I have been playing around with counter burn since Delver came out so I am glad to see this topic get promoted. Am I the only one that likes magma jet?
I have been working on different U/R lists since i saw Delver for the first time.
The list i've enjoyed the most is this:
MD
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Snapcaster Mage
2 Grim Lavamancer
2 Ponder
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Brainstorm
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Snare
3 Daze
3 Price of Progress
2 Fire/Ice
4 Volcanic Island
3 Island
3 Mountain
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Arid Mesa
3 Misty Rainforest
SB
2 Pyroblast
1 Red Elemental Blast
3 Spell Pierce
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Smash to Smithereens
3 Pyrostatic Pillar
I want to apologize to you all for not being able to maintain the Primer a lot, between work and personal issues I haven't had the chance. I'm going to do what I can now.
Belcher
Delver
Dredge
When your heart won't beat, your eyes go black
There's a light in the tunnel and you can't turn back
Your friends can't save you, your family's gone
You're waiting on your judgment at the foot of the throne
Will you beg for some mercy? Will you cop some pleas?
Will you stand on your own or get down on your knees?
Will your angels release you from where demons dwell?
Will you make it into Heaven or go right back to Hell?
Only time will tell
I'm a big supporter of magma jet. It's quite card efficient. For a similar effect you'd have to Preordain, draw a bolt and cast it. Same mana, two cards, one more damage. I wouldn't run it over ponder, you need ponder I feel.Originally Posted by lyracian
No, it's not the same. Magma Jet is a 2cc card that deals 2 damage to a target. From the start, this is very weak. What people like is the Scry 2, but this is not a cantrip, and the only card "advantage" in this is burying lands you don't want. In a deck that already features Brainstorm and Ponder, this Scry affect is not nearly as valuable and important as it is to mono red burn. Preordain says "Draw a card". Preordaining into Lightning Bolt is a whole 50% more damage than Jet.
Against a deck that plays creatures that will die to Jet, it can be valuable. There are many decks that you're forced to burn their life total, like combo and control, and that's totally awful. For 2 mana, I want to be casting Price of Progress and winning. Also, Multiple Magma Jets are the absolute worst. I think that card is overvalued.
I agree on Magma Jet. If Brainstorm were banned then Jet might take its place, but otherwise it's just not necessary in a deck with both Brainstorm and Ponder, which are flat out better at sorting your deck. There's not really room in this deck for burn that does less than 3 damage, imo.
Maybe the point is not ADD Magma Jet to the deck but CHANGE Ponder with Magma Jet. Imho, Brainstorm gives what it has to, the ability to remove useless threads /answers form your hand (+ fetch ofc) so it's untouchable. Ponder "just" arranges what you are going to draw and this seems almost the same as Magma Jet, where you cast the damage right away and then arrange what you'll draw next. In this concept, they are close to each other, but we are:
- Depending on resolving the damage in order to arrange the next cards
- Spending 1 more mana to do so (and maybe we don't have enough with 2 points)
- Going 1 less card in depth
- Reducing the amount of blue cards from the deck, then, diminishing FoW probability.
I've played Boros for some time, and I was a fan of Magma Jet (3x) to arrange my next draws and avoid lands from the top of the deck when I needed to seal the deal. Also, in order to improve the damage output, Magma Jet was almost always (when possible) fired at a creature to clear the path for my Goblin Guide or slow down the opponent (see Hierarch / Stoneforge) in a way to optimize every point I could deal. If it was to be included in this deck, it should be played like this, but I'm unsure of its effectiveness.
Keep in mind that Ponder is way more reusable with Snapcaster than Magma Jet, just for the extra mana that we may be short of.
Anyway, Testing will determine its effectiveness or lack of it.
A PRO doesn't draw, he tutors every turn.
JMLL
Hi, I'm new to this deck and started loving it. :-)
I currently run Magma Jet instead of Ponder.
In addition to the above mentioned pros and cons I think a major advantage of Magma Jet is that as an instant you can cast it EOT. This makes it more flexible with regard to timing aspects. But, time will tell.
Have fun,
Sandoz
I actually gave this some testing last week. I didn't like it for the following reasons:
1. My build is running 18 lands. Ponder will let you keep a strong 1 land hand. Magma Jet, not so much.
2. I really like the ability to run FoW in the board. Without Ponder, I simply don't have the density of blue cards required to support it.
3. With 12 3cc 3 damage burn cards in the deck (Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning, Rift Bolt,) it's pretty rare to cast Ponder and not be able to draw into one of them on the same turn. So typically you're getting 3 damage for 2 mana off Ponder as opposed to 2 damage for 2 mana off Magma Jet.
My list:
// Lands - 18
2 Mountain
2 Island
2 Volcanic Island
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Arid Mesa
4 Polluted Delta
// Creatures - 11
4 Goblin Guide
4 Delver of Secrets
3 Grim Lavamancer
// Burn - 15
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
3 Price of Progress
// Permission - 8
4 Daze
4 Spell Snare
// Cantrip - 8
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
// Sideboard
SB: 3 Smash to Smithereens
SB: 4 Force of Will
SB: 4 Tormod's Crypt
SB: 3 Spell Pierce
SB: 1 Grim Lavamancer
I've cut down to 2 Volcanic Islands. This may seem odd. Frankly, I don't want to have more than 2 even when I have had the opportunity, and most of the time I only want 1. I like having basics. The deck is very stable against Wasteland this way, and I'm going to keep it like that. I can't recall the last tempo deck I played which had such a consistent mana-base.
I've moved away from being a combo deck and more towards an aggro-control deck. I think this is the right direction, but perhaps I'm wrong.
I ended up cutting Fireblast. This deck wants to be able to interact. It isn't a combo deck which highly values finishers (regardless of whether or not they can be used as control cards), like a combo-burn deck. This is an aggro-control deck. Almost all of its burn cards must be able to hit creatures (without the ridiculous drawback of having no or next to no lands). Fireblast, when you aren't completely land flooded, is almost never going to target creatures. I'd rather have more interactive cards than Fireblast.
Of course, Price of Progress remains in the deck, yet it is clearly just a finisher. Its minimum damage tends to be Fireblast's damage and it can easily hit for far more. Also, I can use it without overextending (by saccing my land). I think it is the best finisher. If I had bolts 13-16 (Fire/Ice is in testing right now), I'd be sideboarding Price of Progress.
Originally, I had the 4th Grim Lavamancer main. I've mixed feelings about him. Where he's good, he's amazing. I board him in when he's all that and a bag of chips. While I like the mana-base where it is, I might be willing to adjust it to pick up Nimble Mongoose. 8 beaters is not a lot. I want 1-cc beaters (plays perfectly in the deck). For a light splash, the deck can pick up what is arguably the best 1-cc beater in the game (particularly when you can hit Thresh so effectively). People who play around Daze and control my creatures can make life difficult. Nimble Mongoose is insanely good against removal, but he doesn't play nice with Lavamancer. Most of the time, I either want one of the other, a shrouded beater or a shock-stick. I can easily side out the Geese for Mancers when I want. I'll be trying it out.
I've maxed out on Spell Snare and Ponder. I know some people don't like having multiple cantrips (it can slow the tempo of the deck down), but it allows to play only the 1st-class cards for each function, and it also means that I have very few upkeepable hands - I commonly keep 1-land hands with cantrips. Spell Snare has been golden for me, giving me the ability to interact where Burn and Daze don't. I can't say enough about being able to play out my cards while keeping mana open to disrupt (even if it is conditional and only works against a particular, yet large, set of cards). I get to deploy my assets, and they don't get to deploy their assets in the early game - if that isn't tempo, I don't know what is.
This deck is marginally slower than versions which concentrate on finishers, but it is also more stable, consistent, and interactive.
peace,
4eak
I finally got to play with my deck last night and it was quite good. I won about 70% of the games. I played against Team America and Maverick. I really liked Fire/Ice and Snapcaster also seems good when you have a Price of Progress in the yard. I did not miss counter magic so much but I sided in the Pyroblast against Team America though. Main thing with this deck is to play as aggressive as possible. It does not matter if you have no cards in hand when your opponent is at three lives because you have so many topdeck answers that just wins you the game.
Here is my new list.
Lands: (19)
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Arid Mesa
2 Wooded Foothills
2 Bloodstained Mire
4 Volcanic Island
5 Mountain
Creatures: (12)
4 Goblin Guide
4 Delver of Secrects
2 Grim Lavamancer
2 Snapcaster Mage
Spells: (29)
4 Brainstorm
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
3 Rift Bolt
3 Lava Spike
3 Fire // Ice
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
Sideboard: (15)
3 Pyroblast
2 Smash to Smitheneers
1 Shattering Spree
2 Volcanic Fallout
1 Surgical Extraction
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 Tormod's Crypt
1 Echoing Truth
3 Pyrostatic Pillar
@4eak
I don't like rift bolt but apart from that I agree with most of what you've written. But why no Snapcaster Mage?
Rift Bolt is efficiently costed, hits for 3, and it can target creatures and players. The suspend drawback clearly makes it worse Chain and Bolt, but it remains the best option for the slot. If you don't agree to Rift Bolt, explain why. What card is better?
I agree with Zilla's argument about Snapcaster:
Reiterating and adding upon what Zilla explained:
Snapcaster is slow. Snapcaster belongs in a deck which seeks the mid and even late game. This is not a deck which seeks the midgame. Putting Snapcaster in here shows a misunderstooding of both the tempo of this deck and the nature and role of Snapcaster. Putting Snapper in this deck is akin to putting Bob in the deck. The cards are powerful, but they aren't the correct role for the deck.
Snapper is clearly above the curve of the deck. It isn't that the deck never gets to 3-lands (it does), but rather that isn't the intent of the deck. For example, if I even have more than 2 Lands, I'm often shuffling them away with Brainstorm for more gas.
Yeah, he has a body attached to him, but I rarely cast him without having the mana to flash something back, making him a 3-cost body without evasion. That sucks, as by the time you have 3-mana, your opponent will very often have a blocker for him. His body is too often irrelevant. When they do have blockers, he's generally a 3cc Lightning Bolt (which is what a hardcasted Rift Bolt would be).
peace,
4eak
Nice list @4eak, I think I gonna try this.
Got some questions though:
1. How does this fare against Maverick?
2. No Pyroblast/REB in the board. Are you just not worried about anything blue or is this a meta call?
3. Do you board in FoW against anything besides combo?
1) It depends upon which variant of Maverick we are talking about. Punishing Fire variants are easier to beat with combo variants which are very burn heavy, as you are far less likely to win on the back of your guys. Against most non-Fire variants, I think my list performs better than the combo variants of UR-Delver. My list doesn't get blown out by Wasteland (having 8 cantrips and more basics) and it more effectively stops SFM & Jitte (which can often be game ending cards).
2) I started with REBs. REB is a fine card. Take the sideboard with a grain of salt (it should vary far more than the main). Spell Pierce also tends to be as good as REB most of the time, having wider applications, despite lacking the Vindicate and hard counter effect on blue spells/permanents. I like Spell Pierce more.
3) Can't think of an example of the top of my head, so for now, I'll say no.
peace,
4eak
So, I've been playing a few games and like it so far, though I changed the board to:
4 FoW
4 Crypt
4 Submerge
3 Pierce
I tested against my brothers Zoo and there Goblin guide is really bad. Its okayish on the play, but on the draw its just horrible. Submerge kinda helps with it, but even then Nacatls and Apes are just better than him. Any advice?
I also have some trouble sideboarding, sometimes I identify a creature as the weakest card, but I'm still hesitant ti take em out, since I feel that I will lack some beef afterwards. Same with Daze, on the draw its kinda meh, but plaing without it just doesn't feel right.
Any help is appreciated =)
Submerges are also awesome. I've actually tried cutting FoW's (sounds crazy) for Submerges. I'm not sure what I think about it. Spell Pierce, Daze, and Spell Snare have been pretty darn good against Storm and Reanimator (also Crypt here). Are they enough? I'm not sure - I've not lost a match to these decks yet, but that could be for any number of reasons.
Every deck has weak matchups. Zoo is a going to be a weak matchup. This is very much like a weaker version of Zoo, we've given up P/T efficiency and threat density to gain blue's cantrips (which have many effects) and stack control. Zoo wants to face other aggro and aggro-control decks which are simply worse at getting to the redzone.
If you expect Zoo, don't play this deck. Nobody likes to hear that, but that's part of metagaming.
peace,
4eak
Slightly off topic but, I really don't get why people bother meta-gaming. If everyone meta-games "correctly" there is a supposed specific deck or group of decks that people will bring to any given event. This would cause everyone to bring whatever deck does best against that given deck that the event is supposed to have a lot of, which would result in pretty much no one running that deck because they're all running decks that stomp that deck.
And if that's not the case then people have different beliefs as to what will be the deck to look out for at the tournament, which makes meta-gaming arbitrary and kind of pointless.
I know that's a rather inelegant and not completely accurate assessment, but for the most part, when I read tournament reports here, people that mention their meta-gaming decisions were frequently wrong.
I feel like the only time meta-gaming makes sense is when you're walking into a known environment in which you objectively know the meta and have played quite frequently there. Like, I -know- one guy will be playing flashless hulk combo, one guy some sort of U/W / Bant aggro control, a handful of janky mono green aggro decks, a little bit of affinity, and the one dude that plays a different top tier deck every week.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just play whatever deck you have the most fun / are the most comfortable playing and are the most capable of playing?
In any event, I just got most of the cards for the deck, I'm really only missing some number of volcanic islands and scalding tarns (I have one VI, not sure how many I want to get, probably 1 or 2 more, I agree that I'd rather have more basics, in fact--even with one I never felt terribly pressured on having to cast things given that the deck is like 98% one drops).
I have ponders, decided to try out preordains first, I like them. I'm not 100% sure how I feel about them, with a lot of fetches we shuffle quite frequently, but I would almost always rather put a card on the bottom of my library that I don't want and keep the one I do want.
I'm not sure of the math on it, but it seems to make sense to me that if you bottom deck two cards and don't shuffle, the more non-burn cards you bottom deck the higher your chance of drawing business you'll have, whereas ponder has this consistency to show you 3 totally useless cards, and then you have to shuffle...so those totally useless cards are not in a known place, they are just shuffled back in so there's still a potential the top of your deck is shit. I feel like preordain doesn't have as much of that, if you see two shit cards top deck, you can bottom deck them and know that your top deck is now mathematically better until you shuffle again. The problem there is, we shuffle a lot..
This is exactly what Metagaming means. If where you play (your meta) is chalk full of Zoo then you probably should not play this deck in that meta. You're meta being a bunch of mish mash, you could be quite ok with running this deck as the only one that might give you a bad game is the UW aggro control and possibly when the random guy decides to play reanimator.
Its not like I think there will be a lot of Zoo around, but there is nothing wrong with being prepared for it =)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
