Printable View
Which is why I basically sad that WotC needs to print more good burn spells. There isn't much to be added to the deck beyond what has already been tested. I feel that until more sets come out, little can be done with the main deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by jares
Improving the sideboard is a different story. How viable would it be to splash a color to improve Burns sideboard so it doesn't utterly die to random crap like Chill?
This is actually quite untrue, at least for Hanni's list. Hanni's list requires most creatures to do anywhere from 4-6 damage. From there, the burn will win. Any more damage after that is just gravy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jares
Brainstorm sculpts your hand, and when you run 16 burn spells it's likely that you'll run into a few when you cast it.
And you have fetchlands to interact with Brainstorm.. often 16-17 lands versus Burn's 18-19, and Magma Jet to color fix. The curve is also a bit lighter so you can play off 1 land pretty easily.
You're right about the creatures. Until recently, Sligh hasn't had the option to play 1 drops that swing for 3 with evasion so you don't really need to clear the way for Delver all that often. Steppe Lynx also pulls its weight for its mana cost, often dealing 4 damage for W, and it will often eat the opponent's removal spells first, even though there's no guarentee it will be the biggest threat. Its just scary to know your opponent is backing up their first turn 4/5 with reach spells. Often you play 1 or 2 one drops that bleed the opponent just enough so that you can get there with reach spells. Sometimes you drop a whole shit ton of creatures. Other times you just burn them out because you drew a bunch of R for 3 damage and Fireblasts. There are multiple variations but it in no way plays like your traditional Sligh lists. We are past the days of Jackal Pups where you really do need to Burn blockers out of the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
Again, may I ask about what your points are for discussing Blue Sligh in a Burn Thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacrix
Regards,
jares
Thanks for affirming the statements that I made; it's good to know that I'm not just throwing erroneous information around.Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbysdl
I'm not sure if this information is stated clearly in the primer for this thread, but it seems to me like there's a growing need to restate the philosophies behind the design of Burn, especially because people have started confusing this archetype with other similar decks. A clear understanding of these "essentials" would certainly help answer many of the questions we have for how we should build/play Burn.
I would certainly appreciate it if those that have a firm grasp of these philosophies would take the time to expound on this further, as I would also be interested in refreshing my understanding of these concepts.
Kind Regards,
jares
Thanks for suggesting this alternative forum. I wasn't aware that the mtgsalvation forum existed (as I'm also fairly new to mtgthesource), but I would certainly be interested in contributing to another forum when I have the time. Having looked at the latest discussions on the Burn thread of that forum, it does look like the substance of what's being discussed there could use some help in terms of the "maturation" of the content. I'm glad that those that have come before me in mtgthesource have already matured this thread towards the state that it is in now (though we're currently being sidetracked for some reason :laugh:).Quote:
Originally Posted by Forgottenforce
Cheers,
jares
Just erroneous statements on your end is all. The two decks are incredibly similar in design and play, it's only natural that comparisons and discussion between the two would occur. To say that that discussion is unwanted on your turf(?) seems odd. Perhaps in your utopian forum no cross-pollination of any decks would ever occur whatsoever, and we would have an entire section devoted to the discussion and comparison of decks, but we don't. Your description of what burn is is what "Blue Sligh" actually is, the entire purpose of the deck is to point everything at your opponent. Why do you think they run steppe lynx and delver? So that you don't have to burn the creatures. Would you be more ok if the deck was called "Blue Burn"? By your definition of burn, the strategy blue sligh employs is identical to that of burn, except it has better creatures and better card selection and at the least a little defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jares
If you want maturation of burn, you should be open to ideas--the deck isn't actually called "mono red burn", other people have already realized that other colors optimizes the strategy and strictly adds to it while only taking away very little. The benefits of going into other colors greatly outweighs the costs of doing so given the deck operates ideally between 1-3 mana anyways.
If you don't want to splash other colors then I'm of the opinion that all currently discussed strategies for burn fall short of ideal. There were posts awhile ago discussing a better strategy that had a far more consistent power to it and operated incredibly well, which I guess most people would refer to as Burning Bridge. It's use of Sensei's Divining Top and Ensnaring Bridge ensured that it never had cards in hand and it's chance of drawing into business was much higher. It was less explosive but from the reports incredibly consistent and resilient to most decks. And that's really all splashing did as well, make it more resilient and more consistent against more decks.
Kindly note that none of your comments have proven anything erroneous in my statements. In fact, your comments have not provided much substance, and thus, I have refrained from addressing it (even if I would certainly be able to expose the error in your judgements), and have instead taken a step back to try and bring it into a meaningful context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
Note that my comments are not directed at anyone with the purpose of offending an individual, but rather, to streamline the discussion into one that I believe is meaningful (this particular comment is the exception, as I will purposely respond to you in kind). Also note that ALL my previous comments have been phrased politely, though it seems that you have taken offense because of your inability to prove any of your points. In fact, my latest comment for you was an inquiry that would help clarify the points that you want to state!
By no means have I stated that this is anyone's turf - if anything, this is the TURF of the BURN THREAD, and you might want to try and understand what that means.
If you are unable to provide substance through your words and actions, THEN FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.
-jares
I am certainly open to ALL ideas, and would surely encourage the exploration of new avenues in the development of this archetype. I suggest that you also apply the same open-mindedness, as you are currently being closed-minded by dwelling on the premise that your statements are correct without providing sound and undeniable reasoning that would support your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
As far as I'm concerned, everything that you have stated so far is simply your opinion - saying that "this is better", "that outweighs this", saying that "this is more consistent" without stating the level of consistency, etc. - and I will respect anyone's opinion. The problem though, is exactly what I have already stated - you're working with the premise that your statements are correct even if you have not provided sound reasoning for it.
I have made several statements in the past few pages, and these statements were backed-up by as much reasoning as I can muster - but note that I always leave room for someone else to correct me if I'm wrong, and a few have already done so, as they have also provided sound reasoning (and even proof!) for their corrections. You might want to do the same - though if you prefer simply voicing-out your opinion, then feel free to do so.
-jares
What he said. ^Quote:
Originally Posted by jares
This is why I spoke up earlier about getting off-topic. Not to void the idea's of others, but to try and keep things in line of discussion. The first time I joined The Source was October 2004 and let me tall yall... This is not the first burn thread, and trust me, if there was ever a "disaster of a thread" Burn has always been it, with more controversial discussions, and no end arguments to count.
As far as Burning Bridge is concerned, yes it did post positive results for a little while but it didn't last as people came to know how to deal with it. It is a perfect example as to why we must continue to evolve the deck with the meta-game. Maybe Burning Bridge will come back around after it has been forgotten, or maybe the old RDW list will re-launch with Cursed Scroll, Tangle Wire's, Wasteland's and the like. We don't know, and at the moment the Burn list is running well, I am not sure about others but I am consistent in a turn 3-5 kill. Normally going additional turns to play things safe and play things in response to my opponent tapping out. Of course thats just my play style, never wanting to over-extend myself too early unless I am positive I have the game.
Burn is consistent, more so than people may think. It takes more than gold-fishing to realize the speed and consistency of any deck. Every deck has their "can win on turn X", but in actual game play, that is not always the case because their are too many variables to consider.
Burn is more of an aggro deck than a combat deck.
- Stomps on slower mid-range/control decks.
- Loses to combo.
This is consistent with how many aggro decks operate. I think for improving the deck we should consider this little detail. Combo match-ups are going to be this decks bad game. If a lot of people are playing things like Enchantress, Show-and-Tell, and Storm, you may be better off using another deck.
Burn is one of the most consistent decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoTech
- You draw either dudes, burn spells, or lands. It's the Zoo of Legacy before Zoo ever appeared.
- It has THE most stable mana base out of the majority of the format. Most lists only run a couple of barbarian rings...and that's it. All of it's spells can be cast using basic mountains.
- The reach it has is insane. Very few decks have such reach with most of it's spells. Decks either need to connect with combat damage or cast chain a series of spells.
@jares: I saw a deck list you posted in an older post and decided to try and modify it:
4 Goblin Guide
3 Hellspark Elemental
3 Keldon Marauders
4 Spark Elemental
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt
1 Shard Volley
2 Sulfuric Vortex
2 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain
Sideboard
4 Faerie Macabre
3 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
3 Smash to Smithereens
3 Pyrostatic Pillar
I wonder how having both Spark and Hellspark Elementals would work out? In my list, you have only 12(!) cards that need more than 1 mana to cast. Spark Elemental may be bad, but I think I'd rather run it over Flame Rift. Flame Rift has some bad synergy with Sulfuric Vortex since killing yourself is never a good thing (especially in matchups like Storm). Considering that life gain is a big threat to this deck, I'd rather try Spark + Vortex over Rift and see how that works out.
jares, I liked your idea of having a single Shard Volley in the deck. Increasing the count of 1CMC spells helps us be more consistent in how fast we can kill our opponent. Considering that this deck is mana-cost light, we can afford running 19 lands and running 4 FB AND running a Shard Volley.
The upside to being off for a few days means I can make 1 post (I hope) and be done for another week. So 1st off...
The problem with Browbeat isn't that it COULD do 5 damage or draw 3 cards, its not that it gives THEM a choice of 5 damage or 3 cards. If there was a 3cc burn spell with no drawback that did 5 damage I am not convinced people would play it. Why? because no one but me seems to play the 4damage 3cc burn spell because "it costs too much and breaks the curve". If there was a 3cc draw 3 red spell... well we have a better chance of a 6th color being introduced than that happening. The problem is that in BURN, and I cap BURN because this is not a problem for other decks, 3 mana for a spell where they let you draw 3 cards is virtual Meditate.
Now someone ask "how it is a Meditate?"
Glad you asked. By the time Burn is looking to end the game it might have 3 lands in play and I stress the might. If you are casting Browbeat you are in all likelihood in topdeck-mode and now tapped out. If they can safely take the 5 damage and still be over 4 life they likely will. If not what do you do with the 3 cards you just drew? Unless you drew Bolt/mountain/FireBlast or mountain/2x Fireblast the likelihood you can do anything with those 3 cards this turn is slim to none. The end result is you drew 4 cards (your draw being 1) and passed turn. For a deck with no real answers to anything the last thing you really want to do is just give them a turn.
On to other things...
I have stated this in the Pox thread before, where people start tweaking decks so much and manipulating the deck's basic theory you risk ending up with something completely different. Not different in the build, but in the way you play it and people play against it. This is why I don't run GGuide in Burn. If I want to run GGuide Ill just play Sligh. The difference between the decks may only be 4-10 cards but the way you are committed to playing varies greatly. There is nothing wrong with Sligh, or Blue Sligh, or Dead Guy Red, or Zoo, or RB aggro, RU tempo-aggro-goyf-storm-blade-combo-win-on-1-turn-and-piss-me-off-dredge-whatever you want to play. BUT! they all have their own threads with various theories on how they play. So keep them there.
Going back a page or 2, CS Crusher... Just a bad idea in Burn. By the time you get 3 lands in play anything you cast that has a 3cc needs to be a game changer or hit for more then 3 damage and do it right now such as Flame Jav. It needs to have an instant effect on the board. Vortex is a game changer as is a well placed Volcanic Fallout or Flamebreak (I use all 3 of these spells). CS Crusher MIGHT payoff sometimes but most of the time it will be Time Walk for your opp. therefore not even as good as a Browbeat (see above for more information).
kabayan ang puso mo hehe ngayon lang kita nakita na ganyan haha, kitakits sa 22 sa cyrebrus legacy tourney sa bci greenhills:tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by jares
If only BLACKVISE is legal in legacy this deck would be a sicko haha:smile:
No offense taken, sorry to infuriate you, I recognized the harsh tone of my post and corrected it, my general speech often throws a lot of swears in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by jares
Regardless, everything I said was backed up by presumably things that should be self-evident. They need little explanation. The erroneous statements that you did, in fact, make, were also clearly addressed.
But I guess I'll lay things out? I shouldn't have to.. (and yes, quite clearly things that I said are my opinion given the nature of the fact that I said it, I was under the impression that this is default and true under all circumstances?)
The deck can run better creatures and people willingly choose not to: Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets are objectively better creatures than Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders. They're both cheaper and either do more damage or have evasion. A single swing from Steppe Lynx puts an opponent at 16, most people play fetches, 15, and now they're in a reasonable burn range.
The deck is more consistent due to brainstorm and daze in that you can refuel at instant speed and push wins through via daze. Burn hits a top-deck period where poor draws can and will lose you the game, Brainstorm can fix this (and often does). Either that or you have terrible cards in hand that aren't useful: Price of Progress for example is rapidly becoming a terrible card. Decks are playing many more basics than they used to, PoP should, at best, be a sideboard card. Multiple Fireblasts are also something that you're likely to never actually use given the turn you should be winning on (3-ish), burn has no way to handle extraneous bad cards like this, while Blue Burn (that should make it easier to talk about right?) can. You can brainstorm away things like an extra Fireblast and replace it with a Lightning Bolt, a far more useful card to have over the second Fireblast.
And to the erroneous statements: Blue burn doesn't kill creatures. It's fine to daze to keep a creature alive because it's essentially free and produces virtual damage that you wouldn't otherwise have, but everything is pointed at the dome. I'm just correcting an incorrect line of thinking.
1- Burn is a mono-red deck. Blue Burn should be discussed in Hannis thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
2- By being mono red, we don't give a shit about wasteland and mana-denial strats.
3- Our creatures are a bit inferior, but that's the price we pay for having an absolutely stable mana base.
Your points can be summarized into this one, which is a valid one, which is something I already discussed. The only positive to burn is that it's largely impervious to mana denial strategies, although I have heard concerns of those who run Barbarian Rings when running into unfortunate hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
Which brings up another issue, something I'm not completely informed on, but I would assume Burn has a terrible time mulliganing. Having one less card could be the difference between getting there and not and can absolutely push your win back another turn by having to wait for that card.
This is an issue that things like Brainstorm heavily fix. And the proposition here isn't "you should be playing Blue Sligh/Burn whatever", it's that burn should probably be moving into other colors to help it. And while that would likely look a lot like Hanni's list, it may not be. Hell, black even opens up another one mana 3 damage spell with no drawback.
Part of being Burn is being mono-red. It's simple, cheap, stable, and consistent. Sure, it lacks Brainstorms for filtering, but that's why the deck is highly redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
If Burn is going into other colors, it's no longer Burn. Let's cross that bridge if we need be, but for now lets focus on the mono-red version.
Let me try and expound on the points that you've noted:
Stating that Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets is objectively better is relatively untrue for the following reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
- While Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets are both very explosive creatures, they are also both heavily conditional ones (I don't want to go into the math for this, but I would love to present the Hypergeometric Probabilities that would support this point if you would find it useful). In comparison,
- Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders are both more reliable sources of damage (because of Trample, Unearth, and Keldon Marauders' ability), and are both excellent bargains for their built-in power/toughness that do not come with extra conditions.
- Hellspark Elemental's Unearth ability provides card advantage, something that Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets do not have.
- Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders are both able to deal damage immediately, making them reasonably better top-decks when compared to Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets in the context of the game plan of Burn.
- Because Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders are both red creatures, they do not have inherent dependencies on mana-filtering given than Burn is generally played as mono-red (this, in fact, adds to the conditionality of Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets).
- Keldon Marauders is a much better (and much more willing) blocker when compared to Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets. This also suggests that Keldon Marauders has more value in situations where things aren't going as planned.
- Keldon Marauders is much less susceptible to creature removal when compared to Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets because of it's toughness, and the fact that your opponent will have to think twice about wasting a card to kill a creature that will be dying anyway.
- Trading blockers for Keldon Marauders and Hellspark Elemental is much less rewarding to your opponent (because of their transient nature) when compared to blocking either Steppe Lynx or Delver of Secrets.
Note that these points have not been stated to show that one creature is better than the other - these points are there to show why certain card selections provide more value in the context of a Burn deck. I'm sure that others would also be able to add to the list above, but I believe that the current list should be sufficient.
This, again, is untrue for the following reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
- While Brainstorm is able to provide a significant amount of filtering (being the best draw spell in the format), it also causes you to spend one more blue mana to be able to play the spell of your choice. This causes tempo loss, one of the most important areas of playing Burn.
- While Daze is able to provide a conditional answer to your opponent's plays, it also causes significant tempo loss via it's alternate cost. This essentially means that, in the context of what Burn is trying to achieve, your available resources will be one turn behind. As a side note, the line of play that Daze induces is effective in Tempo Threshold decks because these decks rely on creatures (more specifically, permanents) that are able to provide fast, constant damage. In comparison, Burn wants to play as few permanents as possible to create virtual card advantage, something that keeps getting ignored in this discussion.
- Because both Brainstorm and Daze require Islands to be played, this again becomes a point of dependency that induces inconsistencies to the deck, or more specifically, to the deck's mana base. It almost goes without saying that Wasteland and Stifle are cards that greatly affect the format because of the rampant use of non-basic lands.
- Playing both Brainstorm and Daze greatly reduces the redundancy of Burn, which is, in fact, one of the major strengths of the deck (as we always await the printing of the next "Bolt Effect").
- Playing Daze is a choice that is sorely contrasting to the game plan of Burn. Kindly note that Burn is a deck of "Questions" and not a deck of "Answers"; in other words, Burn concerns itself with providing "Threats" rather than searching for "Solutions" (which is also why Brainstorm does not fit); Burn will only be concerned with looking for solutions if its game plan is impeded (thus, the use of Pyroblast; I personally use Vexing Shusher). Having said that, you can think of Daze as "one less burn spell" in the deck.
- Daze is a terrible top-deck.
Understand that Burn is one of the most hyper-linear decks that have ever been created, and inserting choices that deviate from this linearity make the deck that much less consistent. It's nice to have draw capability and access to counterspells - unfortunately, this simply isn't what Burn wants to do.
Having said that Zoo might be the deck that is more closely "related" to Blue Sligh, I'm now thinking that Tempo Threshold might even be a closer cousin.
Last I checked, Dual Lands are still the best source of mana in multi-color decks in Legacy. People will, of course, play around Price of Progress because THEY HAVE TO. Think about it - the mere presence of Price of Progress causes people to adjust. If a card that forces people to adjust and forgo playing Dual Lands (arguably the defining cards of Eternal Formats) is something that can be called a "terrible card", then I can't imagine what people should call Phantasmal Bear and Magma Jet (both being inclusions in Blue Sligh), which are both respectable cards, but are rarely played in the Legacy format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
I don't think that I have to expound on the value of Price of Progress further, unless you insist. Others might be able to comment on this more.
I don't know about you, but the collective experience of everyone else in this forum will tell you otherwise. Again, I would be able to provide the mathematical basis for why two Fireblasts in hand isn't a problem (and why three is indeed a disaster), but I've already put too much text in this comment. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
I'm not saying that Blue Sligh has to exclusively throw burn spells towards creatures - those are your words, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
The point there is that, because Sligh relies on its creatures to deal the majority of the damage, part of its game plan is to clear the board of creatures whenever the expected net damage is greater and more beneficial. In comparison, Burn rarely has to deal with this scenario (though it may also come up from time to time). This is why Lava Spike is part of the core of Burn, but is an afterthought in Blue Sligh. I hope that you would no longer misunderstand this point, as it is somewhat essential to what we're discussing here. Do let us know if any additional clarifications would be necessary.
In addition to your point saying that "everything is pointed at the dome", I'd also like to note that the burn density of Blue Sligh (12 Bolt Effects, 3 Fireblasts, sometimes 2-3 Magma Jets, which is a sub-par burn spell) is significantly lower than that of Burn - in fact, it has as much creatures as burn spells. Because of this composition, while it's entirely possible for Blue Sligh to win the game by playing only burn spells, this is not how the deck would want the game to progress (as it would want creatures to deal the damage first) - Burn, in comparison, would be more than happy to go "Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, Fireblast".
In summary, if your point is that Blue Sligh is a better deck than Burn, I would say that you're entitled to your opinion. If your point is that Burn will benefit more by incorporating more colors into the deck, then I would say that others that were much wiser than ourselves have already looked into that for us with the conclusion that "it's not worth it", and that none of points that are presented now provide unquestionable reasoning for why a splash of colors would be "better" than simply going mono-red.
Regards,
jares
To reiterate, 4-6 damage from creatures does not consistute "most" of the damage, any more than that is just helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by jares
Furthermore, I don't see how the 1 blue mana to cast a brainstorm is more of a tempo loss (which is untrue anyways as it accelerates you through 3 draw steps and is about the most clear definition of a tempo swing one could illustrate) than casting a creature like Keldon Marauders, who at worst deals 2 damage over the course of ~3 turns and at best deals 5 damage over the course of ~3 turns or Hellspark Elemental who deals maybe 6 damage for 4 mana over the course of at least 2 turns.
When I look at cards like that they look more like Burn trying to have some creature removal without actually using a burn to do it, or cards that function like Ball Lightning that aren't Ball Lightning because of a weird aversion to the card, the only thing I can guess is that people don't feel confident in hitting their third land drop in order to actually cast him, as realistically Hellspark Elemental is almost worse than it given it requires 2 turns and more mana invested.
In regards to Steppe Lynx, a single connected hit puts them into burn range. A 4/5 for 1 mana is outrageously powerful. In regards to delver, when you run that many instants and sorceries it's highly unlikely that they will not flip--if it's such an issue you can brainstorm in response to the trigger and force the flip.
-- If you could more clearly outline how Hellspark Elemental actually produces card advantage that would be wonderful. I understand that you can play it, and then play it again, and you're getting 2 cards out of the same card, but given that it's actually a creature and not a burn spell and can be dealt with, I don't see this as much of a positive considering it needs to be able to do that in order to not be completely terrible.
It's sort of like saying Delver of Secrets has card advantage because it stays in play for more than one turn, and can often deal 6-9 damage before dying with virtually no assistance since it flies and people need to play around daze.
-- People don't play shock anymore, Keldon Marauder is just as easily hit by bolt, swords, pte, dismember, if they -really- need to kill it. And it again has the issue of not being alive for more than a turn..so they're actually both kind of terrible top-decks since "things not going as planned" I'm interpreting as a Batterskull/jitte has resolved or there's a knight that's at least a 4/4 sitting there and not one creature in red can toe to toe with it, which is fine, since you have burns, and that's kind of the point.
-- I don't believe you understand the concept of brainstorm and daze in the deck. Daze produces tempo advantage in that your opponent must play around it. If they want to sword your goblin guide they'll need to wait until next turn, if they want to resolve their stoneforge mystic they'll have to wait another turn, and when they tap out to spell pierce that last bolt it won't work. The bouncing of a land is rarely if ever an issue, given that the deck is almost exclusively one-drops this shouldn't cause issue, as winning with two lands is rather easy to accomplish.
Brainstorm doesn't search for answers, it refuels your hand, it turns dead land draws into burns, and often results in 3-10 damage depending on how 'into the stone-cold nuts' you draw off of it. I can say from experience that brainstorming EOT into bolt bolt fireblast is something that actually happens.
In regards to Price of Progress, the threat of it is far more powerful than the actual effect. People will recognize that it needs to be played around and I would advise against running 4 of it in any list, mono colored or not. Too many decks can play around it without actually hurting their gameplan much at all. This is why it's losing it's power--the adjustments required to play around it don't hurt people enough, ever since UR Delver blew up basics came back into lists.
-- I agree, daze is a terrible top-deck when you're top-decking, but this shouldn't get to that point that often and while it's certainly one less burn spell, pushing a burn spell through or keeping a delver alive effectively makes it another burn spell.
The fundamental turn is the same or earlier for these decks and it operates under the exact same premise, testing shows that wasteland is largely irrelevant (though stifle/wasteland can cause issues which is specifically relevant to only the RUG Tempo matchup).
It's a bit tiresome to keep replying lengthily, so this will most likely be my last lengthy reply, as I'll instead let everyone's else's wisdom respond to you:
I seriously doubt that you'll only need 4-6 damage from your creatures to be able to deal 20 damage in a game, given that the density of your burn spells in the deck is significantly low. I find this to be highly understated. You're essentially saying that the 16 creature cards in your deck are there to deal only 4-6 damage. You might be right, but I sincerely don't see how such a slim burn density would be able to deal 14-16 damage in a game. You're suggesting that, apart from the creatures that you draw in your opening hand that would deal 4-6 damage quickly in the first few turns, all the other creatures that you'll draw are just expected to be dead draws and still be able to win you the game. I highly doubt that this expectation would frquently result into winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
It's simple. Playing Brainstorm does not net you another card, because playing it essentially just replaces the Brainstorm that was played. From the point that you resolve Brainstorm, you would have dealt Zero damage and used up 1 blue mana. To be able to deal damage, you would have to play the card that you "chose" via Brainstorm (or maybe some other card in your hand), and play the cost of the card on top of the blue mana that you have already spent. In comparison, if Brainstorm was, say, a Lava Spike, then spending one mana would already have netted you 3 damage. It's worth noting that, in this process, Brainstorm is still able to thin the deck and reorganize the next 2 draws, and this is certainly a good thing. Unfortunately, though, Burn expects every mana spent to deal 3 damage, and the extra blue mana spent was essentially spent somewhere else - this is the same reason why Magma Jet is seldom used, even if it's able to deal damage and organize the next 2 draws. In summary, Burn does not want to be concerned with anything else other than dealing damage directly (as explained in my previous comment regarding Burn being a hyper-linear deck).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
Again, you're simply stating what I have previously mentioned - these creatures are conditional. If you're willing to play with the probabilities, that's up to you. Burn, though, is much more happy with simply going with "red mana, play card, three damage, done". If only more Lightning Bolts would be printed... :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
That's very good - you have already explained it yourself. I'm personally not a fan of Hellspark Elemental myself, so I share your sentiment to a certain degree. You might want to look at it this way though: you have a card in your deck that can deal three damage for two mana, and you can cast it twice on different turns (almost reminds me of Snapcaster Mage :tongue:). For everything else, your complaints are also mine - though the current meta seems to favor it, so might want to interview those that currently run it and have had success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
You could also think of it that way, if you were to look at Delver of Secrets as a conditional burn spell that can be blocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
Yes, this is also a correct observation! This is why Burn prefers NOT to play creatures (or permanents, in general), because doing so creates virtual card advantage by rendering your opponent's removal spells useless. Unfortunately, Burn has yet to be given the full arsenal of efficient burn spells, so it resorts to using the fastest, most economically-sound creatures available. Again, this is where your Blue Sligh differs greatly from Burn - Sligh WANTS to cast creatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
Unfortunately, from the point of view of Burn, all creatures are sub-par top-decks, so you are correct in your observation. I guess my point in saying that Keldon Marauders helps with bad situations is that having a 3/3 blocker is better than a 0/1 or 1/1 blocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
I don't believe that you understand how the Burn archetype works, and I have stated it repeatedly, but I'll do it again for emphasis (hopefully, more clearly this time):Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
- Burn is a hyper-linear deck that is designed to win the game via direct-damage spells. Anything that does not contribute to this linear philosophy dilutes the inherent design of the archetype.
Again, as I've repeatedly mentioned, you're barking up the wrong tree. You might want to try posting on the Tempo Threshold thread, as the people there would certainly appreciate your insistence on Brainstorm and Daze.
Unfortunately, Burn is DIFFERENT from Blue Sligh, because it ideally does not want to lose a land drop in the first three turns (where Daze is most useful) so that it would be able to "launch" its burn spells as quickly as possible. This is also related to how Daze interacts with permanents that can be relied on for fast, constant damage, such as Delver of Secrets, Steppe Lynx, and Nimble Mongoose (again, refer to the Tempo Threshold thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
I believe that I have already addressed this point in one of the points above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
Your observation is valid, but does not seem convincing enough to warrant the exclusion of Price of Progress. This still sounds like something subjective to your opinion (which may be influenced by your meta), so I will respect that. Price of Progress is indeed one of the cards that I look to board out from time to time, but it has been very reliable in the main deck so far, and I personally will continue running the full set until my meta game changes significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
The points about Daze have already been noted above. Kindly review those previous comments for reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
Let's make it simple: If a deck runs a land that will allow Wasteland's ability to resolve, then it becomes relevant, simply because it is able to serve its purpose. Otherwise, Wasteland becomes a land that produces colorless mana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
I hope that most, if not all, of these concerns have already been addressed.
@To everyone else
I also encourage everyone else to share their ideas regarding this discussion, and to affirm or correct my statements whenever applicable.
Kind Regards,
jares