I don't think that would be a good idea. Burn can't mulligan aggressively, because you run out of threat density in your hand and you have no good way to recover by drawing cards.
I just want to voice that I agree with elconquistador1985 on what generally classifies as a fair or unfair deck. While it's true that basically no viable deck in Legacy is completely fair, Aether Vial and Force of Will decks are about as fair as they come. I would suggest to magic geek that Force of Will is the card that keeps Legacy as fair as it generally is, and to imagine what the field would look like without that card before he labels its inclusion as an unfair one.
Burn is still a viable deck in Legacy because of its matchups against aforementioned fair decks. Specifically: the more Force of Will is being played in your field, the better off Burn probably is.
I would also suggest to magic geek that they not fixate so much on the Burn versus Depths matchup. Depths is intended to punch through the UW Miracles deck which is basically Jace, StP, Terminus, and a bunch of cantrips to find them. We have even less defense than that. Even if the entire SB was devoted towards beating Depths, I wouldn't expect this matchup to reach 50-50. If you can't accept losing to Depths at least 2/3 of the time, you probably need to switch decks.
I was considering what Cainsson said about the effect of the London Mulligan, and think I agree with elconquistador1985 as well. Because Burn is a critical-mass deck rather than a key-card deck, Mulligans will always hurt and you want to take few of them. Playing fewer lands means keeping more 6 card hands than 7, and there are very few sixes for us that are better than a mediocre 7.
Edit: I missed ox4's comment. Goblin Recruiter allowed a win that was absurdly fast and reliable for it's day, which took forever to actually execute (because you basically stacked the deck). While it might not be overpowering now, it is still potentially really annoying for the last reason and so I'm fine if it stays on the list. As for Iona in Reanimator, you may have noticed the card is often in the sideboard or not present at all. That's because that as good as it is against Burn, it's pretty poor against most other decks which can either fight it with discard, countermagic, or present answers in multiple colors (usually Jace + either StP or Edicts), or which have Karakas. You probably should lump Reanimator in with Depths decks and Show and Tell decks as matchups that are extremely unfavorable for Burn, and accept that.
Burn is still a viable deck in Legacy because of its matchups against aforementioned fair decks. Specifically: the more Force of Will is being played in your field, the better off Burn probably is.
This is a very accurate statement. Burn's viability depends on both dodging combo and having blue decks around it fighting the combo decks. Burn is a good deck, but I've found that when a local meta is full of people playing stuff like Oops All Spells, Belcher, and Reanimator and there are no fair blue decks to serve as a check on that, you're just donating your entry fee by playing Burn. You'll never cast 7 or 8 mana of Burn spells before Oops All Spells flips their deck over.
The reason FoW is unfair is because it can say No, at any time, whenever.
The reason burn can beat decks that play 4x FoW is because there is no critical spell to say no to.
Depths is the combo deck I need to worry about. All the others just don't seem as backbreakingly awful, or as common. I reckon I should have enough ridiculous SB plan to pull even, provided I play it better. And if I don't, I am playin' more.
Burn Mulligans badly because it needs to resolve enough damage spells, and having less of them means it takes longer to win. Burn can still draw and cast a couple of high damage initial creatures, like Swifty or Gobbo, but it gets hopeful quickly. This is a really strong reason to play Barbarian Rings instead of a couple of burn spells. Aint no way I am going down to just 16 mountains.
You're still mixing up the concepts of a fair card and a fair deck. Words mean things, and the phrase "fair deck" means what the community that uses it says it means. There are plenty of fair decks in Legacy, and several are among the best decks in the format. Your definition of "fair deck" is simply incorrect.
The reason Burn can beat fair blue (and non-blue) decks is because they're playing for a grindy long game while durdling around with stuff like Ponder, while Burn is faster, punishes their manabase to the tune of 8 damage, and blanks some of their key pieces such as Wasteland and other kinds of removal because we are so creature light. Force of Will is a necessary evil to protect against combo, but it's quite bad when it's costing you 2 cards and 1 life to counter a Lightning Bolt.
Yeah, I spoze I do. I posted my burn decklist, and my interesting results using weird sideboarding. Including my play mistakes. Alpine Moon & Island of Wak-Wak are spicy, because Dark Depths sure seems unfair, and ubiquitous. Relabelling "combo" as 'Unfair' sounds odd, but, go ahead. But, it doesn't make FoW fair.
Believing you are going to deal 8 damage using Price of Progress seems extremely hopeful against decks playing Ponder. Price will be the first card discarded, and the spell counterspelled by FoW. At least, that's what happens to me.
Yeah, I spoze I do. I posted my burn decklist, and my interesting results using weird sideboarding. Including my play mistakes. Alpine Moon & Island of Wak-Wak are spicy, because Dark Depths sure seems unfair, and ubiquitous. Relabelling "combo" as 'Unfair' sounds odd, but, go ahead. But, it doesn't make FoW fair.
Believing you are going to deal 8 damage using Price of Progress seems extremely hopeful against decks playing Ponder. Price will be the first card discarded, and the spell counterspelled by FoW. At least, that's what happens to me.
Being "on the fairer end of the spectrum' sounds like Asperger's, not Burn.
It's one of the problems with burn. Some of our answers like POP, ensnaring bridge, etc are easy targets for counter magic.
I do believe Alpine Moon was a good card against dark depths for now. If blood moon was 2 mana it could be a better card, but it's not. I'm not sold on Island of Wak-Wak being a good card because it's target is limited to flying creatures. I would go with Maze of Ith, 200 dollars cheaper, targets not limited. Sure it untaps the creature but we burn players should have 2 to 3 creatures in play.
On the other hand, I do feel that splashing a color is much better then playing a unfetachable lands that offer no mana (Wak-Wak and Ith)...
LOL @ magic geek editing his post, removing the part where he asked me to post my decklist and then realizing his foot was in his mouth when I called his bluff. Classic.
Burn should never be playing a colorless land like Wak-Wak or Maze. Lands/Depths is just a bad matchup, as is most fast combo for Burn. Not sure why you're trying to dilute your sideboard to potentially assist a matchup that will still be bad.
LOL @ magic geek editing his post, removing the part where he asked me to post my decklist and then realizing his foot was in his mouth when I called his bluff. Classic.
Burn should never be playing a colorless land like Wak-Wak or Maze. Lands/Depths is just a bad matchup, as is most fast combo for Burn. Not sure why you're trying to dilute your sideboard to potentially assist a matchup that will still be bad.
Some players like to play their decks instead of folding to a bad matchup. I do agree manaless lands are hard to play in this type of deck (sorry I don't see them as colorless lands), but I feel that MG wants to find away to win against Lands/Depths. Either because of playing in a tournament or against a friend/jerk who is playing Depths on the kitchen table. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with splash in legacy burn.
Sorry, yes manaless would've been a better term than colorless. In a deck that already runs so few lands, I don't see manaless cards being beneficial. I just don't see how devoting all of your sb slots to potentially improve a particularly bad matchup is the way to go for competitive Legacy. If you just want to beat a friend at the kitchen table, by all means, go for it. Maybe take that discussion to the non-competitive threads?
Also, not a personal attack, but he's notorious for being toxic/stubborn/passive aggressive in every thread. Gets very tiresome.
Ah, . . what?
GPash, I asked to see your decklist, and you typed one up.
I asked you to be on topic, instead of just insulting, and to see if you actually had something useful in your decklist to deal with my problems. They don't. And somehow me editing my posts is bad? What?
.
I have lost repeatedly in legacy TOURNAMENTS to dark depths. (That is what my posts say.)
I am tired of losing to Dark Depths, in Tournaments. On turn 2.
.
Your decklist gets utterly crushed by Dark Depths. Even worse than my original decklist. I mean, totally, absolutely destroyed. You only stand a chance if their deck fails. Because you only play 18 lands, so even when you draw an Ensnaring bridge you quite likely wont be able to cast it on turn 3.
Or it will be discarded.
Or it will be destroyed on the off chance you actually survive till turn 3, and you draw it, and you play 3 mountains.
In the 15 person tournaments I currently play in, at least 2 people play DD. And they always do well.
So, if I want a chance to win the tournament, I need answers.
Or I can stop playing burn in tournaments.
You want to call me "notorious for being toxic/stubborn/passive aggressive" , well, OK, sure.
Your solution to the problems I am typing about when I play burn in Legacy Tournaments is . . . absent.
Your solution is to give up, and accept burn can't win, to be 'non-competitive".
Thanks, but I think I will pass on your solution.
GPash -> Burn should never be playing a colorless land like Wak-Wak or Maze.
Delver is a big card in Legacy, right?
Island of Wak-Wak also works stopping Delver inflicting damage, when attacking into it. Kill it, and then hurt the player.
Maze of Ith does not do that, and Karakas does not effect Delver. Other solutions get counter-spelled. Maze & Waky do not.
( I am trying out 2xMaze, as written in my decklist )
Sure, Island of Wak-Wak is an expensive, obscure card from Arabian nights. Is that a problem?
This is page 126 of a burn thread, should I be writing about lightning bolt?
GPash -> "Not sure why you're trying to dilute your sideboard to potentially assist a matchup that will still be bad."
Alpine Moon beats Dark Depths.
Don't play it if you want, but I wish to be competitive in the Legacy Tournaments I play in.
Sideboard cards are specifically for beating bad match ups, at least, that is what I use them for.
I spoze I could just accept defeat, like you recommend, against Dark Depths. Alpine Moon is the very definition of a FANTASTIC sideboard card.
It stops DD COLD.
In the 15 person tournaments I currently play in, at least 2 people play DD. And they always do well.
So, if I want a chance to win the tournament, I need answers.
Or I can stop playing burn in tournaments.
If your meta is loaded with combo decks that Burn is weak to, then yes, the answer is "don't play Burn".
Sideboard cards are specifically for beating bad match ups, at least, that is what I use them for.
I don't think it's a good idea to play extremely situational cards like this in order to hope you beat what amounts to an unwinnable matchup. You're almost always in the hole 0-1 against something like Depths or Reanimator, and now you're playing very narrowly targeted sideboard cards that you have to hit twice in a row in the next two games or it's over anyway. Are you going to mulligan aggressively for your sideboard cards in these situations? I You're better off accepting that an unwinnable matchup is unwinnable and instead trying to make OK/good matchups better.
Q-> Are you going to mulligan aggressively for your sideboard cards in these situations?
A-> Yes.
Job done. Move along.
If your sideboard is to 'make OK/good matchups better.' you have already won the first game, and will likely win one of the next two.
So, You do not need to sideboard.
If Alpine Moon comes up twice, I win against DD. Mulligan to 4 is a fine way to win.
Q-> Are you going to mulligan aggressively for your sideboard cards in these situations?
A-> Yes.
Job done. Move along.
If your sideboard is to 'make OK/good matchups better.' you have already won the first game, and will likely win one of the next two.
So, You do not need to sideboard.
If Alpine Moon comes up twice, I win against DD. Mulligan to 4 is a fine way to win.
I anticipate that your mulligan strategy is a losing one. Winning game 1 does not imply that you need nothing in game 2. Making a 50:50 matchup 60:40 post-board is what your sideboard should be doing. Making a 5:95 matchup 10:90 is not a productive use of a sideboard slot.
Thoughtseize, Duress, Abrupt Decay, and Assassin's Trophy contradict your last point. Mulligan to 4, play Mountain->Alpine Moon (proudly saying "Gotcha! Good game!"). Pass the turn, opponent blows it up. Good luck assembling 20 damage before you get punched in the face by a 20/20 with 2 cards in hand to start turn 2. You have to draw Alpine Moon fast enough in those games and you have to dodge discard and removal for it, otherwise you're done. You should accept that you're just done in that matchup anyway and use your sideboard to make other matchups better. You're also describing this as if you're in your local meta, not taking such cards to a large tournament. While you may be able to "gotcha" someone in game 2 when they've never seen your deck before, you're only going to say "gotcha" to your local opponents once before they know what you're bringing in and they'll sideboard accordingly.
You've added some exceptionally bad and narrow cards in an effort to "runner-runner gut-shot straight flush draw" your way to victory in those situations. That's not a good idea.
"Good luck assembling 20 damage before you get punched in the face by a 20/20"
Yes. That is what I have stated, repeatedly.
You are cool with just losing to Dark Depths. Fair enough.
Good to know you understand the problem, and have no solution, other than giving up.
.
Unlike every other Burn player, I now fancy my chances against a Dark Depths match up.
I am very much looking forward to it.
Playing a rift bolt/creature turn 1, and then a turn 2 Light up The Stage into an Alpine Moon/Maze/Wacky seems pretty good too.
On the play, Duress & Thoughtseize don't work on Alpine Moon, as stated earlier.
But will always work on Your Ensnaring Bridge.
Duress & Thoughtseize also do not work on Maze & Wak-Wak, and neither does Abrupt Decay.
It's like I have already expressly examined those cards, and selected cards that beat them.
So, everyone will always draw the Assasin's trophy I spoze, every game, right Elco?
.
The last DD I played against was Green/Red.
All four problem cards you list are Green/Black, but were in other DD I have lost to in tournaments.
Assuming your decklist is the one in your footnote, you have even less chance against Dark Depths than GPash.
2x Ensnaring Bridge has basically zero chance, and they die to all four cards you list, assuming you get the 3rd mana.
Your Ensnaring Bridges are just woeful in this match up, against the cards YOU list.
So, everyone will al If Alpine Moon comes up twice, I win against DD. Mulligan to 4 is a fine way to win. ways draw the Assasin's trophy I spoze, every game, right Elco?
I was talking about the same specific card that you were talking about: Alpine Moon. It's kind of ridiculous for you to restrict the discussion to that card when you say "If Alpine Moon comes up twice, I win against DD. Mulligan to 4 is a fine way to win." and then chastise me for staying within that restricted discussion.
What other decks are you happy to just lose to?
We've been over this already: fast combo decks. I'm not going to go out of my way sideboarding bad/narrow cards for those. I'll play Pyrostatic Pillar for Storm because it's a good card and not narrow. I'll play Faerie Macabre for Reanimator because it's a good card and not narrow. The best strategy for sideboarding is to play broadly applicable cards that can help you somewhat in those and other matchups, along with cards that make winnable matchups stronger. It's not possible to effectively compete against all decks with a 15 card sideboard, so I hope to play against fair decks and accept defeat in unwinnable matchups. If Burn is bad in a given meta (ie. there are no fair decks that police the "got force? I win" decks), the right answer is to not play Burn because you're donating your entry fee. If you were hoping to pick up Burn and win 60% of your matches against any given deck, you're going to have a bad time.
The decks that are known as "Dark Depths" tend to be GB (or more colors) decks. The RG deck that plays Depths isn't called "Dark Depths". It's called "Lands", and they can Crop Rotation for Wasteland or other land destruction to get rid of whatever non-basic you have. They can also go get Glacial Chasm.
Alpine moon beats Glacial Chasm.
(That's how I beat a deck playing the magic card Dark Depths in game 2 last encounter, as written above.)
Alpine Moon does beat the card Dark Depths.
Try naming any other red cards that do that, and cost 1 mana. Or don't.
You accept just losing to the card Dark Depths, and that's fine.
You want to improve matches you already mostly win, and that's fine too.
Repeating your mantra on how you lose, and abandon burn, is fine.
But it aint how I play. And that is fine too.
And thanks for teaching me all about those 4 cards you singled out.
Especially since on page 125 I wrote . . .
My land solutions get destroyed by wastelands. (fetched by sylvan S / Expedition map)
My Path to Exile gets discarded by Thoughtseize/Duress/Inquiz or ignored by Sylvan safekeeper
My Alpine Moon gets killed by Abrupt decay / Assasins trophy
Ensnaring Bridge is pointless.
The land to cast it goes away, or the bridge gets discarded, or destroyed.
Once again, you characterized your Alpine Moon as an auto-win, and now you're chastising me for correcting you. Then you're bringing up what amounts to magical christmasland sideboard scenarios where you draw copies of multiple different hate cards with your Burn deck that has no card advantage and when you're willing to mulligan to 4 in search of 1 card.
I'm going to echo what GPash's sentiment, if you're including such bad cards in a skewed local meta, then perhaps this isn't the thread for that discussion because this thread deals with competitive Legacy Burn. Island of Wak-wak is not relevant to discussions of competitive Legacy Burn. Furthermore, considering you're evidently unwilling to listen to genuine advice on your deckbuilding decisions, I won't be offering any more.
Honestly, just leave him be or this will continue ad nauseam. If his goal is to win a 15-person local Legacy event, then let him run 15 Alpine Moons in his sideboard. My point is that most people in this thread probably have a grander vision of competitiveness and aren't satisfied with giving up ground on winnable matchups just to overcome one troublesome deck. Apparently he's got it all figured out now, so the Depths discussion can end. Alpine Moon = Willy Wonka's golden ticket.
And you never asked me for input on how to beat Depths. You simply asked for my decklist, which I provided. Then you proceeded to edit your post and remove the part where you asked me for my list because I called your bluff. Wish there was an option for hiding people's posts.
When facing Dark Depths with Burn, you just lose.
And both of you are happy to just lose.
I find that very strange.
Yes, I am trying to win a 15 man legacy tournament that features a number of people playing the card 'Dark Depths'.
Is this the place to type about playing Burn in Legacy tournaments?
Your decklist, GPash, gets steamrollered by DD, so does Elco's.
Completely flattened.
Personally, I would prefer if I could just delete all of my posts on this thread.
Neither of you have been even remotely helpful, beyond 'Give Up'.
Zero cards suggested, and pointy words about specific problem cards that were already stated as the reasons I was sideboarding the ones I chose.
Island of Wak-Wak is unique.
I may be the only player to have ever played it in Legacy.
You have not played it, played against it, or own one, and yet you know it does not work.
Fascinating.
Alpine Moon seems similar.
(And has already won me a game in a competitive Legacy Tournament.)
Thanks for your advice, but, 'Give up' is not something I am very good at.
I have just shown you how to do the impossible.
I think I can now beat DD with Burn in Legacy, a deck and format you claim to play.
And your only response is 'GO AWAY!'
Together, over a long series of posts, You suggest no other possible cards, and your only strategy is 'give up'.
I find that amazing, and quite funny.
Lets assume I believe you; why would anyone draft and play Wak-Wak in a cube draft?
I have owned it for over 20 years, and never even come close to playing it before.
When I started playing Burn in Legacy tournaments, I used to lose to a Blue Black reanimator.
Regularly he would get a Griselbrand into play on turn 2.
He plays Ponder, Force of Will and targeted discard.
Isn't Burn meant to beat FoW decks?
The thing is you're the only one who is hellbent on beating Depths. You found the answer. Congrats. Good for you. Nobody else cares.
Forgive me, it's in an EDH deck, not my cube. I've been playing the game since inception, so you're not going to win the "I've been playing longer so I know more than you" battle. You've owned it for 20 years and never considered it for cube yet you'd play it in Legacy. Smart.
Yeah, now Reanimator is mostly RB, so no FoW, and Burn still loses to Reanimator. It wasn't ever FoW that Burn feared out of Reanimator, so your argument is pointless. Reanimator isn't a FoW deck - it's a deck that has blue and thus has FoW. Burn beats the FAIR FoW decks. But then again, you've proven time and time again you don't know what fair means.
Burn is still a viable deck in Legacy because of its matchups against aforementioned fair decks. Specifically: the more Force of Will is being played in your field, the better off Burn probably is.
I would also suggest to magic geek that they not fixate so much on the Burn versus Depths matchup. Depths is intended to punch through the UW Miracles deck which is basically Jace, StP, Terminus, and a bunch of cantrips to find them. We have even less defense than that. Even if the entire SB was devoted towards beating Depths, I wouldn't expect this matchup to reach 50-50. If you can't accept losing to Depths at least 2/3 of the time, you probably need to switch decks.
I was considering what Cainsson said about the effect of the London Mulligan, and think I agree with elconquistador1985 as well. Because Burn is a critical-mass deck rather than a key-card deck, Mulligans will always hurt and you want to take few of them. Playing fewer lands means keeping more 6 card hands than 7, and there are very few sixes for us that are better than a mediocre 7.
Edit: I missed ox4's comment. Goblin Recruiter allowed a win that was absurdly fast and reliable for it's day, which took forever to actually execute (because you basically stacked the deck). While it might not be overpowering now, it is still potentially really annoying for the last reason and so I'm fine if it stays on the list. As for Iona in Reanimator, you may have noticed the card is often in the sideboard or not present at all. That's because that as good as it is against Burn, it's pretty poor against most other decks which can either fight it with discard, countermagic, or present answers in multiple colors (usually Jace + either StP or Edicts), or which have Karakas. You probably should lump Reanimator in with Depths decks and Show and Tell decks as matchups that are extremely unfavorable for Burn, and accept that.
Modern: Merfolk UU // Green Devotion GG // SkRed Red RR
Legacy: Death & Taxes WW // Burn RR // Death's Shadow Delver UB
Commander: Brago UW // Karlov WB
This is a very accurate statement. Burn's viability depends on both dodging combo and having blue decks around it fighting the combo decks. Burn is a good deck, but I've found that when a local meta is full of people playing stuff like Oops All Spells, Belcher, and Reanimator and there are no fair blue decks to serve as a check on that, you're just donating your entry fee by playing Burn. You'll never cast 7 or 8 mana of Burn spells before Oops All Spells flips their deck over.
The reason burn can beat decks that play 4x FoW is because there is no critical spell to say no to.
Depths is the combo deck I need to worry about. All the others just don't seem as backbreakingly awful, or as common. I reckon I should have enough ridiculous SB plan to pull even, provided I play it better. And if I don't, I am playin' more.
Burn Mulligans badly because it needs to resolve enough damage spells, and having less of them means it takes longer to win. Burn can still draw and cast a couple of high damage initial creatures, like Swifty or Gobbo, but it gets hopeful quickly. This is a really strong reason to play Barbarian Rings instead of a couple of burn spells. Aint no way I am going down to just 16 mountains.
The reason Burn can beat fair blue (and non-blue) decks is because they're playing for a grindy long game while durdling around with stuff like Ponder, while Burn is faster, punishes their manabase to the tune of 8 damage, and blanks some of their key pieces such as Wasteland and other kinds of removal because we are so creature light. Force of Will is a necessary evil to protect against combo, but it's quite bad when it's costing you 2 cards and 1 life to counter a Lightning Bolt.
On the relative scale of "fairness" in Legacy, Burn is definitely on the fairer end of the spectrum.
Believing you are going to deal 8 damage using Price of Progress seems extremely hopeful against decks playing Ponder. Price will be the first card discarded, and the spell counterspelled by FoW. At least, that's what happens to me.
4 Chain Lightning
4 Skewer the Critics
4 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Fireblast
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
18 Mountain
3 Exquisite Firecraft
3 Faerie Macabre
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
3 Smash to Smithereens
1 Grafdigger's Cage
3 Ensnaring Bridge
It's one of the problems with burn. Some of our answers like POP, ensnaring bridge, etc are easy targets for counter magic.
I do believe Alpine Moon was a good card against dark depths for now. If blood moon was 2 mana it could be a better card, but it's not. I'm not sold on Island of Wak-Wak being a good card because it's target is limited to flying creatures. I would go with Maze of Ith, 200 dollars cheaper, targets not limited. Sure it untaps the creature but we burn players should have 2 to 3 creatures in play.
On the other hand, I do feel that splashing a color is much better then playing a unfetachable lands that offer no mana (Wak-Wak and Ith)...
Burn should never be playing a colorless land like Wak-Wak or Maze. Lands/Depths is just a bad matchup, as is most fast combo for Burn. Not sure why you're trying to dilute your sideboard to potentially assist a matchup that will still be bad.
Some players like to play their decks instead of folding to a bad matchup. I do agree manaless lands are hard to play in this type of deck (sorry I don't see them as colorless lands), but I feel that MG wants to find away to win against Lands/Depths. Either because of playing in a tournament or against a friend/jerk who is playing Depths on the kitchen table. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with splash in legacy burn.
PS... lets omit the personal attacks...
Also, not a personal attack, but he's notorious for being toxic/stubborn/passive aggressive in every thread. Gets very tiresome.
GPash, I asked to see your decklist, and you typed one up.
I asked you to be on topic, instead of just insulting, and to see if you actually had something useful in your decklist to deal with my problems. They don't. And somehow me editing my posts is bad? What?
.
I have lost repeatedly in legacy TOURNAMENTS to dark depths. (That is what my posts say.)
I am tired of losing to Dark Depths, in Tournaments. On turn 2.
.
Your decklist gets utterly crushed by Dark Depths. Even worse than my original decklist. I mean, totally, absolutely destroyed. You only stand a chance if their deck fails. Because you only play 18 lands, so even when you draw an Ensnaring bridge you quite likely wont be able to cast it on turn 3.
Or it will be discarded.
Or it will be destroyed on the off chance you actually survive till turn 3, and you draw it, and you play 3 mountains.
In the 15 person tournaments I currently play in, at least 2 people play DD. And they always do well.
So, if I want a chance to win the tournament, I need answers.
Or I can stop playing burn in tournaments.
You want to call me "notorious for being toxic/stubborn/passive aggressive" , well, OK, sure.
Your solution to the problems I am typing about when I play burn in Legacy Tournaments is . . . absent.
Your solution is to give up, and accept burn can't win, to be 'non-competitive".
Thanks, but I think I will pass on your solution.
GPash -> Burn should never be playing a colorless land like Wak-Wak or Maze.
Delver is a big card in Legacy, right?
Island of Wak-Wak also works stopping Delver inflicting damage, when attacking into it. Kill it, and then hurt the player.
Maze of Ith does not do that, and Karakas does not effect Delver. Other solutions get counter-spelled. Maze & Waky do not.
( I am trying out 2xMaze, as written in my decklist )
Sure, Island of Wak-Wak is an expensive, obscure card from Arabian nights. Is that a problem?
This is page 126 of a burn thread, should I be writing about lightning bolt?
GPash -> "Not sure why you're trying to dilute your sideboard to potentially assist a matchup that will still be bad."
Alpine Moon beats Dark Depths.
Don't play it if you want, but I wish to be competitive in the Legacy Tournaments I play in.
Sideboard cards are specifically for beating bad match ups, at least, that is what I use them for.
I spoze I could just accept defeat, like you recommend, against Dark Depths.
Alpine Moon is the very definition of a FANTASTIC sideboard card.
It stops DD COLD.
If your meta is loaded with combo decks that Burn is weak to, then yes, the answer is "don't play Burn".
I don't think it's a good idea to play extremely situational cards like this in order to hope you beat what amounts to an unwinnable matchup. You're almost always in the hole 0-1 against something like Depths or Reanimator, and now you're playing very narrowly targeted sideboard cards that you have to hit twice in a row in the next two games or it's over anyway. Are you going to mulligan aggressively for your sideboard cards in these situations? I You're better off accepting that an unwinnable matchup is unwinnable and instead trying to make OK/good matchups better.
A-> Yes.
Job done. Move along.
If your sideboard is to 'make OK/good matchups better.' you have already won the first game, and will likely win one of the next two.
So, You do not need to sideboard.
If Alpine Moon comes up twice, I win against DD. Mulligan to 4 is a fine way to win.
I anticipate that your mulligan strategy is a losing one. Winning game 1 does not imply that you need nothing in game 2. Making a 50:50 matchup 60:40 post-board is what your sideboard should be doing. Making a 5:95 matchup 10:90 is not a productive use of a sideboard slot.
Thoughtseize, Duress, Abrupt Decay, and Assassin's Trophy contradict your last point. Mulligan to 4, play Mountain->Alpine Moon (proudly saying "Gotcha! Good game!"). Pass the turn, opponent blows it up. Good luck assembling 20 damage before you get punched in the face by a 20/20 with 2 cards in hand to start turn 2. You have to draw Alpine Moon fast enough in those games and you have to dodge discard and removal for it, otherwise you're done. You should accept that you're just done in that matchup anyway and use your sideboard to make other matchups better. You're also describing this as if you're in your local meta, not taking such cards to a large tournament. While you may be able to "gotcha" someone in game 2 when they've never seen your deck before, you're only going to say "gotcha" to your local opponents once before they know what you're bringing in and they'll sideboard accordingly.
You've added some exceptionally bad and narrow cards in an effort to "runner-runner gut-shot straight flush draw" your way to victory in those situations. That's not a good idea.
Yes. That is what I have stated, repeatedly.
You are cool with just losing to Dark Depths. Fair enough.
Good to know you understand the problem, and have no solution, other than giving up.
.
Unlike every other Burn player, I now fancy my chances against a Dark Depths match up.
I am very much looking forward to it.
Playing a rift bolt/creature turn 1, and then a turn 2 Light up The Stage into an Alpine Moon/Maze/Wacky seems pretty good too.
On the play, Duress & Thoughtseize don't work on Alpine Moon, as stated earlier.
But will always work on Your Ensnaring Bridge.
Duress & Thoughtseize also do not work on Maze & Wak-Wak, and neither does Abrupt Decay.
It's like I have already expressly examined those cards, and selected cards that beat them.
So, everyone will always draw the Assasin's trophy I spoze, every game, right Elco?
.
The last DD I played against was Green/Red.
All four problem cards you list are Green/Black, but were in other DD I have lost to in tournaments.
Assuming your decklist is the one in your footnote, you have even less chance against Dark Depths than GPash.
2x Ensnaring Bridge has basically zero chance, and they die to all four cards you list, assuming you get the 3rd mana.
Your Ensnaring Bridges are just woeful in this match up, against the cards YOU list.
What other decks are you happy to just lose to?
I was talking about the same specific card that you were talking about: Alpine Moon. It's kind of ridiculous for you to restrict the discussion to that card when you say "If Alpine Moon comes up twice, I win against DD. Mulligan to 4 is a fine way to win." and then chastise me for staying within that restricted discussion.
We've been over this already: fast combo decks. I'm not going to go out of my way sideboarding bad/narrow cards for those. I'll play Pyrostatic Pillar for Storm because it's a good card and not narrow. I'll play Faerie Macabre for Reanimator because it's a good card and not narrow. The best strategy for sideboarding is to play broadly applicable cards that can help you somewhat in those and other matchups, along with cards that make winnable matchups stronger. It's not possible to effectively compete against all decks with a 15 card sideboard, so I hope to play against fair decks and accept defeat in unwinnable matchups. If Burn is bad in a given meta (ie. there are no fair decks that police the "got force? I win" decks), the right answer is to not play Burn because you're donating your entry fee. If you were hoping to pick up Burn and win 60% of your matches against any given deck, you're going to have a bad time.
The decks that are known as "Dark Depths" tend to be GB (or more colors) decks. The RG deck that plays Depths isn't called "Dark Depths". It's called "Lands", and they can Crop Rotation for Wasteland or other land destruction to get rid of whatever non-basic you have. They can also go get Glacial Chasm.
Alpine moon beats Glacial Chasm.
(That's how I beat a deck playing the magic card Dark Depths in game 2 last encounter, as written above.)
Alpine Moon does beat the card Dark Depths.
Try naming any other red cards that do that, and cost 1 mana. Or don't.
You accept just losing to the card Dark Depths, and that's fine.
You want to improve matches you already mostly win, and that's fine too.
Repeating your mantra on how you lose, and abandon burn, is fine.
But it aint how I play. And that is fine too.
And thanks for teaching me all about those 4 cards you singled out.
Especially since on page 125 I wrote . . .
Any other cards you want to explain to me?
I'm going to echo what GPash's sentiment, if you're including such bad cards in a skewed local meta, then perhaps this isn't the thread for that discussion because this thread deals with competitive Legacy Burn. Island of Wak-wak is not relevant to discussions of competitive Legacy Burn. Furthermore, considering you're evidently unwilling to listen to genuine advice on your deckbuilding decisions, I won't be offering any more.
And you never asked me for input on how to beat Depths. You simply asked for my decklist, which I provided. Then you proceeded to edit your post and remove the part where you asked me for my list because I called your bluff. Wish there was an option for hiding people's posts.
And both of you are happy to just lose.
I find that very strange.
Yes, I am trying to win a 15 man legacy tournament that features a number of people playing the card 'Dark Depths'.
Is this the place to type about playing Burn in Legacy tournaments?
Your decklist, GPash, gets steamrollered by DD, so does Elco's.
Completely flattened.
Personally, I would prefer if I could just delete all of my posts on this thread.
Neither of you have been even remotely helpful, beyond 'Give Up'.
Zero cards suggested, and pointy words about specific problem cards that were already stated as the reasons I was sideboarding the ones I chose.
Island of Wak-Wak is unique.
I may be the only player to have ever played it in Legacy.
You have not played it, played against it, or own one, and yet you know it does not work.
Fascinating.
Alpine Moon seems similar.
(And has already won me a game in a competitive Legacy Tournament.)
Thanks for your advice, but, 'Give up' is not something I am very good at.
You have your solution in Alpine Moon. No more discussion needed. You can leave the thread now.
I have just shown you how to do the impossible.
I think I can now beat DD with Burn in Legacy, a deck and format you claim to play.
And your only response is 'GO AWAY!'
Together, over a long series of posts, You suggest no other possible cards, and your only strategy is 'give up'.
I find that amazing, and quite funny.
Lets assume I believe you; why would anyone draft and play Wak-Wak in a cube draft?
I have owned it for over 20 years, and never even come close to playing it before.
When I started playing Burn in Legacy tournaments, I used to lose to a Blue Black reanimator.
Regularly he would get a Griselbrand into play on turn 2.
He plays Ponder, Force of Will and targeted discard.
Isn't Burn meant to beat FoW decks?
Forgive me, it's in an EDH deck, not my cube. I've been playing the game since inception, so you're not going to win the "I've been playing longer so I know more than you" battle. You've owned it for 20 years and never considered it for cube yet you'd play it in Legacy. Smart.
Yeah, now Reanimator is mostly RB, so no FoW, and Burn still loses to Reanimator. It wasn't ever FoW that Burn feared out of Reanimator, so your argument is pointless. Reanimator isn't a FoW deck - it's a deck that has blue and thus has FoW. Burn beats the FAIR FoW decks. But then again, you've proven time and time again you don't know what fair means.