Page 105 of 190

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:25 pm
by zenbitz
Wipeout has it correct.
On the subject of who is the beatdown in Burn vs. MBD. It's interesting that my snap answer was that we were the beat down, but I counted threats and wrote the opposite. They are running 12 threats (+4 gary) and we are running 8. Of course we are controlling their clock by melting face, so that is probably what I didn't consider.

I think the essence of this matchup is that our answers to pack rat can also go to the face, while their answers cannot, and furthermore we get value off them (by making 1/1s or recurring from GY).

I have some interest in solid theoretical groundings for ideas like "Who's the beatdown" and "pressure"; I will try to collect them and post them in the strategy
forum.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:45 pm
by Elricity
The reason we're the beatdown is that, excluding assemble, their cards are slower and more powerful. This definitely includes pack rat even if it does come down turn 2.

With burn, against any control deck, we don't necessarily have to be fast but the entire focus is on exploiting a crack in their game plan and obliterating them. Just because we might be forced into a situation of playing draw-go to use the game winning skullcrack vs gary or sphinx's rev doesn't change the fact that we're playing the whole match with a loaded gun to their head.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:08 pm
by Elricity

Flames is better than searing blood against control, including MBC.

I think this is a pretty bold. G1 searing blood is better vs control as you have elspeth tokens as targets. Vs mono black, assuming they are on the NVS plan, maybe it's better. But with so many ways to build with 2 drops, Blood is equally good. Searing Blood a lifebane zombie is better than pinging it for one and play for 2. not to mention mutavault, and both are a wash vs packrat, once they are past two packrats/mutavault neither really matters.
I don't want to wait until
they might play Elspeth or activate mutavault into [mana]RR[/mana] before trying to dome them for 3 when they could just as easily not play into my telegraphed card. Searing blood isn't necessarily dead but it's definitely far worse.

Vs NVS, it's better because MBC hasn't been playing into blocking into searing blood for a while. Vs rats, flames can 1) Kill a 3/3, 2) kill two if he taps down on offense or maybe 3 rats on defense, 3) burn them out if their rat swarm is too big and they are low on life. Searing blood gives you 1 extra damage vs lifebane zombie or a single rat.

Searing blood is just a more narrow card against control.

I can see an argument for 2 cost instant vs 3 cost sorcery but I stand by what I said.

I should revise that searing blood is better against mana dork decks.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:30 pm
by zenbitz
If I ran 2 Searing Blood main and had 2 flames in the sideboard, I would bring in the flames vs. Control (including mono black). I hate staring at SB thinking "come on, play some little dude... please..."

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:40 pm
by Elricity
Game 2, they're both pretty weak so hopefully you are bringing in something with more power.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:23 pm
by zenbitz
It was a thought experiment, sorry. :)

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:26 pm
by dauntless268
MDU/Lazer, you thinking 4/2/2 on the removal split then? I'm certain I don't want more than 2 banish against any control deck and mortars is just better removal anywhere else once you have 6 exiles to deal with the few creatures out of its range.
That's exactly where I'm at currently :)
Still very unsure about this new meta. Just saw a BW Humans deck posted by Pat Chapin today with 24 (!) 1-drops. Against this sort of stuff we really want everything we can get in terms of early stage
removal. Logically, such an aggro onslaught should lead to the rise of Midrange decks, so maybe we can get by with cutting a few Skullcracks to start with - preferably for Searing Blood and/or Flames of Firebrand.
Hexproof I hear is quite bad vs. all out aggro - so maybe it will take a while before this becomes popular. Two O-Ring (pardon: Banishing Light) MD won't hurt in any case...

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:32 pm
by Elricity
Gotcha Zen, my apologies.

Dauntless, yeah that could be interesting. How many Athreos is he running? That card was annoying when I played against a BW aggro deck.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:19 pm
by dauntless268
3-of

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:28 pm
by zenbitz
I think there will be an AIR heroic deck as well, if for no other reason it's actually faster than BW humans, and doesn't care about atheros. I honestly have no idea how those decks do against Control/MBD/MUD which still dominate the meta.

Banishing light doesn't seem ideal against decks running all 1s and 2s, although obviously it hits the god and necromancer. I thought it was mostly good against d-sphere and instead of wear//tear n' glare against other random enchantments and artifacts.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:39 pm
by Elricity
It also functions as a removal for things of toughness greater than 4. Yes, 3 mana single removal is obviously pretty bad against AIR but against BW humans, the extra exile for the necromancer or Athreos is extremely important.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:10 am
by zenbitz
yes but those BW humans and AIR don't run anything with toughness higher than 3... Or if they did it would be some kind of big bomb that's pro white or pro sorcery speed anyway. What I was trying to say was NOT that BL is a bad card for burn (perhaps even Main deckable) but that it might not be good against weenies. (Again, as it exiles XN and Atheros it might be worth it).

Huh, this is probably a bad idea because too slow but what about Toil // Trouble vs. Atheros decks??

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:24 am
by Rhyno
Well this is my first "season" on MTGO and I scooped up my 15th QP today so I'm pleased about that. Rough transition though. This was my highlight of the day:

Image

It was a 5-3-2-2 and I had Skullcrack mana up.

Going to the White Side

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:52 am
by montu
I've been playing my 12-year-old daughter's WW deck online so she can see the lines of play and learn how to side board.

I scored 11 wins out of 12 matches. The only loss was to a clans member playing RW Burn. :tongue: (Firedancer shreds the deck.)

Anyway, all 11 players were casual, so it's nothing to get excited about. I just thought it was funny.

Image

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:42 am
by magicdownunder
Well this is my first "season" on MTGO and I scooped up my 15th QP today so I'm pleased about that. Rough transition though. This was my highlight of the day:
Well done, have you joined the clan yet?

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:55 am
by magicdownunder
I think there will be an AIR heroic deck as well, if for no other reason it's actually faster than BW humans, and doesn't care about atheros. I honestly have no idea how those decks do against Control/MBD/MUD which still dominate the meta.
I wish people stop calling Ux Devotion MUD.... AiR/RDW is strong against control and bx devotion but the Ux devotion MU is almost a scoop, I'll still recommend it if you don't mind high variance decks and enjoy punishing greedy decks or slow draws.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:22 pm
by Lightning_Dolt
I want to play this at FNM:

[deck]Creatures:8
4 Young Pyromancer
4 Chandra's Phoenix

Spells:29
4 Shock
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Strike
4 Magma Jet
4 Skullcrack
3 Banishing Light
2 Flames of the Firebrand
4 Warleader's Helix

Lands:23
10 Mountain
3 Mutavault
2 Plains
4 Sacred Foundry
4 Temple of Triumph

Sideboard:15
1 Mutavault
4 Mizzium Mortars
1 Banishing Light
2 Harness by Force
3 Burning Earth
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
2 Assemble the Legion[/deck]

Any feedback / ideas?

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:26 pm
by Purp
I can't fathom why you arn't playing Chained.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:39 pm
by BiddingMaster
As far as I can tell with the control match-up we are the favorite. The only times I was losing against the deck was when they had elixir+ rev+ last breath. Against esper without last breath we are fine but any time they drop elixir we have a really hard time dealing with it. Ever since I put my glares in my sideboard my win %skyrocketed against the deck. Of course I keep in 3 chained and board in two glare which has worked out for me so far. I know everyone and their grandmother is going to tell me that I am wrong on this but I face straight uw and not esper about 75% of the control matchups I play. Against straight UW control they have so much lifegain with so many different cards that you cannot allow fiendslayer to stay in play. The reason phoenix is good in the deck is to plink away while we hold up cracks. Its really tricky sideboarding against control because they could be playing any number of different builds that
all have their own game plan and you just have to have enough repetitions to recognize each one and there is no magical cookie cutter solution to sideboarding. Now on the jace discussion I always hold a boros charm in hand so when they cast jace and they plus 1 him it jsut dies to charm+phoenix. Denying them card advantage and life gain is very important in this matchup.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:00 pm
by zenbitz
Chained still seems the best demon defense. Tempo is still tempo. I have a buddy here who swears by threatens in Red decks.... maybe beating them with their own demon is worthwhile.
I absolutely want to play burning earth if the meta shifts to 22 basics each (which would also mean less monu-blue)

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:09 pm
by surelock
I am planning on trying 2 Launch the Fleets (in the sb, seems good w/ YP) 2 Banishing Lights, replacing 2 W/Ts and cut a CTtR for maybe another Mizzium Mortars, this weekend at an upcoming SC IQ.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:45 pm
by Lightning_Dolt
The idea of having zero dead cards and a catch all is very appealing to me.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:12 pm
by Elricity
The idea of having zero dead cards and a catch all is very appealing to me.
Somebody be control hatin'.

I haven't had a lot of success with threatens in this kind of deck. It's particularly awkward vs demon since they can just sac a mutavault and then they get their demon back stronger.

Surelock, YP really isn't the kind of card that needs niche support like that. You risk Launch being a dead card way too often.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:28 pm
by Lightning_Dolt
You may be right, but I think it's worth consideration.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:30 pm
by Lightning_Dolt
Thoughts on burning earth? We played Manabarbs back in the day... can we punish some greed mana bases?

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:36 pm
by Elricity
A couple people tested it and didn't like it. I've never actually tested it but my theorycraft self thinks it's just going to get removed at a low cost of damage and not be worth it. If you're running against a 3 color deck that can't remove enchantments, then it'd be great but I don't think one exists since anyone with white or GB is going to have removal.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:03 pm
by Purp
Chain is dead in only one matchup(which is pretty in your favor G1 anyway), and chain is a 1 mana answer in every other match up, makes no sense to me. T4 chain DD play phoenix is the nuts.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:08 pm
by Lightning_Dolt
I understand, but look at it the other way. If they have a T4 Whip, then Oring is the nuts. If they have a Jace locking down all your tokens, oring is amazing. Yes, it's slower, but it's so much more flexible. I think at the very least it takes the place of wear // tear.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:16 pm
by Elricity
Banishing light vs chain is kind of a meta argument. Sometimes my LGS gets control happy and I go through and target it.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:44 pm
by LaZerBurn
I like 2 CttR and 1 BL in the MD with one of each in the side as a starting point.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:16 pm
by Lightning_Dolt
This?

[deck]Creatures:8
4 Young Pyromancer
4 Chandra's Phoenix

Spells:29
2 Chained to the Rocks
1 Banishing Light
4 Shock
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Strike
4 Magma Jet
4 Skullcrack
2 Flames of the Firebrand
4 Warleader's Helix

Lands:23
2 Blood Crypt
2 Boros Guildgate
6 Mountain
3 Mutavault
4 Sacred Foundry
1 Temple of Malice
1 Temple of Silence
4 Temple of Triumph

Sideboard:15
1 Mutavault
3 Mizzium Mortars
2 Chained to the Rocks
1 Banishing Light
4 Toil // Trouble
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
2 Assemble the Legion[/deck]

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:17 pm
by Lightning_Dolt
9 in, 9 out vs control.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:27 pm
by Elricity
Same but I also won a game day playing a deck that maindecked 0 chains, 3 dancers and 12 haste creatures because I knew people were either going to be UWx control or generic creature decks. I'd never do it again now that they see it coming but for that brief shining moment, it was glorious.

JS, it's not the mana base I run but that can work. I personally have been testing 2 chain, 1 o ring maindeck with 1-2/1 sideboard and I've liked that. I'm with you on reducing dead cards and having a narrow out game 1 to whips and such but I do agree that I like a couple 1 mana removals if I can.

What're you planning on facing? You've mentioned before that the Japan meta is a bit different.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:32 pm
by Purp
Hes in canada now, safe to their meta is very "soft" (muahahaha). Jk. Not really.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:30 pm
by Lightning_Dolt
Meta here is not as strong as it was there. The one store follows scg pretty closely, the other is control heavy.

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:20 am
by zenbitz
If your only using Prophetic Flamespeaker vs creature decks, why is it better then Boros Reckoner or Mizzium Mortars in a format where the best midrange/aggro decks run Sylvan Caryatid, Boros Reckoner Courser of Kruphix, Frostburn weird, NVS basically anything which isn't weenies which is ALREADY a good MU?
I finally got around to watching Elercity's video on JOU. I think that the advantage over Reckoner/MM is that it actually draws you cards. My thought was that it makes me want to run Titan's Strength. It works in the same way as little burn spells to remove a blocker (or attacker) with flamespeaker, but can also hit for 8 and scry. That said... 4 in the SB is too many... so we would have to cut 2 shock main deck. Which isn't the worst thing ... you can still get a token offa YP for [mana]R[/mana] and while harder to use than shock, it hits 50% harder (
as long as you dodge removal)

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:34 pm
by Elricity
Burn doesn't have room for narrow cards like Titan's strength to support a specific card. It either has to function with the other spells in the deck that we are already running or not.

I think everyone knows flamespeaker 1) draws cards and 2) card draw is good in the control role. I believe their disagreement is over these beliefs: a) it can't kill big creatures therefore it can't draw cards and b) even if it can draw cards, that they wouldn't be helpful because you have to cast them this turn.

In regards to a), we've had an entire season to demonstrate why burn +x damage from a permanent to kill opposing creatures is so exploitable in the form of YP's elemental tokens, ash zealot, and Chandra. I'm not sure the source of the objection in this specific case. The stated arguments have always been comparing the power/toughness of the card vs its opponents. My counterargument remains that against x/4 or less, this
isn't an issue with 18 spells in the deck that already are "titan's strength" and another 6 that remove attackers and 2 that remove blockers. Against x/5+, mortars is a dead card while flamespeaker is not.

When Smiter is used as an example of a card flamespeaker interacts poorly with, I understand that they mean "you won't always have lightning strike in hand". However, when frostburn weird is used as an example card, then I suspect I haven't done a good enough job of pointing out that flamespeaker + shock kills frostburn in at worst a 1-1 with our weakest spell while leaving a threat on the table. And with smiter, comparing the interaction of 2-1 a smiter and then drawing 2 cards with a permanent in play is more profitable than 1-1 a smiter with no permanent in play.

Then again, maybe the point is that the magic number of spells is 20 and that 18 is too low.

Hexproof makes the burn strategy bad and if people were just saying "Sylvan Carytid", then sure. Not all
green decks run Carytid but I understand the shorthand "bad in Gxx" meant "bad in monsters/dredge". I'm already adjusting my sideboard plan to include BO, maybe keep a couple of charms against enchant removal or to kill carytid, or I might do a 1/1 mortar flame split in the sideboard. I'm not exactly excited with mortars against dredge either though so we're really talking about mortaring stormbreath or courser or dragging the game on until 6 lands. Or the argument is that there is a statistically significant chance that 24 removal over 26 will lose games.

I understand this is experimental and I'm certainly not recommending running it in a GP without playtesting the card. It has some complexity to it.

I don't understand the argument that the draw card portion is bad in burn. Would someone be able to clarify that?

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:53 pm
by JohnnyfnB
[quote="Elricity » Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:34 am"]Burn doesn't have room for narrow cards like Titan's strength to support a specific card. It either has to function with the other spells in the deck that we are already running or not.

I think everyone knows flamespeaker 1) draws cards and 2) card draw is good in the control role. I believe their disagreement is over these beliefs: a) it can't kill big creatures therefore it can't draw cards and b) even if it can draw cards, that they wouldn't be helpful because you have to cast them this turn.

In regards to a), we've had an entire season to demonstrate why burn +x damage from a permanent to kill opposing creatures is so exploitable in the form of YP's elemental tokens, ash zealot, and Chandra. I'm not sure the source of the objection in this specific
case. The stated arguments have always been comparing the power/toughness of the card vs its opponents. My counterargument remains that against x/4 or less, this isn't an issue with 18 spells in the deck that already are "titan's strength" and another 6 that remove attackers and 2 that remove blockers. Against x/5+, mortars is a dead card while flamespeaker is not.

When Smiter is used as an example of a card flamespeaker interacts poorly with, I understand that they mean "you won't always have lightning strike in hand". However, when frostburn weird is used as an example card, then I suspect I haven't done a good enough job of pointing out that flamespeaker + shock kills frostburn in at worst a 1-1 with our weakest spell while leaving a threat on the table. And with smiter, comparing the interaction of 2-1 a smiter and then drawing 2 cards with a permanent in play is more profitable than 1-1 a smiter with no permanent in play.

Then again, maybe the point is that the magic
number of spells is 20 and that 18 is too low.

Hexproof makes the burn strategy bad and if people were just saying "Sylvan Carytid", then sure. Not all green decks run Carytid but I understand the shorthand "bad in Gxx" meant "bad in monsters/dredge". I'm already adjusting my sideboard plan to include BO, maybe keep a couple of charms against enchant removal or to kill carytid, or I might do a 1/1 mortar flame split in the sideboard. I'm not exactly excited with mortars against dredge either though so we're really talking about mortaring stormbreath or courser or dragging the game on until 6 lands. Or the argument is that there is a statistically significant chance that 24 removal over 26 will lose games.

I understand this is experimental and I'm certainly not recommending running it in a GP without playtesting the card. It has some complexity to it.

I don't understand the argument that the draw card portion is bad in burn. Would someone be able to clarify that?[/
quote]

I respectfully disagree. When I ran Ash Zealot, I main boarded 3 Titan's Str. It's not a dead card at all in the burn deck. You have AZ, Chandra's Phonix, Mutavault, YP, tokens etc. It's effectively a Lightning Bolt (situational). Now all that being said, I no longer play them. I personally, have found more effective cards for my build. I certainly wouldn't call it a dead card, nor would I say it doesn't belong in the deck. It depends on your build, play style and meta. When I used it, Sylvan Caryatids were flooding my LGS. TS pushed damage through and after I played with it for a while, I snuck in some free damage. :evillol:

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:59 pm
by Elricity
If you're running into a lot of Carytids and have Ash Zealot, then that's a fair point.

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:06 pm
by PirateKingAtomsk
[quote="Elricity » Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:34 pm"]Burn doesn't have room for narrow cards like Titan's strength to support a specific card. It either has to function with the other spells in the deck that we are already running or not.

I think everyone knows flamespeaker 1) draws cards and 2) card draw is good in the control role. I believe their disagreement is over these beliefs: a) it can't kill big creatures therefore it can't draw cards and b) even if it can draw cards, that they wouldn't be helpful because you have to cast them this turn.

In regards to a), we've had an entire season to demonstrate why burn +x damage from a permanent to kill opposing creatures is so exploitable in the form of YP's elemental tokens, ash zealot, and Chandra. I'm not sure the source of the objection in this specific
case. The stated arguments have always been comparing the power/toughness of the card vs its opponents. My counterargument remains that against x/4 or less, this isn't an issue with 18 spells in the deck that already are "titan's strength" and another 6 that remove attackers and 2 that remove blockers. Against x/5+, mortars is a dead card while flamespeaker is not.

When Smiter is used as an example of a card flamespeaker interacts poorly with, I understand that they mean "you won't always have lightning strike in hand". However, when frostburn weird is used as an example card, then I suspect I haven't done a good enough job of pointing out that flamespeaker + shock kills frostburn in at worst a 1-1 with our weakest spell while leaving a threat on the table. And with smiter, comparing the interaction of 2-1 a smiter and then drawing 2 cards with a permanent in play is more profitable than 1-1 a smiter with no permanent in play.

Then again, maybe the point is that the magic
number of spells is 20 and that 18 is too low.

Hexproof makes the burn strategy bad and if people were just saying "Sylvan Carytid", then sure. Not all green decks run Carytid but I understand the shorthand "bad in Gxx" meant "bad in monsters/dredge". I'm already adjusting my sideboard plan to include BO, maybe keep a couple of charms against enchant removal or to kill carytid, or I might do a 1/1 mortar flame split in the sideboard. I'm not exactly excited with mortars against dredge either though so we're really talking about mortaring stormbreath or courser or dragging the game on until 6 lands. Or the argument is that there is a statistically significant chance that 24 removal over 26 will lose games.

I understand this is experimental and I'm certainly not recommending running it in a GP without playtesting the card. It has some complexity to it.

I don't understand the argument that the draw card portion is bad in burn. Would someone be able to clarify that?[/
quote]


the card draw generated is good but chandra does the same thing and is more synergetic with the deck. i think running a couple in the side board against control would be great just remember he flips 2 cards when he hits twice so if you flip 2 spells without the mana to cast them then you've wasted potential damage against your opponent.