Claim/fame isn't a burn card. It makes our overall strategy worse.
Are there times it works and has power? Sure.
Are there times we draw it and needed any burn spell instead and cry? Yup.
Devil is bad. Just because you found a reanimate card, it's still bad.
Yes nobody have the different opinion must play same deck all time. any who have the new idea any who want 2 do something different shame on u. each burn have 2 be the same blah blah blah. watch video the man have lot of fun. he win 13 lose 3. good 4 any who want have fun
You must be a little confused as to where you are. This isn't the "lets figure out what the most fun way to play a burn deck is" thread. This tier 1 competitive discussion thread is several years old andreflects the theorycrafting/work of thousands of burn players attempting to make Burn the best deck it can be.
Let's not get carried away; I wouldn't consider redundant bickering regarding the merits of Wild Nacatl and/or Atarka's Command to be "theory crafting".
I fear we're falling too deep in the "it depends on your meta" rabbit hole that I saw the Death & Taxes players fall into (and tried to prevent, to no avail) - they were only rescued by Craig Wescoe conclusively proving mono-W was the way to go. At this point, any variant other than Boros Burn splashing G for Destructive Revelry has to prove itself with high-placing finishes; otheriwse, it's just inferior to what we already have. People are letting their Special Snowflake Syndrome run wild a bit too much. The point is to win, and the stock Boros Burn list gives us the best chance until proven otherwise.
I fear we're falling too deep in the "it depends on your meta" rabbit hole that I saw the Death & Taxes players fall into (and tried to prevent, to no avail) - they were only rescued by Craig Wescoe conclusively proving mono-W was the way to go. At this point, any variant other than Boros Burn splashing G for Destructive Revelry has to prove itself with high-placing finishes; otheriwse, it's just inferior to what we already have. People are letting their Special Snowflake Syndrome run wild a bit too much. The point is to win, and the stock Boros Burn list gives us the best chance until proven otherwise.
I don't think depends on your meta is a trap (I believe channelfireball (or some other site) wrote this excellent article that Modern is more about meta rather then skill which I agree on).
I mean on MTGS especially we hear people whine when they copy the GP builds and get crushed in their T2 local FNM meta all the time (I find it amusing).
- - -
That said I do agree that Boros Burn splash g is the best burn deck overall though.
In the case of a proactive deck like Burn, I disagree. You dictate what your opponent does the vast majority of the time - if they can't deal with Bolt.dec, they lose. Simple as that. I wouldn't waste time with considerations of what my opponent is on (unless it's a well-scouted meta that has decided to try and make sure that Burn's not going to beat them). Just do your thing in what is clearly the most efficient shell, and dare them to find a way to stop it.
There's no real problem with discussing non-standard builds or cards. The problem comes when someone says "what do people think of..." and they get upset or others get upset for them when people answer "yeah, that's not very good and here's why...", and it happens because they were actually hoping to ask the question in an echo chamber that responds "yes, you've found the greatest thing since sliced bread".
I think the sentiment of "talk about Boros Burn splashing green for Destructive Revelry or find a different thread" is not appropriate. People who come here asking for budget replacements for Guide should be directed to the Budget thread. Mardu Burn isn't a "budget build". Naya Burn isn't a "budget build". The title of this thread is not "Boros Burn splashing green for Destructive Revelry", it's "Burn". Post #1 literally talks about Naya, Nacatl, Boros, Mardu, Jund, and Mono-R builds. Claiming that the only appropriate discussion is RWg is a little absurd.
This primer should encourage play testing of all kinds of any variation. Someone who likes/dislikes a card is entitled to their opinion and can even provide reasons why. Bouncing ideas off one another is the best way for the group to gain some ideas that they may not have thought about.
People forget there was a time when some burn decks splashed blue for Treasure Cruise because the card was just so powerful. So any card can be up for discussion.
Simply stating that a card is good/bad doesn't help anyone. Out of all the cards that have ever been discussed Vexing Devil has to be the most polarizing. There are people who love it and people who hate it. I understand both sides of each argument but even if it was unanimously agreed that it was bad it shouldn't prevent people from asking about it, or as in the recent posts, because a new card interacts with it very well shouldn't prevent someone from asking.
Side note if someone thinks Vexing Devil is budget they are sadly mistaken.
Side note if someone thinks Vexing Devil is budget they are sadly mistaken.
It's infuriating when someone asks for budget replacements for Guide and someone suggests Vexing Devil. That thing has been going up steadily for years and is now $10. Even when Guide was $40, they'd be better off buying 1 Guide and 3 Sparks/Hellsparks/Keldon Marauders than buying 4 Vexing Devils.
Vexing Devil is bad and a trap. You're giving your opponent a choice in how your deck functions and they will always pick the one they want. It doesn't have haste and is therefore a garbage topdeck. The idea that it's either a 4/3 or 4 damage for R is attractive, but that's what makes it a trap. Claim//Fame doesn't make the card better, and it's adding a dead card to your deck in hopes that you can reanimate something that matters. Even if you get what you want out of Devil+Claim, it's not that great. Say you play Devil, it dies and deals zero, and you reanimate it and it deals 4. You spent 2 mana and 2 cards for 4 damage, though perhaps the mana was split across turns... so why not just play Boros Charm and spend 2 mana and 1 card on 4 damage?
Side note if someone thinks Vexing Devil is budget they are sadly mistaken.
Vexing Devil is bad and a trap. You're giving your opponent a choice in how your deck functions and they will always pick the one they want. It doesn't have haste and is therefore a garbage topdeck. The idea that it's either a 4/3 or 4 damage for R is attractive, but that's what makes it a trap. Claim//Fame doesn't make the card better, and it's adding a dead card to your deck in hopes that you can reanimate something that matters.
]
If claim//fame was only relevant to Vexing Devil then you'd absolutely be right. However, every creature we play is a valid target and it can essentially act as copies 5,6,7 of GG, Swift, & Eidolon. I was skeptical for the same reasons, but after playing with them for a handful of matches, I'm hooked. For the most part, our opponents have a finite amount of creature hate and claiming an Eidolon(s) to finish out a game is very satisfying. I cut down the amount of Devils to 3x because, although the interaction w/ claim//fame can lead straight to value town, I've actually won more games thanks to claiming a Pushed Eidolon or late-game Faming X attacker to get in for lethal when you've got an empty hand. If you have any Devils laying around and want to pay the $1.50 for 3x Claim//Fame, I'd suggest taking it for a spin for a few matches. It plays much better than it looks like it would on paper.
Side note if someone thinks Vexing Devil is budget they are sadly mistaken.
Vexing Devil is bad and a trap. You're giving your opponent a choice in how your deck functions and they will always pick the one they want. It doesn't have haste and is therefore a garbage topdeck. The idea that it's either a 4/3 or 4 damage for R is attractive, but that's what makes it a trap. Claim//Fame doesn't make the card better, and it's adding a dead card to your deck in hopes that you can reanimate something that matters.
]
If claim//fame was only relevant to Vexing Devil then you'd absolutely be right. However, every creature we play is a valid target and it can essentially act as copies 5,6,7 of GG, Swift, & Eidolon. I was skeptical for the same reasons, but after playing with them for a handful of matches, I'm hooked. For the most part, our opponents have a finite amount of creature hate and claiming an Eidolon(s) to finish out a game is very satisfying. I cut down the amount of Devils to 3x because, although the interaction w/ claim//fame can lead straight to value town, I've actually won more games thanks to claiming a Pushed Eidolon or late-game Faming X attacker to get in for lethal when you've got an empty hand. If you have any Devils laying around and want to pay the $1.50 for 3x Claim//Fame, I'd suggest taking it for a spin for a few matches. It plays much better than it looks like it would on paper.
Reanimating an Eidolon on turn 4 probably won't help you much in general. Reanimating a Guide on Turn 4 probably won't help you very much in general. The board is clogged by that point and a 2/2 probably won't be anything but a Fog by blocking once. Sometimes, it will end up taxing their removal, but that's probably the less frequent outcome and the more frequent outcome is you reanimate a blocker. Burn isn't a creature deck and I'm not about to drop burn spells to add Vexing Devil and Claim//Fame.
Side note if someone thinks Vexing Devil is budget they are sadly mistaken.
Vexing Devil is bad and a trap. You're giving your opponent a choice in how your deck functions and they will always pick the one they want. It doesn't have haste and is therefore a garbage topdeck. The idea that it's either a 4/3 or 4 damage for R is attractive, but that's what makes it a trap. Claim//Fame doesn't make the card better, and it's adding a dead card to your deck in hopes that you can reanimate something that matters.
]
If claim//fame was only relevant to Vexing Devil then you'd absolutely be right. However, every creature we play is a valid target and it can essentially act as copies 5,6,7 of GG, Swift, & Eidolon. I was skeptical for the same reasons, but after playing with them for a handful of matches, I'm hooked. For the most part, our opponents have a finite amount of creature hate and claiming an Eidolon(s) to finish out a game is very satisfying. I cut down the amount of Devils to 3x because, although the interaction w/ claim//fame can lead straight to value town, I've actually won more games thanks to claiming a Pushed Eidolon or late-game Faming X attacker to get in for lethal when you've got an empty hand. If you have any Devils laying around and want to pay the $1.50 for 3x Claim//Fame, I'd suggest taking it for a spin for a few matches. It plays much better than it looks like it would on paper.
Reanimating an Eidolon on turn 4 probably won't help you much in general. Reanimating a Guide on Turn 4 probably won't help you very much in general. The board is clogged by that point and a 2/2 probably won't be anything but a Fog by blocking once. Sometimes, it will end up taxing their removal, but that's probably the less frequent outcome and the more frequent outcome is you reanimate a blocker. Burn isn't a creature deck and I'm not about to drop burn spells to add Vexing Devil and Claim//Fame.
Since when is it appropriate to ridicule someone for not joining you in playing your current pet deck build?
This is that echo chamber seeking behavior I mentioned above, where people want to talk about unproven stuff (and that's fine) but they get angry/defensive when others don't share in their enthusiasm for it.
Since when is it appropriate to ridicule someone for not joining you in playing your current pet deck build?
This is that echo chamber seeking behavior I mentioned above, where people want to talk about unproven stuff (and that's fine) but they get angry/defensive when others don't share in their enthusiasm for it.
Bogles is my pet deck; it's literally written in my signature.
I don't give a ***** if you choose to "join me" or not; that's why I suggested you try it rather than blindly proclaiming it to be superior to Boros, Naya, etc. You're right that it's inappropriate to ridicule someone for not playing a particular archetype/variant. As it is also inappropriate to belittle someone for suggesting a variant that is currently being tested by both MTGO grinders & pros alike with surprising success. Maybe the variant gets foiled and RWg continues to show consistent results, further cementing its place in the meta; the worst that can happen is an actual discussion that doesn't involve 5 pages worth of comments which are all related to the best T1 play or another topic that has been beaten to death in this primer.
Public Mod Note
(Xaricore):
Warning issued for flaming.
In other news,
3 burn in the top 32 of the SCG open (24, 27, 31)
1 with grim & green splash for drev only
1 with grim & no green (no enchant removal)
1 with no grim & green splash for drev only
2 burn in the top 16 of the SCG classic (2, 16)
1 had grim & no green (no enchant removal)
1 had no grim & green splash for drev only
From these results, the big questions seems to be:
-grim vs 20th land
-green splash vs nay
-sideboard choices (of note; the 2 highest ranked player in the open had 0 Firewalker)
(not to discredit the current convo witch seems to be going places, but I like to try and analyze new results ^_^)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What's your plan?" Gideon asked.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Ok, like many player I new 2 burn. so I try 2 ask so I better player. what make me mad is when people ask questions like me who new some act like their word is the gospel any who disagree should bow down and no talk.
well player at store sometime nice sometime not. here I wish there is less what they say in psychology class "know-it-all-behavior" and more helpfulness. try 2 call or make the someone feel stupid because they ask question or share thought is wrong. forum suppose to welcome talking about the game. if people not take ur advice don't have to be mad. if u get 4 different advice not all 4 right. right 4 u maybe not right 4 the next guy.
You're misrepresenting the situation here - conquistador isn't acting like his "word is the gospel..."
He's sharing his thoughts on certain cards and archetypes in Burn - why he believes they may or may not work. This thread is, after all, about what's tried and true and theorycrafting too. So when he backs up his thoughts with well-reasoned explanations and facts, nobody should dismiss them because he's disagreeing with them.
Conquistador is likely one of the most experienced Burn players on MTGSalvation, and he backs this up with factual, logical knowledge of Burn, its matchups, and the viability of certain cards in Burn.
Criticism should be welcomed as long as it's constructive, and from what I've read on this thread, Conquistador's criticisms are all as constructive as can be. If a player here considers constructive criticism offensive then they shouldn't post in the Competitive Modern Burn thread - key word, COMPETITIVE.
You're misrepresenting the situation here - conquistador isn't acting like his "word is the gospel..."
He's sharing his thoughts on certain cards and archetypes in Burn - why he believes they may or may not work. This thread is, after all, about what's tried and true and theorycrafting too. So when he backs up his thoughts with well-reasoned explanations and facts, nobody should dismiss them because he's disagreeing with them.
Conquistador is likely one of the most experienced Burn players on MTGSalvation, and he backs this up with factual, logical knowledge of Burn, its matchups, and the viability of certain cards in Burn.
Criticism should be welcomed as long as it's constructive, and from what I've read on this thread, Conquistador's criticisms are all as constructive as can be. If a player here considers constructive criticism offensive then they shouldn't post in the Competitive Modern Burn thread - key word, COMPETITIVE.
I not refer to elconquistador, and u cannot dismiss my feeling that some on here do act like their word is the only right 1. I not the only 1 who posted about this in the last week. if people not agree is ok. no 1 always right no 1 always wrong.
All right folks can we all move past some of the bickering. Discussions and reasons for and against are fine to help new, returning, current and future players. Whats not ok is attacking/putting down another cause you feel their wrong. And those who do so should be reported. Lots of folks on here have experience that can help and also we can still learn.
I like this forum and luv the deck. Sharing experiences and ideas. Discussing new cards that may or may not help us. I wouldnt want to scare off new players to the deck or frustrate off current ones. We all have our opinions and thoughts on running Burn. Before recent "pages" the biggest debate taking up pages were how to side/whats a better side in the ever changing meta and new cards. Lets keep having fun, damn Id buy everyone around of drinks and thrown down a Burn gauntlet/challenge if we all were at a store just playing
You're claiming that I'm dismissing your feeling "that some on here do act like their word is the only right 1."
Reread my comment. That wasn't my point (nor was it something I mentioned).
This thread is getting too meta. We shouldn't be resorting to vague attacks at 'unnamed' people in this thread (i.e. you not referring to conquistador, but just people in this thread in general), this is a competitive Modern burn thread and the discussion should be centered around that.
To be more specific, some of these comments appearing in the thread are retaliations at other commenters , with little to no basis in the discussion of competitive Modern Burn.
Let's stick with competitive burn discussion and cease personal or vague attacks that serve to divide the commenters in the thread and create comments that add no value to the thread's very existence - Competitive Modern Burn.
In other news,
3 burn in the top 32 of the SCG open (24, 27, 31)
1 with grim & green splash for drev only
1 with grim & no green (no enchant removal)
1 with no grim & green splash for drev only
2 burn in the top 16 of the SCG classic (2, 16)
1 had grim & no green (no enchant removal)
1 had no grim & green splash for drev only
From these results, the big questions seems to be:
-grim vs 20th land
-green splash vs nay
-sideboard choices (of note; the 2 highest ranked player in the open had 0 Firewalker)
(not to discredit the current convo witch seems to be going places, but I like to try and analyze new results ^_^)
Thanks for posting this I was about to then saw yours. Of the recent tourneys and in my meta Im seeing more and more people going away from Naya or RWg and headed full on Boros. Not to say Boros is the best way to go but its definitely showing up more. It has its advantages and disadvantages. Also Kor seems to be falling out of favor, Im seeing more Feed the Clan and some Leylines not just in RW Prison main deck. Also Chalice in main deck Tron and RW Prison.
Another trend Im seeing and its a good one is less people having sides dedicated to us. Im seeing much more side hate vs Affinity, Tron, Graveyard and Company decks.
I'd have to agree that the claim//fame with vexing devil conversion was a bit of (it's terrible and I'm correct so don't bring it up here feel). Mardu is the direction I'm heading (not so much straight burn) because I find burn to be terribly boring to pilot and I don't care for eidolon too much. I just came here to see how people's sb's were looking and such. I noticed a bit ago a lot of local burn players heavy on crack/command but it seems less now.
Let's not get carried away; I wouldn't consider redundant bickering regarding the merits of Wild Nacatl and/or Atarka's Command to be "theory crafting".
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
I mean on MTGS especially we hear people whine when they copy the GP builds and get crushed in their T2 local FNM meta all the time (I find it amusing).
- - -
That said I do agree that Boros Burn splash g is the best burn deck overall though.
Enjoy Standard, Modern and Music (also some Pauper, Momir, Gaming, Animations and Legacy)? Then visit my channel:Here
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
I think the sentiment of "talk about Boros Burn splashing green for Destructive Revelry or find a different thread" is not appropriate. People who come here asking for budget replacements for Guide should be directed to the Budget thread. Mardu Burn isn't a "budget build". Naya Burn isn't a "budget build". The title of this thread is not "Boros Burn splashing green for Destructive Revelry", it's "Burn". Post #1 literally talks about Naya, Nacatl, Boros, Mardu, Jund, and Mono-R builds. Claiming that the only appropriate discussion is RWg is a little absurd.
People forget there was a time when some burn decks splashed blue for Treasure Cruise because the card was just so powerful. So any card can be up for discussion.
Simply stating that a card is good/bad doesn't help anyone. Out of all the cards that have ever been discussed Vexing Devil has to be the most polarizing. There are people who love it and people who hate it. I understand both sides of each argument but even if it was unanimously agreed that it was bad it shouldn't prevent people from asking about it, or as in the recent posts, because a new card interacts with it very well shouldn't prevent someone from asking.
Side note if someone thinks Vexing Devil is budget they are sadly mistaken.
It's infuriating when someone asks for budget replacements for Guide and someone suggests Vexing Devil. That thing has been going up steadily for years and is now $10. Even when Guide was $40, they'd be better off buying 1 Guide and 3 Sparks/Hellsparks/Keldon Marauders than buying 4 Vexing Devils.
Vexing Devil is bad and a trap. You're giving your opponent a choice in how your deck functions and they will always pick the one they want. It doesn't have haste and is therefore a garbage topdeck. The idea that it's either a 4/3 or 4 damage for R is attractive, but that's what makes it a trap. Claim//Fame doesn't make the card better, and it's adding a dead card to your deck in hopes that you can reanimate something that matters. Even if you get what you want out of Devil+Claim, it's not that great. Say you play Devil, it dies and deals zero, and you reanimate it and it deals 4. You spent 2 mana and 2 cards for 4 damage, though perhaps the mana was split across turns... so why not just play Boros Charm and spend 2 mana and 1 card on 4 damage?
If claim//fame was only relevant to Vexing Devil then you'd absolutely be right. However, every creature we play is a valid target and it can essentially act as copies 5,6,7 of GG, Swift, & Eidolon. I was skeptical for the same reasons, but after playing with them for a handful of matches, I'm hooked. For the most part, our opponents have a finite amount of creature hate and claiming an Eidolon(s) to finish out a game is very satisfying. I cut down the amount of Devils to 3x because, although the interaction w/ claim//fame can lead straight to value town, I've actually won more games thanks to claiming a Pushed Eidolon or late-game Faming X attacker to get in for lethal when you've got an empty hand. If you have any Devils laying around and want to pay the $1.50 for 3x Claim//Fame, I'd suggest taking it for a spin for a few matches. It plays much better than it looks like it would on paper.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Reanimating an Eidolon on turn 4 probably won't help you much in general. Reanimating a Guide on Turn 4 probably won't help you very much in general. The board is clogged by that point and a 2/2 probably won't be anything but a Fog by blocking once. Sometimes, it will end up taxing their removal, but that's probably the less frequent outcome and the more frequent outcome is you reanimate a blocker. Burn isn't a creature deck and I'm not about to drop burn spells to add Vexing Devil and Claim//Fame.
Well, at least you're open-minded.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
This is that echo chamber seeking behavior I mentioned above, where people want to talk about unproven stuff (and that's fine) but they get angry/defensive when others don't share in their enthusiasm for it.
Bogles is my pet deck; it's literally written in my signature.
I don't give a ***** if you choose to "join me" or not; that's why I suggested you try it rather than blindly proclaiming it to be superior to Boros, Naya, etc. You're right that it's inappropriate to ridicule someone for not playing a particular archetype/variant. As it is also inappropriate to belittle someone for suggesting a variant that is currently being tested by both MTGO grinders & pros alike with surprising success. Maybe the variant gets foiled and RWg continues to show consistent results, further cementing its place in the meta; the worst that can happen is an actual discussion that doesn't involve 5 pages worth of comments which are all related to the best T1 play or another topic that has been beaten to death in this primer.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
3 burn in the top 32 of the SCG open (24, 27, 31)
1 with grim & green splash for drev only
1 with grim & no green (no enchant removal)
1 with no grim & green splash for drev only
2 burn in the top 16 of the SCG classic (2, 16)
1 had grim & no green (no enchant removal)
1 had no grim & green splash for drev only
From these results, the big questions seems to be:
-grim vs 20th land
-green splash vs nay
-sideboard choices (of note; the 2 highest ranked player in the open had 0 Firewalker)
(not to discredit the current convo witch seems to be going places, but I like to try and analyze new results ^_^)
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
well player at store sometime nice sometime not. here I wish there is less what they say in psychology class "know-it-all-behavior" and more helpfulness. try 2 call or make the someone feel stupid because they ask question or share thought is wrong. forum suppose to welcome talking about the game. if people not take ur advice don't have to be mad. if u get 4 different advice not all 4 right. right 4 u maybe not right 4 the next guy.
He's sharing his thoughts on certain cards and archetypes in Burn - why he believes they may or may not work. This thread is, after all, about what's tried and true and theorycrafting too. So when he backs up his thoughts with well-reasoned explanations and facts, nobody should dismiss them because he's disagreeing with them.
Conquistador is likely one of the most experienced Burn players on MTGSalvation, and he backs this up with factual, logical knowledge of Burn, its matchups, and the viability of certain cards in Burn.
Criticism should be welcomed as long as it's constructive, and from what I've read on this thread, Conquistador's criticisms are all as constructive as can be. If a player here considers constructive criticism offensive then they shouldn't post in the Competitive Modern Burn thread - key word, COMPETITIVE.
I not refer to elconquistador, and u cannot dismiss my feeling that some on here do act like their word is the only right 1. I not the only 1 who posted about this in the last week. if people not agree is ok. no 1 always right no 1 always wrong.
I like this forum and luv the deck. Sharing experiences and ideas. Discussing new cards that may or may not help us. I wouldnt want to scare off new players to the deck or frustrate off current ones. We all have our opinions and thoughts on running Burn. Before recent "pages" the biggest debate taking up pages were how to side/whats a better side in the ever changing meta and new cards. Lets keep having fun, damn Id buy everyone around of drinks and thrown down a Burn gauntlet/challenge if we all were at a store just playing
Reread my comment. That wasn't my point (nor was it something I mentioned).
This thread is getting too meta. We shouldn't be resorting to vague attacks at 'unnamed' people in this thread (i.e. you not referring to conquistador, but just people in this thread in general), this is a competitive Modern burn thread and the discussion should be centered around that.
To be more specific, some of these comments appearing in the thread are retaliations at other commenters , with little to no basis in the discussion of competitive Modern Burn.
Let's stick with competitive burn discussion and cease personal or vague attacks that serve to divide the commenters in the thread and create comments that add no value to the thread's very existence - Competitive Modern Burn.
Thanks for posting this I was about to then saw yours. Of the recent tourneys and in my meta Im seeing more and more people going away from Naya or RWg and headed full on Boros. Not to say Boros is the best way to go but its definitely showing up more. It has its advantages and disadvantages. Also Kor seems to be falling out of favor, Im seeing more Feed the Clan and some Leylines not just in RW Prison main deck. Also Chalice in main deck Tron and RW Prison.
Another trend Im seeing and its a good one is less people having sides dedicated to us. Im seeing much more side hate vs Affinity, Tron, Graveyard and Company decks.