|
Fingers McLongDong posted:So knowing that a lot of twin players will dance around the combo hate, I wonder if it isn't a bad idea as the burn player to not board against it game 2? Especially if you're up a game. Go full sideboard inception until you see that the twin player is still willing to go for combo after boarding. Clarification: I don't actually board out the combo against burn, although I do board down or totally out against most decks. It also depends on what your hate is. It's mainly Destructive Revelry that's terrible: that card is an absolute blank unless I run directly into it, and when you don't make a land drop or cast a spell it's pretty obvious what's happening. Path/Combust/Rending volley are different.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:So knowing that a lot of twin players will dance around the combo hate, I wonder if it isn't a bad idea as the burn player to not board against it game 2? Especially if you're up a game. Go full sideboard inception until you see that the twin player is still willing to go for combo after boarding. The average twin player probaby keeps all the combo, drops some number of remands for dispel, negate, and a pair of spellskites. At least, that is my plan. I win via combo or beats, it depends on the hand, but obviously if I come up with exarch/twin I'm going to try and go for it unless I feel like I have time to work around a d.rev. Rending Volley is real good. I'm going to run burn for the next modern FNM at my store, I've been on twin for a bit but I feel like my store meta is a bit softer to burn. I'm honestly thinking of just going straight Rw and having 3 or 4 rending volley and smash the smithereens side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:Learning how to evaluate why cards that look like they could be in the deck aren't in the deck is all I'm trying to do. There are some really obscure cards out there that people don't know exist that may be the answer to specific problems with the deck (or other decks) in the current meta. Burn is an incredibly linear deck though, and while cards like Delver of Secrets might be good in a burn deck, or trying to set something up like fiery temper and Seizure it becomes something entirely different when you add it. If a card does not help you count to 20, it doesn't belong in burn. Its also a deck that has been around since the dawn of time. The chances of you stumbling across some undiscovered gem is next to 0. eSporks fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
I personally don't think Burn wants anything for the Twin matchup. It's a race and the burn deck is going to be faster more often than Twin is going to Combo. I know players hate that, and are just terribly uncomfortable with the idea of just hoping their opponent doesn't have it, but I honestly think its the play. Try to improve your match up in small ways related to things like mulligan choices, sequencing, etc. eSporks posted:Burn is an incredibly linear deck though, and while cards like Delver of Secrets might be good in a burn deck, it becomes something entirely different when you add it. If a card does not help you count to 20, it doesn't belong in burn. I mean it's more complicated than that but yeah, sure for some things you need answers in the board. You aren't going to beat a Leyline or an Iona, so Path and Revelry are needed in the board. Twin on the other hand is plenty beatable without those kinds of answers, so just count to 20 and shrug off those Combo losses now and again. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Atarka's Command can also be cast in response to a Siege Rhino or Finks trigger, I don't understand what you're saying. My apologies, I thought for some reason this gave +4/+4 to a creature. I have literally no idea why I thought this. Nevermind, I'm fuckin' terrible at reading cards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:The average twin player probaby keeps all the combo, drops some number of remands for dispel, negate, and a pair of spellskites. At least, that is my plan. I win via combo or beats, it depends on the hand, but obviously if I come up with exarch/twin I'm going to try and go for it unless I feel like I have time to work around a d.rev. Rending Volley is real good. I'm going to run burn for the next modern FNM at my store, I've been on twin for a bit but I feel like my store meta is a bit softer to burn. I'm honestly thinking of just going straight Rw and having 3 or 4 rending volley and smash the smithereens side. That's kinda what I mean though, you aren't going to go for combo usually without a dispel or negate to protect. That's turn 5 at the earliest, so maybe boarding in d. rev against twin is kinda pointless, just let the twin player wait a few extra turns to try to go off thinking you have rev or rending volley. Like someone said above, boarding in rev for twin might just be wrong, contrary to what you see a lot of people do. In the meantime, keep shooting firrballs. Burn still has to have rev or at least wear/tear in the side for leyline though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
eSporks posted:Burn is an incredibly linear deck though, and while cards like Delver of Secrets might be good in a burn deck, or trying to set something up like fiery temper and Seizure it becomes something entirely different when you add it. If a card does not help you count to 20, it doesn't belong in burn. I get that, but there are cards out there that can help you count to 20 faster or may be better suited for specific matchups. Lists have changed over time, especially with new cards getting added to the format. It's not an immutable deck, while there is a certain percentage of the deck that's locked in, there are a lot of flex spots in both the main and sideboard that see different cards depending on the meta. For example, some people play Price of Progress - others play Flame Rift. I tend to favor Price of Progress in the main online over Flame Rift as people are more likely to be playing with duals. If the meta saw a lot of mono-colored decks, I'd probably start playing Flame Rift. In a deck playing 3 Grim Lavamancers (which seems to be the current load-out), why not play 3-4 Sonic Seizures instead of Price of Progress? There is a risk - you may topdeck it without any cards you're willing to pitch. But how often do you have a "dead" card in hand that isn't going to help you on the board and can't be directed to your opponents face? Every single match, I've ended up with a dead card - whether it be a land that's not going to help me or a creature that can't get through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:I get that, but there are cards out there that can help you count to 20 faster or may be better suited for specific matchups. Lists have changed over time, especially with new cards getting added to the format. It's not an immutable deck, while there is a certain percentage of the deck that's locked in, there are a lot of flex spots in both the main and sideboard that see different cards depending on the meta. Only in a meta completely lacking in non-basics would you see PoP passed over. I don't think that's possible. Sonic Seizure has cases where it doesn't work. That isn't the case with any other spell already in burn. That is why it isn't included. It deadens itself if it's a top deck. Burn is good because its top decks are always good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:An earnest attempt to defend Sonic Seizure as a burn card by comparing it to Flame Rift If you just want to noodle around with high-concept card evaluation, we have this thread to satisfy your need to explore the cosmos/understand why the answer is what it is. In this thread, if you're talking about a well-established Legacy archetype deck, people will assume that you want to know the answer, not that you want to explore the question. They get impatient when you suggest Yet Another Bad Lightning Bolt as a possible burn include, because the answer is well known. Irony Be My Shield posted:To be fair burn does run a bunch of bad lightning bolts Well, until they print a better Lightning Bolt... eSporks posted:Emerson is obviously trolling now. Quit responding to him. You're trolling, we should ignore you. LordSaturn fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
To be fair burn does run a bunch of bad lightning bolts
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Emerson is obviously trolling now. Quit responding to him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:To be fair burn does run a bunch of bad lightning bolts I like to look at it as running a bunch of better lava spikes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Kraus posted:Burn is good because its top decks are always good. Gotcha - that is a good rule to evaluate by. I'm trying to figure out the best possible 75 for a series of Legacy tournaments my LGS does. If I'm judging, my wife will probably be playing and she's not too familiar with the Legacy meta. I wanted to make sure that we had a couple fairly linear decks built and tuned. I've heard some groups testing out Lightning Berserker in a slot - do you think that has potential? It seems to scale similarly to Monastery Swiftspear, but without the corresponding toughness boost it doesn't seem like it would do well against something like Elves. Against an empty board, maybe? Last card evaluation question for burn - I swear. Thanks for the honest answers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Berserker is way too slow even if you're assuming your opponent has no creatures. You need a much better rate of return than 1 damage per R spent. Swiftspear is way better because you don't have to invest mana into it - it passively gets a boost when you play spells that you were going to cast anyway. Plus it gets haste without any drawback.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:Gotcha - that is a good rule to evaluate by. I'm trying to figure out the best possible 75 for a series of Legacy tournaments my LGS does. If I'm judging, my wife will probably be playing and she's not too familiar with the Legacy meta. I wanted to make sure that we had a couple fairly linear decks built and tuned. Swiftspear scales while you are casting spells in the early game. Berserker only scales when you aren't casting spells. There is no lategame mode for Burn. There is no long period of drawing no action - 66% of the cards in the deck are amazing and the other 34% are lands. Berserker needs to be compared to all the other cards in the list as a topdeck and I think you'll find when you've exhausted all of your cards drawing any card in the deck except swiftspear is just heaps better than berserker, and at any other point in the game drawing swiftspear is heaps better than beserker (along with drawing any non-swiftspear card). Some games for Burn might go long but their gameplan doesn't change. It isn't like control where you have an early game of setup, a mid-game of stabilization, and a late game of maintain control. Their gameplan from turn 1 to turn 30 is DRAW A LIGHTNING BOLT AND SHOOT THEIR HEAD. The closest thing they have to earlygame / lategame is determining whether to lead with goblin guide or swiftspear on turn 1. Don't get me wrong there is room for lines of play to maximize damage output / respect the board and the opponent / etc, but they don't phase into a lategame plan. This seems to be the crux of your card evaluation arguments - that there will be dead cards or a game-phase transitions. The only game-phase transition is that goblin guide and swiftspear get worse after turn 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:This seems to be the crux of your card evaluation arguments - that there will be dead cards or a game-phase transitions. The only game-phase transition is that goblin guide and swiftspear get worse after turn 1. Yeah, pretty much this. Though, when I consider the late game with burn I'm not talking about turn 9-10. I'm treating turns 4 and 5 as the late game in my evaluations. I can see why my evaluations seem off base. I won't set them completely aside without some amount of testing, but the theoretical discussion was definitely helpful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:The closest thing they have to earlygame / lategame is determining whether to lead with goblin guide or swiftspear on turn 1. Guide. You want to maximize the damage you do in a given turn. You also operate under the assumption that you'll get in at least twice with any given creature, so Guide is 4 damage, opposed to "2" from Swiftspear and 3 from a bolt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:I can see why my evaluations seem off base. I won't set them completely aside without some amount of testing,
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Everblight posted:That 'testing' has already been done. It is called "the last twenty years of Magic." If you want to talk about fringe cards like Barbarian Ring, you can do that, but don't walk into an established deck and say "what about these bad cards?" I don't like this attitude. It's true that the problem is well-known to be solved, but we don't stop teaching arithmetic because calculators exist. New players who want to learn why the answer is what it is are good and should be encouraged. EDIT: Ciprian Maricon posted:Respectfully, play an established list for a good long while before you start testing your pet cards. I get the impression you've not played too many games of Burn, and that's not a bad thing but putting in some good reps with an established list is going to give you a strong understanding of why choices were made and that's going to be very relevant to your own testing. This, on the other hand, is good and correct advice that I love. Practice is a big deal. LordSaturn fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:I can see why my evaluations seem off base. I won't set them completely aside without some amount of testing, but the theoretical discussion was definitely helpful. Respectfully, play an established list for a good long while before you start testing your pet cards. I get the impression you've not played too many games of Burn, and that's not a bad thing but putting in some good reps with an established list is going to give you a strong understanding of why choices were made and that's going to be very relevant to your own testing. Just jumping in head first and tweaking a list right off the bat isn't going to lead you to making the best decisions, you're going to be very likely to draw some wrong conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Everblight posted:That 'testing' has already been done. It is called "the last twenty years of Magic." If you want to talk about fringe cards like Barbarian Ring, you can do that, but don't walk into an established deck and say "what about these bad cards?" Oh well I guess that's that then No need to try or do anything else with any other cards guys the stores closed. You can only play the one true burn, which is the net deck that was handed down by the pros over the past 20 years. Eat a dick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Respectfully, play an established list for a good long while before you start testing your pet cards. I get the impression you've not played too many games of Burn, and that's not a bad thing but putting in some good reps with an established list is going to give you a strong understanding of why choices were made and that's going to be very relevant to your own testing. This guy has the right of it. I'd been playing Burn a good long while before modifying into my crazy list earlier in the thread with things like Lotus Petals and maindeck Flame Rifts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Oh well I guess that's that then Well Ciprian said the same thing as me but nicer, so I'll defer to his comment, but at the same time, don't tell me to eat dicks because I told someone their phenomenally retarded idea to add a card that is strictly worse than a card that already isn't getting played in burn was, in fact, phenomenally retarded and they weren't the next TWoo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Well Ciprian said the same thing as me but nicer, so I'll defer to his comment, but at the same time, don't tell me to eat dicks because I told someone their phenomenally retarded idea to add a card that is strictly worse than a card that already isn't getting played in burn was, in fact, phenomenally retarded and they weren't the next TWoo. To be fair, he told you to only eat one. Would eating one be strictly better than eating many? Has anyone tested this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Kraus posted:To be fair, he told you to only eat one. Would eating one be strictly better than eating many? Has anyone tested this? I usually eat a bag of Dicks along with Cactrot after modern on Saturdays.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Well Ciprian said the same thing as me but nicer, so I'll defer to his comment, but at the same time, don't tell me to eat dicks because I told someone their phenomenally retarded idea to add a card that is strictly worse than a card that already isn't getting played in burn was, in fact, phenomenally retarded and they weren't the next TWoo. Attitudes like that is why you should eat all the dicks until you choke. If people want to play around with card combinations and what not they can. It's a loving game of 50k different cards. Sure it may not be the most perfect most absolutist the bestest in my opinion card list but gently caress it who cares? Calling someone retarded because they thought something else might work or be fun is a poo poo head move. Now Ciprain actually had constructive advice to give on how he thinks it should be done when learning a new deck. You were just being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
To expound on what I mean by "you're very likely to draw the wrong conclusions" I don't mean it to sound like I'm questioning your ability as a player. One of the big reasons Burn gets a lot of hate, and one of the reasons I argue it's deceptively hard to play well, is that the deck wins an inordinate amount of games just because. That covers up lots and lots of bad play, bad sequencing, bad mulligans, and bad card choices. There are loads of people out there still advocating for Vexing Devil, and they aren't catastrophically retarded, they just keep putting up results with the card on their list and hell, if you're still winning the card can't be that bad right? When your deck has the sort of raw consistency that can cover up for poor choices like that its going to be very hard for anyone to evaluate new cards without a wealth of experience. I would say the same thing to an established pro who had never played burn as I said to you, test an established list thoroughly before making some changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Well Ciprian said the same thing as me but nicer, so I'll defer to his comment, but at the same time, don't tell me to eat dicks because I told someone their phenomenally retarded idea to add a card that is strictly worse than a card that already isn't getting played in burn was, in fact, phenomenally retarded and they weren't the next TWoo. I'm still trying to decipher if this is an insult or compliment to TWoo; I'm guessing the former.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I'm still trying to decipher if this is an insult or compliment to TWoo; I'm guessing the former. It's kinda both? Travis is obviously a skilled player and a creative designer (there aren't a lot of Magic personalities who aren't top-level pro players who people have heard of, it's pretty much Twoo and Weissman), but he tries to get cute too often and his subpar Woo Brews are basically only good for fleecing rubes in MTGFinance by dumping excess dollar-rares on people chasing 'the new hotness' for a week. He did invent Living End, and props to him for that, but nowadays he seems more interested in cashing checks for writing about dumb decks than actually moving the metagame needle. Little Man Abzhan is far more interesting as a deck topic/evolution than Ninja Bears or whatever bullshit he's stomping the Public/For-Fun room with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Just from occasionally watching his videos he seems pretty bad at playing, at least with his bad decks. By that I mean that he seems to constantly gently caress up lines and stuff that make the videos painful to watch, or just hasn't tuned the deck to the point where it'd even be worth recording for a feature article. I'd love to see someone like TWoo styling on folks with his garbage rare tech but most of the time it's not even close to that. What he should do is brew up the decks and find one that a pro is willing to record. The videos where LSV played his blue bears deck were a lot better than any actual TWoo video. e: Compare to Conley Woods as a brewer whose videos are actually fun to watch. I loved watching Conley develop RTR/THS dredge and Chromanticore control, and his latest delve aggro thing is pretty good too. JerryLee fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
He didn't invent living end, he just took it to a tournament.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Legacy burn I'm taking in soon, any opinions? The two Pyrostatics are for the Storm decks I played last week, and I'm not sure if I want the Firedancers over Electrotrickery, both seem good. http://deckstats.net/decks/18413/231081-legacy-burn
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
I'd play something like Ensnaring Bridge before I played Firedancers or Electrickery but you know your Meta, so ultimately your call. It's going to protect you from nearly every threat in the format though, and if your concern is lots of smaller dudes then Pyroclasm is a better option than hoping to stick an early Satyr and pinging their dudes.
Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Volcanic fallout over pyroclasm in my opinion. If you need a sweeper, why not one that goes to the dome?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I usually eat a bag of Dicks along with Cactrot after modern on Saturdays. I actually eat two on Saturday then two more on Sunday morning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
1 mana is relevant, but so is uncountable, its a meta/judgement call honestly, i like having the sweeper a turn early for elves but i wouldn't say someone is wrong for preferring fallout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Everblight posted:That 'testing' has already been done. It is called "the last twenty years of Magic." If you want to talk about fringe cards like Barbarian Ring, you can do that, but don't walk into an established deck and say "what about these bad cards?" I wanted to fact check this What's fringe about Barbarian Ring? Especially in the context of history where the number of rings in a deck tends to go up as burn decks get older?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Legacy burn I'm taking in soon, any opinions? The two Pyrostatics are for the Storm decks I played last week, and I'm not sure if I want the Firedancers over Electrotrickery, both seem good. Make room for that 4th Lava Spike. You never skimp on the 16 bolts. Edit: Go to 2 Vortex in the main to get four Lava Spikes in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you're asking. There is an ebb and flow to what cards "belong" in an established deck, and Barbarian Ring used to be good enough, the best burn players (as established by highly-placed burn deck wins) lately have decided it isn't fast enough, or that Grim Lavamancer and it don't play nice together, so it's dropped out of favor. Could it come back, with the right support cards around it (fetches and no lavamancer)? Certainly. That's what I mean by fringe. Sonic Burst has always been completely terrible, it is pure card disadvantage and only works if another card in your hand is also terrible, and good decks tend to not run terrible cards just to make their other cards less terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Zoness posted:Especially in the context of history where the number of rings in a deck tends to go up as burn decks get older? 
TheKingofSprings fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:26
|
|
