After hundreds of games with the deck, I have come to the conclusion that, although I've had pretty insane games with Candelabra, there are far many more games where I win without ever seeing Candelabra.
That said, replacing Candelabra will be hard. Magus of the Candelabra is garbage - if your opponent lets you untap with it in play, chances are that you're already winning anyway.
Magus of the Candelabra might not be a good idea. It's insane when you get it to stick, but unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that he won't face a kill spell or a counter right off the bat (unless your opponent has a terrible hand, or is an idiot)
Oracle of Mul Daya is a decent way to start Ramping as early as turn 3, and it functions similarly to the Show and Tell in the UG list. It's even more insane with a Top keeping the top card of your deck live. Though it does give away a tad too much information for my taste.
Ritual of Subdual seems interesting, but at 6 mana, it's going to be an uphill battle to get that to resolve.
Not a fan of It that Betrays. I would try to get Kozilek and Ulamog as soon as you can and run that instead.
Finally, I think you went a bit overboard with the land-drop-acceleration effects. Sensei's Top is really important, so I would try to get those as soon as you can. I would also replace Sylvan Scrying with Expedition Maps, as they don't need colored mana, which matters a lot of the time.
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.)
I know the primer says its just a bad idea, but the explanation did not really say why. Free cantrips in burn? Can someone explain why its bad?
The only downside I see is less information when youre deciding to mulligan. Instead of land land bolt rift bolt blast GLM vortex, you see land land bolt rift bolt blast ? ?.
The primer's explanation seems to assume you cut either lands or spells somehow changing your threat density, when I thought the merit of free cantrips was a smaller deck. You cut the worst burn spells (looking at flame rift, and possibly moving vortex to the side), remove a commensurate amount of land, and now you have the same deck just all the burn is 1 card 1 mana for 3-4 dmg. I was looking at this list http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=53619 with 4 fewer lands, vortex in side in replacement of something (probly trade em with GLM when theyre useful) and nix the flame rifts.
Ok just to give a more concrete example.
Some consider Flame Rift a bad burn spell. I will not argue whether it is or not. What I would argue rather is whether this is worse than, say, Gitaxian Probe.
Supporters of Gitaxian Probe would always argue "perfect information" as a reason why it is better than a bad burn spell. But to be perfectly honest, the "perfect information" is only really relevant in a few corner cases.
Aside from that, there is no guarantee of what you will be drawing into. Half of the time, you'd be drawing into a card that you don't really need - which kind of defeats the purpose of running cantrips to "improve" top decking in the first place.
Now imagine instead of having Gitaxian Probe in your hand, you have Flame Rift instead. The only case when this is a bad thing is if your opponent is also playing an aggressively fast deck like Tribal Aggro or Combo. With the current meta being full of fair decks which don't try to kill you by the 3rd to 4th Turn, Flame Rift is pretty decent. You don't know if they have counterspells in hand? Big deal, you top deck better than they do and they'll run out of counters anyway.
So the whole "perfect information" argument is pretty moot to be perfectly honest... Having it is pretty good, don't get me wrong, but not having it is no big deal and won't hurt the deck at all. We are not Storm where every single card in our hand is an integral part of an engine. Burn is only a "combo" deck in the sense that it is a very non-interactive deck. And personally, I would rather make sure that I have a Burn spell ("good" or "bad") instead of hope for drawing one with a Cantrip.
And herein lies the rub... What position would you rather be facing? Being forced to go into top deck mode because you spent a spell to burn Mommy, or potentially facing a blowout by a live Mommy?
Maybe it boils down to personal preference, but for me, for a linear deck like Burn, I would take the risk of being forced into Top deck mode... The way the deck was constructed, it is arguably the best at top-decking. If you're unlucky and keep drawing blanks, then that's life. But personally, I would rather lose that way than facing an unanswered Mommy + SfM into Batterskull, because I would feel better knowing I actually answered my opponent's gameplan instead of just blindly pointing each Burn spell to the face.
Incidentally, I would actually argue that if you get faced with this particular decision pretty often in your local meta, I would seriously consider adding Searing Blaze in the main deck, as it lets you have your cake, and eat it too...
The question is whether we should apply a burn spell to Mother of Runes the moment she appears universally; and if not, under what circumstances it is right to kill her.
I mentioned the Keldon Marauders situation because it offers a way to make an active Mother of Runes (which becomes a threat) vulnerable to a single removal spell again (should it be used to block), instead of a hog requiring two spells to kill.
Some limit play like this, maybe.
1. Guide, 2 damage. Mother of Runes, go.
2. Guide, 2 damage, (4), Marauders (5). Stoneforge -> Batterskull, go.
3. Swing with Guide and Marauders.
We have 2-3 untapped Mountains and 4-5 cards. If Marauders gets in for 3, we'll have gotten 11 points in from just these two cards, well in range of a burn out before Batterskull comes down. Mom had better chump; but when she taps to use her ability, we burn the Mystic. in that case, once Marauders fades, we have done 8 points from three cards: not as impressive, but we won't have to race a cheated in Batterskull this time. We also have the option of racing, if we had saved that card and pointed it at the face instead of Mystic: as would be wise had we a Vortex to trump the equipment.
See here's the thing: If I was the DnT player, I would only go with an SFM on turn 2 facing that board if it was the only play available to me. I will always play Thalia first in order to invalidate your board, or even spend the Swords to Plowshares to kill the Guide outright.
Having taken 5 damage already, with an additional 5 damage on the board incoming, I would not play SFM because I know full well how consistent Burn can deal damage to the face. I would rather play any other chump blocker than play SFM on turn 2. That's because SFM is my Trump Card against Burn, which I will need to protect at all cost; and if I did play SFM on turn 2, there was no way I could protect both SFM and myself from incoming damage.
Hence, the scenario you described, while possible, is not probable - particularly with a good opponent. Here is what would have likely happened:
1. Guide, 2 damage. Mother of Runes, go.
2. Guide, 2 damage, (4), Marauders (5). Thalia, go.
3. You can't hope to attack without burning out the opposing board, which you cannot possibly do without a card disadvantage due to the active Mommy on board, and a Tempo disadvantage because of the Thalia on the board... If you attack with just the Marauders, it's very possible that your opponent would just take the damage, or Chump with Thalia. NOW he plays SFM -> Batterskull. What now?
Now what if you just killed Mommy outright? Imagine how different the current game state would have been...
I noticed the Bad Cards section. Many cards listed there are obviously bad, and some are borderline. I'm simply not willing to put my faith in the "myriad" of testing others have done, possibly because I don't personally know any players who have put more than a few hours of thought into Burn, they're all playing Show and Tell, Deathblade, Tin Fins, Omnitell, Miracles, Jund perhaps, you know... the "real decks." Even I'm going to pilot DnT, rather than Burn, at the SCG this weekend.
One really has to do one's own testing, hence my comment: I'm not asking whether Probe is ok, I'm making the contribution that my own testing has come out, to my great surprise, somewhat in favor of this dumb-looking card. YMMV. My name is Lormador, and I approve this message.
It comes down to the information. Sometimes it helps to know if there's a Stifle over there, or a Daze, or an Abrupt Decay, or if the Mother of Runes just played is going to protect a Stoneforge Mystic, or if Thalia is going to be a problem. Gitaxian Probe is a card in the grave for Lava Man to eat, 2 life lost, and pretty good information for the rest of the game. It doesn't deck thin, and that doesn't matter. As for land/threat count, that calculation is trivial.
And as a side note, normally I play pretty ballsy when I play Burn. Meaning even if I expect Daze or Stifle, so long as I can afford getting Dazed or Stifled, I just run into it blindly. More times than not, I get to do what I want because of the psychological edge of playing a linear (ergo, "ballsy") deck like Burn.
...at the end of the day I may prefer Marauders, but Probe is better than it looks.
Granted of course that the Bad Cards section was meant to be a starting point for one's own testing.
Still, most of the scenarios you mentioned about having good information are already examples of what experienced players with Burn ought to be doing. For example, if you know you play against RUG, automatically you play around Daze and Stifle without having to think whether they have it in hand or not. Mother of Runes is almost-always an auto-kill (unless your hand has a turn 3 kill which renders Mommy irrelevant), and Thalia is ALWAYS a problem when facing Maverick.
Still, I can understand your perspective, as I've always loathed getting hit by an opponent's probe because it gives them a significant advantage, particularly during the early game when both players have full hands.
But personally, I've played with Cantrips before, and they really feel as if they're unnecessary in Burn for the sake of Cantripping. Now, adding a non-tangible effect like Gitaxian Probe's can have some merit, but at the end of the day, I dunno if the idea of "Perfect" information is something I'd really want in my list at the risk of cutting additional threats.
Also, do you recall the new Legend Rule having an impact at the tournament?
Regardless, congratulations on the Top 4. I'll add you deck to the primer later.
I don't take credit for the list. This is actually a slight modification of Jeremiah Rudolph's latest list. The difference between his list and mine is:
MB:
-1 Bojuka Bog
+1 Island
SB:
-1 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
+1 Bojuka Bog
Iona was mostly for the Mono-U Omnitell match-up, though it also helps vs. Mono-Color decks in general (like Elves and Burn), and vs. Storm.
Force of Will, I believe, replaced Spell Pierce and/or BEB in the old lists. I don't think Turbo Eldrazi can afford not playing such a powerful tool any longer.
There are up to 25 blue cards in the deck post-board, so the deck can support playing these when they're needed in the matchup.
The reason I still run Tabernacle in the sb, and Bojuka Bog in the main is because in our local meta Tribal Aggro and Dredge are still a thing. In fact, one of the Top 4 in our event was a Dredge deck.
Actually, Burn's matchup against 12-post is favorable. 12-post has little basics, so Price of Progress just kills them outright. Their only chance of winning is to Show and Tell Emrakul on Turn 3 on the back of 2 Glimmerposts and a Basic Island. Beyond that, they are extremely easy to race, as they do little during the first 3 turns.
Playing with the stack is vital in this matchup, as you will need to respond to Primeval Titan's Triggered Ability with Instant-Speed Burn, so it's best to spend the first few turns playing your Sorceries like Lava Spike and Rift Bolt. Also, you can respond to Glimmerpost's ETB ability. Skullcrack and Sulfuric Vortex are key to this matchup.
Game 2 and 3 they will be bringing in counterspells to stop key Burn Spells, and maybe even debilitating Show and Tell targets like Iona and Platinum Emperion, so watch out for that. Smash to Smithereens can come in from the board to take care of Candelabra and Expedition Maps.
Another card that I think may be worth a second look in Lavamancer builds is Gitaxian Probe. If 1 life and Stifle-danger is worth it to put a land in the graveyard for GLM and Searing Blaze, is there any a priori reason why 2 life shouldn't be worth it for the same card, higher average burn quality, and information?
Cantrips are a bad idea for Burn IMO. You might think that it improves card quality, but making space for it in the deck involves 1 of 2 scenarios:
1. You cut land, which will cause mana problems later on; or
2. You cut threats, which will lower the deck's threat density (which is not really tantamount to "burn quality")
If Gitaxian Probe guaranteed that you draw exactly what you need when you need it, then fine it merits inclusion. But that isn't the case.
Besides, with only a maximum of 4 copies, the perceived "deck-thinning" and "improved card quality" it supposedly produces is negligible. If 12 fetchlands don't give significant deck-thinning, what more 4 Gitaxian Probes?
For me, Cantrips are strictly for engine-type combo decks like Storm, and not for Burn.
See the Bad Cards section of the primer. The list there was derived from the myriad of testing that various Burn players have done with the deck, and most tests conclude that adding Cantrips does nothing but hurt Burn.
Been a month since the last post so i thought i would chime in.
Got into the top 4 at a local event yesterday with the deck. There were 46 players who joined the event. This is the list I ran:
4 Cloudpost
4 Glimmerpost
4 Vesuva
4 Tropical Island
4 Misty Rainforest
2 Island
1 Karakas
1 Eye of Ugin
1 Glacial Chasm
1 Bojuka Bog
4 Brainstorm
4 Repeal
4 Show and Tell
4 Crop Rotation
4 Sensei's Divining Top
3 Expedition Map
2 Candelabra of Tawnos
4 Primeval Titan
2 Trinket Mage
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre
1 Kozilek, Butcher of Truth
SB:
1 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
3 Mindbreak Trap
3 Iona, Shield of Emeria
4 Flusterstorm
4 Force of Will
My matchups were as follows:
Round 1: Won vs. Esper Deathblade 2-1
Round 2: Won vs. MUD 2-1
Round 3: Lost vs. Shardless BUG 1-2
Round 4: Draw vs. Dark Maverick 1-1 (Because I was a huge idiot and made a misplay at a critical time)
Round 5: Won vs. Nic Fit 2-0
Round 6: Won vs. Canadian Thresh 2-1 (My opponent mulled to 5 cards on the 3rd game, I was really lucky that time)
After 6 rounds of Swiss, I was ranked #5.
Quarterfinals: Won vs. Ad-Nauseam Tendrils 2-1 (Show and Tell Iona. 'Nuff said.)
We split the prize at Top 4 since people were basically tired and hungry at that point. Brought home a Volcanic Island for my trouble.
Moving on, I kind of miss not having Pithing Needle to take care of Liliana, so I will be testing cutting a Candelabra and/or an Expedition Map to make room for it. All in all, I had a blast with the deck and I'd tell you fans of the deck to give it a shot at your next local event.
How does everyone handle the RDW/Burn Matchup? After so many games against it, I found it to be an abysmal match-up for us.
Normally, I am only really able to stabilize if I play a turn 2 Spellskite AND they have a terrible draw. Beyond that, I'm stumped as to what cards we can run that improve the match-up.
The major threat with the bug decks i found was their disruption backed up by bob. They can go:
t1 thoughtseize/iquisition
t2 bob or hymn
t3 ^ what ever they didnt play.
That is really backbreaking for us that i found. I also do not like the idea of boarding in leylines or anything like that. Bloodmoon VS Back to basics. Both allow their opponent to play through it and have trade offs. im not sure which would be preferred tho.
for me, it's no contest. Blood Moon is superior for a deck that is as mana hungry as miracles (multiple top activations, an X-spell in Entreat the Angels, etc). The capacity to tap for mana, even if it is off-color, is clearly better than the relatively lower risk of color screwing
Both Shardless and Deathblade are good but Wastelandblood moon orback to basics lock could be enough to punish their manabases since both shardless bug and deathblade run 0 basics and are very very greedy so landing those could seal things, and is probably all we need; right now I think they are just the "new kids on the block" and everyone wants to play those decks so there is a bit of a bias among the highest level play.
.
I highly doubt that it's only because they're "Flavor of the Month" decks...
Shardless BUG and Deathblade are legitimate decks in today's metagame - they have decent to great matchups against majority of Legacy decks played not only in SCG opens, but also in Europe and Asia.
Beating Shardless BUG and Deathblade isn't as simple as sticking Blood Moon/Back to Basics and you're set. In actual practice, it's an uphill battle, especially when you're not playing against a complete idiot, because of the relevant clock these decks put on the table.
Sure, in a perfect world, we would always have a timely Terminus-into-Blood Moon with no Counterspells, Disruption or Abrupt Decays in their hand, but it happens much less often than you would think.
Sure, he can play a good miracles im no question about it. But you cant deny the fact the deck has dropped off from the competitive scene. That was the question i was asking, what could that be attributed to.
Well in my experience, it first startd to fall out of favor due to the re-emergence of the BUG decks, powered by DRS and Abrupt Decay. Then, Jund came into the picture, which also gave Miracles a run for its money. Then, the various Show and Tell decks started to become the next big thing since they can beat BUG and Jund.
Later on, BUG evolved into the Shardless version, which is a pretty horrible matchup for us.
That's what happened in our local meta. I dunno if that's the same case with the rest of the legacy scene
That said, replacing Candelabra will be hard. Magus of the Candelabra is garbage - if your opponent lets you untap with it in play, chances are that you're already winning anyway.
Oracle of Mul Daya is far better than the Magus, IMO.
Magus of the Candelabra might not be a good idea. It's insane when you get it to stick, but unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that he won't face a kill spell or a counter right off the bat (unless your opponent has a terrible hand, or is an idiot)
Oracle of Mul Daya is a decent way to start Ramping as early as turn 3, and it functions similarly to the Show and Tell in the UG list. It's even more insane with a Top keeping the top card of your deck live. Though it does give away a tad too much information for my taste.
Ritual of Subdual seems interesting, but at 6 mana, it's going to be an uphill battle to get that to resolve.
Not a fan of It that Betrays. I would try to get Kozilek and Ulamog as soon as you can and run that instead.
Finally, I think you went a bit overboard with the land-drop-acceleration effects. Sensei's Top is really important, so I would try to get those as soon as you can. I would also replace Sylvan Scrying with Expedition Maps, as they don't need colored mana, which matters a lot of the time.
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.)
Ok just to give a more concrete example.
Some consider Flame Rift a bad burn spell. I will not argue whether it is or not. What I would argue rather is whether this is worse than, say, Gitaxian Probe.
Supporters of Gitaxian Probe would always argue "perfect information" as a reason why it is better than a bad burn spell. But to be perfectly honest, the "perfect information" is only really relevant in a few corner cases.
Aside from that, there is no guarantee of what you will be drawing into. Half of the time, you'd be drawing into a card that you don't really need - which kind of defeats the purpose of running cantrips to "improve" top decking in the first place.
Now imagine instead of having Gitaxian Probe in your hand, you have Flame Rift instead. The only case when this is a bad thing is if your opponent is also playing an aggressively fast deck like Tribal Aggro or Combo. With the current meta being full of fair decks which don't try to kill you by the 3rd to 4th Turn, Flame Rift is pretty decent. You don't know if they have counterspells in hand? Big deal, you top deck better than they do and they'll run out of counters anyway.
So the whole "perfect information" argument is pretty moot to be perfectly honest... Having it is pretty good, don't get me wrong, but not having it is no big deal and won't hurt the deck at all. We are not Storm where every single card in our hand is an integral part of an engine. Burn is only a "combo" deck in the sense that it is a very non-interactive deck. And personally, I would rather make sure that I have a Burn spell ("good" or "bad") instead of hope for drawing one with a Cantrip.
And herein lies the rub... What position would you rather be facing? Being forced to go into top deck mode because you spent a spell to burn Mommy, or potentially facing a blowout by a live Mommy?
Maybe it boils down to personal preference, but for me, for a linear deck like Burn, I would take the risk of being forced into Top deck mode... The way the deck was constructed, it is arguably the best at top-decking. If you're unlucky and keep drawing blanks, then that's life. But personally, I would rather lose that way than facing an unanswered Mommy + SfM into Batterskull, because I would feel better knowing I actually answered my opponent's gameplan instead of just blindly pointing each Burn spell to the face.
Incidentally, I would actually argue that if you get faced with this particular decision pretty often in your local meta, I would seriously consider adding Searing Blaze in the main deck, as it lets you have your cake, and eat it too...
See here's the thing: If I was the DnT player, I would only go with an SFM on turn 2 facing that board if it was the only play available to me. I will always play Thalia first in order to invalidate your board, or even spend the Swords to Plowshares to kill the Guide outright.
Having taken 5 damage already, with an additional 5 damage on the board incoming, I would not play SFM because I know full well how consistent Burn can deal damage to the face. I would rather play any other chump blocker than play SFM on turn 2. That's because SFM is my Trump Card against Burn, which I will need to protect at all cost; and if I did play SFM on turn 2, there was no way I could protect both SFM and myself from incoming damage.
Hence, the scenario you described, while possible, is not probable - particularly with a good opponent. Here is what would have likely happened:
1. Guide, 2 damage. Mother of Runes, go.
2. Guide, 2 damage, (4), Marauders (5). Thalia, go.
3. You can't hope to attack without burning out the opposing board, which you cannot possibly do without a card disadvantage due to the active Mommy on board, and a Tempo disadvantage because of the Thalia on the board... If you attack with just the Marauders, it's very possible that your opponent would just take the damage, or Chump with Thalia. NOW he plays SFM -> Batterskull. What now?
Now what if you just killed Mommy outright? Imagine how different the current game state would have been...
Granted of course that the Bad Cards section was meant to be a starting point for one's own testing.
Still, most of the scenarios you mentioned about having good information are already examples of what experienced players with Burn ought to be doing. For example, if you know you play against RUG, automatically you play around Daze and Stifle without having to think whether they have it in hand or not. Mother of Runes is almost-always an auto-kill (unless your hand has a turn 3 kill which renders Mommy irrelevant), and Thalia is ALWAYS a problem when facing Maverick.
Still, I can understand your perspective, as I've always loathed getting hit by an opponent's probe because it gives them a significant advantage, particularly during the early game when both players have full hands.
But personally, I've played with Cantrips before, and they really feel as if they're unnecessary in Burn for the sake of Cantripping. Now, adding a non-tangible effect like Gitaxian Probe's can have some merit, but at the end of the day, I dunno if the idea of "Perfect" information is something I'd really want in my list at the risk of cutting additional threats.
I don't take credit for the list. This is actually a slight modification of Jeremiah Rudolph's latest list. The difference between his list and mine is:
MB:
-1 Bojuka Bog
+1 Island
SB:
-1 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
+1 Bojuka Bog
Iona was mostly for the Mono-U Omnitell match-up, though it also helps vs. Mono-Color decks in general (like Elves and Burn), and vs. Storm.
Force of Will, I believe, replaced Spell Pierce and/or BEB in the old lists. I don't think Turbo Eldrazi can afford not playing such a powerful tool any longer.
There are up to 25 blue cards in the deck post-board, so the deck can support playing these when they're needed in the matchup.
The reason I still run Tabernacle in the sb, and Bojuka Bog in the main is because in our local meta Tribal Aggro and Dredge are still a thing. In fact, one of the Top 4 in our event was a Dredge deck.
Actually, Burn's matchup against 12-post is favorable. 12-post has little basics, so Price of Progress just kills them outright. Their only chance of winning is to Show and Tell Emrakul on Turn 3 on the back of 2 Glimmerposts and a Basic Island. Beyond that, they are extremely easy to race, as they do little during the first 3 turns.
Playing with the stack is vital in this matchup, as you will need to respond to Primeval Titan's Triggered Ability with Instant-Speed Burn, so it's best to spend the first few turns playing your Sorceries like Lava Spike and Rift Bolt. Also, you can respond to Glimmerpost's ETB ability. Skullcrack and Sulfuric Vortex are key to this matchup.
Game 2 and 3 they will be bringing in counterspells to stop key Burn Spells, and maybe even debilitating Show and Tell targets like Iona and Platinum Emperion, so watch out for that. Smash to Smithereens can come in from the board to take care of Candelabra and Expedition Maps.
Cantrips are a bad idea for Burn IMO. You might think that it improves card quality, but making space for it in the deck involves 1 of 2 scenarios:
1. You cut land, which will cause mana problems later on; or
2. You cut threats, which will lower the deck's threat density (which is not really tantamount to "burn quality")
If Gitaxian Probe guaranteed that you draw exactly what you need when you need it, then fine it merits inclusion. But that isn't the case.
Besides, with only a maximum of 4 copies, the perceived "deck-thinning" and "improved card quality" it supposedly produces is negligible. If 12 fetchlands don't give significant deck-thinning, what more 4 Gitaxian Probes?
For me, Cantrips are strictly for engine-type combo decks like Storm, and not for Burn.
See the Bad Cards section of the primer. The list there was derived from the myriad of testing that various Burn players have done with the deck, and most tests conclude that adding Cantrips does nothing but hurt Burn.
Got into the top 4 at a local event yesterday with the deck. There were 46 players who joined the event. This is the list I ran:
4 Cloudpost
4 Glimmerpost
4 Vesuva
4 Tropical Island
4 Misty Rainforest
2 Island
1 Karakas
1 Eye of Ugin
1 Glacial Chasm
1 Bojuka Bog
4 Brainstorm
4 Repeal
4 Show and Tell
4 Crop Rotation
4 Sensei's Divining Top
3 Expedition Map
2 Candelabra of Tawnos
4 Primeval Titan
2 Trinket Mage
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre
1 Kozilek, Butcher of Truth
SB:
1 The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
3 Mindbreak Trap
3 Iona, Shield of Emeria
4 Flusterstorm
4 Force of Will
My matchups were as follows:
Round 1: Won vs. Esper Deathblade 2-1
Round 2: Won vs. MUD 2-1
Round 3: Lost vs. Shardless BUG 1-2
Round 4: Draw vs. Dark Maverick 1-1 (Because I was a huge idiot and made a misplay at a critical time)
Round 5: Won vs. Nic Fit 2-0
Round 6: Won vs. Canadian Thresh 2-1 (My opponent mulled to 5 cards on the 3rd game, I was really lucky that time)
After 6 rounds of Swiss, I was ranked #5.
Quarterfinals: Won vs. Ad-Nauseam Tendrils 2-1 (Show and Tell Iona. 'Nuff said.)
We split the prize at Top 4 since people were basically tired and hungry at that point. Brought home a Volcanic Island for my trouble.
Moving on, I kind of miss not having Pithing Needle to take care of Liliana, so I will be testing cutting a Candelabra and/or an Expedition Map to make room for it. All in all, I had a blast with the deck and I'd tell you fans of the deck to give it a shot at your next local event.
Normally, I am only really able to stabilize if I play a turn 2 Spellskite AND they have a terrible draw. Beyond that, I'm stumped as to what cards we can run that improve the match-up.
Anyone have any ideas? I run Cedric Phillips' list exactly.
for me, it's no contest. Blood Moon is superior for a deck that is as mana hungry as miracles (multiple top activations, an X-spell in Entreat the Angels, etc). The capacity to tap for mana, even if it is off-color, is clearly better than the relatively lower risk of color screwing
I highly doubt that it's only because they're "Flavor of the Month" decks...
Shardless BUG and Deathblade are legitimate decks in today's metagame - they have decent to great matchups against majority of Legacy decks played not only in SCG opens, but also in Europe and Asia.
Beating Shardless BUG and Deathblade isn't as simple as sticking Blood Moon/Back to Basics and you're set. In actual practice, it's an uphill battle, especially when you're not playing against a complete idiot, because of the relevant clock these decks put on the table.
Sure, in a perfect world, we would always have a timely Terminus-into-Blood Moon with no Counterspells, Disruption or Abrupt Decays in their hand, but it happens much less often than you would think.
Well in my experience, it first startd to fall out of favor due to the re-emergence of the BUG decks, powered by DRS and Abrupt Decay. Then, Jund came into the picture, which also gave Miracles a run for its money. Then, the various Show and Tell decks started to become the next big thing since they can beat BUG and Jund.
Later on, BUG evolved into the Shardless version, which is a pretty horrible matchup for us.
That's what happened in our local meta. I dunno if that's the same case with the rest of the legacy scene