I m missing searing blaze, which would help you a lot in this more creature based list by removing their blockers. Also i dont quite understand the 4 spark elementals.
What do you do against pod or U/W/x deck, using walls of omens for example or wall of roots? your spark elementals become useless! The same way against any deck running tarmogoyf.. they can just block your creature-bolt. Also i dont like Spark elementals against WUR, since they can just electrolyze it, izzet charm it, helix, bolt, path...
with respect to the sideboard, i think rain of gore is fine, not sure about having so many creature options in the side, but probably its a meta call.
Well, ive explained the many many reasons why i dislike searing blaze in here already. It doesnt work in this deck. Forces my turn 2 play, multiconditional with middling payoff, oft dead card.
As for spark. I explained it already. Most decks dont have an easy answer for it. Goyf is usually only a 1/2 or 2/3 on turn 2, and i wouldnt be playing sparks past that if they have goyfs. Against a wall heavy deck he gets sided out for lavamancer. I end up making this swap a lot, but i still stand by the main sparks as it gives my game 1 a lot more speed and makes it more explosive.
Im always a little confused why people question spark but are perfectly okay with hellspark. They have the sae problem with walls, except that hellspark comes out later most of the time. So many decks run hellspark and people are fine with it. If it runs into a wall the first time, its likely to do it again the second time.(and the reason i have so many creatures in the board atm, is so that when i side out my sparks for lavamancers, i have the option of another creature to take the place of my hellsparks. Since most of the rest of my board is very specific hate to certain MUs.
The decks have effectively merged at this point. As demonstrated by the emptiness of the rdw thread, and the high creature count in many burn decks. The thing is that when they were split, they had different game plans. rdw used cards like figures. But now the game plans are effectively the same of efficiency and mass bolts.
Besides, even with boros charm, you still have a lot of open slots...if you remove the outdated tech of things like magmajet and searing blaze.
Ive never liked magma jet... but I cant agree with you that searing Blaze is outdated tech... Not in a world where card advantage is king. Im seeing more and more decklist running 4 MB. Personally i run 8 fetches and 3 main.
I miss the creature heavy days where RDW had a lategame... im gonna go test a build with hellriders at my top end and see if that strategy can still work... i believe it can.
Pretty sure RDW got greedy for speed, forgot who it was... forgot its gameplan and became burn. Gone are the days where people werent sure if to play leyline of sanctity because it was useless against RDW.
Are we talking RDW or Burn here? You should have a max of 12 creatures for burn and that's including Vexing Devil who is basically a glorified Lava Spike. Dark Confidant will draw you a card maybe, two if you're lucky. Hellspark and his little brother are worse versions of Lava Spike. Grim Lavamancer amd Deathrite Shaman get a pass because even though they are slow and don't always look good on paper, they have shown results and help give us reach.
Searing Blaze is awesome when it works, but terrible otherwise. Meta call as to MD or SB. Skullcrack is almost mandatory in your 75.
It should be noted, that despite the number of creatures that will be discussed in below, Burn is not an Aggro deck in the traditional sense, although some consider it to be the first aggro deck. Burn plays the most efficient damage spells we can find and if some of those spells happen to be creatures our interaction with the battlefield nonetheless remains minimal.
Meaning that your post is contradictory to itself. Burn plays the most efficient spells it can. Some of those are creatures. Like spark elemental. He is literally the quintessential burn creature. He would never be run in RDW. Since RDW needs lasting battlefield control over efficiency. The number of creatures is completely irrelevant, and seems just like a pointless line to draw to have something to harp on in spite of anything real. The point remains that they are all burn creatures, and without weak spells like Blaze and Jet I have more than enough spells to hit directly.
And as you can see from the bolded point, RDW would employ Blaze over burn, since RDW, again, cares about the battlefield. It needs to get its creatures through. Because it is a creature deck. I care less about creatures, fast burn cares less about creatures, because by the time I'd be able to play it, I'm gonna be throwing at the dome for the kill so their field stops mattering.
You are correct that Spark Elemental is a worse lava spike. Lava spike is a worse Lightning Bolt. If I could run 44 Lightning Bolts like I used to, I would. But I'm limited to 4, so you go with the best you can get. It's not as if I'm running them over Lava Spike. Im using them both.
I don't know if this guy is trolling or if he is just speculating and doesn't actually play the deck. Lets talk about the usefulness and effectiveness of running searing blaze, shall we?
Requires landfall for effectiveness: Not really a big deal. You only draw 3-4 cards with this deck, so there is a 60-70% chance of it being in your opening hand. This means that you should have landfall when you want it close to 80% of the time. Even without landfall, you can still kill off several targets (most importantly Thalia).
It requires a creature to target: true, you do require a creature to target, and 95% of the decks in a given field are going to have something to target. There are times when it is a dead card, but not nearly as often as its an active card that is essentially 2 lightning bolts. Setting your opponent back a turn while hitting them in the face for 3 is more than worth the risk of it being a dead draw 5% of the time.
I don't understand why you are saying Searing Blaze forces your turn 2 play. I have always wanted to play it whenever I could. You probably played GG, Devil, Rift Bolt (or Spark Elemental which is a terrible choice btw) on turn 1. You hit them with SB on turn 2. Even without fetches and shocks, your opponent is down to 13-15 life. What's wrong with that? To me this is right where you want to be. Then your opponent is comfortable when you pass on turn 3, and gets caught with their pants down when you EoT a couple instants and follow up on turn 4 with 3x Bolt, Bump, Spike and/or Volley. That's how this deck wins, and Searing Blaze fits well into that game plan.
If you don't want to run it, then don't run it. I think it's a mistake not to run it, and would never play burn without it. Many people share my viewpoint, and will probably never agree with you.
Well, since you refuse to actually read the dozens of reasons I've posted why it's bad...I'll try one last time to list them. And if you still don't understand, then I'm done wasting my time. I used to play it, and it was bad, so I took it out.
It forces your turn 2 play, a turn when you want to drop a second GG if you have one. Or a spark. Or any of the other 3 cards you want to play on turn 1, and might have gotten more than 1 of the 2x of them in your opening hand. A turn where you need to play Marauders or else he'll be too late and do nothing. A turn when you need to play Rain against martyrproc/etc. There are dozens of plays I want to play over that turn 2.
And I can't play it turn 3 reliably because of the lack of land drop much of the time. And of course, that late in the game I want to finish the game, and normally can. Again, this deck is faster than you midrange control versions. Turn 3-4 is average game length. Would rather just pop bolts and spikes to the face to end it. Instead of needlessly dragging it out and crossing my fingers.
Scapeshift, Storm, Eggs, 3 VERY prominent decks that have little to no creatures. One of which never has a targettable creature(since they can all be sacced), and storm won't be playing an electromancer faster than they plan to go off if they're thinking. Those 3 decks together make up a huge chunk of the field, and it's a dead card against them.
Blaze can't kill Thalia. Since Thalia makes Blaze cost 3. I don't have 3. Not sure what part of this isn't sinking in. I never rely on a third land drop with an 18/8 mana base.
It is a dead card more often than it's a live one. And even when it does go live, it's far from "2 lightning bolts." 2 lightning bolts would be 2 mana for 6 damage to target player. It's not. It's 2 mana for 3 damage. Since again, this is BURN. This is not RDW. To re-paraphrase the primer, all that matters is our opponent's life total, their field does not matter. Period. Fact. Unless that field has something that keeps me from counting to 20 like Worship, or a SoulSister, I honestly couldn't care less about it. They can have all the birds and bobs they want, I actively encourage it, because then it's doing nothing to stop the burn.
I can point to any number of successful decklists that have not run it. It's been off the 'must play' list for a while now.
Just a nitpick, you aren't hitting Thalia on T2 with a Blaze.
I haven't played much since we switched to RBW with Gatecrash but I am still thinking SB is not all its cracked up to be and the stats I posted in the Searing Blaze thread still stand.
I never stated that you would be targeting Thalia on turn 2. What I said was that SB can kill Thalia without landfall.
EDIT: I will respond with more when I'm not posting from my phone.
Well, since you refuse to actually read the dozens of reasons I've posted why it's bad...I'll try one last time to list them. And if you still don't understand, then I'm done wasting my time. I used to play it, and it was bad, so I took it out.
It forces your turn 2 play, a turn when you want to drop a second GG if you have one. Or a spark. Or any of the other 3 cards you want to play on turn 1, and might have gotten more than 1 of the 2x of them in your opening hand. A turn where you need to play Marauders or else he'll be too late and do nothing. A turn when you need to play Rain against martyrproc/etc. There are dozens of plays I want to play over that turn 2.
I don't understand why you are saying Searing Blaze forces your turn 2 play. I have always wanted to play it whenever I could. You probably played GG, Devil, Rift Bolt (or Spark Elemental which is a terrible choice btw) on turn 1. You hit them with SB on turn 2. Even without fetches and shocks, your opponent is down to 13-15 life. What's wrong with that? To me this is right where you want to be. Then your opponent is comfortable when you pass on turn 3, and gets caught with their pants down when you EoT a couple instants and follow up on turn 4 with 3x Bolt, Bump, Spike and/or Volley. That's how this deck wins, and Searing Blaze fits well into that game plan.
Almost every card in the deck that you would play on turn 2 is just as relevant coming down on turn 3. You should be using your third turn to set up for the win on turn 4. That is how to play this deck consistently. We all would like to win on turn 3, but you don't always have the option of playing against an opponent who doesn't interact with us at all. Sometimes you get the nuts and can hit your opponent with 6-7 bolts in the first 3 turns. Often that isn't the case. Some creatures, like Deathrite Shaman, need to be dealt with, and having a card that not only answers that but also deals 3 to the face is amazing.
And I can't play it turn 3 reliably because of the lack of land drop much of the time. And of course, that late in the game I want to finish the game, and normally can. Again, this deck is faster than you midrange control versions. Turn 3-4 is average game length. Would rather just pop bolts and spikes to the face to end it. Instead of needlessly dragging it out and crossing my fingers.
By definition, we are not midrange control. You are sacrificing a lot of consistency to gain only a little bit of speed. Again, we all want to win on turn 3, but that is not always possible. This is a turn 4 deck. Sometimes we get lucky and kill on turn 3. Sometimes we struggle via mulligan or disruption, and needs Lavamancer/DRS to close out games on turn 5-6. I would rather have a consistent turn 4 win than cross my fingers and hope to win by turn 3 because I know that most of the cards in my deck aren't any good if I play them past turn 2.
Scapeshift, Storm, Eggs, 3 VERY prominent decks that have little to no creatures. One of which never has a targettable creature(since they can all be sacced), and storm won't be playing an electromancer faster than they plan to go off if they're thinking. Those 3 decks together make up a huge chunk of the field, and it's a dead card against them.
FYI: Even if a creature gets sacrificed, because the spell targets both the creature and the player, the player will still take damage. IE: You target Sakura-Tribe Elder with Searing Blaze, they sac, they still take 3.
Storm has Electromancer, which is a must kill for us. Even still, Storm took a big hit with the loss of Seething Song, and isn't seeing nearly as much play as before.
Eggs is the ONLY deck that doesn't play creatures. And it makes up something like 2% of the field. So there is one deck that Searing Blaze is completely dead against. I can live with that and then board it out for Rakdos Cham.
Blaze can't kill Thalia. Since Thalia makes Blaze cost 3. I don't have 3. Not sure what part of this isn't sinking in. I never rely on a third land drop with an 18/8 mana base.
I personally run 17 lands, but I know a lot of other people play 20. Those people expect to hit their 3rd land drop, so what might be a good argument for you does not particularly apply to other people. Thalia is another one of those cards that we must kill (and another card that Spark Elemental is terrible against).
It is a dead card more often than it's a live one. And even when it does go live, it's far from "2 lightning bolts." 2 lightning bolts would be 2 mana for 6 damage to target player. It's not. It's 2 mana for 3 damage. Since again, this is BURN. This is not RDW. To re-paraphrase the primer, all that matters is our opponent's life total, their field does not matter. Period. Fact. Unless that field has something that keeps me from counting to 20 like Worship, or a SoulSister, I honestly couldn't care less about it. They can have all the birds and bobs they want, I actively encourage it, because then it's doing nothing to stop the burn.
I've already covered that Searing Blaze only dead in 1 of 20+ possible match ups which makes up a small percent of the field, and thus is active a majority of the time. It in fact does deal 6 damage for 2 mana. Because it's not all to target player does not change that fact. Since you seem to think that your deck is a Burn deck, what's with all this talk of Keldon Marauders and Spark Elemental? That sounds more like RDW than burn to me. You might find more support in the RDW thread, but I am guessing that they would argue Searing Blaze is great for clearing the way for their creatures.
I can point to any number of successful decklists that have not run it. It's been off the 'must play' list for a while now.
By all means, please do. Is 10 lists too many? How about a breakdown of top RDW/Burn lists in the past year and see what % of decks run Searing Blaze instead?
I would never go lower than 19 lands, so I'm expecting to hit my land drop on turn 3. Which makes me have a high opinion of Searing Blaze. If Searing Blaze is turn "2 or bust" then it might not be that good, but since I'm hitting my third land drop it's actually really good.
Also, minimal interaction with the boardstate does not mean no interaction. Buying a turn can be the difference between winning and losing the game.
Well, as i said. No point in continuing this. I have tested hundreds of games both ways, and the deck performed MUCH better across the board without it. And you still seem to not want to listen to reason, just seem to want to pick a fight.
Spark Elemental is a flaming pile and should never be run in this deck. Vexing Devil and Goblin Guide are usually close to guaranteed damage and are often 4 for 1. Marauders was guaranteed 2 for 2, sometimes 5 or at least an extra turn to live. Creatures need to be godly to take slots away from burn spells because we employ a strategy called virtual card advantage where their removal and blockers become useless. That doesn't work so well when you run a third of your deck as creatures. We love damage SPELLS not creatures.
You realize of course. That at its core, the entirety of the argument regarding VCA is undone by the fact that you mention Vex right? Considering if they are holding onto otherwise dead removal, they will simply let vex resolve and have a target. And then your VCA is gone.
As for Marauders being guaranteed 2 for 2. That is both terrible, and wrong. Seeing as how quickly games go, they often dont last the 3 turns after playing him for him to vanish. Making him a 2 for 1 often. Which is even more terrible.
As for spark, if you think hes bad its because youve never run him. Just making baseless generalizations. Hellspark is considered great. And he is hellspark for cheaper, without the reach. And like vexing devil in standard, he was bad in standard because there was a greater need for reach. But in Modern, burn is strong enough that theres less need for reach. And hes a lot better than I initially expected him to be.
But as always, people were rather say something is bad without a chance rather than actually testing it.
You realize of course. That at its core, the entirety of the argument regarding VCA is undone by the fact that you mention Vex right? Considering if they are holding onto otherwise dead removal, they will simply let vex resolve and have a target. And then your VCA is gone.
As for Marauders being guaranteed 2 for 2. That is both terrible, and wrong. Seeing as how quickly games go, they often dont last the 3 turns after playing him for him to vanish. Making him a 2 for 1 often. Which is even more terrible.
As for spark, if you think hes bad its because youve never run him. Just making baseless generalizations. Hellspark is considered great. And he is hellspark for cheaper, without the reach. And like vexing devil in standard, he was bad in standard because there was a greater need for reach. But in Modern, burn is strong enough that theres less need for reach. And hes a lot better than I initially expected him to be.
But as always, people were rather say something is bad without a chance rather than actually testing it.
He doesn't need to vanish for the second point of damage, just leave play.
But i've only been playing burn off and on for most of my life, what do I know? (note that I am not claiming I am better than anyone, just that I have a lot of experience with this deck.)
As someone who has a lot of experience with this deck, what is your opinion on my Primer?
Yep, just because I called you out on using a bad card automatically means its because i've never used it and don't know how ”sweet” it is. As it happens, I have tried that card several times and its always been suboptimal. But i've only been playing burn off and on for most of my life, what do I know? (note that I am not claiming I am better than anyone, just that I have a lot of experience with this deck.)
Also for the record, I don't even like Marauders anymore in this deck. Just that he was a staple for a long time for a reason. Oh, and Hellspark is just as awful as Sparky.
Vexing Devil is a risk of losing VCA, you are absolutely correct. However, he is a gamble worth taking because you win on that more often than not.
.
You say that as if I haven't been playing Burn as my primary deck since I started in magic. Which was in 4th btw. I have decades of experience with the deck as well. And I know as well as most people do, that when you take a radically different approach to even a fairly generic archetype, it can severely alter the value level of some cards. And in this case, it has altered them in the ways I've mentioned. Blaze is very strong in a lot of decks, and the Spark twins are bad in a lot of decks. But in the way I have set mine up, they aren't. Simple as that.
Hellspark has also made it into more tourney winning decklists than I care to remember in Modern's short history. So saying he's bad is a little short-sighted. He is, just like his little brother, a burn creature in purest essence.
Yes, Vex is worth the gamble. As is spark. He hasn't failed me yet, and the deck was far weaker without him. In fact Spark is more helpful in the VCA category because he dodges sorcery removal and is an inevitability on tapouts. Things that Vex falls short in without haste.
You can say whatever you want about how good your "burn" deck is with 19 creatures and no Searing Blaze, frankly I don't care. I just don't want other people to come in here and misunderstand what the Burn philosophy is all about and build on an incorrect foundation of knowledge.
Now normally, I don't involve myself in "what deck is this" discussions, as they are largely moot points. But I find it comically ironic that you're calling me out on misunderstanding Burn and RDW when you clearly don't. So take a minute and let me enlighten you.
Since you don't understand burn as it seems, let me begin by what RDW is and why my deck does not fall under this category. RDW's most basic and iconic characterization is sligh. A deck designed around using spells to control the field, while efficient(and lasting) haste creatures swing in for damage. A simple concept. The main idea, and the idea behind every RDW deck, is battlefield control. To have battlefield control you need resilient creatures. Creatures that would never show up in RDW include Ball Lightning, and Spark Elemental(Hellspark may see fringe play because unearth makes him more resilient).
So then what cards do fit under RDW and not burn? Well, the first two that come to mind of course, are Searing Blaze and Ash Zealot. These are perfect examples of RDW cards that hold no place in true burn. I will explain why they aren't Burn in a moment, but why they ARE RDW is very simple. AZ is efficient, it lasts, and its abilities give it the speed and battlefield control that RDW is looking for. Searing Blaze is 100% battlefield control, it's sole purpose is to remove threats to keep the road clear for your...Zealots. While simultaneously advancing the plan of dealing 20 quickly. This is evidenced by the landfall, which serves a far better purpose in decks that plan on going longer(RDW). It does its job there extremely well. But I'm not playing RDW, I'm playing burn.
What is burn? Burn is a deck playing the most efficient damage sources available in the format. And if those damage sources happen to be creatures, then so be it...according to the primer that you yourself praised. Spark, by definition, is the most efficient creature in the format in terms of speed and damage. Since his only goal is damage and die. There is no battlefield control. There is no lasting effect. He is a lava spike with legs. And he is the quintessential burn creature(Fun fact, Ball Lightning was the "first" burn creature for a reason). Why are these creatures especially good in burn? Well, because of VCA. A term that you seem to keep using without fully appreciating.
"Virtual card advantage (VCA) : You get VCA from anticipating that your opponent will run certain answers, and then building a deck that makes them irrelevant."(from the legacy burn primer).
What does that mean? Well in terms of creatures, it's talking about removal. Original Burn was creatureless(even after the 4-of rule), to render opponent's removal irrelevant. This allowed for Ball Lightning to eventually be slotted in as "the only burn creature" because it couldn't be removed. You play it on tapouts, and it's gone before your opponents can untap to deal with it. Just like a spell. Also even without tapouts, it renders all sorcery removal irrelevant(sorcery removal being a lot more common then). Spark Elemental and his older brother retain their father's VCA versus removal.
Modern Burn(that is to say current Burn, as many legacy decks have this issue as well), have sacrificed their VCA to removal. Because GG, Vex, DRS, and Lavamancer are purely removable cards. They have zero safety. And the fact that they are included in the deck, basically negates all VCA, as the odds of an opponent drawing an answer without one of these coming out is extremely slim. Vex obviously being the worst offender here, as he is only a creature WHEN they have the otherwise dead answer for him. And he basically gives them an opportunity when they need it, and doesn't when they don't. He is effectively a disadvantage. Why are these cards run if they are giving away our VCA? Because again, running the most efficient damage in the format, and the tradeoff is worth it to most people(contrary to fourtwenty, who is the only one truly retaining his VCA). Right now in Legacy, the main VCA comes from mountains(wasteland who?), and I wish they'd update the primer to reflect that. Which is why I wasn't concerned with this primer having a section on VCA, since it's softened as a stance over time.
Speaking of the primer. The reason why you can quote me from earlier saying that Burn and RDW have merged in Modern is because the current Primer is effectively a hybrid(no offense to Aranfan). Including, as I said earlier, many cards that should NEVER appear in a true burn deck like Ash Zealot. But there it is. For reference, there are 19 cards listed as MB material in the 1-2 drop slots in the primer, 10 of them spells, 9 of them creatures. With GG, Vex, and Lavamancer sacrificing your VCA to removal, it really doesn't matter how many creatures you play, especially when those creatures are more resilient to removal than those 3.
So why did I choose to run so many creatures in my 'Burn' deck you ask? Because yes, this was a conscious choice. There are 4 main keys to Burn.
1. Fast Clock(my deck has in spades)
2. Non-interactive(Searing Blaze is dead to me)
3. VCA(been over this)
4. Risk spreading.
I did it for #4, spreading my risk. Creatureless burn is hosed by cards like Leyline of Sanctity and ilk. As well as non-creature spell counters(or Thorn). Chalice and Counterbalance. And many more. Instead of filling my sideboard with situational counters like unicorns, siding them in, and hoping I draw them at the cost of aggressive mulligans to poor hands and slowing my hand down in general...I simply spread my risk. I can easily win through a leyline. Easily. Going all-in on spells has its advantages and its drawbacks. And since we're already giving in to the drawbacks by running ~10 creatures that shoot our VCA in the foot, we might as well add a few more so we can actually see the returns on the advantages we gain.
Burn's goal is to count to 20 using the most efficient damage in the format. While having as little interaction with the battlefield as possible. Despite my large number of creatures, I have less battlefield interaction than most decks here, since my added creatures drop and suicide before any blockers are established or mana is available for removal(unless they just hang out and play nothing the first 2 turns to leave mana open, in which case I am in a better spot and can play around that). This is why i am playing burn, as opposed to the tempo sligh lists I see a lot of people posting.
For those who want to know more about Burn, and your potential ability to improve your decks. I suggest this article to further explain what burn actually is and the finer points behind the archetype in further detail than I have here. And in a more generalized sense of course. Aranfan specifically should re-read it if he hasn't already, as a means of updating the primer with more in-depth theory as opposed to card choices as the primary primer focus.
I apologize to any mods who think I stepped over the line citing the Legacy Burn thread as reference to what makes up burn.
Burn and RDW have basically merged as far as modern is concerned. Or you could say the classic RDW doesn't exist in modern in any sort of a competitive form because putting more burn in it makes it better.
On a related note, please stop feeding the troll guys and maybe he'll find a different thread to enlighten with his all knowing self.
I have read that article. The reason I don't have a VCA section is that I don't think VCA is actually a real thing.
It isnt anymore, thats the point im trying to get across. Which makes the volume of creatures irrelevant. And the only relevant question is what purpose they serve. Efficient damage or battlefield control.
But theres plenty of other good theory in the article that is still applicable.
Keep it on the posting on rdw not each other. If ya'll have a difference of opion, thats fine, just dont let it durn into borderline flames.
I would just like to take a minute to point out the unintentional pun....flames in a burn thread.
Also, on the subject of VCA and spark and hellspark, wouldn't forcing them to waste a removal spell on these be considered VCA, since it makes our lavamancers and vexing devils more dangerous, and the sparks were going to die anyway?
Hi guys, I'm relatively new to this deck, and I was thinking about playing 1 Blood Crypt and 1 Sacred Foundry So that I'm able to play both charms and Bump in the Night. What do you think about the burn with Lavamancer over shaman (I personally prefer lava), Guide and maybe Vexing with both white and black?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Father of Machines will free these creatures from the shackles of their imperfect flesh. All glory to Phyrexia!
That is pretty much the route many of us are going right now. Using fetch lands + 1 ofs of Sacred Foundry, Blood Crypt, Stomping Ground to splash in these extra colors. The main differences between Shaman and Lavamancer have to deal with how you use them. Shaman get's more gas, as you only have to exile 1 card to deal 2 damage, and you can target cards in both your grave and your opponents grave, and you get around Leyline with the each opponent clause. This gives you more options with how you want to play him. Lavamancer gets its digs with the option to hit creatures, and also by being able to utilize your fetch lands for damage rather than just instants and sorcery spells. The red mana is also usually easier to produce and utilize than constantly having black available each turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, ive explained the many many reasons why i dislike searing blaze in here already. It doesnt work in this deck. Forces my turn 2 play, multiconditional with middling payoff, oft dead card.
As for spark. I explained it already. Most decks dont have an easy answer for it. Goyf is usually only a 1/2 or 2/3 on turn 2, and i wouldnt be playing sparks past that if they have goyfs. Against a wall heavy deck he gets sided out for lavamancer. I end up making this swap a lot, but i still stand by the main sparks as it gives my game 1 a lot more speed and makes it more explosive.
Im always a little confused why people question spark but are perfectly okay with hellspark. They have the sae problem with walls, except that hellspark comes out later most of the time. So many decks run hellspark and people are fine with it. If it runs into a wall the first time, its likely to do it again the second time.(and the reason i have so many creatures in the board atm, is so that when i side out my sparks for lavamancers, i have the option of another creature to take the place of my hellsparks. Since most of the rest of my board is very specific hate to certain MUs.
Ive never liked magma jet... but I cant agree with you that searing Blaze is outdated tech... Not in a world where card advantage is king. Im seeing more and more decklist running 4 MB. Personally i run 8 fetches and 3 main.
I miss the creature heavy days where RDW had a lategame... im gonna go test a build with hellriders at my top end and see if that strategy can still work... i believe it can.
Pretty sure RDW got greedy for speed, forgot who it was... forgot its gameplan and became burn. Gone are the days where people werent sure if to play leyline of sanctity because it was useless against RDW.
To quote the primer itself:
Meaning that your post is contradictory to itself. Burn plays the most efficient spells it can. Some of those are creatures. Like spark elemental. He is literally the quintessential burn creature. He would never be run in RDW. Since RDW needs lasting battlefield control over efficiency. The number of creatures is completely irrelevant, and seems just like a pointless line to draw to have something to harp on in spite of anything real. The point remains that they are all burn creatures, and without weak spells like Blaze and Jet I have more than enough spells to hit directly.
And as you can see from the bolded point, RDW would employ Blaze over burn, since RDW, again, cares about the battlefield. It needs to get its creatures through. Because it is a creature deck. I care less about creatures, fast burn cares less about creatures, because by the time I'd be able to play it, I'm gonna be throwing at the dome for the kill so their field stops mattering.
You are correct that Spark Elemental is a worse lava spike. Lava spike is a worse Lightning Bolt. If I could run 44 Lightning Bolts like I used to, I would. But I'm limited to 4, so you go with the best you can get. It's not as if I'm running them over Lava Spike. Im using them both.
Requires landfall for effectiveness: Not really a big deal. You only draw 3-4 cards with this deck, so there is a 60-70% chance of it being in your opening hand. This means that you should have landfall when you want it close to 80% of the time. Even without landfall, you can still kill off several targets (most importantly Thalia).
It requires a creature to target: true, you do require a creature to target, and 95% of the decks in a given field are going to have something to target. There are times when it is a dead card, but not nearly as often as its an active card that is essentially 2 lightning bolts. Setting your opponent back a turn while hitting them in the face for 3 is more than worth the risk of it being a dead draw 5% of the time.
I don't understand why you are saying Searing Blaze forces your turn 2 play. I have always wanted to play it whenever I could. You probably played GG, Devil, Rift Bolt (or Spark Elemental which is a terrible choice btw) on turn 1. You hit them with SB on turn 2. Even without fetches and shocks, your opponent is down to 13-15 life. What's wrong with that? To me this is right where you want to be. Then your opponent is comfortable when you pass on turn 3, and gets caught with their pants down when you EoT a couple instants and follow up on turn 4 with 3x Bolt, Bump, Spike and/or Volley. That's how this deck wins, and Searing Blaze fits well into that game plan.
If you don't want to run it, then don't run it. I think it's a mistake not to run it, and would never play burn without it. Many people share my viewpoint, and will probably never agree with you.
Calling people a troll is flaming t_C
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
It forces your turn 2 play, a turn when you want to drop a second GG if you have one. Or a spark. Or any of the other 3 cards you want to play on turn 1, and might have gotten more than 1 of the 2x of them in your opening hand. A turn where you need to play Marauders or else he'll be too late and do nothing. A turn when you need to play Rain against martyrproc/etc. There are dozens of plays I want to play over that turn 2.
And I can't play it turn 3 reliably because of the lack of land drop much of the time. And of course, that late in the game I want to finish the game, and normally can. Again, this deck is faster than you midrange control versions. Turn 3-4 is average game length. Would rather just pop bolts and spikes to the face to end it. Instead of needlessly dragging it out and crossing my fingers.
Scapeshift, Storm, Eggs, 3 VERY prominent decks that have little to no creatures. One of which never has a targettable creature(since they can all be sacced), and storm won't be playing an electromancer faster than they plan to go off if they're thinking. Those 3 decks together make up a huge chunk of the field, and it's a dead card against them.
Blaze can't kill Thalia. Since Thalia makes Blaze cost 3. I don't have 3. Not sure what part of this isn't sinking in. I never rely on a third land drop with an 18/8 mana base.
It is a dead card more often than it's a live one. And even when it does go live, it's far from "2 lightning bolts." 2 lightning bolts would be 2 mana for 6 damage to target player. It's not. It's 2 mana for 3 damage. Since again, this is BURN. This is not RDW. To re-paraphrase the primer, all that matters is our opponent's life total, their field does not matter. Period. Fact. Unless that field has something that keeps me from counting to 20 like Worship, or a SoulSister, I honestly couldn't care less about it. They can have all the birds and bobs they want, I actively encourage it, because then it's doing nothing to stop the burn.
I can point to any number of successful decklists that have not run it. It's been off the 'must play' list for a while now.
I never stated that you would be targeting Thalia on turn 2. What I said was that SB can kill Thalia without landfall.
EDIT: I will respond with more when I'm not posting from my phone.
EDIT 2:
I actually did read the reasons you posted.
Almost every card in the deck that you would play on turn 2 is just as relevant coming down on turn 3. You should be using your third turn to set up for the win on turn 4. That is how to play this deck consistently. We all would like to win on turn 3, but you don't always have the option of playing against an opponent who doesn't interact with us at all. Sometimes you get the nuts and can hit your opponent with 6-7 bolts in the first 3 turns. Often that isn't the case. Some creatures, like Deathrite Shaman, need to be dealt with, and having a card that not only answers that but also deals 3 to the face is amazing.
By definition, we are not midrange control. You are sacrificing a lot of consistency to gain only a little bit of speed. Again, we all want to win on turn 3, but that is not always possible. This is a turn 4 deck. Sometimes we get lucky and kill on turn 3. Sometimes we struggle via mulligan or disruption, and needs Lavamancer/DRS to close out games on turn 5-6. I would rather have a consistent turn 4 win than cross my fingers and hope to win by turn 3 because I know that most of the cards in my deck aren't any good if I play them past turn 2.
FYI: Even if a creature gets sacrificed, because the spell targets both the creature and the player, the player will still take damage. IE: You target Sakura-Tribe Elder with Searing Blaze, they sac, they still take 3.
Storm has Electromancer, which is a must kill for us. Even still, Storm took a big hit with the loss of Seething Song, and isn't seeing nearly as much play as before.
Eggs is the ONLY deck that doesn't play creatures. And it makes up something like 2% of the field. So there is one deck that Searing Blaze is completely dead against. I can live with that and then board it out for Rakdos Cham.
I personally run 17 lands, but I know a lot of other people play 20. Those people expect to hit their 3rd land drop, so what might be a good argument for you does not particularly apply to other people. Thalia is another one of those cards that we must kill (and another card that Spark Elemental is terrible against).
I've already covered that Searing Blaze only dead in 1 of 20+ possible match ups which makes up a small percent of the field, and thus is active a majority of the time. It in fact does deal 6 damage for 2 mana. Because it's not all to target player does not change that fact. Since you seem to think that your deck is a Burn deck, what's with all this talk of Keldon Marauders and Spark Elemental? That sounds more like RDW than burn to me. You might find more support in the RDW thread, but I am guessing that they would argue Searing Blaze is great for clearing the way for their creatures.
By all means, please do. Is 10 lists too many? How about a breakdown of top RDW/Burn lists in the past year and see what % of decks run Searing Blaze instead?
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
Also, minimal interaction with the boardstate does not mean no interaction. Buying a turn can be the difference between winning and losing the game.
You realize of course. That at its core, the entirety of the argument regarding VCA is undone by the fact that you mention Vex right? Considering if they are holding onto otherwise dead removal, they will simply let vex resolve and have a target. And then your VCA is gone.
As for Marauders being guaranteed 2 for 2. That is both terrible, and wrong. Seeing as how quickly games go, they often dont last the 3 turns after playing him for him to vanish. Making him a 2 for 1 often. Which is even more terrible.
As for spark, if you think hes bad its because youve never run him. Just making baseless generalizations. Hellspark is considered great. And he is hellspark for cheaper, without the reach. And like vexing devil in standard, he was bad in standard because there was a greater need for reach. But in Modern, burn is strong enough that theres less need for reach. And hes a lot better than I initially expected him to be.
But as always, people were rather say something is bad without a chance rather than actually testing it.
He doesn't need to vanish for the second point of damage, just leave play.
As someone who has a lot of experience with this deck, what is your opinion on my Primer?
You say that as if I haven't been playing Burn as my primary deck since I started in magic. Which was in 4th btw. I have decades of experience with the deck as well. And I know as well as most people do, that when you take a radically different approach to even a fairly generic archetype, it can severely alter the value level of some cards. And in this case, it has altered them in the ways I've mentioned. Blaze is very strong in a lot of decks, and the Spark twins are bad in a lot of decks. But in the way I have set mine up, they aren't. Simple as that.
Hellspark has also made it into more tourney winning decklists than I care to remember in Modern's short history. So saying he's bad is a little short-sighted. He is, just like his little brother, a burn creature in purest essence.
Yes, Vex is worth the gamble. As is spark. He hasn't failed me yet, and the deck was far weaker without him. In fact Spark is more helpful in the VCA category because he dodges sorcery removal and is an inevitability on tapouts. Things that Vex falls short in without haste.
Now normally, I don't involve myself in "what deck is this" discussions, as they are largely moot points. But I find it comically ironic that you're calling me out on misunderstanding Burn and RDW when you clearly don't. So take a minute and let me enlighten you.
Since you don't understand burn as it seems, let me begin by what RDW is and why my deck does not fall under this category. RDW's most basic and iconic characterization is sligh. A deck designed around using spells to control the field, while efficient(and lasting) haste creatures swing in for damage. A simple concept. The main idea, and the idea behind every RDW deck, is battlefield control. To have battlefield control you need resilient creatures. Creatures that would never show up in RDW include Ball Lightning, and Spark Elemental(Hellspark may see fringe play because unearth makes him more resilient).
So then what cards do fit under RDW and not burn? Well, the first two that come to mind of course, are Searing Blaze and Ash Zealot. These are perfect examples of RDW cards that hold no place in true burn. I will explain why they aren't Burn in a moment, but why they ARE RDW is very simple. AZ is efficient, it lasts, and its abilities give it the speed and battlefield control that RDW is looking for. Searing Blaze is 100% battlefield control, it's sole purpose is to remove threats to keep the road clear for your...Zealots. While simultaneously advancing the plan of dealing 20 quickly. This is evidenced by the landfall, which serves a far better purpose in decks that plan on going longer(RDW). It does its job there extremely well. But I'm not playing RDW, I'm playing burn.
What is burn? Burn is a deck playing the most efficient damage sources available in the format. And if those damage sources happen to be creatures, then so be it...according to the primer that you yourself praised. Spark, by definition, is the most efficient creature in the format in terms of speed and damage. Since his only goal is damage and die. There is no battlefield control. There is no lasting effect. He is a lava spike with legs. And he is the quintessential burn creature(Fun fact, Ball Lightning was the "first" burn creature for a reason). Why are these creatures especially good in burn? Well, because of VCA. A term that you seem to keep using without fully appreciating.
"Virtual card advantage (VCA) : You get VCA from anticipating that your opponent will run certain answers, and then building a deck that makes them irrelevant."(from the legacy burn primer).
What does that mean? Well in terms of creatures, it's talking about removal. Original Burn was creatureless(even after the 4-of rule), to render opponent's removal irrelevant. This allowed for Ball Lightning to eventually be slotted in as "the only burn creature" because it couldn't be removed. You play it on tapouts, and it's gone before your opponents can untap to deal with it. Just like a spell. Also even without tapouts, it renders all sorcery removal irrelevant(sorcery removal being a lot more common then). Spark Elemental and his older brother retain their father's VCA versus removal.
Modern Burn(that is to say current Burn, as many legacy decks have this issue as well), have sacrificed their VCA to removal. Because GG, Vex, DRS, and Lavamancer are purely removable cards. They have zero safety. And the fact that they are included in the deck, basically negates all VCA, as the odds of an opponent drawing an answer without one of these coming out is extremely slim. Vex obviously being the worst offender here, as he is only a creature WHEN they have the otherwise dead answer for him. And he basically gives them an opportunity when they need it, and doesn't when they don't. He is effectively a disadvantage. Why are these cards run if they are giving away our VCA? Because again, running the most efficient damage in the format, and the tradeoff is worth it to most people(contrary to fourtwenty, who is the only one truly retaining his VCA). Right now in Legacy, the main VCA comes from mountains(wasteland who?), and I wish they'd update the primer to reflect that. Which is why I wasn't concerned with this primer having a section on VCA, since it's softened as a stance over time.
Speaking of the primer. The reason why you can quote me from earlier saying that Burn and RDW have merged in Modern is because the current Primer is effectively a hybrid(no offense to Aranfan). Including, as I said earlier, many cards that should NEVER appear in a true burn deck like Ash Zealot. But there it is. For reference, there are 19 cards listed as MB material in the 1-2 drop slots in the primer, 10 of them spells, 9 of them creatures. With GG, Vex, and Lavamancer sacrificing your VCA to removal, it really doesn't matter how many creatures you play, especially when those creatures are more resilient to removal than those 3.
So why did I choose to run so many creatures in my 'Burn' deck you ask? Because yes, this was a conscious choice. There are 4 main keys to Burn.
1. Fast Clock(my deck has in spades)
2. Non-interactive(Searing Blaze is dead to me)
3. VCA(been over this)
4. Risk spreading.
I did it for #4, spreading my risk. Creatureless burn is hosed by cards like Leyline of Sanctity and ilk. As well as non-creature spell counters(or Thorn). Chalice and Counterbalance. And many more. Instead of filling my sideboard with situational counters like unicorns, siding them in, and hoping I draw them at the cost of aggressive mulligans to poor hands and slowing my hand down in general...I simply spread my risk. I can easily win through a leyline. Easily. Going all-in on spells has its advantages and its drawbacks. And since we're already giving in to the drawbacks by running ~10 creatures that shoot our VCA in the foot, we might as well add a few more so we can actually see the returns on the advantages we gain.
Burn's goal is to count to 20 using the most efficient damage in the format. While having as little interaction with the battlefield as possible. Despite my large number of creatures, I have less battlefield interaction than most decks here, since my added creatures drop and suicide before any blockers are established or mana is available for removal(unless they just hang out and play nothing the first 2 turns to leave mana open, in which case I am in a better spot and can play around that). This is why i am playing burn, as opposed to the tempo sligh lists I see a lot of people posting.
For those who want to know more about Burn, and your potential ability to improve your decks. I suggest this article to further explain what burn actually is and the finer points behind the archetype in further detail than I have here. And in a more generalized sense of course. Aranfan specifically should re-read it if he hasn't already, as a means of updating the primer with more in-depth theory as opposed to card choices as the primary primer focus.
I apologize to any mods who think I stepped over the line citing the Legacy Burn thread as reference to what makes up burn.
On a related note, please stop feeding the troll guys and maybe he'll find a different thread to enlighten with his all knowing self.
My sales thread: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/1651-ktk-for-sale
It isnt anymore, thats the point im trying to get across. Which makes the volume of creatures irrelevant. And the only relevant question is what purpose they serve. Efficient damage or battlefield control.
But theres plenty of other good theory in the article that is still applicable.
I would just like to take a minute to point out the unintentional pun....flames in a burn thread.
Also, on the subject of VCA and spark and hellspark, wouldn't forcing them to waste a removal spell on these be considered VCA, since it makes our lavamancers and vexing devils more dangerous, and the sparks were going to die anyway?
Level 2 Judge
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF