1. Inspring vantage all the way.
Clifftop retreat is awkward early, and better late.
Vantage is great early and awkward late. We're burn, a proactive deck. We obviously want the better early game.
2. 1-land hands:
There are very few I don't keep. No 1 drop creatures makes me more likely to mulligan. But any 1 drop creature backed up by a second, an eidolon, or multiple 1 mana spells--and I'm good to go. And I rarely don't find the second land in a timely fashion.
3. When you're new to a deck, it's easy to find all sorts of ideas and ask why not this. In general, everything has been considered and tested. We have tons of tournament reports that show us which cards work and which don't. No one wants to stifle creativity, but in general some cards are known/accepted to be better than others.
4. Spreading seas/Green sources:
The best advice I got was to stop trying to beat Spreading seas with Revelry.
Fetch mountains early. Leave fetches up as long as you can.
Fetch white when you can fire off multiple spells before they get a main phase to cast a seas.
You may even fetch a Stomping Ground early to bait the seas out of their hand and protect your white source.
IF you run maindeck Atarka's Command (or any other green card), I think you need at least 2 fetchable green sources. Don't rely on drawing Copperline Gorge.
Round 1: 2-1 to a r/u deck with guide, delver, mutagenic growth
Round 2: 2-1 to Lantern Control, took game 3 by snagging opponents spellskite, putting his hand to two cards, and swinging under an ensnaring bridge and some leylines
Round 3: 2-1 to Scapeshift
Round 4: 2-0 Tezzeret Combo
Round 5: 2-0 Grixis Control
Round 6: Opponent asked to draw, I declined, 1-2 to Coco Humans. Game 3, had him at 7, bolt, bolt, snag, he paths the snag creature, sits at 1 with two 2/2s on the field, and i draw land until he kills me
Round 7: Opponent agrees to draw, he's on Storm
Top 8:
Round 1: 2-1 Against the Storm player from before, 2-1. Game one, I throw the game by swinging Lavamancer into Baral (played GG, turned both of them sideways out of habit, then cursed). He kills me with a bunch of goblins. Game 2, I mull to 6, keep a hand with Rakdos Charm, a fetch, mine, swiftspear, and some spells. GG trigger reveals empty the warrens, he goes off a turn or two later, doesn't grab grapeshot with gifts, empties the warrens, i untap and lethal him with charm. Game 3 goes basically the same way, except I keep a 3 land hand with Boros, Rakdos, and snag, on the draw, i just play land and pass turn 1, throw a boros charm into a dispel turn 2. he starts to go off turn 4 or 5, i snag baral in response to his first ritual, he eventually empties the warrens, and says he hopes i don't have a charm. I untap, draw, play a land and charm for lethal
Round 2: 1-2 Against grixis control, game 3 i keep a 4 land hand on 6, scry away a land, draw a land off the top, and just continue to. Ended the game with him at 2 and me just drawing land until Tasigur killed me.
What are current thoughts on Mardu Burn and Naya Burn. Currently i am running the standard Naya Burn with green for sb like destructive revelry, main differences is i run 1 atarkas main and 4 skull crack main. While the list has been doing very well, i was curious about Mardu Burn, is there any competition between the 2 variants? Is Naya simply just better and proven? Or is Mardu becoming more appealing?
I've been working on a script that reads all magic cards in json format, reads a Burn deck list, and analyzes that deck list in various ways. It's at an early stage, but I've got the capability to estimate average amount of damage in hand for keeps and mulligan given some mulligan criteria, estimate the frequency with which you have a color fixing problem (assuming that you have a color problem if your lands in your 7 card hand can't reach all of your colors, as well as checking this ratio at the end of 3 turns, average non-land CMC in hand, average damage per CMC in hand. I generated 10000 7 card hands.
Assumptions: Rift Bolt has CMC=1. Searing Blaze always deals 3. Grim Lavamancer is worth 1 damage. All other creatures are worth 2 (though that's really other creatures are worth their power in damage except Swiftspear is bumped up to 2). In the Mardu list I used, Burst Lightning is worth 2. Atarka's Command always deals 3.
In all cases, the mulligan criteria I chose produced a mulligan rate of about 21%. The criteria were:mulligan all hands with more than 3 lands or less than 1, keep all 1 landers with average CMC < 1.66 and at least 1 creature (though I should change that to at least one Guide/Swift only).
For instance, my early analysis shows that a 3 color deck has a color problem in about 42% of 7 card keeps and this goes to 17$ by T3 (where color problem means that your mana lands + fetches are not able to grab all of your colors). For a straight RW deck, this is 4& and 1.5% respectively.
The average opening hand has about 13.5 damage in hand. The average damage in hand by T3 is about 20. I haven't yet gone so far as checking how much damage could be cast.
The average damage in hand given the mulligan rules above for my Naya list is shown here (it's identical to RW since AC=Skullcrack given the assumptions above). The mulligan histogram is bimodal, with regions for too few and too many lands. A "damage score" might be a useful mulligan criterion, but I haven't looked at it yet.
Issues going forward: I need to do something better for creature damage, but it's probably reasonable to assume that they deal damage once on average. I need to come up with a model for Atarka's Command as well. I also want to produce an estimator for amount of damage cast as a function of turn, though that would be just glorified goldfishing. I could do something more sophisticated by generating an opposing deck that has some probability to play a discard spell or removal and allow that opposing deck to affect the outcome.
I'm open to suggestions for mulligan criteria or other measures that you might think are valuable.
PS: I wasn't kidding when I said I think this game is a statistics problem.
I've been working on a better creature damage model, and I think I've settled on something with inputs that make sense.
I assume that each creature is independent, so there is no estimation of "if they kill Eidolon, the T1 Guide keeps swinging". I also assume that the creature is played as early as it can be played.
First, I had to define a number of outs for an opponent to nullify an attacking creature on any given turn (applies to Guide, Swiftspear, Nacatl), and applying only to the draw:
4 outs (1CMC)
8 removal outs (1CMC+higher)
[*} 8 removal outs (1CMC+higher) + 6 other outs (let's say creatures)
[*} 8 removal outs (1CMC+higher) + 16 other outs
[*} 8 removal outs (1CMC+higher) + 22 other outs (ie. half of any given deck), same for subsequent turns
The 8 removal outs number comes from me glancing over the front page of mtggoldfish and getting a rough count of removal spells per deck. The average per deck is approximately 8, but Burn and Jeskai Control both carry a lot more than that (16 and 14 respectively).
It gets more complicated for Grim Lavamancer, which isn't nullified by a creature because its damage mode is unblockable. For Grim, I say there are 4 outs on T1 and 8 on every other turn. And it gets even more complicated for Eidolon, because it can attack for 2 every turn and also deal some unknown number of shocks from its triggered ability. Eidolon has the same attacking "outs" model as above and another outs model of 4, 8, 12 from T3 on that conveys the number of outs an opponent has to kill or counter Eidolon (since it's the most likely creature you'll see get countered).
On the play, I shift the above number of outs by a turn, with T1 being 0 outs with a little fudging for Eidolon due to counters.
On each turn, I calculate a "survival probability" and I take that probability to be the probability that the creature lives to that point. I don't feel great about simplifying it in that way, but it's simple. I calculate the probability that 0 of N outs are drawn in the first 7 + turn number cards given a 60 card deck. A plot of this is below for the play and draw. I also artificially adjust T5 and T6 with an importance factor to capture that those turns might not even be reached.
Second, I had to define a damage coefficient for each creature on each turn. Guide is 2 per turn. Swiftspear is 1 on T1, 2 on T2, 3 on T3, and 2 every turn after. Grim Lavamancer is 0, 1 or 0, 2..., since you're not likely to deal 2 on T2 but might be able to attack on T2 on the play but not on the draw. Eidolon is 2 on every turn for the attacking mode and 0, 2, 3, 3, 2... for the ability mode (why 3? that assumes that T2 and T3 are 50:50 between 2 damage and 4 damage). Nacatl is 0, 3, 3... and ignore cases where it might be a 2/2 or 1/1.
I then combine the survival probability with the damage coefficients. Imagine a T1 Spark Elemental and assume it has a 50:50 probability of connecting. The survival probability is 0.5 and the damage coefficient is 3, for an EV of 1.5 damage. If you stretch this out for creatures that aren't promptly sacrificed and then you sum the per turn results, you get the expected value in damage for that creature since the survival probabilities are statistical weights corresponding to each damage coefficient. A plot of the EV contributions per turn is shown as well. For Guide on the play, there's a 100% chance that a T1 Guide deals 2 damage, a 55% chance that it connects on T2, 25% chance it connects on T3 and so on. So the combined damage EV on the play is 2 * (1.0) + 2 * (0.55) + 2 * (0.25) and so on.
So, what are the results given the model above on the play?
Goblin Guide 3.71983205199
Monastery Swiftspear 2.7738993376
Grim Lavamancer 2.04632003535
Wild Nacatl 2.57974807799
Eidolon Attack 0.609472869409
Eidolon Ability 2.53807868238
On the play, Guide actually beats Lightning Bolt in damage output and Swiftspear approaches Lightning Bolt. Wild Nacatl isn't quite as good as either of them. This analysis suggests that Grim Lavamancer isn't very good on T1, which is something we all probably would have guessed. Lavamancer is better played later in the game and after your other creatures have taxed your opponent's removal. I'm not entirely satisfied with the results shown for Eidolon, because I don't believe I properly captured the fact that Eidolon's ability pretty much always deals 2 damage on Eidolon dying (unless it's countered). I do think the estimate for Eidolon is lower than reality, but I'm not comfortable just adding 2 across the board to it.
What are the results given the model above on the draw?
Goblin Guide 1.94533223977
Monastery Swiftspear 1.34820331103
Grim Lavamancer 1.32927061063
Wild Nacatl 1.11649723689
Eidolon Attack 0.156094159048
Eidolon Ability 2.08293432433
Everything goes down significantly except for Eidolon's damage ability. Nacatl gets a lot worse on the draw, which isn't surprising.
Assuming you're 50:50 to play or draw, the average damage EV is:
Goblin Guide 2.83258214588
Monastery Swiftspear 2.06105132431
Grim Lavamancer 1.68779532299
Wild Nacatl 1.84812265744
Eidolon Attack 0.382783514228
Eidolon Ability 2.31050650336
Again, this doesn't make any attempt to estimate whether you're taxing your opponent's removal by playing multiple creatures, but I think it's useful as a base line estimate.
What are your guys' game plans against Etron? I have one hell of a time against it. I feel like every time I bring in Drev and Stony Silence I get run over by Reality Smashers. And the games where I find my Paths and Deflecting Palms expecting to get beat down by Eldrazi I get locked out by a chalice on 1 or they slam an Basilisk Collar and I lose to the life gain wishing I had my other half of my sideboard.
Other note: Vs. Gift Storm if my opponent plays gifts and searched us Desperate ritual, Pyretic Ritual, manamorphose, and Past in flames. Which two would you send to the graveyard?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard // nRG Aggro
Modern // Burn (main) and Living End (secondary) now Jund.
For fun check out my janky combo primer: Turn 3 Grixis Combo
"Can't beat em' Jund em'!"
Definitely a unique take on Burn. It's an interesting strategy and works very similarly to Eidolon, but with a higher upside - here's the list for anyone interested!
Now there's an eye-opener - would not have expected a Shrine build to have gotten it done in a meta that seems a bit hostile to artifacts, but here we are.
It would get steamrolled in a meta where Jund and Junk are T1 because of Abrupt Decay, but those decks are nowhere to be seen. I suspect this was just taking advantage of the fact that a burn shell is strong on its own and then getting unexpected damage from Shrine because people generally can't blow it up without KCommand or sideboard cards. No one is going to bring in artifact hate against Burn unless they've seen a reason to do so.
It looks just like it was spicy and cute for spicy and cute's sake rather than a good deck building decision.
Edit: And apparently it faced a BG rock deck for the win in the finals. The point still stands that such a build would get run over by a heavy BGx meta. Shrine is a 2 mana dead card that requires a lot to set it up.
Spicy list.
I think I'm in love. Definitely going to sleeve it up and give it a try. I'm all for running less creatures in a meta where creatures do not survive.
Its not the 1st Burn list that had a twist outside the typical lists that have done well. I like having different Burn builds doing well and creating a much harder to pin point us by the opponent. Everyone having the same 75 isnt always a good or bad thing. There was a point in time Eidolon being in lists when it first arrived and did well in Legacy and Modern that was considered unique until it became more the norm.
If there are 3 different versions of Burn doing well like different variations of Shadow and Tron then it just makes our live easier. Opponents could be siding in for or expecting cards we dont have because theyre in the mindset well it has to be the same 75 they know Burn to be.
Example 1. Prior to Skullcrack from Gatecrash opponents did seem as worried about Burn stopping life gain, a few decks employed Rain of Gore, Leyline of Punishment and I saw a few with Everlasting Torment. So as Skullcrack first arrived it was kinda an after thought then when it stuck it stuck for good and some players went with a varying combo of 4 to 8 with Atarka's and opposing players never knew how many anti life gain we had.
Example 2. Having a Boros, Naya and Mardu all place well keeping them guessing of not knowing the exact type/version right away can give us tactical edge early. Causing hesitations in moves, moving too fast or not moving.
Overreaction/Over correcting is something we can capitalize on. Lets say (not saying this will always happen) people start siding in anti Artifact to hit Shrine because its a new flavor then they just waste siding in 2-4 slots that are dead cards against us that may not use Artifacts. After Counters Company or whatever people wanna call that deck had a huge showing in 2 events people started to side in more stuff for them and less for others like Burn. I noticed this first hand and even talked to players who want to jump ahead of a possible big trend like the Shadow trend.
So having some variation/differences can be a good thing.
I doubt opponents will be actively siding in artifact hate for Shrine, even if it does well. What Shrine does is bump up Burn's inevitability, and it does so in a way that has virtually no chance of friendly fire (which is likely its appeal over Eidolon in the pilot's mind). I think the tech is a bit better than what elconquistador1985 is giving it credit for (mainly because I don't think it's something you cast on curve), so I'd be willing to give it a try and see how it does.
It's also a way to deal with Firewalker and/or other pro red creatures, meaning you won't have to bring in a bunch of paths
I like it, although I'm not sure if Eidolon would be the card that should be cut, or if 4 is the right number
Seemed sufficient for a GP win. But, yes, Eidolon was really the card that secured Burn in Tier 1, and is much more mana efficient. However Guide and Swift aren't going anywhere. So then its to the spells ...
I don't think it's something you'd ever cast off curve because you just want to dump counters on it. If you just play it late for 2 and crack it with ~3 counters on it, why not just play Lightning Strike?
I figure Palm should go down to a 1-of in this meta, because there's a lot of hand disruption and stubborn denials that make a 2 mana reactive instant harder to use nowadays.
Remember side boarding for your meta or a blind meta maybe drastically different. My buddy in another state sees graveyard type decks a lot but I dont so RIP is more a must for him then me in the local meta. If your meta is 50% of a certain deck you'd probably have more then 1 or 2 sideboard cards for it but in a blind meta you'd probably would side as heavy for that same deck.So there's not exactly a these 15 cards have to be this or else. If you look at the results from 1 GP or big event to another, lets look at Burn, its had very varying results the last few months anywhere from to 2 decks in the top 8 to 1 in the top 32.
Also its easy to say "If you do this I will do that"....its much harder in the moment when your about to make a move or not. Keep in mind no matter what strategy you use someone will do back to you the "If you do this I with do that". If I post a great tip someone will counter that then someone will counter the counter. Not all situations are created equal.
Example,
Im worried Grixis Shadow may have Stubborn Denial so
- Opponent attacking with Shadow, I Path the Shadow to force Denial out
- It works then I drop Palm
- Then he drops Snapcaster into Denial countering Palm
- Then I Lightning Bolt myself to drop to 0 before he can finish me......Im kidding
But seriously, these are interactions that picking up and play testing possible opponent decks can help you out with. This is a tip I picked up a long time ago and has served me well. Compare experiences with others and see how the can vastly differ yet still gain more knowledge/experience. Its also pretty cheap to do...use 75 land cards and a pad of sticky notes. Write down the general 75 card list 1 card per sticky, put sticky on card put cards in cheap sleeves and shuffle away. Or you could print out the card on paper and tape it to the land card for a more realistic feel. Heck you may find another fun deck to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. Inspring vantage all the way.
Clifftop retreat is awkward early, and better late.
Vantage is great early and awkward late. We're burn, a proactive deck. We obviously want the better early game.
2. 1-land hands:
There are very few I don't keep. No 1 drop creatures makes me more likely to mulligan. But any 1 drop creature backed up by a second, an eidolon, or multiple 1 mana spells--and I'm good to go. And I rarely don't find the second land in a timely fashion.
3. When you're new to a deck, it's easy to find all sorts of ideas and ask why not this. In general, everything has been considered and tested. We have tons of tournament reports that show us which cards work and which don't. No one wants to stifle creativity, but in general some cards are known/accepted to be better than others.
4. Spreading seas/Green sources:
The best advice I got was to stop trying to beat Spreading seas with Revelry.
Fetch mountains early. Leave fetches up as long as you can.
Fetch white when you can fire off multiple spells before they get a main phase to cast a seas.
You may even fetch a Stomping Ground early to bait the seas out of their hand and protect your white source.
IF you run maindeck Atarka's Command (or any other green card), I think you need at least 2 fetchable green sources. Don't rely on drawing Copperline Gorge.
Match-ups:
Round 1: 2-1 to a r/u deck with guide, delver, mutagenic growth
Round 2: 2-1 to Lantern Control, took game 3 by snagging opponents spellskite, putting his hand to two cards, and swinging under an ensnaring bridge and some leylines
Round 3: 2-1 to Scapeshift
Round 4: 2-0 Tezzeret Combo
Round 5: 2-0 Grixis Control
Round 6: Opponent asked to draw, I declined, 1-2 to Coco Humans. Game 3, had him at 7, bolt, bolt, snag, he paths the snag creature, sits at 1 with two 2/2s on the field, and i draw land until he kills me
Round 7: Opponent agrees to draw, he's on Storm
Top 8:
Round 1: 2-1 Against the Storm player from before, 2-1. Game one, I throw the game by swinging Lavamancer into Baral (played GG, turned both of them sideways out of habit, then cursed). He kills me with a bunch of goblins. Game 2, I mull to 6, keep a hand with Rakdos Charm, a fetch, mine, swiftspear, and some spells. GG trigger reveals empty the warrens, he goes off a turn or two later, doesn't grab grapeshot with gifts, empties the warrens, i untap and lethal him with charm. Game 3 goes basically the same way, except I keep a 3 land hand with Boros, Rakdos, and snag, on the draw, i just play land and pass turn 1, throw a boros charm into a dispel turn 2. he starts to go off turn 4 or 5, i snag baral in response to his first ritual, he eventually empties the warrens, and says he hopes i don't have a charm. I untap, draw, play a land and charm for lethal
Round 2: 1-2 Against grixis control, game 3 i keep a 4 land hand on 6, scry away a land, draw a land off the top, and just continue to. Ended the game with him at 2 and me just drawing land until Tasigur killed me.
4x monastery swiftspear
4x eidolon of the great revel
1x grim lavamancer
4x lightning bolt
4x rift bolt
4x lava spike
4x bump in the night
4x boros charm
4x atarka's command
2x vapor snag
1x searing blaze
1x gonti's machinations
4x mana confluence
4x gemstone mine
1x mountain
1x stomping ground
1x blood crypt
1x sacred foundry
1x arid mesa
1x bloodstained mire
1x wooded foothills
3x rakdos charm
2x deflecting palm
2x searing blaze
1x vapor snag
1x self-inflicted wound
1x countersquall
1x torpor orb
Boros Burn is better at grinding (less damage from lands and more helix).
Naya Burn is in the middle... slightly better at goldfishing then boros and slightly worse at grinding.
Enjoy Standard, Modern and Music (also some Pauper, Momir, Gaming, Animations and Legacy)? Then visit my channel:Here
I've been working on a better creature damage model, and I think I've settled on something with inputs that make sense.
I assume that each creature is independent, so there is no estimation of "if they kill Eidolon, the T1 Guide keeps swinging". I also assume that the creature is played as early as it can be played.
First, I had to define a number of outs for an opponent to nullify an attacking creature on any given turn (applies to Guide, Swiftspear, Nacatl), and applying only to the draw:
- 4 outs (1CMC)
- 8 removal outs (1CMC+higher)
[*} 8 removal outs (1CMC+higher) + 6 other outs (let's say creatures)
The 8 removal outs number comes from me glancing over the front page of mtggoldfish and getting a rough count of removal spells per deck. The average per deck is approximately 8, but Burn and Jeskai Control both carry a lot more than that (16 and 14 respectively).[*} 8 removal outs (1CMC+higher) + 16 other outs
[*} 8 removal outs (1CMC+higher) + 22 other outs (ie. half of any given deck), same for subsequent turns
It gets more complicated for Grim Lavamancer, which isn't nullified by a creature because its damage mode is unblockable. For Grim, I say there are 4 outs on T1 and 8 on every other turn. And it gets even more complicated for Eidolon, because it can attack for 2 every turn and also deal some unknown number of shocks from its triggered ability. Eidolon has the same attacking "outs" model as above and another outs model of 4, 8, 12 from T3 on that conveys the number of outs an opponent has to kill or counter Eidolon (since it's the most likely creature you'll see get countered).
On the play, I shift the above number of outs by a turn, with T1 being 0 outs with a little fudging for Eidolon due to counters.
On each turn, I calculate a "survival probability" and I take that probability to be the probability that the creature lives to that point. I don't feel great about simplifying it in that way, but it's simple. I calculate the probability that 0 of N outs are drawn in the first 7 + turn number cards given a 60 card deck. A plot of this is below for the play and draw. I also artificially adjust T5 and T6 with an importance factor to capture that those turns might not even be reached.
Second, I had to define a damage coefficient for each creature on each turn. Guide is 2 per turn. Swiftspear is 1 on T1, 2 on T2, 3 on T3, and 2 every turn after. Grim Lavamancer is 0, 1 or 0, 2..., since you're not likely to deal 2 on T2 but might be able to attack on T2 on the play but not on the draw. Eidolon is 2 on every turn for the attacking mode and 0, 2, 3, 3, 2... for the ability mode (why 3? that assumes that T2 and T3 are 50:50 between 2 damage and 4 damage). Nacatl is 0, 3, 3... and ignore cases where it might be a 2/2 or 1/1.
I then combine the survival probability with the damage coefficients. Imagine a T1 Spark Elemental and assume it has a 50:50 probability of connecting. The survival probability is 0.5 and the damage coefficient is 3, for an EV of 1.5 damage. If you stretch this out for creatures that aren't promptly sacrificed and then you sum the per turn results, you get the expected value in damage for that creature since the survival probabilities are statistical weights corresponding to each damage coefficient. A plot of the EV contributions per turn is shown as well. For Guide on the play, there's a 100% chance that a T1 Guide deals 2 damage, a 55% chance that it connects on T2, 25% chance it connects on T3 and so on. So the combined damage EV on the play is 2 * (1.0) + 2 * (0.55) + 2 * (0.25) and so on.
So, what are the results given the model above on the play?
On the play, Guide actually beats Lightning Bolt in damage output and Swiftspear approaches Lightning Bolt. Wild Nacatl isn't quite as good as either of them. This analysis suggests that Grim Lavamancer isn't very good on T1, which is something we all probably would have guessed. Lavamancer is better played later in the game and after your other creatures have taxed your opponent's removal. I'm not entirely satisfied with the results shown for Eidolon, because I don't believe I properly captured the fact that Eidolon's ability pretty much always deals 2 damage on Eidolon dying (unless it's countered). I do think the estimate for Eidolon is lower than reality, but I'm not comfortable just adding 2 across the board to it.
What are the results given the model above on the draw?
- Goblin Guide 1.94533223977
- Monastery Swiftspear 1.34820331103
- Grim Lavamancer 1.32927061063
- Wild Nacatl 1.11649723689
- Eidolon Attack 0.156094159048
- Eidolon Ability 2.08293432433
Everything goes down significantly except for Eidolon's damage ability. Nacatl gets a lot worse on the draw, which isn't surprising.Assuming you're 50:50 to play or draw, the average damage EV is:
Again, this doesn't make any attempt to estimate whether you're taxing your opponent's removal by playing multiple creatures, but I think it's useful as a base line estimate.
Other note: Vs. Gift Storm if my opponent plays gifts and searched us Desperate ritual, Pyretic Ritual, manamorphose, and Past in flames. Which two would you send to the graveyard?
Modern // Burn (main) and Living End (secondary) now Jund.
For fun check out my janky combo primer: Turn 3 Grixis Combo
"Can't beat em' Jund em'!"
No Eidolons.
4 Shrine of the Burning Rage.
What is life?
Definitely a unique take on Burn. It's an interesting strategy and works very similarly to Eidolon, but with a higher upside - here's the list for anyone interested!
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
Sorcery (8)
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
Instant (20)
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lightning Helix
4 Searing Blaze
4 Skullcrack
4 Shrine of Burning Rage
Land (20)
4 Arid Mesa
3 Bloodstained Mire
3 Inspiring Vantage
3 Mountain
2 Sacred Foundry
1 Stomping Ground
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Destructive Revelry
2 Grim Lavamancer
2 Kor Firewalker
2 Path to Exile
3 Relic of Progenitus
2 Shattering Spree
RWG Burn
GW Abzan Company
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
It looks just like it was spicy and cute for spicy and cute's sake rather than a good deck building decision.
Edit: And apparently it faced a BG rock deck for the win in the finals. The point still stands that such a build would get run over by a heavy BGx meta. Shrine is a 2 mana dead card that requires a lot to set it up.
I think I'm in love. Definitely going to sleeve it up and give it a try. I'm all for running less creatures in a meta where creatures do not survive.
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
Its not the 1st Burn list that had a twist outside the typical lists that have done well. I like having different Burn builds doing well and creating a much harder to pin point us by the opponent. Everyone having the same 75 isnt always a good or bad thing. There was a point in time Eidolon being in lists when it first arrived and did well in Legacy and Modern that was considered unique until it became more the norm.
If there are 3 different versions of Burn doing well like different variations of Shadow and Tron then it just makes our live easier. Opponents could be siding in for or expecting cards we dont have because theyre in the mindset well it has to be the same 75 they know Burn to be.
Example 1. Prior to Skullcrack from Gatecrash opponents did seem as worried about Burn stopping life gain, a few decks employed Rain of Gore, Leyline of Punishment and I saw a few with Everlasting Torment. So as Skullcrack first arrived it was kinda an after thought then when it stuck it stuck for good and some players went with a varying combo of 4 to 8 with Atarka's and opposing players never knew how many anti life gain we had.
Example 2. Having a Boros, Naya and Mardu all place well keeping them guessing of not knowing the exact type/version right away can give us tactical edge early. Causing hesitations in moves, moving too fast or not moving.
Overreaction/Over correcting is something we can capitalize on. Lets say (not saying this will always happen) people start siding in anti Artifact to hit Shrine because its a new flavor then they just waste siding in 2-4 slots that are dead cards against us that may not use Artifacts. After Counters Company or whatever people wanna call that deck had a huge showing in 2 events people started to side in more stuff for them and less for others like Burn. I noticed this first hand and even talked to players who want to jump ahead of a possible big trend like the Shadow trend.
So having some variation/differences can be a good thing.
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
I like it, although I'm not sure if Eidolon would be the card that should be cut, or if 4 is the right number
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Seemed sufficient for a GP win. But, yes, Eidolon was really the card that secured Burn in Tier 1, and is much more mana efficient. However Guide and Swift aren't going anywhere. So then its to the spells ...
Modern
URB Grixis Delver
GWB Abzan Company
RWB Mardu Burn
WB Martyr Proc
For now thinking
Also its easy to say "If you do this I will do that"....its much harder in the moment when your about to make a move or not. Keep in mind no matter what strategy you use someone will do back to you the "If you do this I with do that". If I post a great tip someone will counter that then someone will counter the counter. Not all situations are created equal.
Example,
Im worried Grixis Shadow may have Stubborn Denial so
- Opponent attacking with Shadow, I Path the Shadow to force Denial out
- It works then I drop Palm
- Then he drops Snapcaster into Denial countering Palm
- Then I Lightning Bolt myself to drop to 0 before he can finish me......Im kidding
But seriously, these are interactions that picking up and play testing possible opponent decks can help you out with. This is a tip I picked up a long time ago and has served me well. Compare experiences with others and see how the can vastly differ yet still gain more knowledge/experience. Its also pretty cheap to do...use 75 land cards and a pad of sticky notes. Write down the general 75 card list 1 card per sticky, put sticky on card put cards in cheap sleeves and shuffle away. Or you could print out the card on paper and tape it to the land card for a more realistic feel. Heck you may find another fun deck to play.