Let's be real here. Up to this point there haven't been enough significant major events which either Jeskai Ascendancy or TC despoiled so calling for bans NOW is just so much noise and chatter and none of it makes any darn sense if you just think rationally for the length of time you need to scroll down a web page.
On AV, it's really amazing how much people are underrating this card. Getting it off the banned list might be a possibility, but I feel that would lead to a heavy blue format, which probably isn't a good thing, since people are already but hurting about blue getting good cards and want to ban TC. In that context, getting AV would only be doable if the whole community believed beyond a doubt that the card was bad and unplayable, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Then again, GGT is still on the banned list, but that has much more to do with the Ghost of Dredge's Past then with anything else.
I don't see what the problem is with AV. It wouldn't go in to any turn 4 combo decks or tempo decks. Instead it would help slower blue decks like WUR Control, Scapeshift, WUR Midrange, and Faeries, which could use some help. The only real concern is Twin becoming too good.
I don't know how AV would affect twin, but I do think that having it back would make BGx decks a lot less attractive, since most decks would be able to undo their hard work on disrupting their hand by simply drawing 3 for U. The fact that you wouldn't get the cards immediately after you've suspended it is even better since that leaves them between a rock and a hard place. If they focus on disruption, they are trading 1 for 1 while your one is about to draw 3. On the other hand, if they try to establish board presence you can trade 1 for 1 with their threats knowing that backup is on it's way. It's nasty however you slice it.
On AV in old Faeries: I'm pretty sure that it was at least as important to that deck's success in that era of Standard as Thoughtseize and/or Bitterblossom. The card itself went on to be played in Old Extended after Time Spiral rotated out of standard and has enabled various blue control strategies in that format, while Bitterblossom, for example, didn't have such an easy transition into older formats, and quite frankly still doesn't. AV helped that deck by allowing it to draw cards exactly when they needed to do so without requiring an expenditure of any other resource, most notably mana, which made it all to easy to just use said extra cards to counter spells and kill things, while BB ticked away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Sure looks like you guys should start trying to meta harder rather than complaining about bannings. Look at legacy, major shakeups change the top tier of decks, you can't expect to play one deck for years and it to stay as a tier 1 deck the whole time. For right now our traditional BGx decks are not working. Time to brew up and cover their weaknesses, or start attacking this new meta from an angle it's weak against.
With the rise of burn and UR delver doesn't playing thalia's, SotL's, rule of law's and canonists look more attractive? Doesn't running more mainboard lifegain seem good (oh look at you kitchen finks), doesn't A decay seem nice. Wow shouldn't we be playing pod decks (leaning towards angel), some sort of new era GW hate bears deck and tarmogoyfs again?
Let's be real here. Up to this point there haven't been enough significant major events which either Jeskai Ascendancy or TC despoiled so calling for bans NOW is just so much noise and chatter and none of it makes any darn sense if you just think rationally for the length of time you need to scroll down a web page.
On AV, it's really amazing how much people are underrating this card. Getting it off the banned list might be a possibility, but I feel that would lead to a heavy blue format, which probably isn't a good thing, since people are already but hurting about blue getting good cards and want to ban TC. In that context, getting AV would only be doable if the whole community believed beyond a doubt that the card was bad and unplayable, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Then again, GGT is still on the banned list, but that has much more to do with the Ghost of Dredge's Past then with anything else.
I don't see what the problem is with AV. It wouldn't go in to any turn 4 combo decks or tempo decks. Instead it would help slower blue decks like WUR Control, Scapeshift, WUR Midrange, and Faeries, which could use some help. The only real concern is Twin becoming too good.
I don't know how AV would affect twin, but I do think that having it back would make BGx decks a lot less attractive, since most decks would be able to undo their hard work on disrupting their hand by simply drawing 3 for U. The fact that you wouldn't get the cards immediately after you've suspended it is even better since that leaves them between a rock and a hard place. If they focus on disruption, they are trading 1 for 1 while your one is about to draw 3. On the other hand, if they try to establish board presence you can trade 1 for 1 with their threats knowing that backup is on it's way. It's nasty however you slice it.
On AV in old Faeries: I'm pretty sure that it was at least as important to that deck's success in that era of Standard as Thoughtseize and/or Bitterblossom. The card itself went on to be played in Old Extended after Time Spiral rotated out of standard and has enabled various blue control strategies in that format, while Bitterblossom, for example, didn't have such an easy transition into older formats, and quite frankly still doesn't. AV helped that deck by allowing it to draw cards exactly when they needed to do so without requiring an expenditure of any other resource, most notably mana, which made it all to easy to just use said extra cards to counter spells and kill things, while BB ticked away.
And what's the problem with that? Those type of decks are weak in the format and need help.
Let's be real here. Up to this point there haven't been enough significant major events which either Jeskai Ascendancy or TC despoiled so calling for bans NOW is just so much noise and chatter and none of it makes any darn sense if you just think rationally for the length of time you need to scroll down a web page.
On AV, it's really amazing how much people are underrating this card. Getting it off the banned list might be a possibility, but I feel that would lead to a heavy blue format, which probably isn't a good thing, since people are already but hurting about blue getting good cards and want to ban TC. In that context, getting AV would only be doable if the whole community believed beyond a doubt that the card was bad and unplayable, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Then again, GGT is still on the banned list, but that has much more to do with the Ghost of Dredge's Past then with anything else.
I don't see what the problem is with AV. It wouldn't go in to any turn 4 combo decks or tempo decks. Instead it would help slower blue decks like WUR Control, Scapeshift, WUR Midrange, and Faeries, which could use some help. The only real concern is Twin becoming too good.
I don't know how AV would affect twin, but I do think that having it back would make BGx decks a lot less attractive, since most decks would be able to undo their hard work on disrupting their hand by simply drawing 3 for U. The fact that you wouldn't get the cards immediately after you've suspended it is even better since that leaves them between a rock and a hard place. If they focus on disruption, they are trading 1 for 1 while your one is about to draw 3. On the other hand, if they try to establish board presence you can trade 1 for 1 with their threats knowing that backup is on it's way. It's nasty however you slice it.
On AV in old Faeries: I'm pretty sure that it was at least as important to that deck's success in that era of Standard as Thoughtseize and/or Bitterblossom. The card itself went on to be played in Old Extended after Time Spiral rotated out of standard and has enabled various blue control strategies in that format, while Bitterblossom, for example, didn't have such an easy transition into older formats, and quite frankly still doesn't. AV helped that deck by allowing it to draw cards exactly when they needed to do so without requiring an expenditure of any other resource, most notably mana, which made it all to easy to just use said extra cards to counter spells and kill things, while BB ticked away.
And what's the problem with that? Those type of decks are weak in the format and need help.
Sure looks like you guys should start trying to meta harder rather than complaining about bannings. Look at legacy, major shakeups change the top tier of decks, you can't expect to play one deck for years and it to stay as a tier 1 deck the whole time. For right now our traditional BGx decks are not working. Time to brew up and cover their weaknesses, or start attacking this new meta from an angle it's weak against.
With the rise of burn and UR delver doesn't playing thalia's, SotL's, rule of law's and canonists look more attractive? Doesn't running more mainboard lifegain seem good (oh look at you kitchen finks), doesn't A decay seem nice. Wow shouldn't we be playing pod decks (leaning towards angel), some sort of new era GW hate bears deck and tarmogoyfs again?
Yeah, Finks is pretty good, but the hate cards you listed are good against Storm, not Burn, Twin, or Delver (it should be noted that Twin makes up 13% of the post-Khans meta). The problem here, just like the problem with Jund, is that there isn't really an angle to attack the problematic decks from from.
Sure looks like you guys should start trying to meta harder rather than complaining about bannings. Look at legacy, major shakeups change the top tier of decks, you can't expect to play one deck for years and it to stay as a tier 1 deck the whole time. For right now our traditional BGx decks are not working. Time to brew up and cover their weaknesses, or start attacking this new meta from an angle it's weak against.
With the rise of burn and UR delver doesn't playing thalia's, SotL's, rule of law's and canonists look more attractive? Doesn't running more mainboard lifegain seem good (oh look at you kitchen finks), doesn't A decay seem nice. Wow shouldn't we be playing pod decks (leaning towards angel), some sort of new era GW hate bears deck and tarmogoyfs again?
Yeah, Finks is pretty good, but the hate cards you listed are good against Storm, not Burn, Twin, or Delver (it should be noted that Twin makes up 13% of the post-Khans meta). The problem here, just like the problem with Jund, is that there isn't really an angle to attack the problematic decks from from.
I accept that they are weak against twin BUT, the draw hate cards are exceptional against this new era delver list which run anywhere from 10-14 draw spells (from the latest SCG IQ, not including Electrolyzes and Remands) while also being disruptive, relying on these spells to fill the grave and pump up YP and Swiftspear. Thalia provides damage and slows down both decks ability to overrun you with multiple spells a turn, or best case scenario eats a burn spell for too much mana from them.
Rule of Law shuts down Swiftspear and hampers burn significantly (admittedly later than you want), and as an avid UR player I will tell you right now that Finks and Tarmogoyf are the hardest card for those decks to remove. You just stick one and watch them flounder.
This was all I came up with literally 30 seconds thought, so I'm sure I've missed some great cards, if there is a new meta the players that adapt the best will be rewarded first. So chop chop get brewing.
Edit: Any deck playing Swiftspear, Young Pyromancer and/or lava spike is not a good stuff pile ala Jund. Claiming there is no angle to attack them from is simply laziness and I won't stand for it.
Did anyone actually look at those Delver Lists? Only about half are running the full 4 Treasure Cruise at the cost of 0 Snapcaster Mage. Most people are split between the two. It seems the best performing lists aren't even running 4 on MTGO. It's understandable that burn will splash for the full 4, but how was this not to be expected? They splashed for Deathrite Shaman.
Sure looks like you guys should start trying to meta harder rather than complaining about bannings. Look at legacy, major shakeups change the top tier of decks, you can't expect to play one deck for years and it to stay as a tier 1 deck the whole time. For right now our traditional BGx decks are not working. Time to brew up and cover their weaknesses, or start attacking this new meta from an angle it's weak against.
With the rise of burn and UR delver doesn't playing thalia's, SotL's, rule of law's and canonists look more attractive? Doesn't running more mainboard lifegain seem good (oh look at you kitchen finks), doesn't A decay seem nice. Wow shouldn't we be playing pod decks (leaning towards angel), some sort of new era GW hate bears deck and tarmogoyfs again?
Yeah, Finks is pretty good, but the hate cards you listed are good against Storm, not Burn, Twin, or Delver (it should be noted that Twin makes up 13% of the post-Khans meta). The problem here, just like the problem with Jund, is that there isn't really an angle to attack the problematic decks from from.
I accept that they are weak against twin BUT, the draw hate cards are exceptional against this new era delver list which run anywhere from 10-14 draw spells (from the latest SCG IQ, not including Electrolyzes and Remands) while also being disruptive, relying on these spells to fill the grave and pump up YP and Swiftspear. Thalia provides damage and slows down both decks ability to overrun you with multiple spells a turn, or best case scenario eats a burn spell for too much mana from them.
Rule of Law shuts down Swiftspear and hampers burn significantly (admittedly later than you want), and as an avid UR player I will tell you right now that Finks and Tarmogoyf are the hardest card for those decks to remove. You just stick one and watch them flounder.
This was all I came up with literally 30 seconds thought, so I'm sure I've missed some great cards, if there is a new meta the players that adapt the best will be rewarded first. So chop chop get brewing.
Edit: Any deck playing Swiftspear, Young Pyromancer and/or lava spike is not a good stuff pile ala Jund. Claiming there is no angle to attack them from is simply laziness and I won't stand for it.
But the angles of attack you came up with don't work. Thalia and SotL are pretty good against Delver and Burn, but it's easy for the meta to adjust to them. Ethersworn Canonist and Rule of Law don't actually end up doing much, if anything at all, against Burn, Delver, or Twin. As for Finks and Goyf, Twin and Burn can race or kill Goyf (and TC and DTT make it even easier than it was before), and Finks just provides a window for Twin to go off. While Twin is easy to hate out, and the meta can adjust to Delver, I don't see an existing solution to the rise of Burn besides every deck other than Burn playing Kitchen Finks, Leyline of Sanctity, and Lightning Helix in large quantities.
I challenge you to find an angle of attack that will work. You called me lazy, now let's see you back that statement up.
Run Junk Angel Pod, with A decay, and potentially thoughtseize? Seems like it would be pretty good against all these decks. Bonus points, it can pod into most of the hate cards I brought up to.
chalice of the void for any control deck destroys ur delver. they cant beat it resolved even if they dropped a delver already
Actually, Delver has a lot of ways to win through Chalice, YP being one of the big ones. Also, you have to clear the board before you play Chalice, which is going to be pretty hard for control decks.
ive been playing a ton of the matchup and I can tell you a young pyro alone or a 1 drop before chalice isnt enough. the deck has serious issues killing control decks.
chalice of the void for any control deck destroys ur delver. they cant beat it resolved even if they dropped a delver already
Actually, Delver has a lot of ways to win through Chalice, YP being one of the big ones. Also, you have to clear the board before you play Chalice, which is going to be pretty hard for control decks.
ive been playing a ton of the matchup and I can tell you a young pyro alone or a 1 drop before chalice isnt enough. the deck has serious issues killing control decks.
But it isn't because of Chalice, it's because control is a bad matchup. Also, the big problem is Burn, not Delver. Even Twin has a much higher post-Khans meta percentage than Delver.
Did anyone actually look at those Delver Lists? Only about half are running the full 4 Treasure Cruise at the cost of 0 Snapcaster Mage. Most people are split between the two. It seems the best performing lists aren't even running 4 on MTGO. It's understandable that burn will splash for the full 4, but how was this not to be expected? They splashed for Deathrite Shaman.
Actually they were already playing black so it wasn't really a splash for DRS.
I'm in favor of banning treasure cruise because it will make it so UR Delver is less good, it will weaken some of the burn decks, and it will weaken Jeskai Ascendancy combo; all of which seem healthy to the format and if you consider what other degenerate things treasure cruise may be capable of then I think treasure cruise really deserves the ban. I could be jumping the gun a bit here but I'm fairly certain treasure cruise is not good for modern.
In addition, pizzap makes some good points about burn's prevalence. While a ban to cruise would hurt the deck some, I still think burn is going to be too powerful. However, I disagree with banning eidolon of great revels as a cut to burn, seems too preemptive and I think it's cool that burn gets a new toy albeit a powerful one. I'm not sure what can be done to weaken burn but I don't think banning eidolon of great revels is the answer.
Banning TC would probably bring Burn down to reasonable levels. The reason TC is so good in Burn is that it ensures that they'll always have enough burn spells to win on turn 4. It even helps them win through Finks.
Banning TC would probably bring Burn down to reasonable levels. The reason TC is so good in Burn is that it ensures that they'll always have enough burn spells to win on turn 4. It even helps them win through Finks.
It doesn't mean they will always win turn 4. Turn 4 in a Burn deck, if you have 4 lands you are already behind. You want 1/2 lands max. That means even at 1/2 lands you will have 9 spells. Assuming most do 3 points of damage, you should have already killed them. All TC does is mean that in the long games against decks that gain life they can come back and still win which is NOT something they should be able to do. When a REAL Burn deck is the best deck in a format then there is a problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active Modern Decks
U Tron GW Bogles RG Loam UR Blue Breach RBU Grixis Goryo BRU Grixis Delver GBR Jund GBW Junk
Banning TC would probably bring Burn down to reasonable levels. The reason TC is so good in Burn is that it ensures that they'll always have enough burn spells to win on turn 4. It even helps them win through Finks.
But butn was way above usual levels BEFORE we got the Tom Cruise. It is amazing how fast people jump to conclusions in this thread. We are not even sure how much percentage will burn gain because of TC, let alone if it would bring it down (which it wouldn't apparently)
Well, let me say that I am also in the "no bans camp", at least for the moment. I think TC is super fun to play and I generally like Wizard's new approach to the graveyard, making those cards essentially fuel, as opposed to the recurring theme that was popular before - compare Dredge to Scavenge for example. (Not that I dislike the old approach, but I like to have both different strategies available.)
However, I do think that Burn being T1 is a problem. First because it is a boring stupid deck itself. Second, and more importantly, because it punishes other decks that are fun to play because they feature multiple colors, have many possibilities, lots of interaction, but pay for this by being a little slower and having painful mana bases. I don't want these decks (like Gifts, Loam stuff, Pod etc.) to vanish in favor of more redundant, simple decks that are streamlined for just raw effectiveness.
Look I haven't played the modern burn deck much but listen to Pat Sullivan talk aand commentate the legacy version. There is a lot more to the deck than meets the eye.
yeah I think nyx fleece ram is a beast right now. lifegain is huge atm. honestly I dont mind burn having cruise. it makes them weaker to remand since it basically ensures they never cast it
It's so obvious cruise is gonna get the hammer... the question is wether or not AV will be coming off or not at the same time.
Forgive me if I doubt the obviousness of this. Especially given the quote in your sig about Pod, and your previous statement pages back about JA Storm.
It's really unbelievable and sad how quickly Modern players turn on decks and cards. Last week it was JA. Now it's TC. As usual, Wizards is partially to blame for this with its ban-happy attitude, but they have done a lot to undo that and the Modern playerbase has just forgotten concepts like metagame adaptation, sideboards, etc. Might TC be banned eventually? Maybe. It's likelier than JA, that's for sure. Will it be banned without a doubt? No way. We need way more data to suggest that is the case.
The quote from my sig is from way before KTK.
When the ban hits cruise and therefore Ascendancy gets neutered, it will be pod again the best deck or one of the best, and it will just be a matter of time till the next voice gets printed. The tutor is boosted and the power level of the format will always be more or less contained by the turn 4 rule, so pod will never get "outpowerleveled".
I'm talking about best decks like pre-BBE ban Jund, not early 2014 Melira Pod, although having the format return to its pre-TC state of balancedness would certainly be nice.
I agree. I'd even be fine with another Melira Pod case. The case that I was referring to was 2013 BGx. I clearly remember that the meta was diverse and shifting, but BGx wasn't a part of it. Pod got worse when Tron got good and the Twin came out to stop it until it was stopped by Pod. BGx just stayed on top constantly at a tier 0.5 status. If Delver or Burn get to that point, with decks shifting in popularity but them still remaining on top no matter what, then I will start considering a ban.
If you to go to see all the data from the last 2 weeks Burn has become 20% of the online meta. That is not alright. Ever. 5% to 20% over the course of a few months? Its worse to play against than Jeskai Ascendancy.
This is called not giving the format time to adapt, it results in panic where none necessarily needs to exist.
Maybe I should add that in the 2 days since I checked to see its percentage in the format, it has gone up to 23% of the meta game. Still, I don't like it. Im going to have to buy some Dragon's Claws or Leylines at this rate.
Are you trying to imply that it's a bad thing you have to adjust your deck?
Sure looks like you guys should start trying to meta harder rather than complaining about bannings. Look at legacy, major shakeups change the top tier of decks, you can't expect to play one deck for years and it to stay as a tier 1 deck the whole time.
That's not exactly true. While the best decks may change, it's slow and incremental. Take Miracles as an example, it has roots in Counter Top and has undergone some alterations, not a huge overhaul.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
Give BG decks time to adjust. Inquisition, abrupt decay, Goyf, Ooze, lingering souls, and Lily are all good against UR Delver. Those decks can add Bow of Nylea, Batterskull, sword of fire and ice, kitchen finks, Leyline of sanctity, dark blast, drown in sorrow, ect.
Souls sisters, Merila pod, affinity, American control, GW hatebears, ect. All match up well with UR delver.
As for me, I'm going to run my Mardu midrange deck that runs lightning helix, Ajani Vengeant, kitchen finks, and Butcher of the Horde MB, and then it has Rakdos Charm and Hide//Seek in the sideboard. Plus it has Inquisiton, bolt, lily, and souls to slow them down.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
People are forgetting that UR Delver's post-Khans metagame percentage, even with Worcester, is only 8%. That's less than Burn, Twin, and Melira Pod, which collectively make up 45% of the post-Khans meta. If Delver rises, that's a problem, but it's a deck that's interactive and relatively fun to play against. Burn (which is at 20% right now) is neither of those things.
What a mess this thread has turned into. Has everyone forgotten everything that happened pre-KTK already?
Burn numbers were skyrocketing long before Treasure Cruise entered the picture
ktkenshin's metagame data indicates that burn representation has been rising dramatically for a while now, and it's only recently that Treasure Cruise began making an appearance in the deck. Given this information we can reasonably speculate a number of reasons for the spike in burn decks:
- It is the cheapest deck in the format; why shell out more money than you have to for a tier 1 deck?
- Eidolon is killer in the current meta, and even more so now that UR delver decks are gaining popularity.
- It's a natural reaction to the previous dominance of BGx decks, and continues to be a strong metagame choice.
- Rather than accepting burn as a valid part of the meta and adapting decks accordingly to beat it, people come here and call for bans while continuing to lose to it in the meantime
These are reasonable reasons for burn's growing popularity. Treasure Cruise, a card that currently only appears in a small number of burn decks and only entered the format very recently, is not. It is yet to be seen whether Treasure Cruise has really had a significant impact on the deck. It was showing up in huge numbers and putting up great results well before Cruise so that alone is not the reason it is top tier, nor is there any evidence that Cruise has put it over the top. If we look at the top 16 results of SCG Worcester this past weekend there is only one burn deck at 14th place. That doesn't really scream "burn with Treasure Cruise needs bans!" to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'92 240SX, '07 G35S
'78 CB750F, '09 CBR600RR
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't know how AV would affect twin, but I do think that having it back would make BGx decks a lot less attractive, since most decks would be able to undo their hard work on disrupting their hand by simply drawing 3 for U. The fact that you wouldn't get the cards immediately after you've suspended it is even better since that leaves them between a rock and a hard place. If they focus on disruption, they are trading 1 for 1 while your one is about to draw 3. On the other hand, if they try to establish board presence you can trade 1 for 1 with their threats knowing that backup is on it's way. It's nasty however you slice it.
On AV in old Faeries: I'm pretty sure that it was at least as important to that deck's success in that era of Standard as Thoughtseize and/or Bitterblossom. The card itself went on to be played in Old Extended after Time Spiral rotated out of standard and has enabled various blue control strategies in that format, while Bitterblossom, for example, didn't have such an easy transition into older formats, and quite frankly still doesn't. AV helped that deck by allowing it to draw cards exactly when they needed to do so without requiring an expenditure of any other resource, most notably mana, which made it all to easy to just use said extra cards to counter spells and kill things, while BB ticked away.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
With the rise of burn and UR delver doesn't playing thalia's, SotL's, rule of law's and canonists look more attractive? Doesn't running more mainboard lifegain seem good (oh look at you kitchen finks), doesn't A decay seem nice. Wow shouldn't we be playing pod decks (leaning towards angel), some sort of new era GW hate bears deck and tarmogoyfs again?
And what's the problem with that? Those type of decks are weak in the format and need help.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
And what's the problem with that? Those type of decks are weak in the format and need help.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Yeah, Finks is pretty good, but the hate cards you listed are good against Storm, not Burn, Twin, or Delver (it should be noted that Twin makes up 13% of the post-Khans meta). The problem here, just like the problem with Jund, is that there isn't really an angle to attack the problematic decks from from.
I accept that they are weak against twin BUT, the draw hate cards are exceptional against this new era delver list which run anywhere from 10-14 draw spells (from the latest SCG IQ, not including Electrolyzes and Remands) while also being disruptive, relying on these spells to fill the grave and pump up YP and Swiftspear. Thalia provides damage and slows down both decks ability to overrun you with multiple spells a turn, or best case scenario eats a burn spell for too much mana from them.
Rule of Law shuts down Swiftspear and hampers burn significantly (admittedly later than you want), and as an avid UR player I will tell you right now that Finks and Tarmogoyf are the hardest card for those decks to remove. You just stick one and watch them flounder.
This was all I came up with literally 30 seconds thought, so I'm sure I've missed some great cards, if there is a new meta the players that adapt the best will be rewarded first. So chop chop get brewing.
Edit: Any deck playing Swiftspear, Young Pyromancer and/or lava spike is not a good stuff pile ala Jund. Claiming there is no angle to attack them from is simply laziness and I won't stand for it.
But the angles of attack you came up with don't work. Thalia and SotL are pretty good against Delver and Burn, but it's easy for the meta to adjust to them. Ethersworn Canonist and Rule of Law don't actually end up doing much, if anything at all, against Burn, Delver, or Twin. As for Finks and Goyf, Twin and Burn can race or kill Goyf (and TC and DTT make it even easier than it was before), and Finks just provides a window for Twin to go off. While Twin is easy to hate out, and the meta can adjust to Delver, I don't see an existing solution to the rise of Burn besides every deck other than Burn playing Kitchen Finks, Leyline of Sanctity, and Lightning Helix in large quantities.
I challenge you to find an angle of attack that will work. You called me lazy, now let's see you back that statement up.
ive been playing a ton of the matchup and I can tell you a young pyro alone or a 1 drop before chalice isnt enough. the deck has serious issues killing control decks.
But it isn't because of Chalice, it's because control is a bad matchup. Also, the big problem is Burn, not Delver. Even Twin has a much higher post-Khans meta percentage than Delver.
Actually they were already playing black so it wasn't really a splash for DRS.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
In addition, pizzap makes some good points about burn's prevalence. While a ban to cruise would hurt the deck some, I still think burn is going to be too powerful. However, I disagree with banning eidolon of great revels as a cut to burn, seems too preemptive and I think it's cool that burn gets a new toy albeit a powerful one. I'm not sure what can be done to weaken burn but I don't think banning eidolon of great revels is the answer.
GB Midrange HomebrewBG
Modern
Affinity X
EDH
Jarad, Golgari Lich LordBG
It doesn't mean they will always win turn 4. Turn 4 in a Burn deck, if you have 4 lands you are already behind. You want 1/2 lands max. That means even at 1/2 lands you will have 9 spells. Assuming most do 3 points of damage, you should have already killed them. All TC does is mean that in the long games against decks that gain life they can come back and still win which is NOT something they should be able to do. When a REAL Burn deck is the best deck in a format then there is a problem.
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Sure, it will be BGuw.
Look I haven't played the modern burn deck much but listen to Pat Sullivan talk aand commentate the legacy version. There is a lot more to the deck than meets the eye.
The quote from my sig is from way before KTK.
When the ban hits cruise and therefore Ascendancy gets neutered, it will be pod again the best deck or one of the best, and it will just be a matter of time till the next voice gets printed. The tutor is boosted and the power level of the format will always be more or less contained by the turn 4 rule, so pod will never get "outpowerleveled".
This is called not giving the format time to adapt, it results in panic where none necessarily needs to exist.
Are you trying to imply that it's a bad thing you have to adjust your deck?
That's not exactly true. While the best decks may change, it's slow and incremental. Take Miracles as an example, it has roots in Counter Top and has undergone some alterations, not a huge overhaul.
Souls sisters, Merila pod, affinity, American control, GW hatebears, ect. All match up well with UR delver.
As for me, I'm going to run my Mardu midrange deck that runs lightning helix, Ajani Vengeant, kitchen finks, and Butcher of the Horde MB, and then it has Rakdos Charm and Hide//Seek in the sideboard. Plus it has Inquisiton, bolt, lily, and souls to slow them down.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
Burn numbers were skyrocketing long before Treasure Cruise entered the picture
ktkenshin's metagame data indicates that burn representation has been rising dramatically for a while now, and it's only recently that Treasure Cruise began making an appearance in the deck. Given this information we can reasonably speculate a number of reasons for the spike in burn decks:
- It is the cheapest deck in the format; why shell out more money than you have to for a tier 1 deck?
- Eidolon is killer in the current meta, and even more so now that UR delver decks are gaining popularity.
- It's a natural reaction to the previous dominance of BGx decks, and continues to be a strong metagame choice.
- Rather than accepting burn as a valid part of the meta and adapting decks accordingly to beat it, people come here and call for bans while continuing to lose to it in the meantime
These are reasonable reasons for burn's growing popularity. Treasure Cruise, a card that currently only appears in a small number of burn decks and only entered the format very recently, is not. It is yet to be seen whether Treasure Cruise has really had a significant impact on the deck. It was showing up in huge numbers and putting up great results well before Cruise so that alone is not the reason it is top tier, nor is there any evidence that Cruise has put it over the top. If we look at the top 16 results of SCG Worcester this past weekend there is only one burn deck at 14th place. That doesn't really scream "burn with Treasure Cruise needs bans!" to me.
'78 CB750F, '09 CBR600RR