Just an idea to help vs. zoo...Flamebreak. Kills all of their 1 drops+ pridemages.
Yup, the Zoo MU is one of the few where Flamebreak > Fallout. I don't think burn has a problem just straight up racing Zoo though. Their 2/3 apes and 3/4 goyfs tend to kill us slower than we kill them frankly. Keldon Marauders is especially good here too.
The Zoo builds that used to give me problems where not the GRW ones, but the Bant builds with Rhox War Monk and mana acceleration from Noble Hierarch. That's an 8 point life swing per turn, starting t3, and he's out of bolting range = gg unless you can Fireblast. But I've taken to MD:ing Sulfuric Vortex, so it's not so hard anymore, especially with Bridge in the board.
Pridemages are typically bad against burn and will likely get sided out. If not, there's Pithing Needle, plus both fallout and flamebreak handle them well.
Kar bankooer jeg
re. the landbase:
How much benefit is there to running snow-covered mountains and a small number (1-2) of scrying sheets? Worst case you can't flamebreak off of 3 lands, best case you get a little bit more gas turn 4 and on. Thoughts?
EDIT: another question, but re. SB: I need artifact hate for my meta (random stax and affinity) and had originally been running shattering sprees. However, is meltdown better? Shattering spree can get around chalice at 1, but so can meltdown. Against stax you are casting it turn 3-4 to wipe their board, against affinity you can cast it turn 2 to take out all of the 0-mana crap they just threw down.
Last edited by Sevryn; 10-18-2009 at 08:31 PM.
The biggest disadvantage of running scrying sheets is that your mana base becomes vulnerable to wasteland, so wasteland is not more a dead card in your opponent's hand. In addition the mathematics are not good. Let's say that maybe you play 18 mountains and 2 crying sheets, the probability of seeing a mountain when you scry for it is less than 30%. That means that only once every three essays you will succeed (being optimistic), and every essay has been quite mana intensive.Originally Posted by Sevryn
The good point of sheets is that we have something to fuel the deck when we have no cards in hand, what has been always one of the problems of burn. However, remember that this deck works pretty well in topdeck mode.
about the artifact hate: spree is good cause it can overpass counterspells. if your meta is about stax and affinity, and not blue decks, it's worth to consider other options. Meltdown sounds me as a very good choice against these decks.
Something I would like to discuss is the number (1-4) of popular card choices. There are a number of cards that are great if you draw them, but decidedly less great if you draw multiples.
Lightning Bolt, Rift Bolt, Chain Lightning, Lava Spike: everyone runs 4, and I agree. Having a hand of 4 lightning bolts is awesome.
Shard Volley: I have seen people (who run them) running 2. I advocate only running one as drawing both can force you to make unpleasant decisions, especially when competing for lands with fireblast.
Keldon Marauders: those who run them run 4, but I think this may be wrong as drawing more than two in a game is probably awful. I am running 4 right now, but am considering cutting it to 2.
Flamebreak, Flame Rift: both do self-inflicted damage that may be significant if you draw more than 2 in a game. I'm considering a 3/2 split, as I have personal experience with drawing into 3+ flamebreaks and it being awful. If you are not running flamebreak I could see running a full set of Flame Rifts, but even then 3 might be more prudent.
Sulfuric Vortex: seeing more than one isn't terrible, but seeing more than two probably is.
Fireblast: everyone runs it, but some people run 3. While a hand with 3 fireblasts isn't going to use them all, I feel this card is awesome enough to risk it and just run 4 anyway.
Sensei's Divining Top: the first one is awesome, the 2nd one is absolutely terrible. Run just one, imo.
Magma Jet: awesome for what it does, but seeing more than 1 or 2 in a game is awful for a deck that will only see a quarter of its deck. Most lists run 4, but maybe this could be cut to 3?
Needle Drop: most lists are not running this at all, but I find that running it as a singleton is not ever biting me in the ass. Seeing more than one in a game would be terrible though, so I wouldn't even run 2.
Shard Volley: I'd rather run the 4th Fireblast than a single SV. Still, I could see room for it in builds with strange mana bases, such as those running more than 2x Barbarian Ring or artifact lands to enable Shrapnel Blast.
Keldon Marauders: If you run other creatures such as Fanatic or Hellspark Elemental, run 3 of these. If they are your only creature, run 4. Though they act over time, they are as powerful as Magma Jet, Price of Progress or Lightning Helix, depending on the situation.
Flame Rift: Avoid. At least if you have Ichorid, combo or tribal aggro in your meta.
Flamebreak/Volcanic Fallout: Sweepers are good enough to be run in the main. In the present meta, Fallout is better. There's little reason not to run 3-4 Fallout in the main. The risk of getting 2+ sweepers is only slightly less when running 3 rather than 4, so I'd run 4.
Sulfuric Vortex: I used to run 3 MD, now I run 4. Both are OK numbers I think. You can also put any number of them in the board.
SDT: Can't comment on this as I haven't tried it. Is a single SDT worth it? Isn't it just very random?
Magma Jet: An argument can be made both for 3 or 4 of this. It usually comes down to how many slots you have to spend. I'd rather play the 4th Jet over Incinerate and its clones, if it came to that. A full set also helps to dig for important SB cards.
Needle Drop: Why is this good as a 1-of? If it is, why is it bad to see two? If it's a good deal to pay 1 mana, deal 1 damage and draw 1 card, isn't it also a good deal to pay 2 mana, deal 2 damage and draw 2 cards? I don't think this is worth a slot though. It's worse than manamorphose, and bad for the same reasons.
Kar bankooer jeg
I prefer flamebreak because it can still deal with elves with 2 lords on the table. I agree that fallout is probably better in other metas. I can see running 4 flamebreaks if you are not running flame rift, otherwise the self-inflicted damage may start to add up.
Cool, I'll have to do more testing on this card. Good to know that you have had good experience with more than 2.Sulfuric Vortex: I used to run 3 MD, now I run 4. Both are OK numbers I think. You can also put any number of them in the board.
It absolutely is random, and it isn't anything you can ever count on. However, whenever you do randomly draw the 1 SDT it is always good... I find myself only activating it once on turn 4 usually so that I get the best 2 cards from on top and potentially secure a kill. Running only one ensures that it cantrips... if you are running fetchlands I could see running more than one but otherwise I feel the risk of having a completely dead card is too great. Sometimes it makes a 2 land hand better, too.SDT: Can't comment on this as I haven't tried it. Is a single SDT worth it? Isn't it just very random?
Well, one damage for one mana is way below the curve, and considering that you have to kill people on limited mana multiple needle drops risks falling too far behind the curve... the extra cards are useful, but not if you have to wait until turn 6 to win because you spent 1 mana on one damage multiple times. Maybe my logic is wrong though.Needle Drop: Why is this good as a 1-of? If it is, why is it bad to see two? If it's a good deal to pay 1 mana, deal 1 damage and draw 1 card, isn't it also a good deal to pay 2 mana, deal 2 damage and draw 2 cards? I don't think this is worth a slot though. It's worse than manamorphose, and bad for the same reasons.
The right number of fireblast to run would be of 6 or 7, since you ALWAYS want to see one of them. Fireblast is the card who speeds up the deck. Though, we can't play 7 copies, so we play 4 magma jet to look for them.
Seeing a second copy is bad, but it's still playable. If you see a third you are having a really bad day.
I must admit I kind of like the one SDT since it is actually not a bad topdeck, because often you will have 3 lands in play in the "lategame". Needle Drop seems okay too as a one-off and I can follow your logic Sevryn - but this card, on the other hand, is indeed a bad topdeck since it needs another card to be good (unless they crack a fetch vs you for some weird reason). Also running one Shard Volley doesn't seem so bad for the deck, I think the manabase can afford it. It would be nice if you could actually test this Sevryn :) (thought it could prove hard to get some useful data). Im most exited by the one SDT main.
Also why is running Manamorphose bad? isn't it just a better Incinerate? Explain plz :)
It really isn't bad... The reasons against it are lackluster imo.
Anyone tried Burst Lightning from Zendikar? Im testing it now. Will post my feedback
I have tried burst lightning in both sligh and burn decks,
i find it more effective in sligh (kicked in every game).
The spell slows down burn, and its very often kicked. just sharing my testing. thanks!
I have tried it, and honestly I prefer firebolt in that role. Both cards attempt to give you something to do with lots of mana (for burn), while not being dead cards in hand when you don't have lots of mana. I think firebolt just accomplishes this better, giving you the same total damage for one more mana, but spread over two turns. The problem with Burst Lightning is that it is a shock unkicked, which is lame, and if you use it un-kicked you can't take advantage of the kicker (obviously). Flashback is just better than kicker for this function in this deck, imo.Anyone tried Burst Lightning from Zendikar? Im testing it now. Will post my feedback
It's a bad top-deck, but only if you aren't altering your playstyle to accommodate it. There's seldom a reason to empty your hand if it isn't going to kill the opponent, so in my mind it doesn't hurt to hold back a bolt so that you can better deal with top-decking a needle drop.I have been testing, but I don't really have any data to share... I'm getting less in the way of numbers and more in the way of vibe, if that makes sense. Testing a number of singletons makes it hard for me to do more than this, as I see each one in only a quarter of the games. So far, I have never been so land-starved that shard volley has been a bad card to see, but I'm not about to up it to 2, either.Also running one Shard Volley doesn't seem so bad for the deck, I think the manabase can afford it. It would be nice if you could actually test this Sevryn :) (thought it could prove hard to get some useful data). Im most exited by the one SDT main.
Singletons I am testing atm:
-shard volley
-firebolt
-needle drop (considering upping to 2 or 3)
-sensei's divining top (1 is perfect, unless you want to run shrapnel blasts)
-glacial ray (potentially makes lava spike 1RR for 5 followed by 1R for 2, still feeling it out)
-pyromancer's swath (kills out of nowhere sometimes, very fun to just have in the deck!)
SDT: The bad news are that SDT is far better in a deck who runs fetchlands or who can shuffle his library. It's possible to run fetchs in burn, but your mana base would become vulnerable to stifle.
Shard Volley: This card was tested since her imprint in Lorwyn and one copy of it proved abolutely playable in a burn list.
Manamorphose: If your meta is full of aggrocontrol decks, don't take it. If it gets a daze in the second turn your opponent has virtually played you a time walk. Without this card probably our second turn would have been of two bolts, the second one dazed, but the first one still dealing 3 damage points. In other metas is possible to run it.
The advantage to Fallout when playing against Elves is that you can use it in response to them cycling Gempalm Strider. They could use it to respond to your Flamebreak in turn, unless they are tapped out. OTP, the 2 lords isn't an issue as you can blast them in response to playing that second lord. Overall though, Flamebreak will probably be slightly better against Elves, especially if the elf pilot isn't that familiar with playing against burn.I prefer flamebreak because it can still deal with elves with 2 lords on the table. I agree that fallout is probably better in other metas.
To me, it feels worse than a Magma Jet unless you play with fetchlands. And I'm not sure I'd want a Magma Jet #5. You probably shouldn't run fetchlands (self damage, stifle) unless you're already splashing though, but I could see splash builds running a couple of SDTs.However, whenever you do randomly draw the 1 SDT it is always good... I find myself only activating it once on turn 4 usually so that I get the best 2 cards from on top and potentially secure a kill. Running only one ensures that it cantrips... if you are running fetchlands I could see running more than one but otherwise I feel the risk of having a completely dead card is too great.
Using SDT as you describe, you pay 2 mana hoping to get that last bolt to finish of your opponent. What is SDT was simply an Incinerate instead? Then you'd already have it. With Magma Jet, you already do 2 damage for that 2 mana and get the scrying thrown in for free, and you don't have to wait until the last moment to use it. If that last bolt got countered, you're in for drawing SDT again next turn... Just doesn't seem worth it without shuffling effects.
Imagine holding an Incinerate and ask yourself: "Would I prefer to cycle this burn spell for free, hoping to draw a better burn spell even though I'm more likely to draw a simple Mountain instead?" If you answer yes, then Manamorphose is better than Incinerate.Also why is running Manamorphose bad? isn't it just a better Incinerate? Explain plz :)
To use Manamorphose, you must adjust your land count for a 56 card deck. Otherwise, you're increasing your relative number of lands. This will however lead to an increased number of mulligans. The reduced land number account for about 2-3 more mulligans in 100 games (you should be having about 35 already), and the uncertainty factor from Manamorphose (is it another land or another burn spell in disguise?) account for an additional 2-3 games. It also reduces the scrying power of Magma Jet.
So you need to ask yourself, is the slight increase in card quality (by this I mean damage/mana ratio and damage/card ratio) worth having to mull about 10-15% more often (40 games in a 100 vs. 35 games in a 100)? I'd say no. The number of times where the actual quality of the burn spell was the deciding factor in the game are few.
In a splash build though, Manamorphose could have some merit. You'd probably have to run it instead of Magma Jet though, due to the anti-synergy. I could see SDT + Fetches + Manamorphose being a more synergistic card quality engine in splashed burn, than simply using Magma Jet.
Needle Drop works similarly to Manamorphose in improving the damage/card ratio, but it also worsens the damage/mana ratio. The uncertainty issues are almost the same, but you must also adapt your plays in the event that you top deck a Needle Drop, making it worse IMO.
@Firebolt/Burst Lightning: Both these are shocks with a fancy effect that will almost never be relevant. If you drop 5 lands in a game, will doing 2 more damage for 4-5 mana be the solution to your problems? Isn't a 4-for3 like Flame Javelin better, since it has the same damage potential for less mana, and the potential will always be realized in a game?
@Shard Volley: 1-2 of these are probably highly playable. I think there are more important inclusions to be made though, so I just don't have the room right now. I'm not sure if they are worse or better than a simple Incinerate.
@Glacial Ray: I really would love for this to work, but I think it's a bit inconsistent. 50% of the games you see this singleton, you will be able to turn a 3-for-1 into a 5-for-3, and then play a 2-for-2. 50% of the time though, you will have another 3-for-1 (not Lava Spike) and just a 2-for-2. That's an average mana efficiency of (7/5 + 5/3)/2 = about 2.3 damage/mana, and an average card efficiency of (7/2 + 5/2)/2 = 3 damage per card.
If that Glacial Ray was an Incinerate instead, you'd get 3-for-1 + 3-for-2 in all games, or an average mana efficiency of 6/3 = 2 (slightly worse than Glacial Ray) and 3 damage/card (same as Glacial Ray).
Seeing as you'll only draw that Glacial Ray about 25% of all games, and 50% of those it will be worse than Incinerate, I'm not exactly thrilled about the potential of .3 better mana efficiency. I could definetely be worth running if you have a slot to spend though, especially if you're light in the 3cc department.
@Pyromancer's Swath: The problem with this is that you can only play it as a finisher (the last card in your hand, or suffer CD), but it doesn't actually finish anything. For it to be more efficient than - say - a Flame Javelin, you need to activate it twice. With 1/3 of your deck being land, this will require 3 top decks - three turns after you played that "finisher". That's why it is bad.
The best 3cc "finisher" IMO is Sulfuric Vortex. In the aggro MU, it performs like a slightly slower Char that stops Jitte and life gain creatures. In the CounterTop/Control MU, it keeps on giving and can make the life swing in the first two turns quite leathal even if they lock you out turn 3-4.
Kar bankooer jeg
Manamorphose has little impact on your mulligans. Do some testing with it, and tell me how many mulligans it really messes up. With a deck with manamorphose you play one less land. That's it. The change in math really is not catastrophic. It is a give in take, but you also have to remember at the end of the day, it does decrease the chance of getting mana flood and allows you to run less filler burn.
At Manamorphose getting countered is a time walk, does that mean you are not playing any 2cc spells in your deck? At lot of times when you cast manamorphose you would be doing it into Magma Jet, Incinerate, Marauders, Price of Progress, or even when you are going to play a sweeper spell. Yeah sometimes you would rather go bolt and chain lightning, but it usually makes little difference. If you are really worried about it, then hold it until next turn. Really, you will find it is no big deal to hold to it for a turn anyway. However, many times the optimal turn 2 play is Magma Jet or Keldon Maruaders.
Countering manamorphose is generally not a very inspired play anyway... Yeah ok, daze my manamorphose and then eat a Price of Progress next turn. Hope you had both FOW and daze in your hand. It's just a bad idea. The spell coming after it is an actual threat. Yeah they get tempo, but once again they would get that from countering any of our 2cc spells.... Not saying manamorphose is an auto-include, but it is the most soild of the free cantrip cards imo. Doesn't burn you for 2 and put a creature in your gy for goyf. Better yet it doesn't add artifact to your gy either. Nothing else available competes with it, if you feel like playing a "56" card deck.
Just want to say I agree that Sulfuric Vortex is awesome and is nice MD. Continual source of damage is insane in Burn.
Daze is playable in the first or second turn. As you say it's a card to gain tempo. Probably later you will have 3 mountains to cover the price of progress. But anyway, I am also a fan of manamorphose. I wanted just to mention my experience when I have played it: the vulnerability to daze.
Without manamorphose, you will have 1 or 2 more mountains in your deck, which will be a far better draw than manamorphose when you are facing a deck who plays daze.
And there is a virtue of manamorphose that anyone has mentioned yet (i think). It fills the graveyard and feeds barbarian ring.
I have done extensive testing with it, and I told how many mulligans it messes up in my previous post. Did you read it? If you're in doubt, you can do the math yourself using hypergeometric distritbutions. Here is a free on-line calculator: http://www.adsciengineering.com/hpdcalc/
Manamorphose does not (NB!) decrease the chance of getting mana flooded. Especially if you're only cutting 1 land for it, then you're actually increasing your land percentage. 20/60 = 33%, 19/56 = 34%, 18/56 = 32%. Percentages say very little about mulliganing though, you have to do either Monte Carlo simulations or hypergeometric distributions (linked to above). Decreasing the relative land percentage decreases the chance of getting mana flooded - it's not by virtue of Manamorphose. The more lands you remove though, the more mulligans you have to make, and this goes both if you play Manamorphose or not. So Manamorphose brings the worst of both worlds - you're running fewer lands and suffer the mulligan effects, but have the same land percentage and top deck land just as often so you don't get to reap the benefits of going "land light".
It does let you run less filler burn by acting as filler itself. To decide which is the better filler, you need to find a way to compare the drawbacks of manamorphose, to the relative difference between your worst burnspell (which magma jet replaces) and your average burn spell (which Magma Jet hopefully draws). If the difference between your "worst" burnspell and your "average" burn spell is greater than the problems with running Manamorphose, you should probably run it. Obviously, if you can't even begin to single out a "worst" burn spell because they all have merit, you shouldn't run it.
(Note: I used to run Manamorphose as a Mogg Fanatic replacement right after the M10 changes, but later found I could do away with it by simply rethinking my deck list a bit. Haven't really looked back since.)
Kar bankooer jeg
Manamorphose is great in Belcher because it's a color fixer in its addition to increasing the storm count. For lists running Cabal Ritual, it also increases the chances of getting Threshold.
In here, Manamorphose doesn't do enough. If you want to play better burn spells by running "free" cantrips, run Street Wraith. Burn is an aggressive deck so you're seldom concerned with your own life total, and Street Wraith costs no initial mana investment, unlike Manamorphose.
In all honesty, my Burn list, which I haven't played Burn in forever because I prefer Naya Sligh, actually runs 4 Brainstorm and 4 Street Wraith (and 4 Magma Jet).
Sulfuric Vortex is probably the exception to the rule of keeping a virtual card advantage, since it does two things:
- Gives us continuous damage.
- Prevents life gain.
These two things are what kill Burn decks and it solves both of them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
