Yeah, I understand running some free cantrips introduces more unknown variables when you're deciding to mull. But after your first turn when you burn the cantrips and see what the rest of your opener is, you have the same opening 7 to plan your 20 damage around. Further cantrips just immediately draw the next card (which is the same situation when your deck has no cantrips).
The only relevant cost to gitaxian probe/street wraith is information when you're mulling. Is that too much to pay for the ability to run nothing but 1 mana burn "spells" + blast and price of progress. This is the cost benefit question Im asking. The primary reason to run the cantrips is to replace the weaker burn spells not get information from probe.
Has anyone done statistical work to figure out how much cantrips affect your mulling decisions? I understand you would rather know than take a calculated risk. The odds in burn are quite well calculated too, 1/3 land 2/3 burn spells (some of the spells have some restrictions, the creatures most notably). Im only bringing this up because the primer presents the cantrip option as a strictly bad idea. Other combo decks use free cantrips for consistency and storm, why shouldn't burn use them just for consistency as well?
The cantrips also add to the graveyard for GLM. And probe gives you some information (not usually relevant except perhaps when you need to choose between all in on fireblast and pray for no counter or hope for topdecks). Street Wraith is another target for stifle and a creature in your yard for deathrite/goyf, which is a downside.
I also don't think flame rift is a terrible burn spell, the bolts and blast in particular are just much more effficient. Isn't the deck better off when it draws 3 lands 5 bolts and a blast in the first 3 turns on the play than the same -1 bolt +1 flame rift/vortex? (I mentioned vortex also in my original post because I think its much better as a sideboard option now, so much abrupt decay in the meta).
Well another thing about free cantrips is that even a bad burn spell is a better top deck. When you need to finish an opponent off the last thing you want to do is topdeck a probe and draw into a mountain.
I'm sure Obermeir has detailed statistics on the matter if you're interested in that side of the equation.
Yeah, I understand running some free cantrips introduces more unknown variables when you're deciding to mull. But after your first turn when you burn the cantrips and see what the rest of your opener is, you have the same opening 7 to plan your 20 damage around. Further cantrips just immediately draw the next card (which is the same situation when your deck has no cantrips).
The only relevant cost to gitaxian probe/street wraith is information when you're mulling. Is that too much to pay for the ability to run nothing but 1 mana burn "spells" + blast and price of progress. This is the cost benefit question Im asking. The primary reason to run the cantrips is to replace the weaker burn spells not get information from probe.
Has anyone done statistical work to figure out how much cantrips affect your mulling decisions? I understand you would rather know than take a calculated risk. The odds in burn are quite well calculated too, 1/3 land 2/3 burn spells (some of the spells have some restrictions, the creatures most notably). Im only bringing this up because the primer presents the cantrip option as a strictly bad idea. Other combo decks use free cantrips for consistency and storm, why shouldn't burn use them just for consistency as well?
The cantrips also add to the graveyard for GLM. And probe gives you some information (not usually relevant except perhaps when you need to choose between all in on fireblast and pray for no counter or hope for topdecks). Street Wraith is another target for stifle and a creature in your yard for deathrite/goyf, which is a downside.
I also don't think flame rift is a terrible burn spell, the bolts and blast in particular are just much more effficient. Isn't the deck better off when it draws 3 lands 5 bolts and a blast in the first 3 turns on the play than the same -1 bolt +1 flame rift/vortex? (I mentioned vortex also in my original post because I think its much better as a sideboard option now, so much abrupt decay in the meta).
Understandably, a burn spell is really just considered "bad" if it isn't as efficient as a Bolt or Fireblast. But reality is that we only have 20 of those spells available in Legacy (24 if you count Goblin Guide) so we need to fill the remaining slots with such. And for me a "bad" burn spell in hand is better than one potentially good one waiting to be drawn by a cantrip.
Cutting lands is out of the question. Even with a 21 land build, we sometimes run into mana problems, which is why we keep 3-cost spells to a bare minimum.
Vortex, for me, is still a necessary evil, with SFM into Batterskull still being a very significant part of the Legacy metagame. If people start moving away from lifelinkers for the most part, then we can probably start moving Sulfuric Vortex into the sideboard.
I don't know if anybody has ever done a statistical analysis of the impact of running multiple cantrips, but I will go with something I do know: Burn is not an engine deck, which a lot of people mistake it to be. Engine decks like Storm and Belcher get a lot of benefit from Cantrips as they need to draw the right components in order to get their engine running since their gameplan requires them to kill their opponent in a single turn. Burn doesn't do that - it spreads out the kill over several turns by resolving 6-7 spells in a timely manner, so it gets less benefit from running cantrips because you can afford to wait a turn to draw your next business spell (because you don't have a means to cheat your mana like Storm decks do)
It's the uncertainty factor that really makes it a dealbreaker for the case of Cantrips. I would argue that running less efficient Burn is actually more efficient for the deck than an inconsistent cantrip. At its best, a cantrip will draw into a Bolt or Fireblast; at its worst, you keep drawing into Land, whereas a "bad" burn spell will always do the same thing - deal damage.
I haven't even mentioned the unquantifyables that "bad" burn spells have (Vortex is an "I win" against some decks, Skullcrack stops pesky effects like Energy Field, Flame Rift bypasses Leyline of Sanctity, Price of Progress is a trump card against tri-color decks, etc.)
Well another thing about free cantrips is that even a bad burn spell is a better top deck. When you need to finish an opponent off the last thing you want to do is topdeck a probe and draw into a mountain.
I'm sure Obermeir has detailed statistics on the matter if you're interested in that side of the equation.
You have the same odds to draw a mountain or gas regardless, if you keep the ratio of lands to burn the same. The odds that change by using the cantrips are only the quality of the burn spell.
I used to MD Sulfuric Vortex, and it's not a bad plan, but I eventually took it out just because the card is so painfully slow. It's glacially slow. I do like how it gives the deck inevitability against certain cards, but the setback on the clock is going to be a very real difficulty much of the time.
The format's lifegain is pretty slow in getting online. Batterskull will not ever come down before turn 3. Jitte has a similar speed. Deathrite Shaman can theoretically gain life earlier, but he'll most likely have nothing to eat.
Racing the lifegain is a fairly legit plan, I'd say.
It's odd, I put this deck together just so my friend could start playing tournament Legacy... but it's really become a pet deck and I'm very fond of it. It's uncomfortable to admit it, but during some games played yesterday good ol' Burn was earning fairly consistent victories against Dark Maverick and Lands.
-snip
Cutting lands is out of the question. Even with a 21 land build, we sometimes run into mana problems, which is why we keep 3-cost spells to a bare minimum.
-snip
You can cut land if you preserve the original ratio of land to spells. With a 20 land deck, 1/3 of the deck is land. If you cut 4 flame rift, you also cut 2 land. Of the removed cards, you have 1/3 land 2/3 spells. The free cantrips are in a sense not even part of your deck. It's a way to "cheat" the 60 card deck rule. I would not advocate replacing only spells with cantrips because then you actually are reducing your threat density.
Also, to clarify, I referred to storm's use of probe, thinking more about belcher. That deck does get some additional benefits from probe: the information is more useful for them and the storm count is useful for the empty the warrens kill. But it also helps the deck because a 56 card belcher is going to be more consistent in finding its kill than a 60 belcher deck. That piece is something burn can benefit from too.
The reason I ask about statistics is that, when you use free cantrips in the manner I suggest, you have to run odds calculations when you look at an opener. An example:
Assuming your deck is 6 free cantrips (there are only 8 total available, urza's bauble is much more risky because you have to wait on the draw and you can't rely on it to find land if you have a nolander with some cantrips instead), 18 land, 36 spells. In such a deck, about half the time you will have some number of cantrips in your opening 7 (54/60)(53/59)(52/58)(51/57)(50/56)(49/55)(48/54)= about 46%
This opener is an illustration of the potential problem: 5 "bolts" 2 cantrips. Here there is around a (1- (31/49 x 30/48) = )49% chance that one of those cantrips will find at least one land. (i don't include the case of finding a cantrip, because a cantrip is just a redraw and it complicates the probability math beyond what I know how to do). You have to decide keep or mull a hand that could be quite good or terrible half the time. This case also illustrates the only potential downside of playing a 52 or 54 card deck. There are times when you draw the cantrip in your opener and you have to decide mull or keep from 6 cards + 1 unknown 7th card that is a land roughly 1/3 of the time and a burn spell roughly 2/3 of the time.
The only time the unknown nature of the cantrip card is relevant is during the mull decision. Every other time its draw again from the same odds you had before.
There is some merit to keeping the full spread of the weaker burn spells because they have situational usefulness. You can get lucky and have them at the perfect time, and they give you something to hope for if an opponent drops something you need to answer. Im skeptical of the reason you proffered for keeping flame rift around though. If your opponent drops leyline of sanctity on turn 0, the match against a burn deck is pretty much over already. Vortex and blowing up threats is the only realistic out in that situation.
I don't know why folks are down on Flame Rift. Four damage from one card is respectable. It's absolutely the card to cut if one feels like cutting down on lands, but I don't know.... I like lands. I like high damage per card and a higher land count, perhaps because I'm more concerned with Thalia, Guardian of Thraben and Rishadan Port than the average person.
4 damage per card really is significantly higher than 3. At 3/card, that's at least 6 spells to resolve before the other guy dies. With 4 per card, that's around 5 spells to resolve, and the excess land really helps push them through.
Feel free not to take me seriously at all until I get some tournament results with the deck. I don't know when, if ever, that might happen, as I'd rather play Maverick or DnT at the next event (which isn't even this weekend, M14 prerelease is coming to town).
@michaelangelo
Great job in the new prime. Thanks for your time
This is my actual list in MTGO. I come back to the version with no fetchs. I have 5 spots that I can run other cards (2 Hellspark and 3 Keldon), but I don't see anything that I real want put.
I'd bring the Vortexes into the main deck for the HSE's.
About your sideboard, after moving the Vortexes main deck I might suggest +2 Mindbreak Trap to help with the storm matchup sine Pillar sometimes doesn't come down fast enough, and also falls victim to Duress.
I like the deck this way and I don't like running Mindbreak Trap in Burn. If you expect to win against combo with that card you probably will many times be unhappy... If you take a silence (TES is again in the mood) did it worth for anything? Usual they will see your hand with discard cards or probe and play around it. If you want a card to ANT I prefer Runeflare Trap, let him draw all the cards from Ad Nauseam and then respond with RT to the first spell he play, and is GG. Usually the first speel will be something to see our hand or a Artefact and they only had now the chance to play a instant, so bye bye and Good Game
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Izmagnus are the most powerful members of the Izmundi
Modern: Grixis DS ; UR Phoenix ; Storm ; Burn Standard: MonoRed ; Ral Spells ; UR Phoenix ; Izzet Drakes Commander: Locust God
I like the deck this way and I don't like running Mindbreak Trap in Burn. If you expect to win against combo with that card you probably will many times be unhappy... If you take a silence (TES is again in the mood) did it worth for anything? Usual they will see your hand with discard cards or probe and play around it. If you want a card to ANT I prefer Runeflare Trap, let him draw all the cards from Ad Nauseam and then respond with RT to the first spell he play, and is GG. Usually the first speel will be something to see our hand or a Artefact and they only had now the chance to play a instant, so bye bye and Good Game
Mindbreak isn't reliable, that's well known, but it's more flexible and reliable against Runeflare. It has all the weaknesses to an early Duress and most of the same Silence dangers. Runeflare won't do anything against Belcher or Elves and requires mana to use.
Burn is never going to have a positive matchup against explosive combo like that, better to just keep the all-in blowout hate (Storm players often underestimate Trap just because it is so fragile). That's my opinion anyway, I've yet to take Burn to a sanctioned event though it works a little to well for comfort in the casual games I've tried it in.
Burn is never going to have a positive matchup against explosive combo like that, better to just keep the all-in blowout hate (Storm players often underestimate Trap just because it is so fragile).
100% agree with the bold. I ignore that type of matchup, Pyrostatic Pillar it's a card that I bring in against combo, but it's really a great card against Elves, RUG and Jund. Try to race with Elves it's very difficult, they can try to go off to combo or simply attack with a army of 1/1 and they have so many useful targets for removal. RUG and Jund usually have a lot of 1 or 2 mana cost and don't bring Enchantments hate from sidebord against us. So suprise
If you cast that they only have Goyf to run with us all the other cards let their to auto-kills...
But this is only my kind of choices...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Izmagnus are the most powerful members of the Izmundi
Modern: Grixis DS ; UR Phoenix ; Storm ; Burn Standard: MonoRed ; Ral Spells ; UR Phoenix ; Izzet Drakes Commander: Locust God
Pyrostatic Pillar is a wonderful card, but I always a little concerned about the mana cost. I envision this situation against most of the combo decks.
G1: They go off, it's Combo vs. Burn after all. G2: My grip contains Pyrostatic Pillar, all they manage is a dork/cantrip before I resolve it. They durdle a little trying to go off and I seal it with a flurry of fire. On to the last game. G3: I open with Pyrostatic Pillar 'cause I'm a boss like that, but unlike the last game my opponent gets to untap for a second turn without interference. Of all the combo decks that the Pillar hates on, only High Tide doesn't threaten on turn 2.
Thus I'm in very real danger of getting run over, on turn 2 of the critical game, despite having my hate card. I don't like losing in spite of my hate cards. I like hate cards that have a high impact early in the game.
I really want Pyrostatic Pillar to work but it's just too expensive, at CMC 2, for my taste.
Like I say I ignore turn one and turn 2 kills. My deck want to kill in the turn three. If they go of in turn 1 or 2 the probably of have seen a Mindbreak trap is less then 10%. In game two a good player when he know what we play he simply don't go first turn without looking our hand, He know's he have about 3 turns to sculpt the hand. And they will bring all disruption they have to take our cards out of the hand.
Another thing do you keep a good hand without Mindbreak trap or aggressively mulling to a hand with that and a turn 6 or 7 kill? I prefer keep a good hand that punish a hand that can kill me at turn 1 or 2.
I Simply play by this way. I consider the trap a good sideboard card, but I simply don't give my effort on that. I only play 2 cards (without mountains) that don't give damage, pyroblast (really need to some matchup's that we can win) and Faerie for reanimator turn one or 2 Iona...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Izmagnus are the most powerful members of the Izmundi
Modern: Grixis DS ; UR Phoenix ; Storm ; Burn Standard: MonoRed ; Ral Spells ; UR Phoenix ; Izzet Drakes Commander: Locust God
Modern: Modern is Bad
Legacy:WDeath and TaxesW W45-L16-D11 8 Top 8s 15th Scg Oakland
Current Kiln Fiend Count: 153 Please message me if you want to trade me or give me some.
Commission Rezombied to alter some cards, he's awesome!
Any ideas/critique? It's been testing well so far, but I feel like I want some combo hate in the side for the current meta. I might try out 4 Mindbreak, 1 Sulfuric/Skullcrack.
I would probabily try to diversify the cmc of your creatures (with Keldon Marauders or hellspark elemental) and probably run few more creatures, reducing -1 or 2 Flame rift and -1 Price of progress...
I don't know, ignoring turn 1 and 2 kills doesn't sound to me like a plan against combo. I'd rather keep hands that can race in those circumstances. Mindbreak, Chalice, Faeries Macabre, Leyline of Sanctity... combo decks can play around each of these, but doing so takes time and it takes resources. I like having hate that works on turn 0.
With that most recent list, it's solid. The only suggestion I might make is flip Sulfuric Vortex to the board and include some more burn spells, like Marauders or whatever your taste is. I like Marauders, myself.
I actually have a few legitimate arguments for kiln fiend.
1) Races Show and Tell. Let's face it, we need something to race combo decks.
2) Allows your deck to play around Chalice on 1. Kiln fiend is a 2 drop creature, and requires Searing Blaze to connect. Kiln Fiend is also more reliant on suspended rift bolts and the such. Against chalice lists, your deck can now rely on kiln fiend for flexibility
3) Kiln Fiend creates reach in the later game. Imagine the following scenario.
Kiln Fiend, empty hand, and your opponent has a force of will or something like that in hand, and perhaps some lands and thoughtseizes. He's at 6 life.
Modern: Modern is Bad
Legacy:WDeath and TaxesW W45-L16-D11 8 Top 8s 15th Scg Oakland
Current Kiln Fiend Count: 153 Please message me if you want to trade me or give me some.
Commission Rezombied to alter some cards, he's awesome!
Kiln Fiend does possess the potential for blowout wins. But I'm not sure exactly how Kiln Fiend supposedly races Show and Tell. That deck has the potential to go off on turn 1. Maybe if they had a bad opening hand and are having trouble digging to what they need. But there's really nothing that is in Burn's entire potential arsenal that can reliably race Show and Tell on a good day.
I do not endorse kiln fiend. However, he is a very intriguing card and I tried tinkering with him in a burn shell (as I do most things.) My first thought was he could race combo and in my mind at the time decent vs aggro decks. If fiend isn't removed he turns all ur bolts into creature removal and even more accurately, searing blazes. Bolt the would be blocker get it in for 4 dmg with kiln fiend. In the end he was pretty disappointing in my testing (as many would imagine).
@wear/tear I think many people are sleeping on this card.
What if Kiln Fiend was Young Pyromancer? Gives us chump blockers and almost every single card we cast will trigger him. They are both bad top decks, but unlike Lavamancer, we can benefit the turn he comes down if we have 3 mana. There has not been much talk on him and i was just wondering if he is good and fit in this deck.
IMHO the pyromancer does not belong in here. You want to be doing early damage, not creating blockers or relying on having a grip full of Instants or Sorceries to make him shine. In a burn deck Fiend > Pyromancer, and Fiend is not even great here. Lavamancer can hit DRS and delvers, and I like that he also offers a reliable source of damage during the midgame. However, I'm not playing burn in tourneys, so I might be wrong.
No, I think you are pretty spot on. Having tested and played around with Pyromancer, I wasn't a fan. Generating 1/1 tokens on t3 at the earliest, did little when the format is dominated by 1/2s (DRS/SFM) and other creatures that don't allow profitable trades. Having a conditional ability to create an army of blockers isn't the business I want to be in when playing burn. Moreover, I have a dislike for 2 cmc creatures in burn, so I may be biased, and especially the ones that are dependent on cards being played from the hand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The only relevant cost to gitaxian probe/street wraith is information when you're mulling. Is that too much to pay for the ability to run nothing but 1 mana burn "spells" + blast and price of progress. This is the cost benefit question Im asking. The primary reason to run the cantrips is to replace the weaker burn spells not get information from probe.
Has anyone done statistical work to figure out how much cantrips affect your mulling decisions? I understand you would rather know than take a calculated risk. The odds in burn are quite well calculated too, 1/3 land 2/3 burn spells (some of the spells have some restrictions, the creatures most notably). Im only bringing this up because the primer presents the cantrip option as a strictly bad idea. Other combo decks use free cantrips for consistency and storm, why shouldn't burn use them just for consistency as well?
The cantrips also add to the graveyard for GLM. And probe gives you some information (not usually relevant except perhaps when you need to choose between all in on fireblast and pray for no counter or hope for topdecks). Street Wraith is another target for stifle and a creature in your yard for deathrite/goyf, which is a downside.
I also don't think flame rift is a terrible burn spell, the bolts and blast in particular are just much more effficient. Isn't the deck better off when it draws 3 lands 5 bolts and a blast in the first 3 turns on the play than the same -1 bolt +1 flame rift/vortex? (I mentioned vortex also in my original post because I think its much better as a sideboard option now, so much abrupt decay in the meta).
I'm sure Obermeir has detailed statistics on the matter if you're interested in that side of the equation.
Legacy Burn
NO Combo Elves
Reanimator
Trades
Burn Primer
:symg:Free Gaea's Cradle:symg:
Understandably, a burn spell is really just considered "bad" if it isn't as efficient as a Bolt or Fireblast. But reality is that we only have 20 of those spells available in Legacy (24 if you count Goblin Guide) so we need to fill the remaining slots with such. And for me a "bad" burn spell in hand is better than one potentially good one waiting to be drawn by a cantrip.
Cutting lands is out of the question. Even with a 21 land build, we sometimes run into mana problems, which is why we keep 3-cost spells to a bare minimum.
Vortex, for me, is still a necessary evil, with SFM into Batterskull still being a very significant part of the Legacy metagame. If people start moving away from lifelinkers for the most part, then we can probably start moving Sulfuric Vortex into the sideboard.
I don't know if anybody has ever done a statistical analysis of the impact of running multiple cantrips, but I will go with something I do know: Burn is not an engine deck, which a lot of people mistake it to be. Engine decks like Storm and Belcher get a lot of benefit from Cantrips as they need to draw the right components in order to get their engine running since their gameplan requires them to kill their opponent in a single turn. Burn doesn't do that - it spreads out the kill over several turns by resolving 6-7 spells in a timely manner, so it gets less benefit from running cantrips because you can afford to wait a turn to draw your next business spell (because you don't have a means to cheat your mana like Storm decks do)
It's the uncertainty factor that really makes it a dealbreaker for the case of Cantrips. I would argue that running less efficient Burn is actually more efficient for the deck than an inconsistent cantrip. At its best, a cantrip will draw into a Bolt or Fireblast; at its worst, you keep drawing into Land, whereas a "bad" burn spell will always do the same thing - deal damage.
I haven't even mentioned the unquantifyables that "bad" burn spells have (Vortex is an "I win" against some decks, Skullcrack stops pesky effects like Energy Field, Flame Rift bypasses Leyline of Sanctity, Price of Progress is a trump card against tri-color decks, etc.)
You have the same odds to draw a mountain or gas regardless, if you keep the ratio of lands to burn the same. The odds that change by using the cantrips are only the quality of the burn spell.
The format's lifegain is pretty slow in getting online. Batterskull will not ever come down before turn 3. Jitte has a similar speed. Deathrite Shaman can theoretically gain life earlier, but he'll most likely have nothing to eat.
Racing the lifegain is a fairly legit plan, I'd say.
It's odd, I put this deck together just so my friend could start playing tournament Legacy... but it's really become a pet deck and I'm very fond of it. It's uncomfortable to admit it, but during some games played yesterday good ol' Burn was earning fairly consistent victories against Dark Maverick and Lands.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
You can cut land if you preserve the original ratio of land to spells. With a 20 land deck, 1/3 of the deck is land. If you cut 4 flame rift, you also cut 2 land. Of the removed cards, you have 1/3 land 2/3 spells. The free cantrips are in a sense not even part of your deck. It's a way to "cheat" the 60 card deck rule. I would not advocate replacing only spells with cantrips because then you actually are reducing your threat density.
Also, to clarify, I referred to storm's use of probe, thinking more about belcher. That deck does get some additional benefits from probe: the information is more useful for them and the storm count is useful for the empty the warrens kill. But it also helps the deck because a 56 card belcher is going to be more consistent in finding its kill than a 60 belcher deck. That piece is something burn can benefit from too.
The reason I ask about statistics is that, when you use free cantrips in the manner I suggest, you have to run odds calculations when you look at an opener. An example:
Assuming your deck is 6 free cantrips (there are only 8 total available, urza's bauble is much more risky because you have to wait on the draw and you can't rely on it to find land if you have a nolander with some cantrips instead), 18 land, 36 spells. In such a deck, about half the time you will have some number of cantrips in your opening 7 (54/60)(53/59)(52/58)(51/57)(50/56)(49/55)(48/54)= about 46%
This opener is an illustration of the potential problem: 5 "bolts" 2 cantrips. Here there is around a (1- (31/49 x 30/48) = )49% chance that one of those cantrips will find at least one land. (i don't include the case of finding a cantrip, because a cantrip is just a redraw and it complicates the probability math beyond what I know how to do). You have to decide keep or mull a hand that could be quite good or terrible half the time. This case also illustrates the only potential downside of playing a 52 or 54 card deck. There are times when you draw the cantrip in your opener and you have to decide mull or keep from 6 cards + 1 unknown 7th card that is a land roughly 1/3 of the time and a burn spell roughly 2/3 of the time.
The only time the unknown nature of the cantrip card is relevant is during the mull decision. Every other time its draw again from the same odds you had before.
There is some merit to keeping the full spread of the weaker burn spells because they have situational usefulness. You can get lucky and have them at the perfect time, and they give you something to hope for if an opponent drops something you need to answer. Im skeptical of the reason you proffered for keeping flame rift around though. If your opponent drops leyline of sanctity on turn 0, the match against a burn deck is pretty much over already. Vortex and blowing up threats is the only realistic out in that situation.
I don't know why folks are down on Flame Rift. Four damage from one card is respectable. It's absolutely the card to cut if one feels like cutting down on lands, but I don't know.... I like lands. I like high damage per card and a higher land count, perhaps because I'm more concerned with Thalia, Guardian of Thraben and Rishadan Port than the average person.
4 damage per card really is significantly higher than 3. At 3/card, that's at least 6 spells to resolve before the other guy dies. With 4 per card, that's around 5 spells to resolve, and the excess land really helps push them through.
Feel free not to take me seriously at all until I get some tournament results with the deck. I don't know when, if ever, that might happen, as I'd rather play Maverick or DnT at the next event (which isn't even this weekend, M14 prerelease is coming to town).
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Great job in the new prime. Thanks for your time
This is my actual list in MTGO. I come back to the version with no fetchs. I have 5 spots that I can run other cards (2 Hellspark and 3 Keldon), but I don't see anything that I real want put.
4 Vexing devil
3 Keldon Marauders
2 Hellspark Elemental
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift
2 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain
2 Sulfuric vortex
3 Faerie macabre
3 Pyrostatic Pillar
3 Smash to Smithereens
4 Pyroblast
Modern: Grixis DS ; UR Phoenix ; Storm ; Burn
Standard: MonoRed ; Ral Spells ; UR Phoenix ; Izzet Drakes
Commander: Locust God
About your sideboard, after moving the Vortexes main deck I might suggest +2 Mindbreak Trap to help with the storm matchup sine Pillar sometimes doesn't come down fast enough, and also falls victim to Duress.
Legacy Burn
NO Combo Elves
Reanimator
Trades
Burn Primer
:symg:Free Gaea's Cradle:symg:
Modern: Grixis DS ; UR Phoenix ; Storm ; Burn
Standard: MonoRed ; Ral Spells ; UR Phoenix ; Izzet Drakes
Commander: Locust God
Mindbreak isn't reliable, that's well known, but it's more flexible and reliable against Runeflare. It has all the weaknesses to an early Duress and most of the same Silence dangers. Runeflare won't do anything against Belcher or Elves and requires mana to use.
Burn is never going to have a positive matchup against explosive combo like that, better to just keep the all-in blowout hate (Storm players often underestimate Trap just because it is so fragile). That's my opinion anyway, I've yet to take Burn to a sanctioned event though it works a little to well for comfort in the casual games I've tried it in.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
100% agree with the bold. I ignore that type of matchup, Pyrostatic Pillar it's a card that I bring in against combo, but it's really a great card against Elves, RUG and Jund. Try to race with Elves it's very difficult, they can try to go off to combo or simply attack with a army of 1/1 and they have so many useful targets for removal. RUG and Jund usually have a lot of 1 or 2 mana cost and don't bring Enchantments hate from sidebord against us. So suprise
If you cast that they only have Goyf to run with us all the other cards let their to auto-kills...
But this is only my kind of choices...
Modern: Grixis DS ; UR Phoenix ; Storm ; Burn
Standard: MonoRed ; Ral Spells ; UR Phoenix ; Izzet Drakes
Commander: Locust God
G1: They go off, it's Combo vs. Burn after all.
G2: My grip contains Pyrostatic Pillar, all they manage is a dork/cantrip before I resolve it. They durdle a little trying to go off and I seal it with a flurry of fire. On to the last game.
G3: I open with Pyrostatic Pillar 'cause I'm a boss like that, but unlike the last game my opponent gets to untap for a second turn without interference. Of all the combo decks that the Pillar hates on, only High Tide doesn't threaten on turn 2.
Thus I'm in very real danger of getting run over, on turn 2 of the critical game, despite having my hate card. I don't like losing in spite of my hate cards. I like hate cards that have a high impact early in the game.
I really want Pyrostatic Pillar to work but it's just too expensive, at CMC 2, for my taste.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Another thing do you keep a good hand without Mindbreak trap or aggressively mulling to a hand with that and a turn 6 or 7 kill? I prefer keep a good hand that punish a hand that can kill me at turn 1 or 2.
I Simply play by this way. I consider the trap a good sideboard card, but I simply don't give my effort on that. I only play 2 cards (without mountains) that don't give damage, pyroblast (really need to some matchup's that we can win) and Faerie for reanimator turn one or 2 Iona...
Modern: Grixis DS ; UR Phoenix ; Storm ; Burn
Standard: MonoRed ; Ral Spells ; UR Phoenix ; Izzet Drakes
Commander: Locust God
Actually, if they go first you have:
turn 0: 39.95%
turn 1: 44.48%
turn 2: 48.75%
If you go first, you have:
turn 1: 39.95%
turn 2: 44.48%
Obviously, this is assuming you kept a hand of 7 and that you're using 4 Mindbreak Traps in your deck.
I'm working on the cantrip thing, btw. It's taking a lot of calculation (so a lot of time), but it's coming. We'll solve this once and for all!
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
Decks I play and stuff.
Legacy Burn
Modern Mono U Tron
Kiln fiend + discard
Kiln fiend + silence
Kiln fiend + flusterstorm (sort of)
I might be biased.
Legacy:WDeath and TaxesW W45-L16-D11 8 Top 8s 15th Scg Oakland
Current Kiln Fiend Count: 153 Please message me if you want to trade me or give me some.
Commission Rezombied to alter some cards, he's awesome!
I would probabily try to diversify the cmc of your creatures (with Keldon Marauders or hellspark elemental) and probably run few more creatures, reducing -1 or 2 Flame rift and -1 Price of progress...
In side I would consider ratchet bomb and ensnaring bridge too
H/W - Website
Im never putting kiln fiend in a legacy deck.
Decks I play and stuff.
Legacy Burn
Modern Mono U Tron
With that most recent list, it's solid. The only suggestion I might make is flip Sulfuric Vortex to the board and include some more burn spells, like Marauders or whatever your taste is. I like Marauders, myself.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
4 Goblin Guide
4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast
4 Searing Blaze
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Wooded Foothills
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Plateau
4 Pyroblast
3 Ensnaring Bridge
2 Wear // Tear
4 Pyrostatic Pillar
2 Pithing Needle
I actually have a few legitimate arguments for kiln fiend.
1) Races Show and Tell. Let's face it, we need something to race combo decks.
2) Allows your deck to play around Chalice on 1. Kiln fiend is a 2 drop creature, and requires Searing Blaze to connect. Kiln Fiend is also more reliant on suspended rift bolts and the such. Against chalice lists, your deck can now rely on kiln fiend for flexibility
3) Kiln Fiend creates reach in the later game. Imagine the following scenario.
Kiln Fiend, empty hand, and your opponent has a force of will or something like that in hand, and perhaps some lands and thoughtseizes. He's at 6 life.
What do you do? Topdeck Lightning Bolt. YAY!!!!!!!!
Legacy:WDeath and TaxesW W45-L16-D11 8 Top 8s 15th Scg Oakland
Current Kiln Fiend Count: 153 Please message me if you want to trade me or give me some.
Commission Rezombied to alter some cards, he's awesome!
formely known as Wolf_Cub82
my altered cards on Facebook my altered cards on Tumblr
BurnR(Legacy)
ReanimatorUB(Legacy)
Ghave, Guru of SporesWGB(Commander)
HumansRW(Standard)
@wear/tear I think many people are sleeping on this card.
No, I think you are pretty spot on. Having tested and played around with Pyromancer, I wasn't a fan. Generating 1/1 tokens on t3 at the earliest, did little when the format is dominated by 1/2s (DRS/SFM) and other creatures that don't allow profitable trades. Having a conditional ability to create an army of blockers isn't the business I want to be in when playing burn. Moreover, I have a dislike for 2 cmc creatures in burn, so I may be biased, and especially the ones that are dependent on cards being played from the hand.