Burn isn't the boogeyman right now, so no one in a large meta will be packing this solely to combat Burn. In general, though, you'll be able to know who plays it and then decide whether to pre-emptively board in artifact hate.
There haven't been a lot of high performing Burn lists lately and Burn isn't anywhere number 1 in meta share right now. We aren't the boogeyman. That's a good thing.
This week end we have our monthly local "grand prix"
Last time i had many difficulties dealing with KCI and lantern control
Any advices guys?
If you expect to see them, maybe consider splitting your artifact hate to include a couple of stony silence? I'm considering going 2 smash/2 silence, but my meta plays way more fair than other places (grinders try to keep their odds near 50% by running goodstuff midrange and control). I have limited lantern experience but basically beat them up badly. Goblin Guide directly interferes with the bridge plan, and unless you face a turn zero leyline and like multiple brutalities, I don't see the issue with just using smash or revelry.
I have 1 Arid Mesa and want a 20th land (I think). Should it be Mountain, Foundry or Windswept Heath (10th fetch)? I am planning on only running 4 Destructive Revelry in the board. I will probably eventually trade up or buy another Mesa. Also I see a some variation on 3-4 Vantages vs 1-2 Stomping Grounds. Probably this is stickied at the top of the board...
Just played three straight modern side events at GP Pittsburgh. Went 1-2, 2-1 and 3-0 in that order. Thoughts from the event:
Wins: Amulet Titan, Grishoalbrand, tron, UR wizards, GW company and a burn mirror
Losses: Esper Shadow, Humans, and Amulet Titan
In two of those three losses I kept one-land hands on the play in postboard games that had very desirable cards (double searing blaze against humans for instance), and in each of those games I was on one land for at least three turns and lost all hope. Unless the hand is a land and at least five one-mana plays I am now automulling.
I beat the Amulet Titan player through two obstinate baloths and a radiant fountain because he never found amulet. I beat Grishoalbrand through a nourishing shoal exiling worldspine wurm thanks to double eidolons doing work. Yet I somehow ******* lost to a deck that is based around dealing about ten damage to itself. No idea how that works.
This meta is going to be far more linear than what I am used to. There were control and midrange decks here and there, but aggro, combo and ramp were present in greater numbers. I'll probably adjust my sideboard a bit since I had been running 3x exquisite firecraft. Andrew Day 2 Dryden suggests two ratchet bomb as a catch-all answer to things like humans and bogles. I'm considering it.
As for the new card, seems like a strictly better Alms, and at least worth jamming. The problem is what to cut?
I’ve tried all the cute variants black has and I’d agree that Gonti’s Machinations isn’t great. It was a build-around-me card where I needed painlands to improve the reliability of triggering it, and was never really happy to topdeck one.
I’d concur that RW burn decks may be more resilient, and the better build of burn, but there’s a lot to be said about RB’s explosive raw power - It was how I was able to do as well as I did. The games vs Merfolk and Storm they each took 12-16 damage by turne 1-3 off repeated Vexing Devil/Claim.
I wouldn’t say a 2 mana Alms of the Vein is suddenly a reason to play black. That reason is Bob. He solves burn’s biggest shortcoming which is refueling you hand after inevitably gassing out. In most cases, it survives removal since it’s not the one beating down.
I think RW and RB are two different offshots that provide alternative paths. RB is faster and more explosive while RW is versatile. RB lists can be almost entirely 1 mana decks.
With Eidolon and Confidant have you considering replacing Vexing Devil with Death's Shadow? normally Death's Shadow goes into hyper aggro builds, but after seeing https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/modern-br-51061#paper I'm wondering if this is sort of the route RB wants to go.
Has anyone tried Bomat Courier ? I've been testing it for a couple weeks, and I REALLY like it. If I am hellbent and it gets me just 2 new cards, that's often enough to win. it hits for 1 unless they block or destroy it, and then it's them wasting that answer on the smallest hitter. I have won a number of matches that would have been very difficult without it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
So I posted awhile back and I have to agree with Elcon's opinion of Gonti's Machination. I am part of a team and over the past few weeks we've grinded out hundreds of games and have hit as many events as possible. I have a loose spreadsheet (which I'll probably provide later) of how many games I've won, what cards won me the game, what cards lost me the game, and what "any" other card in our deck would have done for me otherwise. In our playgroup I have tested Rakdos Burn RBg Burn and even RBw burn in order to develop data on that variant of Burn.
Gonti's machination isn't playable. Of all the games I've played using this card it just hasn't lived up to being worth it. I have had 11 games where Gonti had lost me the game and of those 11 games 6 of them would have been won by any three damage burn spell I could have used on that turn. Three of those games could have been one by a creature and/or spell instead. Two of those games were lost by it being a dead card that was struck by enchantment removal (namely abrupt decay.).
This out of the way I do want to point out a card that has been good in testing. Sovereign's Bite (yes I know it's not out. This was proxied extensively in my playgroup.) Sovereign's bite is weaker than Lightning Helix and it may not be an instant nor can it target living creatures but in the end it's still very good for what it does. It's a six point life swing which most certainly helps us in a race and has provided consistent time in order to close out the game. It also ups Gonti in that it isn't a bad matchup and is never a dead card. The life loss versus damage loss is barely relevant when discussing the card and has only come up a handful of times.
I want to bring up something that's been repeated ad nauseam on this forum and want to talk about cards like Shard Volley, claim to Fame, and others and why they're gimmicky at best. Burn is a deck that relies on consistency. We're considered one of if not the most consistent decks in all of Modern Magic. Our goal on the surface is a straight forward one (reduce the opponent's life points to zero.) but every card we have has to remain consistent. If it reduces consistency at all there is a problem. This is why I bring up cards like Claim to Fame and Shard Volley. These cards, especially in greater numbers, reduce consistency. You got claim to fame and no creatures? It's a dead card. If you play it and an opponent removes the creature you bring back then you have wasted your turn doing zero damage.
Shard Volley has a similar issue and why I don't recommend more than one. In fact in my playtesting I wouldn't use it at all. I know people like it's speed but it's a bad card when you have multiples in your hand and are stuck on one or two mana. It's bad if your opponent locks you out of a land or destroys a land. It's bad when the damage is somehow negated or prevented and you haven't just lost a card but a land as a result. Consistently we on average see 3 lands a game. We don't have the option to start pitching our lands. If you mulligan and end up with a few shard volleys you're in a bad place. Gonti's is the same way. You top deck it late game? You just lowered your consistency. Consistency is key and this is why Boros/RWg burn is king and why true Naya has mostly disappeared as people realized that if you're not consistent you don't win as Burn.
This has led me to building, from my testing, the most consistent variation of RBg Burn.
The first thing you'll notice the setup is very similar to RW Burn and for good reason. If it isn't broke don't fix it and if you're playing another variant of burn you want it to be as similar as possible. You have bump in the night in place of boros charm and you have Sovereign's Bite in place of lightning helix. It serves a similar role but I'll be honest with you. It isn't as good. On the other hand Bump In the Night as another lava spike is explosive. Another one drop for three isn't missed in a burn deck and from my testing it has performed consistently well. It more easily enables more than a single burn spell to be cast on the same turn but most importantly the list above is consistent.
As for the sideboard Elcon is right again. You need a side board that works and you don't play a bad version of an existing deck. If you're going to play Red Black you need to aim for cards that the other side doesn't have as good of access too. Right now RWg's biggest advantage is the fact that it has path to exile. There is no great alternative to this card in burn. I tried Terminate and guess what? In my testing go for the throat is a better option. Sure it can't hit artifacts but we have destructive revelry and Rakdos Charm for that. Rakdos Charm is a very multi purpose card. It hits go wide (but you don't see those decks as often but it's nice when you do) it's graveyard removal at instant speed, and in a pinch can be used to destroy artifacts. Go for the Throat hits everything else. What makes it better than Terminate? First off the "Can't be regenerated" clause is barely relevant and the advantage Go for the Throat has is that it isn't red.
Go for the Throat exists to deal with cards like master of waves. Remember, consistency is key. Any card with red protection means we don't have adequate removal in board if you're using terminate. I tried self inflicted wound. Once again, not consistent, the choice matters far often than it doesn't and there's so many cards in the format it won't even touch anyway. No, if you went black it's for the side board card Contaminated Ground. You know what makes Contaminated Ground? It furthers our game plan in doing damage while attacking the opponent's utility land. Best part is it doesn't require us to have three mana (which there's games we simply don't have that mana) and doesn't require us to completely tap out when we do. It plays nicely with bump in the night and the fact we run more one drops (even if it's only four more) as it gives us something extra to do with that one remaining mana. I have learned in the playtest I do not like three cast spells. Which brings me to..
Don't run ensnaring bridge. No, seriously I'm advocating against this card. If it's destroyed by the opponent or removed you've done nothing to further your gameplan and it costs three mana. You're tapping out to cast something that does nothing for our consistent game plan which is reducing the player to zero. That is the plan.
The only exception I have to this rule is Exquisite Firecraft. Sure it costs three but you're furthering the gameplan. Better part is that it's a card you'll be using against decks that can interrupt our gameplan. Remember what people have complained about burn in the past (some still do?) it's that we're hard to interact with. Exquisite Firecraft tells decks that it can't interact and has to accept four to the face.
This is pretty much my thoughts on Rakdos burn and I will say this in the addendum. RW and RWg are still better. Lightning Helix just simply trumps Sovereign's Bite and path to exile beats the fact that our best removal is go for the throat, but our consistency is getting pretty close. I do believe Sovereign's bite makes us competitive. Sovereign's Bite in my testing has been important for RB burn and if you're not running it you're making a mistake. That six point life swing (up three for you down three for your opponent) makes a difference over the course of quite a few games. It's why I would not advocate removing Lightning Helix either.
(I've said it repeatedly but Elcon. I'm a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. You were right about Gonti's and your views in this thread.)
Don't run ensnaring bridge. No, seriously I'm advocating against this card. If it's destroyed by the opponent or removed you've done nothing to further your gameplan and it costs three mana. You're tapping out to cast something that does nothing for our consistent game plan which is reducing the player to zero. That is the plan.
It seems like a meta call vs. stuff like elves, goblins, merfolk... humans?
Don't run ensnaring bridge. No, seriously I'm advocating against this card. If it's destroyed by the opponent or removed you've done nothing to further your gameplan and it costs three mana. You're tapping out to cast something that does nothing for our consistent game plan which is reducing the player to zero. That is the plan.
It seems like a meta call vs. stuff like elves, goblins, merfolk... humans?
Still not a fan of it. I'd rather run more searing bloods and removal. Remove their threats while dealing damage to them. I've tested ensnaring bridge against wide creature metas and even against large creatures. The problem is if they have a means to remove it you wasted three mana to do nothing. I've won games using it as a side board option and there was a point where I recommended it but when it doesn't help you really feel it. I've just, in my testing, and your testing might be different have become jaded over cards that cost three mana. The one exception is exquisite firecraft.
I played the bridge once and it was a disaster...Most of the decks have a lot of tools to remove it.
I was thinking... what about "ghostly prison"? it is 3 mana but it is not an artifact and 2 mana per creatuer is not very affordable in Modern.
I haven't looked at what kind of anti-Bridge sees play, but I suspect there's a lot of overlap between artifact and enchantment hate (like Reclamation Sage), so you're possibly in the same boat regardless. Also, a lot of decks will happily pay 2 mana to hit you with a 5 power creature. You might buy some time, but you did spend turn 3 doing nothing to further your game plan.
So I posted awhile back and I have to agree with Elcon's opinion of Gonti's Machination. I am part of a team and over the past few weeks we've grinded out hundreds of games and have hit as many events as possible. I have a loose spreadsheet (which I'll probably provide later) of how many games I've won, what cards won me the game, what cards lost me the game, and what "any" other card in our deck would have done for me otherwise. In our playgroup I have tested Rakdos Burn RBg Burn and even RBw burn in order to develop data on that variant of Burn.
Gonti's machination isn't playable. Of all the games I've played using this card it just hasn't lived up to being worth it. I have had 11 games where Gonti had lost me the game and of those 11 games 6 of them would have been won by any three damage burn spell I could have used on that turn. Three of those games could have been one by a creature and/or spell instead. Two of those games were lost by it being a dead card that was struck by enchantment removal (namely abrupt decay.).
This out of the way I do want to point out a card that has been good in testing. Sovereign's Bite (yes I know it's not out. This was proxied extensively in my playgroup.) Sovereign's bite is weaker than Lightning Helix and it may not be an instant nor can it target living creatures but in the end it's still very good for what it does. It's a six point life swing which most certainly helps us in a race and has provided consistent time in order to close out the game. It also ups Gonti in that it isn't a bad matchup and is never a dead card. The life loss versus damage loss is barely relevant when discussing the card and has only come up a handful of times.
I want to bring up something that's been repeated ad nauseam on this forum and want to talk about cards like Shard Volley, claim to Fame, and others and why they're gimmicky at best. Burn is a deck that relies on consistency. We're considered one of if not the most consistent decks in all of Modern Magic. Our goal on the surface is a straight forward one (reduce the opponent's life points to zero.) but every card we have has to remain consistent. If it reduces consistency at all there is a problem. This is why I bring up cards like Claim to Fame and Shard Volley. These cards, especially in greater numbers, reduce consistency. You got claim to fame and no creatures? It's a dead card. If you play it and an opponent removes the creature you bring back then you have wasted your turn doing zero damage.
Shard Volley has a similar issue and why I don't recommend more than one. In fact in my playtesting I wouldn't use it at all. I know people like it's speed but it's a bad card when you have multiples in your hand and are stuck on one or two mana. It's bad if your opponent locks you out of a land or destroys a land. It's bad when the damage is somehow negated or prevented and you haven't just lost a card but a land as a result. Consistently we on average see 3 lands a game. We don't have the option to start pitching our lands. If you mulligan and end up with a few shard volleys you're in a bad place. Gonti's is the same way. You top deck it late game? You just lowered your consistency. Consistency is key and this is why Boros/RWg burn is king and why true Naya has mostly disappeared as people realized that if you're not consistent you don't win as Burn.
This has led me to building, from my testing, the most consistent variation of RBg Burn.
The first thing you'll notice the setup is very similar to RW Burn and for good reason. If it isn't broke don't fix it and if you're playing another variant of burn you want it to be as similar as possible. You have bump in the night in place of boros charm and you have Sovereign's Bite in place of lightning helix. It serves a similar role but I'll be honest with you. It isn't as good. On the other hand Bump In the Night as another lava spike is explosive. Another one drop for three isn't missed in a burn deck and from my testing it has performed consistently well. It more easily enables more than a single burn spell to be cast on the same turn but most importantly the list above is consistent.
As for the sideboard Elcon is right again. You need a side board that works and you don't play a bad version of an existing deck. If you're going to play Red Black you need to aim for cards that the other side doesn't have as good of access too. Right now RWg's biggest advantage is the fact that it has path to exile. There is no great alternative to this card in burn. I tried Terminate and guess what? In my testing go for the throat is a better option. Sure it can't hit artifacts but we have destructive revelry and Rakdos Charm for that. Rakdos Charm is a very multi purpose card. It hits go wide (but you don't see those decks as often but it's nice when you do) it's graveyard removal at instant speed, and in a pinch can be used to destroy artifacts. Go for the Throat hits everything else. What makes it better than Terminate? First off the "Can't be regenerated" clause is barely relevant and the advantage Go for the Throat has is that it isn't red.
Go for the Throat exists to deal with cards like master of waves. Remember, consistency is key. Any card with red protection means we don't have adequate removal in board if you're using terminate. I tried self inflicted wound. Once again, not consistent, the choice matters far often than it doesn't and there's so many cards in the format it won't even touch anyway. No, if you went black it's for the side board card Contaminated Ground. You know what makes Contaminated Ground? It furthers our game plan in doing damage while attacking the opponent's utility land. Best part is it doesn't require us to have three mana (which there's games we simply don't have that mana) and doesn't require us to completely tap out when we do. It plays nicely with bump in the night and the fact we run more one drops (even if it's only four more) as it gives us something extra to do with that one remaining mana. I have learned in the playtest I do not like three cast spells. Which brings me to..
Don't run ensnaring bridge. No, seriously I'm advocating against this card. If it's destroyed by the opponent or removed you've done nothing to further your gameplan and it costs three mana. You're tapping out to cast something that does nothing for our consistent game plan which is reducing the player to zero. That is the plan.
The only exception I have to this rule is Exquisite Firecraft. Sure it costs three but you're furthering the gameplan. Better part is that it's a card you'll be using against decks that can interrupt our gameplan. Remember what people have complained about burn in the past (some still do?) it's that we're hard to interact with. Exquisite Firecraft tells decks that it can't interact and has to accept four to the face.
This is pretty much my thoughts on Rakdos burn and I will say this in the addendum. RW and RWg are still better. Lightning Helix just simply trumps Sovereign's Bite and path to exile beats the fact that our best removal is go for the throat, but our consistency is getting pretty close. I do believe Sovereign's bite makes us competitive. Sovereign's Bite in my testing has been important for RB burn and if you're not running it you're making a mistake. That six point life swing (up three for you down three for your opponent) makes a difference over the course of quite a few games. It's why I would not advocate removing Lightning Helix either.
(I've said it repeatedly but Elcon. I'm a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. You were right about Gonti's and your views in this thread.)
I do definitely feel any consistent change to RB burn tends itself more toward a Rakdos hyper aggro deck than specifically burn. That kind of deck is where cards like Claim/Fame belong. Having any focus beyond direct damage makes burn that much less consistent and attacks its advantage. When developing an archetype it's imperative to consider what weaknesses exist and continue looking for cards that assist with those weakness while maintaining the general theme. Including most Rakdos cards does not help with this. The only way I'd see a black splash working is in a mardu build. As personal preferece, though, I never build burn lists that run 3 colors in the main deck. Splashing for a 3rd color in a blood moon meta with 19 lands only spells disaster.
If a splash or card doesn't improve the deck in some verifiable way, then don't play it. Burn has very specific weaknesses and the only reason changes should be made is to address those weaknesses more efficiently.
So I posted awhile back and I have to agree with Elcon's opinion of Gonti's Machination. I am part of a team and over the past few weeks we've grinded out hundreds of games and have hit as many events as possible. I have a loose spreadsheet (which I'll probably provide later) of how many games I've won, what cards won me the game, what cards lost me the game, and what "any" other card in our deck would have done for me otherwise. In our playgroup I have tested Rakdos Burn RBg Burn and even RBw burn in order to develop data on that variant of Burn.
Gonti's machination isn't playable. Of all the games I've played using this card it just hasn't lived up to being worth it. I have had 11 games where Gonti had lost me the game and of those 11 games 6 of them would have been won by any three damage burn spell I could have used on that turn. Three of those games could have been one by a creature and/or spell instead. Two of those games were lost by it being a dead card that was struck by enchantment removal (namely abrupt decay.).
...
Thank you for the in depth analysis of your experience with Gonti's and Sovereign's Bite. I'm not too surprised that Bite is a good fit in RB Burn because it looks like a pretty good Helix impression, even though it's not quite Helix.
I agree on Ensnaring Bridge. I just don't like spending 3 on anything but Firecraft and topdecked Rift Bolts for the win. Bridge isn't that hard to remove, and you've basically taken a turn off for nothing when you play it and lose it. I've certainly won games with Bridge, but I was never that impressed.
I don't think I've heard many people talk about Go for the Throat in RB Burn, but you make some insightful points in favor of it. It and Terminate are the closest Path analogues, and I'd probably give GFFT a shot if I was playing RB.
I've always liked the idea of RB Burn. RB was the hot build when I started looking at Modern and decided Burn was the deck for me though I didn't end up building Burn for a while and RB had faded by then. I do like that it's getting a new toy via Bite. I've started to realize that Burn isn't likely to get many new mono-R toys to play with and that they'll often be 2CMC or in splash colors. Unfortunately, I suspect that Fatal Push is going to be the premium black removal in Modern and that they won't be printing anything stronger that would be a true Path replacement in the same way that we use/need Path in Burn.
I'm new to Modern and thought I'd break into it by putting together a burn deck (It was "cheap", and I love burn!). I went with a very typical Boros build - Guides, Eidolons, and Swiftspears in the mainboard, one stompy ground for Revelries in the sb, etc.. My probalem is I'm not good with building sideboards, and I never know what to board in and out in different games.
I've been to one Modern night so far. I went 2-1, losing my first match to, what I believe we call, Bant Company. My wins were against Jund and Mono-Green Tron. In addition to these decks, I'm told there are a few Elves decks in the meta, and I observed Fish, Hollow One, and I think Mono-Green Devotion (Lots of Green plus Hornet Queen?) being played. I also heard rumor that there was a Lantern Control deck somewhere in the meta.
Jund and Tron were fairly easy wins. The Company deck was troublesome, I made the mistake of not taking out their Birds and Hierarchs early, then they dropped Tireless Trackers and Courser of Kruphix. The trackers did me in, and I couldn't take out the Coursers with their big butts and all. I also saw a Worship in their deck that never hit the board, and then in game 3 two Aven Mindcensors came down preventing me from finding the lands I needed.
My sideboard that night was made out of cards I had and was as follows:
I boarded in Revelries against Bant to take out their Coursers and the Worship, but it never panned out - it felt like they were too specific and I ended up having Revelries in my hand with nothing to target.
My Questions:
1. Does this SB sound okay for the above meta mentioned? Would it be worth it to include 2 Relic of Progenitus for Jund and Hollow One?
2. What would you SB in and out against the above mentioned decks? My deck, again, is a very normal boros build with 4-ofs of all the typical burn cards.
Burn isn't the boogeyman right now, so no one in a large meta will be packing this solely to combat Burn. In general, though, you'll be able to know who plays it and then decide whether to pre-emptively board in artifact hate.
If you expect to see them, maybe consider splitting your artifact hate to include a couple of stony silence? I'm considering going 2 smash/2 silence, but my meta plays way more fair than other places (grinders try to keep their odds near 50% by running goodstuff midrange and control). I have limited lantern experience but basically beat them up badly. Goblin Guide directly interferes with the bridge plan, and unless you face a turn zero leyline and like multiple brutalities, I don't see the issue with just using smash or revelry.
1) I am working on a basic RW list with something like:
I have 1 Arid Mesa and want a 20th land (I think). Should it be Mountain, Foundry or Windswept Heath (10th fetch)? I am planning on only running 4 Destructive Revelry in the board. I will probably eventually trade up or buy another Mesa. Also I see a some variation on 3-4 Vantages vs 1-2 Stomping Grounds. Probably this is stickied at the top of the board...
#2 Is there a good modern burn discord channel?
Wins: Amulet Titan, Grishoalbrand, tron, UR wizards, GW company and a burn mirror
Losses: Esper Shadow, Humans, and Amulet Titan
In two of those three losses I kept one-land hands on the play in postboard games that had very desirable cards (double searing blaze against humans for instance), and in each of those games I was on one land for at least three turns and lost all hope. Unless the hand is a land and at least five one-mana plays I am now automulling.
I beat the Amulet Titan player through two obstinate baloths and a radiant fountain because he never found amulet. I beat Grishoalbrand through a nourishing shoal exiling worldspine wurm thanks to double eidolons doing work. Yet I somehow ******* lost to a deck that is based around dealing about ten damage to itself. No idea how that works.
This meta is going to be far more linear than what I am used to. There were control and midrange decks here and there, but aggro, combo and ramp were present in greater numbers. I'll probably adjust my sideboard a bit since I had been running 3x exquisite firecraft. Andrew Day 2 Dryden suggests two ratchet bomb as a catch-all answer to things like humans and bogles. I'm considering it.
I think RW and RB are two different offshots that provide alternative paths. RB is faster and more explosive while RW is versatile. RB lists can be almost entirely 1 mana decks.
With Eidolon and Confidant have you considering replacing Vexing Devil with Death's Shadow? normally Death's Shadow goes into hyper aggro builds, but after seeing https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/modern-br-51061#paper I'm wondering if this is sort of the route RB wants to go.
I am not playing bridge. I'm playing another 2-3 side events today, so once I have the full weekend's results I'll post the list.
Gonti's machination isn't playable. Of all the games I've played using this card it just hasn't lived up to being worth it. I have had 11 games where Gonti had lost me the game and of those 11 games 6 of them would have been won by any three damage burn spell I could have used on that turn. Three of those games could have been one by a creature and/or spell instead. Two of those games were lost by it being a dead card that was struck by enchantment removal (namely abrupt decay.).
This out of the way I do want to point out a card that has been good in testing. Sovereign's Bite (yes I know it's not out. This was proxied extensively in my playgroup.) Sovereign's bite is weaker than Lightning Helix and it may not be an instant nor can it target living creatures but in the end it's still very good for what it does. It's a six point life swing which most certainly helps us in a race and has provided consistent time in order to close out the game. It also ups Gonti in that it isn't a bad matchup and is never a dead card. The life loss versus damage loss is barely relevant when discussing the card and has only come up a handful of times.
I want to bring up something that's been repeated ad nauseam on this forum and want to talk about cards like Shard Volley, claim to Fame, and others and why they're gimmicky at best. Burn is a deck that relies on consistency. We're considered one of if not the most consistent decks in all of Modern Magic. Our goal on the surface is a straight forward one (reduce the opponent's life points to zero.) but every card we have has to remain consistent. If it reduces consistency at all there is a problem. This is why I bring up cards like Claim to Fame and Shard Volley. These cards, especially in greater numbers, reduce consistency. You got claim to fame and no creatures? It's a dead card. If you play it and an opponent removes the creature you bring back then you have wasted your turn doing zero damage.
Shard Volley has a similar issue and why I don't recommend more than one. In fact in my playtesting I wouldn't use it at all. I know people like it's speed but it's a bad card when you have multiples in your hand and are stuck on one or two mana. It's bad if your opponent locks you out of a land or destroys a land. It's bad when the damage is somehow negated or prevented and you haven't just lost a card but a land as a result. Consistently we on average see 3 lands a game. We don't have the option to start pitching our lands. If you mulligan and end up with a few shard volleys you're in a bad place. Gonti's is the same way. You top deck it late game? You just lowered your consistency. Consistency is key and this is why Boros/RWg burn is king and why true Naya has mostly disappeared as people realized that if you're not consistent you don't win as Burn.
This has led me to building, from my testing, the most consistent variation of RBg Burn.
4x Monastery Swiftspear
4x Eidolon of the Great Revel
2x Grim Lavamancer
4x Bump in the Night
4x Lava Spike
4x Riftbolt
3x Skullcrack
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Searing Blaze
4x Sovereign's Bite
3x Mountains
2x Blood Crypt
3x Blackcleave Cliffs
1x Stomping Ground
2x Searing Blood
2x Go for the Throat
2x Rakdos Charm
4x Destructive Revelry
2x Exquisite Firecraft
1x Skullcrack
The first thing you'll notice the setup is very similar to RW Burn and for good reason. If it isn't broke don't fix it and if you're playing another variant of burn you want it to be as similar as possible. You have bump in the night in place of boros charm and you have Sovereign's Bite in place of lightning helix. It serves a similar role but I'll be honest with you. It isn't as good. On the other hand Bump In the Night as another lava spike is explosive. Another one drop for three isn't missed in a burn deck and from my testing it has performed consistently well. It more easily enables more than a single burn spell to be cast on the same turn but most importantly the list above is consistent.
As for the sideboard Elcon is right again. You need a side board that works and you don't play a bad version of an existing deck. If you're going to play Red Black you need to aim for cards that the other side doesn't have as good of access too. Right now RWg's biggest advantage is the fact that it has path to exile. There is no great alternative to this card in burn. I tried Terminate and guess what? In my testing go for the throat is a better option. Sure it can't hit artifacts but we have destructive revelry and Rakdos Charm for that. Rakdos Charm is a very multi purpose card. It hits go wide (but you don't see those decks as often but it's nice when you do) it's graveyard removal at instant speed, and in a pinch can be used to destroy artifacts. Go for the Throat hits everything else. What makes it better than Terminate? First off the "Can't be regenerated" clause is barely relevant and the advantage Go for the Throat has is that it isn't red.
Go for the Throat exists to deal with cards like master of waves. Remember, consistency is key. Any card with red protection means we don't have adequate removal in board if you're using terminate. I tried self inflicted wound. Once again, not consistent, the choice matters far often than it doesn't and there's so many cards in the format it won't even touch anyway. No, if you went black it's for the side board card Contaminated Ground. You know what makes Contaminated Ground? It furthers our game plan in doing damage while attacking the opponent's utility land. Best part is it doesn't require us to have three mana (which there's games we simply don't have that mana) and doesn't require us to completely tap out when we do. It plays nicely with bump in the night and the fact we run more one drops (even if it's only four more) as it gives us something extra to do with that one remaining mana. I have learned in the playtest I do not like three cast spells. Which brings me to..
Don't run ensnaring bridge. No, seriously I'm advocating against this card. If it's destroyed by the opponent or removed you've done nothing to further your gameplan and it costs three mana. You're tapping out to cast something that does nothing for our consistent game plan which is reducing the player to zero. That is the plan.
The only exception I have to this rule is Exquisite Firecraft. Sure it costs three but you're furthering the gameplan. Better part is that it's a card you'll be using against decks that can interrupt our gameplan. Remember what people have complained about burn in the past (some still do?) it's that we're hard to interact with. Exquisite Firecraft tells decks that it can't interact and has to accept four to the face.
This is pretty much my thoughts on Rakdos burn and I will say this in the addendum. RW and RWg are still better. Lightning Helix just simply trumps Sovereign's Bite and path to exile beats the fact that our best removal is go for the throat, but our consistency is getting pretty close. I do believe Sovereign's bite makes us competitive. Sovereign's Bite in my testing has been important for RB burn and if you're not running it you're making a mistake. That six point life swing (up three for you down three for your opponent) makes a difference over the course of quite a few games. It's why I would not advocate removing Lightning Helix either.
(I've said it repeatedly but Elcon. I'm a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. You were right about Gonti's and your views in this thread.)
It seems like a meta call vs. stuff like elves, goblins, merfolk... humans?
Still not a fan of it. I'd rather run more searing bloods and removal. Remove their threats while dealing damage to them. I've tested ensnaring bridge against wide creature metas and even against large creatures. The problem is if they have a means to remove it you wasted three mana to do nothing. I've won games using it as a side board option and there was a point where I recommended it but when it doesn't help you really feel it. I've just, in my testing, and your testing might be different have become jaded over cards that cost three mana. The one exception is exquisite firecraft.
I haven't looked at what kind of anti-Bridge sees play, but I suspect there's a lot of overlap between artifact and enchantment hate (like Reclamation Sage), so you're possibly in the same boat regardless. Also, a lot of decks will happily pay 2 mana to hit you with a 5 power creature. You might buy some time, but you did spend turn 3 doing nothing to further your game plan.
I do definitely feel any consistent change to RB burn tends itself more toward a Rakdos hyper aggro deck than specifically burn. That kind of deck is where cards like Claim/Fame belong. Having any focus beyond direct damage makes burn that much less consistent and attacks its advantage. When developing an archetype it's imperative to consider what weaknesses exist and continue looking for cards that assist with those weakness while maintaining the general theme. Including most Rakdos cards does not help with this. The only way I'd see a black splash working is in a mardu build. As personal preferece, though, I never build burn lists that run 3 colors in the main deck. Splashing for a 3rd color in a blood moon meta with 19 lands only spells disaster.
If a splash or card doesn't improve the deck in some verifiable way, then don't play it. Burn has very specific weaknesses and the only reason changes should be made is to address those weaknesses more efficiently.
Thank you for the in depth analysis of your experience with Gonti's and Sovereign's Bite. I'm not too surprised that Bite is a good fit in RB Burn because it looks like a pretty good Helix impression, even though it's not quite Helix.
I agree on Ensnaring Bridge. I just don't like spending 3 on anything but Firecraft and topdecked Rift Bolts for the win. Bridge isn't that hard to remove, and you've basically taken a turn off for nothing when you play it and lose it. I've certainly won games with Bridge, but I was never that impressed.
I don't think I've heard many people talk about Go for the Throat in RB Burn, but you make some insightful points in favor of it. It and Terminate are the closest Path analogues, and I'd probably give GFFT a shot if I was playing RB.
I've always liked the idea of RB Burn. RB was the hot build when I started looking at Modern and decided Burn was the deck for me though I didn't end up building Burn for a while and RB had faded by then. I do like that it's getting a new toy via Bite. I've started to realize that Burn isn't likely to get many new mono-R toys to play with and that they'll often be 2CMC or in splash colors. Unfortunately, I suspect that Fatal Push is going to be the premium black removal in Modern and that they won't be printing anything stronger that would be a true Path replacement in the same way that we use/need Path in Burn.
Looking for sideboard advice for my LGS meta.
I'm new to Modern and thought I'd break into it by putting together a burn deck (It was "cheap", and I love burn!). I went with a very typical Boros build - Guides, Eidolons, and Swiftspears in the mainboard, one stompy ground for Revelries in the sb, etc.. My probalem is I'm not good with building sideboards, and I never know what to board in and out in different games.
I've been to one Modern night so far. I went 2-1, losing my first match to, what I believe we call, Bant Company. My wins were against Jund and Mono-Green Tron. In addition to these decks, I'm told there are a few Elves decks in the meta, and I observed Fish, Hollow One, and I think Mono-Green Devotion (Lots of Green plus Hornet Queen?) being played. I also heard rumor that there was a Lantern Control deck somewhere in the meta.
Jund and Tron were fairly easy wins. The Company deck was troublesome, I made the mistake of not taking out their Birds and Hierarchs early, then they dropped Tireless Trackers and Courser of Kruphix. The trackers did me in, and I couldn't take out the Coursers with their big butts and all. I also saw a Worship in their deck that never hit the board, and then in game 3 two Aven Mindcensors came down preventing me from finding the lands I needed.
My sideboard that night was made out of cards I had and was as follows:
2 Kor Firewalker
3 Path to Exile
3 Grim Lavamancer
3 Deflecting Palm
I boarded in Revelries against Bant to take out their Coursers and the Worship, but it never panned out - it felt like they were too specific and I ended up having Revelries in my hand with nothing to target.
My Sideboard now is as follows:
2 Kor Firewalker
2 Path to Exile
2 Grim Lavamancer
2 Deflecting Palm
2 Searing Blood
1 Exquisite Firecraft
My Questions:
1. Does this SB sound okay for the above meta mentioned? Would it be worth it to include 2 Relic of Progenitus for Jund and Hollow One?
2. What would you SB in and out against the above mentioned decks? My deck, again, is a very normal boros build with 4-ofs of all the typical burn cards.
Thanks!
CatParty
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG