Ah, . . what?
GPash, I asked to see your decklist, and you typed one up.
I asked you to be on topic, instead of just insulting, and to see if you actually had something useful in your decklist to deal with my problems. They don't. And somehow me editing my posts is bad? What?
.
I have lost repeatedly in legacy TOURNAMENTS to dark depths. (That is what my posts say.)
I am tired of losing to Dark Depths, in Tournaments. On turn 2.
.
Your decklist gets utterly crushed by Dark Depths. Even worse than my original decklist. I mean, totally, absolutely destroyed. You only stand a chance if their deck fails. Because you only play 18 lands, so even when you draw an Ensnaring bridge you quite likely wont be able to cast it on turn 3.
Or it will be discarded.
Or it will be destroyed on the off chance you actually survive till turn 3, and you draw it, and you play 3 mountains.
In the 15 person tournaments I currently play in, at least 2 people play DD. And they always do well.
So, if I want a chance to win the tournament, I need answers.
Or I can stop playing burn in tournaments.
You want to call me "notorious for being toxic/stubborn/passive aggressive" , well, OK, sure.
Your solution to the problems I am typing about when I play burn in Legacy Tournaments is . . . absent.
Your solution is to give up, and accept burn can't win, to be 'non-competitive".
Thanks, but I think I will pass on your solution.
GPash -> Burn should never be playing a colorless land like Wak-Wak or Maze.
Delver is a big card in Legacy, right?
Island of Wak-Wak also works stopping Delver inflicting damage, when attacking into it. Kill it, and then hurt the player.
Maze of Ith does not do that, and Karakas does not effect Delver. Other solutions get counter-spelled. Maze & Waky do not.
( I am trying out 2xMaze, as written in my decklist )
Sure, Island of Wak-Wak is an expensive, obscure card from Arabian nights. Is that a problem?
This is page 126 of a burn thread, should I be writing about lightning bolt?
GPash -> "Not sure why you're trying to dilute your sideboard to potentially assist a matchup that will still be bad."
Alpine Moon beats Dark Depths.
Don't play it if you want, but I wish to be competitive in the Legacy Tournaments I play in.
Sideboard cards are specifically for beating bad match ups, at least, that is what I use them for.
I spoze I could just accept defeat, like you recommend, against Dark Depths. Alpine Moon is the very definition of a FANTASTIC sideboard card.
It stops DD COLD.
The Lazotep Plating & Kasmina's Transmutation might be good enough.
The second mana does make the plating way more expensive, obviously, but giving me hexproof does seem a good thing to point out.
For two mana, I think I would really just prefer an all purpose counterspell.
KT does seem a cheaper Deep freeze.
Thing is, Deep freeze has really not been working for me.
When U/R beats me, putting a deep freeze on their Drake just doesn't seem good enough. They still draw a card. Putting a Freeze on Niv is OK I spoze, since the alternative is losing. Carnage tyrant still beats both, but at least it doesn't fly.
The rest, aren't for me, but I have been wrong before.
Many do seem quite playable, but, just not in this.
Narset's Reversal does seem way cool, if you can pull it off.
Teferi's Time Twist just doesn't play well with Curious Obsession, the strongest card in the deck.
None of our creatures are worth investing 2 mana to flicker.
Augur of Bolas is strong, and earlier, similar versions of it have seen play.
But. Not really in this style of play.
It is a slow card that allows people to stay alive, find good spells, and then win a lot by being impressive.
That doesn't describe this deck.
Narset is similar. Against a big slow dumb opponent, and us using lots of spells, she rocks.
That aint us.
Kefnet : If I wanted a 4 mana creature, I would play the one that does something awesome on turn 1, and sometimes is a 4/4.
Wow.
Someone else that plays Sphinx. Weird. I have looked, and you do not exist.
I count the first sphinx as a land when I see ONE in opening hand. It actually allows LESS land in the deck. the effect is way worse if I ever draw 2, which is why I ended up going down to only 2. I do have games where I ignore the basic original concept, and roll out fast big flyers. Turn 3 Flyer, Turn 4 Flyer does kill people. But, don't mind me. I am prolly just typing to myself, and misreading your words.
It is cheap, and stomps on some of the expensive decks, if played well.
Entrancing Melody can be AWESOME.
It's only problem is it's cost. In a mirror it is obscene. Steal a One drop with a curious on it, and the game swings. Or a Pter once adapted.
It is good against Red as well.
I am the only player that uses Sphinx. Sphinx is completely nonstandard, and an outlier. I still think it fantastic, but I am a voice in the wilderness. There is no point even asking about it.
Surge Mare is different to Wall of Runes.
And Wall of Runes looks interesting. Really interesting I like it. A lot.
Surge Mare can go offence in a big way, but that is not what I have been using it for. Very rarely do I ever have mana I am happy to allocate to pumping him. Although he does do it sometimes, which is definitely worth remembering.
Wall of Runes looks like the perfect card to stay alive with against aggro. And the scry is neat
Thank you for pointing it out.
Red decks have been a problem for me, and WoR looks very good against them.
Against White Aggro WoR is also going to be helpful.
If the Curious has kicked in, having anything that can stand in front of ground pounders seems good.
WoR is definitely something I am going to be trying out.
I think it is likely to end up as a SB card, but, maybe basedeck defending on how many aggro decks are out there. I think Sideboard more likely because things like Gates, Nexus, U/R, and U/W control are too common, for me anyway. And not interacting with anything they are doing is going to suck. . . But, against Aggro, WoR looks like a winner.
I am not seeing anything else for us from the new set.
Yeah, I spoze I do. I posted my burn decklist, and my interesting results using weird sideboarding. Including my play mistakes. Alpine Moon & Island of Wak-Wak are spicy, because Dark Depths sure seems unfair, and ubiquitous. Relabelling "combo" as 'Unfair' sounds odd, but, go ahead. But, it doesn't make FoW fair.
Believing you are going to deal 8 damage using Price of Progress seems extremely hopeful against decks playing Ponder. Price will be the first card discarded, and the spell counterspelled by FoW. At least, that's what happens to me.
The reason FoW is unfair is because it can say No, at any time, whenever.
The reason burn can beat decks that play 4x FoW is because there is no critical spell to say no to.
Depths is the combo deck I need to worry about. All the others just don't seem as backbreakingly awful, or as common. I reckon I should have enough ridiculous SB plan to pull even, provided I play it better. And if I don't, I am playin' more.
Burn Mulligans badly because it needs to resolve enough damage spells, and having less of them means it takes longer to win. Burn can still draw and cast a couple of high damage initial creatures, like Swifty or Gobbo, but it gets hopeful quickly. This is a really strong reason to play Barbarian Rings instead of a couple of burn spells. Aint no way I am going down to just 16 mountains.
I am trying out Skewer & Light Up.
Cute that they get around Chalice.
On the draw, Eidolon have been distinctly average.
Most of my Blue opponents also seem to be playing massed discard, making the Exquisite Firecraft not particularly useful.
Alpine Moon is a very spicy meatball.
I am thinking of going up to 4 Light Up The Stage because it gives more access to turn 2 Alpine Moon.
Yup. I am definitely wrong, handing out crazy pills, out of my mind, a mad-man, and don't know what I am talking about.
"When someone talks about a "fair deck", they're characterizing the win condition in the deck."
"Fair" means that the deck wins by turning creatures sideways after more-or-less paying a normal rate for them"
Oh.
Good to know the cool kids have a precise definition.
(And, Burn, PURE burn, is the literal definition of 'Unfair'. Oh. I am wrong again.)
"Fair" - "the deck doesn't win through comboing off and they don't do things like cheat in a 15/15 with Sneak/Show or reanimate a fatty on turn 1."
"Playing Force of Will doesn't make a deck unfair." Right . . .
"I think the issue is that I'm defining "fair deck" the way everyone else defines "fair deck" and you're using some definition that no one else uses."
Yeah, I think you might just be onto something there.
I am using the word 'Fair' to mean fair. Weird Huh?
"That more or less means that you're arguing from an incorrect position and are just flat out wrong."
Got it.
I am wrong a lot, and Force of Will is the very definition of "Fair".
That's why I am playing 4 copies of Force of Will in Vintage, because it is fair.
And, using the cool kids definition, Vintage decks all play "Fair".
Strip Mine & Time Vault & Ancestral are all "Fair".
"There are fair decks in Legacy, quite a few, in fact."
So, the types of decks in Legacy are not Combo, Aggro and Control.
They are 'Unfair' & "Fair" - Rock on dude.
"A fair deck is one that generally wins by paying mana for (rather than cheating with something like Sneak Attack) and then turning creatures sideways."
Oh?
So, the definition of 'fair' is paying mana, yet "Many of them play blue, and thus play Force of Will".
Not paying mana for counterspells is fair
Not paying mana for wrath is fair (terminus)
Not paying mana for burn is fair (fireblast)
But, not paying mana for creatures is not fair
"Maybe you haven't played enough Legacy to recognize that there are a number of fair decks? That's the only reasonable explanation I can think of for the claim you're making right now."
Got it, I am ignorant or inexperienced. I must be, because I disagree.
(And find your point of view amusing.)
GPash, I asked to see your decklist, and you typed one up.
I asked you to be on topic, instead of just insulting, and to see if you actually had something useful in your decklist to deal with my problems. They don't. And somehow me editing my posts is bad? What?
.
I have lost repeatedly in legacy TOURNAMENTS to dark depths. (That is what my posts say.)
I am tired of losing to Dark Depths, in Tournaments. On turn 2.
.
Your decklist gets utterly crushed by Dark Depths. Even worse than my original decklist. I mean, totally, absolutely destroyed. You only stand a chance if their deck fails. Because you only play 18 lands, so even when you draw an Ensnaring bridge you quite likely wont be able to cast it on turn 3.
Or it will be discarded.
Or it will be destroyed on the off chance you actually survive till turn 3, and you draw it, and you play 3 mountains.
In the 15 person tournaments I currently play in, at least 2 people play DD. And they always do well.
So, if I want a chance to win the tournament, I need answers.
Or I can stop playing burn in tournaments.
You want to call me "notorious for being toxic/stubborn/passive aggressive" , well, OK, sure.
Your solution to the problems I am typing about when I play burn in Legacy Tournaments is . . . absent.
Your solution is to give up, and accept burn can't win, to be 'non-competitive".
Thanks, but I think I will pass on your solution.
GPash -> Burn should never be playing a colorless land like Wak-Wak or Maze.
Delver is a big card in Legacy, right?
Island of Wak-Wak also works stopping Delver inflicting damage, when attacking into it. Kill it, and then hurt the player.
Maze of Ith does not do that, and Karakas does not effect Delver. Other solutions get counter-spelled. Maze & Waky do not.
( I am trying out 2xMaze, as written in my decklist )
Sure, Island of Wak-Wak is an expensive, obscure card from Arabian nights. Is that a problem?
This is page 126 of a burn thread, should I be writing about lightning bolt?
GPash -> "Not sure why you're trying to dilute your sideboard to potentially assist a matchup that will still be bad."
Alpine Moon beats Dark Depths.
Don't play it if you want, but I wish to be competitive in the Legacy Tournaments I play in.
Sideboard cards are specifically for beating bad match ups, at least, that is what I use them for.
I spoze I could just accept defeat, like you recommend, against Dark Depths.
Alpine Moon is the very definition of a FANTASTIC sideboard card.
It stops DD COLD.
The second mana does make the plating way more expensive, obviously, but giving me hexproof does seem a good thing to point out.
For two mana, I think I would really just prefer an all purpose counterspell.
KT does seem a cheaper Deep freeze.
Thing is, Deep freeze has really not been working for me.
When U/R beats me, putting a deep freeze on their Drake just doesn't seem good enough. They still draw a card. Putting a Freeze on Niv is OK I spoze, since the alternative is losing. Carnage tyrant still beats both, but at least it doesn't fly.
The rest, aren't for me, but I have been wrong before.
Many do seem quite playable, but, just not in this.
Narset's Reversal does seem way cool, if you can pull it off.
Teferi's Time Twist just doesn't play well with Curious Obsession, the strongest card in the deck.
None of our creatures are worth investing 2 mana to flicker.
Augur of Bolas is strong, and earlier, similar versions of it have seen play.
But. Not really in this style of play.
It is a slow card that allows people to stay alive, find good spells, and then win a lot by being impressive.
That doesn't describe this deck.
Narset is similar. Against a big slow dumb opponent, and us using lots of spells, she rocks.
That aint us.
Kefnet : If I wanted a 4 mana creature, I would play the one that does something awesome on turn 1, and sometimes is a 4/4.
Wow.
Someone else that plays Sphinx. Weird. I have looked, and you do not exist.
I count the first sphinx as a land when I see ONE in opening hand. It actually allows LESS land in the deck. the effect is way worse if I ever draw 2, which is why I ended up going down to only 2. I do have games where I ignore the basic original concept, and roll out fast big flyers. Turn 3 Flyer, Turn 4 Flyer does kill people. But, don't mind me. I am prolly just typing to myself, and misreading your words.
4 Pteramander
4 Siren Stormtamer
4 Merfolk Trickster
4 Tempest Djinn
20 Island
3 Dive Down
4 Opt
3 Spell Pierce
1 Chart a Course
2 Essence Capture
4 Wizard's Retort
2 Disdainful Stroke
3 Entrancing Melody
2 Essence Capture
2 Negate
4 Surge Mare
1 Deep Freeze
1 Transmogrifying Wand
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/1820382#paper
Competitive Standard League 2019-04-18, (5-0)
4 Pteramander
4 Siren Stormtamer
4 Merfolk Trickster
4 Tempest Djinn
19 Island
4 Curious Obsession
4 Dive Down
4 Opt
3 Spell Pierce
1 Chart a Course
1 Entrancing Melody
2 Essence Capture
1 Negate
4 Wizard's Retort
1 Island
1 Disdainful Stroke
3 Entrancing Melody
1 Essence Capture
3 Negate
3 Surge Mare
2 Deep Freeze
1 Jace, Cunning Castaway
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/1790980#paper
Competitive Standard League 2019-04-08, (5-0) Apr 08, 2019
4 Pteramander
4 Siren Stormtamer
4 Merfolk Trickster
4 Tempest Djinn
20 Island
4 Curious Obsession
3 Dive Down
4 Opt
2 Spell Pierce
1 Chart a Course
1 Entrancing Melody
2 Essence Capture
1 Negate
4 Wizard's Retort
1 Disdainful Stroke
2 Entrancing Melody
1 Essence Capture
2 Faerie Duelist
2 Negate
2 Search for Azcanta
3 Surge Mare
2 Deep Freeze
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=21642&d=345321&f=ST
11/04/19
1 Mist-Cloaked Herald
4 Pteramander
4 Siren Stormtamer
4 Tempest Djinn
19 Island
4 Curious Obsession
4 Opt
3 Spell Pierce
1 Chart a Course
2 Essence Capture
1 Negate
4 Wizard's Retort
1 Entrancing Melody
1 Disdainful Stroke
3 Entrancing Melody
2 Essence Capture
1 Island
1 Jace, Cunning Castaway
3 Negate
4 Surge Mare
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=21704&d=345846&f=ST
1 Mist-Cloaked Herald
4 Pteramander
4 Siren Stormtamer
4 Tempest Djinn
19 Island
4 Dive Down
4 Opt
3 Spell Pierce
1 Chart a Course
1 Entrancing Melody
2 Essence Capture
1 Negate
4 Wizard's Retort
4 Curious Obsession
2 Deep Freeze
1 Disdainful Stroke
3 Entrancing Melody
1 Essence Capture
1 Island
1 Jace, Cunning Castaway
3 Negate
3 Surge Mare
It is cheap, and stomps on some of the expensive decks, if played well.
Entrancing Melody can be AWESOME.
It's only problem is it's cost. In a mirror it is obscene. Steal a One drop with a curious on it, and the game swings. Or a Pter once adapted.
It is good against Red as well.
I am the only player that uses Sphinx. Sphinx is completely nonstandard, and an outlier. I still think it fantastic, but I am a voice in the wilderness. There is no point even asking about it.
Surge Mare is different to Wall of Runes.
And Wall of Runes looks interesting. Really interesting I like it. A lot.
Surge Mare can go offence in a big way, but that is not what I have been using it for. Very rarely do I ever have mana I am happy to allocate to pumping him. Although he does do it sometimes, which is definitely worth remembering.
Wall of Runes looks like the perfect card to stay alive with against aggro. And the scry is neat
Thank you for pointing it out.
Red decks have been a problem for me, and WoR looks very good against them.
Against White Aggro WoR is also going to be helpful.
If the Curious has kicked in, having anything that can stand in front of ground pounders seems good.
WoR is definitely something I am going to be trying out.
I think it is likely to end up as a SB card, but, maybe basedeck defending on how many aggro decks are out there. I think Sideboard more likely because things like Gates, Nexus, U/R, and U/W control are too common, for me anyway. And not interacting with anything they are doing is going to suck. . . But, against Aggro, WoR looks like a winner.
I am not seeing anything else for us from the new set.
I like the basedeck revokers.
Yeah.
That works.
Thought more about Revokers.
I think I should be playing them too.
The thoughtseize story is the dream.
Really happy to see it kick in for you.
Believing you are going to deal 8 damage using Price of Progress seems extremely hopeful against decks playing Ponder. Price will be the first card discarded, and the spell counterspelled by FoW. At least, that's what happens to me.
The reason burn can beat decks that play 4x FoW is because there is no critical spell to say no to.
Depths is the combo deck I need to worry about. All the others just don't seem as backbreakingly awful, or as common. I reckon I should have enough ridiculous SB plan to pull even, provided I play it better. And if I don't, I am playin' more.
Burn Mulligans badly because it needs to resolve enough damage spells, and having less of them means it takes longer to win. Burn can still draw and cast a couple of high damage initial creatures, like Swifty or Gobbo, but it gets hopeful quickly. This is a really strong reason to play Barbarian Rings instead of a couple of burn spells. Aint no way I am going down to just 16 mountains.
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava spike
3 Fireblast
2 Light up the stage
2 Skewer the Critics
4 Price of Progress
1 Sonic Burst
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
9 Mountain
3 Bloodstained Mire
3 Wooded Foothills
1 Arid Mesa
4 Barbarian Ring
4 Alpine Moon
2 Island of Wak-Wak
2 Maze of Ith
4 Searing Blaze
3 Exquisite Firecraft
I am trying out Skewer & Light Up.
Cute that they get around Chalice.
On the draw, Eidolon have been distinctly average.
Most of my Blue opponents also seem to be playing massed discard, making the Exquisite Firecraft not particularly useful.
Alpine Moon is a very spicy meatball.
I am thinking of going up to 4 Light Up The Stage because it gives more access to turn 2 Alpine Moon.
I so want a Hidetsugu's Second Rite
"When someone talks about a "fair deck", they're characterizing the win condition in the deck."
"Fair" means that the deck wins by turning creatures sideways after more-or-less paying a normal rate for them"
Oh.
Good to know the cool kids have a precise definition.
(And, Burn, PURE burn, is the literal definition of 'Unfair'. Oh. I am wrong again.)
"Fair" - "the deck doesn't win through comboing off and they don't do things like cheat in a 15/15 with Sneak/Show or reanimate a fatty on turn 1."
"Playing Force of Will doesn't make a deck unfair."
"I think the issue is that I'm defining "fair deck" the way everyone else defines "fair deck" and you're using some definition that no one else uses."
Yeah, I think you might just be onto something there.
I am using the word 'Fair' to mean fair. Weird Huh?
"That more or less means that you're arguing from an incorrect position and are just flat out wrong."
Got it.
I am wrong a lot, and Force of Will is the very definition of "Fair".
That's why I am playing 4 copies of Force of Will in Vintage, because it is fair.
And, using the cool kids definition, Vintage decks all play "Fair".
Strip Mine & Time Vault & Ancestral are all "Fair".
"There are fair decks in Legacy, quite a few, in fact."
So, the types of decks in Legacy are not Combo, Aggro and Control.
They are 'Unfair' & "Fair" - Rock on dude.
Oh?
So, the definition of 'fair' is paying mana, yet "Many of them play blue, and thus play Force of Will".
Not paying mana for counterspells is fair
Not paying mana for wrath is fair (terminus)
Not paying mana for burn is fair (fireblast)
But, not paying mana for creatures is not fair
"Maybe you haven't played enough Legacy to recognize that there are a number of fair decks? That's the only reasonable explanation I can think of for the claim you're making right now."
Got it, I am ignorant or inexperienced. I must be, because I disagree.
(And find your point of view amusing.)
'Fair' - D&T, Grixis Control, Grixis Delver, Miracles, Maverick, UB Shadow, BUG - Tee hee
If burn only beats 'Fair' decks, that's a problem.
Fair decks are not played in Legacy.