The first reason is that my build is more focused on the Control aspect of the game, as I feel that Legacy's metagame of fair decks and durdly Blue decks favoured this style of Burn deck. (moreso at that time, although still somewhat prevalent now)
The second reason is that most decks in a typical Legacy metagame are more easily capable of dealing with a Swiftspear than another Burn spell. This is either due to your opponent having a better board state (Eldrazi have large creatures to block your Swiftspear, Death and Taxes/Delver/other creature decks obsolete Swiftspear surprisingly quickly), or Swiftspear itself only being a good card when you're already ahead on board state/tempo.
Is running 3 Mountains too much? I can't decide whether the correct number is 2 or 3 mainboard.
Thanks in advance for the feedback and help.
I feel that running 2 Grim Lavamancer maindeck is the correct amount. It's great at clearing your opponents' attackers/blockers, while also providing additional reach. There is some consideration towards a third in the sideboard, for when you need to play a grindier Control-style game. 3 Mountains is good in Rw, as you have enough white sources to consistently cast your white spells, and the extra Mountain can also make some difference when your opponent has a Path to Exile.
I'm not so sold on the two Flames of the Bloodhand, but I haven't tested that card for a considerable amount of time. I'd personally run another Smash to Smitehreens, and the third Grim Lavamancer.
I guess your right. I figured the guy was asking what extra cards he needs to turn his Modern burn deck into a legacy burn deck. The cards mention are the cards he will be playing, the number of cards is purly based on the player's perspective.
I've been using 4 fireblast for 10+ years I'm recently going down to 3 because I'm playing 2 tops. I do think Sensei's Divining Top should be a burn staple but I failed to mention it because they are costly and there are a good number of Legacy burn players that are not playing with top.
I think at least a singleton Top is a good consistency tool, and the price-point isn't going to be as much of a concern post-EMA.
Not everyone's cup of tea though, as it tends to favour decks going towards Grim Lavamancer and the longer game.
Hey guys, I almost think that I have asked this before, but with Chain Lightning getting a sorely needed reprint, I have decided to stop dragging my feet and get into Legacy Burn, just to have a proper Legacy deck that won't be curbstomped. I have a solid Modern Naya Burn deck built, and I just want to buy the EMA cards to be able to play either. Does someone have a fairly standard deck list they would share? Thanks
You won't really need 4 fireblast, 4 price of progress or 4 Sulfuric Vortex but it would be nice to have a playset of each one, and the cards are not that expensive. Most of the cards are an easy swamp in/out so you won't have too much difficult in playing in both formats.
The only card on that list that you don't need four of, is the Sulfuric Vortex.
Fireblast is a necessary 4-of, as it is our finishing card, and as Burn has very few consistency tools outside of Sensei's Divining Top and having 34-37 other Burn spells in the deck. Sometimes, we need to finish the game on Turn 3, or finish the game with 3-4 spells with 2-4 mana, and Fireblast is the best card for those turns.
Sulfuric Vortex is a 2-3 card component of your typical Burn 75, with the third copy typically being a metagame choice placed in the maindeck (at the expense of the fourth Price of Progress, typically against heavy Miracles metagames), or as a sideboard slot. (if you still need the fourth copy of Price of Progress maindeck, typically against 3-4 colour good stuff metagames that have some Miracles presence)
I did say this: You won't really need 4 fireblast, 4 price of progress or 4 Sulfuric Vortex but it would be nice to have a playset of each one, and the cards are not that expensive.
And you never know.. for years Blood Moon (from the dark) was less then a dollar; today you're looking at 55 dollars!
And I disagreed with it, making my explanation as to why pretty clear. Just because it's not your personal choice doesn't make it wrong.
Telling a prospective Burn player they "won't really need a playset of the two best finishers Burn has" is not the best way to go about it. I can understand trying to shave numbers of certain cards if you're really hellbent on running Swiftspear, but cutting Fireblast and Price of Progress lowers the amount of finishers the deck has to try and finish out the game.
EDIT: To further clarify my point, I looked over the last two months' decklists on mtgtop8. Of the 20 decks that were there, 16 had 4 Price of Progress and 4 Fireblast maindeck, 2 had 3 Price of Progress (+1SB) and 4 Fireblast, one had 4 Price of Progress and 3 Fireblast, and one had 3 Price of Progress and 3 Fireblast. 90% of decks were running 4 Price of Progress and 4 Fireblast somewhere in their 75.
Hey guys, I almost think that I have asked this before, but with Chain Lightning getting a sorely needed reprint, I have decided to stop dragging my feet and get into Legacy Burn, just to have a proper Legacy deck that won't be curbstomped. I have a solid Modern Naya Burn deck built, and I just want to buy the EMA cards to be able to play either. Does someone have a fairly standard deck list they would share? Thanks
You won't really need 4 fireblast, 4 price of progress or 4 Sulfuric Vortex but it would be nice to have a playset of each one, and the cards are not that expensive. Most of the cards are an easy swamp in/out so you won't have too much difficult in playing in both formats.
The only card on that list that you don't need four of, is the Sulfuric Vortex.
Fireblast is a necessary 4-of, as it is our finishing card, and as Burn has very few consistency tools outside of Sensei's Divining Top and having 34-37 other Burn spells in the deck. Sometimes, we need to finish the game on Turn 3, or finish the game with 3-4 spells with 2-4 mana, and Fireblast is the best card for those turns.
Sulfuric Vortex is a 2-3 card component of your typical Burn 75, with the third copy typically being a metagame choice placed in the maindeck (at the expense of the fourth Price of Progress, typically against heavy Miracles metagames), or as a sideboard slot. (if you still need the fourth copy of Price of Progress maindeck, typically against 3-4 colour good stuff metagames that have some Miracles presence)
What are your thoughts on sin prodder?
I realy like the idea of revealing afireblast with it.
or the fact that it's damage that can't be countered (or only with stifle).
or is the 3 mana cost just to expensive?
Card just isn't strong enough in Burn. Your average CMC of the deck is 1.75, even factoring in the CMCs of Fireblast and Rift Bolt.
The only way a Burn deck would want Sin Prodder is if the average CMC of their deck was over 3, which defeats the purpose of the deck.
For the folks maindecking a set of Swiftspear, how many Searing Blazoods do you run in the main and side? I use 3 main and 2 side for my Eidolons and Guides, but if you were to add more little dudes I wonder if you'd want to clear the way more often. The problem is decks like Enchantress and other things that don't have many (or any) viable targets.
I guess those numbers should also be dependant on how prevalent decks like Delver/Death and Taxes/other such decks that rely on boltable creatures are in your local metagame. If I were to run the Swiftspear build, I'd be comfortable with 4-5 Searing effects maindeck, and 1-2 more in the sideboard. YMMV depending on metagame, where those numbers can fluctuate between 3-4 in the 75 (few creature-based decks in the metagame) to 6-7 in the 75 (lots of creature-based decks in the metagame)
Ever since my friend *****ed about the searing cards as doing 2 things for the price of 2 red mana. His complaint was so solid that I don't see myself ever playing less then 4 in my deck. For the record I like Searing Blood more because of late game play. Way too may times I'm holding a Searing Blaze and wishing I could draw a land.
On the other hand... I'm testing a modern mono-red burn build with 22 lands and I'm drawing enough lands to play searing blaze.
I definitely want 4-5 of them in my 75, even though I don't run Monastery Swiftspear. Was just thinking that it might hold more importance for people running Monastery Swiftspear, as they're more dependant on trying to force through ground damage compared to lists not running it.
For the folks maindecking a set of Swiftspear, how many Searing Blazoods do you run in the main and side? I use 3 main and 2 side for my Eidolons and Guides, but if you were to add more little dudes I wonder if you'd want to clear the way more often. The problem is decks like Enchantress and other things that don't have many (or any) viable targets.
I guess those numbers should also be dependant on how prevalent decks like Delver/Death and Taxes/other such decks that rely on boltable creatures are in your local metagame. If I were to run the Swiftspear build, I'd be comfortable with 4-5 Searing effects maindeck, and 1-2 more in the sideboard. YMMV depending on metagame, where those numbers can fluctuate between 3-4 in the 75 (few creature-based decks in the metagame) to 6-7 in the 75 (lots of creature-based decks in the metagame)
Haven't seen anything for Modern Burn as of yet in the spoilers for SoI. Even though a Fiery Temper reprint is incredibly sweet, there isn't enough warrant for it in the deck.
Once Eldrazi gets banned, I'll be back to a Naya list with Nacatl.
i keep getting this as i try to login to the online and i've pulled up my info for it and it still gave me this message is their something to fix this?
That login error happens whenever you try to play on older Cockatrice versions. You'll need to download the latest client.
I have to say it again, Delver is a deck that most likely would only be one cantrip away from being viable after the Eldrazi ban.
Every Legacy and Pauper Delver deck plays 2 cantrips to set up Delver, meanwhile Modern still has only one: Serum Visions, one good cantrip like Preordain or Ponder is really all that's needed.
Ancestral Vision is good to help control decks, but it still won't do anything to help tempo which is also non existent.
I think Faeries would get a significant boost from an AV unban, which is probably the main reason I'm so hopeful that it hurts. I mean, who wouldn't like to see Faeries vs. Jund? Superman vs. Batman of Modern Magic?
Cantrips are fine as they are. Sleight of Hand, while not usually mentioned, is a reasonable card for Modern and throwing any other cantrips into the mix that are on par with that and SV makes combo decks that much more troublesome. Sleight doesn't set up delver, but those sort of decks really want more free spells, not cantrips.
Tempo needs better cantripx to reliably flip delver and get rid of dead cards but you are vorrect in bdtter tempo tools being needed. Counterspelss that are chesper than 2 mana but some kind of draw back like daze but maybe not as good. Personally I think daze would be fine in modern but I know most eould disagree.
Daze would be on the cusp of allowable in Modern, mainly because of the shocklands needed to fully run it in a tempo deck. The lack of cantrips in Modern to tuck it away in the lategame also make the card have a very limited lifespan
I think it's fine as well; although I can understand why people would disagree with a free early-game counterspell being legal in Modern, especially as there's less way to come back from having your Turn 1 play get countered on the draw if your opponent flips Delver of Secrets, or has as quick a clock as it.
I run 20 Lands, 12 creatures and 4 Bolt, 4 Spike, 4 Rift, 4 Blaze, 4 Charm, 4 Skullcrack, 2 Helix, 2 Volley.
And see a constant average life difference of 5 life lost in these matches between Boros and Nacatl.
Considering the land difference is only really 2 points (Most Burn plays result in being at 16 life for Boros, and 14 life for Nacatl lists), the other 3 has to come from always having Lightning Helix.
If I could consistently draw a 2-of whenever I wanted to, I wouldn't be playing Burn.
Once again, I am disappointed in a R manland. Slightly more playable than the insipid design RW always gets lumped with, but that really took no effort.
For the older burn lists, instead of DRev, we used to run Wear/Tear. DRev is just better than Wear/Tear in almost every way. The green is necessary just for that.
Pretty much this.
Atarka's Command came out not long after, which solidified the choice of splashing Green. (Better Skullcrack variant)
Some people then made the choice of adding Wild Nacatl in the deck as well, as it's an efficient beater, as well as already supported by Sacred Foundry and Stomping Ground in the manabase. It also combines quite well with Atarka's Command, which can be relevant against creatures with 4 toughness, or used to help finish a race quicker. Wild Nacatl is very much a personal choice, and not a standard card in decks.
Currently off the Sulfuric Vortex plan, testing out whether or not running more Exquisite Firecraft is more consistent in closing out games.
There's two reasons why I don't run Monastery Swiftspear.
The first reason is that my build is more focused on the Control aspect of the game, as I feel that Legacy's metagame of fair decks and durdly Blue decks favoured this style of Burn deck. (moreso at that time, although still somewhat prevalent now)
The second reason is that most decks in a typical Legacy metagame are more easily capable of dealing with a Swiftspear than another Burn spell. This is either due to your opponent having a better board state (Eldrazi have large creatures to block your Swiftspear, Death and Taxes/Delver/other creature decks obsolete Swiftspear surprisingly quickly), or Swiftspear itself only being a good card when you're already ahead on board state/tempo.
I'm not so sold on the two Flames of the Bloodhand, but I haven't tested that card for a considerable amount of time. I'd personally run another Smash to Smitehreens, and the third Grim Lavamancer.
Not everyone's cup of tea though, as it tends to favour decks going towards Grim Lavamancer and the longer game.
Telling a prospective Burn player they "won't really need a playset of the two best finishers Burn has" is not the best way to go about it. I can understand trying to shave numbers of certain cards if you're really hellbent on running Swiftspear, but cutting Fireblast and Price of Progress lowers the amount of finishers the deck has to try and finish out the game.
EDIT: To further clarify my point, I looked over the last two months' decklists on mtgtop8. Of the 20 decks that were there, 16 had 4 Price of Progress and 4 Fireblast maindeck, 2 had 3 Price of Progress (+1SB) and 4 Fireblast, one had 4 Price of Progress and 3 Fireblast, and one had 3 Price of Progress and 3 Fireblast. 90% of decks were running 4 Price of Progress and 4 Fireblast somewhere in their 75.
Fireblast is a necessary 4-of, as it is our finishing card, and as Burn has very few consistency tools outside of Sensei's Divining Top and having 34-37 other Burn spells in the deck. Sometimes, we need to finish the game on Turn 3, or finish the game with 3-4 spells with 2-4 mana, and Fireblast is the best card for those turns.
Sulfuric Vortex is a 2-3 card component of your typical Burn 75, with the third copy typically being a metagame choice placed in the maindeck (at the expense of the fourth Price of Progress, typically against heavy Miracles metagames), or as a sideboard slot. (if you still need the fourth copy of Price of Progress maindeck, typically against 3-4 colour good stuff metagames that have some Miracles presence)
The only way a Burn deck would want Sin Prodder is if the average CMC of their deck was over 3, which defeats the purpose of the deck.
I definitely want 4-5 of them in my 75, even though I don't run Monastery Swiftspear. Was just thinking that it might hold more importance for people running Monastery Swiftspear, as they're more dependant on trying to force through ground damage compared to lists not running it.
Once Eldrazi gets banned, I'll be back to a Naya list with Nacatl.
I think it's fine as well; although I can understand why people would disagree with a free early-game counterspell being legal in Modern, especially as there's less way to come back from having your Turn 1 play get countered on the draw if your opponent flips Delver of Secrets, or has as quick a clock as it.
If I could consistently draw a 2-of whenever I wanted to, I wouldn't be playing Burn.
Atarka's Command came out not long after, which solidified the choice of splashing Green. (Better Skullcrack variant)
Some people then made the choice of adding Wild Nacatl in the deck as well, as it's an efficient beater, as well as already supported by Sacred Foundry and Stomping Ground in the manabase. It also combines quite well with Atarka's Command, which can be relevant against creatures with 4 toughness, or used to help finish a race quicker. Wild Nacatl is very much a personal choice, and not a standard card in decks.