[Deck] Burn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

Street Wraith's way of "Hiding lands", so to speak, is that it enables you to play less of them in the first place. Street Wraith "hides extraneous lands and less effective burn spells". Street Wraith lets you see sideboard cards much earlier as well.

---

No, you are wrong at the point of the lands. You are going to find the same lands, playing with or without street. You have said it. It is like playing with 56 cards. So, if you don’t reduce your lands, you will find even more. Therefore, you can play with less of them to keep the rate. (but i repeat, it doesn’t mean that you will find less lands in each game)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

Again, go test. I'm not just looking at Street Wraith and SDT and just plain guessing how they affect the deck, unlike you it sounds. I'm only reporting what I've actually tested, and I'm giving a theory as to why it has produced those results (which you aren't comprehending, sadly).

---

The fact that i don’t find street like a good option, doesn’t mean that i don’t know what it can bring in. Time ago, i played Burn with manamorphose that finally disappointed me. Of course they are different, but they play the same role.


Well, I’m going to summarize the advantages and disadvantages about street wraith, that both have said until this moment:


Advantages:

- You can take out of the build the “less valuable” spells

- You can find a little earlier some important cards (side cards) Well, you said much earlier, i have changed it ^^ :P


Disadvantages:

- 2 lifes loss

- Less information about mulligan and in “scry”

- It can make Tarmo bigger

- Stifle can counter it


On the other hand, we could debate how these arguments can be more or less relevant:


As i explained before, I don’t find important the main advantage. I think it’s even fine to play with another 2CMC card (incinerate)

About the life loss, inspite of being a fast deck, you’ll have problems with some decks. Also flame rift is not a consolidated card cause that problem.

About tarmo, you said that with mogg and keldon in the deck, it would be less relevant. I agree with you. But street is even more problematic. You should use it as soon as possible. Anyway it is also an argument against mogg and keldon. (I run both)

About stifle, well, i think, it shouldn’t be too much complicated to go around it. But if you don’t play it during your turn, you are losing the option to play a possible sorcery. Also if i needed a burn spell (topdeck) i would be a little scared finding street (about stifle) Stifle is not a dead card against burn, true. Well, it’s almost like that if you don’t run mogg and keldon cause suspend is optional, and it’s also less relevant with the creatures.


So my conclusion is that street is not a good option, but of course it’s only my opinion.

@ matamagos

Quote:

---

If we play Top shouldn't we play also fetchlands?

---

In testing, we've found Top worthy both with and without Fetches. They aren't necessary, but I've been pleased with fetches myself.

@ Garban

Quote:

---

No, you are wrong at the point of the lands.

---

I should have been even clearer for you. My quotation marks were a play on your previous statement, and really just meant: "the way in which card quality is improved". One of the largest "ways in which card quality is improved" by Magma Jet is by "hiding lands" -- I was just using it as a metaphor.

Remember that this disagreement sparked from your refusal to "compare [Magma Jet] with sensei or nothing similar…". I was responding to your claim, and pointing out that as they play very similar roles (improving cards advantage), then they are definitely can and should be compared. Card Quality can be achieved through different means, but it all boils down to the same measurable value type in the end (even if we aren't ourselves capable of calculating it). I'm saying that you definitely should be comparing Magma Jet with Top and SW.

To elaborate for you:

The method by which SDT and Street Wraith's card quality are achieved differ from Magma Jet. Even the degree of their card quality improvement may differ with Magma Jet, which I don't dispute. The fact remains that Street Wraith and SDT are improving card quality, and even if the mechanics are arguably working at a different stages of the game altogether, it is relevantly possible to compare them to Magma Jet.

Additionally, in the case of Street Wraith, you'll see the right proportion of lands in the deck (as you said), yes, but you shouldn't see as many lands on average because you should be winning earlier due to playing more efficient and more effective burn spells. In other words, improvements in card quality will result in seeing fewer total cards of the 56 cards than you would of 60 cards.

Quote:

---

The fact that i don’t find street like a good option, doesn’t mean that i don’t know what it can bring in. Time ago, i played Burn with manamorphose that finally disappointed me. Of course they are different, but they play the same role.

---

I wasn't implying you didn't know anything about the cards, but I have implied that you don't know enough about the cards; and, clearly, some honest testing experience could improve your knowledge.

Also, Manamorphose is substantially more conditional (as I said before) than Street Wraith, and while it aims to play the same role, its conditional playability makes it substantially worse. You would initially think these are so similar in effect and playability that a judgment on one should pass for the other, but they aren't (both in practice and on paper).

Quote:

---

About tarmo, you said that with mogg and keldon in the deck, it would be less relevant. I agree with you. But street is even more problematic. You should use it as soon as possible. Anyway it is also an argument against mogg and keldon. (I run both)

---

You've overestimated the impact of this card with regards to opposing Goyfs.

Without having tested it myself, I also assumed that you would need to cycle street wraith immediately. When you sit down and play with the card correctly, you'll find that you won't cycle street wraith unless a more optimal play could be made. For example, when facing discard effects, you won't necessarily cycle immediately because you would often just pitch Street Wraith (as you would have pitched what it replaced, like Incinerate), protecting your top card.

More importantly, you must remember: the deck is exceedingly redundant, so it's often the case that you'll be holding optimal or optimal enough cards to make a play in a given turn, especially since you only have 56 cards. In those cases, you will choose to wait to Street Wraith. Why cycle if you don't have to? You'll still get the card quality gains, even if you aren't required to cycle immediately.

It isn't difficult to consider all the possible lines of play in this deck, especially in the first couple turns (which is sometimes all you'll see with burn). Often the other cards in your hand will be all you need in the moment, and so you won't need to Street Wraith immediately.

Street Wraith won't necessarily be pumping Goyf as soon as you seem to think. And, of course, street wraith merely increases the odds of pumping goyf, but it isn't necessarily the card that will do that. If opponent's creatures are in the GY or your own are in the GY, then Street Wraith won't have an effect.

Most people run a handful of creatures, and for good reason -- they often become the most efficient and versatile cards in the deck. Adding Street Wraiths won't have much more affect on Goyf than it normally would for most players. If someone didn't play creatures, then I could see the Goyf argument holding a bit more water.

Quote:

---

- 2 lifes loss

---

You need to be more specific than this. The average cost of running 4x Street Wraiths (which is what we are really concerned about) isn't as big as -2 life loss. It's closer to -1 than -2.

Assuming a 5 turn game, you have a 57-60% chance to see Street Wraith on an average game (depending on whether you draw or play).

There will many games where you never see the card, but you still reaped the benefit. The average is lower than -2 life loss.

Quote:

---

- Less information about mulligan and in “scry”

---

Yes. I concede, this is true. I would like to point out that you only have less information in about ~40% of your opening hands. Again, this just boils down to two issues:

a.) Burn is so ridiculously redundant in nature that having less information isn't very problematic. There are much fewer circumstances to be unsure about a given hand than you've implied.
b.) Experience and practice helps you curb the hands that would be questionable.

I think you overemphasize the impact of the negative in this respect too. It is usually a moot point when you sit down and actually play with the cards.

Quote:

---

Stifle can counter it

---

Yes, it can counter it, but this isn't a good enough reason not to play Street Wraith.

• Stifle is not exceedingly common (and nobody would be boarding it in against us).
• Stifle has several other targets for most builds, so not playing Street Wraith doesn't make Stifle a dead card (which you stated).
• Stifle isn't usually cast in the first place -- it is usually pitched to FoW or Brainstormed away in the decks that do play the card.

Quote:

---

Well, I’m going to summarize the advantages and disadvantages about street wraith

---

What you've failed to state is that the advantages are constant and nearly guaranteed benefits, while the disadvantages are conditional and often curbed by player skill and experience.





peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

Street Wraith's way of "Hiding lands", so to speak, is that it enables you to play less of them in the first place. Street Wraith "hides extraneous lands and less effective burn spells". Street Wraith lets you see sideboard cards much earlier as well.

---

Sorry, but i understood that, like if you find it like an advantage. I say this now, cause i only want to point that if you take out a mountain (to keep the rate) you will be “fixing” only 3 slots. (with the 4 street wraith)

@ Garban

Quote:

---

Sorry, but i understood that, like if you find it like an advantage. I said this now, cause i only want to point that if you take out a mountain (to keep the rate) you will be “fixing” only 3 slots. (with the 4 street wraith)

---

So?

Your above argument is that moving to 56 cards is not that same thing as replacing 4 bad burn spells. I didn't say otherwise, even if you didn't like the metaphor. I know for a fact that cantrips will not be improving the mana base of any Burn deck running pure basic mountains (minus some minuscule concerns about land/spell ratio differences that can be created using cantrips), but that wasn't the point of the metaphor at all -- I just didn't feel like taking the time to explain what I'm about to say to you below, so I said it in much fewer words. Don't be put off by the metaphor. The argument wasn't about the mechanics of the cantrip and how it improves card quality, but rather that certain cantrips do improve card quality in Burn (which I hoped I wouldn't have to flesh out). The whole point of the argument was to show you that Magma Jet and SDT/SW should be compared because they are both about improving card quality.

You are demonstrating that you understand, to some extent, how a free cantrip improves card quality as we move from 60 to 56 cards. I agree, the 1st Street Wraith of the 4 is approximately replacing a single land, and thus it really would be appear that it adds no value to the deck whatsoever, while the remaining 3 Street Wraith's are the complete replacements which are improving card quality.

But, I think we should extra careful in how we think about what that 1st Street Wraith was doing. I find the best way to consider cantrips is by ratios of functions, not on a single cantrip by cantrip basis, but I'll try to accommodate. What if you only played 1x Street Wraith in the deck? We need to say that 33% of that card is replacing a land, and the rest is truly replacing inferior functions.

The reason the 1st Street Wraith didn't "replace" anything was because there isn't such a thing as an "inferior" basic land. The function was as optimal as you could get. You could just as easily have argued (and it is probably more accurate) that 30-33% of each Street Wraith is replacing a land, and the rest is actually improving card quality. This is the nature of the cantrip in a deck that has no value differences between its mana sources (unlike decks that have certain lands they would much rather see more often than others).

For example, you wouldn't play Street Wraith in this deck:

17 Mountains
43 Lightning Bolt

There is nothing to replace, all functions are of equal value, and moving to 56 cards or 30 cards even, should have no effect.
Nitpick: playing fewer total cards would have an effect even on the Mountain-Bolt deck: it would reduce the variance of its draws, narrowing the bell curve of "lands drawn by turn X" and making it slightly more consistent. Such an effect would almost certainly not be worth paying Street Wraith life for, of course. ~Nihil Credo
That isn't the Burn deck we get to play though.

As I said before, it gets more complicated though. As you should have more efficient and effective spells, you shouldn't need as many land, proportionately, as you would have needed with less mana efficient spells in a deck without cantrips. You will in fact see less land per game in a Burn deck that wins earlier on average -- that is the nature of efficiency created through cantrips.

Let me reiterate my answer to your original problem with comparing Magma Jet to SDT or SW, again:

The method by which SDT and Street Wraith's card quality are achieved differ from Magma Jet. Even the degree of their card quality improvement may differ with Magma Jet, which I don't dispute. The fact remains that Street Wraith and SDT are improving card quality, and even if the mechanics are arguably working at a different stages of the game altogether, it is relevantly possible to compare them to Magma Jet.

I'm not implying that SW or SDT are miracles and unfreakin-believably awesome cards. They aren't. I'm not trying to stretch the truth on what a cantrip does for this deck. We are talking about marginal improvements in the deck at best. But, be honest, this deck needs as much advantage as it can get.

I'm only saying that SW and SDT are very viable options (which is the claim you reject), and clearly can't just be ruled out because someone who hasn't even taken the time to test it (or fully understand what it does on paper) says "it's bad" and "[You're] turning the deck slower". You need a better argument to support these sorts of claims, and you haven't provided one.







peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

4eak

---

Going to nitpick for a minute here.

Quote:

---

that is fundamentally different than saying the cards aren't working towards the same basic goal

---

Things are never "different than" each other. They are only "different from" each other. Moving along...

Quote:

---

I am certainly not the only other person to categorize Burn as a combo deck either.

---

So what? How does this affect the deck's construction?

Quote:

---

[Scry] and [moving from 60 to 56 card decks] are both about card quality. They are both playing the same role.

---

No. They are playing similar roles. They do both create card quality. One happens to cost you 2 life and let you draw one random card. The other happens to cost your opponent 2 life (kind of what we are going for) and lets you see 2 cards, and decide whether you want to draw either of them in the future.

Quote:

---

Street Wraith's way of "Hiding lands", so to speak, is that it enables you to play less of them in the first place. Street Wraith "hides extraneous lands and less effective burn spells". Street Wraith lets you see sideboard cards much earlier as well.

---

You play "fewer" lands, not "less" lands. Anyway, how many fewer lands are you running, now that you have 4x SW? And how exactly does SW let you see SB cards "much earlier" as well? In a later post, you said it averages out to 1 damage a game, which to me sounds like you would see SB cards a half turn sooner, on average. That doesn't sound like "much earlier" to me.

Now please bear in mind, I am not saying SW is not worth playing, or that either card is clearly better than the other, but you have some very faulty reasoning sir. You are turning copies of "Pay 2 life, draw a card" into some miracle cure for Burn. You are twisting the facts to make it sound more powerful than it really is. It's decent, I will concede that point. That is about where I draw the line. A decent card, worth trying.

Edit: I DO see where you said "I'm not implying that SW or SDT are miracles and unfreakin-believably awesome cards. They aren't." I think this goes against a lot of what you are saying in the previous posts, however, saying things such as "only playing a 56-card deck" (it comes off as if to say "it's so good it's like we are cheating") and "lets you see sideboard cards much earlier" is like you are saying "Duh! You want to see SB cards soon, right? Play this card!".

@ scrow213

Quote:

---

Things are never "different than" each other. They are only "different from" each other.

---

Wow, grammar police. I used an informal American English expression. According to linguists, 30% of Americans choose to use the word "than" in this context. I said something non-standard, but it seems hardly worth nitpicking.

In any case, it sounds like you understood the meaning of the sentence, even if you didn't like exactly how I said it.

Quote:

---

So what? How does this affect the deck's construction?

---

Establishing a deck's role seems rudimentary to card selection and deck construction. In this case, we should choose cards that improve our odds of winning as early as possible with the least amount of interaction as possible. Of course, we must take into account what type of interactive control features we expect to face, and build in response, possibly slowing the deck slightly to avoid interaction.

Quote:

---

No. They are playing similar roles. They do both create card quality.

---

Card quality improvement IS the role in this discussion. They are played in the deck to create card quality; they are playing the same role.

You need to re-read what I've said. It isn't how Magma Jet/SDT/SW create card quality, it is the fact they they are creating card quality that allows us to compare them. The question was about whether we could compare Magma Jet and SDT/SW, and we certainly can.

Quote:

---

You play "fewer" lands, not "less" lands.

---

Seems like a reasonable mistake. "Land" is usually an uncountable noun. You understood the sentence; I'm not worried. Don't waste my time.

Quote:

---

Anyway, how many fewer lands are you running, now that you have 4x SW?

---

Have you been reading? Go back and check to find the answer. Garban and I even agreed on this point. Do you even understand what we were talking about?

Quote:

---

And how exactly does SW let you see SB cards "much earlier" as well?

---

That is a good question. I don't know the answer. It's a reasonable amount for a Burn deck which has very limited options for digging to sideboard cards.

Quote:

---

Now please bear in mind, I am not saying SW is not worth playing, or that either card is clearly better than the other, but you have some very faulty reasoning sir.

---

Which cards did you think we were comparing? You've nitpicked at my grammar, but you've yet to show the faulty reasoning, sir. I'll be happy to explain anything you may have misunderstood, or if I made a mistake, I'll be happy to retract my original thought.

Show me.

Quote:

---

You are turning copies of "Pay 2 life, draw a card" into some miracle cure for Burn. You are twisting the facts to make it sound more powerful than it really is.

---

You are confused. You need to read again -- everything from post #904 to present. Your nitpicking has missed the big picture of what was debated. This argument is not about any 'amazingness' of SW or SDT. I haven't said anything of the sort, even if you are trying to make it look like that. The issue has always been about viability.

Garban said they were strictly bad cards in burn. I said they weren't. You are (poorly) reading my arguments for viability, which are not sensationalist claims. I'm sorry if you don't like my writing style. I'm hoping your next post will show criticism of content instead of trivial grammar.






peace,
4eak

@ 4eak

So through all you've said, is your build something like this? (this is what I'm currently testing)

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Magma Jet
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
3 Flamebreak

4 Street Wraith
3 Sensei's Divining Top

4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
10 Mountain

(my own sideboard)
SB: 4 Pithing Needle
SB: 4 Vexing Shusher
SB: 4 Pyrostatic Pillar
SB: 3 Smash to Smithereens

Well, let's get the grammar discussion out of the way:

It's not "grammar police" to correct you when you use very incorrect words. I didn't say "You used a conditional tense in a complex sentence!" Furthermore, regardless of how many people would use the word "than" in that sentence, the word "than" is still the wrong word. Plenty of people use "LOL" in writing, but it does not make those things correct. Additionally, while the word "land" is an uncountable noun, in this context it is "land cards" which is certainly countable. Hence it should be "fewer lands" not "less lands". Lastly, there is a distinct difference between "non-standard" and "wrong". "Different than" is utterly wrong, "ain't" is non-standard. Now that we have that business out of the way, on to the discussion.

Whether the deck is combo, aggro, or control is completely irrelevant to the deck's design. The goal with all burn is to throw 20 to the dome as fast as possible while not dying. Saying "Nuh uh! It's combo!" or "No wai! It's aggro!" makes no fucking difference. The deck's goal is still "Play a lot of burn spells to deal 20 damage really fucking fast." Burn spells are inherently interactive and simultaneously non-interactive. They can burn creatures (interactive) or reach (non-interactive), so you aren't trying to decide which type of card to play.

As for card quality, I can concede the point that they are both (or all three, including Top) card-quality spells. They attain this end in entirely different ways, with different outcomes, but they are indeed card quality. However, while we can compare the three cards, I do not think we should. This is where the cards differ from each other. Magma Jet, since it is a burn spell, should not be compared to SDT or SW, since the other two only provide card quality. In my opinion, Magma Jet is clearly superior, as it nets better card quality, while still moving towards the deck's goal. I can see how SW could be treated the same, as it draws a card as well, but certainly not SDT.

As to my question asking how many fewer lands you run, that was rhetorical. I understand it would generally be one fewer, to which my point was that one fewer land is of negligible consequence. Yes, I am following. I apologize that inflections of tone do not transfer well to written language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

Which cards did you think we were comparing? You've nitpicked at my grammar, but you've yet to show the faulty reasoning, sir. I'll be happy to explain anything you may have misunderstood, or if I made a mistake, I'll be happy to retract my original thought.

---

I was referring specifically to Magma Jet and SW. The faulty reasoning are statements such as SW hides lands by allowing you to play fewer of them. You are playing one land fewer (negligible), and Magma Jet can Scry 2, meaning you can move one or two lands each time you play Magma Jet. I also pointed out that you said "see sideboard cards much sooner" which is not the case. You can see sideboard cards marginally sooner, but not sooner than you could with Magma Jet or even SDT for that matter, so that point is moot.

And once again, I am not saying that any of the options are definitely better than the rest, but I personally think Magma Jet is better. It lets you shift 2 cards (potentially) and deals damage in the process, while SW saps 2 life, and gives you a blind draw (while also thinning your deck in a manner). Top is entirely different, and I think the fact that it only gives card advantage while providing nothing else (cantrip, deck thinning, damage, etc) makes it a less-optimal choice out of the three.

@ FoulQ

Pretty close.

1-2x SDT
4-6x Fetch (we've played without them too)
19 land total

I've been impressed with Keldon Marauders as well.



@ scrow213

Quote:

---

It's not "grammar police" to correct you when you use very incorrect words.

---

You understood what I said, so what's the problem? The point of language is to transmit ideas. A word is correct when it's successful in transmitting the appropriate idea. My words were successful in those sentences, and therefore even "correct", even if you personally didn't like it. Grammar is only necessary insofar as it promotes the transmission. Language changes (life is rough), and if I used an expression that you don't like (but still understood): Tough.

I certainly didn't point out your grammatical mistakes (which, btw, you do have some) because it didn't matter. If I saw you correcting everyone's grammar in this thread, then perhaps I wouldn't think so much of it. So far, attacking trivial grammar looks like a poor rhetorical device you employ when you don't actually have anything better to criticize.

Quote:

---

Whether the deck is combo, aggro, or control is completely irrelevant to the deck's design.

---

It seems pretty relevant. Feel free to elaborate on this point. Role and design walk hand-in-hand. You can't know one without the other.

Quote:

---

Saying "Nuh uh! It's combo!" or "No wai! It's aggro!" makes no fucking difference.

---

That is an irrelevant appeal. By the way, this is the sort of rhetorical criticism you should be offering. At least it separates the chaff from the substance of an argument.

Quote:

---

Burn spells are inherently interactive and simultaneously non-interactive. They can burn creatures (interactive) or reach (non-interactive), so you aren't trying to decide which type of card to play.

---

Burn spells might play a stronger control role in a deck just splashing for it, but it isn't as prominent in this deck. The vast majority of the deck is looking to play a non-interactive game, even if those spells can be used differently in other decks which play different roles themselves.

There certainly are choices to be made though. Not all burn spells can interact with creatures (Lava Spike), and some Burn spells are used simply because of some interaction with creatures (Flamebreak).

Quote:

---

However, while we can compare the three cards, I do not think we should.

---

The fact that you've thought about why you wouldn't run them and you've conceded they play similar roles means you are in fact comparing them. You definitely should compare them. Comparing doesn't imply equality, just relevance.

Whether you 'should or should not run them' is a different problem altogether. The rest of your rant is about 'why you like Magma Jet more than SW/SDT', and that isn't what I have been debating at all. I know Magma Jet is better, but that doesn't exclude us from running the other cards.

Quote:

---

The faulty reasoning are statements such as SW hides lands by allowing you to play fewer of them.

---

I rejected that claim already. Have you done your reading like I asked? You've walked into the middle of the debate, but you've not taken into account what was said before, or more importantly, why it was said.

"Hiding Lands" was merely a metaphor. It was a shortcut I shouldn't have used. The mechanics by which Scry and a Cantrip improve card quality are literally different, but the point is that they lead to the same type of value (even if Magma Jet and SW differ in amounts) that should be compared.

Again, the debate was not at the time about 'how' card quality is improved, just about whether they should or should not be compared based upon the roles they play. You've already conceded they play similar roles, and maybe even that they have the same roles after you think about it. Read not only what I said, but consider why I said it. I was rejecting the claim that these cards are not to be compared--that wasn't faulty reasoning.

Quote:

---

You can see sideboard cards marginally sooner, but not sooner than you could with Magma Jet or even SDT for that matter, so that point is moot.

---

You see them sooner. Pretty simple. Debate the word "much" all you want. It certainly is marginal in decks that have better options or play a different role. Given current burn lists, moving from 60 to 56 cards still has relevant impact, even if it's only a few percentage points for any given card, it all adds up.

Again, I have no idea why you are implying that I'm arguing to run SW or SDT at the expense of running Magma Jet. The cards are not mutually exclusive. You would know that if you had taken the time to read the debate from top to bottom.

Quote:

---

And once again, I am not saying that any of the options are definitely better than the rest, but I personally think Magma Jet is better.

---

You seem pretty hellbent on not playing SDT/SW (without an impressive argument either) and personally thinking outloud that "Magma Jet is clearly better", but then you aren't saying anything definitely at all, according to this statement?

Congratulations.

Stay on topic. You've missed what I've been debating, so read in context.







peace,
4eak

Anyone have thoughts on the Volcanic Fallout versus Flamebreak debate? Ultimately, I suppose it is a meta decision, but I believe Fallout deserves serious attention.

Volcanic Fallout is obviously good against blue-based aggro decks. Merfolk in particular, Counterslivers (depends) and Faeries (flyers, so Fallout is obviously better) as well. For most everything else I prefer Flamebreak. Against Lord-based decks, it may require an additional burn spell to clear the field though.

The instant speed could be decent against Ichorid tokens, which are often generated en masse on their fundamental turn (leaving no time to answer at Flamebreak's sorcery speed). If it doesn't get therapy'd away, then it could timewalk you several turns, perhaps even just win on its own if they expended too many resources to roll you. Alongside bridge-removal through Fanatic/Marauders, Fallout wouldn't be awful.

I also like the card against Landstill decks which abuse Elspeth (admittedly, itself answered by our targeted burn) or DoJ. If you can handle their win conditions, then slow-rolling them becomes even easier.

As you said, it seems like a reasonable maindeck choice for an especially metagamed burn deck. I could also see Fallout easily justified in the side for burn in general.






peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

Volcanic Fallout is obviously good against blue-based aggro decks. Merfolk in particular, Counterslivers (depends) and Faeries (flyers, so Fallout is obviously better) as well. For most everything else I prefer Flamebreak. Against Lord-based decks, it may require an additional burn spell to clear the field though.

The instant speed could be decent against Ichorid tokens, which are often generated en masse on their fundamental turn (leaving no time to answer at Flamebreak's sorcery speed). If it doesn't get therapy'd away, then it could timewalk you several turns, perhaps even just win on its own if they expended too many resources to roll you. Alongside bridge-removal through Fanatic/Marauders, Fallout wouldn't be awful.

I also like the card against Landstill decks which abuse Elspeth (admittedly, itself answered by our targeted burn) or DoJ. If you can handle their win conditions, then slow-rolling them becomes even easier.

As you said, it seems like a reasonable maindeck choice for an especially metagamed burn deck. I could also see Fallout easily justified in the side for burn in general.






peace,
4eak

---

Good points. Actually, perhaps fallout would be better in the Goblin MU as well. The instant gives your opponent more opportunities to over-extend.

The problem with Street Wraith is the same problem as Street Wraith in every other deck in the universe: You don't know what card you're paying your 2 life for.

In point, take the hand of:

Mountain
Mountain
Mountain
Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Rift Bolt
?_____________?

Three land and three simple, average, 1-for-3 burn spells. If the blank space is a Mountain, you might consider tossing this hand back.

If it's any other burn spell, you almost certainly keep it.

If it's a Street Wraith, you run a risk. You don't know if the Street Wraith is essentially a mountain or a burn spell. Therefore you don't know if it's correct to mulligan the hand or not. And you're paying 2 life to guess at information you get for free if you don't run the Wraith. If you cycle that Wraith and it's a land, you're looking at a mana-heavy hand, and 2 less life worth of time to topdeck more burn spells to outrace your opponent. If you cycle it and get the burn spell, you're in decent shape, but you still cut your race time by two life. And that makes a difference in a world of Tarmogoyfs.

Wraith gets worse every time they print better burn spells, also. And there's more than 40-42 good burn spells worth running in a deck now.

@ Tacosnape

Quote:

---

The problem with Street Wraith is the same problem as Street Wraith in every other deck in the universe: You don't know what card you're paying your 2 life for.

---

Street Wraith is actually much worse in decks that aren't Burn, and for most decks, the above is a very real problem to SW's playability. Anyone who is willing to do the math behind Burn's opening hands won't have nearly the same problems as other decks though. The difference boils down to role redundancy in Burn. Unlike most decks which have, at the bare minimum, 4-5 different card functions in the deck, often with greatly varying conditions to playability, Burn has very predictable needs and functions. Street Wraith is about averages, and Burn is pretty straightfoward in this regard.

General decks barriers to Street Wraith playability:

• Decks which see lots of cards per game will not want Street Wraith (because it's life loss scales up).
• Decks which aren't redundant (often those decks which rely upon Brainstorm/Ponder for digging and re-ordering libraries) would be less inclined to play Street Wraith.
• Decks which are looking to assemble a specific sets of cards in order to validly keep a hand would not play Street Wraith.

There are probably even more problems in running Street Wraith in other decks. These are just a few. Very few problems are relevant to Burn though (Burn's construction is somewhat unique).

The information lost by playing Street Wraith can be huge to many decks. Even if it was Cycling--Pay 0, I wouldn't play Street Wraith in a lot of decks. Unlike most decks though, and due to its massive redundancy, there is a minimal amount of information lost to Burn by opening a hand with Street Wraith.

Take your example hand. You have an 11-12% chance to open a 3-Land + SW hand.

Quote:

---

Mountain
Mountain
Mountain
Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Rift Bolt
?_____________? (Street Wraith)

---

I would keep that hand. Out of your remaining 50 functional cards, you should have 15-16 lands and 33-35 burn spells, and a 5% chance to pay another 2 by drawing Street Wraith. Cards like Fireblast would have made it even easier to keep.

I think the hard choices come from opening something like a 2x SW hand, a 6% chance. 5 out of 6 of those hands will have a Mountain in them already, but the remaining hands where you don't have a land are where you lose out from a forced Mull.

Quote:

---

And you're paying 2 life to guess at information you get for free if you don't run the Wraith.

---

I would rephrase this as:

100% of the time you are paying ~1.5 life per game to play a 56-card deck, and 40% of the you are paying 2 life to guess at information you would have had for free if you didn't have Street Wraith. Most of the time, you aren't evening having to think about how to mulligan, you just get the benefit without paying the mulligan question cost.

For the 40% of the time you do have to think harder about your hand, the question is really: how necessary is that information you must guess? In Burn, it isn't very necessary. The sticking points are when you are drawing too few land or too many land. Be honest, this deck is fairly consistent in that respect.

75% of your opening SW hands will have a land, and 63% will have at least 2 lands. The other 4-5 cards shouldn't be problematic--they all do roughly the same thing.

If this were a deck that had more than 2 (sometimes splashed for 3) functions in it, then SW would make opening hand considerations too complicated. With practice and thought, Burn pilots should not have many issues with mulliganing, even when they do encounter SW.






peace,
4eak

Two questions regarding SW:

1) If Street Wraith weren't available, what card (or combination of cards) would you play in its slots?

2) Is that card so bad that a majority of the time, upon drawing it, you would be happy to pay 2 life to cycle it away?

There are two other advantages to running Street Wraith:

1. The curve of your deck drops ever so slightly and you're not stuck with 3 drops that you can't cast and loads of 2 drops that you can't cast as often.
2. It makes Barbarian Ring, a great choice for a few lands, much better cards.

I generally don't find Stifle to be a problem since you can cycle the Wraith when they tap out (which any deck revolving around cantrips or FoF eventually has to), but it will be a problem if you run fetches to complement it.


As for Flamebreak, I generally don't like the card as the posts here document well enough. It's a sorcery that Goblins can permanently pin down with a Port unless you get a 4th land and Merfolk can simply laugh off. Unless your metagame has Zoo or a lot of other X/3 bodies in it, I generally prefer Cave-In. However, I'm really starting to like Fallout since it's an instant and it can't be countered, so I would lean to Fallout over Flamebreak right now. The ability to kill a swinging Factory and Mutavault is a very nice bonus.

@ Nihil Credo

Quote:

---

1) If Street Wraith weren't available, what card (or combination of cards) would you play in its slots?

---

This is (forgive me) the burning question, regardless of whether or not you are considering SW. Burn has been seeking the last 8-12 slots for a long time.

I said before, this the bare minimum, heart and soul, list:

Quote:

---

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Magma Jet
3 Fireblast
18 Land

---

I would be willing to argue that we should add to the bottom-line list:

+1 Fireblast
+1-2 Land
+4 Price of Progress

I'm sure most could agree to this; if not, I can explain. Basically, we wish we could just stop adding cards right here, but unfortunately, we can't. This puts us at ~12 slots open. What do you put in those 12 slots? The most common choices for these slots have included:

Incinerate -- 2 for 3 (half efficiency)
Browbeat -- I won't get into this card unless I have to...
Flamebreak -- The best of the 3, but metagame dependant, and often most useful where PoP is less useful, so these are sometimes considered substitutes for each other.

Other cards include (ordered by function):

Mana-efficient, temporary creatured-based damage:
Keldon Marauders
Spark Elemental
Hellspark Elemental

Long term (capable) damage sources:
Mogg Fanatic
Sulforic Vortex
Cursed Scroll
Grim Lavamancer

Random/Utility Burn:
Fork
Flame Rift
Barbarian Ring
Flames of the Bloodhand
Char
Shard Volley
Shrapnel Blast
Sudden Shock

Depending on colors splashes, sideboards, and distinct metagame choices like Sulfuric vortex, the rest of the deck becomes filled out. Burn lists vary almost exlusively in the last slots, and that's a strong indicator that they are comparatively less valuable than the widely used shell. Testing will show you they are filler burn cards.

Of those, our testing has shown the Sligh model to be the most effective evolution of this deck. I suggest Mogg Fanatic and Keldon Marauders, as they always deal damage, regardless of control cards. If you don't want creatures, then Flame Rift could merit a slot. This leaves me with ~4 slots open. (I usually consider Sensei's Divining Top as the card that replaces my 19th or 20th land, but we can think of 1x SW as doing this if you want.)

Quote:

---

Is that card so bad that a majority of the time, upon drawing it, you would be happy to pay 2 life to cycle it away?

---

For those last 4 slots, yes. I would rather pay 2 life and see a more efficient card. It lowers my mana curve and speeds my fundamental turn. For most, the question would be: do I Browbeat for 3, Incinerate for 2, Flamebreak for 3 or do I pay zero mana and 2 life to see a better card? If I'm not tuning Burn to beat any one specific deck, the answer will be cycling SW.






peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEvilTeaCup

Good points. Actually, perhaps fallout would be better in the Goblin MU as well. The instant gives your opponent more opportunities to over-extend.

---

I love volcanic fallout ^^ Yes, i prefer it against goblins. Vial, warchief and rishadan port make instant speed really useful. Sometimes, it can be worth to attack with keldon after playing it (well, really, this is not relevant :laugh: ) Wort, Boggart Auntie could be the only problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nihil Credo

1) If Street Wraith weren't available, what card (or combination of cards) would you play in its slots?

---

This is my current list:

// Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)

// Lands
19 [BD] Mountain (2)

// Creatures
4 [AT] Mogg Fanatic
4 [PLC] Keldon Marauders

// Spells
4 [CHK] Lava Spike
4 [LG] Chain Lightning
4 [U] Lightning Bolt
2 [IA] Incinerate
4 [FD] Magma Jet
4 [EX] Price of Progress
4 [TSP] Rift Bolt
4 [VI] Fireblast
3 [SHM] Flame Javelin

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [CNF] Volcanic Fallout
SB: 4 [SC] Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 4 [GP] Shattering Spree
SB: 3 [ALA] Relic of Progenitus



I run Flame Javelin due to Counterbalance. Keldon helps me against Merfolks and Relic also makes them better in some pairings as well as moggs. I think that the rest are common choices. About my side, combo is hardly played here. Actually, even less with the growing popularity of Baseruption.


Following with the sweepers, I would like to make you a question. At the moment, i'm siding the fallouts against Baseruption/Countertop but i must test it more. Do you think it’s worth?


@ TheRock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRock

As for Flamebreak, I generally don't like the card as the posts here document well enough. It's a sorcery that Goblins can permanently pin down with a Port unless you get a 4th land and Merfolk can simply laugh off. Unless your metagame has Zoo or a lot of other X/3 bodies in it, I generally prefer Cave-In. However, I'm really starting to like Fallout since it's an instant and it can't be countered, so I would lean to Fallout over Flamebreak right now. The ability to kill a swinging Factory and Mutavault is a very nice bonus.

---

About cave-in, i think that a card lose is very hard in this deck. Its free cost could be nice to kill tokens but you would need instant speed to defend a fast attack by Ichorid. I think it’s not a good choice. About manlands, it’s nice to have the option, but you could also make your POP worse.

Cards I would run 4 of before I ran 4 Street Wraith:

Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Lava Spike
Rift Bolt
Price of Progress
Incinerate
Fireblast
Flame Rift
Flame Javelin
Flamebreak
Magma Jet (And anyone who knows me knows I hate this card in burn, so there's some idea of how much I hate Street Wraith.)

There's 44 right there, without even touching into good to semi-viable creatures, which goes:

Hellspark Elemental
Mogg Fanatic
Spark Elemental
Ball Lightning
Keldon Marauders

Additionally, I'd run mediocre burn spells like Thunderbolt/Volcanic Hammer/Flames of the Blood Hand/etc over Wraith. Or I'd splash white for Lightning Helix. Etc.

@Tacosnape: You have a list?