played modern for teh first time in 2 months at a few GP Toronto side events. Played a Last Chance Trial, which is single elimination so it's not too relevant.
Played the Face to Face Open on Saturday to a 6-3 finish, enough for 28 out of 228 people
Round 1 I quickly lost to fish because he got a better board presence than I did both games
0-1, round one loss sucks but friends told me I'm probably still good for top 8 at X-2 and prizes at X-3, so I kept playing til then
Round 2, I 2-0 titanshift, game 1 I tear his hand apart and attack through. Game 2 was a bit closer, but I kept him off blockers and chalice, enough to not let him see either a titan or scapeshift that would have killed me
1-1, looking better
Round 2 I 2-0 that zoo list with loxodon smiter and voice of resurgence he mulls to 5 game 1. Game 2, what won me the game was it was my board of double shadow, Tasigur and snapcaster vs his board of double voice token and smiter and 10 life. I swing in with my board, he blocks my shadows with voice tokens and snap with smiter. I flash my k command bkac with a snap to kill the smiter and get my snap back. I kill him next turn
2-1 Looking good
Round 4, opponent no shows
3-1, looking awfully good
Round 5, I lost to fish again I hate this match
3-2, I have the hardest time with fish
Round 6, I get pretty lucky to 2-1 dredge. He mulls to 5 game 1 then wins, he mulls to 6 game 2 but I win Game 3, I think he got stuck on one land after looting away 2 bloodghasts, after his secodn turn of missing his second land, I spellbomb away his grave to make sure he cant recur his bloodghasts. I eventually pushed through lethal
4-2 Pretty happy right now
Round 7, I beat Saheeli combo. Game 1, I just don't respect the combo and get punished. Games 2 and 3 I play my own game. These were some great games
5-2, doing way better than I thought I was going to do after not playing for so long. 35th place, win next round and I should prize
Round 8, I 2-0 elves. Somehow got there game 1, then izzet staticcaster was the MVP game 2.
6-2, snuck into 24th
Round 9, lost the mirror. Lack of experience in the mirror cost me and couldn't answer Liliana of the Veil
6-3, finished 28th and got 180 prize wall tickets
pretty happy with how I did, especially since I hadn't played in 2 months.
Man...is this deck really hard to play or is it just me? I have been practicing the past few weeks doing MTGO Leagues online but don't seem to be getting the hang of the deck at all....I still have embarassing records like 1-4 in Friendly leagues- not even comp.
I am coming from Burn as my only modern deck and figured this deck would take some time to learn but I've played a solid 20+ matches with the deck and still suck....
Are there any good resources out there to help learn the deck?
This deck is just hard. Thoughtseize is a difficult card to play, so is serum visions, so is fetching. Are we on the plan of attack with delve creatures or death's shadow?
Most matchups are unique and take deliberate practice to understand; I suggest understanding Affinity, the Mirror, Eldrazi Tron, Burn, and any other decks you are running into over online first. Then learn more matchups.
Start with burn as you know both sides of the matchup.
Who's the beatdown: Death Shadow is my vote!
What are some of our opponent's best cards against us: Eidolon of the Great Revel, Rift Bolt (it allows them to delay damage a turn so they can play many spells in one turn)
What's the opponent thinking: Since DS isn't a fast deck I have time to build up a critical mass of burn spells that I can play at the end of their turn, untap and do a bunch more. Let the DS player damage themselves and don't help them play get to under thirteen to play a shadow.
What's the sideboard plan: Worse cards in the matchup: Street Wraith, Kolaghan's Command, Terminate, Thoughtseize (that's 12 cards depending on the list)
What's the best cards in the sideboard: Stubborn Denial, Collective Brutality, Temur Battle Rage (3 - 6 cards depending on the list)
My sideboard plan right now (-4 Wraiths, -1 Kommand, +2 Stubborn Denial, +2 Collective Brutality, +1 Temur Battle Rage). I leave in Thoughtseize because Eidolon is very scary and I need to remove it from their hand)
What's the best cards in their sideboard: Path, RIP/other GY Hate, Deflecting Palm, Grim Lavamancer
What's their worse cards in the matchup: Searing Blaze, Skullcrack,
So if that's how this one matchup sort of works (my opinion of course). We need a hand that is both proactive (delve creatures are great here) and disruptive. We can't keep a hand of just cantrips and hope to figure it out. Now we have a good question when we look at our opening hand - do we have a threat and either discard or countermagic. From there you are giving yourself the best chance of winning the game. If you don't, that's okay. Why did we lose? Could we have won with the information we had? Could we have won if we had hidden information? Could we have inferred the hidden information?
Finally, and sorry to go on such a long thread, learn general rules. This deck does have a lot of "it depends" answers but crossing off some decision points automatically is quite helpful to learn when you shouldn't do them. Let me explain. When you have a choice in fetchlands turn one, it's better to leave Polluted Delta as the last card to fetch with. Why, because it's the only fetch that can get both basic island and swamp. Obvious I know, but now when we look at turn one we know we should play Bloodstained Mire or Scalding Tarn before a Polluted Delta.
Other basic rules to live by: Fetch before Serum Visions if you are going to need to fetch. It hurts when you shouldn't have but more often than not you should. Should you fetch + shock before serum visions. I mostly do unless I have a good reason not to.
The last section might not have been too clear but try to find out what decision points are coming up over and over and try to figure out what the most common decision is and when you should not make that decision.
Any more comments on the Burn matchup from anyone else would be helpful for me if there's more insight.
I can probably do another one of these tomorrow if it was helpful let me know.
This deck is just hard. Thoughtseize is a difficult card to play, so is serum visions, so is fetching. Are we on the plan of attack with delve creatures or death's shadow?
Most matchups are unique and take deliberate practice to understand; I suggest understanding Affinity, the Mirror, Eldrazi Tron, Burn, and any other decks you are running into over online first. Then learn more matchups.
Start with burn as you know both sides of the matchup.
Who's the beatdown: Death Shadow is my vote!
What are some of our opponent's best cards against us: Eidolon of the Great Revel, Rift Bolt (it allows them to delay damage a turn so they can play many spells in one turn)
What's the opponent thinking: Since DS isn't a fast deck I have time to build up a critical mass of burn spells that I can play at the end of their turn, untap and do a bunch more. Let the DS player damage themselves and don't help them play get to under thirteen to play a shadow.
What's the sideboard plan: Worse cards in the matchup: Street Wraith, Kolaghan's Command, Terminate, Thoughtseize (that's 12 cards depending on the list)
What's the best cards in the sideboard: Stubborn Denial, Collective Brutality, Temur Battle Rage (3 - 6 cards depending on the list)
My sideboard plan right now (-4 Wraiths, -1 Kommand, +2 Stubborn Denial, +2 Collective Brutality, +1 Temur Battle Rage). I leave in Thoughtseize because Eidolon is very scary and I need to remove it from their hand)
What's the best cards in their sideboard: Path, RIP/other GY Hate, Deflecting Palm, Grim Lavamancer
What's their worse cards in the matchup: Searing Blaze, Skullcrack,
So if that's how this one matchup sort of works (my opinion of course). We need a hand that is both proactive (delve creatures are great here) and disruptive. We can't keep a hand of just cantrips and hope to figure it out. Now we have a good question when we look at our opening hand - do we have a threat and either discard or countermagic. From there you are giving yourself the best chance of winning the game. If you don't, that's okay. Why did we lose? Could we have won with the information we had? Could we have won if we had hidden information? Could we have inferred the hidden information?
Finally, and sorry to go on such a long thread, learn general rules. This deck does have a lot of "it depends" answers but crossing off some decision points automatically is quite helpful to learn when you shouldn't do them. Let me explain. When you have a choice in fetchlands turn one, it's better to leave Polluted Delta as the last card to fetch with. Why, because it's the only fetch that can get both basic island and swamp. Obvious I know, but now when we look at turn one we know we should play Bloodstained Mire or Scalding Tarn before a Polluted Delta.
Other basic rules to live by: Fetch before Serum Visions if you are going to need to fetch. It hurts when you shouldn't have but more often than not you should. Should you fetch + shock before serum visions. I mostly do unless I have a good reason not to.
The last section might not have been too clear but try to find out what decision points are coming up over and over and try to figure out what the most common decision is and when you should not make that decision.
Any more comments on the Burn matchup from anyone else would be helpful for me if there's more insight.
I can probably do another one of these tomorrow if it was helpful let me know.
Yes, the "it depends" line really rings true. If you haven't read: Who's the Beatdown
... then that's a great place to start (for any magic player, really). The deck shifts to the role it needs to in each matchup. That means sometimes you're trying to play control and sometimes you're trying to be the beatdown. Sometimes, that role shifts in the middle of the game. Some matches you need to mulligan to a heavy interaction hand. Some games you need to have a threat down ASAP. Some games you want to aggressively eat your own life total. Others, you want to what you have to in order to preserve it.
Perhaps the biggest mistake I see most people make with this deck is to just fetch/shock/street wraith/thoughtseize their own life into oblivion for EVERY game, when really, it's always a question of "it depends". If you're staring at a Goblin Guide coming at you on turn one, then you may want to pump the brakes.
I'd like to point out some statements I don't fully agree with - which doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong and I really like Bauzzy's approach of looking at what the other deck can do.
From my experience, it's nearly impossible to outrace them with Delve creatures. We need an early Shadow for this to work.
What are some of our opponent's best cards against us: Eidolon of the Great Revel, Rift Bolt (it allows them to delay damage a turn so they can play many spells in one turn)
I agree with you on Eidolon, but I view Rift Bolt as one of their weaker burn spells. Once it is suspended, they can't control it. So if we drop a Death's Shadow on our turn, they will usually bolt us anyway. If they have Monastery Swiftspear in play and suspend Rift Bolt, we know beforehand that we might want to kill that Swiftspear soon. If we have Stubborn Denial in hand, we know that there will be a burn spell for us to counter next turn. So Rift Bolt often makes it easier for us to plan our next steps.
What's the opponent thinking: Since DS isn't a fast deck I have time to build up a critical mass of burn spells that I can play at the end of their turn, untap and do a bunch more. Let the DS player damage themselves and don't help them play get to under thirteen to play a shadow.
I played dozens of matches against burn players of varying skill levels on MTGO, and not even half of them embarked on this strategy. When the burn matchup was discussed in this thread a while ago, several people made statements like "but the good burn players do". I didn't agree back then and I agree even less by now. I have lost numerous games against burn players that emptied their hand as quickly as possible. Obviously, they didn't cast instant burn spells on their turn if they didn't have to, but for the most part, they played against my deck just like they would play against other midrange decks.
So why did it work? I don't think it was because I'm a bad player. I'd like to pretend to be slightly above average. But I can be wrong. So keep that in mind. Anyway, I put quite a bit of thought in how this matchup plays out.
First of all, as long was we don't have Death's Shadow in play, there is no punishment for burning us out. If the game goes quickly, we won't have Death's Shadow about 40% of the time (I didn't do the exact math, but it seems to be around that mark). So, roughly 40% of the time, burning us out is probably already the best strategy. In game 2 and 3 they can bring in cards from the sideboard that support this strategy. With 2 copies of Deflecting Palm and 3 copies of Path to Exile, they have a pretty good shot at neutralizing our first Death's Shadow at the expense of a small setback in speed. Once again, this supports the strategy of burning us out quickly better than the strategy of holding back on burn spells. If they wait too long, we might get a second Death's Shadow or finish them or take over the game with Snapcaster Mage.
Another important aspect of this matchup is the fact that they usually run 12 creatures. That's a very low number for an aggro deck. It means that in some games, we might end up with a bunch of unusable creature removal spells in hand. If they empty their hand quickly instead of waiting, we will get less value from our discard spells as well, amplifying the effect. Collective Brutality can mitigate this problem somewhat, but we usually have only two of these in the sideboard. On the other hand, there can be games where the burn player has more creatures than we can handle with the number of removal spells we draw. In this case, they can again aggressively go after our life total and then chump block our Death's Shadow in the late game.
Furthermore, Grixis Shadow decks have evolved over time, albeit only slightly. But the evolution that has taken place has not changed the Burn matchup for the better. Early incarnations of our deck ran at least 2 Lightning Bolts and often a Temur Battle Rage or even two in place of Terminate. Current lists tend to make room for cards like Liliana of the Veil (yet another reason for the burn player to empty their hand fast) and Dismember, in an effort to improve their matchup against midrange decks and the mirror.
But I hear you say: There are lists that run 3 Stubborn Denials and 4 Fatal Push instead of the 2 Stubborn Denials, 3 Fatal Pushes and 2 Lightning Bolts of old. That might even be better, you say, because it doesn't require red mana!
But it isn't, mainly for two reasons:
Firstly, Lightning Bolt is part of the solution for the too many/too few creature removals dilemma outlined above. Lightning Bolt also makes it considerably harder for the burn player to plan their sequencing. They will often have to play with the possibility of bolt-snap-bolt in mind. Against Burn, Lightning Bolt is almost strictly better than Fatal Push once we have a red mana source (which isn't that hard to obtain).
Secondly, the sideboard of the early Grixis Shadow often contained the 3rd and 4th Stubborn Denial and the 4th Fatal Push. Often, they had also a sixth decent card against Burn, so that they cut all but 2 Thoughtseizes after sideboarding. On the contrary, many of today's Grixis Shadow struggle to replace even the 4th Street Wraith and might end up bringing in clunky cards like Dreadbore. The reason for the direction our sideboards have taken is probably that we are very much focused on the lists that ended up making top 8 or top 32 at large events. More often than not, these decks are piloted by pro players that get a few byes instead of having to grind through the entire field. So they can often afford a loss or two against the fast aggro decks, freeing up valuable sideboard slots for the deck archetypes that dominate at the top tables. When we bring our Grixis Shadow deck to a local tournament, we will often be faced with a different environment.
So, these are the reasons why I think that burning us out quickly instead of holding back is a valid strategy for the burn player and nothing that they should be looked down upon for. Our deck has more and more evolved into a value-orientated midrange deck with a twist. So fighting it - mostly - like a midrange deck seems legit to me.
What's the sideboard plan: Worse cards in the matchup: Street Wraith, Kolaghan's Command, Terminate, Thoughtseize (that's 12 cards depending on the list)
Terminate and Kolaghan's Command are a little slow in this matchup, but not actively bad. In the past, switching out a Kolaghan's Command for a Fulminator Mage (which, while a little awkward, might occasionally win the day) was something that could be considered. But since we don't run these anymore, we no longer have that option.
My sideboard plan right now (-4 Wraiths, -1 Kommand, +2 Stubborn Denial, +2 Collective Brutality, +1 Temur Battle Rage). I leave in Thoughtseize because Eidolon is very scary and I need to remove it from their hand)
That's interesting. I kind of like Kolaghan's Command against burn. It also deals with Eidolon, at the same cost of lifeloss and has various other applications once we have enough mana. Being stuck on 4 Thoughtseizes in game 2 and 3 feels bad.
What's the best cards in their sideboard: Path, RIP/other GY Hate, Deflecting Palm, Grim Lavamancer
I wouldn't bring Grim Lavamancer if I was the burn player. The risk of giving Grixis Shadow an extra bang out of Collective Brutality is very real. As the burn player, I would value my cards on how much damage they are likely to do. Grim Lavamancer will likely do no damage and doesn't work in conjunction with Rest in Peace that might be worth bringing in.
What's their worse cards in the matchup: Searing Blaze, Skullcrack,
You are definitely right about Searing Blaze, but Skullcrack is one of their better burn spells. They know we will bring two copies of Collective Brutality, so I fully expect them to leave Skullcrack in.
Any more comments on the Burn matchup from anyone else would be helpful for me if there's more insight.
There you go. This is not my first posting on that topic. We had a nice discussion on page 50 of this thread, and it wasn't the first one.
What's the opponent thinking: Since DS isn't a fast deck I have time to build up a critical mass of burn spells that I can play at the end of their turn, untap and do a bunch more. Let the DS player damage themselves and don't help them play get to under thirteen to play a shadow.
I played dozens of matches against burn players of varying skill levels on MTGO, and not even half of them embarked on this strategy. When the burn matchup was discussed in this thread a while ago, several people made statements like "but the good burn players do". I didn't agree back then and I agree even less by now. I have lost numerous games against burn players that emptied their hand as quickly as possible. Obviously, they didn't cast instant burn spells on their turn if they didn't have to, but for the most part, they played against my deck just like they would play against other midrange decks.
So why did it work? I don't think it was because I'm a bad player. I'd like to pretend to be slightly above average. But I can be wrong. So keep that in mind. Anyway, I put quite a bit of thought in how this matchup plays out.
First of all, as long was we don't have Death's Shadow in play, there is no punishment for burning us out. If the game goes quickly, we won't have Death's Shadow about 40% of the time (I didn't do the exact math, but it seems to be around that mark). So, roughly 40% of the time, burning us out is probably already the best strategy. In game 2 and 3 they can bring in cards from the sideboard that support this strategy. With 2 copies of Deflecting Palm and 3 copies of Path to Exile, they have a pretty good shot at neutralizing our first Death's Shadow at the expense of a small setback in speed. Once again, this supports the strategy of burning us out quickly better than the strategy of holding back on burn spells. If they wait too long, we might get a second Death's Shadow or finish them or take over the game with Snapcaster Mage.
I've won a lot of games against burn specifically because they just throw their burn spells at me instead of waiting for that critical mass, allowing me to get a fatty into play and turn on my Stubs. Sometimes throwing them at the Death's Shadow player is the right move, sometimes it's not. And when it's not, it loses you the game. And it's not just as easy as looking at the battlefield to see if there's a Death's Shadow in play. You have to make sure you can kill the Shadow player quickly enough that if they drop a Shadow and have Stub backup on their next turn, you're not just dead.
It's not a matter of mindlessly waiting no matter what the board state is. But the burn player needs to be cognizant of how likely it is that the Death's Shadow player has a Shadow in hand if there's not already one on the battlefield, how fast the Shadow player's clock is without adding a Shadow to the board (if there's not one already), and how much faster the clock becomes if the burn player puts the Shadow player's life total lower than 13 and the Shadow player does have a Shadow waiting, or finds one next turn. A good general rule for the burn side is to get them to about 12 as fast as possible, then think really carefully about pushing them lower based on your hand + board strength, how likely they are to have a shadow, etc.
The tough thing about the matchup (from both sides) is that there are fewer solid general rules here than anywhere else. You really need to think through the specifics of the cards in your hand, the board state, what cards they're likely to have, etc.
I can agree with most of what you wrote, Spooly. I'd like to add that I also won a bunch of games because my Burn opponent was holding back on spells because they (wrongly) assumed that my deck was in the beatdown role.
There is also one statement in your post I don't really agree with:
You have to make sure you can kill the Shadow player quickly enough that if they drop a Shadow and have Stub backup on their next turn, you're not just dead.
No, you don't have to make this sure. You can read the game state for some time and then make assumptions on how likely a certain situation is going to happen. Sometimes, you will be wrong. But in such a tight matchup, it's usually sufficient to be right most of the time.
Furthermore, if I recall right, you have been running Mana Leak in place of Inquisition of Kozilek most of the time. This changes the Burn matchup quite a bit in your favor, because you have a direct answer to Eidolon which they will likely not be aware of at the start of the game. It also means that you are less likely to end up with uncastable discard spells once they have emptied their hand. As long as they don't have enough lands to play around Mana Leak, you can completely control the game if they empty their hand. With Inquisition of Kozilek, it's almost the other way around.
I can agree with most of what you wrote, Spooly. I'd like to add that I also won a bunch of games because my Burn opponent was holding back on spells because they (wrongly) assumed that my deck was in the beatdown role.
There is also one statement in your post I don't really agree with:
You have to make sure you can kill the Shadow player quickly enough that if they drop a Shadow and have Stub backup on their next turn, you're not just dead.
No, you don't have to make this sure. You can read the game state for some time and then make assumptions on how likely a certain situation is going to happen. Sometimes, you will be wrong. But in such a tight matchup, it's usually sufficient to be right most of the time.
Yeah, I overstated it. You have to evaluate the risk-reward for going for it vs. sitting back. But point is, sitting back is often right.
Furthermore, if I recall right, you have been running Mana Leak in place of Inquisition of Kozilek most of the time. This changes the Burn matchup quite a bit in your favor, because you have a direct answer to Eidolon which they will likely not be aware of at the start of the game. It also means that you are less likely to end up with uncastable discard spells once they have emptied their hand. As long as they don't have enough lands to play around Mana Leak, you can completely control the game if they empty their hand. With Inquisition of Kozilek, it's almost the other way around.
I think what I've said applies to the builds with IoK too, but yes, and this is one reason why I've often had leak.
MTGO is still in extended maintenance, so lets play a little game here.
Lets assume we play Burn on the draw and are up against Grixis Shadow. We won game 1 and lost game 2, so we know what they are working with and can decide to hold back on spells if necessary. Our hand consists of the following cards:
That's a decent hand with a fairly even distribution of the things that we run in our deck. Eidolon of the Great Revel might have been even better against Grixis Shadow and these are not our best burn spells. But having two early creatures is good on the play. This hand is an easy keep.
Turn 5 Burn: We draw another Monastery Swiftspear. We cast Skullcrack, ending the game. (Life totals: Burn 8 vs. Grixis Shadow -1)
This is a fairly typical game from my experience, given that the Burn player goes first. We had a very balanced draw, not a particularly great one. Our first three draws were also pretty average: A creature, a land and a burn spell. The fourth draw could have been anything. Our creatures effectively dealt only 2 damage each, but they kept our opponent fairly busy. If we had drawn a second CMC1 burn spell, the game could have ended a turn earlier.
Our opponent had to deal with a suboptimal mana situation and they missed their 4th land drop on turn 4. This is fairly common with Grixis Shadow, though. They had a turn 2 Tasigur and a turn 3 Death's Shadow without digging, so their threat situation was probably above average. Maybe they shouldn't have terminated Goblin Guide on turn 4, if they had something else to do. But that would have given the Burn player another turn or more, depending on what we draw.
We as the Burn player were almost on auto pilot. There were basically two decisions we had to make:
1) On our turn 3, we could have killed Tasigur, the Golden Fang with Lightning Helix instead of bolting face. Given how much creature removal Grixis Shadow packs, this was an easy decision.
2) On our turn 4, we could have cast Boros Charm or Skullcrack instead of just passing the turn. But they had an open blue mana source at that point. This decision was very easy.
Yes, the game could have become more open if they had been able to play a Death's Shadow on turn 2. But the chance for this to happen was below 50%. They also wouldn't have been able to block on turn 2 without risking to lose their Death's Shadow if we had attacked with only one of our Goblin Guides (unless they kept their Street Wraiths in).
In the end, it didn't even matter whether we cast Boros Charm or Skullcrack during their end step on turn 4, assuming that they didn't have some very exotic cards in their deck to somehow counter the second spell.
According to BloodyRabbit_01:
90% of Burn players are bad at Magic.
The example above shows that sometimes it doesn't matter how good or bad they are. Without a turn 2 Death's Shadow or something really good like a Collective Brutality, the game was nearly unwinnable for the Grixis Shadow player - mostly because the Burn player went first.
Of course, not every game is that easy for the Burn player. But my point is that a fair margin of the games against Grixis Shadow are just that. They don't require the Burn player to hold back anything longer than usual. It gets even easier when the Grixis Shadow player has to dig for their threats or is stuck on two lands or flooded or doesn't draw enough removal spells or doesn't have Stubborn Denial when needed. Yes, the burn player can screw up too. But I haven't seen this happen often. They effectively play a one-color deck with a splash and they are even better at operating on low mana than us.
Wow thanks for the help guys! I def am making too many silly mistakes like not fetching before Serum etc. Also I think I have been too caught up in those things like scrying, using GY, managing fetch/shock/life total, and not able to focus enough on Whos The Beatdown or even what my opponent is about to do in the coming turns.
Regarding Burn, I was 9-0 vs Shadow in events like 1k's and PPTQs until I finally lost this weekend but I strongly advocate stocking up on burn spells as the burn player. I usually board out 8 creatures on the draw at least, leaving in Eidolon, bringing in Path, Palm, RiP, Bridge. On the play I cut the Bridge and Palm and bring in 4 creatures back.
I never thought the burn player has to hold back in most games. It comes up maybe 10% of the time. But when it does, it's important, and it's not always easy to identify. Small margins matter - they're usually all that's left once you have the basics. Burn is the epitome of this. Almost everyone can play burn to 80% or 90% of its potential. But the last 10% is pretty difficult. Especially vs. Shadow.
Also your burn player misplays on turn 2. Playing the 2nd Guide is definitely better than playing the Spike. It maximizes the damage of the creatures, and makes it slightly harder for the opponent to play a safe-from-bolt Death's Shadow next turn since it leaves the Shadow player at a slightly higher life total. And if they do get to play a Shadow, it makes it less relevant as an attacker since you have so many creatures they'll likely need to block.
Well, my whole point was that the burn player was not forced to adjust their tactics (much) in this game. Going for the second Goblin Guide would have been a way of playing with Death's Shadow in mind. Our burn player doesn't put that much thought into the game. Our burn player just wants maximum possible damage. I also don't think that attacking with two Goblin Guides would have been strictly better. Since the Shadow player has an uncracked fetch at this point, they would have been guaranteed to make use of both Goblin Guide triggers. It would also have given away the information that the Burn player was working with a rather creature-heavy hand.
Well, my whole point was that the burn player was not forced to adjust their tactics (much) in this game. Going for the second Goblin Guide would have been a way of playing with Death's Shadow in mind. Our burn player doesn't put that much thought into the game. Our burn player just wants maximum possible damage. I also don't think that attacking with two Goblin Guides would have been strictly better. Since the Shadow player has an uncracked fetch at this point, they would have been guaranteed to make use of both Goblin Guide triggers. It would also have given away the information that the Burn player was working with a rather creature-heavy hand.
All of this is definitely worth getting the extra 2 damages from a creature though
Well, my whole point was that the burn player was not forced to adjust their tactics (much) in this game. Going for the second Goblin Guide would have been a way of playing with Death's Shadow in mind. Our burn player doesn't put that much thought into the game. Our burn player just wants maximum possible damage. I also don't think that attacking with two Goblin Guides would have been strictly better. Since the Shadow player has an uncracked fetch at this point, they would have been guaranteed to make use of both Goblin Guide triggers. It would also have given away the information that the Burn player was working with a rather creature-heavy hand.
I know, I'm not arguing with your point about that game
Thank you so much for all the responses to the burn summary. I reread page fifty as I had forgot about it. It sums up the matchup really well. I think all the feedback on this page should give anyone a well rounded view on the matchup and I really like the example of the game. Nice job Tasighoul.
Wow thanks for the help guys! I def am making too many silly mistakes like not fetching before Serum etc. Also I think I have been too caught up in those things like scrying, using GY, managing fetch/shock/life total, and not able to focus enough on Whos The Beatdown or even what my opponent is about to do in the coming turns..
Glad everyone could help out! This deck is quite a puzzle and you have to understand what you and your opponent are trying to do to win the game. Try to push your plan while stopping their plan. Try to spend time with a friend playing a matchup over and over until you have a gameplan for that matchup. You don't have to win every time but you do need to know how to play the matchup.
somebody has some techs against bant eldrazi? i feel it is a poor matchup, and even in sd i dont have many answers ( only rejection are very good and they play cavern of souls).
Coming from a Bant Eldrazi player, a single Dreadbore in the SB will help. Also LotV can be punishing, especially if you set her up with thoughtseize effects. It's a rough matchup, and oftentimes a single drowner of hope can win the game for Bant Eldrazi. I would always try and keep up a terminate or fetch+Fatal Push when you think they will drop a TKS. Although TKS isn't that great in the matchup because it gets outsized by all of the grixis threats. GDS is the aggressor in the matchup because Bant can stabilize with drowner of hope, and can lock out the game with drowner + Displacer. So I would keep all the hand disruption spells in.
Played the Face to Face Open on Saturday to a 6-3 finish, enough for 28 out of 228 people
Round 1 I quickly lost to fish because he got a better board presence than I did both games
0-1, round one loss sucks but friends told me I'm probably still good for top 8 at X-2 and prizes at X-3, so I kept playing til then
Round 2, I 2-0 titanshift, game 1 I tear his hand apart and attack through. Game 2 was a bit closer, but I kept him off blockers and chalice, enough to not let him see either a titan or scapeshift that would have killed me
1-1, looking better
Round 2 I 2-0 that zoo list with loxodon smiter and voice of resurgence he mulls to 5 game 1. Game 2, what won me the game was it was my board of double shadow, Tasigur and snapcaster vs his board of double voice token and smiter and 10 life. I swing in with my board, he blocks my shadows with voice tokens and snap with smiter. I flash my k command bkac with a snap to kill the smiter and get my snap back. I kill him next turn
2-1 Looking good
Round 4, opponent no shows
3-1, looking awfully good
Round 5, I lost to fish again I hate this match
3-2, I have the hardest time with fish
Round 6, I get pretty lucky to 2-1 dredge. He mulls to 5 game 1 then wins, he mulls to 6 game 2 but I win Game 3, I think he got stuck on one land after looting away 2 bloodghasts, after his secodn turn of missing his second land, I spellbomb away his grave to make sure he cant recur his bloodghasts. I eventually pushed through lethal
4-2 Pretty happy right now
Round 7, I beat Saheeli combo. Game 1, I just don't respect the combo and get punished. Games 2 and 3 I play my own game. These were some great games
5-2, doing way better than I thought I was going to do after not playing for so long. 35th place, win next round and I should prize
Round 8, I 2-0 elves. Somehow got there game 1, then izzet staticcaster was the MVP game 2.
6-2, snuck into 24th
Round 9, lost the mirror. Lack of experience in the mirror cost me and couldn't answer Liliana of the Veil
6-3, finished 28th and got 180 prize wall tickets
pretty happy with how I did, especially since I hadn't played in 2 months.
I am coming from Burn as my only modern deck and figured this deck would take some time to learn but I've played a solid 20+ matches with the deck and still suck....
Are there any good resources out there to help learn the deck?
This deck is just hard. Thoughtseize is a difficult card to play, so is serum visions, so is fetching. Are we on the plan of attack with delve creatures or death's shadow?
Most matchups are unique and take deliberate practice to understand; I suggest understanding Affinity, the Mirror, Eldrazi Tron, Burn, and any other decks you are running into over online first. Then learn more matchups.
Start with burn as you know both sides of the matchup.
Who's the beatdown: Death Shadow is my vote!
What are some of our opponent's best cards against us: Eidolon of the Great Revel, Rift Bolt (it allows them to delay damage a turn so they can play many spells in one turn)
What's the opponent thinking: Since DS isn't a fast deck I have time to build up a critical mass of burn spells that I can play at the end of their turn, untap and do a bunch more. Let the DS player damage themselves and don't help them play get to under thirteen to play a shadow.
What's the sideboard plan: Worse cards in the matchup: Street Wraith, Kolaghan's Command, Terminate, Thoughtseize (that's 12 cards depending on the list)
What's the best cards in the sideboard: Stubborn Denial, Collective Brutality, Temur Battle Rage (3 - 6 cards depending on the list)
My sideboard plan right now (-4 Wraiths, -1 Kommand, +2 Stubborn Denial, +2 Collective Brutality, +1 Temur Battle Rage). I leave in Thoughtseize because Eidolon is very scary and I need to remove it from their hand)
What's the best cards in their sideboard: Path, RIP/other GY Hate, Deflecting Palm, Grim Lavamancer
What's their worse cards in the matchup: Searing Blaze, Skullcrack,
So if that's how this one matchup sort of works (my opinion of course). We need a hand that is both proactive (delve creatures are great here) and disruptive. We can't keep a hand of just cantrips and hope to figure it out. Now we have a good question when we look at our opening hand - do we have a threat and either discard or countermagic. From there you are giving yourself the best chance of winning the game. If you don't, that's okay. Why did we lose? Could we have won with the information we had? Could we have won if we had hidden information? Could we have inferred the hidden information?
Finally, and sorry to go on such a long thread, learn general rules. This deck does have a lot of "it depends" answers but crossing off some decision points automatically is quite helpful to learn when you shouldn't do them. Let me explain. When you have a choice in fetchlands turn one, it's better to leave Polluted Delta as the last card to fetch with. Why, because it's the only fetch that can get both basic island and swamp. Obvious I know, but now when we look at turn one we know we should play Bloodstained Mire or Scalding Tarn before a Polluted Delta.
Other basic rules to live by: Fetch before Serum Visions if you are going to need to fetch. It hurts when you shouldn't have but more often than not you should. Should you fetch + shock before serum visions. I mostly do unless I have a good reason not to.
The last section might not have been too clear but try to find out what decision points are coming up over and over and try to figure out what the most common decision is and when you should not make that decision.
Any more comments on the Burn matchup from anyone else would be helpful for me if there's more insight.
I can probably do another one of these tomorrow if it was helpful let me know.
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/35259_The-Ultimate-Guide-To-Grixis-Deaths-Shadow.html
Appreciated that with a good write up
... then that's a great place to start (for any magic player, really). The deck shifts to the role it needs to in each matchup. That means sometimes you're trying to play control and sometimes you're trying to be the beatdown. Sometimes, that role shifts in the middle of the game. Some matches you need to mulligan to a heavy interaction hand. Some games you need to have a threat down ASAP. Some games you want to aggressively eat your own life total. Others, you want to what you have to in order to preserve it.
Perhaps the biggest mistake I see most people make with this deck is to just fetch/shock/street wraith/thoughtseize their own life into oblivion for EVERY game, when really, it's always a question of "it depends". If you're staring at a Goblin Guide coming at you on turn one, then you may want to pump the brakes.
So why did it work? I don't think it was because I'm a bad player. I'd like to pretend to be slightly above average. But I can be wrong. So keep that in mind. Anyway, I put quite a bit of thought in how this matchup plays out.
First of all, as long was we don't have Death's Shadow in play, there is no punishment for burning us out. If the game goes quickly, we won't have Death's Shadow about 40% of the time (I didn't do the exact math, but it seems to be around that mark). So, roughly 40% of the time, burning us out is probably already the best strategy. In game 2 and 3 they can bring in cards from the sideboard that support this strategy. With 2 copies of Deflecting Palm and 3 copies of Path to Exile, they have a pretty good shot at neutralizing our first Death's Shadow at the expense of a small setback in speed. Once again, this supports the strategy of burning us out quickly better than the strategy of holding back on burn spells. If they wait too long, we might get a second Death's Shadow or finish them or take over the game with Snapcaster Mage.
Another important aspect of this matchup is the fact that they usually run 12 creatures. That's a very low number for an aggro deck. It means that in some games, we might end up with a bunch of unusable creature removal spells in hand. If they empty their hand quickly instead of waiting, we will get less value from our discard spells as well, amplifying the effect. Collective Brutality can mitigate this problem somewhat, but we usually have only two of these in the sideboard. On the other hand, there can be games where the burn player has more creatures than we can handle with the number of removal spells we draw. In this case, they can again aggressively go after our life total and then chump block our Death's Shadow in the late game.
Furthermore, Grixis Shadow decks have evolved over time, albeit only slightly. But the evolution that has taken place has not changed the Burn matchup for the better. Early incarnations of our deck ran at least 2 Lightning Bolts and often a Temur Battle Rage or even two in place of Terminate. Current lists tend to make room for cards like Liliana of the Veil (yet another reason for the burn player to empty their hand fast) and Dismember, in an effort to improve their matchup against midrange decks and the mirror.
But I hear you say: There are lists that run 3 Stubborn Denials and 4 Fatal Push instead of the 2 Stubborn Denials, 3 Fatal Pushes and 2 Lightning Bolts of old. That might even be better, you say, because it doesn't require red mana!
But it isn't, mainly for two reasons:
Firstly, Lightning Bolt is part of the solution for the too many/too few creature removals dilemma outlined above. Lightning Bolt also makes it considerably harder for the burn player to plan their sequencing. They will often have to play with the possibility of bolt-snap-bolt in mind. Against Burn, Lightning Bolt is almost strictly better than Fatal Push once we have a red mana source (which isn't that hard to obtain).
Secondly, the sideboard of the early Grixis Shadow often contained the 3rd and 4th Stubborn Denial and the 4th Fatal Push. Often, they had also a sixth decent card against Burn, so that they cut all but 2 Thoughtseizes after sideboarding. On the contrary, many of today's Grixis Shadow struggle to replace even the 4th Street Wraith and might end up bringing in clunky cards like Dreadbore. The reason for the direction our sideboards have taken is probably that we are very much focused on the lists that ended up making top 8 or top 32 at large events. More often than not, these decks are piloted by pro players that get a few byes instead of having to grind through the entire field. So they can often afford a loss or two against the fast aggro decks, freeing up valuable sideboard slots for the deck archetypes that dominate at the top tables. When we bring our Grixis Shadow deck to a local tournament, we will often be faced with a different environment.
So, these are the reasons why I think that burning us out quickly instead of holding back is a valid strategy for the burn player and nothing that they should be looked down upon for. Our deck has more and more evolved into a value-orientated midrange deck with a twist. So fighting it - mostly - like a midrange deck seems legit to me. Terminate and Kolaghan's Command are a little slow in this matchup, but not actively bad. In the past, switching out a Kolaghan's Command for a Fulminator Mage (which, while a little awkward, might occasionally win the day) was something that could be considered. But since we don't run these anymore, we no longer have that option. That's interesting. I kind of like Kolaghan's Command against burn. It also deals with Eidolon, at the same cost of lifeloss and has various other applications once we have enough mana. Being stuck on 4 Thoughtseizes in game 2 and 3 feels bad. I wouldn't bring Grim Lavamancer if I was the burn player. The risk of giving Grixis Shadow an extra bang out of Collective Brutality is very real. As the burn player, I would value my cards on how much damage they are likely to do. Grim Lavamancer will likely do no damage and doesn't work in conjunction with Rest in Peace that might be worth bringing in. You are definitely right about Searing Blaze, but Skullcrack is one of their better burn spells. They know we will bring two copies of Collective Brutality, so I fully expect them to leave Skullcrack in. There you go. This is not my first posting on that topic. We had a nice discussion on page 50 of this thread, and it wasn't the first one.
I've won a lot of games against burn specifically because they just throw their burn spells at me instead of waiting for that critical mass, allowing me to get a fatty into play and turn on my Stubs. Sometimes throwing them at the Death's Shadow player is the right move, sometimes it's not. And when it's not, it loses you the game. And it's not just as easy as looking at the battlefield to see if there's a Death's Shadow in play. You have to make sure you can kill the Shadow player quickly enough that if they drop a Shadow and have Stub backup on their next turn, you're not just dead.
It's not a matter of mindlessly waiting no matter what the board state is. But the burn player needs to be cognizant of how likely it is that the Death's Shadow player has a Shadow in hand if there's not already one on the battlefield, how fast the Shadow player's clock is without adding a Shadow to the board (if there's not one already), and how much faster the clock becomes if the burn player puts the Shadow player's life total lower than 13 and the Shadow player does have a Shadow waiting, or finds one next turn. A good general rule for the burn side is to get them to about 12 as fast as possible, then think really carefully about pushing them lower based on your hand + board strength, how likely they are to have a shadow, etc.
The tough thing about the matchup (from both sides) is that there are fewer solid general rules here than anywhere else. You really need to think through the specifics of the cards in your hand, the board state, what cards they're likely to have, etc.
There is also one statement in your post I don't really agree with: No, you don't have to make this sure. You can read the game state for some time and then make assumptions on how likely a certain situation is going to happen. Sometimes, you will be wrong. But in such a tight matchup, it's usually sufficient to be right most of the time.
Furthermore, if I recall right, you have been running Mana Leak in place of Inquisition of Kozilek most of the time. This changes the Burn matchup quite a bit in your favor, because you have a direct answer to Eidolon which they will likely not be aware of at the start of the game. It also means that you are less likely to end up with uncastable discard spells once they have emptied their hand. As long as they don't have enough lands to play around Mana Leak, you can completely control the game if they empty their hand. With Inquisition of Kozilek, it's almost the other way around.
Yeah, I overstated it. You have to evaluate the risk-reward for going for it vs. sitting back. But point is, sitting back is often right.
I think what I've said applies to the builds with IoK too, but yes, and this is one reason why I've often had leak.
Lets assume we play Burn on the draw and are up against Grixis Shadow. We won game 1 and lost game 2, so we know what they are working with and can decide to hold back on spells if necessary. Our hand consists of the following cards:
Wooded Foothills, Inspiring Vantage, Lava Spike, Lightning Helix, Skullcrack, Monastery Swiftspear, Goblin Guide.
That's a decent hand with a fairly even distribution of the things that we run in our deck. Eidolon of the Great Revel might have been even better against Grixis Shadow and these are not our best burn spells. But having two early creatures is good on the play. This hand is an easy keep.
Turn 1 Burn: We play Inspiring Vantage, cast Goblin Guide, attack, revealing Terminate. (Life totals: Burn 20 vs. Grixis Shadow 18)
Turn 1 Grixis Shadow: They play Bloodstained Mire and pass the turn.
Turn 2 Burn: We draw a second Goblin Guide. We cast Monastery Swiftspear, play Wooded Foothills, crack it and fetch a Mountain. We cast Lava Spike, triggering Prowess. We attack with Goblin Guide and Monastery Swiftspear. They crack their Bloodstained Mire, fetch Watery Grave and cast Fatal Push on our Monastery Swiftspear, killing it. Goblin Guide reveals Kolaghan's Command. (Life totals: Burn 19 vs. Grixis Shadow 10)
Turn 2 Grixis Shadow: They play Thought Scour in their upkeep, milling away Kolaghan's Command and Scalding Tarn. They play a Blood Crypt untapped and cast Tasigur, the Golden Fang. (Life totals: Burn 19 vs. Grixis Shadow 8)
Turn 3 Burn: We draw a Mountain. We play it and cast Goblin Guide. We attack with both Goblin Guides, revealing Polluted Delta (which goes to our opponent's hand) and Death's Shadow. Tasigur, the Golden Fang blocks Goblin Guide, killing it. We bolt face with with Lightning Helix. (Life totals: Burn 22 vs. Grixis Shadow 3)
Turn 3 Grixis Shadow: They attack with Tasigur, the Golden Fang. They play Polluted Delta. They cast Death's Shadow, tapping Blood Crypt. (Life totals: Burn 18 vs. Grixis Shadow 3)
Turn 4 Burn: We draw a Boros Charm and pass the turn.
Turn 4 Grixis Shadow: They crack Polluted Delta and fetch Island. They cast Terminate, killing our Goblin Guide. They attack with Death's Shadow. We cast Boros Charm in their end step, which they counter with Stubborn Denial (Life totals: Burn 8 vs. Grixis Shadow 2)
Turn 5 Burn: We draw another Monastery Swiftspear. We cast Skullcrack, ending the game. (Life totals: Burn 8 vs. Grixis Shadow -1)
This is a fairly typical game from my experience, given that the Burn player goes first. We had a very balanced draw, not a particularly great one. Our first three draws were also pretty average: A creature, a land and a burn spell. The fourth draw could have been anything. Our creatures effectively dealt only 2 damage each, but they kept our opponent fairly busy. If we had drawn a second CMC1 burn spell, the game could have ended a turn earlier.
Our opponent had to deal with a suboptimal mana situation and they missed their 4th land drop on turn 4. This is fairly common with Grixis Shadow, though. They had a turn 2 Tasigur and a turn 3 Death's Shadow without digging, so their threat situation was probably above average. Maybe they shouldn't have terminated Goblin Guide on turn 4, if they had something else to do. But that would have given the Burn player another turn or more, depending on what we draw.
We as the Burn player were almost on auto pilot. There were basically two decisions we had to make:
1) On our turn 3, we could have killed Tasigur, the Golden Fang with Lightning Helix instead of bolting face. Given how much creature removal Grixis Shadow packs, this was an easy decision.
2) On our turn 4, we could have cast Boros Charm or Skullcrack instead of just passing the turn. But they had an open blue mana source at that point. This decision was very easy.
Yes, the game could have become more open if they had been able to play a Death's Shadow on turn 2. But the chance for this to happen was below 50%. They also wouldn't have been able to block on turn 2 without risking to lose their Death's Shadow if we had attacked with only one of our Goblin Guides (unless they kept their Street Wraiths in).
In the end, it didn't even matter whether we cast Boros Charm or Skullcrack during their end step on turn 4, assuming that they didn't have some very exotic cards in their deck to somehow counter the second spell.
According to BloodyRabbit_01: The example above shows that sometimes it doesn't matter how good or bad they are. Without a turn 2 Death's Shadow or something really good like a Collective Brutality, the game was nearly unwinnable for the Grixis Shadow player - mostly because the Burn player went first.
Of course, not every game is that easy for the Burn player. But my point is that a fair margin of the games against Grixis Shadow are just that. They don't require the Burn player to hold back anything longer than usual. It gets even easier when the Grixis Shadow player has to dig for their threats or is stuck on two lands or flooded or doesn't draw enough removal spells or doesn't have Stubborn Denial when needed. Yes, the burn player can screw up too. But I haven't seen this happen often. They effectively play a one-color deck with a splash and they are even better at operating on low mana than us.
Regarding Burn, I was 9-0 vs Shadow in events like 1k's and PPTQs until I finally lost this weekend but I strongly advocate stocking up on burn spells as the burn player. I usually board out 8 creatures on the draw at least, leaving in Eidolon, bringing in Path, Palm, RiP, Bridge. On the play I cut the Bridge and Palm and bring in 4 creatures back.
Also your burn player misplays on turn 2. Playing the 2nd Guide is definitely better than playing the Spike. It maximizes the damage of the creatures, and makes it slightly harder for the opponent to play a safe-from-bolt Death's Shadow next turn since it leaves the Shadow player at a slightly higher life total. And if they do get to play a Shadow, it makes it less relevant as an attacker since you have so many creatures they'll likely need to block.
Also I think I'm gonna shift from Ceremonious Rejection. Since my meta all burn and bant eldrazi. They just felt bad last pptq I went.
All of this is definitely worth getting the extra 2 damages from a creature though
I know, I'm not arguing with your point about that game
Glad everyone could help out! This deck is quite a puzzle and you have to understand what you and your opponent are trying to do to win the game. Try to push your plan while stopping their plan. Try to spend time with a friend playing a matchup over and over until you have a gameplan for that matchup. You don't have to win every time but you do need to know how to play the matchup.
Coming from a Bant Eldrazi player, a single Dreadbore in the SB will help. Also LotV can be punishing, especially if you set her up with thoughtseize effects. It's a rough matchup, and oftentimes a single drowner of hope can win the game for Bant Eldrazi. I would always try and keep up a terminate or fetch+Fatal Push when you think they will drop a TKS. Although TKS isn't that great in the matchup because it gets outsized by all of the grixis threats. GDS is the aggressor in the matchup because Bant can stabilize with drowner of hope, and can lock out the game with drowner + Displacer. So I would keep all the hand disruption spells in.