Ok well if you are considering tampering with your land base by deciding how many mountains or fetches you want I would have 8 mountains and 12 fetches.

Tyrannosary, why do you recommend more fetches than basics?

To help thin your deck out better. Plus if you end up not finding any more targets for a fetch you were probably going to lose the game anyways.

Tyran, you're forgetting the one-life cost. A couple of payments isn't usually a big deal, but that stuff adds up faster than you'd expect. You're making it easier for combo and aggro decks to smoke you. Which is ironic, given that this is a burn deck.

Tyrannosary, Deck thinning is not a valid reason to run fetches. The effect isn't worth 1 life. We do have valid reasons to run fetches (top being the best one) in the deck but I don't think it justifies more fetches than basics. We're also asking to get blown out by Stifle with this setup.

deck thinning also statistically does just about nothing running 20 lands until about turn 12

You guys say what you want but life is a resource to use to your advantage. You most likely will only be paying 2-4 life on fetches in a game, Narrowing down the amount of lands you draw will help you a ton in the long run. And thinning your deck helps no matter what turn it is. If you guys seriously want to argue that using fetches is stupid then go ahead and run 20 mountains, you'll notice a lot more lands coming to your hand and you'll lose a lot more games because of it.

Fetches are also critical to fueling the Grim Lavamancers.

Tyrannosary, now you're just arguing against strawmen. Nobody said that fetches were bad in this deck (hence, why I run 8), I just don't get why you think we need to run more fetches than basics in this deck.

Anyway, look at some other mono-color Legacy decks like Merfolk and Death and Taxes. Neither deck runs any fetchlands because they don't have any reason to. I'm personally running them for Top, Lavamancer, and Blaze. I've also had games where I've drawn 6 fetches in a row, so no, the probability gains are not sufficient enough to justify the life paid if you are running fetches strictly for deck thinning. You need other reasons to justify running fetches, and you certainly need a hell of a reason to justify running more fetches than basics.

If you want 2 more reasons then here that are. 1) grim lavamancer and 2) searing blaze. Just because you drew 6 fetches in a row doesn't mean that using fetches didn't lower the chances of drawing lands, heck I've had games in modern when I was using naya burn with 9 non fetches and 11 fetches and I ended up pulling 8 lands. I didn't miss a single land drop and was basically screwed but it didn't change the fact that by using fetches it changed the chances I would draw another land. Most pro burn players (legacy) are only running the 8 mountains because they have to for Fireblast, some also add a Barbarian Ring just so that they have another damage spell built in to a land. If you guys don't want to listen to me because you think I have no idea what I'm talking about then fine. I've tried helping you but you don't want it.

Maybe he'd be more inclined to listen if you weren't being an ass about it. He's had his experiences with what he's running, you've had yours. Nothing here is law, nothing in magic, especially legacy, is an absolute. Is it good to run some fetches? Yes. Its 12 probably way too much? Who knows? If you don't think so, great. But if someone doesn't want to hear your ideas and they've already said no, stop. Be responsible with your commenting and leave people alone if they've made it clear they don't like what you're saying.

To be fair to Tyranosaury, Fuster is kind of impervious to logic. Multiple people have tried to explain to him why his deck should basically be able to win before he can even get a Sensei's Divining Top online, but he's convinced that it's an essential part of the most redundant and reliable non-blue deck in Legacy because it won him a game a couple of times and he got mana flooded a couple of times without it, as if there isn't some variability and sheer luck in this game to begin with.

Also, I still don't understand the title of this deck. Is the mixtape on Datpiff?

His meta could be filled with decks that are grindy af, you never know. I've never tried out top myself, but maybe it is good in the deck. Maybe it fits his play style. Legacy is a format much less about the deck your playing and more about how familiar you are with the small interactions in the deck. How well you know it, the format and how good you are at playing magic, cause there tends to be a lot more subtle decision making in legacy. And if top fits his play style and does well for him, he should continue to run it. I always prefer to play certain cards based on my own experience with them against the statistics and "what the pros do". And if top really is that bad, then he'll just fugure that out the hard way. Do I agree with top in the deck? No, not necessarily. Do I think he should take it out? Still no. If he likes it, so what if he won't listen to logic, don't stick around and get frustrated trying argue your point when someone on the other end doesn't want to hear it.

Nixin72, you're actually spot on, at the last IQ I attended at least 1/4 of the room was Death and Taxes decks. There was only 1 combo deck in the whole room (high tide) and it got thrashed pretty hard.

Rusty_Shackleford, it is true that variance is a thing, but I've been playing without tops (in mostly Tyranassory's recommended configuration) for years and that setup is just not cutting it anymore. It's not just a few fluke games like you think it is, but it's something that happens pretty often.

Would you not consider it logical to either change something in a deck or play a different deck if the current setup just isn't producing results like it used to? Sure I haven't tested it as much as I would have liked to but I do notice results with Top so far. If top wasn't producing results for me or if it stops producing results for me long-term then I would be inclined to agree with you (and most likely play a completely different deck), but it's a change that actually works for me at the moment since it seems like deck consistency matters a lot more than raw speed in the current meta.

As for the deck title, the joke is about how mixtapes are fire and are the cause of fires, and it's been aptly applied to a burn deck here. Not sure if you've seen the memes on it or not but it's a reference to those.

Ok well he should definitely be running 4x Fireblast and 4x Price of Progress. I would take out 2x Searing Blaze to make room for them.

You could take out the last Searing Blaze for a Grim Lavamancer too

Sorry for 3 posts in a row but I mean to swap it from main to side

Tyrannosary, what I was thinking about doing was cutting my 4 Monastery Swiftspears, moving my 2 Lavamancers from side to main and running the 4th Price/Fireblast. The 2 sideboard slots that open up would be filled with Red Elemental Blast. Thoughts?

You do not want to cut Monastery Swiftspear at all, they are far too good, if you want to make room in the sideboard take out 2 Faerie Macabre. Let me know if I'm wrong but I'm guessing you're using her against reanimate. You should already have a favorable match against reanimate so it shouldn't be too big of a problem, if not having those faeries cause too much of a problem you could try removing a Vexing Shusher and a Mindbreak trap or any combination of the three. These are probably the weakest cards in the sideboard (not that they're bad or anything) so you could try to limit them.

I actually use Macabre against other graveyard-based decks as well, such as Dredge and Lands. Running 4 is critical because if I don't draw any grave hate I just auto lose to those decks. I actually have yet to play against a reanimator deck but I'm guessing it's a tough matchup because of Iona, Shield of Emeria. In that matchup having access to a free uncounterable hate card is very critical.

The most likely cut out of the 3 you mention would be 1 Shusher. My sideboard is mostly designed to cover matchups where sticking to our normal gameplan won't win because the opposition is either faster (combo) or goes bigger (stoneforge/MUD). Trap covers storm and Belcher and it's practically our Force of Will. To be fair combo is on the decline due to the Eldrazi deck, so it might be correct to cut traps instead since Chalice of the Void is now a reasonable player in Legacy.

shit's fire

Sensei's Divining Top is fine in this deck, however I would go for it as a 1 of. You are also making the clear mistake of cutting Fireblasts. It's just that Fireblast is the most powerful card in the deck. As for what you should cut a Searing Blaze or Rift Bolt would be your best option.

TheManWithaPlan, I decided to cut fireblasts because it clogged up my hand way too often as a 4-of. The third fireblast you draw in a game is pretty useless, and I'd get way too many openers with multiple fireblasts. I might go back up to 3 and cut Searing Blaze though (3 did feel correct actually), but I'm rather hesitant to cut Blaze as the local meta has a lot of DNT/general creature decks.

I like top enough to where it doesn't seem justified as a random one-of with no other manipulation. I want to draw it on a semi-regular basis, at least as often as I draw into mana flood/mana screw with this deck.

At first I was like.... and then I was like.... and then I was like oh, because its a burn deck.