I'm thinking of going from R mono red to RW, what is the cheapest way to get an efficient mana base that will still work? I don't have the cash for all the fetch lands you would usually get, but I can some fetches and some shocks...if it helps, I do have 4 Clifftop Retreat already
Well, it depends on how many white spells you want to play.
This link is useful to get an idea on how many mana sources you want to play a certain number of colored spells. http://bopmtg-bopmtg.rhcloud.com//blog/mana-base-probabilities
For example, if you only want 4 boros charm, then 10-11 white sources seem sufficient to have 90% chance of getting your white mana in time. If you play 4 boros charm and 4 lightning helix, you should go up to 13 white sources.
I'm not even mentioning sideboard options : Path to exile, wear/tear, stony silence, rest in peace, kor firewalker (you'd need many lands for this last one !)...
In your shoes, I would try to get 4 sacred foundry first, and then as many red fetches as possible (starting with wooded foothills and bloodstained mire, get them now, they just rotated out of standard).
For instance you could play :
4 boros charm
4 lightning helix
4 clifftop retreat
2-4 sacred foundry
5-7 fetches
7 mountain
And as a replacement for Arid Mesa you can always use Windswept Heath and save up for Arid Mesa.
I did the same and it works good enough because you can fetch Sacred Foundry only down side is that you can't fetch a basic mountain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
One other relevant point is that without (enough) fetches, Searing Blaze and Grim lavamancer lose value.
So again, this depends on your build. The spells you want to play will influence your mana base, and vice-versa.
Yes I read it, you yourself wrote 2/3-1/3, but also said it was more like 55-45. I did not go into the detail because my point was that you forgot essential criterion, namely the life loss from lands, the value of the creature body late, and the cost in mana and cards to the opponent.
I don't believe one can obtain accurate numbers (0.5 rather than 0.55... how I wish we could be that precise !), there are too many factors involved. Even Karsten's articles, which have more advanced math, always remind that the numbers are meant as an indication and not a hard truth.
Then you didn't read it. My statement about 1/3-2/3 was a rough initial estimate without doing math. The 0.55 is from doing the math for the probability that your opponent has a 1 mana way to kill Nacatl given that they've seen 8 cards and that they have 4 copies of that card in their deck. It's clear that the card isn't lightning bolt on a stick. Try actually reading this time. Perhaps try to not lie about my points?
It is very easy to obtain accurate numbers for this probability. It's called the hypergeometric function. The difficult part is that there are other outcomes. For instance, maybe they play a blocker. Maybe that blocker is a Goyf and your Nacatl is immediately outclassed, or maybe they chump it with a Sakura Tribe Elder. Maybe you only get your Nacatl to 2/2 (maybe only 1/1 off Copperline). Maybe it ends up dealing 6. Maybe your opener has a single Mountain and you've effectively mulliganed to 6 even though you're holding 7 cards. Maybe you draw it on T2, maybe you draw it later. There's a lot that can change that baseline estimate using a hypergeometric function. I do not believe that these things will shift the result significantly.
That right here. You infer "Burn just wins by turn 3 or 4 or loses" by "we're playing to win by turn 3 or 4", and you add a personal attack. You put "Burn games never come down to a topdeck" although I never said that.
I said we saw less topdecks than first turn cards statistically and that it had to be taken into account.
I don't know if you realise how you use emphasis to lie about my points, but I find it really dishonest and inappropriate in a reasonable debate.
You acted as if what happens after turn 3 or 4 is irrelevant. It's not. Nacatl is marginal if you can cast it turn 1. It is garbage after that. You want to talk about dishonesty? Actual Burn games come down to topdecks all the time. It is a mistake to add more cards to your deck that lose the game unless they are extremely powerful early. Nacatl isn't.
I offered what I believe are appropriate justifications. You reducing them to "because I said so" is once again extreme and dishonest.
No you haven't. You're handwaving it all away. I'm still waiting on your concrete justification for why you drop a 3 damage spell to play something that's worth less than 3 damage.
You contradict yourself left and right. You argued with me when I said Nacatl Burn is a different deck (Zoo-Burn hybrid) with a different strategy. You then say that it is a different deck with a different strategy. Which is it?
You also acquiesced to the idea that Nacatl is higher variance, which is really the same thing as saying "you only want it T1 to be explosive, after that it's a dead card" yet you reject the idea that adding 4 more bad topdecks has that effect. Which is it?
At this point it's obvious that you're just going to preach about your pet card, ignore requests for concrete evidence that your pet card is worth playing, and act as if everyone around you is being closed-minded by not testing it with you. Several people including myself have tested it and found it to be severely lacking.
I won't be responding to you further, because it is clear that you aren't interested in reading any well thought out comment that doesn't support your pet card.
Nacatl is a higher variance card than everything else in the deck. That alone is reason not to play it. If you can't rely on it, then it might not be worth it. I personally prefer reliability over potential strength and potential loss.
I respect this interpretation, even if I do not fully agree.
I find speed to be very important too, and I believe this mitigates the slight inconsistency of Nacatl.
But only extensive testing can settle what is the best compromise between speed and consistency
If one does not have the time for it, it is better to follow your instinct and play what you are more used to and what is more consistent ^^
Wait, I'm confused.
Because, as you said, Nacatl has a slight inconsistency. So if you're playing Nacatl then you're following your instinct (and ignoring others' testing and supporting statements) and doing something less consistent.
Nacatl is a higher variance card than everything else in the deck. That alone is reason not to play it. If you can't rely on it, then it might not be worth it. I personally prefer reliability over potential strength and potential loss.
I respect this interpretation, even if I do not fully agree.
I find speed to be very important too, and I believe this mitigates the slight inconsistency of Nacatl.
But only extensive testing can settle what is the best compromise between speed and consistency
If one does not have the time for it, it is better to follow your instinct and play what you are more used to and what is more consistent ^^
Wait, I'm confused.
Because, as you said, Nacatl has a slight inconsistency. So if you're playing Nacatl then you're following your instinct (and ignoring others' testing and supporting statements) and doing something less consistent.
Sorry if it was unclear. The "and" here applied to Jex, but should be an "or" in general.
I'm saying that
a) consistency is not the only important factor for burn, speed is important too. (this is a major reason of splashing colors)
b) the best burn deck to play in a given metagame is the one that has the best compromise between speed and consistency (there are other factors, like answers to niche strategies, but let us ignore this point for
the sake of argument).
c) to determine the best compromise in b), one needs much testing with several builds.
d) if you have to play a tournament tomorrow and did not have the time to test enough to find the best build, I advise Jex (and everybody) to either
d') play the deck you are used to (that's what I mean by instinct)
d'') or play the more consistent deck, because it's less complicated to play (less variance, less crucial mulligan decisions, successive games are more alike)
So for many people, d') and d'') coincide and mean play nacatl-less burn, and that's a fine choice !
From my testing, I believe that the best compromise tends to a Nacatl Burn build, so that's what I would play to a tournament tomorrow.
However, if both had the same win rate when played optimally, my instinct would be to play nacatl-less burn, because I like consistency too and I think the optimal plays are easier to attain with a nacatl-less build.
However, if both had the same win rate when played optimally, my instinct would be to play nacatl-less burn, because I like consistency too and I think the optimal plays are easier to attain with a nacatl-less build.
Thank you for admitting you're trading consistency for explosiveness.
Your analysis of Wild Nacatl while interesting seems to justify running it because you need a 1 drop creature in opening hand.
I find this to be incorrect I have won many games without any creatures in the opening hand. If you have good selection of burn spells in the hand you keep.
If you have burn spells and a eidlon you keep.
As much as having a 1 drop creature is nice ( GG or Swifty as actually have haste) its not nearly as important as the above implies.
Personally I tried Nactl and 60% of the time it did more damage to me than my opponent due to the required fetching and shocking.
However, if both had the same win rate when played optimally, my instinct would be to play nacatl-less burn, because I like consistency too and I think the optimal plays are easier to attain with a nacatl-less build.
Thank you for admitting you're trading consistency for explosiveness.
I'd rather be consistent.
Well, you're welcome, and thank you for helping me clarifying my points.
Well, this debate got combustible at times, but I'm glad that we've narrowed the Wild Nacatl issue down to being about consistency vs. explosiveness. I'll side with consistency, personally.
It's comical to me that the result is "consistency vs. explosiveness" yet I'm somehow wrong to point out that the expectation value of Nacatl is something to look at and compare. As if those cases where Nacatl just dies don't represent "inconsistency" and the statement that you only want it on T1 doesn't represent "explosiveness".
It's comical to me that the result is "consistency vs. explosiveness" yet I'm somehow wrong to point out that the expectation value of Nacatl is something to look at and compare. As if those cases where Nacatl just dies don't represent "inconsistency" and the statement that you only want it on T1 doesn't represent "explosiveness".
No, you're absolutely right. I guess you were wording it wrong.
It's comical to me that the result is "consistency vs. explosiveness" yet I'm somehow wrong to point out that the expectation value of Nacatl is something to look at and compare. As if those cases where Nacatl just dies don't represent "inconsistency" and the statement that you only want it on T1 doesn't represent "explosiveness".
For a 'combo' deck like burn, I prefer to reliably kill by opponent by turn 4/5 then to inconsistently win on turn 3 or turn 7. This is due to my control background where consistency is incredibly important. I see no point trading consistency for explosiveness when the explosivity payoff is nowhere near as good as other decks (Grishoalbrand). If you want to have inconsistent explosive starts, there are better decks than burn.
Taking this list to a small event this weekend. Added a Smash to Smithreens in the side on top of 4 D-Rev's because I expect a healthy amount of Foundry based decks. Otherwise it's a really standard list.
If I made any changes, I'd want a 4th Searing Blaze. But so far it's been fine without it. Control, the matchup where it's usually a dead card, is spiking up again anywhere,
Is the Reality Hemorrhage for Firewalker specifically? I would have thought Path was enough, but perhaps if there are Etched Champions, Hemorrhage is decent.
I expect Etched Champion to be back in force - Affinity's #1 concern is no longer racing an unfair aggro deck, but instead keeping its guys alive long enough to cash in on its damage potential. That said, Eldrazi hasn't gone away, so Master of Etherium will still be in the 75. The exact mix probably depends on the pilot and the meta. In any case, Pyrite Spellbomb or Reality Hemorrhage probably give you more juice than Path to Exile against Etched Champion, while still taking care of Kor Firewalker (and Master of Waves, to some extent).
It's interesting because I play Nacatl as a 2-of in order to increase the consistency.
I found I win a lot more game when I start with an aggressive t1 creature (aggressive = not Lavamancer)
With 10 aggressive 1 drop, you have ~74% (as opposed to 65% with only Swifty/GGuide)
I din't like having 12, because while it does raise the odds of having one on turn 1, it also raises the odds of top decking them later on, where they are nowhere near as useful, I found that 10 was a good compromise between the two
Of course; I would rather play 5 swifty and 5 goblin... but since that's cheating I'll settle on the 2 Nacatl for now
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What's your plan?" Gideon asked.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Playing 2 Nacatls is worse than playing 4. Not playing 4 means you're a lot less likely to see it T1, which is when you need it. Taylor Swiftspear and Goblin Guide are better than Nacatl not on T1 because they have haste and will get damage in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWR Control
Legacy: W D&T
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, it depends on how many white spells you want to play.
This link is useful to get an idea on how many mana sources you want to play a certain number of colored spells.
http://bopmtg-bopmtg.rhcloud.com//blog/mana-base-probabilities
For example, if you only want 4 boros charm, then 10-11 white sources seem sufficient to have 90% chance of getting your white mana in time. If you play 4 boros charm and 4 lightning helix, you should go up to 13 white sources.
I'm not even mentioning sideboard options : Path to exile, wear/tear, stony silence, rest in peace, kor firewalker (you'd need many lands for this last one !)...
In your shoes, I would try to get 4 sacred foundry first, and then as many red fetches as possible (starting with wooded foothills and bloodstained mire, get them now, they just rotated out of standard).
For instance you could play :
4 boros charm
4 lightning helix
4 clifftop retreat
2-4 sacred foundry
5-7 fetches
7 mountain
I did the same and it works good enough because you can fetch Sacred Foundry only down side is that you can't fetch a basic mountain.
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
So again, this depends on your build. The spells you want to play will influence your mana base, and vice-versa.
Then you didn't read it. My statement about 1/3-2/3 was a rough initial estimate without doing math. The 0.55 is from doing the math for the probability that your opponent has a 1 mana way to kill Nacatl given that they've seen 8 cards and that they have 4 copies of that card in their deck. It's clear that the card isn't lightning bolt on a stick. Try actually reading this time. Perhaps try to not lie about my points?
It is very easy to obtain accurate numbers for this probability. It's called the hypergeometric function. The difficult part is that there are other outcomes. For instance, maybe they play a blocker. Maybe that blocker is a Goyf and your Nacatl is immediately outclassed, or maybe they chump it with a Sakura Tribe Elder. Maybe you only get your Nacatl to 2/2 (maybe only 1/1 off Copperline). Maybe it ends up dealing 6. Maybe your opener has a single Mountain and you've effectively mulliganed to 6 even though you're holding 7 cards. Maybe you draw it on T2, maybe you draw it later. There's a lot that can change that baseline estimate using a hypergeometric function. I do not believe that these things will shift the result significantly.
You acted as if what happens after turn 3 or 4 is irrelevant. It's not. Nacatl is marginal if you can cast it turn 1. It is garbage after that. You want to talk about dishonesty? Actual Burn games come down to topdecks all the time. It is a mistake to add more cards to your deck that lose the game unless they are extremely powerful early. Nacatl isn't.
No you haven't. You're handwaving it all away. I'm still waiting on your concrete justification for why you drop a 3 damage spell to play something that's worth less than 3 damage.
You contradict yourself left and right. You argued with me when I said Nacatl Burn is a different deck (Zoo-Burn hybrid) with a different strategy. You then say that it is a different deck with a different strategy. Which is it?
You also acquiesced to the idea that Nacatl is higher variance, which is really the same thing as saying "you only want it T1 to be explosive, after that it's a dead card" yet you reject the idea that adding 4 more bad topdecks has that effect. Which is it?
At this point it's obvious that you're just going to preach about your pet card, ignore requests for concrete evidence that your pet card is worth playing, and act as if everyone around you is being closed-minded by not testing it with you. Several people including myself have tested it and found it to be severely lacking.
I won't be responding to you further, because it is clear that you aren't interested in reading any well thought out comment that doesn't support your pet card.
Wait, I'm confused.
Because, as you said, Nacatl has a slight inconsistency. So if you're playing Nacatl then you're following your instinct (and ignoring others' testing and supporting statements) and doing something less consistent.
Sorry if it was unclear. The "and" here applied to Jex, but should be an "or" in general.
I'm saying that
a) consistency is not the only important factor for burn, speed is important too. (this is a major reason of splashing colors)
b) the best burn deck to play in a given metagame is the one that has the best compromise between speed and consistency (there are other factors, like answers to niche strategies, but let us ignore this point for
the sake of argument).
c) to determine the best compromise in b), one needs much testing with several builds.
d) if you have to play a tournament tomorrow and did not have the time to test enough to find the best build, I advise Jex (and everybody) to either
d') play the deck you are used to (that's what I mean by instinct)
d'') or play the more consistent deck, because it's less complicated to play (less variance, less crucial mulligan decisions, successive games are more alike)
So for many people, d') and d'') coincide and mean play nacatl-less burn, and that's a fine choice !
From my testing, I believe that the best compromise tends to a Nacatl Burn build, so that's what I would play to a tournament tomorrow.
However, if both had the same win rate when played optimally, my instinct would be to play nacatl-less burn, because I like consistency too and I think the optimal plays are easier to attain with a nacatl-less build.
Thank you for admitting you're trading consistency for explosiveness.
I'd rather be consistent.
Im not sure what this is in reply to
Well, you're welcome, and thank you for helping me clarifying my points.
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
No, you're absolutely right. I guess you were wording it wrong.
1-word summaries work best.
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
UWR Control
Legacy:
W D&T
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
2 Grim Lavamancer
Face Melters
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Atarka's Command
4 Boros Charm
2 Searing Blaze
2 Lightning Helix
2 Skullcrack
4 Arid Mesa
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Mountain
3 Sacred Foundry
2 Stomping Ground
4 Wooded Foothills
And The Rest
2 Deflecting Palm
4 Destructive Revelry
1 Grafdigger's Cage
2 Kor Firewalker
2 Path to Exile
1 Reality Hemorrhage
1 Searing Blaze
1 Smash to Smithereens
1 Torpor Orb
If I made any changes, I'd want a 4th Searing Blaze. But so far it's been fine without it. Control, the matchup where it's usually a dead card, is spiking up again anywhere,
UWR Control
Legacy:
W D&T
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
I found I win a lot more game when I start with an aggressive t1 creature (aggressive = not Lavamancer)
With 10 aggressive 1 drop, you have ~74% (as opposed to 65% with only Swifty/GGuide)
I din't like having 12, because while it does raise the odds of having one on turn 1, it also raises the odds of top decking them later on, where they are nowhere near as useful, I found that 10 was a good compromise between the two
Of course; I would rather play 5 swifty and 5 goblin... but since that's cheating I'll settle on the 2 Nacatl for now
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
UWR Control
Legacy:
W D&T