I'm thinking of splashing white to play Spirit of the Labyrinth in a burn deck. Spirit of the Labyrinth is a creature with an ability that reads: Each player can't draw more than one card each turn. It also a 3/1 for W1
Since red doesn't draw cards anyway, this would shut a lot of drawing speed decks, especially combo. What are your thoughts?
What is everyone's opinion on SotL? *Incoming splash is bad conversation*
When playing Burn the games I dread the most are those blue and/or unfair match-ups. Running GLM and Searing Blaze I believe any and all fair match-ups are within grasp and don't need any more help.
Would main-board inclusion effectively increase the win percent vs these combo and/or blue decks? From Reanimator to Show n Tell to Delver.dec
@ Young Pyromancer
Aside from Fireblast, Burn doesn't run any free costing spells. IMO FoW, Daze, Probe,and Cabal therapy are what make YP good. Without such spells YP is too slow and plays to fairly without them.
I was going to have a report for you guys, but when I got to the LGS to make my monthly sally with Burn, a buddy of mine offered to let me borrow his Dredge deck. He'd been very dissatisfied with it, managing a raw 0-4 the previous week, but his list was close to the one I used to run myself... and I went 3-1 with it. Sorry guys, it might be awhile before I can determine whether 21 land, 2 Taigas, Destructive Revelry, and 7 SB Blasts is anything approaching a good idea. Playing Dredge is almost as Zen-like and relaxing as playing Burn, and who knows whether I'll get an offer like that again? YOLO, Dredge.
So when splashing for enchantment hate you would suggest 5+ REB/Pyroblast? In doing so this should help offset the liability of it getting countered when compared to shattering spree.
This case could be made about a lot of fringe cards in nearly any deck. Overall, both cards are very conditional. Getting around leyline is key for burn -- but there are a lot of variables that work against said cards being effective and efficient. For example, you could argue Flame Rift does just as good if not better than those cards. Price of Progress x4 in the main deck as well.
Why not just sideboard slot 1 Taiga and 3 Revelry, and not have it in the deck if you are worried about losing to Wasteland. Bring it in against omni-tell or decks that don't even really run Wasteland that it would be good against, and fetch accordingly.
I think the 15 sideboards are more precious than when compared to a 1/60 chance to draw a tiaga or any other non basic needed for a splash. One non basic in the mainboard doesn't automatically lose to any wasteland deck. The chance to topdeck it is pretty minuscule. The only reason this is a viable plan is because the fetch build is already running a full suite of fetchlands. I'm not convinced one nonbasic in the main deck creates such an overwhelming vulnerability. Heck the fetchless builds play Barbarian Ring, it can be equally as hazardous. So why a waste sideboard slot for something that can be fit into the 60?
I think main decking a Dual land is no more risky than main decking Ensnaring Bridge. Perhaps even less so.
Its a good suggestion though for those who may fear wasteland so much but also feel the desire to pack enchantment hate.
I have played with splash. I ran duel lands. They get blown up by Wasteland 80% of the time. When I said ~18 lands, that was meant as an around there (I believe I was running 19-20 at the time). Even still, if I am running 21 lands, I don't expect to get past 3, especially when running 10-12 fetch lands. Even then, I would never want to draw more than three lands playing Burn. You want more gas, and flooding out is almost always a game loss regardless of the match or how it's played out (yes, 4 lands is flooding out in this deck).
Maybe it's the correct play to slow roll your fetches and not grab that Taiga until you're popping off your last fetch and plan to use the green. Maybe Destructive Revelry is the real deal. I just felt like weighing in with my opinion on the subject after trying to color splash in the past.
I respect your opinion and am glad your contributing to the conversation!
However, in my experience I never had dual land out 80% of the time (1/60) and only fetching when it is needed that is.
The real problem, imo, is Wasteland. If you're only running ~18 lands, and one of the 1-2 lands you draw gets destroyed, it can put you into a position where you can't get the business out fast enough. It often meant the difference between a kill and giving them enough time to stabilize or win with their own trick.
This really is not an issue if you ever played with a splash in Burn. First you are not running 18 lands, 20-21 is the usual count. Secondly, the nonbasic colored won't be fetched without discretion and only at the time the problem presents itself. Most games will never involve you having dual land on the battlefield. In the games where the dual will need to be fetched, lets say counterbalance MU, a control deck, you will have 2-3 mountains before enchantment destruction is relevant. Vs combo mus with leyline of sanctity, omnitell, and sneakattack wasteland is not even an issue.
Would you care to share your experience with destructive revelary? How relevant has destroying enchament been for you? When I ran wear/tear I can only recall the artifact destruction ever being relevant. It seemed like whenever a problematic enchantment was present, wear/tear was nowhere to befound and made me question why splash if there are so few enchantment issues. RNG I suppose.
I forget who it was but someone on these forums has converted me to shattering spree. This due to assured nature of its ability. When it comes to cards that can purely devastate Burn such life gaining equipments, I want to be certain that it is removed. Even if that means I lose out on some extra damage.
Okay I'm tracking now. You are referring to
3/1/2010: If either target is illegal by the time Searing Blaze resolves, it still deals damage to the other target.
And how even though MOM will grant protection Blaze will still deal damage to the opponent.
Honestly, I never considered that. However, I think if your at the point Dnt has an active mom and something to protect it is bad news.
Just comparing the bare minimum of each, Searing Blaze will always deal damage at least one damage to your opponent, while Searing Blood does nothing. Against something like Death and Taxes, the distinction is pretty big.
I'm not sure I am following here. Searing Blood kills everything outside of a batterskull and SOFI (Pro Red) in DNT. Is my logic off that a weenie deck such as DNT would be prime deck for Searing Blood to face? After all, by removing the landfall trigger that Searing Blaze requires you are removing one more variable.
@Wolfcub Do you have plans to attend the next STL open in Feb??
Searing Blaze is also an instant. And can also be used to finish off a creature that blocked a Goblin Guide.
I actually am not overly impressed with Searing Blood. I'm glad to see them making variations of older cards at decent power levels. But I think Blaze almost strictly wins out over Blood in most situations. Both require an opponent's creature to be cast. But only Blood requires that creature to actually die in order to burn the opponent's face. Given the predominance of a card like Tarmogoyf, I think it will come up often enough to allow Blaze to comfortably retain its spot.
Playing them side by side is an option, but I don't think it's a optimal one. Even in creature heavy metas. They are fighting for the same slot, unfortunately. Burn's tempo can only afford so many 2 drop spells. Price of Progress is not on the chopping block. And Flame Rift gives you game against creatureless of creature-light decks. Searing Blood will be just as dead in hand as Searing Blaze against those decks. Which leaves them fighting over the same slot.
It's a neat spell, and I like it. But I won't be playing it.
Fair points. I think the argument for Searing Blood is one of consistency. There have been times when Searing Blaze has underperformed on a critical turn due to the lack of landfall. Even running the maximum of 12 red fetchlands there are instances where landfall cannot be activated. Blood removes playing lands from the equation entirely. I'm not sure the ability to, without question, kill game losing critters if left unopposed, such as SFM and DRS, and bolt the opponent can be so easily overlooked. Still yet searing blaze or searing blood are noth suboptimal spells vs goyfs, knights or any other big creature that may be played. Searing Blaze alone rarely kills a goyf and has to be coupled with another burn spell and at which time Searing Blood may be just as good in the situation, just not dependent on a land drop.
However, I am more intrigued by what this could mean for fetchless builds. A while ago we had a discussion of what it would take for us to replace GLM/fetches and ultimately agreed a pyroclasm that dealt 2 damage to players would change how we built a burn deck. I think you and I agree that interaction is necessary with so many threating creatures in the format that disrupt Burn easily. Searing Blood may be a far cry for 2 cmc sweeper but it certainly provides more interaction to the fetchless shell than currently available. Personally, that alone has been my issue with fetchless build, is its non-interactive quality and I believe Searing Blood may alleviate that to some degree.
For those of us running Searing Blaze, Searing Blood is a more consistent creature removal spell. The lack of the extra damage (from 3 to 2) shouldn't be of grave concern considering zoo is not a thing any longer and most of the format defining creatures have 2 or less toughness. As long time fetch build player myself, I wonder how this will impact the fetchless builds. Is this finally the fetchless builds replacement for flame rift (meta depending ofc)?
At the risk of restarting an unconstructive conversation... what are some unique card ideas that Born of the Gods could bring to Burn? Personally, I like the idea of some red hate bears of sorts, possbily Sulfuric Vortex or Pyrostatic Pillar with 2/2 bodies. Maybe if we make a wishlist Santa or WOTC will see it and finally deliver us love
I'd run Fallout over either. There aren't a ton of creatures in Legacy with exactly 3 toughness.
I would agree. Being instant, uncounterable and sweeping the most problematic of creatures in the format make it the red wipe of choice imo. My comment was merely trying to point out that Fallout is a strict upgrade to Anger of the Gods.
Perhaps I am overlooking Anger of the Gods but why would someone play this over Flamebreak? 3 damage to players is of more value than exile creatures, no?
What is everyone's opinion on SotL? *Incoming splash is bad conversation*
When playing Burn the games I dread the most are those blue and/or unfair match-ups. Running GLM and Searing Blaze I believe any and all fair match-ups are within grasp and don't need any more help.
Would main-board inclusion effectively increase the win percent vs these combo and/or blue decks? From Reanimator to Show n Tell to Delver.dec
@ Young Pyromancer
Aside from Fireblast, Burn doesn't run any free costing spells. IMO FoW, Daze, Probe,and Cabal therapy are what make YP good. Without such spells YP is too slow and plays to fairly without them.
So when splashing for enchantment hate you would suggest 5+ REB/Pyroblast? In doing so this should help offset the liability of it getting countered when compared to shattering spree.
All the decks with Searing Blaze main, including an invitational top 8.
http://www.tcdecks.net/busqueda.php?token=Decks&tname=&nlow=0&nhigh=0&dlow=0&mlow=0&ylow=0&dhigh=0&mhigh=0&yhigh=0&player=&dname=&format=Legacy&aname=&main=searing+blaze&nomain=&side=&noside=&strict=on
I think the 15 sideboards are more precious than when compared to a 1/60 chance to draw a tiaga or any other non basic needed for a splash. One non basic in the mainboard doesn't automatically lose to any wasteland deck. The chance to topdeck it is pretty minuscule. The only reason this is a viable plan is because the fetch build is already running a full suite of fetchlands. I'm not convinced one nonbasic in the main deck creates such an overwhelming vulnerability. Heck the fetchless builds play Barbarian Ring, it can be equally as hazardous. So why a waste sideboard slot for something that can be fit into the 60?
I think main decking a Dual land is no more risky than main decking Ensnaring Bridge. Perhaps even less so.
Its a good suggestion though for those who may fear wasteland so much but also feel the desire to pack enchantment hate.
I respect your opinion and am glad your contributing to the conversation!
However, in my experience I never had dual land out 80% of the time (1/60) and only fetching when it is needed that is.
This really is not an issue if you ever played with a splash in Burn. First you are not running 18 lands, 20-21 is the usual count. Secondly, the nonbasic colored won't be fetched without discretion and only at the time the problem presents itself. Most games will never involve you having dual land on the battlefield. In the games where the dual will need to be fetched, lets say counterbalance MU, a control deck, you will have 2-3 mountains before enchantment destruction is relevant. Vs combo mus with leyline of sanctity, omnitell, and sneakattack wasteland is not even an issue.
I forget who it was but someone on these forums has converted me to shattering spree. This due to assured nature of its ability. When it comes to cards that can purely devastate Burn such life gaining equipments, I want to be certain that it is removed. Even if that means I lose out on some extra damage.
3/1/2010: If either target is illegal by the time Searing Blaze resolves, it still deals damage to the other target.
And how even though MOM will grant protection Blaze will still deal damage to the opponent.
Honestly, I never considered that. However, I think if your at the point Dnt has an active mom and something to protect it is bad news.
I'm not sure I am following here. Searing Blood kills everything outside of a batterskull and SOFI (Pro Red) in DNT. Is my logic off that a weenie deck such as DNT would be prime deck for Searing Blood to face? After all, by removing the landfall trigger that Searing Blaze requires you are removing one more variable.
@Wolfcub Do you have plans to attend the next STL open in Feb??
Fair points. I think the argument for Searing Blood is one of consistency. There have been times when Searing Blaze has underperformed on a critical turn due to the lack of landfall. Even running the maximum of 12 red fetchlands there are instances where landfall cannot be activated. Blood removes playing lands from the equation entirely. I'm not sure the ability to, without question, kill game losing critters if left unopposed, such as SFM and DRS, and bolt the opponent can be so easily overlooked. Still yet searing blaze or searing blood are noth suboptimal spells vs goyfs, knights or any other big creature that may be played. Searing Blaze alone rarely kills a goyf and has to be coupled with another burn spell and at which time Searing Blood may be just as good in the situation, just not dependent on a land drop.
However, I am more intrigued by what this could mean for fetchless builds. A while ago we had a discussion of what it would take for us to replace GLM/fetches and ultimately agreed a pyroclasm that dealt 2 damage to players would change how we built a burn deck. I think you and I agree that interaction is necessary with so many threating creatures in the format that disrupt Burn easily. Searing Blood may be a far cry for 2 cmc sweeper but it certainly provides more interaction to the fetchless shell than currently available. Personally, that alone has been my issue with fetchless build, is its non-interactive quality and I believe Searing Blood may alleviate that to some degree.
The haste may make it slightly to good but I can dream. I love the idea of having maindeck combo hate..
@ Michaelangelo I think your suggestion would certaininly cause some stir in the format!
I would agree. Being instant, uncounterable and sweeping the most problematic of creatures in the format make it the red wipe of choice imo. My comment was merely trying to point out that Fallout is a strict upgrade to Anger of the Gods.