For what I have seen in these last results, the numbers are really similar. Statistically, it would make a difference about once every 100 games. I am probably gonna try to replace my 2 lavamancers with the 19th land and another searing blaze.
For what I have seen in these last results, the numbers are really similar. Statistically, it would make a difference about once every 100 games. I am probably gonna try to replace my 2 lavamancers with the 19th land and another searing blaze.
I think the thing that separates them is probability of having a good hand through 3 turns, with not too many lands or to few lands. I haven't calculated that yet.
Me and my buddy realized that we have a lot of modern Burn staples laying around in our trade binder, so we decided to make a Burn with the cards we have.
Basically, we have everything except for 3 Goblin Guide, 1 Atarka's Command, 1 Boros Charm, 2 Lightning Helix and a couple of fetch/fast lands. Since we have a big collection, we will try to get the missing cards by trade.
Here's our current decklist without the missing cards. The big card that we're missing is clearly Goblin Guide. I believe after acquiring those 3 missing GG, the deck will be at least playable for FNMs even with the other missing cards.
So I was wondering if the decklist looks "optimal" with the cards that we currently have. Also, should I try out Vexing Devil?
I know how the community feels about "budget" list, but it would be greatly appreciated if someone could give me some feedback, so that the deck can at be played at a FNM. Our goal is to obviously end up acquiring all the missing cards by trade and have the optimal Tier 1 Burn deck. Thank you.
Here's the list. (Yes, missing some cards in the sideboard)
Pretty much everyone has abandoned Wild Nacatl because of Fatal Push. Most have stopped playing Atarka's Command, too, and are on a Boros main deck but I'm of the opinion that Atarka's Command is too powerful to drop.
Vexing Devil is a bad card and a waste of money. It's a bad top deck and is never what you want it to be. It's a trap and it's not worth playing. It's been tried by plenty of people since 2012 when AVR came out, and it's not good enough. People keep bringing it up thinking that they've discovered something amazing, and it's still not good enough.
Spark and Hellspark are both superior to Vexing Devil and no one would fault you for playing 3 of those until you have Guides. They also don't cost $10 like the supposed "budget replacement" Vexing Devil.
If you're looking for "optimal" lists, you'll find "generally accepted" lists all over mtggoldfish and mtgtop8. There are maybe 10-ish "flex" slots in the deck and the rest is a core of auto-4s and lands.
Well, Claim//Fame doesn't belong in Burn. It reanimates a small creature on a later turn when your small creatures are generally useless. There's a lot of stuff that would be better than Claim//Fame.
Yeah, the only reason Claim//Fame is run is to resurrect an 8/8+ creature and give it haste. Pretty good for 3 mana.
So, I usually find elconquistador to be a bit abrupt sometimes, however this time he was really just spelling out the factual statistics and the true history of Vexing Devil (hint: I played it too in Dega Burn back before Khans of Tarkir), but as dicey of a play it was back then its a complete mistake at this point with Fatal Push. That's why people are playing even less creatures and posting results without Eidolon. Just remember, deathstroke, you did ask for an opinion and one was offered. I also think its a complete mistake at this point and I can't ever imagine a scenario where it will ever be added back into Burn. You might as well sell those cards so you can get a couple more staples that you desperately need for your deck like 4 boros charm which will always be the right call, and you could even focus on Goblin Guide while its more reasonable in price than it was.
I also ran Nacatl last year at Gen Con and won one of the big modern tournaments there. It's time is also done. Current Modern = 1. Play a ton of creatures and jam them on the field into destruction so that you can hopefully overrun them. 2. Play a couple creatures and control the situation / play creatures that have evasion, or 3. Play the least amount of creatures as possible as to avoid being tempo played.
So I think I kind of want to try out the Shrine of the Burning Rage for my upcoming weekly modern tournament. I don't know if 4 is really the right number and I'm thinking I'll land back on 3, maybe even 2. I'm perfectly ok with trying Eidolon out of the main just for fun. Eidolon is starting to feel like a trap card again. I'd also like to run 4 R/W Fastlands in the main. My current list runs no Grim and runs 1 or 2 Shard. Shard is going to have negative synergy with Shrine so it has to go. My list is pretty similar to the GP's list.
I really am thinking about trimming the Shrine down to 3. In doubles its icky. Even 2 might not be that bad. I'd still like to try it out though. I'm going to go ahead and keep the Eidolon out and I'm trying to figure out what I will run in it's place. I'm loathe to run Grim but that might be about it. Shard is real bad with shrine. I'm kind of tempted to run 3 Inspiring and 1 Blood Crypt for Bump in the Night. I could even do something like running a Blood Crypt main and 1 stomping ground in the side. Anything is up in the air right now.
Yeah, the only reason Claim//Fame is run is to resurrect an 8/8+ creature and give it haste. Pretty good for 3 mana.
So, I usually find elconquistador to be a bit abrupt sometimes, however this time he was really just spelling out the factual statistics and the true history of Vexing Devil (hint: I played it too in Dega Burn back before Khans of Tarkir), but as dicey of a play it was back then its a complete mistake at this point with Fatal Push. That's why people are playing even less creatures and posting results without Eidolon. Just remember, deathstroke, you did ask for an opinion and one was offered. I also think its a complete mistake at this point and I can't ever imagine a scenario where it will ever be added back into Burn. You might as well sell those cards so you can get a couple more staples that you desperately need for your deck like 4 boros charm which will always be the right call, and you could even focus on Goblin Guide while its more reasonable in price than it was.
I also ran Nacatl last year at Gen Con and won one of the big modern tournaments there. It's time is also done. Current Modern = 1. Play a ton of creatures and jam them on the field into destruction so that you can hopefully overrun them. 2. Play a couple creatures and control the situation / play creatures that have evasion, or 3. Play the least amount of creatures as possible as to avoid being tempo played.
So I think I kind of want to try out the Shrine of the Burning Rage for my upcoming weekly modern tournament. I don't know if 4 is really the right number and I'm thinking I'll land back on 3, maybe even 2. I'm perfectly ok with trying Eidolon out of the main just for fun. Eidolon is starting to feel like a trap card again. I'd also like to run 4 R/W Fastlands in the main. My current list runs no Grim and runs 1 or 2 Shard. Shard is going to have negative synergy with Shrine so it has to go. My list is pretty similar to the GP's list.
I really am thinking about trimming the Shrine down to 3. In doubles its icky. Even 2 might not be that bad. I'd still like to try it out though. I'm going to go ahead and keep the Eidolon out and I'm trying to figure out what I will run in it's place. I'm loathe to run Grim but that might be about it. Shard is real bad with shrine. I'm kind of tempted to run 3 Inspiring and 1 Blood Crypt for Bump in the Night. I could even do something like running a Blood Crypt main and 1 stomping ground in the side. Anything is up in the air right now.
If you're gonna run Shrine, I would highly suggest running 4. Shrine is the type of card that, while bad in multiples, is at its best on turn two and get much worse with each passing turn. Therefore, you want to be running the full playset to maximize the chances that you get the full value out of the card. To run less than 4 would not only decrease the chance of multiples, but decrease the chance you see it in your opening hand. Eidolon and Searing Blaze are both cards like this as well, and I would never advocate running any less than 4 of them if you choose to run them at all. Even though doubles feels bad, you cause more problems than you solve by thinning the numbers.
Also, definitely don't run a splash land in the sideboard. Sideboard slots are so precious, and a land is always useful even if you have to shock yourself to use it. Much better to run the Stomping Grounds in the main.
I'm tempted to put the Stomping Ground main in a Mountain slot however I like having 3 instead of 2 and I want to keep my non white sources down to 4.
It's basically a step further with the Boros burn, just in a different direction. Bump is great in speed and destructive Revelry is the best artifact/enchantment.
Inspiring Vantage and Bump is a pretty sizeable nonbo. You want Blackcleave Cliffs instead. But then again, that makes flop when you SB from Mardu to Naya.
So it seems that GP Birmingham winner loïc le briand's thoughts on Shrine over Eidolon haven't made the rounds here. Some language-related hiccups aside, I think his reasoning is sound, even when I don't agree with his assessments on some of the matchups (never had much trouble against Shadow, personally). What do you all think?
So it seems that GP Birmingham winner loïc le briand's thoughts on Shrine over Eidolon haven't made the rounds here. Some language-related hiccups aside, I think his reasoning is sound, even when I don't agree with his assessments on some of the matchups (never had much trouble against Shadow, personally). What do you all think?
That's also cross-posted to r/LavaSpike, but there is limited response there so far.
So it seems that GP Birmingham winner loïc le briand's thoughts on Shrine over Eidolon haven't made the rounds here. Some language-related hiccups aside, I think his reasoning is sound, even when I don't agree with his assessments on some of the matchups (never had much trouble against Shadow, personally). What do you all think?
Even if I could buy that there exists a good reason to play Shrine of Burning Rage over Eidolon (and I don't), his reasoning is completely wrong.
The Grixis Death's Shadow matchup isn't "bad overall". He's playing a 2 mana card that plans for the long game and his reasoning is that a 2/2 is bad against Tasigur, Goyf, and Death's Shadow. You're not getting to the long game against Tasigur, Goyf, and Death's Shadow. Point of fact: Eidolon of the Great Revel is very good against GDS and Jund. The vast majority of the cards in those decks trigger it, and you've disrupted their plan even if it dies and you did it with the added benefit of passive damage. Passive damage is very important against GDS because it pushes them towards 13 and lets you sandbag burn spells. Shrine forces you to not sandbag, otherwise you don't get any counters. Eventually you're just out of gas and it's insufficient. He's talking up how Shrine's damage is uncounterable while ignoring the fact that Shrine is counterable just like Eidolon is. If he's aiming to spend 3 mana on an uncounterable 4-6 damage after spending 2 mana on T2, Exquisite Firecraft deals 4 uncounterable damage and you can play Lightning Strike on T2 to get 7 out of the same mana investment, though it costs 2 cards.
Eidolon isn't very good against Affinity, but planning for the long game against another aggro deck sounds like a horrible idea. That matchup isn't "bad over all", but rather a 45:55 one that you have to learn to play right.
Eldrazi Tron is a problematic matchup, but the strategy you need to employ is to race them, not plan for the long game. He's talking about TKS, but by the time Shrine can deal a respectable amount of damage, TKS has hit you 3 times and you're at 5-ish life and they've probably played something else along the way. In other words, the game is probably over and they finished at 3-6 life.
The longer the game goes against them, the best it is for you.
It's very strange to me that he's talking up the virtues of the long game against decks that don't go long against us. We're not talking about Shrine against Lantern Control, here. We're talking about decks that run you over in short order.
I think a huge part of playing burn is bottlenecking the opponent's mana. The longer the game goes on, the more mana your opponent has to play with, and the more likely it is that you're just dead. I play under the assumption that a two mana spell should deal at least 4 damage (which is why Boros Charm is an auto include but Helix is more questionable). Even if Shrine can do more damage than Eidolon, which is by no means a certainty, Eidolon does what you want right when you want it. If he hits the opponent once and then gets removed, he's worth his card slot. That's the same as the other creatures in the deck, if they hit twice they're worth it.
I think this conversation is going on in part because Eidolon isn't as good as he used to be, since we're seeing higher CMCs in Modern. And that's true, but that doesn't mean he's bad. I don't see people cutting Blazes because threats are bigger nowadays, or Skullcracks because lifegain is on the downtick. I feel like people are trying to innovate for the sake of innovation, but Burn is already so tight, and that's a good thing. I feel it's time to return to the principles of what Burn is, which is a deck trying to shrink down a game of Magic. Shrine all but fizzles against aggro decks (where Eidolon would shine outside of Affinity), and trying to go long against decks built for disruption plays right into what they want. I'll be honest, it feels like a no brainer.
There can be a case made for a different twist to Burn as its proven like the Shrine example that has proved well for 1 event. However, just because it worked in 1 event or 1 meta doesnt mean it will work for you or in the long run. Im a big proponent of play test it and if it works for you and your meta great. Also over the many years of MTG many deck types have had main builds with unique/diiferent twists that have succeeded that event but not proved long term/consistent. 5 color Shadow that was primarily creatures and no discard in main and very little discard in side finished top 4/5 at a major event but havent seen it anywhere since then.
Your always welcome to run your deck the way you want. Your 60/75 doesnt have to match mine, his, theirs, everyone elses. Just keep in mind that if Shrine is not working well for you dont force it just to try and prove a point, you'd be amazed how some people want a card to badly work out and just not.
Shifting metas usually (but not all instances) affect our sides more not our main more.
When Twin was a gigantic thing cards like Combust and Rending Volley were much needed in our side but the meta changed drastically with Twin getting banned so we dont see those cards anymore.
I don't think one guy playing Shrine at a couple GPs and winning one of them means that Shrine is "proven". I also don't really think that different for the sake of being different is a good way to go about things.
I was simply commenting on his reasoning behind playing Shrine, and I believe I'm correct in my assessment that his reasoning is backwards. I think planning for the long game as Burn is a bad idea to begin with. Championing a card built for the long game as if said card is powerful against one of the fastest aggro decks around is straight up absurd. Affinity isn't durdle.dec. Affinity is going to vomit their hand and try to steamroll you as fast as they can. A 2 mana do-nothing that doesn't do anything until turn 6, 7, 8... is horrendous against Affinity. Your best play on T2 against Affinity is Searing Blaze on whatever they attach Cranial Plating to. You need to be the control player there, not tapping out on T2 for Shrine of Burning Rage while you watch a Vault Skirge nail you for 8.
BW BW Tokens
RG Dredgeplendid Reclamation
RW Boros Burn
GB Elves
RB Dark Goblins
WU Azorius' Relic
I think the thing that separates them is probability of having a good hand through 3 turns, with not too many lands or to few lands. I haven't calculated that yet.
Basically, we have everything except for 3 Goblin Guide, 1 Atarka's Command, 1 Boros Charm, 2 Lightning Helix and a couple of fetch/fast lands. Since we have a big collection, we will try to get the missing cards by trade.
Here's our current decklist without the missing cards. The big card that we're missing is clearly Goblin Guide. I believe after acquiring those 3 missing GG, the deck will be at least playable for FNMs even with the other missing cards.
So I was wondering if the decklist looks "optimal" with the cards that we currently have. Also, should I try out Vexing Devil?
I know how the community feels about "budget" list, but it would be greatly appreciated if someone could give me some feedback, so that the deck can at be played at a FNM. Our goal is to obviously end up acquiring all the missing cards by trade and have the optimal Tier 1 Burn deck. Thank you.
Here's the list. (Yes, missing some cards in the sideboard)
// 13 Creature
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Monastery Swiftspear
1 Goblin Guide
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
// 20 Instant
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Boros Charm
3 Atarka's Command
4 Skullcrack
2 Lightning Helix
4 Searing Blaze
// 19 Land
4 Mountain
2 Stomping Ground
2 Sacred Foundry
4 Wooded Foothills
3 Bloodstained Mire
4 Windswept Heath
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
2 Kor Firewalker
1 Grim Lavamancer
4 Destructive Revelry
2 Deflecting Palm
2 Path to Exile
Maybeboard/Toolbox
4 Vexing Devil
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Spark Elemental
1 Searing Blood
Vexing Devil is a bad card and a waste of money. It's a bad top deck and is never what you want it to be. It's a trap and it's not worth playing. It's been tried by plenty of people since 2012 when AVR came out, and it's not good enough. People keep bringing it up thinking that they've discovered something amazing, and it's still not good enough.
Spark and Hellspark are both superior to Vexing Devil and no one would fault you for playing 3 of those until you have Guides. They also don't cost $10 like the supposed "budget replacement" Vexing Devil.
If you're looking for "optimal" lists, you'll find "generally accepted" lists all over mtggoldfish and mtgtop8. There are maybe 10-ish "flex" slots in the deck and the rest is a core of auto-4s and lands.
So, I usually find elconquistador to be a bit abrupt sometimes, however this time he was really just spelling out the factual statistics and the true history of Vexing Devil (hint: I played it too in Dega Burn back before Khans of Tarkir), but as dicey of a play it was back then its a complete mistake at this point with Fatal Push. That's why people are playing even less creatures and posting results without Eidolon. Just remember, deathstroke, you did ask for an opinion and one was offered. I also think its a complete mistake at this point and I can't ever imagine a scenario where it will ever be added back into Burn. You might as well sell those cards so you can get a couple more staples that you desperately need for your deck like 4 boros charm which will always be the right call, and you could even focus on Goblin Guide while its more reasonable in price than it was.
I also ran Nacatl last year at Gen Con and won one of the big modern tournaments there. It's time is also done. Current Modern = 1. Play a ton of creatures and jam them on the field into destruction so that you can hopefully overrun them. 2. Play a couple creatures and control the situation / play creatures that have evasion, or 3. Play the least amount of creatures as possible as to avoid being tempo played.
So I think I kind of want to try out the Shrine of the Burning Rage for my upcoming weekly modern tournament. I don't know if 4 is really the right number and I'm thinking I'll land back on 3, maybe even 2. I'm perfectly ok with trying Eidolon out of the main just for fun. Eidolon is starting to feel like a trap card again. I'd also like to run 4 R/W Fastlands in the main. My current list runs no Grim and runs 1 or 2 Shard. Shard is going to have negative synergy with Shrine so it has to go. My list is pretty similar to the GP's list.
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Searing Blaze
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Helix
4 SkullCrack
4 Inspiring Vantage
2 Sacred Foundry
1 Stomping Ground
2 Mountain
4 Arid Mesa
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Wooded Foothills
1 Scalding Tarn
4 Destructive Revelry
3 Kor Firewalker
4 Path to Exile
2 Shattering Spree
I really am thinking about trimming the Shrine down to 3. In doubles its icky. Even 2 might not be that bad. I'd still like to try it out though. I'm going to go ahead and keep the Eidolon out and I'm trying to figure out what I will run in it's place. I'm loathe to run Grim but that might be about it. Shard is real bad with shrine. I'm kind of tempted to run 3 Inspiring and 1 Blood Crypt for Bump in the Night. I could even do something like running a Blood Crypt main and 1 stomping ground in the side. Anything is up in the air right now.
RGWNaya BurnRGW+++RGWKiki ComboRGW
UGInfectUG+++++++++.++++++++UGMerfolkUG
GGNykthos WaveGG++++++++++GGStompyGG
BRVampiresBR+++++++.+++++++BRGoblinsBR
WGBogglesWG+++++++++++++CRSkred RedCR
UBRGDredgeUBRG++++++++++BB8 RackBB
URWJeskaiURW+++.++UBRGrixis DelverUBR
URStormUR++++++++UWGBant CompanyUWG
WUBRGHumansWUBRG+CCEldrazi TronCC
If you're gonna run Shrine, I would highly suggest running 4. Shrine is the type of card that, while bad in multiples, is at its best on turn two and get much worse with each passing turn. Therefore, you want to be running the full playset to maximize the chances that you get the full value out of the card. To run less than 4 would not only decrease the chance of multiples, but decrease the chance you see it in your opening hand. Eidolon and Searing Blaze are both cards like this as well, and I would never advocate running any less than 4 of them if you choose to run them at all. Even though doubles feels bad, you cause more problems than you solve by thinning the numbers.
Also, definitely don't run a splash land in the sideboard. Sideboard slots are so precious, and a land is always useful even if you have to shock yourself to use it. Much better to run the Stomping Grounds in the main.
Mardu Burn
Monogreen Stompy
Legacy
Burn
Pauper
Dimir Flicker
Monowhite Tokens
4 Goblin Guide
4 Bump in the Night
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Searing Blaze
4 Lightning Helix
4 Boros Charm
2 Sacred Foundry
1 Blood Crypt
3 Mountain
2 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Arid Mesa
1 Scalding Tarn
4 Destructive Revelry
2 Shattering Spree
3 Kor Firewalker
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 Stomping Ground
I'm tempted to put the Stomping Ground main in a Mountain slot however I like having 3 instead of 2 and I want to keep my non white sources down to 4.
It's basically a step further with the Boros burn, just in a different direction. Bump is great in speed and destructive Revelry is the best artifact/enchantment.
RGWNaya BurnRGW+++RGWKiki ComboRGW
UGInfectUG+++++++++.++++++++UGMerfolkUG
GGNykthos WaveGG++++++++++GGStompyGG
BRVampiresBR+++++++.+++++++BRGoblinsBR
WGBogglesWG+++++++++++++CRSkred RedCR
UBRGDredgeUBRG++++++++++BB8 RackBB
URWJeskaiURW+++.++UBRGrixis DelverUBR
URStormUR++++++++UWGBant CompanyUWG
WUBRGHumansWUBRG+CCEldrazi TronCC
For the most part, yes. Though I would probably change Vexing Devil for [Stormblood berserker or Keldon Marauders
Berserker is a bigger creature who can be a pain to block, but guarantees no damage.
Maurauders guarantees 2 damage but will almost always be chump blocked
RWG Burn
GW Abzan Company
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
That's also cross-posted to r/LavaSpike, but there is limited response there so far.
I might use Hellspark Elemental over both of these...
RWG Burn
GW Abzan Company
Even if I could buy that there exists a good reason to play Shrine of Burning Rage over Eidolon (and I don't), his reasoning is completely wrong.
The Grixis Death's Shadow matchup isn't "bad overall". He's playing a 2 mana card that plans for the long game and his reasoning is that a 2/2 is bad against Tasigur, Goyf, and Death's Shadow. You're not getting to the long game against Tasigur, Goyf, and Death's Shadow. Point of fact: Eidolon of the Great Revel is very good against GDS and Jund. The vast majority of the cards in those decks trigger it, and you've disrupted their plan even if it dies and you did it with the added benefit of passive damage. Passive damage is very important against GDS because it pushes them towards 13 and lets you sandbag burn spells. Shrine forces you to not sandbag, otherwise you don't get any counters. Eventually you're just out of gas and it's insufficient. He's talking up how Shrine's damage is uncounterable while ignoring the fact that Shrine is counterable just like Eidolon is. If he's aiming to spend 3 mana on an uncounterable 4-6 damage after spending 2 mana on T2, Exquisite Firecraft deals 4 uncounterable damage and you can play Lightning Strike on T2 to get 7 out of the same mana investment, though it costs 2 cards.
Eidolon isn't very good against Affinity, but planning for the long game against another aggro deck sounds like a horrible idea. That matchup isn't "bad over all", but rather a 45:55 one that you have to learn to play right.
Eldrazi Tron is a problematic matchup, but the strategy you need to employ is to race them, not plan for the long game. He's talking about TKS, but by the time Shrine can deal a respectable amount of damage, TKS has hit you 3 times and you're at 5-ish life and they've probably played something else along the way. In other words, the game is probably over and they finished at 3-6 life.
It's very strange to me that he's talking up the virtues of the long game against decks that don't go long against us. We're not talking about Shrine against Lantern Control, here. We're talking about decks that run you over in short order.
I think this conversation is going on in part because Eidolon isn't as good as he used to be, since we're seeing higher CMCs in Modern. And that's true, but that doesn't mean he's bad. I don't see people cutting Blazes because threats are bigger nowadays, or Skullcracks because lifegain is on the downtick. I feel like people are trying to innovate for the sake of innovation, but Burn is already so tight, and that's a good thing. I feel it's time to return to the principles of what Burn is, which is a deck trying to shrink down a game of Magic. Shrine all but fizzles against aggro decks (where Eidolon would shine outside of Affinity), and trying to go long against decks built for disruption plays right into what they want. I'll be honest, it feels like a no brainer.
Mardu Burn
Monogreen Stompy
Legacy
Burn
Pauper
Dimir Flicker
Monowhite Tokens
Your always welcome to run your deck the way you want. Your 60/75 doesnt have to match mine, his, theirs, everyone elses. Just keep in mind that if Shrine is not working well for you dont force it just to try and prove a point, you'd be amazed how some people want a card to badly work out and just not.
Shifting metas usually (but not all instances) affect our sides more not our main more.
When Twin was a gigantic thing cards like Combust and Rending Volley were much needed in our side but the meta changed drastically with Twin getting banned so we dont see those cards anymore.
I was simply commenting on his reasoning behind playing Shrine, and I believe I'm correct in my assessment that his reasoning is backwards. I think planning for the long game as Burn is a bad idea to begin with. Championing a card built for the long game as if said card is powerful against one of the fastest aggro decks around is straight up absurd. Affinity isn't durdle.dec. Affinity is going to vomit their hand and try to steamroll you as fast as they can. A 2 mana do-nothing that doesn't do anything until turn 6, 7, 8... is horrendous against Affinity. Your best play on T2 against Affinity is Searing Blaze on whatever they attach Cranial Plating to. You need to be the control player there, not tapping out on T2 for Shrine of Burning Rage while you watch a Vault Skirge nail you for 8.
Metas change, but Affinity isn't getting slower.