[Deck] Burn

But merfolk only has one 2cc lord, so they are on a pretty tight schedule to get both atlantis + a 3cc lord down before we can use fallout. But it does happen, and against elves too. Against gobbos, mana denial is likely to postpone the sweeper. It's not like burn always makes its t3 land drop either.

I've been revisiting Cave-In recently, and I think it has as much merit as the other two. Consider:

*It hits the same targets as fallout (all), does as much damage (2) and is almost as hard to counter (gets by counterbalance and daze, but can be forced).
*It comes on-line whenever we want it to, which is huge against EtW, Ichorid, double lords of merfolk and elves, mana denial of gobbos etc.
*It can put dead/redundant copies of cards to good use, such as an unsupported Fireblast or PoP, excess creature, lava spike under Chalice@1 etc. This makes it more attractive to run more copies of power houses like Price of Progress, since we can pitch them away in the few games when they aren't stellar.
*It opens up the 3cc slot in two ways, both by freeing sweepers from the slot and by being able to pitch an excessive 3cc spell to it for better curve fit. This lets you to play the 4-for-3 instants, Sulfuric Vortex or even Ensnaring Bridge (great synergy with Cave-In) if that's up your ally.

The downside is - it's a horrible top deck since we'll never be able to hardcast it. That may be reason enough to pick another sweeper, but think about its potential the next time your facing double lords and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkenslight

Would a splash of Black for Bloodchief Ascension and Bloodghast have any potential, or would that be another deck entirely?

---

Bloodchief Ascension requires being in play at least two rounds. And after that, crap has to be put into their graveyard for it to work.

Bloodghast would be junk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matamagos

gobbos has no counters, so flamebreak would work better here.

we can discuss the pairing against merfolks, they can cut your flamebreak easily, but with two lords in play you are done if you play fallout.

---

I don't think you got the aim of my post, but arguing it got my point out. :P

Fallout hits gobbos, but they don't have counters, so it doesn't matter.

Fallout can't be hit by merfolk's counters, but it stands a decent chance of doing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urdjur

I've been revisiting Cave-In recently, and I think it has as much merit as the other two.

---

I've always thought that a deck with cave-in needs also ball lighting or some other powerful spell.

With cave-in you invest two cards and your opponent only looses 2 lives (not good numbers for burn). Ball lighting gives you reach, the hability to achieve the 20 damage faster. However it also introduces the vulnerability to swords to plowshares, and it's a card that doesn't belong to a classic burn list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matamagos

I've always thought that a deck with cave-in needs also ball lighting or some other powerful spell.

With cave-in you invest two cards and your opponent only looses 2 lives (not good numbers for burn). Ball lighting gives you reach, the hability to achieve the 20 damage faster. However it also introduces the vulnerability to swords to plowshares, and it's a card that doesn't belong to a classic burn list.

---

Agreed. No matter how I twist it, Cave-In comes up short. I think it's fundamentally because our ability to kill isn't so much limited by mana as it is by number of cards. We need to resolve 6-7 spells at least to kill the opponent. We can afford to pay 3 mana for one of those over the course of 4 turns, but we can't afford to have 2 of the cards only deal 2 damage together.

Speaking of creatures and reach, what do you think is the better over-all fundamental strategy - that of burn or sligh? Burn goes for virtual card advantage, making removal obsolete. Sligh goes for reusable threats like Goblin Guide, but at the cost of making removal relevant so that the threat may not deal any damage at all.

Obviously, you can't try to do both. There might even be a "worst case" breaking point between the two concepts, where you run just enough creatures to make sure your opponent can validate his removal, while not running enough to have any stick to the board long enough to make a greater difference than - say - an Incinerate.

Burn is better IMO. One untapped Tarmogoyf is game over for Sligh. Other than Chalice of the Void and CounterTop, there is nothing to stop burn's inevitable win.

p.s. Mogg Fanatic and Keldon Marauders are our slice of Sligh. Creatures that still do something no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamajellydonut

Burn is better IMO. One untapped Tarmogoyf is game over for Sligh. Other than Chalice of the Void and CounterTop, there is nothing to stop burn's inevitable win.

---

Or they kill us First (Ichorid, maybe Storm)

The fact is that by choosing the sligh path you will finish to play tarmoslight or some sort of gr? beats deck, which are better than monored slight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

Or they kill us First (Ichorid, maybe Storm)

---

Speaking of this, what do you think of the new anti-storm/anti-dredge traps? I'll include my current SB just to have something to compare against:

3 Shattering Spree
2 Red Elemental Blast
2 Vexing Shusher
2 Pithing Needle
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
2 Ensnaring Bridge

(a bit more spread out than the norm perhaps, but I've come to like it)

Ravenous Trap: This might finally be the GY hate I'm looking for. I've tried relic/crypt of course, and decided on crypt eventually. It's mostly needed against Ichorid (where Ensnaring Bridge and my MD sweepers are also useful, plus marauders offing themselves). The trap can't be handled by needle or ancient grudge, but is a bit more susceptible to discard. I'm not sure how many Ichorid players will bother using therapy against burn though, and you can always just use it in response. Maybe switch the crypts for it?

Mindbreak Trap: Is this better than Pillar? It's certainly more narrow (and expensive). It has the advantage of speed, though how many combo decks try to beat burn before turn 2? Of course, we could now devote 7-8 SB slots against storm combo if we wanted to, but I can't see that there's any room for that at all. Is there any merit to a 2/2 split or should we just ignore this completely? It might be that just the fact that we (and everyone else) could play it is enough to make combo players tread more carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urdjur

Mindbreak Trap: Is this better than Pillar? It's certainly more narrow (and expensive). It has the advantage of speed, though how many combo decks try to beat burn before turn 2? Of course, we could now devote 7-8 SB slots against storm combo if we wanted to, but I can't see that there's any room for that at all. Is there any merit to a 2/2 split or should we just ignore this completely? It might be that just the fact that we (and everyone else) could play it is enough to make combo players tread more carefully.

---

I play burn and sometimes ad nauseam.

As a nauseam player I would say that mindbreak trap doesn't make any difference cause we can fight it with orim chant, and now also with silence. The two of them are useful spells in many situations, and not only against mindtrap or counters.

As a burn player I would say that pyrostatic pillar is just not good enough. Turn 2 can be a turn too late against most of the decks that play tendrils of agony. In addition, enchantress and some others play high cmc spells, so they jump pillar. If I had the money I would play 4 traps instead of the pillars. With the traps at least you oblige the combo player to find some defense, and you have also the surprise factor in your side.

About storm hate I also don’t find Pyrostatic Pillar very good. I think it fits better in Tarmo Sligh for example where can have more uses. I would test the new trap but neither seems too much good for me. In an aggro creatures deck, I suppose that they would take out Duress and the trap could do a good job (may be I’m wrong), but here they would be a probem.

Anyway, the trap lets us have mana open and if they previously play Angel´s Grace, it will have more options to work. On the other hand, in G3 they would play around it without many problems. I think that the best option is to run COTV. On the play, we could forget about duress.

So many sideboard options now...

So what is the ideal sideboard against our worst matchups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pltnmngl

So many sideboard options now...

So what is the ideal sideboard against our worst matchups?

---

Not our ideal sideboard, that's for sure. While you could play 4x Mindbreak Trap and 4x Pyrostatic Pillar in the side, you'd still loose games to storm combo and have less options against more pressing concerns like Chalice and CounterTop.

I think burn SB cards should be able to pull double duty, which is why I prefer Pyrostatic Pillar over Mindbreak Trap. Pillar is also very good against Elves and most Threshold builds. It can also steal a game from combo, but why play burn if you often run into combo? I think Mindbreak Trap will have a greater effect on combo outside this deck than in it.

Vexing Shusher is another "athlete" (lemmings term for doing more than one thing) in that he handles both Chalice and CounterTop. Against Chalice and Trinisphere, you also need Shattering Spree. Against CounterTop, some REB and Needles work well to back up the shusher (which is vulnerable to removal). Scald is perhaps the coolest CounterTop hate I've seen for burn, but I don't think it's solid enough to merit inclusion.

If you don't run sweepers in the main (I think you should), the last slots will be sweepers. If not, they will either be GY hate to fight Ichorid/Goyf/Stalker, or Ensnaring Bridge to fight those and even more problems. I've come to prefer the bridges recently.

Combo will also occasionally run into splash hate if you diversify your list, such as REB against Cunning Wish/Mystical Tutor, Needle on Charbelcher, sweepers against EtW, Sulfuric Vortex against Tendrils and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urdjur

Pillar is also very good against Elves and most Threshold builds.

---

I think it’s risky to run it against decks with creatures, in fact, Tarmo Sligh can side it against us. Has it given you good results against those decks?

About Ensnarning Bridge, now it could be a more interesting choice thinking in Vampire hexmaster + Dark depths combo or a Reanimator revival due to entomb, although I don’t really know if we’ll see these decks. I haven’t tested the Bridge yet so I would be very grateful if you could tell me against what decks should I run them. It could be evident in some case but I have doubts if it’s worth against Canadian Threshold for example.

On the other hand, I also haven’t too much experience with Pithing Needle. I have thought that the main uses could be against Survival, SDT, Jitte, COP and Charbelcher. Have I missed something? I would say that some of these cards aren’t currently too much popular and against some of the others it doesn’t seem a great solution. Anyway it’s an interesting sideboard option to consider.

Quote:

---

Speaking of creatures and reach, what do you think is the better over-all fundamental strategy - that of burn or sligh? Burn goes for virtual card advantage, making removal obsolete. Sligh goes for reusable threats like Goblin Guide, but at the cost of making removal relevant so that the threat may not deal any damage at all.

---

Sligh. Sligh is fundamentally a stronger deck. Allowing the opponent's removal to be relevant doesn't change the fact that Sligh has greater damage per mana investment spells. A Turn 1 Wild Nacatl and a turn 1 Goblin Guide can both do an average of 6 damage for 1 mana invest.

Sligh runs just enough creatures where, unless the opponent plays multiple removal spells, at least one will get damage through, and generally it will do so a few times. Also, Goblin Guide requires them to have the mana untapped and the instant speed removal spell in hand to answer the first 2 damage dealt, which makes it at least a Shock in most cases.

Sligh runs out of gas much less frequently because of this. While it can be argued that the burn used to destroy blockers makes those spells an even trade off of damage per mana investment, that isn't an equal comparison; the opponent is losing creatures in the process.

My Sligh deck runs 27 burn spells, so it still has enough burn to switch over to that plan immediately after the creature plan becomes invalid, and win with straight burn.

I'd even argue that Sligh has a faster clock. Singlehandedly because of Wild Nacatl and Goblin Guide (and of course the age old Fireblast), Sligh these days has a fundamental turn 3 clock.

Quote:

---

I think it’s risky to run it against decks with creatures, in fact, Tarmo Sligh can side it against us. Has it given you good results against those decks?

---

Yes. You never side in pillar against anything aggro with Vial though. I run mainboard sweepers (fallout) + bridge and pillar in the board, and consistently pawn all aggro elves decks I've ran into. As for thresh, it's best against CBtop builds as a consistent damage source that can sneak in early and make cantrips/Top bouncing a real pain.

Quote:

---

I haven’t tested the Bridge yet so I would be very grateful if you could tell me against what decks should I run them. It could be evident in some case but I have doubts if it’s worth against Canadian Threshold for example.

---

They are very multipurpose. Stellar against tribal aggro, DreadStill, life gain creatures + jitte. Their value diminishes a bit against utility creatures that can blast them though (unless they side these out).

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I also haven’t too much experience with Pithing Needle. I have thought that the main uses could be against Survival, SDT, Jitte, COP and Charbelcher. Have I missed something? I would say that some of these cards aren’t currently too much popular and against some of the others it doesn’t seem a great solution. Anyway it’s an interesting sideboard option to consider.

---

Also Rishadan Port (goblins keeping you off bridge/sweeper mana) and Sterling Grove (enchantress, which would otherwise grab Solitary Confinement = gg). I run it as a 2/2/2 split with REB and shusher as a anti-CBtop package (the red cards are often more effective, but are hosed by BEB).

@Hanni: Yes, the goldfish clock of sligh + goldfish damage/card will always be greater than that of burn (cf. Goblin Guide and Lightning Bolt for instance). But this does not take into account burn's virtual card advantage in a real game. Decks without t1-t2 answers to undercosted creature threats have no place in Legacy, which is what validates burn's counter strategy. Though Sligh has a faster clock on paper, it can't ignore StP, Ghostly Prison or even an opposing Lightning Bolt the same way that Burn can.

In a Burn vs. Sligh game, the correct play is to bolt the Goblin Guide (at least if you're OTP), because that converts the guide to a Healing Salve, robbing Sligh of its clock advantage.

I understand that running creatures converts the opponent's removal into countermagic against Sligh, but the deck runs just enough creatures to play through minor removal (like the 4 StP most decks play, for example). If you Snuff Out my Goblin Guide, I'll drop a Tarmogoyf and bash you for 4 on turn 3. Then another 4 on turn 4.

(My) Sligh's 14 creature base is just enough to get the job done through minor removal, and against the decks that pack more than that (like control) are usually good matchups regardless.

(My) Sligh runs 27 burn spells, so it's still a burn deck at heart.

I'm not coming on here bashing Burn though, as they are very similar decks. I was just answering the question that urdjur asked. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, and I feel that Sligh comes out on top. Personal opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanni

I understand that running creatures converts the opponent's removal into countermagic against Sligh, but the deck runs just enough creatures to play through minor removal (like the 4 StP most decks play, for example). If you Snuff Out my Goblin Guide, I'll drop a Tarmogoyf and bash you for 4 on turn 3. Then another 4 on turn 4.

(My) Sligh's 14 creature base is just enough to get the job done through minor removal, and against the decks that pack more than that (like control) are usually good matchups regardless.

(My) Sligh runs 27 burn spells, so it's still a burn deck at heart.

I'm not coming on here bashing Burn though, as they are very similar decks. I was just answering the question that urdjur asked. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, and I feel that Sligh comes out on top. Personal opinion.

---

Apart from 4x StP, there are of course also opposing creatures to worry about for Sligh. Tarmogoyf will usually come out on top, but many decks run Goyf as well and can stall or race depending on what's best for them. Keldon Marauders play a similar role even in burn (!) as they can chump the goyf if the burn player is behind, or race if he's ahead. And as creatures trade and removal gets cast, the game tends to drag out and more answers to those burn finishers can be found. This is exactly why I don't like Hellspark Elemental much in burn - it gives the opponent too much choice and interaction (though it has its uses against control and ichorid).

My personal opinion is that sligh (including Goyf Sligh) if better against straight aggro and combo (except EtW stuff), but burn is better against control and aggro-control (where wasteland/stifle also hurts Goyf Sligh a lot more).

Quote:

---

My personal opinion is that sligh (including Goyf Sligh) if better against straight aggro and combo (except EtW stuff), but burn is better against control and aggro-control (where wasteland/stifle also hurts Goyf Sligh a lot more).

---

Against control, it doesn't matter, because that is a great matchup for either approach.

I like having creatures against CounterTop aggro/control. CounterTop may shut the deck down from casting new spells, but unanswered guys on the board will continue to do damage. In postboard games, the other creatures played draws removal away from Vexing Shusher, and Shusher is gold in that matchup.

The deck does have a less stable manabase, but it gets to run stuff like Krosan Grip in the sideboard, so it seems to be an even tradeoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urdjur

Also Rishadan Port (goblins keeping you off bridge/sweeper mana) and Sterling Grove (enchantress, which would otherwise grab Solitary Confinement = gg).

---

Beforehand, I wouldn’t side in the Bridge against Goblins (I’ll test it), although perhaps now it would be more useful due to Goblin Chieftain. Besides, I think that Rishadan Port wouldn’t be a problem if we ran Volcanic Fallout. On the other hand, I also think that Pithing Needle could be fine against Enchantress. Thx for the point.

What is the general tactic in the zoo matchup? Side into Fallouts and Bridges and hope they dont draw Pridemages? Seems like a rather bad matchup to me...