Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Creatureless Burn (PyroChief)


Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Standard (T2) Decks
Author Message
gypsy



Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 1671

PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

honestly pyromancer ascension was never a good deck
Back to top
danprince10



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignore the people telling you the fetches have "no point", its worth the deck thinning.
Back to top
CrushU
Level 1 Judge


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 99

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm almost certain that it's worth the deck thinning. I would go 20 lands if I could get away with it, but with a top-out of 4 mana (5 if I ever kick burst lightning), and real necessity to hit that third turn land drop as often as possible, 22 lands is my best option. That said, I can't simply ignore or discount their opinions; Some of the people here have been around for quite a while, several posts. It's stupid to just ignore their experience. That and they raise decent points, about the life mattering possibly. USUALLY games are decided quickly with this deck, but every so often it goes on long, with pyromancer providing wincon.

By the way, I've worked on this deck for about half a year... Ever since ROE I've been tweaking the deck, abusing Rebound... I did not just throw this together. Smile

Also, testing on the Lavaclaw is inconclusive so far. It's a very useful card so I have something to do with my mana once I've thrown all my burn, and it activates bloodchief. The problems, however, are two-fold: Suddenly all my opponent's removal actually does SOMETHING, if not much. Also, it slows the deck down significantly, no matter when I draw it. The only good thing keeping it in the deck is that it is, if I need it, another removal 'spell' of sorts, as I can animate and pump to large levels if needed. (e.g. use 1 card and six mana to kill a Titan rather than two bolts. Usually I can doomblade/throat a titan, but not always... Lavaclaw gives me another option.)

On that topic, I think I really do need to put Blackcleave Cliffs into the deck, to get B first turn and then RR on second turn.

Radical idea: Should I run more *basic* land? As it is, I'm down to 4 mountain 4 swamp, 2 lavaclaw, 4 blackcleave, 4 dragonskull, 4 fetches, two of each color... Dropping the nonbasic further worries me that Dragonskull may not come in untapped reliably. This is a fine-tuning that I've not been able to do IRL, as those rare lands aren't as easy to come by. Smile

Other Point: Is there a burn spell in Scars/MBS that I'm missing? Would Arc Trail have a place here? (Personally, no, as pyroclasm does the job better) Galvanic Blast? (No artifacts, so it's Shock.) Burn the Impure? (Hm... Maybe, if Infect becomes popular.) Am I missing other burn spells? (Chandra's Outrage is too expensive, though the IRL version plays a few in sb if i play vs a UW non-CawBlade deck for the walls. They're out of counters when I hit four mana.)
Back to top
dikcoop



Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now I see why you and ninja have been ignoring my bloodchief thread. Is your version more consistent than mine? From testing in my deck yes to a set of blackcleave cliffs, no to lavaclaw reaches. You already know that the deck hates having lands come into play tapped before turn 4. Also, with an active ascension how much does the life loss from the fetches matter?
Back to top
CrushU
Level 1 Judge


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 99

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Life loss from fetches matters not.

When there's an active ascension. :/

Depending on one of four cards to win a game isn't exactly my cup of tea. It's the focus of the deck, true, but it's also theoretically possible to burn someone out without bloodchief...

And not ignoring your bloodchief thread. xD I think it an interesting take on bloodchief, and the decimator web is definitely REALLY REALLY good when bloodchief's on board... Different strategy than this deck, though. Smile
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Standard (T2) Decks All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy