Thoughts on Incendiery Flow? 1R for 3 dmg to creature or player, creatures that die are exiled.
Sorcery speed
Probably not terribly playable but useful vs finks
I'd rather pay 1 more for Anger of the Gods or W for Path. This card won't see any play in Modern. I'm glad that Standard has "3 damage to target creature or player", though.
Thoughts on this deck for jumping into modern (and back to the game in general)? Seems a relatively easy deck to learn, matches up ok with meta, and is lower priced ($300 on MTGO).
Seems this would allow a reasonable investment for me to play and learn the format/other decks (while playing against)?
Also has a few pieces that interchange with other decks/formats?
Burn is easy to play poorly, because it's not just "tap mountains, burn face". Mistakes are generally unforgiving. It's a very good deck, and not too difficult to learn.
Almost all of the mono-R cards in Naya Burn are also used in Legacy Burn. You only need Price of Progress, Chain Lightning, Sulfuric Vortex, and some sideboard cards to round out that list. I build Legacy Burn after playing Modern Burn for a while.
I agree, burn is easy to pickup and be ok but it takes skill to be a great burn player. You really need to learn what can stay and what has to go. A lot of non burn players believe that all burn does is play spells to the face and that is not true unless they are playing bad burn players.
Magma Spray and Pillar of Flame handle creatures in need of exile (can't think of any of those that are X/3 offhand) and this won't get played. I will grudgingly run it in standard
Lavamancer is there for late game reach. This dude gives late game reach (3 more cards) on a decent body (3/4) for (more than likely) 1 more R than Lavamancer.
Chaos Reveler is terrible in burn. Think about how often you have to race. You can't cast this guy until AFTER you've cast 4-6 burn spells. As for late game reach, wait until you topdeck him with an empty hand vs. a deck that plays removal. He will have done nothing. Which is the same as lavamancer, but at least you can cast that guy one turn 1, no questions asked.
Chaos Reveler is terrible in burn. Think about how often you have to race. You can't cast this guy until AFTER you've cast 4-6 burn spells. As for late game reach, wait until you topdeck him with an empty hand vs. a deck that plays removal. He will have done nothing. Which is the same as lavamancer, but at least you can cast that guy one turn 1, no questions asked.
1. How many lands do you have in play on average over the course of a game? My guess is three, but I could be wrong.
2. How many games are you going to need Reveler if you already have 4-6 instants/sorceries in the yard? How many games have you lost where you cast that many spells?
TC was so good because you could crack 2-3 fetches, lose 1-2 creatures, cast 1-2 spells, still not quite be winning, but then cast Cruise for just U. Unless I'm misreading most Burn gamestates, I feel Reveler is often going to win you the game after you're already far ahead. What do the Burn regulars think? I play against Burn all the time, but very rarely actually pilot it, so I'm curious what the experts think.
Chaos Reveler is terrible in burn. Think about how often you have to race. You can't cast this guy until AFTER you've cast 4-6 burn spells. As for late game reach, wait until you topdeck him with an empty hand vs. a deck that plays removal. He will have done nothing. Which is the same as lavamancer, but at least you can cast that guy one turn 1, no questions asked.
TIL drawing 3 cards is nothing.
I misread the card and thought it was looting. But it's still terrible. 4-6 burn spells, man. It takes forever to cast him. Creatures don't contribute, and neither do fetchlands. I think that's the most important part of evaluating this card.
1. How many lands do you have in play on average over the course of a game? My guess is three, but I could be wrong.
2. How many games are you going to need Reveler if you already have 4-6 instants/sorceries in the yard? How many games have you lost where you cast that many spells?
TC was so good because you could crack 2-3 fetches, lose 1-2 creatures, cast 1-2 spells, still not quite be winning, but then cast Cruise for just U. Unless I'm misreading most Burn gamestates, I feel Reveler is often going to win you the game after you're already far ahead. What do the Burn regulars think? I play against Burn all the time, but very rarely actually pilot it, so I'm curious what the experts think.
I was going to mention the same thing after I had put some thought into it.
1. How many lands do you have in play on average over the course of a game? My guess is three, but I could be wrong.
2. How many games are you going to need Reveler if you already have 4-6 instants/sorceries in the yard? How many games have you lost where you cast that many spells?
TC was so good because you could crack 2-3 fetches, lose 1-2 creatures, cast 1-2 spells, still not quite be winning, but then cast Cruise for just U. Unless I'm misreading most Burn gamestates, I feel Reveler is often going to win you the game after you're already far ahead. What do the Burn regulars think? I play against Burn all the time, but very rarely actually pilot it, so I'm curious what the experts think.
1. If the game goes long (6+ turns), I can reasonably expect to have 5-7 lands. An average game is probably around 4 lands.
2. In my meta (which is probably half small zoo, infect, and affinity) I spend a decent number of my spells as removal. If they still manage to wall/remove my creatures, I can see Reveler being very solid.
I'll test it out and see how it works. I'm not sure if it's worth a spot in the main or if it fits better in the side.
1. How many lands do you have in play on average over the course of a game? My guess is three, but I could be wrong.
2. How many games are you going to need Reveler if you already have 4-6 instants/sorceries in the yard? How many games have you lost where you cast that many spells?
TC was so good because you could crack 2-3 fetches, lose 1-2 creatures, cast 1-2 spells, still not quite be winning, but then cast Cruise for just U. Unless I'm misreading most Burn gamestates, I feel Reveler is often going to win you the game after you're already far ahead. What do the Burn regulars think? I play against Burn all the time, but very rarely actually pilot it, so I'm curious what the experts think.
All your concerns are very valid. I can see it being a card Mono-Red plays in the SB for blue control decks, but honestly we have a rather favorable matchup vs control anyway and in those matches it's usually about boarding in you skullcracks and then hoarding them to counter timely renforcements and such.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire." —Jaya Ballard, task mage
I think Chaos Reveler is a tough card to evaluate without actually playing with him. Drawing 3 is exactly what I want against a counterspell deck for instance, but I'll need them to either tap out or at least use up a counterspell so that I can actually get him onto the board. He might be more straightforward against decks that stabilise through lifegain. I think all we can say with certainty right now is that he is at least not bad enough to be dismissed outright, any further judgement will have to be withheld until people can test with him?
Chaos Reveler is terrible in burn. Think about how often you have to race. You can't cast this guy until AFTER you've cast 4-6 burn spells. As for late game reach, wait until you topdeck him with an empty hand vs. a deck that plays removal. He will have done nothing. Which is the same as lavamancer, but at least you can cast that guy one turn 1, no questions asked.
TIL drawing 3 cards is nothing.
I misread the card and thought it was looting. But it's still terrible. 4-6 burn spells, man. It takes forever to cast him. Creatures don't contribute, and neither do fetchlands. I think that's the most important part of evaluating this card.
I absolutely understand that. I also know the number of times I've had 4-6 burn spells in the yard on turn 4 and I'm in top deck mode is high enough to want something like this.
I didn't say it was the Deliverer and we'd be T0. I said it would be good to test in place of Lava man (in other words, as a two of).
Chaos Reveler is terrible in burn. Think about how often you have to race. You can't cast this guy until AFTER you've cast 4-6 burn spells. As for late game reach, wait until you topdeck him with an empty hand vs. a deck that plays removal. He will have done nothing. Which is the same as lavamancer, but at least you can cast that guy one turn 1, no questions asked.
TIL drawing 3 cards is nothing.
I misread the card and thought it was looting. But it's still terrible. 4-6 burn spells, man. It takes forever to cast him. Creatures don't contribute, and neither do fetchlands. I think that's the most important part of evaluating this card.
I absolutely understand that. I also know the number of times I've had 4-6 burn spells in the yard on turn 4 and I'm in top deck mode is high enough to want something like this.
I didn't say it was the Deliverer and we'd be T0. I said it would be good to test in place of Lava man (in other words, as a two of).
I don't think it even merits testing. What % of your top 10-15 cards have 4-6 burn spells? The attached table gives the probability of hitting at least X spells in Y draws given a 26 spell burn deck (from Kiefer's T32 Dallas list, but I just took the first list that was handy). Y is the rows (10, 11, ..., 15) and X is the columns (4, 5, 6). Note that 15 draws is an 8 turn game on the play or 7 on the draw, which is pretty long for a burn deck in modern. Even there, you only have about a 62% chance or so of Reveler costing 2 mana (I simulated the probabilities because I'm lazy, but they should be closer to the true numbers after 100,000 draws). He is virtually guaranteed to cost no more than 4 by that point, but 4 is still a lot and that's a long time in the future. Would burn play Harmonize if it was in red? Probably not. This obviously isn't the same card, but it's an apt comparison.
Most of our games go to turn 4 or 5, and in those games you have about a 10%+ chance of just not being able to cast Reveler because he still costs 5 mana. I think this completely disqualifies him as a MD card. As a SB card, you could try to bring him in vs. grindy matchups, but I'm not sure where you'd want him. He's pretty bad against counterspells, and even the grindy matchups don't give you that much time. Tarmogoyf closes quickly, and even UWR can end the game quickly with Nahiri. Maybe you want it against Grixis Control since they have trouble closing if you don't kill them quickly, but Exquisite Firecraft still seems much better against them.
I don't think it even merits testing. What % of your top 10-15 cards have 4-6 burn spells? The attached table gives the probability of hitting at least X spells in Y draws given a 26 spell burn deck (from Kiefer's T32 Dallas list, but I just took the first list that was handy). Y is the rows (10, 11, ..., 15) and X is the columns (4, 5, 6). Note that 15 draws is an 8 turn game on the play or 7 on the draw, which is pretty long for a burn deck in modern. Even there, you only have about a 62% chance or so of Reveler costing 2 mana (I simulated the probabilities because I'm lazy, but they should be closer to the true numbers after 100,000 draws). He is virtually guaranteed to cost no more than 4 by that point, but 4 is still a lot and that's a long time in the future. Would burn play Harmonize if it was in red? Probably not. This obviously isn't the same card, but it's an apt comparison.
It's not an apt comparison at all - Harmonize plus a 3/4 Prowess body would be playable, yes.
According to your chart there's a 20% chance by turn 3 that I'll have enough burn to cast him for 2. That's 1/5 games. That's basically every other match. That's significantly more often than I find Lavamancer useful.
Even him costing 3 (almost half the time by turn 3 according to your chart) is still good.
In grindy matches, does drawing Lavamancer win you the game? (rarely) Can drawing this guy win the game? (far more often)
Most of our games go to turn 4 or 5, and in those games you have about a 10%+ chance of just not being able to cast Reveler because he still costs 5 mana. I think this completely disqualifies him as a MD card. As a SB card, you could try to bring him in vs. grindy matchups, but I'm not sure where you'd want him. He's pretty bad against counterspells, and even the grindy matchups don't give you that much time. Tarmogoyf closes quickly, and even UWR can end the game quickly with Nahiri. Maybe you want it against Grixis Control since they have trouble closing if you don't kill them quickly, but Exquisite Firecraft still seems much better against them.
Man, it'd be awesome if someone would get some experience with the card. Almost like it would be a good idea to, I dunno, play some experimental games? Maybe we could call it testing?
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
It's not an apt comparison at all - Harmonize plus a 3/4 Prowess body would be playable, yes.
"Apt comparison" = "useful comparison to understand the card." Like what you did with "Harmonize plus a 3/4 body." Anyway, harmonize plus a 3/4 prowess body would be playable, but we would significantly remake the deck around it, including running more lands. Specifically within burn, I'm not sure that's something you'd want to do. Especially since, Reveler is Harmonize + 3/4 prowess body, but much more inconsistent. The inconsistency is a killer.
According to your chart there's a 20% chance by turn 3 that I'll have enough burn to cast him for 2. That's 1/5 games. That's basically every other match. That's significantly more often than I find Lavamancer useful.
Even him costing 3 (almost half the time by turn 3 according to your chart) is still good.
Lavamancer is better than a dead card far more often than this card. In any fast matchup, Reveler is just completely dead, while Lavamancer can help cobble together the damage you need. And that's a large swath of the modern metagame. Sure, Lavamancer isn't great when you're racing, but it still does something. Reveler does literal nothing much more often.
In grindy matches, does drawing Lavamancer win you the game? (rarely) Can drawing this guy win the game? (far more often)
I agree. I'm only arguing that the probability that Reveler does nothing is far too high to be acceptable.
Most of our games go to turn 4 or 5, and in those games you have about a 10%+ chance of just not being able to cast Reveler because he still costs 5 mana. I think this completely disqualifies him as a MD card. As a SB card, you could try to bring him in vs. grindy matchups, but I'm not sure where you'd want him. He's pretty bad against counterspells, and even the grindy matchups don't give you that much time. Tarmogoyf closes quickly, and even UWR can end the game quickly with Nahiri. Maybe you want it against Grixis Control since they have trouble closing if you don't kill them quickly, but Exquisite Firecraft still seems much better against them.
Man, it'd be awesome if someone would get some experience with the card. Almost like it would be a good idea to, I dunno, play some experimental games? Maybe we could call it testing?
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
First, if you disagree with me, tell me why I'm wrong. Don't imply that I'm stupid. I have reasons for what I'm saying and I've tried to explain them to you. Maybe try to convince me instead of responding with snark? Conversations are much more productive that way.
Second, I concede that Reveler might be worth it in matchups like Grixis Control, but I think it's too slow in most grindy matchups because they're so much better at closing than Grixis is. At that point, the card is too narrow to consider as a SB option.
I'm warming to the idea of Reveler as a SB card, but he still seems way too hard to cast early to be worth it MD.
Too slow, not instant speed. We already have enough 2 drops as it is. Would prolly run magma jet over it.
But this will see play in standard
Lavamancer is there for late game reach. This dude gives late game reach (3 more cards) on a decent body (3/4) for (more than likely) 1 more R than Lavamancer.
It's definitely worth trying.
TIL drawing 3 cards is nothing.
1. How many lands do you have in play on average over the course of a game? My guess is three, but I could be wrong.
2. How many games are you going to need Reveler if you already have 4-6 instants/sorceries in the yard? How many games have you lost where you cast that many spells?
TC was so good because you could crack 2-3 fetches, lose 1-2 creatures, cast 1-2 spells, still not quite be winning, but then cast Cruise for just U. Unless I'm misreading most Burn gamestates, I feel Reveler is often going to win you the game after you're already far ahead. What do the Burn regulars think? I play against Burn all the time, but very rarely actually pilot it, so I'm curious what the experts think.
I misread the card and thought it was looting. But it's still terrible. 4-6 burn spells, man. It takes forever to cast him. Creatures don't contribute, and neither do fetchlands. I think that's the most important part of evaluating this card.
1. If the game goes long (6+ turns), I can reasonably expect to have 5-7 lands. An average game is probably around 4 lands.
2. In my meta (which is probably half small zoo, infect, and affinity) I spend a decent number of my spells as removal. If they still manage to wall/remove my creatures, I can see Reveler being very solid.
I'll test it out and see how it works. I'm not sure if it's worth a spot in the main or if it fits better in the side.
RWGBurn
GWBogles
UMono U Tron
All your concerns are very valid. I can see it being a card Mono-Red plays in the SB for blue control decks, but honestly we have a rather favorable matchup vs control anyway and in those matches it's usually about boarding in you skullcracks and then hoarding them to counter timely renforcements and such.
I absolutely understand that. I also know the number of times I've had 4-6 burn spells in the yard on turn 4 and I'm in top deck mode is high enough to want something like this.
I didn't say it was the Deliverer and we'd be T0. I said it would be good to test in place of Lava man (in other words, as a two of).
I don't think it even merits testing. What % of your top 10-15 cards have 4-6 burn spells? The attached table gives the probability of hitting at least X spells in Y draws given a 26 spell burn deck (from Kiefer's T32 Dallas list, but I just took the first list that was handy). Y is the rows (10, 11, ..., 15) and X is the columns (4, 5, 6). Note that 15 draws is an 8 turn game on the play or 7 on the draw, which is pretty long for a burn deck in modern. Even there, you only have about a 62% chance or so of Reveler costing 2 mana (I simulated the probabilities because I'm lazy, but they should be closer to the true numbers after 100,000 draws). He is virtually guaranteed to cost no more than 4 by that point, but 4 is still a lot and that's a long time in the future. Would burn play Harmonize if it was in red? Probably not. This obviously isn't the same card, but it's an apt comparison.
Most of our games go to turn 4 or 5, and in those games you have about a 10%+ chance of just not being able to cast Reveler because he still costs 5 mana. I think this completely disqualifies him as a MD card. As a SB card, you could try to bring him in vs. grindy matchups, but I'm not sure where you'd want him. He's pretty bad against counterspells, and even the grindy matchups don't give you that much time. Tarmogoyf closes quickly, and even UWR can end the game quickly with Nahiri. Maybe you want it against Grixis Control since they have trouble closing if you don't kill them quickly, but Exquisite Firecraft still seems much better against them.
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
It's not an apt comparison at all - Harmonize plus a 3/4 Prowess body would be playable, yes.
According to your chart there's a 20% chance by turn 3 that I'll have enough burn to cast him for 2. That's 1/5 games. That's basically every other match. That's significantly more often than I find Lavamancer useful.
Even him costing 3 (almost half the time by turn 3 according to your chart) is still good.
In grindy matches, does drawing Lavamancer win you the game? (rarely) Can drawing this guy win the game? (far more often)
Man, it'd be awesome if someone would get some experience with the card. Almost like it would be a good idea to, I dunno, play some experimental games? Maybe we could call it testing?
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
"Apt comparison" = "useful comparison to understand the card." Like what you did with "Harmonize plus a 3/4 body." Anyway, harmonize plus a 3/4 prowess body would be playable, but we would significantly remake the deck around it, including running more lands. Specifically within burn, I'm not sure that's something you'd want to do. Especially since, Reveler is Harmonize + 3/4 prowess body, but much more inconsistent. The inconsistency is a killer.
Lavamancer is better than a dead card far more often than this card. In any fast matchup, Reveler is just completely dead, while Lavamancer can help cobble together the damage you need. And that's a large swath of the modern metagame. Sure, Lavamancer isn't great when you're racing, but it still does something. Reveler does literal nothing much more often.
I agree. I'm only arguing that the probability that Reveler does nothing is far too high to be acceptable.
First, if you disagree with me, tell me why I'm wrong. Don't imply that I'm stupid. I have reasons for what I'm saying and I've tried to explain them to you. Maybe try to convince me instead of responding with snark? Conversations are much more productive that way.
Second, I concede that Reveler might be worth it in matchups like Grixis Control, but I think it's too slow in most grindy matchups because they're so much better at closing than Grixis is. At that point, the card is too narrow to consider as a SB option.
I'm warming to the idea of Reveler as a SB card, but he still seems way too hard to cast early to be worth it MD.