My apologies if this has already been asked, but do Deathrite Shaman's abilities fizzle if the targeted cards are removed from the graveyard in response?
Sorry, kinda unfamiliar with how SCG works... Is it possible to see the list he's running? It's cool to see a fellow Burn thread person placing in a widely-covered event!
It might be nice against dredge, but I feel like reanimator would have no problem countering it. Macabre might have less of an impact, but there's probably not going to be any way for your opponent to prevent it, I think?
Plus, doesn't burn have a pretty good game against dredge anyway? Doesn't graveyard stuff really only matter when it works on reanimator?
Well, it's almost 3AM and I have nothing better to do than post my list. I haven't had time to get it to any tournaments lately, but it has been doing extremely well in testing. I'm winning on Turn 3 more often than not, and the rest of the time I'm usually winning during my Turn 4 upkeep with either a Marauders dying or a Rift Bolt coming in from Suspend. Anyway, here's my list:
Looks interesting, I might like to try your list at the next Legacy event I go to (which may be far off in the future as school just started... ha ha). With what kind of testing have you been yielding these favorable results?
have you read my most recent article? If you need proof that the mana curve build is valid you should check it out. I ran a mana curve list 5 tournaments in a row in an extremely competative meta (populated by multiple pro tour players and a couple whom have been invited to worlds that is going on this weekend) and I made at least top 8 in all 5 tournaments. I am also planning on taking a very similar list to a large tournament this weekend.
Yeah, my apologies: after I posted that comment I realized that I totally forgot about your article! I had, in fact, read it. Let's hope we'll get more results like that, eh?
Also, it could be a meta decision as both Fortris and the primer seem to suggest, huh.
Still, more match up info and whatnot wouldn't hurt! Let's make burn stickied-proven next!
I really want to run a mana curve build (because (a) I like burn and (b) that's one of the only decks I can afford... ha ha), but a friend of mine who's skeptical of burn keeps doubting the viability of the mana curve build. And indeed it seems that the top 8 lists we've seen recently are all mana sink builds. I think someone recently said in this thread that this is because they're "popular" (suggesting that they're not necessarily more viable than mana curve builds all around), and in any case people seem to have been defending the mana curve build for quite a while in this thread (and I would like to, too), but people have already been admitting that they haven't been able to get to tournaments and test all that much, so with what evidence are the people supportive of mana curve builds defending their claim? (Testing among friends, or on Cockatrice, perhaps? How accurate is that kind of evidence?) Haven't the top 8-placing burn players been deciding on their mana curve lists after extensive practice and testing?
Wait, are we absolutely sure we need bolts 17-20? Does that give it that extra push Burn's clock needed?
What I want to know, is, what's causing Burn to be in the Established subforum rather than the Proven subforum. Is splashing black the remedy? EDIT: It's not like Mental Misstep was the absolute downfall of this archetype, was it?
Ah, thank you, that's what I thought. This has been an interesting lesson in Magic rules. Interestingly, I couldn't find any part in the comprehensive rules that says priority is passed according to turn order.
I have a rules question having to do with how priority gets passed, but it's kinda hard to explain.
So here's something that happened in a game: during the end step on my turn, my opponent puts a creature with an activated ability onto the battlefield with Æther Vial. Is there any way I can blow the creature up with an instant before it goes to his turn (or rather, to the cleanup step)? My opponent said there wasn't, but I'm not so sure.
Here's how I *think* the turn is supposed to go:
1) The end step begins, and I get priority because I'm the active player.
2) I pass priority to my opponent.
3) My opponent plays the activated ability; the ability goes on the stack.
4) My opponent gets priority again.
5) My opponent passes priority.
6) I pass priority.
7) The ability resolves.
Now, since the ability on the top of the stack resolves, don't I get priority again? And doesn't that mean that I can cast my instant here?
Or, does the turn end because 5) and 6) count as "all players passing priority in succession"? Don't I get priority again because an ability resolved?
Right but people are using Flame rift and magma jet not because there are not alternatives and these are just the best one, but because they have effects that the deck requires.
People use price of progress not only for the amount of damage it puts out, but because they are not hurt by it. As soon as you are splashing non basics your running more risk. I cant imagine anyone is saying they should cut PoP for this spell either.
People are using goblin guide regardless of it's CA disadvantage as well as the fact that it validates removal for your opponent and loses you VCA. It's not because there is another option, its because its damage potential is so high.
If your deck could be literally 36 lightning bolts, 20 mountains, and 4 fireblasts, would you play it? Probably not because it would most likely lose to the burn lists that were running marauders and goblin guides, and while it would be the most consistent deck, it would also be the most transcribed and skill free deck in the format. You consistently have a turn 4 win with a possible turn 3 (5 bolts, fire blast, 2 mountains, and they crack a fetch) but your opponent auto wins with a leyline or constant source of lifegain.
There is a need for 3 for 1 spells, but there does get to be a point where the utility of them are lost and they would be better as something else that provides utility.
This. I think this is all very good, but have we reached a consensus on what ratios and features are optimal? Does it depend on the situation? In the end, are there way too many factors for us to be able to "calculate" concrete optimum values? I mean, for all we know, it might be better to have one more or one less playset of 3-for-1's, right?
Also, on Grim Lavamancer: Is the primer still right in saying that there are mana curve builds and mana sink builds? If so, they roughly correspond to without Lavamancer and with Lavamancer, right. So there isn't any concrete evidence that with Lavamancer (W) does better on average than without Lavamancer (WO)? I've only tested WO, and somehow I've been getting the impression that W is better, but probably just because I've seen more W lists around. I'm kinda hoping that WO is better because I don't really want to have to get a bunch of fetch lands...
Ah, sorry for the mistake.
Ah, I see. Thank you!
It might be nice against dredge, but I feel like reanimator would have no problem countering it. Macabre might have less of an impact, but there's probably not going to be any way for your opponent to prevent it, I think?
Plus, doesn't burn have a pretty good game against dredge anyway? Doesn't graveyard stuff really only matter when it works on reanimator?
Looks interesting, I might like to try your list at the next Legacy event I go to (which may be far off in the future as school just started... ha ha). With what kind of testing have you been yielding these favorable results?
Yeah, my apologies: after I posted that comment I realized that I totally forgot about your article! I had, in fact, read it. Let's hope we'll get more results like that, eh?
Also, it could be a meta decision as both Fortris and the primer seem to suggest, huh.
Still, more match up info and whatnot wouldn't hurt! Let's make burn stickied-proven next!
What I want to know, is, what's causing Burn to be in the Established subforum rather than the Proven subforum. Is splashing black the remedy? EDIT: It's not like Mental Misstep was the absolute downfall of this archetype, was it?
Ah, thank you!
So here's something that happened in a game: during the end step on my turn, my opponent puts a creature with an activated ability onto the battlefield with Æther Vial. Is there any way I can blow the creature up with an instant before it goes to his turn (or rather, to the cleanup step)? My opponent said there wasn't, but I'm not so sure.
Here's how I *think* the turn is supposed to go:
1) The end step begins, and I get priority because I'm the active player.
2) I pass priority to my opponent.
3) My opponent plays the activated ability; the ability goes on the stack.
4) My opponent gets priority again.
5) My opponent passes priority.
6) I pass priority.
7) The ability resolves.
Now, since the ability on the top of the stack resolves, don't I get priority again? And doesn't that mean that I can cast my instant here?
Or, does the turn end because 5) and 6) count as "all players passing priority in succession"? Don't I get priority again because an ability resolved?
Thank you for your feedback!
This. I think this is all very good, but have we reached a consensus on what ratios and features are optimal? Does it depend on the situation? In the end, are there way too many factors for us to be able to "calculate" concrete optimum values? I mean, for all we know, it might be better to have one more or one less playset of 3-for-1's, right?
Also, on Grim Lavamancer: Is the primer still right in saying that there are mana curve builds and mana sink builds? If so, they roughly correspond to without Lavamancer and with Lavamancer, right. So there isn't any concrete evidence that with Lavamancer (W) does better on average than without Lavamancer (WO)? I've only tested WO, and somehow I've been getting the impression that W is better, but probably just because I've seen more W lists around. I'm kinda hoping that WO is better because I don't really want to have to get a bunch of fetch lands...