Giving your opponent a choice isn't efficient. Literally it is the exact opposite. If dealing four is just as good as drawing the cards, I'd rather just play a direct damage spell and avoid giving them the choice.
Hey I am fine with either result. Either the card isn't good and I get some street cred or the card is good and my modern deck gets better as a result.
Again you are using the wrong word here. Giving your opponent a choice doesn’t necessarily have to do with efficiency, but does effect consistency.
Your last statement is great and I respond with then why not test it to help put the nail in the coffin on which it is. According to you it is a win win because you gain cred or get a better deck out of the deal so why not test to bring something to the table other than theory crafting and provide at least your own anecdotal evidence.
If you are going to make outlandish remarks then you don’t help others that really are trying learn how to play burn or new to the game in general.
I'll agree that outlandish remarks don't help, which is why I'm not comparing this card to treasure cruise and find it strange that you are. It should be obvious why they are not remotely comparable.
due to the nature of burn trying to be as efficient as possible
The other day, I said that one should play Burn in a manner that minimizes the likelihood that you run out of gas. You said that's "laughable". Now you state that the nature of Burn is to be a efficient as possible. So are you making laughable statements now or are you agreeing with me? Both statements are expressing the same idea.
I did call it laughable you are correct because no matter how efficient you play you can still end up drawing bad cards ie multiple lands or creatures past turn 3. That should be obvious and I don’t understand why you are still fighting something that should be common knowledge for an experienced burn player.
I am still testing the card myself but burn has went through many phases in modern alone. To not test a card is one’s choice but again I put forth someone at some point thought Treasure Cruise was good enough at 3 cmc on average and it was Sorcery speed not Instant speed. In a soon enough meta with Assassin’s Trophy being ubiquitous, it would not be unheard of for us to have 3 mana quite often. Lands and Creatures are terrible past turn 3 typically so why not change out a land or creature for either 3 cards or 4 damage?
As I've said before, I never played with Treasure Cruise, but I suspect that you either cast it for 1 and it got you to win the game because Sorcery Ancestral Recall is really good or you cast it at 3 or 4 and it was just a spell you happened to cast right before you lost the game. Maybe TC had an average CMC of 3, but it didn't really shine until when you were casting it for 1. You can never cast Risk Factor for 1. Burn wouldn't have played "2U: Draw 3 cards", and that card wouldn't be banned today. Burn played TC because it was "U: Draw 3 cards" a lot of the time.
I also don't think it's reasonable to compare Risk Factor to Treasure Cruise. I think your "3CMC average" statement is likely way too high and that the most likely cost was 1 or 2. TC is broken. Risk Factor is not.
"Lands and Creatures are terrible past turn 3 typically so why not change out a land or creature for either 3 cards or 4 damage?" What did you cut to add Risk Factor? If it was a burn spell, why spend 3 mana and your turn to either deal 4 or draw 3 when you could have just played a burn spell at a better rate? Maybe you could have even played that burn spell and another in your hand this turn, but instead you're tapped out with 4 cards in hand and... you lost.
If you didn’t play during the time stop trying to make comments that aren’t true. I played TC when it was legal and also ran Probe to also assist with getting the cost of delve down and potentially draw into it or other burn spells. On average there was 1-2 fetches and 3-4 spells in the yard. If I was to give it an actual average it was close to 2.5 mana that is why I said between 2-3 mana originally. The card had very high upside thus it was played despite the potential of not being able to get a blue source or having the blue source removed by something like ghost quarter or fulminator mage. Lavamancer wasn’t played because of the nonbo as well.
You still don’t understand the value on this card which I have stated multiple times now. If you have played burn long enough you should know by now that burn’s main problems past turn 3 is top decking lands or creatures as we don’t need more than 3 lands and our creatures get out classed easily in Modern. This card allows us to dodge bad top decks by pitching them to recast the card. It is 2 spells on 1 card.
As for your completely bogus scenario of holding 4 cards and being tapped out is absolutely ridiculous. I stated in my last post it more times than not be the last card in hand due to the nature of burn trying to be as efficient as possible so no you wouldn’t play this card over 4 other spells in your hand. Also there would not be a point in which you are tapped out casting it because it has instant speed.
If you are going to make outlandish remarks then you don’t help others that really are trying learn how to play burn or new to the game in general.
For all of you hyped up on Risk Factor, just realize that every time you say "in situation X, side Y of RF would be really good!", what we sceptics read is "in situation X, you're not going to get side Y".
4 dmg for 3 mana is not good or even fine. It's super clunky and terrible in multiples and dead against fast archetypes so I have no idea how you can even consider this a main deck card.
If all this card is (maybe) good against is control, you have to make a convincing case for it to be better than exquisite firecraft which will do exactly what you want every time.
What skeptics like yourself are missing is trying to be realistic with the card. Burn isn’t playing SSG so we can’t play it turn 1 or likely even is the GRN meta not on turn 2 either. So then it becomes well do you play this card over other cards in your hand which that answer more than likely should be no to be as mana efficient as possible. That then leaves you with it being your last card in hand which is why the scenario is being presented as such. At this point it shouldn’t be hard to point out that any of the 3 outcomes are great for us (8 damage, 4 damage and 3 cards, or 6 cards).
Dude this game has existed for twenty five years and sligh was one of the first archetypes created for competition. I'm not against this card existing. If it helps burn I am happy. However, I am not going to test it because it doesn't pass any sort of eye test.
I share this sentiment, especially the last part. Testing is a good thing and all, but it's absurd to me to act as if someone is fundamentally misguided and wrong for "theory-crafting" and rejecting a card after making well-reasoned and logical assessments of that card. Experiments are great. I like experiments. But sometimes an experiment isn't necessary because the theory tells you something important.
I am still testing the card myself but burn has went through many phases in modern alone. To not test a card is one’s choice but again I put forth someone at some point thought Treasure Cruise was good enough at 3 cmc on average and it was Sorcery speed not Instant speed. In a soon enough meta with Assassin’s Trophy being ubiquitous, it would not be unheard of for us to have 3 mana quite often. Lands and Creatures are terrible past turn 3 typically so why not change out a land or creature for either 3 cards or 4 damage?
You both did expose your lack of playing during the time of T Cruise because it more times than not wasn’t a recall. You generally paid 2-3 mana.
I’m sorry but Elcon you should always play to your outs and this card gives you outs when top decking lands, so you are still missing the gist of it yourself. Keep in mind every time burn mulls we lose damage. It’s 2 spells on 1 card at a reasonable cost. If they take 8 I’m sure we win. If they take 4 and let us draw 3 we win (which I anticipate will be the most common scenario). If we draw 6 then we basically have a whole new hand.
“Play in a manner that minimizes your chance of running out of gas” this absolutely laughable, burn doesn’t play deck manipulation outside of Magma Jet and for some reason I don’t think you play that card so you can help it when top decking those extra lands.
If you want to continue the debate that is fine by me but I’m gonna be actually play testing to see how the card plays out instead of theory crafting so I apologize in advance for delayed responses.
As of note I currently am running a “stock list” and will be taking out 1 Boros Charm and 1 Lavamancer to put 2 in the main board. I will try to play a number of games against different decks and report back.
Searing Blaze runs roughshod over enough matchups that it earns a spot even though it is high variance. Everyone has been in the "need 3 damage, no targets for blaze" situation. Everyone has been in the "blaze your bird" situation, too. There are very few matchups where Vexing Devil just reads "R: Lava Spike for 4" due to complete lack of removal (if there were a lot, we would play it in a heartbeat), and that is in stark contrast to situations where Blaze shines even though Blaze can have bad moments.
I think the new Browbeat is better than Browbeat, but I don't think it's good enough. If I'm going to dump 3 mana on a spell, I'd rather just dump that mana on Exquisite Firecraft and see what happens on my next draw step if I need more spells. Burn benefits from being redundant, and I think that straight draw without damage directly attached to it is not good enough for the deck especially at 3CMC.
Elcon I never advocated for removing Searing Blaze nor advocated for adding Vexing Devil just pointing out there is high variance in Searing Blaze yet we still play it because it is a very powerful card in spite of that.
Regarding your second part about spending 3 mana and drawing cards and not dealing damage, you have forgot about when burn splashed blue to play Treasure Cruise.
Also can you point out a situation where it is better having firecraft over risk factor with your opponent at 7, with only 1 of the said cards in hand and access to 3 mana, outside of the opponent having 2 counterspells or drawing an additional firecraft (probability extremely low)?
I want efficiency in burn spells. There's a reason that Vexing Devil tends to vanish at GPs, SCG tournaments, and modern challenges. Your opponent will pick the option that lets them win. If neither option is good, you were likely to win anyways.
I think the word you meant to use is consistent because 1 cmc for either 4 damage lava spike or a 4/3 creature is incredibly efficient. Unfortunately to hamper your argument on consistency, burn runs typically a playset Searing Blaze which can be at times wildly inconsistent. You need your opponent to have a creature and also need to have a land enter that turn, but it sees play because it is very powerful and we run fetches to minimize the inconsistency. I could be speaking for myself, but there have been times when the opponent has no creatures in play or I don’t have a fetch land and Searing Blaze completely underperforms. I am not saying we should stop playing Searing Blaze, nor am I saying Vexing Devil is playable in modern. I stated that the new card was indeed better than it in modern and worth testing.
I agree, I think it's worth testing. I'm finding it uniquely hard to evaluate based on theory. 8 potential damage over two turns is no joke, and neither is 6 new cards (call it 12 damage if we assume two bolts and a land each cast?), and neither is 4 damage and 3 cards (10 damage total on average with the same assumptions).
I'm also thinking that you don't want to see this card early, because it costs 3 and can clog hands in multiples, but when you draw it late, your opponent might be low enough that any burn spell would win you the game, causing you to use potentially all your mana to draw cards and give your opponent another turn instead of just winning on the spot.
If you are casting it at the end of their turn they aren’t getting another turn especially if they are at 4 life. Even at 7 life it is still strong because if they take 4 then they need to hope you don’t top deck a bolt after.
I think the jump-start effect from Risk Factor makes it an excellent sideboard card for control matchups. I would play 2-3 copies in the sideboard myself, seeing as it is basically a 3-mana 4 damage spell with flashback, since our opponent will never let us draw 3. I understand that jump-start is not the same as flashback, but given that we're a deck that's happy to discard excess lands, not to mention that we surely will draw excess lands in long games, the discard effect is nothing to worry about. Obviously this card cannot be played in fast matchups though.
100% Max. This is probably the most playable punisher card for burn even surpassing vexing devil. Instant speed and basically retrace makes this card really strong. I believe it is worth testing out. There will be people who always, no matter what the conditions are, hate on punisher cards. I know people are worried about the 3 cmc but we have played 3 cmc spells in the past and some still do in the board ie Ensnaring Bridge. All I am saying is I am gonna test it and others should too before immediately writing it off.
That's an interesting spell for black, though I'm not sure the life gain is that big of a deal that it's significantly better than lightning strike. The thing I still don't like about black is that the sideboard options have holes (namely Path).
I can only think of a few cards I would be worried about that Path can deal with that Push can’t. Things that come to mind that are played a decent amount are: the Titans, Angler, and Tasigur. Am I missing something? I left out Wurmcoil as you can play Rain of Gore to mimic Deflecting Palm so you don’t need to worry there either.
Congratulations! Especially last Game was interesting with mull and nissa!
Could you post your Decklist?
Regards!
Thank you for your kind words.
I’m using my phone but my current decklist is:
Ponza with BBE:
Maindeck (60)
4 Arbor Elf
1 Scavenging Ooze
1 Courser of Kruphix
3 Tireless Tracker
4 Bloodbraid Elf
2 Pia and Kiran Nalaar
2 Stormbreath Dragon
1 Inferno Titan
1 Nissa, Voice of Zendikar
1 Chandra, Torch of Defiance
2 Lightning Bolt
3 Molten Rain
4 Stone Rain
1 Primal Command
4 Utopia Sprawl
4 Blood Moon
1 Cinder Glade
8 Forest
1 Kessig Wolf Run
1 Mountain
3 Stomping Ground
4 Windswept Heath
4 Wooded Foothills
Sideboard (15)
2 Kitchen Finks
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
1 Abrade
2 Ancient Grudge
3 Anger of the Gods
1 Beast Within
1 Fracturing Gust
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Trinisphere
If anyone is interested I have posted some matches from yesterday at my LGS. YouTube channel is called Decks Done Right tcg. Spoiler alert: went undefeated
And then is adjusted according to meta, style, flavour, and mana curve.
I disagree with this as being core to Ponza post the BBE unban.
This is what I believe is the core of the deck:
At least 21 Lands
4 Arbor Elf
4 Utopia Sprawl
4 Blood Moon
4 Stone Rain
4 BBE
At least 1 Birds of Paradise (I personally don’t agree with this but majority of people still believe it is core to the deck)
At least 3 Molten Rain
At least 3 Tireless Tracker
At least 1 Chandra ToD
At least 3 creature finishers (any number of Inferno Titan or Stormbreath)
Anything else is preference. There are a bunch of lists that play Pia and Kiran Nalaar as a 1-2 of, Courser of Kruphix as a 1 of, Nissa VoZ as a 1, and some number of Lightning Bolts. These cards have been debated off and on thus can be regarded as not core to the strategy.
Again you are using the wrong word here. Giving your opponent a choice doesn’t necessarily have to do with efficiency, but does effect consistency.
Your last statement is great and I respond with then why not test it to help put the nail in the coffin on which it is. According to you it is a win win because you gain cred or get a better deck out of the deal so why not test to bring something to the table other than theory crafting and provide at least your own anecdotal evidence.
I did call it laughable you are correct because no matter how efficient you play you can still end up drawing bad cards ie multiple lands or creatures past turn 3. That should be obvious and I don’t understand why you are still fighting something that should be common knowledge for an experienced burn player.
If you didn’t play during the time stop trying to make comments that aren’t true. I played TC when it was legal and also ran Probe to also assist with getting the cost of delve down and potentially draw into it or other burn spells. On average there was 1-2 fetches and 3-4 spells in the yard. If I was to give it an actual average it was close to 2.5 mana that is why I said between 2-3 mana originally. The card had very high upside thus it was played despite the potential of not being able to get a blue source or having the blue source removed by something like ghost quarter or fulminator mage. Lavamancer wasn’t played because of the nonbo as well.
You still don’t understand the value on this card which I have stated multiple times now. If you have played burn long enough you should know by now that burn’s main problems past turn 3 is top decking lands or creatures as we don’t need more than 3 lands and our creatures get out classed easily in Modern. This card allows us to dodge bad top decks by pitching them to recast the card. It is 2 spells on 1 card.
As for your completely bogus scenario of holding 4 cards and being tapped out is absolutely ridiculous. I stated in my last post it more times than not be the last card in hand due to the nature of burn trying to be as efficient as possible so no you wouldn’t play this card over 4 other spells in your hand. Also there would not be a point in which you are tapped out casting it because it has instant speed.
If you are going to make outlandish remarks then you don’t help others that really are trying learn how to play burn or new to the game in general.
What skeptics like yourself are missing is trying to be realistic with the card. Burn isn’t playing SSG so we can’t play it turn 1 or likely even is the GRN meta not on turn 2 either. So then it becomes well do you play this card over other cards in your hand which that answer more than likely should be no to be as mana efficient as possible. That then leaves you with it being your last card in hand which is why the scenario is being presented as such. At this point it shouldn’t be hard to point out that any of the 3 outcomes are great for us (8 damage, 4 damage and 3 cards, or 6 cards).
I am still testing the card myself but burn has went through many phases in modern alone. To not test a card is one’s choice but again I put forth someone at some point thought Treasure Cruise was good enough at 3 cmc on average and it was Sorcery speed not Instant speed. In a soon enough meta with Assassin’s Trophy being ubiquitous, it would not be unheard of for us to have 3 mana quite often. Lands and Creatures are terrible past turn 3 typically so why not change out a land or creature for either 3 cards or 4 damage?
I’m sorry but Elcon you should always play to your outs and this card gives you outs when top decking lands, so you are still missing the gist of it yourself. Keep in mind every time burn mulls we lose damage. It’s 2 spells on 1 card at a reasonable cost. If they take 8 I’m sure we win. If they take 4 and let us draw 3 we win (which I anticipate will be the most common scenario). If we draw 6 then we basically have a whole new hand.
“Play in a manner that minimizes your chance of running out of gas” this absolutely laughable, burn doesn’t play deck manipulation outside of Magma Jet and for some reason I don’t think you play that card so you can help it when top decking those extra lands.
If you want to continue the debate that is fine by me but I’m gonna be actually play testing to see how the card plays out instead of theory crafting so I apologize in advance for delayed responses.
As of note I currently am running a “stock list” and will be taking out 1 Boros Charm and 1 Lavamancer to put 2 in the main board. I will try to play a number of games against different decks and report back.
Elcon I never advocated for removing Searing Blaze nor advocated for adding Vexing Devil just pointing out there is high variance in Searing Blaze yet we still play it because it is a very powerful card in spite of that.
Regarding your second part about spending 3 mana and drawing cards and not dealing damage, you have forgot about when burn splashed blue to play Treasure Cruise.
Also can you point out a situation where it is better having firecraft over risk factor with your opponent at 7, with only 1 of the said cards in hand and access to 3 mana, outside of the opponent having 2 counterspells or drawing an additional firecraft (probability extremely low)?
I think the word you meant to use is consistent because 1 cmc for either 4 damage lava spike or a 4/3 creature is incredibly efficient. Unfortunately to hamper your argument on consistency, burn runs typically a playset Searing Blaze which can be at times wildly inconsistent. You need your opponent to have a creature and also need to have a land enter that turn, but it sees play because it is very powerful and we run fetches to minimize the inconsistency. I could be speaking for myself, but there have been times when the opponent has no creatures in play or I don’t have a fetch land and Searing Blaze completely underperforms. I am not saying we should stop playing Searing Blaze, nor am I saying Vexing Devil is playable in modern. I stated that the new card was indeed better than it in modern and worth testing.
If you are casting it at the end of their turn they aren’t getting another turn especially if they are at 4 life. Even at 7 life it is still strong because if they take 4 then they need to hope you don’t top deck a bolt after.
100% Max. This is probably the most playable punisher card for burn even surpassing vexing devil. Instant speed and basically retrace makes this card really strong. I believe it is worth testing out. There will be people who always, no matter what the conditions are, hate on punisher cards. I know people are worried about the 3 cmc but we have played 3 cmc spells in the past and some still do in the board ie Ensnaring Bridge. All I am saying is I am gonna test it and others should too before immediately writing it off.
I can only think of a few cards I would be worried about that Path can deal with that Push can’t. Things that come to mind that are played a decent amount are: the Titans, Angler, and Tasigur. Am I missing something? I left out Wurmcoil as you can play Rain of Gore to mimic Deflecting Palm so you don’t need to worry there either.
Thank you for your kind words.
I’m using my phone but my current decklist is:
Ponza with BBE:
Maindeck (60)
4 Arbor Elf
1 Scavenging Ooze
1 Courser of Kruphix
3 Tireless Tracker
4 Bloodbraid Elf
2 Pia and Kiran Nalaar
2 Stormbreath Dragon
1 Inferno Titan
1 Nissa, Voice of Zendikar
1 Chandra, Torch of Defiance
2 Lightning Bolt
3 Molten Rain
4 Stone Rain
1 Primal Command
4 Utopia Sprawl
4 Blood Moon
1 Cinder Glade
8 Forest
1 Kessig Wolf Run
1 Mountain
3 Stomping Ground
4 Windswept Heath
4 Wooded Foothills
Sideboard (15)
2 Kitchen Finks
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
1 Abrade
2 Ancient Grudge
3 Anger of the Gods
1 Beast Within
1 Fracturing Gust
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Trinisphere
I disagree with this as being core to Ponza post the BBE unban.
This is what I believe is the core of the deck:
At least 21 Lands
4 Arbor Elf
4 Utopia Sprawl
4 Blood Moon
4 Stone Rain
4 BBE
At least 1 Birds of Paradise (I personally don’t agree with this but majority of people still believe it is core to the deck)
At least 3 Molten Rain
At least 3 Tireless Tracker
At least 1 Chandra ToD
At least 3 creature finishers (any number of Inferno Titan or Stormbreath)
Anything else is preference. There are a bunch of lists that play Pia and Kiran Nalaar as a 1-2 of, Courser of Kruphix as a 1 of, Nissa VoZ as a 1, and some number of Lightning Bolts. These cards have been debated off and on thus can be regarded as not core to the strategy.