I really hate playing anything in burn that doesn't deal damage one way or the other. I find cards like path, stony silence, wear/tear, etc. to be horrible choices for burn, I can't begin to tell you the amount of games I've watched people lose because they kill their clock/tempo just to slow a deck down by a turn or two. But then again, that's me, I get that most people run them, I just dont think it's the correct line. There are plenty of options that do enough similar things that still work towards the goal of killing your opponent.
I agree mostly, aside Affinity and Storm, I wouldn't have dedicated sideboard cards in specifics. I'm just having sometimes a hard time against Affinity and Storm is 50/50 to me (I think I should be better against Storm, but I can't help it, I have a hard time racing them even though I take down their goblin and baral). That's why I want some more backup in these matchups. But I understand you, diluting the deck normally doesn't increase the chances of winning in most matchups. What we would want would be 7x3 = 21 damage (or 6x3=18 depending on the opponent). But that's kind of hard to get
why I lose matches, the main reasons (in order) are: life gain
Tainted remedy can do miracles in a burn sideboard. I've been playing it for three weeks only and it has already saved my ass from losing a couple games to sideboard. I have a couple fun stories:
-- That time when my opponent had a Batterskull that couldn't attack or block unless he wanted to take 4.
-- That player that cascaded with Bloodbraid elf into Kitchen finks and said "NOPE" and sent that fink right back to the bottom of the deck.
-- Current favorite is when I played against bogle and he puts a spirit link on my Eidolon of the great revel. Dropping a Tainted remedy not only rekt that play, but also jammed his Buff Bogle with lifelink.
I know it's a 3-CMC card, but I'm having way too much fun with it right now.
First one is actually pretty small, it's one-sided. Meaning I can still gain life from my Gonti's machinations instead of losing it
Second on is the big one, Here's a snipet of ruling from Rain of gore:
This does not apply to life gain caused by combat damage from a creature with lifelink.
Meaning anything with lifelink will still gain life. It's small, but it's still something that would have costed me a game if I ran rain of gore over Tainted remedy.
So, no thoughts on Searing effects against Jund I take it?
Since there’s been a lot of discussion regarding various mixes of green and black in Burn (a lot of it local meta driven it seems as well), I’m curious if it may make sense for us to determine some general high level heuristics for the types of metas that each archetype of burn is strongest. If we can come to a general consensus on that, it could be really useful for the top post to help give players a sense of what type of build to run in their own local meta.
I'm not big on Searing effects against Jund. It can kill a small Scooze and would kill BBE and Bob (though I personally just let Bob live), but that's it. Against Goyf, your usual outcome will be just casting it to deal 3 damage but you might kill it with Blaze+blocker.
I do think that graveyard hate is less relevant there now, though. It just makes Goyf small and shuts down the first KCommand mode. They aren't playing Grim Flayer Delirium builds anymore. In that sense, it's likely better to play Blaze than Relic/RiP.
I actually like searing effects here, not because they are silver bullets for their creatures, but more because they can be blowouts early, and are almost never dead late.
First-time poster in this thread, as I am coming around to the Burn-side, and I'm probably bringing Burn to the SCG in Dallas (really Fort Worth) this weekend.
I saw an article today by Todd Stevens on SCG where he noted a couple of burn decks adding Bedlam Reveler (and Manamorphose). One was Josh Utter-Leyton's deck from the MODO World Championship, which has already been addressed here. The other was a more interesting take from a 5-0 list on MODO which had the Revelers in the SB:
I guess you would only bring in the Revelers where they would be more appropriate, such as the many matchups where Searing Blaze would be dead. Giving up Skullcrack in the deck may or may not be worth it. Thoughts?
Yeah, I'm no fan of reveler. Manamorphose seems like a mistake as well considering you don't need it for anything and we aren't trying to shrink our deck to find a specific combo piece. If you're wanting something for card advantage I have liked Bob in the past, but you need to run mardu imo. I also think something like sin prodder Is overlooked as well.
My main concerns are that Bogles are starting to become more of a thing in the overall meta (especially online) and this really doesn't have much play against them at all. But in a slower control meta, adding in the Revelers in the side for grindy games could be interesting.
Although this would require playing Mardu Burn (and most players don't), one card that I really like in my SB for the Bogles matchup, or against other decks with big creatures like Death's Shadow or Tarmogoyf is the card Crackling Doom. This seems like a spicy SB addition in a meta where Bogles is prominent.
I also don't think that Bedlam Reveler is where Burn wants to be. It's a great card in a deck that actively wants the game to go long, but that's not what we want.
The Manamorphose that you're seeing pop up in Burn decks is generally there in order to make Reveler better by dumping an extra card into the grave for free. There are some playing it alone (and I think that's a huge mistake), it definitely shouldn't be played alone in the maindeck. It's a 2CMC spell that draws a burn spell approximately 1/2 of the time, a creature 1/6 of the time, and a land 1/3 of the time. Why play it over a 2CMC spell that is a burn spell 100% of the time? Skullcrack should be in that slot. The Manamorphose-Boros Charm play with a Swiftspear on T2 sounds nice, but I'd rather just have an actual Burn spell there and swing with 1 less Prowess trigger.
From listening to some podcasts, there's some speculation by various pros that Manamorphose is "criminally underplayed" because it's a pseudo-free spell that basically makes your deck 56 cards. As a result, a lot of people are splashing it in places where it shouldn't be played, and Burn is one of those spots. I think Bedlam Reveler is just getting renewed attention in Burn because of Mardu Pyromancer, but Burn players recognized in 2016 that it's not what Burn wants.
I don't think it will be good enough due to the conditions to unlock it, but the only other card to catch my eye momentarily for Burn was the Ghitu Lavarunner.
None that I saw yet, mind you so was just glancing.
As to the post above yours from Raghouz; I don't see how Lavamancer is ever a bad card. Poor in certain situations yes, but never bad.
You also bring up an interesting concept regarding sideboarding in that first paragraph.
What is important when deciding your board?
Should you focus on poor matchup?
Perhaps you should ignore them and focus on slightly unfavored ones.
Or there's always the generic concept to put in the most widely useable cards that might help a swath of MUs just a little bit.
I don't think any of these concepts are bad decisions, but you should be aware of the reasoning behind what you are doing with your board not just in the concept of why cards are good for certain MUs, but also what is your plan of attack regarding it all.
For me, I tend to be a little bit of a hybrid between all three, but this comes with some very specific reasoning behind it.
So for example if I am looking at a very lopsided MU I evaluate one thing first: Do targeted hate (read SB) cards make said MU close to even or better, or do they just make the games I can win easier without improving my winning % very much? Aura Barbs is a perfect example of this; provided I have some other general things going on (skullcrack, D. Rev, etc.) Barbs definitely takes this MU from pretty unfavorable to slightly favored for me. So to me this is worth a slot for sure.
But on the other hand say we are evaluating something like ANT and evaluating wether or not Dash Hopes is the perfect foil for the combo (just assume that it is, I completely understand that it doesn't stop them at all, but for arguments sake) In the games that you play vs ANT when you can win with Dash Hopes the games always seem great for us, but when you look at your winning % they don't seem to change very much.
This to me is when running a very narrow card would be worth it (aura barbs), provided that the deck in question is somewhat expected, compared to one (dash hopes) that is not.
Then after I've done that evaluation I try and look at my slightly unfavorable MUs and see if there's anything that can make them at least even, but usually favored, if not then I move on to the last area: generalized cards.
These are the volcanic Fallout/destructive Revelery/molten rain categories. D. Rev will literally always have a 4 slot in my SB just because it does so much without diluting your deck any, and will always be a rather necessary thing. Other cards in this category tend to fluctuate depending on the meta, for example Molten Rain seems very strong right now with midrange and control getting a huge boost in representation lately, whereas fallout doesn't seem great.
So basically in the end I think I can best boil it down to the concept of: does this card swing the MU to even or favorable? With a focus on the bad MUs first.
I'm assuming the new bolt isn't good for us because we don't run enough wizards
Any other card from dominaria we should be looking at?
that 1 drop wizard that becomes pseudo Goblin Guide when you have at least 2 instants/sorceries in grave maybe?
Ghitu Lavarunner
R
Creature — Human Wizard
1/2
As long as there are two or more instant and/or sorcery cards in your graveyard, Ghitu Lavarunner gets +1/+0 and has haste.
If at least 2 of guide+swift+Eidolon were Wizards, I'd play at least 1-2 of the wizard bolts. Since Grim Lavamancer is the only one who turns it on, it's worse than lightning strike. It's far easier to turn on a singleton shard volley, and that's the role this card would fill.
The 1/2 for R is not what we want. The whole reason guide is so good is that it's a haste 2/2 on turn 1. That new card doesn't have haste until turn 2 at the earliest.
Aggro: Naya Burn RWG
Combo: Scapeshift RG
Control: Jeskai Control UWR
Legacy
Control: Miracles UW
Aggro: Burn R
-- That time when my opponent had a Batterskull that couldn't attack or block unless he wanted to take 4.
-- That player that cascaded with Bloodbraid elf into Kitchen finks and said "NOPE" and sent that fink right back to the bottom of the deck.
-- Current favorite is when I played against bogle and he puts a spirit link on my Eidolon of the great revel. Dropping a Tainted remedy not only rekt that play, but also jammed his Buff Bogle with lifelink.
I know it's a 3-CMC card, but I'm having way too much fun with it right now.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
First one is actually pretty small, it's one-sided. Meaning I can still gain life from my Gonti's machinations instead of losing it
Second on is the big one, Here's a snipet of ruling from Rain of gore:
Meaning anything with lifelink will still gain life. It's small, but it's still something that would have costed me a game if I ran rain of gore over Tainted remedy.
Still, if cards like Batterskull, Wurmcoil engine or Sorin, solemn visitor or Bogle aren't a worry in your meta and you don't run Lightning helix and/or Gonti's machinations (Or you can side them out), then it could be worth it to run Rain of gore over Tainted remedy for the 2CMC alone. Just know that if you're against lifelink it's dead.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
I'm not big on Searing effects against Jund. It can kill a small Scooze and would kill BBE and Bob (though I personally just let Bob live), but that's it. Against Goyf, your usual outcome will be just casting it to deal 3 damage but you might kill it with Blaze+blocker.
I do think that graveyard hate is less relevant there now, though. It just makes Goyf small and shuts down the first KCommand mode. They aren't playing Grim Flayer Delirium builds anymore. In that sense, it's likely better to play Blaze than Relic/RiP.
I saw an article today by Todd Stevens on SCG where he noted a couple of burn decks adding Bedlam Reveler (and Manamorphose). One was Josh Utter-Leyton's deck from the MODO World Championship, which has already been addressed here. The other was a more interesting take from a 5-0 list on MODO which had the Revelers in the SB:
3 Mountain
2 Sacred Foundry
2 Wooded Foothills
1 Stomping Ground
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Inspiring Vantage
4 Arid Mesa
Creatures
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
1 Grim Lavamancer
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Boros Charm
4 Searing Blaze
4 Lightning Helix
3 Manamorphose
1 Grim Lavamancer
4 Destructive Revelry
1 Searing Blood
2 Path to Exile
1 Kor Firewalker
3 Bedlam Reveler
3 Relic of Progenitus
I guess you would only bring in the Revelers where they would be more appropriate, such as the many matchups where Searing Blaze would be dead. Giving up Skullcrack in the deck may or may not be worth it. Thoughts?
I could see Reveler in games that are likely going to go long - you'll end up in top deck mode so he's a RR draw 3.
Something like this seems like it could possibly work:
MB
-1 Mountain
-1 Manamorphose
+2 Skullcrack
SB
-1 Relic
-1 Kor Firewalker
+1 Searing Blood
+1 Skullcrack
My main concerns are that Bogles are starting to become more of a thing in the overall meta (especially online) and this really doesn't have much play against them at all. But in a slower control meta, adding in the Revelers in the side for grindy games could be interesting.
The Manamorphose that you're seeing pop up in Burn decks is generally there in order to make Reveler better by dumping an extra card into the grave for free. There are some playing it alone (and I think that's a huge mistake), it definitely shouldn't be played alone in the maindeck. It's a 2CMC spell that draws a burn spell approximately 1/2 of the time, a creature 1/6 of the time, and a land 1/3 of the time. Why play it over a 2CMC spell that is a burn spell 100% of the time? Skullcrack should be in that slot. The Manamorphose-Boros Charm play with a Swiftspear on T2 sounds nice, but I'd rather just have an actual Burn spell there and swing with 1 less Prowess trigger.
From listening to some podcasts, there's some speculation by various pros that Manamorphose is "criminally underplayed" because it's a pseudo-free spell that basically makes your deck 56 cards. As a result, a lot of people are splashing it in places where it shouldn't be played, and Burn is one of those spots. I think Bedlam Reveler is just getting renewed attention in Burn because of Mardu Pyromancer, but Burn players recognized in 2016 that it's not what Burn wants.
Healing Grace
W
Instant
Prevent the next 3 damage that would be dealt to any target this turn by a source of your choice. You gain 3 life
Any other card from dominaria we should be looking at?
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Modern: Storm
Legacy: ANT
As to the post above yours from Raghouz; I don't see how Lavamancer is ever a bad card. Poor in certain situations yes, but never bad.
You also bring up an interesting concept regarding sideboarding in that first paragraph.
What is important when deciding your board?
Should you focus on poor matchup?
Perhaps you should ignore them and focus on slightly unfavored ones.
Or there's always the generic concept to put in the most widely useable cards that might help a swath of MUs just a little bit.
I don't think any of these concepts are bad decisions, but you should be aware of the reasoning behind what you are doing with your board not just in the concept of why cards are good for certain MUs, but also what is your plan of attack regarding it all.
For me, I tend to be a little bit of a hybrid between all three, but this comes with some very specific reasoning behind it.
So for example if I am looking at a very lopsided MU I evaluate one thing first: Do targeted hate (read SB) cards make said MU close to even or better, or do they just make the games I can win easier without improving my winning % very much? Aura Barbs is a perfect example of this; provided I have some other general things going on (skullcrack, D. Rev, etc.) Barbs definitely takes this MU from pretty unfavorable to slightly favored for me. So to me this is worth a slot for sure.
But on the other hand say we are evaluating something like ANT and evaluating wether or not Dash Hopes is the perfect foil for the combo (just assume that it is, I completely understand that it doesn't stop them at all, but for arguments sake) In the games that you play vs ANT when you can win with Dash Hopes the games always seem great for us, but when you look at your winning % they don't seem to change very much.
This to me is when running a very narrow card would be worth it (aura barbs), provided that the deck in question is somewhat expected, compared to one (dash hopes) that is not.
Then after I've done that evaluation I try and look at my slightly unfavorable MUs and see if there's anything that can make them at least even, but usually favored, if not then I move on to the last area: generalized cards.
These are the volcanic Fallout/destructive Revelery/molten rain categories. D. Rev will literally always have a 4 slot in my SB just because it does so much without diluting your deck any, and will always be a rather necessary thing. Other cards in this category tend to fluctuate depending on the meta, for example Molten Rain seems very strong right now with midrange and control getting a huge boost in representation lately, whereas fallout doesn't seem great.
So basically in the end I think I can best boil it down to the concept of: does this card swing the MU to even or favorable? With a focus on the bad MUs first.
If at least 2 of guide+swift+Eidolon were Wizards, I'd play at least 1-2 of the wizard bolts. Since Grim Lavamancer is the only one who turns it on, it's worse than lightning strike. It's far easier to turn on a singleton shard volley, and that's the role this card would fill.
The 1/2 for R is not what we want. The whole reason guide is so good is that it's a haste 2/2 on turn 1. That new card doesn't have haste until turn 2 at the earliest.