I'm starting to think about what should be done with Burn. It is hands down the best deck in the format right now. Should they ban something in Burn to lower it's power level, or unban other cards to push up the power level of other decks? To me it seems like the single card that has pushed Burn above other decks is Eidolon of the Great Revel, but banning that card would open up the flood gates for Jeskai Ascendancy to run rampant. Maybe ban both? Maybe unban Sword of the Meek to offset Burn with life gain that is playable in a Tier 1 deck?
They should wait for the meta to adapt to it because Burn loses to hate. I am all for unbanning Sword of the Meek though.
Burn is more difficult to hate out than most people think. I really think people saying burn is weak to sideboard hate is just rhetoric. I frequently lose to burn even with active Kor firewalkers and Auriok champions. Sure, if you want to play soul sisters, you'll probably beat burn, With 4-8 anti lifegain cards maindeck, all they usually need to do is sideboard in enchantment removal for the few decks that play 4x leylines.
The real problem, is burn is just way more efficient than any of the cards that are good against it. Why play a turn 4 combo deck when you can just play Burn? Burn wins just as consistently on turn 4, and is even more difficult to hate out than most combo decks are.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find me online - I'm on Cockatrice * Tag - Badd B - Or on MTGO - Tag - Cbus05
Me neither. But if everyone just goes along with the same established ideas on how to beat Burn as it changes how it works, then no one will be able to beat it. So I ask again. How can Burn beat Pulse of the Fields+Removal for consistent damage sources.
It won't have to because that is never going to be a thing. Timely Reinforcements is the only card remotely close to that which sees occasional play in some sideboards. A new archtype isn't going to pop up and dominate Burn if it can't beat the rest of the meta. Soul Sisters is really well positioned right now, due to the over abundance of Burn in the meta. But Soul Sisters still loses to a lot of the top decks, such as Twin and Pod. The same will go for the proposed deck you're suggesting.
Burn is really really good. Of the current top 10 decks, Affinity only one that gives Burn a hard time. But it still loses hard post sideboard. The mirror can be hard too, but it's supposed to be something of an even match up. Every other deck loses pretty hard to Burn. Even the UR Delver decks with Treasure Cruise that are now taking up about 9% of the online meta (the second most played deck after Burn) usually loses to Burn. The deck is so good that people are starting to meta against it by playing mono red variants to capitalize on the life loss from fetch and shock lands. It reminds me of when Jund started splashing white for Lingering Souls just to meta against itself with opposing Liliana of the Veil.
Now personally, I do think unbanning Sword of the Meek to go with Thopter Foundry is a reasonable approach to containing Burn. It can give continuous life gain through out multiple turns, without triggering Eidolon of the Great Revel. Cards like Skullcrack and Flames of the Blood Hand would only offer temporary resistance to the life gain. The cards aren't broken, and require at least two colors of mana commitment. A deck built around this mechanic would still lose to most Combo decks. I think it's a completely viable way of reigning in Burn without more bans taking place.
Trust me. It really isn't. Of the top 10 decks right now, only Affinity gives Burn any trouble. And it's easy to board in enough artifact hate to make up the difference post board. Zoo doesn't load up on all of those either. I rarely see Scavenging Ooze or Kitchen Finks in Zoo. Helix, sure. Sometimes Leyline too, although most burn decks are running some form of enchantment hate in the sideboard. Wear // Tear, Destructive Revelry, Keening Apparition, etc... Plus Zoo plays a lot of fetch into shock lands, and typically deals 6 damage to themselves to begin with. I've been playing Burn quite a bit lately, and have had very few problems beating almost every deck.
I don't know if that is a joke or what, but I have never seen anyone play Pulse of the Fields in Modern.
Me neither. But if everyone just goes along with the same established ideas on how to beat Burn as it changes how it works, then no one will be able to beat it. So I ask again. How can Burn beat Pulse of the Fields+Removal for consistent damage sources.
Pulse is an underrated card for sure. With that said, nobody is saying burn is 100% unstoppable, but you're almost guaranteed to lose to it game 1, then game 2 +3, you need to surely find your sideboard cards to have a hope if you're playing anything remotely fair. That also far from guarantees winning since they'll have 8-10 anti life gain cards g2 as well as cards like destructive revelry or wear // tear to deal with any problematic hate cards.
The biggest issue is that it's not easy to hate (contrary to popular belief), it's extremely consistent, it requires you to be in the right colors to have an answer for it, and you have to play bad cards in your sideboard just for that specific matchup.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find me online - I'm on Cockatrice * Tag - Badd B - Or on MTGO - Tag - Cbus05
Its a lot easier for burn to adjust to life gain. All they have to do is run Leyline of Punishment or the like.
The problem with burn in Modern is essentially its the same shell as being run in Legacy. There are a few card differences. Wotc has already shown not to like it when decks in Modern get to that power level in the meta. I would suspect Wotc will do something about burn if the meta doesnt adapt between now and the next announcement.
Pulse isn't good enough for us and I can explain why. It might give you 4 life each time you play it but at the same time with eidolon up you take two damage. 2 damage isn't that hard to fight through. Especially if you're devoting 3 mana each turn to it. You mentioned more removal but can you really play enough of both before you just lose? If you don't remove Eidolon and we end up with a second one it's negated entirely.
Its a lot easier for burn to adjust to life gain. All they have to do is run Leyline of Punishment or the like.
The problem with burn in Modern is essentially its the same shell as being run in Legacy. There are a few card differences. Wotc has already shown not to like it when decks in Modern get to that power level in the meta. I would suspect Wotc will do something about burn if the meta doesnt adapt between now and the next announcement.
But the question that must be asked is what can they do? What do they ban to kill the menace that is burn?
IMO, anything with a clear linear strategy should not be regulated through bans. Burn is the relevant example being talked about. It can be fought (quite easily I might add) with cards readily available in the card pool. Not to say that there aren't exceptions, but generally I would rather have players adapt than Wotc.
This keeps the metagame more fluid as less powerful decks can exploit weaknesses week to week. For instance burn hate displacing traditional sideboard slots normally allocated for graveyard interaction, or vice versa.
People have been playing less-than-optimal cards to fight other matchups, so why should burn be the exception? Not to mention that discard and permission are still very valid ways to combat burn game 1. Whether or not TC puts burn strategies over-the-top, allowing it to ignore common forms of interaction (ie. trading resources); is more indicative of the power level of TC than anything else.
I think losing to burn just leaves a sour taste in most peoples mouths. It is a relatively cheap deck that has no obvious synergies or interactions, and the perceived decision trees required to play the deck are not very complicated. I know that I get pretty salty when I lose to burn, but not because the deck is innately more powerful than what I am doing.
Granted all of this is outside of MTGO, which has its own isolated meta derived from a skewed and inbred economy. Why NOT play burn when it has acceptable percentages against the field, is cheap (kinda), and allows you to jam more games in the same period of time as other decks.
Anywho, I see TC being banned in January. The power level of the card is fairly obvious, and while the opportunity cost is non-zero; it surely isn't high enough to be prohibitive. Most (if not all) decks running blue can only become better by running some number of them. I personally don't want it to be, because I play it (and am thus biased); however, it would not surprise nor anger me in the slightest. If wotc wants to raise the power level of the format by combating TC with unbans in other colors; then that is cool too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I don't even play Treasure Cruise, and I still crush with Burn. That's not even the issue here. I hope people understand that I am stating that Burn is the most dominant deck as a Burn player, not as someone who plays against Burn. There are not a lot of people who would complain if their deck was the dominant deck, but I see that it's overwhelmingly powerful currently. And there is nothing in the deck that even warrants a banning, outside of the questionable Eidolon of the Great Revel. Even that card I don't think is broken. I think the problem is the lack of ways to effectively combat the deck. Almost every card that is great against Burn is so narrow that it barely gets brought in against other decks. There is no top tier deck with a good match up against Burn pre and post board.
This is why I keep suggesting the unbanning of Sword of the Meek, which for some reason no one wants to discuss.
This is why I keep suggesting the unbanning of Sword of the Meek, which for some reason no one wants to discuss.
I'm willing to humor you and say that Sword of the Meek is a control card and it gets played in a control shell. But everyone that runs Sword of the Meek will also be running Thopter Foundry as the win condition. Remind me again why we need another uninteractive, top tier combo in this format?
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
This is why I keep suggesting the unbanning of Sword of the Meek, which for some reason no one wants to discuss.
I'm willing to humor you and say that Sword of the Meek is a control card and it gets played in a control shell. But everyone that runs Sword of the Meek will also be running Thopter Foundry as the win condition. Remind me again why we need another uninteractive, top tier combo in this format?
He is right.
Thopter/Sword is a control deck.
Think: Do you want this thing asap ?
Of course not ! Even if you have it Turn 4, how do you use it ? You don't have the mana. This is not a Twin-style instant win. It's a slow, creeping win. And because of that, you have to protect it over multiple turns. And this means it's not uninteractive.
I don't even play Treasure Cruise, and I still crush with Burn. That's not even the issue here. I hope people understand that I am stating that Burn is the most dominant deck as a Burn player, not as someone who plays against Burn. There are not a lot of people who would complain if their deck was the dominant deck, but I see that it's overwhelmingly powerful currently. And there is nothing in the deck that even warrants a banning, outside of the questionable Eidolon of the Great Revel. Even that card I don't think is broken. I think the problem is the lack of ways to effectively combat the deck. Almost every card that is great against Burn is so narrow that it barely gets brought in against other decks. There is no top tier deck with a good match up against Burn pre and post board.
This is why I keep suggesting the unbanning of Sword of the Meek, which for some reason no one wants to discuss.
Multiple things here:
First of all, I'm just curious: Isn't Kor Firewalker a problem for you ? It blocks your Goblin Guide and gives the other player time to beat you.
And how many enchantment removals do you play ? I think 4 Tear (Wear/Tear), but that should be it, no ? Because the stronest hate cards for you are white enchantments in the form of Sanctimony and Circle of Protection: Red
This leads to my third point: Narrow sideboard cards should not be a problem. Nobody is calling for a affinity ban because he has to run Hurkyl's Recall or Creeping Corrosion or Kataki, War's Wage in his board, cards that are totally dead in all other machups. People should make that for Burn too...
EDIT: Sword of the Meek would be great to have in the format non the less !
This is why I keep suggesting the unbanning of Sword of the Meek, which for some reason no one wants to discuss.
I'm willing to humor you and say that Sword of the Meek is a control card and it gets played in a control shell. But everyone that runs Sword of the Meek will also be running Thopter Foundry as the win condition. Remind me again why we need another uninteractive, top tier combo in this format?
He is right.
Thopter/Sword is a control deck.
Think: Do you want this thing asap ?
Of course not ! Even if you have it Turn 4, how do you use it ? You don't have the mana. This is not a Twin-style instant win. It's a slow, creeping win. And because of that, you have to protect it over multiple turns. And this means it's not uninteractive.
Agree to disagree.
The two non-creature artifacts combined read: X: Put X 1/1 creatures with flying on to the battlefield. Gain X life.
In order for an opponent to interact with this, your opponent needs maindeck artifact removal, Scavenging Ooze or Rest in Peace. That's pretty narrow.
But wait.
This is a control shell. Probably UB control.
This means that your opponent also has to get that removal through counterspells and discard.
So the best case scenario here is that we add a deck that assembles a two-card combo slowly, over time, while ripping apart your hand and countering your spells. The interactivity here is very, very one-way.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
Comparing twin to thoptersword is not a fair comparison. Thoptersword is cheaper and has a better range of efficient tutors. But most important is the fact that its a lot harder to stop. The main way people stop twin is with point removal, spellskite or bluffing. Given that thopter sword isn't even a 2 for 1 if they can stop it, none of these things work, meaning the range of answers is much much smaller. And although it isn't an instant win, unless you're really far behind already, fair decks are very VERY rarely going to win through it, which even has the side effect of pushing the meta game more into combo, something which players are already complaining about.
In regards to burn, although I haven't played with or against it enough to really say, since noone in my area really plays it, it does seem that, at the very least, its a deck which people can beat if they prepare for it. While it's not necessarily a healthy thing for the format, it could very well become something like dredge in vintage, where its hard to beat in game one, but with all the sideboard cards dedicated for it, it's a lot more beatable in game 2.
I keep reading this statement and I feel those saying it dont realize burn started being a dominate deck prior to KTK being released. The meta has had time to adapt and has not been able to. Add in KTK being released and making the deck better. Now people are saying wait for the next set. How long do we wait for the adjustment or this magical card to even the playing field? People seem to not understand what warping means.
The two non-creature artifacts combined read: X: Put X 1/1 creatures with flying on to the battlefield. Gain X life.
In order for an opponent to interact with this, your opponent needs maindeck artifact removal, Scavenging Ooze or Rest in Peace. That's pretty narrow.
But wait.
This is a control shell. Probably UB control.
This means that your opponent also has to get that removal through counterspells and discard.
So the best case scenario here is that we add a deck that assembles a two-card combo slowly, over time, while ripping apart your hand and countering your spells. The interactivity here is very, very one-way.
What if I play Keranos in a control deck? Should it be banned because my opponent can't kill it?
I am confused by the lack of acendancy, people keep claiming its dumb but we still don't see it.
I think as scary as it is we should let these new blue cards to see what they can do before we panic ban them.. it might be the case that these cards can be cataylsts to get cards off the ban list.. I'd prefer to see a smaller ban list.
Comparing twin to thoptersword is not a fair comparison. Thoptersword is cheaper and has a better range of efficient tutors. But most important is the fact that its a lot harder to stop. The main way people stop twin is with point removal, spellskite or bluffing. Given that thopter sword isn't even a 2 for 1 if they can stop it, none of these things work, meaning the range of answers is much much smaller. And although it isn't an instant win, unless you're really far behind already, fair decks are very VERY rarely going to win through it, which even has the side effect of pushing the meta game more into combo, something which players are already complaining about.
In regards to burn, although I haven't played with or against it enough to really say, since noone in my area really plays it, it does seem that, at the very least, its a deck which people can beat if they prepare for it. While it's not necessarily a healthy thing for the format, it could very well become something like dredge in vintage, where its hard to beat in game one, but with all the sideboard cards dedicated for it, it's a lot more beatable in game 2.
Sorry, I just wanted to show why calling SotM a combo card that leads to a new combo deck is wrong. It would not be a combo deck. Thats all.
Now, what you say is the following:
SotM can be found fast an consistent.
Thats true. But again, it does not need to be found fast, it would be used as a finisher in control decks, one, two copies are enough. And even if found fast, the effect is not huge early in the game.
You say further: It is harder to stop.
Here too, you are right. But as a control finisher, it should be that, no ?
What I would like is to help control AND hurt Burn a bit. Both is done nicely by SotM.
What makes me think it would be ok is the fact that it still dies to Stony Silence and other artifact removal, and at the same time graveyard hate. Both is played a lot already.
I keep reading this statement and I feel those saying it dont realize burn started being a dominate deck prior to KTK being released. The meta has had time to adapt and has not been able to. Add in KTK being released and making the deck better. Now people are saying wait for the next set. How long do we wait for the adjustment or this magical card to even the playing field? People seem to not understand what warping means.
So what should be banned now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Its a lot easier for burn to adjust to life gain. All they have to do is run Leyline of Punishment or the like.
The problem with burn in Modern is essentially its the same shell as being run in Legacy. There are a few card differences. Wotc has already shown not to like it when decks in Modern get to that power level in the meta. I would suspect Wotc will do something about burn if the meta doesnt adapt between now and the next announcement.
Well what defines legacy burn is price of progress and the spells that sacks 2 mountains to deal 4.
Its a lot easier for burn to adjust to life gain. All they have to do is run Leyline of Punishment or the like.
The problem with burn in Modern is essentially its the same shell as being run in Legacy. There are a few card differences. Wotc has already shown not to like it when decks in Modern get to that power level in the meta. I would suspect Wotc will do something about burn if the meta doesnt adapt between now and the next announcement.
Well what defines legacy burn is price of progress and the spells that sacks 2 mountains to deal 4.
You are talking about price of progress and Fireblast sir, while these two cards seperate the power level of legacy burn from modern burn, modern also has a closer target, fetch/shocks see to that. So what I'm saying here is legacy burn has stronger spells, but modern burn starts with an eighth card in hand, in the form of opponents burning themselves for three damage. These two facts balance the power level of the two decks relative to their environment. Neither is really that much stronger than the other.
Now for the statement that you responded to, the problem that bocephus is trying to address doesn't actually exist, what is happening here is that burn has become a tier 1 deck, and no one wants to accept that, thus no one wants to dedicate sideboard cards to it, so they just keep losing to burn, and instead of adapting, they just hope that Wizards hit it with the bannhammer. Burn is far from unbeatable, stop playing greedy decks that use life total as a resource, and burn will have a harder time preying on you. Burn as a deck is actually the meta police, instead of hoping for the meta to adapt to burn, perhaps burn's prevalence is the meta adjusting to greedy decks.
If burn is still too dominant after they ban TC, they will surely ban eidolon the same way they banned BBE. That creature is crazy overpowered. But I kind of see it hard to happen, mainly because if it's so dominant, you just need to put a few lifegain cards (dragon's claw) in your sideboard and suddenly your burn MU is highly favorable. Then there's soul sisters which is decent against the field and has byes against burn.
I keep reading this statement and I feel those saying it dont realize burn started being a dominate deck prior to KTK being released. The meta has had time to adapt and has not been able to. Add in KTK being released and making the deck better. Now people are saying wait for the next set. How long do we wait for the adjustment or this magical card to even the playing field? People seem to not understand what warping means.
That is correct and incorrect, it's all about context. Yes Burn appears to be dominant in MTGO. In paper the situation is somehow under control with burn having a much smaller percentage of the field. Burn so far has 80 top top 16 appearances in Paper Events (7.59%), followed by BG with 76(7.21%) and surpassed by affinity with a staggering 109 (10.34%).
Moreover, since there have been practically 1 GPs where Burn was dominant, the numbers do not support the conclusion that Burn is Overwhelming. Examine the large and most recent non-gp event that concluded just some days ago, the 155 person Challenger to God of Modern in Japan, that saw 2 Burn decks in the top 16, and there you have it. Why? Because if you check the list of the other players, they were prepared to face Burn. Innovation and adaptation to the meta usually comes when people get down to it, and start brewing, or have a specific direction and goal in mind. I don't want to lose to Burn could be a start. Remember when people sided in all kinds of cards to fight THE MENACE (jk) of Boggles?. Innovation however, usually happens before and after a GP or a PT. Which brings me to another point I want to adress.
So far, regarding Paper Magic, the deck warrants no BANS. These numbers are not warping. Burn has its uprise in MTGO so far with an astonishing 15.44%. The reasons for this are plenty, Burn is cheaper than everything else, why not pick a Winner etc. However as with most things on the internet, MTGO in my opinion, is based around a trend-flowing metagame more than anything else. It usually follows the decks that are performing well, decks that have a strong showing on the GP circuit, or decks that have a hype going on for them (Jeskai Ascendancy, which is almost nowhere to be seen on Paper).
As I've noted earlier, I don't even play Burn anymore, so I am kinda partialy to the deck in either way. However the reason I am running heads off here, is that it really saddens me to see people complaining about Burn's power and presenting it like it's Jund DRS era over again, and claiming that THEY CANNOT ALLOW 4-5 useless sideboard cards to their decks to kill burn. Unfortunately for them I will say, and to anyone who has not as of yet grasped this, Modern, as an Eternal Format, has its living spark in the Sideboard. I am not going to go into Legacy comparisons now, but by playing an Eternal Format, which already has its father-format Legacy being seriously Side-Board oriented, you should know by its very essence, that it would become, and be, a format revolving around Sideboards.
At the very worst, I think that Burn will end up being like Dredge in Legacy sideboard wise,and I find that amusing and welcome by any means. If you are prepared for it, the deck simply has no game. If you are not however prepared for it, the deck will run through the gates. So far, we didn't have this effect in modern for a deck, maybe it's going to be a first.
PS. The main reason of concern for me, is that people advocate banning Eidolon of the Great Revel. The fundamental problem I have with that is that the card produces a symmetrical effect, granted the burn deck uses it to its advantage, but thats about it. It doesn't enable something broken, it doesn't provide mana fixing, doesn;t accelerate, doesn't find you pieces. All in all, it's a fair symmetrical card. By advocating banning such a card, you are willingly or unwillingly (which one is better is up to you and Socrates to decide)about to enter a situation where people will have a reason to advocate banning similarly symmetrical cards on the grounds of previous Bannings. And that, that's the scariest part of all.
To be clear I was just stating in the past when decks got close to their Legacy counterparts (only a few cards off) Wotc has banned something out of those decks. I dont know what could or should be banned from Burn to accomplish the same type of move, but that doesnt mean Wotc wont.
I personally think its more of a statement in the format that burn is a T1 deck. I dont know if burn has ever been talked about as much as it is now in any format in the past as it is now in Modern. It seems many feel there is something wrong with burns rise to the T1 status.
Quote from nhan »
Simple stop playing cards that start you at 15 lifepoint. There is a price to power, and that price is having to deal with burn.
This would be bad, very bad, for the format. One thing most players enjoy about Modern is the perfect mana. Take away the ability to play multicolored decks and we will see a drop off of some type.
I love to see the way the crowd with pitchforks and torches all come out to kill burn. After Eidolon I assume if burn continues to see play they will want the bolt removed?
People really like to protect the ridiculous money they paid for their goyfs don't they?
There's an easy solution, just ban mountains.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Burn is more difficult to hate out than most people think. I really think people saying burn is weak to sideboard hate is just rhetoric. I frequently lose to burn even with active Kor firewalkers and Auriok champions. Sure, if you want to play soul sisters, you'll probably beat burn, With 4-8 anti lifegain cards maindeck, all they usually need to do is sideboard in enchantment removal for the few decks that play 4x leylines.
The real problem, is burn is just way more efficient than any of the cards that are good against it. Why play a turn 4 combo deck when you can just play Burn? Burn wins just as consistently on turn 4, and is even more difficult to hate out than most combo decks are.
It won't have to because that is never going to be a thing. Timely Reinforcements is the only card remotely close to that which sees occasional play in some sideboards. A new archtype isn't going to pop up and dominate Burn if it can't beat the rest of the meta. Soul Sisters is really well positioned right now, due to the over abundance of Burn in the meta. But Soul Sisters still loses to a lot of the top decks, such as Twin and Pod. The same will go for the proposed deck you're suggesting.
Burn is really really good. Of the current top 10 decks, Affinity only one that gives Burn a hard time. But it still loses hard post sideboard. The mirror can be hard too, but it's supposed to be something of an even match up. Every other deck loses pretty hard to Burn. Even the UR Delver decks with Treasure Cruise that are now taking up about 9% of the online meta (the second most played deck after Burn) usually loses to Burn. The deck is so good that people are starting to meta against it by playing mono red variants to capitalize on the life loss from fetch and shock lands. It reminds me of when Jund started splashing white for Lingering Souls just to meta against itself with opposing Liliana of the Veil.
Now personally, I do think unbanning Sword of the Meek to go with Thopter Foundry is a reasonable approach to containing Burn. It can give continuous life gain through out multiple turns, without triggering Eidolon of the Great Revel. Cards like Skullcrack and Flames of the Blood Hand would only offer temporary resistance to the life gain. The cards aren't broken, and require at least two colors of mana commitment. A deck built around this mechanic would still lose to most Combo decks. I think it's a completely viable way of reigning in Burn without more bans taking place.
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
Pulse is an underrated card for sure. With that said, nobody is saying burn is 100% unstoppable, but you're almost guaranteed to lose to it game 1, then game 2 +3, you need to surely find your sideboard cards to have a hope if you're playing anything remotely fair. That also far from guarantees winning since they'll have 8-10 anti life gain cards g2 as well as cards like destructive revelry or wear // tear to deal with any problematic hate cards.
The biggest issue is that it's not easy to hate (contrary to popular belief), it's extremely consistent, it requires you to be in the right colors to have an answer for it, and you have to play bad cards in your sideboard just for that specific matchup.
The problem with burn in Modern is essentially its the same shell as being run in Legacy. There are a few card differences. Wotc has already shown not to like it when decks in Modern get to that power level in the meta. I would suspect Wotc will do something about burn if the meta doesnt adapt between now and the next announcement.
But the question that must be asked is what can they do? What do they ban to kill the menace that is burn?
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
This keeps the metagame more fluid as less powerful decks can exploit weaknesses week to week. For instance burn hate displacing traditional sideboard slots normally allocated for graveyard interaction, or vice versa.
People have been playing less-than-optimal cards to fight other matchups, so why should burn be the exception? Not to mention that discard and permission are still very valid ways to combat burn game 1. Whether or not TC puts burn strategies over-the-top, allowing it to ignore common forms of interaction (ie. trading resources); is more indicative of the power level of TC than anything else.
I think losing to burn just leaves a sour taste in most peoples mouths. It is a relatively cheap deck that has no obvious synergies or interactions, and the perceived decision trees required to play the deck are not very complicated. I know that I get pretty salty when I lose to burn, but not because the deck is innately more powerful than what I am doing.
Granted all of this is outside of MTGO, which has its own isolated meta derived from a skewed and inbred economy. Why NOT play burn when it has acceptable percentages against the field, is cheap (kinda), and allows you to jam more games in the same period of time as other decks.
Anywho, I see TC being banned in January. The power level of the card is fairly obvious, and while the opportunity cost is non-zero; it surely isn't high enough to be prohibitive. Most (if not all) decks running blue can only become better by running some number of them. I personally don't want it to be, because I play it (and am thus biased); however, it would not surprise nor anger me in the slightest. If wotc wants to raise the power level of the format by combating TC with unbans in other colors; then that is cool too.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)This is why I keep suggesting the unbanning of Sword of the Meek, which for some reason no one wants to discuss.
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
I'm willing to humor you and say that Sword of the Meek is a control card and it gets played in a control shell. But everyone that runs Sword of the Meek will also be running Thopter Foundry as the win condition. Remind me again why we need another uninteractive, top tier combo in this format?
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
He is right.
Thopter/Sword is a control deck.
Think: Do you want this thing asap ?
Of course not ! Even if you have it Turn 4, how do you use it ? You don't have the mana. This is not a Twin-style instant win. It's a slow, creeping win. And because of that, you have to protect it over multiple turns. And this means it's not uninteractive.
Multiple things here:
First of all, I'm just curious: Isn't Kor Firewalker a problem for you ? It blocks your Goblin Guide and gives the other player time to beat you.
And how many enchantment removals do you play ? I think 4 Tear (Wear/Tear), but that should be it, no ? Because the stronest hate cards for you are white enchantments in the form of Sanctimony and Circle of Protection: Red
This leads to my third point: Narrow sideboard cards should not be a problem. Nobody is calling for a affinity ban because he has to run Hurkyl's Recall or Creeping Corrosion or Kataki, War's Wage in his board, cards that are totally dead in all other machups. People should make that for Burn too...
EDIT: Sword of the Meek would be great to have in the format non the less !
Agree to disagree.
The two non-creature artifacts combined read:
X: Put X 1/1 creatures with flying on to the battlefield. Gain X life.
In order for an opponent to interact with this, your opponent needs maindeck artifact removal, Scavenging Ooze or Rest in Peace. That's pretty narrow.
But wait.
This is a control shell. Probably UB control.
This means that your opponent also has to get that removal through counterspells and discard.
So the best case scenario here is that we add a deck that assembles a two-card combo slowly, over time, while ripping apart your hand and countering your spells. The interactivity here is very, very one-way.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
In regards to burn, although I haven't played with or against it enough to really say, since noone in my area really plays it, it does seem that, at the very least, its a deck which people can beat if they prepare for it. While it's not necessarily a healthy thing for the format, it could very well become something like dredge in vintage, where its hard to beat in game one, but with all the sideboard cards dedicated for it, it's a lot more beatable in game 2.
I keep reading this statement and I feel those saying it dont realize burn started being a dominate deck prior to KTK being released. The meta has had time to adapt and has not been able to. Add in KTK being released and making the deck better. Now people are saying wait for the next set. How long do we wait for the adjustment or this magical card to even the playing field? People seem to not understand what warping means.
What if I play Keranos in a control deck? Should it be banned because my opponent can't kill it?
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Sword of the meek, bloodbraid elf and Ansectrial visions(treasure cruise would probably still be played instead of it).
I am confused by the lack of acendancy, people keep claiming its dumb but we still don't see it.
I think as scary as it is we should let these new blue cards to see what they can do before we panic ban them.. it might be the case that these cards can be cataylsts to get cards off the ban list.. I'd prefer to see a smaller ban list.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
Sorry, I just wanted to show why calling SotM a combo card that leads to a new combo deck is wrong. It would not be a combo deck. Thats all.
Now, what you say is the following:
SotM can be found fast an consistent.
Thats true. But again, it does not need to be found fast, it would be used as a finisher in control decks, one, two copies are enough. And even if found fast, the effect is not huge early in the game.
You say further: It is harder to stop.
Here too, you are right. But as a control finisher, it should be that, no ?
What I would like is to help control AND hurt Burn a bit. Both is done nicely by SotM.
What makes me think it would be ok is the fact that it still dies to Stony Silence and other artifact removal, and at the same time graveyard hate. Both is played a lot already.
So what should be banned now?
Well what defines legacy burn is price of progress and the spells that sacks 2 mountains to deal 4.
You are talking about price of progress and Fireblast sir, while these two cards seperate the power level of legacy burn from modern burn, modern also has a closer target, fetch/shocks see to that. So what I'm saying here is legacy burn has stronger spells, but modern burn starts with an eighth card in hand, in the form of opponents burning themselves for three damage. These two facts balance the power level of the two decks relative to their environment. Neither is really that much stronger than the other.
Now for the statement that you responded to, the problem that bocephus is trying to address doesn't actually exist, what is happening here is that burn has become a tier 1 deck, and no one wants to accept that, thus no one wants to dedicate sideboard cards to it, so they just keep losing to burn, and instead of adapting, they just hope that Wizards hit it with the bannhammer. Burn is far from unbeatable, stop playing greedy decks that use life total as a resource, and burn will have a harder time preying on you. Burn as a deck is actually the meta police, instead of hoping for the meta to adapt to burn, perhaps burn's prevalence is the meta adjusting to greedy decks.
Edit for grammar.
RIP Karn EDH
Simple stop playing cards that start you at 15 lifepoint. There is a price to power, and that price is having to deal with burn.
RIP Karn EDH
To be clear I was just stating in the past when decks got close to their Legacy counterparts (only a few cards off) Wotc has banned something out of those decks. I dont know what could or should be banned from Burn to accomplish the same type of move, but that doesnt mean Wotc wont.
I personally think its more of a statement in the format that burn is a T1 deck. I dont know if burn has ever been talked about as much as it is now in any format in the past as it is now in Modern. It seems many feel there is something wrong with burns rise to the T1 status.
This would be bad, very bad, for the format. One thing most players enjoy about Modern is the perfect mana. Take away the ability to play multicolored decks and we will see a drop off of some type.
People really like to protect the ridiculous money they paid for their goyfs don't they?
There's an easy solution, just ban mountains.