge fan of information and statistics. If you want objective insights and information, I would assume you would offer some up if that's what you're interested in. Maybe that's a poor assumption on my part. I understand that it's a lot of work since it's something I've done before so I really appreciate it when anything like it comes along. However, in all the time you've spent talking about Thoughtseize being decent against Burn, you've never offered any results and/or match notes up that I'm aware of. I also believe you are the same person who brought up a similar discussion on Facebook's Jund City page also without offering up more than your thoughts.
Interesting way to go about it.
You are all taking things so personally here - let's get this back on track and figure out where the deck should be headed instead. If someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they hate you - it just means they see it from a different point of view or has different experiences. This is good - not bad!
The last many pages have sadly been primarily arguing over "who is right" instead of finding the right build I find - and this in a time where so much interesting might be happening for our deck with new toys to play with. Let's get into a mindset where, when we disagree with each other we try to present our own point of view to better give the other person a chance to show us why we're wrong - instead of being adamant that they are the ones that are wrong. Being sure that you're right leaves you no room to grow as a person or a player.
Sadly I won't myself have too much time to test Jund in the next couple of months - I'm preparing for a Unified tournament where, as it stands right now, playing Jund is not going to be an option with the team I am playing. But Jund is still a deck I enjoy playing, and plan to return to.
Haven't tried Looting, I don't think it's particularly good here.
4 copies felt like too many, which is another of the drawbacks of the card. It feels very weird to be playing a build around as only a 3 of.
Additional copies aren't completely dead, they're useful in the GY as a card type for Flayer and Goyf, but given an alternative you would rather not have to cast a second copy.
Frenzy is not card selection, it is pure card advantage. The reason I'm not a fan of Looting though is it's not really a great way to be clearing the top once Frenzy is out, it's hard to take advantage of the discard, and the draw does very little unless you can time it to clear a bad card (which you can't do when it's on top, and 3 is too much to pay to flashback for that effect). Interestingly, with Frenzy scry is a much, much stronger effect than looting, under Frenzy scry is effectively card draw. But there's not a good card with scry to use in our colors, Grim Flayer is the closest, and Flayer is quite good.
If Frenzy sticks for a couple turns, it doesn't really matter if the opponent can destroy it afterwards because the damage will have been done at that point and you'll be up by 10+ cards. I'm finding that the better play if you have a Frenzy in hand, is to use your discard to take out anything that can interact with it, rather than to try and disrupt the opponent.
Not that different. The same cards you're interested in cascading into from BBE are the same cards you're interested in having in your list for Frenzy. The only real functional differences are no 4 drop creature (in favor of Frenzy), and Flayer over Bob. I guess you can argue the manabase is quite different, but I'm still working on that, I suspect that Treetop Village will find its way back into my manabase, getting the mana right has been very tricky. Basically, it's all the same cards just with different numbers.
Not necessarily. Your drawstep card is irrelevant. You'll draw a card every turn, but then you'll be able to play the card off the top of your library, which is functionally no different than your draw step card as a new card for the turn. And then anything additional you get to play is basically free cards.
Occasionally however, if I've been limited on mana, I have used Grim Flayer to stack the deck so I draw the worst of the three, then get to play the next two that I want on the following turn. Though, Grim Flayer does make for some tricky optimal sequencing with fetchlands.
Incidentally, one interesting trick on your upkeep is to fire off a bunch of instants from the top in order to increase your chances of the draw step clearing something you don't want. This has come up for me several times with Lightning Bolt and Kolaghan's Command because I've been finding red mana to be the most frequent bottleneck.
b) you would need to do that in upkeep. Because if you wait until draw step, the first thing you do is actually draw the card before you get priority. and you can only cast an instant there.
You can look at the top card of your library at any time. Normal timing restrictions still apply to playing the cards (as does the 1 land per turn rule).
Your second question works, but you need to do it during your upkeep not your draw phase. During your upkeep you can look at your top card, play it if timing allows, crack a fetch if you want, look at your card again, cast it if you're able, and then look at the next card on top. You can continue this for as long as you want and are able until you're ready to draw a card.
Edit: The upkeep trick with Frenzy seems to come up quite often with red spells, so Lightning Bolt and Kolaghan's Command. I once had it come up with Fatal Push. Red is the color that you will usually be most gated on (especially if you're leaving up the option of Ooze activations). There's only a Blood Crypt and Stomping Ground in the deck for later game untapped red sources (see my comments on the manabase needing work), so it is quite possible, especially after some Field of Ruins and such that you only have 1 red source available, this happens most often when you want the burn spell and you have an unused fetch that you can't use right then without losing the burn spell. This leads to situations where you'll get a Bolt on top and need to cast it on your next upkeep. I'm still thinking about solutions for this.
- faithless looting and leyline of the void is good. filter away extra
- lingering souls is good with looting and grim flayer
- grim flayer is not 4/4 all the time but I just use it to get card advantage from BBE, souls, looting.
- push can be a collective brutality due to synergy with souls
-went with only 3 souls because its not on color.
no totally feel u but so far i haven't lost a game with it. heres the matches I've played.
3 tron
2 uw control
1 blue moon
1 infect
2 ur wizards
1 humans
2 burn
1 storm
2 jund vine
1 dredge
1 scapeshift
2 bg rock
1 elves
1 merfolk
2 pelt collector zoo
just had to post coz im so hyped about it. not here to convince anyone
decks composed of 3 fnm style tourney and cockatrice games.
I think I'll give it a spin.
it means a lot to me that you're trying it. your thoughts would be so valuable.
ur right on the looting part. it should be 4 looting/2 lily or 3 looting/3 lily. I found games where they clash together. the 4th bbe could be 4th souls too but found it would be too painful for the mana base.
I mostly didn't cast souls. I treated it as a black card. usually it got cascaded or discarded. it would be ok to run it without godless shrine to be honest but just put it in just incase I got stuck with it. only have 2 games where I had to cast the souls.
I had 2 blood crypt instead of having a mountain due to field of ruin. went down on overgrown tomb but put in a twilight mire so godless shrine/bloodcrypt/forest can produce more green. didn't try to jam in treetop in fear of taking too much damage.
Ditch that Shrine and run Murmuring Bosk!
Frenzy-Affinity-Ghost Quarter-Rock-Tokens- RGWPhyrexian Zoo- WVial KnightsStandard:
BW Knights(Rotated)Pioneer: RW Knights - BW Rally Zombies - UW Heroes
Commander:WUG
Jenara, Asura of War- WGSigarda, Host of HeronsCasualties of economicsLegacy: Good-night, sweet prince. Mono-R Burn
The problem is that it can't be fetched with Bloodstained Mire though. But otherwise an interesting idea.
It was not entirely serious.
Frenzy-Affinity-Ghost Quarter-Rock-Tokens- RGWPhyrexian Zoo- WVial KnightsStandard:
BW Knights(Rotated)Pioneer: RW Knights - BW Rally Zombies - UW Heroes
Commander:WUG
Jenara, Asura of War- WGSigarda, Host of HeronsCasualties of economicsLegacy: Good-night, sweet prince. Mono-R Burn