[Deck] Burn

[jares]

Hey,

The problem with cards like Lightning Storm you always have to be mana flooded AND you need to have this card on your Hand....
How often are you flooded ? I dont know to me it happens approx. 2 out of 10.
And if you arent flooded this card with 3dmg for 1RR is so bad.
Even Countryside Crusher would get this job done better.
Besides Fireblast is a way to deal with manaflood in my opinion.

Like I said, neither of these cards would make the cut anyway. I was just pleased to find a new (more like old) toy to play with.

To the new wrath: I cant see that card disatvantage to make a card "less dead" is going to help at all. Burn is a Deck with quality Cards because we dont have any suffel/search effects (exept magma Jet). Every Card you draw has do be outstanding!
Thats exactly what the Burn lists nowadays look like beside a Land there is nearly no card iam not happy to draw.

I personally think that the cards that have been noted would help to some degree, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing - after all, the premise of that idea is that you're dealing with card disadvantage. At the end of the day, these options are really thrown out there as a means of brainstorming - no pun intended. Having mentioned Brainstrorm, I fully expect U/R Delver to take advantage of this card - it will be difficult for that deck to say no to a card that deals 5 damage for 1 mana, given that it also fits their game plan. As for Burn, the option that makes the most sense for us regarding this card is to run 1-2 of Thunderous Wrath, hope not to draw it in the opening hand, and mulligan our hands when we do - and this option doesn't even sound very enticing.

Hopefully, some brilliant mind will discover something that we've all missed so far.

Kind Regards,
jares

[RogueBuild]

I used to run a single Lightning Storm and never had it payoff the way I had hoped.

I think the worries of Thunderous Wrath being a dead card in your hand are a little over blown. The only time you don't want it is in the opening hand or the 1st draw if you are going 2nd. Adjusting the deck and loading up on cards that let you pitch it if you draw it too soon if just to risk having more deck cards. Ok, you draw Thunderous Wrath in your opening hand, how many other pitch outlets do you need to make it less of a problem? what happens when you draw the pitch card but not the Thunderous Wrath? now the pitch card is the dead card, unless you want to pitch a bolt for it.

Do you run a risk that Thunderous Wrath could be a dead card? yes, but PoP can be dead too and we play it because it has the ability to dead big damage. Thunderous Wrath will deal about as much damage as the average PoP (I rarely get to deal more then 6 damage with 1 PoP) and the odds of it being a dead card I would say are less as some decks are just not effected by PoP and others try to can play around it.

Last thing about Thunderous Wrath, mulling because it get it in your opening hand for no other reason then it is in your opening hand is a bad idea. If you draw it in the opening and the rest of your hand is good, don't mull. It gets you nothing. It gets you a new 6 card hand that may or may not be as good as the 6 you have now and instad of a dead card you have no card. You also risk getting worse if you were to draw another Thunderous Wrath when you mull. The mull needs to be based on the other 6 cards not the bad luck of drawing a single Thunderous Wrath in the opening hand.

[DragoFireheart]

PyroPill as a MD card in an enviroment where the bulk of the decks run creatures doesn't work out well for the math. Every bolt you cast is 3 damage to them and 2 to you. Meanwhile 1 and 2 drops they cast keep swinging. In order for you to keep pace with even 1 flipped delver you need to cast 1 spell per-turn in tghe process taking 2 more damage. So effectively you take 5 damage a round to the 3 you deal if they just stop casting. When used in Burn PyroPill only works against combo that have no choice but to cast a large number of spells.

You could cast the burn spells in your hand and then drop the pillar. I dunno, just a thought I had.

[jares]

Do you run a risk that Thunderous Wrath could be a dead card? yes, but PoP can be dead too and we play it because it has the ability to dead big damage.

I like this comparison. It's worth noting though, that the risk of running Price of Progress is a fairly calculated risk given the environment that we're playing against in Legacy - in comparison, the risk of running Thunderous Wrath isn't as strategically weighted (around 22% at [2x] in the main deck), though it is still somewhat manageable because of the option to mulligan.

Last thing about Thunderous Wrath, mulling because it get it in your opening hand for no other reason then it is in your opening hand is a bad idea. If you draw it in the opening and the rest of your hand is good, don't mull. It gets you nothing. It gets you a new 6 card hand that may or may not be as good as the 6 you have now and instad of a dead card you have no card. You also risk getting worse if you were to draw another Thunderous Wrath when you mull. The mull needs to be based on the other 6 cards not the bad luck of drawing a single Thunderous Wrath in the opening hand.

I agree. I believe that this should go without saying, but hopefully someone would be able to pick that up and apply it in real life. As for the "risk" factor of this new card, it's a good thing that we would always have the option to mulligan whenever it would be favorable.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

You could cast the burn spells in your hand and then drop the pillar. I dunno, just a thought I had.

I was thinking the same thing too. Unfortunately, it's never a good idea to place the outcome of the game into your opponent's hand (almost literally ). Also, I believe that what RogueBuild was also pointing out was that, in the game of imposing a "punishment" for playing spells, the deck that runs more creatures has a better chance, simply because they can opt to play less spells and depend on their permanents to deal damage.

Kind Regards,
jares

[RogueBuild]

I was thinking the same thing too. Unfortunately, it's never a good idea to place the outcome of the game into your opponent's hand (almost literally ). Also, I believe that what RogueBuild was also pointing out was that, in the game of imposing a "punishment" for playing spells, the deck that runs more creatures has a better chance, simply because they can opt to play less spells and depend on their permanents to deal damage.

Kind Regards,
jares

Playing PyroPill against a creature deck you need to cast it early, before they get threats on the board, or not at all. If you cast it on T2, the earliest they can cast it (and they will likely have a threat already) you ensure they take damage for casting their threats. If you cast it T3 or later and they have 1-3 threats on the board they say "fine, I don't need to cast anything else anyway, but you do." These are decks that can already keep pace with us, many gain life and bring counters. Think of it as an uneven Sulfuric Vortex. PyroPill is a clock on US because we don't have the creature support to kill without casting spells every turn. It only works against Storm based combo because they are more dependent on casting a lot of spells then we are.

[jares]

You don't even have to read 112 pages of this thread to know that Burn has been shooting for a turn 3 or 4 kill for 15 years while every generation of decks we face get faster and are now on our heels AND they don't suffer from running out of gas they way we do. Never mind that there are combo deck that can go off on turns 1 and 2. And nothing about the differences between my build or the more conventional Burn build slows it down.

I was just wondering if you've also tested Grim Lavamancer in furthering your game plan for Burn, as I would be interested in how it worked-out for you. I somewhat expect that you're not running any creatures in your current build though, given that you're running both Flamebreak and Volcanic Fallout.

Cheers,
jares

[Kich867]

I was just wondering if you've also tested Grim Lavamancer in furthering your game plan for Burn, as I would be interested in how it worked-out for you. I somewhat expect that you're not running any creatures in your current build though, given that you're running both Flamebreak and Volcanic Fallout.

Cheers,
jares

Grim Lavamancer falls into an awkward spot for burn. It's really the only creature that your opponent is actually forced to remove. Goblin Guide's can get shut off by Mishra's Factories or larger creatures, Elemental's and Marauders again, can be dealt with by sufficiently large enough creatures so long as you aren't already dead.

But Grim Lavamancer actually -has- to die or the damage will just stack up too high over the course of time. Even two activations is one card for 4 damage, which is quite stellar given it's not symmetrical damage. Three activations puts Grim Lavamancer at an outrageously efficient spot.

On the flip side, it's not like he'll always be dead and shrinking your graveyard is almost always beneficial. He serves as another means to destroy bridges by killing himself and he completely ignores blockers.

[jares]

Grim Lavamancer falls into an awkward spot for burn. It's really the only creature that your opponent is actually forced to remove. Goblin Guide's can get shut off by Mishra's Factories or larger creatures, Elemental's and Marauders again, can be dealt with by sufficiently large enough creatures so long as you aren't already dead.

But Grim Lavamancer actually -has- to die or the damage will just stack up too high over the course of time. Even two activations is one card for 4 damage, which is quite stellar given it's not symmetrical damage. Three activations puts Grim Lavamancer at an outrageously efficient spot.

On the flip side, it's not like he'll always be dead and shrinking your graveyard is almost always beneficial. He serves as another means to destroy bridges by killing himself and he completely ignores blockers.

My experience is similar to yours, which is why I was curious about whether or not RogueBuild tested this creature to further his alternative game plan for Burn - similar to my findings for Sulfuric Vortex, I've found this creature to be very effective against the majority of the Tier decks in the current meta. I'm thinking, though, that his extensive use of board sweepers might be a hindrance for the use of Grim Lavamancer. Maybe some balance can be made among these cards (mostly regarding the timing).

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

My experience is similar to yours, which is why I was curious about whether or not RogueBuild tested this creature to further his alternative game plan for Burn - similar to my findings for Sulfuric Vortex, I've found this creature to be very effective against the majority of the Tier decks in the current meta. I'm thinking, though, that his extensive use of board sweepers might be a hindrance for the use of Grim Lavamancer. Maybe some balance can be made among these cards (mostly regarding the timing).

Cheers,
jares

@RogueBuild
In the same line of curiosity as the comments above, I was wondering if you also tested Breath of Darigaaz. It seems like Flamebreak, Volcanic Fallout, and Breath of Darigaaz would be able to nicely balance the curve for some of the 12 flex slots that would define your build.

Cheers,
jares

[Dmnd]

Okay i want to bring up another Card i tested alot recently.
Barbarian Ring
I know it is colorless dmg. but is it really that great? Most of the Times i dont get Threshold or 2 dmg is just not enought. And often it hurts hard if you have to tap it every round caus you had a 2land hand with rind and didnt want to muli.

iam not sure what to think about it. So some opinios would be great.
How does it perform vs Maverick and would you ever combine it with Lavamancer in the Deck?
regards

[polar]

Okay i want to bring up another Card i tested alot recently.
Barbarian Ring
I know it is colorless dmg. but is it really that great? Most of the Times i dont get Threshold or 2 dmg is just not enought. And often it hurts hard if you have to tap it every round caus you had a 2land hand with rind and didnt want to muli.

iam not sure what to think about it. So some opinios would be great.
How does it perform vs Maverick and would you ever combine it with Lavamancer in the Deck?
regards

I use 1 Barbarian ring on MD, more can screw my fireblasts, and the thresehold can be award with fetchlands(I use 5 cuz i have 4 Searing blazes on MD)

[jares]

Okay i want to bring up another Card i tested alot recently.
Barbarian Ring
I know it is colorless dmg. but is it really that great? Most of the Times i dont get Threshold or 2 dmg is just not enought. And often it hurts hard if you have to tap it every round caus you had a 2land hand with rind and didnt want to muli.

iam not sure what to think about it. So some opinios would be great.
How does it perform vs Maverick and would you ever combine it with Lavamancer in the Deck?
regards

One of the reasons for why I went back to exploring Fetch Lands is because I've been very disappointed with Barbarian Ring, as outlined by the following reasons:

• It has dis-synergy with Grim Lavamancer
• It has dis-synergy with Hellspark Elemental
• It cannot be used to cast Fireblast's alternate cost
• It's susceptible to Wasteland
• The Threshold limitation can sometimes be an issue
• It can potentially deal more damage than running a few Fetch Lands
• It can also be Stifled, much like Fetch Lands
• You do not want to draw one early in the game
• You normally would not want to draw more than one in a game

I hope that helps.

Kind Regards,
jares

[Curby]

It's a meta call. Stuff like FoD, BRing, and Hellspark are great if you're facing a lot of permission. I'd never run Grim and BRing in the same deck though.

[Dmnd]

Okay thx alot.

That will help me. Think i will put the Brings aside fore some time and test the results without them

regards

[RogueBuild]

On Grim Lava.
As I do not run fetchlands Grim end up being too slow. Casting on turn 1 means they would have 2 turns to kill it before it is active. It also means that the 1st time I wold be able to use it is the same turn I could in able to cast a sweeper. Also the lack of creatures just makes them quick targets. I love them in other decks. Here I'ld rather just clear the field without having to think, "did I get enough out of that Grim before I killed it?"

On Breath of Darigaaz,
I rather just run Earthquake which scales up with open lands better or Pyroclasm. Earthquake was the last x-spell to get removed from my burn deck and SB as the years have progressed.

[jares]

On Grim Lava.
As I do not run fetchlands Grim end up being too slow. Casting on turn 1 means they would have 2 turns to kill it before it is active. It also means that the 1st time I wold be able to use it is the same turn I could in able to cast a sweeper. Also the lack of creatures just makes them quick targets. I love them in other decks. Here I'ld rather just clear the field without having to think, "did I get enough out of that Grim before I killed it?"

On Breath of Darigaaz,
I rather just run Earthquake which scales up with open lands better or Pyroclasm. Earthquake was the last x-spell to get removed from my burn deck and SB as the years have progressed.

I agree, as I likely wouldn't play Grim Lavamancer if I didn't run Fetch Lands.

As for Breath of Darigaaz, it seems that you would get better economy out of this card when compared to Earthquake, though the latter is indeed able to give you better flexibility. Pyroclasm would be at the end of my list, though, as I don't like that it doesn't deal damage to players.

Regards,
jares

[RogueBuild]

I agree, as I likely wouldn't play Grim Lavamancer if I didn't run Fetch Lands.

As for Breath of Darigaaz, it seems that you would get better economy out of this card when compared to Earthquake, though the latter is indeed able to give you better flexibility. Pyroclasm would be at the end of my list, though, as I don't like that it doesn't deal damage to players.

Regards,
jares

Breath of Darigaaz Is only better at then an Earthquake when you have 4 or 5 mana open. At 2 open then are equal, at 3 and 6+ Earthquak is better. The issue is the likelihood Burn gets to 4 lands. Since I don't count on it the kicker option on Breath of Darigaaz is really not a factor where an Earthquake could still do 2 damage at 3 lands (which is why I use Flamebreak and Volcanic and not Earthquake). For Breath of Darigaaz to really be worth it it would need to hit fliers and/or deal 2 damage un-kicked.

As for Pyroclasm, I was just implying if there was a gun to my head and I had the choice of it or Breath of Darigaaz I would take it over PyroClasm, not that I think it would have a place in Burn.

[jares]

Breath of Darigaaz Is only better at then an Earthquake when you have 4 or 5 mana open. At 2 open then are equal, at 3 and 6+ Earthquak is better. The issue is the likelihood Burn gets to 4 lands. Since I don't count on it the kicker option on Breath of Darigaaz is really not a factor where an Earthquake could still do 2 damage at 3 lands (which is why I use Flamebreak and Volcanic and not Earthquake). For Breath of Darigaaz to really be worth it it would need to hit fliers and/or deal 2 damage un-kicked.

As for Pyroclasm, I was just implying if there was a gun to my head and I had the choice of it or Breath of Darigaaz I would take it over PyroClasm, not that I think it would have a place in Burn.

May we request for the build that you have been testing with?

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

That sounds okay, but note that having 20 lands also concerns me, and I have been looking into going back to using Fetch Lands again (8x as of the moment) to address the deck-thinning issues, and also to fuel Grim Lavamancer.

Running Fetch Lands has recently been abandoned because of the emergence of RUG Tempo decks running Stifle, and also because losing additional life could also affect the mirror match. While these are indeed valid concerns, I've found that the following points suggest that it's much less of an issue than it really is:

• The probability that the deck you'll be going against runs Stifle: Unknown/Variable
• The probability that a deck running a full set of Stifle will have it in the opening hand: 39.95%
• The probability that your opponent will be on the play: 50%
• The probability that you'll draw a Fetch Land in your opening hand, given that you're running 8x in the deck: 65.36%
• The probability that you won't draw a Mountain in your opening hand (alongside the possibility that a Fetch Land is also drawn): 19.06%
• Considering all the above points, this is the probability that you'll have issues with Stifle: less than 2.49% (given that we still have unknowns/variables, which can only be expected to lessen the probabilities)

My calculations and considerations about Stifle might not be absolute, but the exploration of these details suggest that there is very little to be worried about when running Fetch Lands. As for the life loss, I expect to lose 1-2 life every game by running 8x Fetch Lands in the deck, and I find this to be a good bargain for being able to thin my deck of excess lands and fuel Grim Lavamancer in the process. The life loss will likely cause concerns in the mirror match, and this seems to me like it's the most weighted risk, one that I'm more than willing to take, as the mirror match is usually decided by whoever goes first anyway.

I'd be very interested to hear everyone's thoughts regarding these considerations.

Kind Regards,
jares

Anyone else with test results for playing Fetch Lands?

Cheers,
jares