What I agreed with is that if you regularly see more than 11 cards off the top of your library after drawing your opening hand, then T.Wrath is worth it. I for sure do not see a total of 18 cards from my deck, so for me it is not worth it.
Most people blindly suggest new cards for decks. True contributors also suggest what to remove. It's not about what's good, but rather what's better than the current selections.
There will be a very clear Inverse Correlation (must be statistics day in my head) between the number of spot removal spells your opponent has and the usefulness of the Vexing Devil. In other words in order to make Vexing Devil useful you need to:
A) run so many creatures that are "must answer" that the opponent can not answer them all. This is way outside the Burn philosophy, not that many people running various creatures are not already very close to that anyway.
B) Convince your opponent to pull his spot removal from the deck, then hit him with the Devil. This is exactly what I plan to try out. I run 4 Hellsparks and no other creatures. I often have people pull all their spot removal out against me in favor of whatever they side in, such as Leylines. That is why Vexing Devil appeals to me. For that very situation. This is where Vexing has a chance to impact Burn.
That's a good strategy, but I wonder if it's enough. There were 24 lightning bolts in the last SCG open top 8, and those are less likely than strict creature removal to come out because of their broad utility. There were 24 Knights of the Reliquary in SCG Open Baltimore top8, and they easily outclass a non-hasty beater like Devil especially when paired with Mother of Runes and/or Scryb Ranger. I'd make sure to test the performance of Devil against these popular decks.
Most people blindly suggest new cards for decks. True contributors also suggest what to remove. It's not about what's good, but rather what's better than the current selections.
I'm not saying its a high chance of working. I'm saying I think its the only situation where it works out. Also, if they take out most or all removal and are forced to pay life or trade a creature to kill it a Devil would trade with a Goyf or decent sized KotR. Unless they have an active Mother in play they might just take the 4 damage and be done with it, which if they sided in Leylines would be a worth wild deal. It will not work against everything, but I do see situations where it could be useful.Originally Posted by kirbysdl
So if I beat your Maverick deck with my Burn deck, who's the scrub?
Stop trolling. You're not even trying to argue my points.
- Same argument for Marauders and Hellsparks and Guides.
- Current good burn decks show that fewer creatures = bad. You'll be too slow without creatures. We need creatures as we lack enough good burn spells to go creatureless.B) Convince your opponent to pull his spot removal from the deck, then hit him with the Devil. This is exactly what I plan to try out. I run 4 Hellsparks and no other creatures. I often have people pull all their spot removal out against me in favor of whatever they side in, such as Leylines. That is why Vexing Devil appeals to me. For that very situation. This is where Vexing has a chance to impact Burn.
You obviously don't know statistics either, expectation is more reasonable then mode for analysing a card like this.
So if the deck is a joke , why most maverick players and blade players , are packing absurd hate like COP red , leyline , and even rug list are putting one chill in sb.... the deck isnt the best but it can do well in an unprepared metagame...
Burn needs some creatures to make some damage , we dont have more lighting bolts , so we need to put something there , that thing happens to be some fast creatures , and i cant imagine a situation where keldon marauders or FOD are better than the devil.
Seriously have you played the deck??? . im totally happy with the devil being 4 damage for R 100% of the time , because you know that is better than lighting bolt one of the best cards in the deck,all the cards in the deck are doing 3 damage for R , so if the devil only deals 4 its extremely good , and like i said this guy isnt replacing GG , he is replacing marauders ,Fod and hellspark those clunky creatures with too much mana investment.Yes R for 4 to the dome is ALWAYS good (but not spectactular) in this type of deck. R for a 4/3 is however NOT, there are tons of situations for a burn deck where affecting the board is completely irrelevant and not being able to affect their life total is terrible. Those situations WILL come up often and make it much worse then it looks at first hand.
This card will VERY rarely do more then 4 damage, afterall if it would why would your opponent let it be a creature? The cases this does more then 4 damage are those where doing so will be irrelevant, ie your opponent was at really low life and let this resolve as a creature where it might do more then 4 but you would have won either way... The cases where this does 0 will happen quite frequently though because either you topdeck it too late (they let it be a creature and ignore it) or they simply have removal for it.
You know how I lose most often to burn? Turn 1 Goblin guide. You run creatures because every time they connect is one fewer card you have to have in hand to beat them. Instead of resolving 6-7, you suddenly have to resolve 5. Suddenly they have to find the removal for your creature while also finding answers to your spells.
Until you don't have to run creatures, it is an aggressive deck. You are forced to interact with your opponent on some level on the battlefield. And since you do, it is important apply pressure and have consistent damage that your opponent has to worry about in conjunction to your burn spells. Games you don't are games you limp in there unconvincingly or flat lose. Which is why "if you want the truth of the matter, if you're playing to win a tournament, you shouldn't be playing Burn in the first place."
If you think Bolt is the best card in the deck, we will never see eye to eye.
Matt Bevenour in real life
So Burn being a DTB is a fluke? I don't understand your point. You seem to be ignoring the Elephant in the room.
I don't use Marauders or GGuides and my kills tend to be around turn 4 or 5 just like everyone else. I don't need to flood them with creatures to make my Hellsparks useful, nor do I need more creatures to make the deck faster.
Also, other then using GG on turn 1 ans hitting 2+ times, there is NO combination of cards and events where ANY commonly played creature speeds up Burn. You can say it makes it more reliable, more stable, prevents you from running out of gas, applies more pressure, prevents damage from creatures. Those are all valid arguments, but they DO NOT speed up the deck. Only a GGuide that Swings 2+ times can be said to "speed up" Burn.
LOL!!! Expectation? That is your preferred answer over using a testable, measurable, method of determining the usefulness of a card? Why not just say "your ugly and your mother dresses you funny"? It has just about as much value.
Oh, if you are going to use your "Expectation" method you might want to look up the terms Scientific method, confirmation bias and schema.
- Your burn deck is sub-par without the Guides.
-Devils can speed up the deck quite a bit. See my previous post.Also, other then using GG on turn 1 ans hitting 2+ times, there is NO combination of cards and events where ANY commonly played creature speeds up Burn. You can say it makes it more reliable, more stable, prevents you from running out of gas, applies more pressure, prevents damage from creatures. Those are all valid arguments, but they DO NOT speed up the deck. Only a GGuide that Swings 2+ times can be said to "speed up" Burn.
Yes, I hear that sort of thing a lot, often from the wannabe pro-player I sent packing yelling "that card sucks" or "I can't believe you play that, your deck sucks!" as I mark my 2 wins on a slip to turn in.
My statement was geared towards what is legal right now. as for Devil...Yes, they can, but will they? I think I covered that in my previous post.
- What does this even mean? It's not funny so it's clearly not a joke. Anecdotal evidence should not be used in place of actual tournament results. If it's sarcasm it wasn't done very well. Fact of the matter is that the Burk decks that placed well had 4 Goblin Guides. What card are you running over Goblin Guide?
Yes. It is fine in smaller tournaments but notoriously underperforming in events of 7 rounds or more. Its last top 8 finish at a tournament of more than 50 players according to the council was back in February at SCG: Memphis. Compare that to dredge who has had several high profile finishes lately and is not in the DtB section, you understand what that quote means.
It is the type of deck that cannot do well once people decide to develop sideboards with it in mind: the hate is simply too overwhelming to overcome without drastically hindering yourself.
Matt Bevenour in real life
Ah, ok. I completely agree. It's more akin to Dragon Stompy or Affinity: a metagame deck that can surprised people, but once the surprise is over you'll get hated out.
Also been Burn decks that placed well that ran FoD but the general opinion now is they are bad for the deck. I'm not saying GGuide is bad, I'm saying it runs counter to what I do in burn with my style of play. In fact it run counter to the Burn Philosophy but as more people move Burn towards Sligh that matters less and less. Stating that a deck/card is "sub-par" because it doesn't fit into the conventional, predefined box that you built for it is a sign of very close-minded thinking and leave you open to being blindsided by someone like me who builds and plays decks with a notopos approach.
I posted results of testing that included over 400 matches. I have my tewsting to support that at lest in my hands, with my play style, my deck is better then the conventional Burn more commonly seen...
Oh, and I've been saying for weeks that I think Burn being a DTB is largely a fluke, even gave a series as to reasons why it was possible. But since we are here we might as well try to stay here
- Alright, I can understand you have a different play style, but data shows that not having Guides is subpar.
- That's great. You still avoided my question.In fact it run counter to the Burn Philosophy but as more people move Burn towards Sligh that matters less and less. Stating that a deck/card is "sub-par" because it doesn't fit into the conventional, predefined box that you built for it is a sign of very close-minded thinking and leave you open to being blindsided by someone like me who builds and plays decks with a notopos approach.
I posted results of testing that included over 400 matches. I have my tewsting to support that at lest in my hands, with my play style, my deck is better then the conventional Burn more commonly seen...
- It's not a fluke. It's very much a purposeful event. Burn has always been a metagame deck: if people are prepared for it, it loses. But, if people ignore it, it crushes them. Very similar to dredge in fact (except dredge is a much more potent deck).Oh, and I've been saying for weeks that I think Burn being a DTB is largely a fluke, even gave a series as to reasons why it was possible. But since we are here we might as well try to stay here
Note that goblin guide is the only actually aggressive creature in the deck. Keldon Marauders and Hellspark elementals aren't what are getting you there, they, in fact, should be doing the least amount of damage out of any other card in the deck.
Goblin Guide should rarely be doing any more than 4 damage, often doing 2 damage, and sometimes doing 0 damage. Keldon Marauder will always do 2 damage, rarely 5. Hellspark Elemental will rarely be doing 6 damage, more often 3 damage combined, and sometimes 0 damage.
That's it. That's all the creatures. Grim Lavamancers are only worth it with fetch lands and, similar to Vexing Devil / Guide, need to be killed immediately before they cause too much damage for their mana cost.
The creatures in Burn don't apply pressure to the opponent, they just deal damage. Some damage, as a concession to the fact that burn has no other efficient burns available to it. That's all. Is Grim Lavamancer a bad card? Not really, because it might live to do 4 damage. Goblin Guide might do 4 damage too, that's all I really ask from the creature.
And Vexing Devil has a pretty damn good chance of doing 4 damage to the opponent. And that's cool.
People are seriously underplaying the whole "If you drop it turn 1 they'll probably just take the damage.". Why am I one of the few people freaking shit about how awesome that is? People are downplaying the whole--they'll probably be dead by turn 3 if they do that. If they do that, then Vexing Devil just did his damage without ever hitting the field, it's all he needs to do.
Is it sick if he can swing twice unabated? Hell yeah, I'm down with only having to drop 4 burns on someone, for sure. But I'm not expecting him to. I'm expecting him, Goblin Guide, and Grim Lavamancer to deal about 4 damage each, as 4-for-1's. But it's ok if they don't. They just probably will, and that's cool.
I run lots of things not seen in typical Burn (I did post my current list about 2 or 3 pages back) but among them are FlameBreak, Volcanic, a pair of Smashed to Smithereens, and Forked Bolts
Is that not the definition of a fluke?? A guy playing Burn goes to an event and make it to top 8. Isn't it possible that he just hit 7 or 8 rounds of people that where not prepared for Burn but if we reran that same event with the exact pool of people and decks and just changed the 1st round pairings (in effect changing everything) he might not come close? Do we really think that because the people he played where not prepared then no one was? For as much time and effort we put into building and testing decks the things we have no control over like getting a favorable match-up still have a big impact. 1000s of events large and small held every month, 100s of Burn decks getting played, sooner or later someone will combine both skill and the right series of lucky events to take a deck that really shouldn't be a DTB to a top-8 at a big event. And now it happen. I'ld call it a fluke.
Burn Top 8 the last SCG in Des moines , the player got in 5th place http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...ity=Des+Moines
yes his list is running FOD , marauders and hellspark , tell me that the devil doesnt deserve at least one of those spots?.
Also burn is easily hated out as you say , by ridicolous things like COP or aegis of honor , thats why we need chaos warp or anarchy in our sideboards, i think burn is at least a deck to respect , not a joke like people are saying , is a poweful deck for 100dls i have to say.. the price of 1 tundra.. and dont forget burn won 2 consecutive tourneys in a row in scg...but people adapted and killed the deck.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
