Can someone provide an thorough analysis of the benefits of Skewer the Critics and Light up the Stage ? I've been around since 2014-ish with Mardu Burn, then Boros Burn (splashing green for Destructive Revelry in the sideboard). I feel what we've seen of Burn so far was very strong. At first, the new cards seem shaky and could have some upsides, but provide some downsides too (which make me reluctant to them). Thoughts guys?
Can someone provide an thorough analysis of the benefits of Skewer the Critics and Light up the Stage ? I've been around since 2014-ish with Mardu Burn, then Boros Burn (splashing green for Destructive Revelry in the sideboard). I feel what we've seen of Burn so far was very strong. At first, the new cards seem shaky and could have some upsides, but provide some downsides too (which make me reluctant to them). Thoughts guys?
Cheers !
In my testing with Skewer the Critics, I was able to cast it for R about 80% of the time. It's very easy for us to enable Spectacle, and that makes it another Lightning Bolt. I think it's an automatic 4-of in Burn now. Rift Bolt as a Spectacle enabler is a good sequence to play into if you can. Don't make the mistake of trying to get a Prowess trigger off of it. If you swing with Swift and connect, just fire it off so you don't get stuck with it.
I do not think that Light Up the Stage is good enough, and I think it's just the next draw card in a line of draw cards that Burn players pick up and drop in their quest to solve the "running out of gas" problem. I think that the most likely outcome with that card is a bad one. A deck is about 1/6 creatures, about 1/2 spells, and about 1/3 lands. If all creatures are live draws, then 2/3 of the deck is live. If they aren't, then 1/2 of the deck is live. The possible outcomes are:
Land-Land (probability 1/9): If I need a spell, I never consider this a good outcome and I consider it a waste of mana. If I'm 1 spell from winning, then I would have already had that spell in hand if I didn't put LUtS in my deck.
Land-Spell (probability 1/3): This amounts to a tax of R on your burn spell and you got a land to go along with it. I doubt the land is likely to be relevant, so I think this outcome is just worse than playing a burn spell.
Land-Creature (probability 1/9): If you cast LUtS late, this is likely very bad. If you draw an Eidolon late, you probably don't want it. If you draw Guide or Swift, it's probably irrelevant because they're outclassed and are just blockers.
Creature-Creature (probability 1/36): Probably not what you're after. Maybe 2 hasters is ok, but you need an empty board for it.
Creature-Spell (probability 1/6): If the creature isn't relevant, this is the same as an R tax.
Spell-Spell (probability 1/4): This is obviously good, except when you draw Rift Bolts or things that get trapped in exile due to lack of mana.
If creatures are always live draws, it's 1/9 dead-dead, 4/9 live-dead, and 4/9 live-live and that implies that 55% of the time is either dead or a tax of R on the burn spell you draw and only 45% of the time is a "good outcome". If creatures are always dead, it's 1/4 dead-dead, 1/2 live-dead, and 1/4 live-live and you're looking at 75% bad outcomes and 25% good outcomes. I think this suggests that it's not worth playing.
Imagine you need it to bail you out of a bad late game situation. If that situation is that you are light on lands, I'd question both how you're enabling Spectacle without enough lands in play and how likely it is that you're even going to win if you draw the lands now. Creatures probably are either dead or not connecting anymore later in the game, so it relies on Rift Bolt or having 2 lands in play. If you're flooding and need spells, there's only a 25% chance of double spell and I'd also question whether it's likely that double spell gets you there.
I've seen people suggest that land-land is good because "it moves them off the top". If you play LUtS and move 2 lands off the top, you've gained a slightly higher probability of drawing a spell on your next draw step because you've changed the denominator. In this sense, LUtS is worth some fraction of a spell here. Had you played a burn spell instead, that burn spell would have been worth 100% of a burn spell. I don't consider moving 2 lands off the top a uniformly positive outcome.
In addition to all of this, it's a bad top deck when you can't Spectacle. I don't think it's worth playing in Burn.
Can someone provide an thorough analysis of the benefits of Skewer the Critics and Light up the Stage ? I've been around since 2014-ish with Mardu Burn, then Boros Burn (splashing green for Destructive Revelry in the sideboard). I feel what we've seen of Burn so far was very strong. At first, the new cards seem shaky and could have some upsides, but provide some downsides too (which make me reluctant to them). Thoughts guys?
Cheers !
In my testing with Skewer the Critics, I was able to cast it for R about 80% of the time. It's very easy for us to enable Spectacle, and that makes it another Lightning Bolt. I think it's an automatic 4-of in Burn now. Rift Bolt as a Spectacle enabler is a good sequence to play into if you can. Don't make the mistake of trying to get a Prowess trigger off of it. If you swing with Swift and connect, just fire it off so you don't get stuck with it.
I do not think that Light Up the Stage is good enough, and I think it's just the next draw card in a line of draw cards that Burn players pick up and drop in their quest to solve the "running out of gas" problem. I think that the most likely outcome with that card is a bad one. A deck is about 1/6 creatures, about 1/2 spells, and about 1/3 lands. If all creatures are live draws, then 2/3 of the deck is live. If they aren't, then 1/2 of the deck is live. The possible outcomes are:
Land-Land (probability 1/9): If I need a spell, I never consider this a good outcome and I consider it a waste of mana. If I'm 1 spell from winning, then I would have already had that spell in hand if I didn't put LUtS in my deck.
Land-Spell (probability 1/3): This amounts to a tax of R on your burn spell and you got a land to go along with it. I doubt the land is likely to be relevant, so I think this outcome is just worse than playing a burn spell.
Land-Creature (probability 1/9): If you cast LUtS late, this is likely very bad. If you draw an Eidolon late, you probably don't want it. If you draw Guide or Swift, it's probably irrelevant because they're outclassed and are just blockers.
Creature-Creature (probability 1/36): Probably not what you're after. Maybe 2 hasters is ok, but you need an empty board for it.
Creature-Spell (probability 1/6): If the creature isn't relevant, this is the same as an R tax.
Spell-Spell (probability 1/4): This is obviously good, except when you draw Rift Bolts or things that get trapped in exile due to lack of mana.
If creatures are always live draws, it's 1/9 dead-dead, 4/9 live-dead, and 4/9 live-live and that implies that 55% of the time is either dead or a tax of R on the burn spell you draw and only 45% of the time is a "good outcome". If creatures are always dead, it's 1/4 dead-dead, 1/2 live-dead, and 1/4 live-live and you're looking at 75% bad outcomes and 25% good outcomes. I think this suggests that it's not worth playing.
Imagine you need it to bail you out of a bad late game situation. If that situation is that you are light on lands, I'd question both how you're enabling Spectacle without enough lands in play and how likely it is that you're even going to win if you draw the lands now. Creatures probably are either dead or not connecting anymore later in the game, so it relies on Rift Bolt or having 2 lands in play. If you're flooding and need spells, there's only a 25% chance of double spell and I'd also question whether it's likely that double spell gets you there.
I've seen people suggest that land-land is good because "it moves them off the top". If you play LUtS and move 2 lands off the top, you've gained a slightly higher probability of drawing a spell on your next draw step because you've changed the denominator. In this sense, LUtS is worth some fraction of a spell here. Had you played a burn spell instead, that burn spell would have been worth 100% of a burn spell. I don't consider moving 2 lands off the top a uniformly positive outcome.
In addition to all of this, it's a bad top deck when you can't Spectacle. I don't think it's worth playing in Burn.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge : this primer is an absolute masterclass in content, analysis and writing. It simply is the best primer around and I feel very welcomed asking questions. You're the best man !
What would be now a stock mainboard ? Here's my take if including Skewer the Critics :
My meta is not full of creatures : there's Scapeshift, Jeskai Control, Storm, Affinity, Jund, Humans and Tron mostly. That's why I've felt that Searing Blaze should be moved to the sideboard, as I fear mostly lifegain effects (thus keeping 4 Skullcrack in the maindeck). Lifegain comes maindeck with Jeskai Control (Helix), Affinity (Skirge) and Jund (Ooze). But then again, Affinity, Humans and Jund would be good matchups for the creature-based removal (such as Searing Blaze and Path to Exile post-board). Considering we almost always go ''to the face'' rather than conroling the board, I guess going all-in with burn effects and not 2-1 with Searing Blaze is okay. But I could be totally wrong. Thoughts ?
Can someone provide an thorough analysis of the benefits of Skewer the Critics and Light up the Stage ? I've been around since 2014-ish with Mardu Burn, then Boros Burn (splashing green for Destructive Revelry in the sideboard). I feel what we've seen of Burn so far was very strong. At first, the new cards seem shaky and could have some upsides, but provide some downsides too (which make me reluctant to them). Thoughts guys?
Cheers !
In my testing with Skewer the Critics, I was able to cast it for R about 80% of the time. It's very easy for us to enable Spectacle, and that makes it another Lightning Bolt. I think it's an automatic 4-of in Burn now. Rift Bolt as a Spectacle enabler is a good sequence to play into if you can. Don't make the mistake of trying to get a Prowess trigger off of it. If you swing with Swift and connect, just fire it off so you don't get stuck with it.
I do not think that Light Up the Stage is good enough, and I think it's just the next draw card in a line of draw cards that Burn players pick up and drop in their quest to solve the "running out of gas" problem. I think that the most likely outcome with that card is a bad one. A deck is about 1/6 creatures, about 1/2 spells, and about 1/3 lands. If all creatures are live draws, then 2/3 of the deck is live. If they aren't, then 1/2 of the deck is live. The possible outcomes are:
Land-Land (probability 1/9): If I need a spell, I never consider this a good outcome and I consider it a waste of mana. If I'm 1 spell from winning, then I would have already had that spell in hand if I didn't put LUtS in my deck.
Land-Spell (probability 1/3): This amounts to a tax of R on your burn spell and you got a land to go along with it. I doubt the land is likely to be relevant, so I think this outcome is just worse than playing a burn spell.
Land-Creature (probability 1/9): If you cast LUtS late, this is likely very bad. If you draw an Eidolon late, you probably don't want it. If you draw Guide or Swift, it's probably irrelevant because they're outclassed and are just blockers.
Creature-Creature (probability 1/36): Probably not what you're after. Maybe 2 hasters is ok, but you need an empty board for it.
Creature-Spell (probability 1/6): If the creature isn't relevant, this is the same as an R tax.
Spell-Spell (probability 1/4): This is obviously good, except when you draw Rift Bolts or things that get trapped in exile due to lack of mana.
If creatures are always live draws, it's 1/9 dead-dead, 4/9 live-dead, and 4/9 live-live and that implies that 55% of the time is either dead or a tax of R on the burn spell you draw and only 45% of the time is a "good outcome". If creatures are always dead, it's 1/4 dead-dead, 1/2 live-dead, and 1/4 live-live and you're looking at 75% bad outcomes and 25% good outcomes. I think this suggests that it's not worth playing.
Imagine you need it to bail you out of a bad late game situation. If that situation is that you are light on lands, I'd question both how you're enabling Spectacle without enough lands in play and how likely it is that you're even going to win if you draw the lands now. Creatures probably are either dead or not connecting anymore later in the game, so it relies on Rift Bolt or having 2 lands in play. If you're flooding and need spells, there's only a 25% chance of double spell and I'd also question whether it's likely that double spell gets you there.
I've seen people suggest that land-land is good because "it moves them off the top". If you play LUtS and move 2 lands off the top, you've gained a slightly higher probability of drawing a spell on your next draw step because you've changed the denominator. In this sense, LUtS is worth some fraction of a spell here. Had you played a burn spell instead, that burn spell would have been worth 100% of a burn spell. I don't consider moving 2 lands off the top a uniformly positive outcome.
In addition to all of this, it's a bad top deck when you can't Spectacle. I don't think it's worth playing in Burn.
thank you for the well written and well thougt post, its very helpfull!
i agree with almost everything, but i think that the case of luts being bad and being R tax are different and should not be grouped together
since most likely we will be playing skullcrack or something alike over luts, then the R tax its just same value as the replacement
worse than a skullcrack, about 30%
land + land
land + creature x2
creature + creature
equal than a skullcrack, about 30%
spell + land x2
better than a skullcrack, about 40%
creaute + spell x2
spell + spell
so if you can count on spell + land being same value as replacement, then i think luts its worth it
i think thats the case for rakdos builds with bump in the night and 1-2 shard volleys, so they just have 4 rift and 2-3 blaze as being worse spell + land outcomes
but i would not play luts in a boros build with 8-12 2cmc spells
thank you for the well written and well thougt post, its very helpfull!
i agree with almost everything, but i think that the case of luts being bad and being R tax are different and should not be grouped together
since most likely we will be playing skullcrack or something alike over luts, then the R tax its just same value as the replacement
worse than a skullcrack, about 30%
land + land
land + creature x2
creature + creature
equal than a skullcrack, about 30%
spell + land x2
better than a skullcrack, about 40%
creaute + spell x2
spell + spell
so if you can count on spell + land being same value as replacement, then i think luts its worth it
i think thats the case for rakdos builds with bump in the night and 1-2 shard volleys, so they just have 4 rift and 2-3 blaze as being worse spell + land outcomes
but i would not play luts in a boros build with 8-12 2cmc spells
It's true that "paying an R tax" in a LUtS build probably means you're paying 2 mana for the spell, which makes it a wash mana-wise. I also think that the variance of it is undesirable in a redundant deck like Burn. I don't want a Skullcrack that does nothing 30% of the time.
So any mono red lists out there? I'm interested to see if anyone is revisiting thunderous wrath or thinking about it now in a mono red or possibly rakdos list. We have enough bolts that I could see running magma jet with t. wrath.
I think we're so close to mono red that I can taste it. That being said, I don't think Thunderous Wrath is the droid we're looking for. It's an amazing top deck but, it's dead in our opening hand and on the first draw because we need a land in play. On average our games go 4 to 5 rounds? I think it's more likely the card is in our hand or first draw then the last 3-4 draws making it unplayable. Enabling with magma jet could work but it's a 2cmc 2 damage card and also likely not where we want to be if it does not trigger the miracle.
I agree on Thunderous Wrath not being what we're after. It feels great when you can Miracle it, but it's like an auto-mulligan to N-1 cards if it's in your opener and it's true that you're more likely to see it in the first 7 than you are during the game (because we ideally want it to end fast). I do have a foil one sitting in my binder next to all my other Burn foils because it's beautiful, though.
I also don't like Magma Jet. Scry 2 is approximately worth drawing 1 card, but 2 damage scry 2 for 2CMC isn't good enough.
I think that mono-R is really just missing another "high damage per card" card and could be assembled if Modern had Flame Rift. Maybe this upcoming Modern "innovation set" will have some goodies, as people are hoping that it's either new cards or Legacy cards getting printed into Modern without going through Standard.
Cindervines as an upgrade from Destructive Revelry seems decent. Have you guys played with it ? It could be good against Affinity, Lantern/Prison and even Control as a hard-to-remove enchantment that will deal several points of damage. Thoughts ?
Second match 1-2
VS UWR Control. First game I win, 2 game lose (opponent gain 9 life) and I play Path to Exile in to Monastery Swiftspear. Because i keep one land and not top deck land.
3 game I Lose
Third match 2-0
I played VS Tron,
Game 1 opponent muligan to 6
Game 2 opponent mulidan to 6 and, I leep hand with 1 Path to Exile and 1 Wear // Tear, but only one Mountain. But I immediately raised the land, I was lucky.
4 Match 2-1
I played VS RGU Valakut. First Game I win, Game 2 I lose, opponent gain 4 life((( and Game 3 I win. The third game was interesting. Opponent played Stomping Ground for 2 lives, in respons I play Skullcrack and he not gain life ) But if he didn’t play for -2 life, I can not win.
metagame in my club:
1 Tron
1 UWR Control
1 UW Control
1 RGU Valakut
1 Izzet Phoenix
1 UR Storm
1 WB Death and Taxes
1 Burn
Cindervines as an upgrade from Destructive Revelry seems decent. Have you guys played with it ? It could be good against Affinity, Lantern/Prison and even Control as a hard-to-remove enchantment that will deal several points of damage. Thoughts ?
I think the 3 mana Revelry mode is downright awful and I don't think the mini-Eidolon is enough to offset it. I still think Smash is where it's at.
I would agree Cindervines isn't what we want right now. If KCI was still around, then I'd probably give a different answer. I think Cindervines is too slow for affinity who's already dumped their entire hand by turn 3. I'd rather instant speed removal for their artifacts for 2cmc and not having to hold up mana starting turn 3. Our other matches where Cindervines is good - Lantern, UW Control, Storm are matches where we are already favoured. I feel like it's a win more card right now. For other matches where it could be helpful (Phoenix, Hollow One style looting decks), I think they're faster and ramp big faster than the card would likely help us. I think in those matches, we're chump blocking or using spot removal instead of pinging for 1 damage. At least that's what my gut says. That being said, I have purchased my playset for the next time infinite mana loop combos become popular.
So I've been struggling lately with which version of Burn to run - Rakdos or Boros. Each is good and bad in their own way and top 8's seem to be divided almost 50/50. I made a short list for myself regarding the pros for each version. Please add to or remove and debate my thoughts. I'm curious if we can collectively start adding to it so we have a really good understanding of what each list provides us.
Rakdos
Pro
Lower CMC – faster
Access to hand disruption (Thoughtseize) for problematic combo decks ex) Ad Nauseum
Versatile Sideboard in Rakdos Charm
Rain of Gore is permanent anti lifegain
Terminate hits Planewalkers
Turn 0 graveyard hate leyline of the void (I concede Boros could also run this but not cast it later)
Boros
Pro
Boros Charm deals 4 damage and saves creatures
Lightning Helix life gain
Path to Exile is 1 mana exile (faster than Terminate)
More resilient to Chalice 1
More resilient options for the mirror (Helix is instant and targets creatures compared to Sovereign's Bite, Can run Kor Firewalker)
I was really happy with Cindervines, actually. I did find the damage tax useful against combo and to a lesser extent control decks. I prefer it to Revelry.
The Matches
Round 1: Bye
Round 2 (2-0) Iona / Storm / Monastary
Round 3 (2-0) Dredge
Round 4 (2-1) Death Shadow
Round 5 (2-1) UR Phoenix
Round 6 (1-2) Bring to light scape shift
Round 7 (2-0) Tron
Round 8 (2-0) UR Phoenix (Gained 17 life off of a dragon claw on game 2 >_<)
Round 9 (2-1) Sultai Control
Round 10 (2-1) Tron
Round 11 (0-2) Taking turn
Round 12 (0-2) Amulet Titan
Round 13 (2-1) Boggles
Round 14 (2-1) UR Phoenix
Round 15 (2-0) UR Phoenix
Ended with 12-3, which gave me 21st
Skewer was amazing, I might have had one or two time where it was akward, but the same could be said about rift bolt.
Don't regret skipping on Light up the Stage, most of my game 2-3 I was very reactive, and wanted to play at instant speed. Only reason I was able to win a lot of the matches was because I was holding back a Boros Charm to save my Eidolon, or a Skullcrack to prevent lifegain. Would not be possible if I was "forced" to use spell or lose them
The white was also amazing; won many games because of incidental helix life gain, boros charm making things indestructible, or having an opponent go down to 4 because I only had 1 card in hand (best moment was beating boggle with a double strike / indestructible eidolon ^_^)
Hard to say if the sideboard was correct since I did not play against everything (no burn, jeskai, human, spirit, etc etc etc). Would definitively need more testing.
The lost against Bring to light & Taking turn were very close; but the amulet titan felt like I could do very little. Will probably need to change my sideboard against it, or accept it as a very hard mu
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What's your plan?" Gideon asked.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
So I've been struggling lately with which version of Burn to run - Rakdos or Boros. Each is good and bad in their own way and top 8's seem to be divided almost 50/50. I made a short list for myself regarding the pros for each version. Please add to or remove and debate my thoughts. I'm curious if we can collectively start adding to it so we have a really good understanding of what each list provides us.
Rakdos
Pro
Lower CMC – faster
Access to hand disruption (Thoughtseize) for problematic combo decks ex) Ad Nauseum
Versatile Sideboard in Rakdos Charm
Rain of Gore is permanent anti lifegain TerminateDreadbore hits Planewalkers
Turn 0 graveyard hate leyline of the void (I concede Boros could also run this but not cast it later)
Boros
Pro
Boros Charm deals 4 damage and saves creaturespermanents
Lightning Helix life gain
Path to Exile is 1 mana exile (faster than Terminate)
More resilient to Chalice 1
More resilient options for the mirror (Helix is instant and targets creatures compared to Sovereign's Bite, Can run Kor Firewalker)
Cindervines as an upgrade from Destructive Revelry seems decent. Have you guys played with it ? It could be good against Affinity, Lantern/Prison and even Control as a hard-to-remove enchantment that will deal several points of damage. Thoughts ?
I think the 3 mana Revelry mode is downright awful and I don't think the mini-Eidolon is enough to offset it. I still think Smash is where it's at.
Seems right for me. I'll stick to Revelry. Thanks !
So I've been struggling lately with which version of Burn to run - Rakdos or Boros. Each is good and bad in their own way and top 8's seem to be divided almost 50/50. I made a short list for myself regarding the pros for each version. Please add to or remove and debate my thoughts. I'm curious if we can collectively start adding to it so we have a really good understanding of what each list provides us.
Rakdos
Pro
Lower CMC – faster
Access to hand disruption (Thoughtseize) for problematic combo decks ex) Ad Nauseum
Versatile Sideboard in Rakdos Charm
Rain of Gore is permanent anti lifegain TerminateDreadbore hits Planewalkers
Turn 0 graveyard hate leyline of the void (I concede Boros could also run this but not cast it later)
Boros
Pro
Boros Charm deals 4 damage and saves creaturespermanents
Lightning Helix life gain
Path to Exile is 1 mana exile (faster than Terminate)
More resilient to Chalice 1
More resilient options for the mirror (Helix is instant and targets creatures compared to Sovereign's Bite, Can run Kor Firewalker)
If you can't decide, there's always Mardu!
Lol maybe. Truth is I just don't know. That's why I'm throwing the topic out there
Ravnica Allegiance brought Burn two potential improvements: Skewer the Critics and Light Up the Stage. Let’s try to figure out whether these cards actually constitute an improvement or not, and if so, how big of an improvement.
Skewer the CriticsLight Up the Stage
The problem is that we don’t have a proper control group for one of the two cards. Virtually none of Toronto’s Burn players failed to update their decks with Skewer the Critics. A grand total of five players ran none, and all of them failed to get to Sunday. That may make Burn decks with Skewer better, but it could just as well mean that players who don’t keep up with trends are generally more prone to losing.
Across the GPs in Port- and Oakland, 17.9% of the then still Skewerless Burn players qualified for the second day. 20% is an improvement but falls within the range of natural fluctuation. I’m inclined to take the almost universal adoption of Skewer as evidence of the card’s merits. Though that is all we have to go by, really. The data tells us no more than that it wasn’t any kind of game changer.
Light Up the Stage is a more interesting case, if only because we find the perfect control group within our sample. Among the Burn players whose lists are available to me, 45 ran Light Up the Stage and 45 didn’t. This success story is one the card itself couldn’t live up to, unfortunately. Only six players who lit up the stage made it to the second stage of the tournament, whereas 12 of those without Light did.
Once there, light Burn players again fared way worse than heavy Burn players. None of the versions with Light Up the Stage placed anyone within the Top 100, whereas five of the versions without it did. For reference, here are the lists of the highest finisher with a full playset and of the highest finisher with zero copies:"
While not statistically significant, 45 decks with and 45 decks without Light Up the Stage is a convenient comparison, if nothing else.
Tonight I debuted an attempt at Rakdos Burn. The highlight was Bumping through Worship to win the second match. I was dead on board next turn when I top-decked it. It doesn't get much better than that!
Eldrazi Tron beat me the last round; Karn Liberated was responsible for both losses.
Ravnica Allegiance brought Burn two potential improvements: Skewer the Critics and Light Up the Stage. Let’s try to figure out whether these cards actually constitute an improvement or not, and if so, how big of an improvement.
Skewer the CriticsLight Up the Stage
The problem is that we don’t have a proper control group for one of the two cards. Virtually none of Toronto’s Burn players failed to update their decks with Skewer the Critics. A grand total of five players ran none, and all of them failed to get to Sunday. That may make Burn decks with Skewer better, but it could just as well mean that players who don’t keep up with trends are generally more prone to losing.
Across the GPs in Port- and Oakland, 17.9% of the then still Skewerless Burn players qualified for the second day. 20% is an improvement but falls within the range of natural fluctuation. I’m inclined to take the almost universal adoption of Skewer as evidence of the card’s merits. Though that is all we have to go by, really. The data tells us no more than that it wasn’t any kind of game changer.
Light Up the Stage is a more interesting case, if only because we find the perfect control group within our sample. Among the Burn players whose lists are available to me, 45 ran Light Up the Stage and 45 didn’t. This success story is one the card itself couldn’t live up to, unfortunately. Only six players who lit up the stage made it to the second stage of the tournament, whereas 12 of those without Light did.
Once there, light Burn players again fared way worse than heavy Burn players. None of the versions with Light Up the Stage placed anyone within the Top 100, whereas five of the versions without it did. For reference, here are the lists of the highest finisher with a full playset and of the highest finisher with zero copies:"
While not statistically significant, 45 decks with and 45 decks without Light Up the Stage is a convenient comparison, if nothing else.
As the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding." LUtS didn't do as well as when it wasn't ran. Draw isn't what we want unless there's dmg attached to it. It's been proven over and over again through the yrs that unless it's a crazy draw spell, like T. Cruise, or it deals dmg and draws us a card(s) then it really should be in our lists. I really wish we'd stop jumping on red draw until it does dmg and draws. Til then, we don't want it tbh imo. Even Tobi said that LUtS burn win % is less is a fact from statistics. That's from 2 GPS. I'm good. No LUtS for me.
Cheers !
Aggro: Naya Burn RWG
Combo: Scapeshift RG
Control: Jeskai Control UWR
Legacy
Control: Miracles UW
Aggro: Burn R
In my testing with Skewer the Critics, I was able to cast it for R about 80% of the time. It's very easy for us to enable Spectacle, and that makes it another Lightning Bolt. I think it's an automatic 4-of in Burn now. Rift Bolt as a Spectacle enabler is a good sequence to play into if you can. Don't make the mistake of trying to get a Prowess trigger off of it. If you swing with Swift and connect, just fire it off so you don't get stuck with it.
I do not think that Light Up the Stage is good enough, and I think it's just the next draw card in a line of draw cards that Burn players pick up and drop in their quest to solve the "running out of gas" problem. I think that the most likely outcome with that card is a bad one. A deck is about 1/6 creatures, about 1/2 spells, and about 1/3 lands. If all creatures are live draws, then 2/3 of the deck is live. If they aren't, then 1/2 of the deck is live. The possible outcomes are:
Land-Land (probability 1/9): If I need a spell, I never consider this a good outcome and I consider it a waste of mana. If I'm 1 spell from winning, then I would have already had that spell in hand if I didn't put LUtS in my deck.
Land-Spell (probability 1/3): This amounts to a tax of R on your burn spell and you got a land to go along with it. I doubt the land is likely to be relevant, so I think this outcome is just worse than playing a burn spell.
Land-Creature (probability 1/9): If you cast LUtS late, this is likely very bad. If you draw an Eidolon late, you probably don't want it. If you draw Guide or Swift, it's probably irrelevant because they're outclassed and are just blockers.
Creature-Creature (probability 1/36): Probably not what you're after. Maybe 2 hasters is ok, but you need an empty board for it.
Creature-Spell (probability 1/6): If the creature isn't relevant, this is the same as an R tax.
Spell-Spell (probability 1/4): This is obviously good, except when you draw Rift Bolts or things that get trapped in exile due to lack of mana.
If creatures are always live draws, it's 1/9 dead-dead, 4/9 live-dead, and 4/9 live-live and that implies that 55% of the time is either dead or a tax of R on the burn spell you draw and only 45% of the time is a "good outcome". If creatures are always dead, it's 1/4 dead-dead, 1/2 live-dead, and 1/4 live-live and you're looking at 75% bad outcomes and 25% good outcomes. I think this suggests that it's not worth playing.
Imagine you need it to bail you out of a bad late game situation. If that situation is that you are light on lands, I'd question both how you're enabling Spectacle without enough lands in play and how likely it is that you're even going to win if you draw the lands now. Creatures probably are either dead or not connecting anymore later in the game, so it relies on Rift Bolt or having 2 lands in play. If you're flooding and need spells, there's only a 25% chance of double spell and I'd also question whether it's likely that double spell gets you there.
I've seen people suggest that land-land is good because "it moves them off the top". If you play LUtS and move 2 lands off the top, you've gained a slightly higher probability of drawing a spell on your next draw step because you've changed the denominator. In this sense, LUtS is worth some fraction of a spell here. Had you played a burn spell instead, that burn spell would have been worth 100% of a burn spell. I don't consider moving 2 lands off the top a uniformly positive outcome.
In addition to all of this, it's a bad top deck when you can't Spectacle. I don't think it's worth playing in Burn.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge : this primer is an absolute masterclass in content, analysis and writing. It simply is the best primer around and I feel very welcomed asking questions. You're the best man !
What would be now a stock mainboard ? Here's my take if including Skewer the Critics :
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
Spells (28)
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Helix
4 Skullcrack
4 Rift Bolt
4 Skewer the Critics
2 Arid Mesa
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Inspiring Vantage
3 Mountain
2 Sacred Foundry
1 Stomping Ground
4 Wooded Foothills
2 Path to Exile
4 Destructive Revelry
2 Kor Firewalker
2 Rest in Peace
3 Searing Blaze
2 Exquisite Firecraft
My meta is not full of creatures : there's Scapeshift, Jeskai Control, Storm, Affinity, Jund, Humans and Tron mostly. That's why I've felt that Searing Blaze should be moved to the sideboard, as I fear mostly lifegain effects (thus keeping 4 Skullcrack in the maindeck). Lifegain comes maindeck with Jeskai Control (Helix), Affinity (Skirge) and Jund (Ooze). But then again, Affinity, Humans and Jund would be good matchups for the creature-based removal (such as Searing Blaze and Path to Exile post-board). Considering we almost always go ''to the face'' rather than conroling the board, I guess going all-in with burn effects and not 2-1 with Searing Blaze is okay. But I could be totally wrong. Thoughts ?
Cheers !
Aggro: Naya Burn RWG
Combo: Scapeshift RG
Control: Jeskai Control UWR
Legacy
Control: Miracles UW
Aggro: Burn R
thank you for the well written and well thougt post, its very helpfull!
i agree with almost everything, but i think that the case of luts being bad and being R tax are different and should not be grouped together
since most likely we will be playing skullcrack or something alike over luts, then the R tax its just same value as the replacement
worse than a skullcrack, about 30%
land + land
land + creature x2
creature + creature
equal than a skullcrack, about 30%
spell + land x2
better than a skullcrack, about 40%
creaute + spell x2
spell + spell
so if you can count on spell + land being same value as replacement, then i think luts its worth it
i think thats the case for rakdos builds with bump in the night and 1-2 shard volleys, so they just have 4 rift and 2-3 blaze as being worse spell + land outcomes
but i would not play luts in a boros build with 8-12 2cmc spells
It's true that "paying an R tax" in a LUtS build probably means you're paying 2 mana for the spell, which makes it a wash mana-wise. I also think that the variance of it is undesirable in a redundant deck like Burn. I don't want a Skullcrack that does nothing 30% of the time.
I think we're so close to mono red that I can taste it. That being said, I don't think Thunderous Wrath is the droid we're looking for. It's an amazing top deck but, it's dead in our opening hand and on the first draw because we need a land in play. On average our games go 4 to 5 rounds? I think it's more likely the card is in our hand or first draw then the last 3-4 draws making it unplayable. Enabling with magma jet could work but it's a 2cmc 2 damage card and also likely not where we want to be if it does not trigger the miracle.
I also don't like Magma Jet. Scry 2 is approximately worth drawing 1 card, but 2 damage scry 2 for 2CMC isn't good enough.
I think that mono-R is really just missing another "high damage per card" card and could be assembled if Modern had Flame Rift. Maybe this upcoming Modern "innovation set" will have some goodies, as people are hoping that it's either new cards or Legacy cards getting printed into Modern without going through Standard.
Aggro: Naya Burn RWG
Combo: Scapeshift RG
Control: Jeskai Control UWR
Legacy
Control: Miracles UW
Aggro: Burn R
I played this deck:
3 Arid Mesa
3 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Mountain
2 Sacred Foundry
4 Inspiring Vantage (I like to play 4 mountains and 3 Inspiring Vantage)
//Creatures
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Skewer the Critics
//Burn - Instant
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Searing Blaze
4 Lightning Helix
4 Skullcrack
3 Path to Exile
2 Rest in Peace
2 Wear // Tear
3 Kor Firewalker
1 Exquisite Firecraft
First match 2-1
VS UW Control. First game I muligan to 5 and lose, but 2 and 3 game I Win.
Side -3 Searing Blaze , - 4 Lightning Helix In to +4 Skullcrack, +1 Exquisite Firecraft, +2 Path to Exile.
Second match 1-2
VS UWR Control. First game I win, 2 game lose (opponent gain 9 life) and I play Path to Exile in to Monastery Swiftspear. Because i keep one land and not top deck land.
3 game I Lose
Third match 2-0
I played VS Tron,
Game 1 opponent muligan to 6
Game 2 opponent mulidan to 6 and, I leep hand with 1 Path to Exile and 1 Wear // Tear, but only one Mountain. But I immediately raised the land, I was lucky.
4 Match 2-1
I played VS RGU Valakut. First Game I win, Game 2 I lose, opponent gain 4 life((( and Game 3 I win. The third game was interesting. Opponent played Stomping Ground for 2 lives, in respons I play Skullcrack and he not gain life ) But if he didn’t play for -2 life, I can not win.
metagame in my club:
1 Tron
1 UWR Control
1 UW Control
1 RGU Valakut
1 Izzet Phoenix
1 UR Storm
1 WB Death and Taxes
1 Burn
I think the 3 mana Revelry mode is downright awful and I don't think the mini-Eidolon is enough to offset it. I still think Smash is where it's at.
Rakdos
Pro
Lower CMC – faster
Access to hand disruption (Thoughtseize) for problematic combo decks ex) Ad Nauseum
Versatile Sideboard in Rakdos Charm
Rain of Gore is permanent anti lifegain
Terminate hits Planewalkers
Turn 0 graveyard hate leyline of the void (I concede Boros could also run this but not cast it later)
Boros
Pro
Boros Charm deals 4 damage and saves creatures
Lightning Helix life gain
Path to Exile is 1 mana exile (faster than Terminate)
More resilient to Chalice 1
More resilient options for the mirror (Helix is instant and targets creatures compared to Sovereign's Bite, Can run Kor Firewalker)
Had not played in the past few months, so I decided to skip LutS but try Skewer
My List
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
Spells (29):
4 Boros Charm
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lightning Helix
4 Rift Bolt
4 Searing Blaze
4 Skewer the Critics
1 Skullcrack
2 Arid Mesa
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Inspiring Vantage
3 Mountain
2 Sacred Foundry
1 Stomping Ground
4 Wooded Foothills
2 Deflecting Palm
2 Destructive Revelry
1 Engineered Explosives
2 Ensnaring Bridge
1 Kor Firewalker
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Risk Factor
3 Skullcrack
The Matches
Round 1: Bye
Round 2 (2-0) Iona / Storm / Monastary
Round 3 (2-0) Dredge
Round 4 (2-1) Death Shadow
Round 5 (2-1) UR Phoenix
Round 6 (1-2) Bring to light scape shift
Round 7 (2-0) Tron
Round 8 (2-0) UR Phoenix (Gained 17 life off of a dragon claw on game 2 >_<)
Round 9 (2-1) Sultai Control
Round 10 (2-1) Tron
Round 11 (0-2) Taking turn
Round 12 (0-2) Amulet Titan
Round 13 (2-1) Boggles
Round 14 (2-1) UR Phoenix
Round 15 (2-0) UR Phoenix
Ended with 12-3, which gave me 21st
Skewer was amazing, I might have had one or two time where it was akward, but the same could be said about rift bolt.
Don't regret skipping on Light up the Stage, most of my game 2-3 I was very reactive, and wanted to play at instant speed. Only reason I was able to win a lot of the matches was because I was holding back a Boros Charm to save my Eidolon, or a Skullcrack to prevent lifegain. Would not be possible if I was "forced" to use spell or lose them
The white was also amazing; won many games because of incidental helix life gain, boros charm making things indestructible, or having an opponent go down to 4 because I only had 1 card in hand (best moment was beating boggle with a double strike / indestructible eidolon ^_^)
Hard to say if the sideboard was correct since I did not play against everything (no burn, jeskai, human, spirit, etc etc etc). Would definitively need more testing.
The lost against Bring to light & Taking turn were very close; but the amulet titan felt like I could do very little. Will probably need to change my sideboard against it, or accept it as a very hard mu
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
If you can't decide, there's always Mardu!
Frenzy-Affinity-Ghost Quarter-Rock-Tokens- RGWPhyrexian Zoo- WVial KnightsStandard:
BW Knights(Rotated)Pioneer: RW Knights - BW Rally Zombies - UW Heroes
Commander:WUG
Jenara, Asura of War- WGSigarda, Host of HeronsCasualties of economicsLegacy: Good-night, sweet prince. Mono-R Burn
Seems right for me. I'll stick to Revelry. Thanks !
Aggro: Naya Burn RWG
Combo: Scapeshift RG
Control: Jeskai Control UWR
Legacy
Control: Miracles UW
Aggro: Burn R
Lol maybe. Truth is I just don't know. That's why I'm throwing the topic out there
Excerpt from the article:
"A Skewed Stage
Ravnica Allegiance brought Burn two potential improvements: Skewer the Critics and Light Up the Stage. Let’s try to figure out whether these cards actually constitute an improvement or not, and if so, how big of an improvement.
Skewer the CriticsLight Up the Stage
The problem is that we don’t have a proper control group for one of the two cards. Virtually none of Toronto’s Burn players failed to update their decks with Skewer the Critics. A grand total of five players ran none, and all of them failed to get to Sunday. That may make Burn decks with Skewer better, but it could just as well mean that players who don’t keep up with trends are generally more prone to losing.
Across the GPs in Port- and Oakland, 17.9% of the then still Skewerless Burn players qualified for the second day. 20% is an improvement but falls within the range of natural fluctuation. I’m inclined to take the almost universal adoption of Skewer as evidence of the card’s merits. Though that is all we have to go by, really. The data tells us no more than that it wasn’t any kind of game changer.
Light Up the Stage is a more interesting case, if only because we find the perfect control group within our sample. Among the Burn players whose lists are available to me, 45 ran Light Up the Stage and 45 didn’t. This success story is one the card itself couldn’t live up to, unfortunately. Only six players who lit up the stage made it to the second stage of the tournament, whereas 12 of those without Light did.
Once there, light Burn players again fared way worse than heavy Burn players. None of the versions with Light Up the Stage placed anyone within the Top 100, whereas five of the versions without it did. For reference, here are the lists of the highest finisher with a full playset and of the highest finisher with zero copies:"
While not statistically significant, 45 decks with and 45 decks without Light Up the Stage is a convenient comparison, if nothing else.
Eldrazi Tron beat me the last round; Karn Liberated was responsible for both losses.
Frenzy-Affinity-Ghost Quarter-Rock-Tokens- RGWPhyrexian Zoo- WVial KnightsStandard:
BW Knights(Rotated)Pioneer: RW Knights - BW Rally Zombies - UW Heroes
Commander:WUG
Jenara, Asura of War- WGSigarda, Host of HeronsCasualties of economicsLegacy: Good-night, sweet prince. Mono-R Burn
As the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding." LUtS didn't do as well as when it wasn't ran. Draw isn't what we want unless there's dmg attached to it. It's been proven over and over again through the yrs that unless it's a crazy draw spell, like T. Cruise, or it deals dmg and draws us a card(s) then it really should be in our lists. I really wish we'd stop jumping on red draw until it does dmg and draws. Til then, we don't want it tbh imo. Even Tobi said that LUtS burn win % is less is a fact from statistics. That's from 2 GPS. I'm good. No LUtS for me.