Is Flame Rift really that good that it deserves a spot in the core? I'd think not. Magma Jet is a decent alternative that kills quite a lot in the format right now. Also, it Flame Rift isn't too good in the Mirror.
Luck is a residue of design.
I'm an aspiring Psychedelic Trance musician. Please feel free to enjoy my sense of life:
http://soundcloud.com/vacrix
Expect me or die. I play SI.
Adjusting accordingly to improve on our decks should always be a given, and I agree - we won't be able to stay as a DTB if we don't adjust to the meta regularly. This idea shouldn't be anything new to those of us that wish to be competitive using any deck.Originally Posted by RogueBuild
If you're saying that Burn should "stop trying to race to 20 damage", then may I ask you to briefly state what you think the focus of the deck should now be?
I believe that I've been asking you to clearly state your point for some time now, but up until now it hasn't been stated clearly in one sentence, and thus, we've been going around in circles.
Regards,
jares
I surely wouldn't place Flame Rift in the Universal (for lack of a better word) Burn Core either. If you're referring to my mention of this card as part of the core that's been used by the decks that have had success recently, then I'd like to state that that's what it is - part of the core of the decks that have had success recently.
Hopefully, something else would get printed that would have us end these conversations about Flame Rift, Magma Jet, Flames of the Blood Hand, Flame Javelin, and all the other cards that have had us go in circles about which is better.
For everyone's reference, it's worth noting that much has already been discussed about why these cards are better or worse, and one card came up on top: Flame Rift (as also evidenced by its frequent use in the decks that have had success recently). If this card isn't to one's taste, then i would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
-jares
I agree and would call Pyrostatic Pillar an essential part in Burn's SB. It's just insane against Storm based combodecks, which should be reason enough to play it.
Oh, I looked at your build, but it seemed mediocre to me. In an ordinary Burn deck, there are no dead cards (unless you get blocked by other cards). We can easily race most decks without sweepers, that are just dead draws against non-creature based decks. You mention the need to adjust to combo decks and yet put dead cards into your maindeck and call it an improvement.
Anti-Anti-Burn isn't necessarily an improvement.
Please do so. I am glad you dropped Dead//Gone. I hope you also thought about playing that 11 CMC3 spells (not counting Rift Bolt).
Having a faster deck helps in this matchup. You cannot just hope to not face it. It's a pretty popular deckchoice. Racing is the only option unless you splash.
If that's not an accurate enough answer for you I don't really know what else you want from him. He's stating his intention very clearly, his decklist is about as blisteringly obvious as one could get.
He's using flexible burn and sweepers to control the board and simultaneously hit the opponent, since the opponent's threats are being dealt with (which he accurately mentions are generally 1/1, 2/1, or 2/2's that require equipment) he doesn't have to worry about racing them, he's aiming for the turn 5, 6, or 7 win (which he's already stated) instead of the turn 3, 4 win.
You've answered your own question a few times here man T_T;;.. "stop trying to race to 20 damage" is exactly what he's doing and is a single sentence..
Might I ask why you emphasize the word 'opinion', by the way? Besides the fact that it's redundant (anything anyone says is their opinion by virtue of the fact that they said it), it really rubs off as being a condescending and rude statement. You're using it as a passive-aggressive means to dismiss people's ideas or their deck choices that deviate from the norm.
Just because you've said something, doesn't mean you've stated your opinion.
By definition that's what it is, but, ok. Qualifying everything you say with "In my opinion" isn't necessary, of course it's your opinion, you said it. If you're discussing some matter, and you provide input, you're providing your opinion regardless of whether you qualify your input with that phrase.
Why would you even try and argue this, it's entirely irrelevant to what I was asking.
The fact of the matter is it's rude to dismiss someone's opinion strictly on the basis that it is their opinion, when someone has said: "Look, this is what I'm trying, I have a X% win rate now, I used to have a Y% win rate, it has shown improvement in my win rates (such that X > Y), maybe people should be looking at this." and the response is "Well that's just your opinion.", that seems both rude and ignorant to ignore that simply based on the fact that it goes against the grain.
I can say something by just mentioning facts or rephrasing someone other's judgment without stating my opinion. That's all I'm saying.
A fact is an opinion that is true. Can we please stay on topic here?
Hahaha
Kindly think about these things for me while you're at it:
- A Fact is a piece of information that has been proven to be TRUE.
- A Fact doesn't need to be anyone's opinion to be true.
- An Opinion can either be true or false, because it is a subjective piece of information.
- If an Opinion can be indisputably proven to be true, then it ceases to be an opinion and will, in fact, be considered to now be a Fact.
- For additional information, kindly refer to the following definitions from the dictionary:
- Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation.
- Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
In conclusion, to say that "a fact is an opinion that is true" is erroneous, simply because "Truth" (from the definition of the word "fact") cannot be something that "rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" (from the definition of the word "opinion"). I hope that you had fun with today's vocabulary lesson.
And yes, let's all stay on topic please. This is not the place to start vocabulary lessons!
-jares
Well, apparently some would greatly benefit from using a dictionary...
I would still like to know how worsening combo matchups is a better game plan than the current Burn builds.
Thanks for making the case for me that what I have said is not purely opinion as I am the only person, at lest in the last 15 pages, to have done any real testing of 2 not only different Burn decks but of different Burn philosophies and have given the results. All anyone has really said to dispute it is "that's just opinion" or "your slowing yourself down" or "we have to win as fast as we can". Why don't a few of you go play a few 100 matchs with your build taking the time to break down your win/loss record against each deck type then change to a build like mine do do it all again. But you need to be willing to put 500 matches into the testing for an accurate sample size. Until then, really it is just a bunch of people doing what humans tend to do. Fight against any kind of test results that fail to support your already preconceived notions of how things should work. It is called a confirmation bias.
Oh, and would anyone here choose not to play a card that does this?
Casting cost: 0
rules Text: as an additional cost to casting pay 4 life and draw a card
all opponents lose 4 life, tap 2 untapped lands, discards a card.
I think it is safe to say we would ALL play that card and we would likely play it in all sorts of decks. That is exactly what Flame Rift does from the opponents perspective. You cast this card you had better kill them with it because the tempo shift will be really hard for you to overcome if not impossible once you hit top-deck mode.
It's good to see that this discussion has become very clear to you. Based on what you just said, you're saying that this is his point (the words in square brackets are inserts that help format your statements):
- [The point is that he's] "using flexible burn and sweepers to control the board and simultaneously hit the opponent" [so that he does not] "have to worry about racing them, aiming for the turn 5, 6, or 7 win instead of the turn 3, 4 win."
At this point, it would only be fair for us to let RogueBuild himself be the judge of whether or not your statements accurately encompass the entirety of what he's trying to say. I apologize in advance if he has indeed clearly stated his entire point in this lengthy discussion - that would only mean that I have not been paying enough attention to our discussion, which would be rude.
If that's the entire point, then that sounds like a very pointless (and shallow) point - pun intended. I expect us to provide much more meaningful statements than that - let me know if my expectations are too high for you. For reference, a meaningful statement will be promptly backed-up by sound reasoning, like so:
- We should "stop trying to race to 20 damage" BECAUSE it is a proven fact that the decks that we're up against are faster than us in dealing 20 damage (this is just an example).
I hope that this helps in improving the way with which we state our ideas, for everyone's benefit.
If you haven't already learned this from the vocabulary lesson above, then let me break it down for you, for your benefit:
- I emphasize the word "opinion" because, more often than not, that is what we're dealing with when we discuss things - if you noticed, facts no longer need to be discussed! There are only two outcomes for every discussion - agreement or disagreement. It will always be a good thing for people to agree on things, but unfortunately, disagreement isn't as easy to deal with. Thus, whenever a discussion reaches a point where disagreement is inevitable, I choose to respect the other party, and most especially, respect the other party's opinion. At the end of the day, we are all entitled to our opinion.
- Based on the information provided in the vocabulary lesson above, our "opinion" CANNOT be "truth". If you believe otherwise, then I encourage you to consider the following saying by a wise man from long ago: "wisest is he who knows he does not know".
I hope that answers your question.
Might I ask about what your motivations were for posting the comment that I responded to?
Let us know if there might be anything else that you would like to discuss regarding vocabulary, as we might eventually have to create a separate thread for that if it becomes a blast.
-jares
I appreciate that you're also one of the few that would actually have the patience to go out and test your ideas as much as possible, and I agree that people should indeed do this more often. Unfortunately, you're also correct on your other point - the burden of proof is on the person asserting a certain claim, and because your claim goes against conventional wisdom, you would surely encounter resistance.
I encourage you to go out and compete with your build, though, as I believe that the best way to silence one's critics is to WIN! Good luck.
Cheers,
jares
I'd ask that we stop arguing about semantics that do not really further the discussion about the deck. Instead I ask that we discuss the newly spoiled goodie from Avacyn Restored:
Thunderous Wrath -4RR , Instant, Thunderous Wrath deals 5 damage to target creature or player. Miracle R (You may cast this card for its Miracle cost when you draw it if it's the first card you drew this turn)
Uncommon
For a deck that relies so much on top decks this is a gift from the gods! Playing it instantly is rarely a problem: It's basically the most powerful card in the deck and no card (Bar Goblin Guide against a deck without removal or creatures or Price of Progress against Lands) has more sheer power than it. Is it an automatic 4-off though? I'd rather play 3 as it's horrible to have in your starting 7; might even be more suited for a U/R list but I figured I'd post it here
H3ll,
wake up, you're not beating combo anyway, certainly not in game 1.
Storm based combo deck you are more likely to beat because they failed to go off then because you just raced them to the finish, G2 and 3 you get help from PyroPill, but you still have to draw it and if you mull for it you are only giving them time to get an answer for it. Oh, and various Storm combo decks can go off on turns 1 and 2. You CAN NOT RACE that.
Reaninmator can can bring back its target on turn 2, Turn 1 with mono black builds. Cant race that either. Need to have grave hate from the SB in hand with your opening draw or 1st draw card.
Sneak Attack/Show n tell can without question have a beast in play on Turn 2, again, you cant race that. And we have no answers MD. In the SB what do you want to do? REB? Sure you can REB the Show N Tell, a deck running blue that needs 1 spell to go off to win would never think to make sure it can protect a Show n Tell with a FoW or other counterspell. No, people would never do that. And Sneak Attack you can always do something like Pithing Needle, of course not we are talking 6-8 slots in your SB for 1 deck. and as a result 6-8 damage spells that need to come out to get them in.
If you can consistently race AND WIN against decks that can win, or at lest make it so you can't win, any time in turns 1, 2 or 3 then you must be the best magic player of all time or the luckiest sob on the planet and should be playing high stakes poker or blackjack because the cards must always turn up just right for you.
I agree with this. While punting these match-ups might not be the wisest thing to do, battling the three archetypes that were mentioned above is really an uphill battle, even with the appropriate hate.
Regards,
jares
Yep, Flame Rift is pretty bad, because our opponents almost always do more damage than our Burn deck.
...
@Combo MU
If you are faster you have a higher chance at beating them, because they won't always kill you on turn 1-3. I don't say you have to consistently win against them and work towards a positive MU, but to get the win percentage up as much as you can do.
I agree. Avoiding this will surely save us some time.
Wow, is this real? May I request for a link for this?
Unfortunately, you're correct - U/R Delver would probably be the deck that would benefit most from this card (Brainstorm anyone?). Sensei's Divining Top also came to mind. As of the moment, I would play at most [2x] of the card (for a 22.15% chance of getting the card in the opening hand, compared to 31.54% when you go up to [3x]), as you're correct - having it in the opening hand would be very bad, though you can always mulligan.
Cheers,
jares
Jesus Christ, you people seem more interested in bickering than actual advancement of the deck! If you're not into Flame Rift and you feel that the 4 damage you take yourself is too dangerous in your meta, DON'T!
Were I to pitch in my two cents I'd say that Thunderous Wrath would take the spots of Flame Rift, at least in my deck, but please; get over yourselves, you don't get a prize for making everyone agree with your view.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
