I couldn't come up with a very big list, but Primeval Titan is a good one, and Thought-Knot, Smasher and Endbringer to a lesser extent. Is Disdainful Stroke a possibility? It stops basically every combo win condition I can think besides Living End and the like, while also hitting the big creatures without terms.
This is quoted from Paul Rietzl, the hall of famer who helped build Naya Company
"Generally, if you are choosing between playing a mana creature or a Wild Nacatl turn one, play the mana creature (especially if you already have a Smiter or Knight in your hand). While you are a beatdown deck in some sense, you almost always need your 3- and 4-casting-cost cards in order to win. This will also allow you to use your mana more efficiently in the early game, as you won’t have to waste turn 2 or 3 by playing a Hierarch."
It sounds like fun. While I believe what I said is true (less than 4 Bolts, Chain, Spike, Rift or Fireblast hurts my heart), you can definitely put together enough burn cards to make it work. So rather than be a debbie-downer I'll throw some suggestions your way.
This might be a little greedy on the mana since it's slightly heavy on 2 drops. I can't say for certain, but it's possible that it needs another land. You can afford to run Caves though, sine you're only allowed two Fireblast.
I would avoid cards that don't deal damage. So things like Faithless Looting and whatnot look appealing in their best case scenario, but in their worst case, they literally provide nothing. And this deck will get hellbent typically. You can't really afford to draw one of those filtering spells at that point in the game. That's why it has been common ground for a long time that nothing but cards that deal damage and lands should be in your burn deck.
Excluded options: Collateral Damage, Goblin Fireslinger, Lava Dart, and Reckless Abandon. Not enough creatures for CD or RA and already using Shard Volley and Fireblast so no room for Dart. Fireslinger could be a reasonable option.
Fast lands have never been very good in a Knight of the Reliquary deck. I don't know who started to add one, but it never made sense and for some reason it caught on.
I've got some bad news. Given your deck building restrictions, I would avoid playing burn. The strength of this archetype is its redundancy - specifically in the one mana, three damage department. I know this isn't the answer you were hoping for, but I'd really suggest moving to something like mono green or white that has a smaller opportunity cost of replacing its staples.
You can play more 1 mana removal in the sideboard, which would help. If you wanted, you could also borrow Rubin's idea and shave down to 1 Retreat. That would let you do 22 lands, 28 creatures, 5 removal, 4 coco, 1 retreat; which would be a marginal mb improvement.
I don't know if I want to enter a tournament without Thalia and/or Eidolon of Rhetoric in my sb since the spotlight is on cheeri0s right now.
Edit: I guess I didn't consider this at first, but shaving on the combo could be moving in the wrong direction if you want to fight an opposing combo.
It would appear to be bad given our current configuration. We only have 4 Path and 4 Queller to interact, which means we have to try to bottle neck their creatures. We can do it, but I have a feeling they'll sneak in a creature and reload more often than not, at which point we can't really hope to stop them.
I'm completely off Forgotten Cave. It has lost me too many games where I can't use 2 Fireblasts that would otherwise be game winning. When I was playing 2 or more Caves, I would sometimes even have trouble casting the first Fireblast. I don't flood more often than I need to cast those.
Thermo-Alchemist is great in the matches it doesn't get touched. I noticed in approximately half of my games, it would die without dealing damage. So I relegated it to the sideboard for the matches it can go hard.
How frequently does this deck get to utilize Gavony Township? Has it justified itself compared to a second GQ? After watching Rubin's matches, it didn't seem very often (if at all, can't remember clearly) he needed Township. I'm curious if that is common.
What I presented were the odds of having at least one creature w/4 power in your opening seven card hand, and those numbers are for both p=7 and p=8 on the play and draw. How are the numbers wrong?
I was playing around with this deck and had a few points of input.
I think a basic Plains is great here in addition to the basic Forest. It casts everything besides your dorks and Abrupt Decay, which adds up to more cards than Pillar of the Paruns, for example.
Gemstone Mine has been really bad. I don't even want the first one, and it is easily the first card I'd cut. City of Brass is certainly the best replacement and perhaps warrants 3-4 spots over some of the other lands, like all the Mines and some number of Pools or Pillars. I know it hurts our % against linear aggro, but it increases our % against everything else.
Keranos is an amazing sideboard card against anything fair. Card advantage and reach are two holes in this strategy. Siege Rhino has some reach, so when that effect is good, more sounds great.
Adding spot removal has a real cost to a deck already playing 8 mana dorks. Path is obviously perfect for the deck, and should never go below 4 imo, but Abrupt Decay is much more questionable. At times I wish it were attached to a body, like Reflector Mage for example. I could see Decay being in the sideboard. Or what is it specifically in the deck to do? If anyone knows, I'm interested. Since we have 4 Path already, it would be intuitive that Decay is for the cards Path can't hit, but that seems like it occupies the same deck space as Pridemage, and to a lesser extent, Sculler and Queller.
Lightning Angel hasn't held a candle to Falkenrath Aristocrat. A huge part of Aristocrat is its activated ability. We can insulate ourselves against Wrath effects with a powerful threat, which is very strong. While it's usually going to be just cute, Aristocrat opens you up to interesting plays with Queller's and Sculler's abilities, should that be deemed necessary.
Wait, you just said we can't play a 4/4 on turn two and expect to win against burn? Okay, enforcer of the Wilted Abzan Liege thread, I'm out. That's literally our nut start.
LOL. Wow. So in that video, what would Feed the Clan have done? You do understand that you don't always win a 50/50 matchup right? He also got to play more turns than he otherwise would have. In any case, when you answer the first question, you'll have my answer. And yes, you are trolling. Your only logic is that it might quasi-counter 3 spells. "Not losing" is not the same as "winning." Why don't you tell me how Feed the Clan reasonably wins the game, and I'll drop my argument.
I should have commented on this the first time around. It's a single game, in which you cannot draw a bunch of conclusions from. When I said Finks isn't a sacred-cow for us and isn't a stone-cold trump against Burn, that wasn't based solely on that video. I have experienced losing games with resolved Finks, and everyone else on this deck has too. That video was simply the only one available of our deck vs. Burn, so I presented it to you to support my side since my stories won't carry as much weight. Stop drawing conclusion after conclusion based on one game, that's not helpful.
My logic that it "quasi-counters" three spells isn't appealing to you? What hands are you keeping that having access to that effect is bad?!
Ugh, you did.
Look, if any arbitrary deck hasn't played a card in the past, that's not justification for excluding it now. That's particularly true for one as unpopoular as Abzan Liege. If precedent is your argument for not using Feed the Clans, then it is a pretty poor one. That's like saying laws shouldn't change because they've always existed a particular way.
Now remember, Kitchen Finks actually interacts with their creatures favorably AND can win you the game (because we still have to turn something sideways to win). Feed the Clan literally just let's you limp along if they don't use Skullcrack or Atarka's Command because Burn players don't just randomly tap out on their turn any more. Let's say you get past that particular fear. All you're hoping for in this scenario is that you're going to out-"topdeck" your opponent who plays a lot less land than you. Your odds suck. All their non-land cards, except Goblin Guide, are all action. We actually have terrible topdecks still in after sideboard (Do you really need me to list them?) And this is all even after countering 3 spells IF you happen to have ferocious, which is not a guarantee and is actually unlikely without the game going long for an aggro v aggro matchup.
Nobody is siding out Finks for FtC, so what's your point here? Of course we're trying to just buffer ourselves long enough to win. Why is that bad? Also, nobody is keeping a hand without pressure, but does include Feed the Clans. Come on, give the people some credit.
You say IF we have ferocious, and I get that we can't control what we draw, but with 7-8 copies of creatures that do so, you ARE likely to have one in your hand. You could've done the math before you spewed that nonsense. 8 copies on the play = 65.36%, 8 copies on the draw = 70.59%, 7 copies on the play = 60.1%, 7 copies the draw = 65.36%
edit: I'm not trolling you. I simply want you to explain why FtC is garbage against Burn. Also, that video was evidence that Finks doesn't gain you enough % to take a game from Burn, even in multiples. That wasn't a troll either.
Yes, Feed the Clans is bad in a vacuum. That's never how we discuss cards though. It's for burn, specifically them. And it's really, really, really good against them. Explain why it's garbage against burn, please.
2 Forgotten Cave
2 Mogg Fanatic
2 Spark Elemental
2 Keldon Marauders
2 Thermo-Alchemist
2 Chain Lightning
2 Implement of Combustion
2 Lava Spike
2 Lightning Bolt
2 Needle Drop
2 Shard Volley
2 Curse of the Pierced Heart
2 Fire Ambush
2 Flame Rift
2 Incinerate
2 Lightning Strike
2 Searing Spear
2 Searing Blaze
2 Thunderbolt
2 Rhystic Lightning
2 Rift Bolt
2 Fireblast
2 Martyr of Ashes
2 Electrickery
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Pyroblast
1 Font of Ire
2 Lash Out
2 Smash to Smithereens
2 Molten Rain
This might be a little greedy on the mana since it's slightly heavy on 2 drops. I can't say for certain, but it's possible that it needs another land. You can afford to run Caves though, sine you're only allowed two Fireblast.
I would avoid cards that don't deal damage. So things like Faithless Looting and whatnot look appealing in their best case scenario, but in their worst case, they literally provide nothing. And this deck will get hellbent typically. You can't really afford to draw one of those filtering spells at that point in the game. That's why it has been common ground for a long time that nothing but cards that deal damage and lands should be in your burn deck.
Excluded options: Collateral Damage, Goblin Fireslinger, Lava Dart, and Reckless Abandon. Not enough creatures for CD or RA and already using Shard Volley and Fireblast so no room for Dart. Fireslinger could be a reasonable option.
I don't know if I want to enter a tournament without Thalia and/or Eidolon of Rhetoric in my sb since the spotlight is on cheeri0s right now.
Edit: I guess I didn't consider this at first, but shaving on the combo could be moving in the wrong direction if you want to fight an opposing combo.
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Needle Drop
1 Implement of Combustion
4 Curse of the Pierced Heart
4 Flame Rift
4 Searing Blaze
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
3 Electrickery
4 Smash to Smithereens
4 Thermo-Alchemist
4 Molten Rain
I'm completely off Forgotten Cave. It has lost me too many games where I can't use 2 Fireblasts that would otherwise be game winning. When I was playing 2 or more Caves, I would sometimes even have trouble casting the first Fireblast. I don't flood more often than I need to cast those.
Thermo-Alchemist is great in the matches it doesn't get touched. I noticed in approximately half of my games, it would die without dealing damage. So I relegated it to the sideboard for the matches it can go hard.
I think a basic Plains is great here in addition to the basic Forest. It casts everything besides your dorks and Abrupt Decay, which adds up to more cards than Pillar of the Paruns, for example.
Gemstone Mine has been really bad. I don't even want the first one, and it is easily the first card I'd cut. City of Brass is certainly the best replacement and perhaps warrants 3-4 spots over some of the other lands, like all the Mines and some number of Pools or Pillars. I know it hurts our % against linear aggro, but it increases our % against everything else.
Keranos is an amazing sideboard card against anything fair. Card advantage and reach are two holes in this strategy. Siege Rhino has some reach, so when that effect is good, more sounds great.
Adding spot removal has a real cost to a deck already playing 8 mana dorks. Path is obviously perfect for the deck, and should never go below 4 imo, but Abrupt Decay is much more questionable. At times I wish it were attached to a body, like Reflector Mage for example. I could see Decay being in the sideboard. Or what is it specifically in the deck to do? If anyone knows, I'm interested. Since we have 4 Path already, it would be intuitive that Decay is for the cards Path can't hit, but that seems like it occupies the same deck space as Pridemage, and to a lesser extent, Sculler and Queller.
Lightning Angel hasn't held a candle to Falkenrath Aristocrat. A huge part of Aristocrat is its activated ability. We can insulate ourselves against Wrath effects with a powerful threat, which is very strong. While it's usually going to be just cute, Aristocrat opens you up to interesting plays with Queller's and Sculler's abilities, should that be deemed necessary.
I should have commented on this the first time around. It's a single game, in which you cannot draw a bunch of conclusions from. When I said Finks isn't a sacred-cow for us and isn't a stone-cold trump against Burn, that wasn't based solely on that video. I have experienced losing games with resolved Finks, and everyone else on this deck has too. That video was simply the only one available of our deck vs. Burn, so I presented it to you to support my side since my stories won't carry as much weight. Stop drawing conclusion after conclusion based on one game, that's not helpful.
My logic that it "quasi-counters" three spells isn't appealing to you? What hands are you keeping that having access to that effect is bad?!
Please don't.
Ugh, you did.
Look, if any arbitrary deck hasn't played a card in the past, that's not justification for excluding it now. That's particularly true for one as unpopoular as Abzan Liege. If precedent is your argument for not using Feed the Clans, then it is a pretty poor one. That's like saying laws shouldn't change because they've always existed a particular way.
Nobody is siding out Finks for FtC, so what's your point here? Of course we're trying to just buffer ourselves long enough to win. Why is that bad? Also, nobody is keeping a hand without pressure, but does include Feed the Clans. Come on, give the people some credit.
You say IF we have ferocious, and I get that we can't control what we draw, but with 7-8 copies of creatures that do so, you ARE likely to have one in your hand. You could've done the math before you spewed that nonsense. 8 copies on the play = 65.36%, 8 copies on the draw = 70.59%, 7 copies on the play = 60.1%, 7 copies the draw = 65.36%
edit: I'm not trolling you. I simply want you to explain why FtC is garbage against Burn. Also, that video was evidence that Finks doesn't gain you enough % to take a game from Burn, even in multiples. That wasn't a troll either.
Yes, Feed the Clans is bad in a vacuum. That's never how we discuss cards though. It's for burn, specifically them. And it's really, really, really good against them. Explain why it's garbage against burn, please.