Thanks! The other troublesome deck is UW control, the one with two Gideons and Jace. This may be my least liked deck in all of MTG. Win or lose, I don't enjoy playing this deck at all.
Do you try to go under it, or do something different?
If your having trouble with UW Control add some Exquisite Firecraft to your Side Board
Thanks! The other troublesome deck is UW control, the one with two Gideons and Jace. This may be my least liked deck in all of MTG. Win or lose, I don't enjoy playing this deck at all.
Do you try to go under it, or do something different?
If your having trouble with UW Control add some Exquisite Firecraft to your Side Board
You're welcome, Exquisite Firecraft is usually enough to finish them off. I have noticed that UW Control is picking up in popularity in my area. If your running into a lot of decks with counterspells it may be worth main decking 1 or 2.
3. When taking advice try to look at the benefits of what their saying and if their overly jaded one way or another. Finding someone who is too over the top and pushes their agenda/reasoning too much may (not always) signal being too/so bias towards one direction they are blind/ignorant/refuse to even consider the possibility there is a benefit to the other view and your not allowed to breathe air if you dont follow their advice.
It's pretty clear that this inflammatory statement is targeted solely at myself. Providing well-reasoned arguments for a position and standing by those arguments is not remotely "ignorant".
3. When taking advice try to look at the benefits of what their saying and if their overly jaded one way or another. Finding someone who is too over the top and pushes their agenda/reasoning too much may (not always) signal being too/so bias towards one direction they are blind/ignorant/refuse to even consider the possibility there is a benefit to the other view and your not allowed to breathe air if you dont follow their advice.
It's pretty clear that this inflammatory statement is targeted solely at myself. Providing well-reasoned arguments for a position and standing by those arguments is not remotely "ignorant".
For what it's worth, for the past few days I've been PMing with elcon concerning strategy between the three versions of Burn I consider to be competitive (Boros, Naya, Mardu). At no point did he ever force his opinion down my throat, or tell me that I was wrong for considering all three of these versions of Burn. He performed some calculations for me out of the goodness of his heart, and let me make my own decisions based on the raw numbers he provided. I think if people were to read our conversations, it would be all but impossible to say he was pushing an agenda towards me.
I think people are reading a negative tone where there isn't one. It might be neutral or factual, but it's not disrespectful. Elcon provides statistical data to the burn forum and then offers his opinions based on his results. I don't really feel it's his responsibility to say "it's my opinion" before every post--that should be implicitly understood.
For the record, the numbers I saw are making me reconsider Boros as the version of Burn I want to be running--and at no point did he suggest that. It's all from me.
I'm also not pushing an agenda when someone asks me why I still play Atarka's Command. If someone asks me why I still play Atarka's Command, I'm going to explain my reasoning for still playing Atarka's Command. That reasoning will not include statements in support of playing Skullcrack instead of Atarka's Command. If I bought into reasons to play Skullcrack over Atarka's Command, I wouldn't be playing Atarka's Command.
3. When taking advice try to look at the benefits of what their saying and if their overly jaded one way or another. Finding someone who is too over the top and pushes their agenda/reasoning too much may (not always) signal being too/so bias towards one direction they are blind/ignorant/refuse to even consider the possibility there is a benefit to the other view and your not allowed to breathe air if you dont follow their advice.
It's pretty clear that this inflammatory statement is targeted solely at myself. Providing well-reasoned arguments for a position and standing by those arguments is not remotely "ignorant".
You have called out others myself included for misinterpreting your words. I am not calling you out, however I am calling you out on misinterpreting/reading into this too much into my words. Not once have I said you have forced your opinion although others may have. There are those who fit into this category and it does not have to be here on the forum it could be people at a store/event/even friends. My statement was more a generalization. I will not apologize for an overreaction or misinterpretation like you have not to myself and others who you have called out for the same.
I'm also not pushing an agenda when someone asks me why I still play Atarka's Command. If someone asks me why I still play Atarka's Command, I'm going to explain my reasoning for still playing Atarka's Command. That reasoning will not include statements in support of playing Skullcrack instead of Atarka's Command. If I bought into reasons to play Skullcrack over Atarka's Command, I wouldn't be playing Atarka's Command.
I never said you were!!!!!!! You cant call people out for reading too much or misinterpret your words then do that to yourself and claim victim on both.
3. When taking advice try to look at the benefits of what their saying and if their overly jaded one way or another. Finding someone who is too over the top and pushes their agenda/reasoning too much may (not always) signal being too/so bias towards one direction they are blind/ignorant/refuse to even consider the possibility there is a benefit to the other view and your not allowed to breathe air if you dont follow their advice.
It's pretty clear that this inflammatory statement is targeted solely at myself. Providing well-reasoned arguments for a position and standing by those arguments is not remotely "ignorant".
For what it's worth, for the past few days I've been PMing with elcon concerning strategy between the three versions of Burn I consider to be competitive (Boros, Naya, Mardu). At no point did he ever force his opinion down my throat, or tell me that I was wrong for considering all three of these versions of Burn. He performed some calculations for me out of the goodness of his heart, and let me make my own decisions based on the raw numbers he provided. I think if people were to read our conversations, it would be all but impossible to say he was pushing an agenda towards me.
I think people are reading a negative tone where there isn't one. It might be neutral or factual, but it's not disrespectful. Elcon provides statistical data to the burn forum and then offers his opinions based on his results. I don't really feel it's his responsibility to say "it's my opinion" before every post--that should be implicitly understood.
For the record, the numbers I saw are making me reconsider Boros as the version of Burn I want to be running--and at no point did he suggest that. It's all from me.
For the record I never called him out but now I have for him calling people out for reading too much or misinterpreting his words then doing that to others and claiming victim on both. I was not attacking him. Please reread my whole post. I agree people find negative where there is none. There are those who fit into this category and it does not have to be here on the forum it could be people at a store/event/even friends. My statement was more a generalization. And more about looking at the benefits of playing Boros and Naya.
grp17 u have been 1 who have say to stop fighting and attacking. I not feel u attack that guy. u post positive and open minded thing. it not fair someone get mad when u not say them. keep the good post come
3. When taking advice try to look at the benefits of what their saying and if their overly jaded one way or another. Finding someone who is too over the top and pushes their agenda/reasoning too much may (not always) signal being too/so bias towards one direction they are blind/ignorant/refuse to even consider the possibility there is a benefit to the other view and your not allowed to breathe air if you dont follow their advice.
It's pretty clear that this inflammatory statement is targeted solely at myself. Providing well-reasoned arguments for a position and standing by those arguments is not remotely "ignorant".
For what it's worth, for the past few days I've been PMing with elcon concerning strategy between the three versions of Burn I consider to be competitive (Boros, Naya, Mardu). At no point did he ever force his opinion down my throat, or tell me that I was wrong for considering all three of these versions of Burn. He performed some calculations for me out of the goodness of his heart, and let me make my own decisions based on the raw numbers he provided. I think if people were to read our conversations, it would be all but impossible to say he was pushing an agenda towards me.
I think people are reading a negative tone where there isn't one. It might be neutral or factual, but it's not disrespectful. Elcon provides statistical data to the burn forum and then offers his opinions based on his results. I don't really feel it's his responsibility to say "it's my opinion" before every post--that should be implicitly understood.
For the record, the numbers I saw are making me reconsider Boros as the version of Burn I want to be running--and at no point did he suggest that. It's all from me.
For the record I never called him out but now I have for him calling people out for reading too much or misinterpreting his words then doing that to others and claiming victim on both. I was not attacking him. Please reread my whole post. I agree people find negative where there is none. There are those who fit into this category and it does not have to be here on the forum it could be people at a store/event/even friends. My statement was more a generalization. And more about looking at the benefits of playing Boros and Naya.
I never explicitly said you were. I merely stated that I don't believe elcon forces agendas down a person's throat in a way that is relevant to the current conversation, but I wasn't talking about you at all. I was speaking generally.
Do you see what that looks like, and why it's hard to believe it's not what you were doing?
At this point we have received numerous reports on flaming, trolling, and users picking fights. We have been dealing with them as case by case issues and I have already issued a reminder just a few days ago to keep things civil and to focus on the cards. However this seems to not be working. So at this point forward, any discussion on the the argument and fighting will no longer be tolerated and will be infracted. From this point forward all discussion will focus on cards and any violation of the forum rules or discussion on this past argument or other users will result in an infraction.
I've seen a few lists run a 1-of Smash to Smithereens with 3xDestructive Revelry.
At a PPTQ on Saturday against Affinity my opponent sideboarded Blood Moon in G2 and G3. At one point I had 3 Revelrys in hand and couldn't cast them. I feel having an answer to situations like that is important? (And 3 damage is always better than 2!) Or is 4x Revelry just better to answer the problematic Leyline of Sanctity?
Looking on MTG Top 8, the only decks that seem to be running Leyline at the moment is Lantern Control, Ad Nauseam and Bogles.
I've seen a few lists run a 1-of Smash to Smithereens with 3xDestructive Revelry.
At a PPTQ on Saturday against Affinity my opponent sideboarded Blood Moon in G2 and G3. At one point I had 3 Revelrys in hand and couldn't cast them. I feel having an answer to situations like that is important? (And 3 damage is always better than 2!) Or is 4x Revelry just better to answer the problematic Leyline of Sanctity?
Looking on MTG Top 8, the only decks that seem to be running Leyline at the moment is Lantern Control, Ad Nauseam and Bogles.
You got a bunch of options. I see Blood Moon some what often as in my play group I have a buddy who runs RW Prison; a Zoo deck and Mono Red Burn deck that has Blood Moon in the side. You can try and go RWg and switch out Revelry for Wear//Tear and add 1 Plains like I have. Or when I run full Naya I add 1 Forest and 1 Plain. If your meta isnt huge with Blood Moon you can choose to just deal with it as it comes and not side since it may not drop often enough. And Im sure someone else may also have another good idea. These are just a few options. We cant side for everything sometimes you run into a match or player and just gotta tip your cap. I hate being in that spot with no answers/locked out but it happens.
Leyline is also a hit and miss for me. There are weeks I see it often and weeks I never see it. Lately though I'm seeing more life gain to counter Burn then Leyline. Reverly or Wear//Tear works well hear depending if your going Naya or Boros. But yeah I see having Enchantment removal as being a must. When I face my buddy's RW Prison it sucks, Chalice, Blood Moon and Leyline add in Simian Spirit Guide to accelerate things in the main and just not enough answers.
I've seen a few lists run a 1-of Smash to Smithereens with 3xDestructive Revelry.
At a PPTQ on Saturday against Affinity my opponent sideboarded Blood Moon in G2 and G3. At one point I had 3 Revelrys in hand and couldn't cast them. I feel having an answer to situations like that is important? (And 3 damage is always better than 2!) Or is 4x Revelry just better to answer the problematic Leyline of Sanctity?
Looking on MTG Top 8, the only decks that seem to be running Leyline at the moment is Lantern Control, Ad Nauseam and Bogles.
In your situation, I don't think 1 Smash + 3 DRev would have made a difference. To me, making that switch is an all or nothing kind of thing. I don't think that Blood Moon out of Affinity is something you'll see often enough to get upset about, but is instead a "yeah, you got me" situation. Without DRev or Wear//Tear, you're punting against Spreading Seas/Seas Claim, Leyline, and Blood Moon (probably the most common enchantments you'll see). If they play Leyline and you can't deal with it, you've probably lost the game unless you can ride Eidolon triggers and creature damage. The other two require you to sequence your spells in such a way that you could float green or white to deal with them if you have enchantment removal. If you don't, maybe you can weather 1 Sea, but 2 is probably too much. Your only shot against Blood Moon is a very red heavy hand, because Helix and Charm are done.
That's not worth the risk to me, so I play DRev and would play DRev even if I didn't play Atarka's Command. I firmly believe that sideboard cards are the primary reason to splash colors. I'd only switch to Smash if my local meta was all artifacts and I never saw Seas, Leylines, and Blood Moons.
I always run 4x destructive revelry and never leave home without them. The difference between 2 and 3 damage isn't enough for me to switch back to smash unless I was mono red. The flexibility of destructive revelry to hit enchantments is just too good for me to live with out. Way I see it is that we only have 15 sideboard slots and I want every card in it to have as much utility as possible. If I'm considering Smash solely to hose artifacts I'd rather play Stony Silence if that was the case. My 2 cents.
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'!"
I always run 4x destructive revelry and never leave home without them. The difference between 2 and 3 damage isn't enough for me to switch back to smash unless I was mono red. The flexibility of destructive revelry to hit enchantments is just too good for me to live with out. Way I see it is that we only have 15 sideboard slots and I want every card in it to have as much utility as possible. If I'm considering Smash solely to hose artifacts I'd rather play Stony Silence if that was the case. My 2 cents.
Yep - though I'm slowly starting too believe 3x Drev + 2x Spree might be necessary for Chalice
That said I havn't seen as many E-Tron players lately since UW control has picked up (4x Seas, T.Edge &/or Ghost might have something to do with that).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Enjoy Standard, Modern and Music (also some Pauper, Momir, Gaming, Animations and Legacy)? Then visit my channel:Here
I always run 4x destructive revelry and never leave home without them. The difference between 2 and 3 damage isn't enough for me to switch back to smash unless I was mono red. The flexibility of destructive revelry to hit enchantments is just too good for me to live with out. Way I see it is that we only have 15 sideboard slots and I want every card in it to have as much utility as possible. If I'm considering Smash solely to hose artifacts I'd rather play Stony Silence if that was the case. My 2 cents.
Yep - though I'm slowly starting too believe 3x Drev + 2x Spree might be necessary for Chalice
That said I havn't seen as many E-Tron players lately since UW control has picked up (4x Seas, T.Edge &/or Ghost might have something to do with that).
I've been running 3x D. Rev and 2x Spree, and find that I don't miss the 4th enchantment hate. The ability to shut down chalice effectively more than makes up for losing a single Destructive Revelry. Plus, I feel like Leyline is easier to play around, if you can burn their board state and keep your creatures. Chalice is a hard lock if they get out 2, and you have no creatures.
I'm stuck between Crack and Command. I've been running Skullcrack more. I like that it is less stressful on the mana base. It also allows me another (although conditional) answer to Firewalker in thr mirror, and against any aggresive decks, I value fetching a mountain over my third color. That being said, I would rather Command in the combo matchup, where my life total is irrelevant when a deck combos off, and the differencr between a win or loss is turn 3 or turn 4 kill. It is also good against control, especially getting around Leyline. My meta is pretty diverse, so I definately run into matches where I want Boros with Skullcrack, and others where I want Naya with Atarkas Command. I guess my question is...which will hurt me least when in a less than ideal matchup. I know I'll face matchups where both are adventageous, so looking at the ones where they aren't...which would put me at the greatest disadvantage?
I'm stuck between Crack and Command. I've been running Skullcrack more. I like that it is less stressful on the mana base. It also allows me another (although conditional) answer to Firewalker in thr mirror, and against any aggresive decks, I value fetching a mountain over my third color. That being said, I would rather Command in the combo matchup, where my life total is irrelevant when a deck combos off, and the differencr between a win or loss is turn 3 or turn 4 kill. It is also good against control, especially getting around Leyline. My meta is pretty diverse, so I definately run into matches where I want Boros with Skullcrack, and others where I want Naya with Atarkas Command. I guess my question is...which will hurt me least when in a less than ideal matchup. I know I'll face matchups where both are adventageous, so looking at the ones where they aren't...which would put me at the greatest disadvantage?
Why not both ;).
I run 2x Skullcrack MD with 4x Atarkas in the SB for combo and other MUs where I don't care about my lifetotal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Enjoy Standard, Modern and Music (also some Pauper, Momir, Gaming, Animations and Legacy)? Then visit my channel:Here
I'm stuck between Crack and Command. I've been running Skullcrack more. I like that it is less stressful on the mana base. It also allows me another (although conditional) answer to Firewalker in thr mirror, and against any aggresive decks, I value fetching a mountain over my third color. That being said, I would rather Command in the combo matchup, where my life total is irrelevant when a deck combos off, and the differencr between a win or loss is turn 3 or turn 4 kill. It is also good against control, especially getting around Leyline. My meta is pretty diverse, so I definately run into matches where I want Boros with Skullcrack, and others where I want Naya with Atarkas Command. I guess my question is...which will hurt me least when in a less than ideal matchup. I know I'll face matchups where both are adventageous, so looking at the ones where they aren't...which would put me at the greatest disadvantage?
Why not both ;).
I run 2x Skullcrack MD with 4x Atarkas in the SB for combo and other MUs where I don't care about my lifetotal.
Cramming either Skullcrack or Command into the side seems like it would eat up valuable sideboard slots. IMO, both of these are cards that should be main, or not at all. With the possible exception of running 4x on one in the main, and 2x of the other in side, in a tuned sideboard for a lifegain heavy meta.
The pros and cons of both are known, and I like both variants. I really do think it is a meta choice, but in a wide meta, not an easy choice...
It's pretty clear that this inflammatory statement is targeted solely at myself. Providing well-reasoned arguments for a position and standing by those arguments is not remotely "ignorant".
For what it's worth, for the past few days I've been PMing with elcon concerning strategy between the three versions of Burn I consider to be competitive (Boros, Naya, Mardu). At no point did he ever force his opinion down my throat, or tell me that I was wrong for considering all three of these versions of Burn. He performed some calculations for me out of the goodness of his heart, and let me make my own decisions based on the raw numbers he provided. I think if people were to read our conversations, it would be all but impossible to say he was pushing an agenda towards me.
I think people are reading a negative tone where there isn't one. It might be neutral or factual, but it's not disrespectful. Elcon provides statistical data to the burn forum and then offers his opinions based on his results. I don't really feel it's his responsibility to say "it's my opinion" before every post--that should be implicitly understood.
For the record, the numbers I saw are making me reconsider Boros as the version of Burn I want to be running--and at no point did he suggest that. It's all from me.
Mardu Burn
Monogreen Stompy
Legacy
Burn
Pauper
Dimir Flicker
Monowhite Tokens
You have called out others myself included for misinterpreting your words. I am not calling you out, however I am calling you out on misinterpreting/reading into this too much into my words. Not once have I said you have forced your opinion although others may have. There are those who fit into this category and it does not have to be here on the forum it could be people at a store/event/even friends. My statement was more a generalization. I will not apologize for an overreaction or misinterpretation like you have not to myself and others who you have called out for the same.
I never said you were!!!!!!! You cant call people out for reading too much or misinterpret your words then do that to yourself and claim victim on both.
For the record I never called him out but now I have for him calling people out for reading too much or misinterpreting his words then doing that to others and claiming victim on both. I was not attacking him. Please reread my whole post. I agree people find negative where there is none. There are those who fit into this category and it does not have to be here on the forum it could be people at a store/event/even friends. My statement was more a generalization. And more about looking at the benefits of playing Boros and Naya.
I never explicitly said you were. I merely stated that I don't believe elcon forces agendas down a person's throat in a way that is relevant to the current conversation, but I wasn't talking about you at all. I was speaking generally.
Do you see what that looks like, and why it's hard to believe it's not what you were doing?
Mardu Burn
Monogreen Stompy
Legacy
Burn
Pauper
Dimir Flicker
Monowhite Tokens
Ulka
I've seen a few lists run a 1-of Smash to Smithereens with 3xDestructive Revelry.
At a PPTQ on Saturday against Affinity my opponent sideboarded Blood Moon in G2 and G3. At one point I had 3 Revelrys in hand and couldn't cast them. I feel having an answer to situations like that is important? (And 3 damage is always better than 2!) Or is 4x Revelry just better to answer the problematic Leyline of Sanctity?
Looking on MTG Top 8, the only decks that seem to be running Leyline at the moment is Lantern Control, Ad Nauseam and Bogles.
You got a bunch of options. I see Blood Moon some what often as in my play group I have a buddy who runs RW Prison; a Zoo deck and Mono Red Burn deck that has Blood Moon in the side. You can try and go RWg and switch out Revelry for Wear//Tear and add 1 Plains like I have. Or when I run full Naya I add 1 Forest and 1 Plain. If your meta isnt huge with Blood Moon you can choose to just deal with it as it comes and not side since it may not drop often enough. And Im sure someone else may also have another good idea. These are just a few options. We cant side for everything sometimes you run into a match or player and just gotta tip your cap. I hate being in that spot with no answers/locked out but it happens.
Leyline is also a hit and miss for me. There are weeks I see it often and weeks I never see it. Lately though I'm seeing more life gain to counter Burn then Leyline. Reverly or Wear//Tear works well hear depending if your going Naya or Boros. But yeah I see having Enchantment removal as being a must. When I face my buddy's RW Prison it sucks, Chalice, Blood Moon and Leyline add in Simian Spirit Guide to accelerate things in the main and just not enough answers.
Hope this helps.
In your situation, I don't think 1 Smash + 3 DRev would have made a difference. To me, making that switch is an all or nothing kind of thing. I don't think that Blood Moon out of Affinity is something you'll see often enough to get upset about, but is instead a "yeah, you got me" situation. Without DRev or Wear//Tear, you're punting against Spreading Seas/Seas Claim, Leyline, and Blood Moon (probably the most common enchantments you'll see). If they play Leyline and you can't deal with it, you've probably lost the game unless you can ride Eidolon triggers and creature damage. The other two require you to sequence your spells in such a way that you could float green or white to deal with them if you have enchantment removal. If you don't, maybe you can weather 1 Sea, but 2 is probably too much. Your only shot against Blood Moon is a very red heavy hand, because Helix and Charm are done.
That's not worth the risk to me, so I play DRev and would play DRev even if I didn't play Atarka's Command. I firmly believe that sideboard cards are the primary reason to splash colors. I'd only switch to Smash if my local meta was all artifacts and I never saw Seas, Leylines, and Blood Moons.
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'!"
Yep - though I'm slowly starting too believe 3x Drev + 2x Spree might be necessary for Chalice
That said I havn't seen as many E-Tron players lately since UW control has picked up (4x Seas, T.Edge &/or Ghost might have something to do with that).
Enjoy Standard, Modern and Music (also some Pauper, Momir, Gaming, Animations and Legacy)? Then visit my channel:Here
BWTokensBW
RWBurnRW
UFaeriesU
BWTokensBW
RWBurnRW
UFaeriesU
I run 2x Skullcrack MD with 4x Atarkas in the SB for combo and other MUs where I don't care about my lifetotal.
Enjoy Standard, Modern and Music (also some Pauper, Momir, Gaming, Animations and Legacy)? Then visit my channel:Here
The pros and cons of both are known, and I like both variants. I really do think it is a meta choice, but in a wide meta, not an easy choice...
BWTokensBW
RWBurnRW
UFaeriesU