[Deck] Burn

[NeoTech]

common sense is hard to find these days, PEACE OUT

The fact of the matter is this. With 19 lands you generally have about a 32% chance to draw a land, and a 68% chance to draw a spell. With this amount of land you also can expect to start off the game with a 2 land hand consistantly, which is ideal.

Sac lands are not needed, and the possibility of your opponent stifling a sac land is great because of the effect it has on our tempo. However, Sac land are good synergy with grim lavamancers, but not enough to risk tempo loss. If you like sac lands use them, you will just pay for it in the mirror or against stifle.

This information has been tested and discussed for a very long time, the conclusion was to avoid sac lands. You can argue the deck thinning as much as you like, but go back through all the information in this thread that already discussed sac lands first. It's really a dead issue. Use them, or don't.

[jares]

The fact of the matter is this. With 19 lands you generally have about a 32% chance to draw a land, and a 68% chance to draw a spell. With this amount of land you also can expect to start off the game with a 2 land hand consistantly, which is ideal.

Sac lands are not needed, and the possibility of your opponent stifling a sac land is great because of the effect it has on our tempo. However, Sac land are good synergy with grim lavamancers, but not enough to risk tempo loss. If you like sac lands use them, you will just pay for it in the mirror or against stifle.

This information has been tested and discussed for a very long time, the conclusion was to avoid sac lands. You can argue the deck thinning as much as you like, but go back through all the information in this thread that already discussed sac lands first. It's really a dead issue. Use them, or don't.

The following figures might help as a reference:

• Constants:
  
  • 60 Cards in the main deck
  • 19 Lands
• Probabilities:
  
  • 94.19% chance to get at least 1 land in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly one land), your first draw will have a 33.96% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.
  • 72.06% chance to get at least 2 lands in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly two lands), your first draw will have a 32.08% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares

[rnightingale]

Thank you NeoTech for educating the Goblin.

common sense is hard to find these days, PEACE OUT

Your argument is invalid. Seismic Assault sucks.

[RogueBuild]

1st: I tried Seismic Assault a long time ago so i would have something to do with extra land draws. The problem is you don't want to have more then 1 in the deck and you never seem to draw them the same game you draw too much land.

2nd: You can't make the argument against fetchlands using the -1 life or 5% of your starting total while at the same time running Flame Rift which is 4 damage (20%) of your starting life total. Either you think you can race anyone to 20 damage, which clearly you think you can, and doing 4 damage to each of you is worth doing, or you don't in which case Flame Rift is a bigger danger to you then a fetchland is. After all, Flame Rift is a tempo loss. You both take 4 damage but you spent 2 mana and a card to do it.

3rd: "Thus our library contains 60 - 7 (opening hand) - 5 (drawphases) - 1 (GGUIDE) - 1 (BOLT) = 46 cards (18 lands, 28 non-lands)" this is wrong. The Guide and the bolt would have been among the opening 7 or 5 draws so you should still have 48 cards in the deck.

4th: Every card game be it Magic or Poker, "insert another CCG here" or BlackJack is about odds. The odds of drawing what you need and not what you don't. And every tool you can use to increase those odds is a good tool. So saying using a fetchland only increases the odds of a non-land draw by whatever amount is still irrelevant, it still increases the odds in your favor. The valid arguments against it are do you fear Stifle or the loss of 1 life, or, in my deck, I need to hit 3 lands but don't want to run 20+ lands so running fetches risks be reducing the odds of a 3rd land draw too quickly.

5th, and this is a question: with as hard as it is to power up FoD is there a reason people don't just use Kargan Dragonlord instead? Sure he cost 2 but starts as a 2/2 (same total mana investment). He hits L4 and becomes a 4/4 flying for 4 more mana (1 more then FoD) but you don't need it all at the same time unlike FoD and can hit 8/8 in a prolonged match which it is unlikely FoD would ever do.
I don't use either I was just wondering why people use 1 over the other.

6th: "Seismic Assault sucks." is opinion and not the basis of an argument, not a winning argument anyway.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I have at no point, thought about running 19 lands.
I do not like Barbarian Ring, I have sat on two lands one being ring, not been able to cast a Fireblast and been really upset about it.
I run 17 Mountains, and it has never once messed with me, I even get Figure to be a 4/4 on games he isnt Plowshared. I also even run into the mana flood, which makes me want to run Fetches. I do not think it is such an atrocious idea as a few of you are making it out to be. Is it needed? No. Is it stupid to run them? No. Simple as that.
Even if you run Lavamancer, I do not think Fetches are needed, but it does make the Lavamancer that much more consistent.

about Kargan Dragonlord, I have always wanted to run it, I think overall it is a little better, I would rather pay the extra to get the flyer.
I just have Figures, and not Dragonlords, if I ever stumble across them I think I would change.

Double posts merged. Please avoid double posting in the future. Thanks. -zilla

[Curby]

Either you think you can race anyone to 20 damage, which clearly you think you can, and doing 4 damage to each of you is worth doing, or you don't in which case Flame Rift is a bigger danger to you then a fetchland is. After all, Flame Rift is a tempo loss. You both take 4 damage but you spent 2 mana and a card to do it.

What you're saying is true, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the inclusion of each is a trade off. If you're willing to spend two mana and a card to speed up the game, that's fine. That does NOT mean that you're automatically fine with smaller losses of life or self-damaging effects just because you're already running Rift. Some people think that the net downsides of running fetches are not worth the net benefits. Life loss isn't the only consideration, but it is a consideration, and it's certainly understandable that something that hits you for 1 won't be tolerated in a deck that plays something that hits you for 4. It all depends on the net effect, not just life loss in a vacuum.

with as hard as it is to power up FoD is there a reason people don't just use Kargan Dragonlord instead?

Yup. With FoD and two mana you've got a 2/2 attacking on the second turn. With Dragonlord and two mana you've got a 2/2 attacking on the third turn.

Also, pumping at instant speed is all kinds of relevant. This is why white weenie decks run FoD before whatever that leveling white guy is.

Lastly, Spell Snare is increasingly taking up slots previously held by FoW and Daze. As a critical source of recurring damage against a permissive deck, running out an early Figure while dodging countermagic is important.

As an aside, I don't think it's that hard to power up FoD to a 4/4, especially in slower matchups where you enter turns 5+ due to permission and disruption. In short, he can get big in the games where he needs to get big.

[RogueBuild]

I can see the 2/2 on T2 attack having an impact, but the instant speed pumping, wouldn't that only be relevant early on when I would think FoD would be the last think you want to play on T1. GGuide, Lava Spike, Rift Bolt, or any bolt I would think are better T1/T2 options. In later turns when you have 2 or more lands in play you can pump Kargan without ever having to tapout so you can still play whatever you draw.

Again, I don't play either of them in Burn, just seemed Kargan made more sense.


or another way to put it, I don't see an argument for FoD being played because its fast. I see it being played because it gives you a mid to late game threat with more meat then a 2/2, after you're out of gas. Given that is the need I would think it fills, wouldn't Kargan seems a better option.

[Curby]

A FoD that hits earlier has the potential to do more damage over the course of the game, and the damage increases linearly. A Rift Bolt that's suspended earlier also has the potential to do more damage, but the damage dealt is constant after the first turn. This means that you don't want to Suspend Rift Bolt on the turn you're trying to kill them, but there's a lot more flexibility in the timing. On the other hand, you want your creatures down early to maximize damage over the course of the game.

In short: If I had a FoD and a Rift Bolt in my opener, I'd start with the FoD.

(If you have FoD and Guide in the opener, it turns out that you deal four combat damage and have two 2/2s after two turns regardless if which you cast first, mana permitting.)

Again, I don't play either of them in Burn, just seemed Kargan made more sense.

I think these two statements are related. Theory is one thing, but I'd invite you to test them out to more fully appreciate the distinctions.

[jares]

I have at no point, thought about running 19 lands.
I do not like Barbarian Ring, I have sat on two lands one being ring, not been able to cast a Fireblast and been really upset about it.
I run 17 Mountains, and it has never once messed with me, I even get Figure to be a 4/4 on games he isnt Plowshared. I also even run into the mana flood, which makes me want to run Fetches. I do not think it is such an atrocious idea as a few of you are making it out to be. Is it needed? No. Is it stupid to run them? No. Simple as that.
Even if you run Lavamancer, I do not think Fetches are needed, but it does make the Lavamancer that much more consistent.

The following figures might help as a reference:

• Constants:
  
  • 60 Cards in the main deck
  • 17 Lands
• Probabilities:
  
  • 91.67% chance to get at least 1 land in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly one land), your first draw will have a 30.19% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.
  • 64.82% chance to get at least 2 lands in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly two lands), your first draw will have a 28.30% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.

Compare that to the figures below:

• Constants:
  
  • 60 Cards in the main deck
  • 19 Lands
• Probabilities:
  
  • 94.19% chance to get at least 1 land in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly one land), your first draw will have a 33.96% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.
  • 72.06% chance to get at least 2 lands in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly two lands), your first draw will have a 32.08% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.

If you noticed, the greatest drop-off (7.24%) is from the probability of drawing 2 lands in the opening hand, which I believe is the best case.

At the end of the day, people have subjective opinions on whether or not they would take that 7.24% risk, and the numbers are just there to help us with these decisions. Personally, I would go with the added consistency - and the tournament results have also proven this to be the more reliable option.

Cheers,
jares

[NecroYawgmoth]

Well... how much are the probalities with 18 lands?

Maybe it's closer to 19 than we think, and it's a good call.

[jares]

Well... how much are the probalities with 18 lands?

Maybe it's closer to 19 than we think, and it's a good call.

It's somewhere between the two probabilities I noted above (sorry, I feel a bit lazy right now, and don't feel like number crunching yet ). Generally, though, the increase/decrease in these probabilities are usually around 3-4% when we're considering these constants (around 12-20 copies of a specific card; this is an approximation). In other words, increasing/decreasing the land count can generally be thought-of as a 3-4% increase/decrease in the probability that you'll draw it in the opening hand. It might not sound like much, but these are the figures that we're working with whenever we fine-tune our builds.

Cheers,
jares

[iamfrightenedtoo]

since I have been playing Burn, I have Mulliganed because of no lands, three times, in 28 matches. I have drawn only one land in my opening hand nine times. Out of the nine times I have drawn one land, four of the matches I never drew another land. I lost two of them.

I have also mulliganed four times because I drew three or more lands, one of them was do to drawing five in my opener.

Thank you Jar for the numbers, they are close to what I have experienced in real matches.

I think I will keep in 17 lands, I may add an 18th, but then it will have to be a 19th, because I have a hang up about running even amounts of lands.

Ill have to start doing it at my local this month and next, I tried something new with Burn at the Indianapolis GrandPrix and it screwed me.

How does everyone really like Barbarian Ring? I have used it off and on, (in playtesting, not actual tournament play) and hate it. Do people actually find it to be helpful, or do they play it, because all the Burn lists run it?

[jares]

since I have been playing Burn, I have Mulliganed because of no lands, three times, in 28 matches. I have drawn only one land in my opening hand nine times. Out of the nine times I have drawn one land, four of the matches I never drew another land. I lost two of them.

I have also mulliganed four times because I drew three or more lands, one of them was do to drawing five in my opener.

Thank you Jar for the numbers, they are close to what I have experienced in real matches.

I think I will keep in 17 lands, I may add an 18th, but then it will have to be a 19th, because I have a hang up about running even amounts of lands.

Ill have to start doing it at my local this month and next, I tried something new with Burn at the Indianapolis GrandPrix and it screwed me.

How does everyone really like Barbarian Ring? I have used it off and on, (in playtesting, not actual tournament play) and hate it. Do people actually find it to be helpful, or do they play it, because all the Burn lists run it?

I think that Barbarian Ring is really there as an effort to minimize the tempo loss of not drawing enough lands, while at the same time helping with the case where too many lands are drawn (being a Burn "spell" itself). I have personally found it to be unreliable as a Burn spell, given that Threshold requires 7 cards in the graveyard, and that Hellspark Elemental usually doesn't stay around to help out with that. I find that the only other alternative is running Fetch Lands, though, so I feel stuck with using Barbarian Ring as the best compromise.

Additional Notes:

• The vulnerability to Wasteland surely sucks, but it also helps that Barbarian Ring is colorless, uncounterable damage (except maybe for Stifle).

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

I find the Barb. rings tend to just be wasteland magnets and when you only draw 2 lands, 1 is a ring and it gets wasted it starts to hinder your game.

Outside of Burn I love the card, in burn where you may only draw 1 or 2 lands I don't like making 1 an easy target to destroy.

[Curby]

On the other hand, it can be instrumental in pushing the last few points of damage through a control player's rapidly stabilizing wall of permission. It's situational, and therefore somewhat of a metagame consideration: how often will you see a situation where it helps?

[Suneloon]

I think that Barbarian Ring is really there as an effort to minimize the tempo loss of not drawing enough lands, while at the same time helping with the case where too many lands are drawn (being a Burn "spell" itself). I have personally found it to be unreliable as a Burn spell, given that Threshold requires 7 cards in the graveyard, and that Hellspark Elemental usually doesn't stay around to help out with that. I find that the only other alternative is running Fetch Lands, though, so I feel stuck with using Barbarian Ring as the best compromise.

Additional Notes:

• The vulnerability to Wasteland surely sucks, but it also helps that Barbarian Ring is colorless, uncounterable damage (except maybe for Stifle).

Cheers,
jares

This is a very accurate observation. I'm down to just one barbarian ring (and 18 mountains). I mostly don't like drawing it. But on occassion it is stellar. So I just can't seem to let it go entirely.

[NeoTech]

Barbarian Ring, for me, has always been a star performer.
It is just one of those cards where it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Whether it is for finishing damage or poping off a Mother of Runes or Thalia, it is always a welcomed land drop for me.

[jares]

Barbarian Ring, for me, has always been a star performer.
It is just one of those cards where it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Whether it is for finishing damage or poping off a Mother of Runes or Thalia, it is always a welcomed land drop for me.

That's all nice, but would we be able to get an objective assessment of why you find Barbarian Ring to be a good card for Burn?

Cheers,
jares

[NeoTech]

That's all nice, but would we be able to get an objective assessment of why you find Barbarian Ring to be a good card for Burn?

Cheers,
jares

Certainly Jares. I have had many situations where Barbarian Ring is used as my last burst of damage. It is basically a situational (being Threshold) Seal of Fire. But it has its additional uses of producing mana (the 1 damage is not that big of a deal), un-counterable (not including Stifle), being a colorless source of damage, and can take out a lot of the low cc staples of Legacy. Delver, Snapcaster, Stoneforge Mystic, Qasali Pridemage, Mother of Runes, Mishra's Factory/Mutavault, Grim Lavamancer, Noble Hierarch, etc...

This, of course, is not to say that I am always burning creatures down. But it is always a decision we have to make. And making the right decision can make or break a Burn player, as we all know.

So lets look at the positives and negatives of Barbarian Ring.

Pros': 2 damage, Colorless, Un-counterable, produces mana, kills plenty of legacy staples.

Cons': Take damage for tapping for mana, doesn't sac to Fireblast, threshold requirement, Wasteland target

Now the pros and cons are subject to criticism and debate. This is may not convince anybody to use Barbarian Ring, but hopefully give everybody a basis to make their decision.

My argument for the cons: Everybody has a Wasteland target, running 2 Barbarian Ring's isn't going to kill you or make you worry about Wasteland. On your opponents side of the board, they wish Wasteland was something better against Burn and will end up Wasting their own lands to avoid a lethal Price of Progress. Taking 1 damage is not that critical, if you win by turn 5, you probably haven't taken more than 2-3 points from it. Threshold is not that difficult in a control match-up, or anything with disruption, we have all got to our threshold with no problems, remember this deck like to cast every turn. Can't sac it to Fireblast, is probably the most prominent arguement, trust me I wish it was a mountain in addition to its other types too, but it isn't & we can't change that. But honestly, how often has that fact cost you the game?

I think the barbarian Ring argument would be more valid if the current lists were running a full set of 4. But since they are not, the 2 Barbarian Rings has been a good amount, never drawing it any more or less than we need to.

Just my thoughts.

[jares]

Certainly Jares. I have had many situations where Barbarian Ring is used as my last burst of damage. It is basically a situational (being Threshold) Seal of Fire. But it has its additional uses of producing mana (the 1 damage is not that big of a deal), un-counterable (not including Stifle), being a colorless source of damage, and can take out a lot of the low cc staples of Legacy. Delver, Snapcaster, Stoneforge Mystic, Qasali Pridemage, Mother of Runes, Mishra's Factory/Mutavault, Grim Lavamancer, Noble Hierarch, etc...

This, of course, is not to say that I am always burning creatures down. But it is always a decision we have to make. And making the right decision can make or break a Burn player, as we all know.

So lets look at the positives and negatives of Barbarian Ring.

Pros': 2 damage, Colorless, Un-counterable, produces mana, kills plenty of legacy staples.

Cons': Take damage for tapping for mana, doesn't sac to Fireblast, threshold requirement, Wasteland target

Now the pros and cons are subject to criticism and debate. This is may not convince anybody to use Barbarian Ring, but hopefully give everybody a basis to make their decision.

My argument for the cons: Everybody has a Wasteland target, running 2 Barbarian Ring's isn't going to kill you or make you worry about Wasteland. On your opponents side of the board, they wish Wasteland was something better against Burn and will end up Wasting their own lands to avoid a lethal Price of Progress. Taking 1 damage is not that critical, if you win by turn 5, you probably haven't taken more than 2-3 points from it. Threshold is not that difficult in a control match-up, or anything with disruption, we have all got to our threshold with no problems, remember this deck like to cast every turn. Can't sac it to Fireblast, is probably the most prominent arguement, trust me I wish it was a mountain in addition to its other types too, but it isn't & we can't change that. But honestly, how often has that fact cost you the game?

I think the barbarian Ring argument would be more valid if the current lists were running a full set of 4. But since they are not, the 2 Barbarian Rings has been a good amount, never drawing it any more or less than we need to.

Just my thoughts.

That's a good list of pros and cons. There might be some minor points that may have been left out, but those are generally the considerations that you would want to look into when considering the meta that you would want to build your deck around.

At the end of the day, the weight of each of these considerations will differ from player to player, and the best we can do is to provide solid reasoning for how we value each of these points regarding Barbarian Ring.

Thanks for obliging.

Cheers,
jares