I don't like it because it never hits your opponent. Shouldn't you always try to have damage attached to your sideboard cards in order to suffer less from over-sideboarding? This is why Destructive Revelry, Smash to Smithereens, and Searing Blood are great sideboard cards. They answer the threats that need to be answered without slowing down your momentum.
I don't want to say that it's definitely a bad card though. It seems like it can be good against certain decks, but those decks where it shines against don't seem to be very popular right now.
What about Bedlam revelers and satyr firedencer(In sideboard)?
Bedlam: My main problem with him was being unable to hold back skullcrack when I wanted to cast him
Firedancer: I loved him, had a lot of fun against human/merfolk/eldrazi/elves (decks with a bunch of creatures and little to no removal); Currently I dropped them in favor of Ensnaring Bridge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What's your plan?" Gideon asked.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
I probably won't run Abrade, but it's an interesting option.
We bring in path vs a lot of these creature decks and it can't hit face. It doesn't have the downside of giving them a land. It has interesting flexibility in that it can hit a vial or a creature. It can also come in vs a lot of artifact decks.
Some time ago, I posted a comprehensive sideboard guide for the modern burn deck here and on reddit, and was updating it from time to time. However, lately I got very busy IRL and could not keep the guide up to date with the current meta.
This past few days I was at home sick, and found some time to update my guide. I proudly present it:
Note this is the same link of the old one, so with you had it saved, it should still work.
Some notes regarding the chosen list and sideboard:
Lately, I've found the green splash for Destructive Revelry lackluster, and often got mana screwed with some DRevs in my hand. So, I took the radical choice of going full Boros.
Why Wear // Tear and Shattering Spree over Smash to Smithereens? We need some enchantment removal to deal with pesky leylines (abundant in my local meta), and Shattering Spree is really good against lantern and affinity, also while being extraordinary against Chalice of the Void.
I took the choice of 2 Grim Lavamancer on the main instead of only one while keeping 20 lands. In order to do that, I moved 2 Skullcrack to the side, as in my local meta there is little lifegain around, and most of it comes from the sideboard. Also, my local meta is full of small creature decks, and lavamancer is a beast against them.
As always, you can leave comments on the sideboard guide with suggestions. I hope this helps you guys!
Shattering Spree is really good against lantern and affinity
You might want to look back in the forum. I thought it would be great against affinity as well, but a few people explained to me why it isn't great against affinity.
I took the choice of 2 Grim Lavamancer on the main instead of only one while keeping 20 lands. In order to do that, I moved 2 Skullcrack to the side
Yeah, I did the exact same thing once. I'm not doing it anymore, but it seems to work out well. However, I now prefer to not put 2 copies of Skullcrack in the sideboard because I need those extra sideboard slots for more useful things. Instead, I'm trying 1 copy of Grim Lavamancer in the main over a land, because 19 lands does actually work pretty well, and leaving all copies of Skullcrack in the main. The problem is that having two copies of Grim Lavamancer is a pain, however unlikely it may be. Also, Grim Lavamancer isn't an immediate threat and it doesn't do damage right away, so topdecking it when you need a burn spell isn't great, and it provides a chance for your opponent to interact by killing it. It makes up for it by being amazing against small creature decks, which is why I like having 1 copy in the main.
Shattering Spree is really good against lantern and affinity
You might want to look back in the forum. I thought it would be great against affinity as well, but a few people explained to me why it isn't great against affinity.
I took the choice of 2 Grim Lavamancer on the main instead of only one while keeping 20 lands. In order to do that, I moved 2 Skullcrack to the side
Yeah, I did the exact same thing once. I'm not doing it anymore, but it seems to work out well. However, I now prefer to not put 2 copies of Skullcrack in the sideboard because I need those extra sideboard slots for more useful things. Instead, I'm trying 1 copy of Grim Lavamancer in the main over a land, because 19 lands does actually work pretty well, and leaving all copies of Skullcrack in the main. The problem is that having two copies of Grim Lavamancer is a pain, however unlikely it may be. Also, Grim Lavamancer isn't an immediate threat and it doesn't do damage right away, so topdecking it when you need a burn spell isn't great, and it provides a chance for your opponent to interact by killing it. It makes up for it by being amazing against small creature decks, which is why I like having 1 copy in the main.
I agree that 2 lavamancers maybe are too much in an open field, but it suits my needs in my current meta. Also, I've cut the Skullcracks to 2 because there is not much lifegain going around here, and I don't think 2 in the side is too clunky, but that is my personal feel.
Also, I think 19 lands is fine, but I personally prefer 20. I just don't like to be mana screwed.
I read the reasoning on the shattering spree, and it makes sense. However, there is not much affinity in my local meta as opposed to chalices and laterns (and even some other odd artifact decks, such as tezzerator). I'm not against splashing green for DRev, or even running smash to smithereens, if you insist in full boros. The sideboard has some 3-6 flex slots which you can adjust for your local meta. In my list, the flex slots are:
Kor Firewalker
Graveyard hate (cage and RIP)
Shattering spree (could be replaced by Smash to Smithereens)
If there were fewer Bogles players and Leylines running around my LGS, I think I'd drop the 2 Wear // Tear for 2 Smash.
I think shattering spree is definitely great against affinity. I know archbound ravager exists, but ravager is good against all artifact hate unless it's shatterstorm. Tapping 3 red to kill 3 artifacts is just a blowout and if they have ravager forces them to go all in on a single threat, which can then be killed with path to exile or another artifact destruction spell to win the game.
In every other rmatchup i like smash to smithereens more because the 3 damages are too important for our gameplan, but against affinity we need to go in full control mode, and killing 3 or more artifacts instead of just one is a huge deal.
Also volcanic fallout is very very good against affinity.
I've had shattering spree vs affinity and felt very very bad.
.
Ravager hoses you. Man lands hose you. Ravager and man-lands really hose you.
Burn is not a value deck. We're a get 'em dead deck. We don't ever want to go full control--largely because our threats aren't as good as most other threats.
To me affinity is about killing a few key guys and burning face before they can close the door on you. The best way to do this is 2 for 1 cards.
Searing blaze, Searing Blood, Smash to Smithereens, Destructive Revelry can all kill a creature AND damage your opponent.
I can appreciate the utilization of Shattering Spree vs Lantern and vs Eldrazi Tron. But I think against Affinity, you want instant speed cards.
Thought it was hot garbage a year ago. Thought it was hot garbage last week. Still think it's hot garbage today and will continue to think that even if the winning deck has 4 copies of Vexing Devil in it.
I think that Vexing Devil is worth approximately 2 damage on average, and I'd rather play Shock than something that averages to Shock but has a large standard deviation.
Thought it was hot garbage a year ago. Thought it was hot garbage last week. Still think it's hot garbage today and will continue to think that even if the winning deck has 4 copies of Vexing Devil in it.
I think that Vexing Devil is worth approximately 2 damage on average, and I'd rather play Shock than something that averages to Shock but has a large standard deviation.
i understand everyone has their own opinion and experience but when i played it, it was always 4 to the dome. i think thats changed with there being bolt, path, and push. not to mention the plethora of other ways to kill it currently so its less likely they just take 4
It got played in a pro tour deck that did very well on Day 1. It can't be that much garbage. I have always thought because of it being a punisher card, it did better in less competitive or skilled metagames and worse at higher levels of play, I may have to reevaluate this.
Thought it was hot garbage a year ago. Thought it was hot garbage last week. Still think it's hot garbage today and will continue to think that even if the winning deck has 4 copies of Vexing Devil in it.
I think that Vexing Devil is worth approximately 2 damage on average, and I'd rather play Shock than something that averages to Shock but has a large standard deviation.
i understand everyone has their own opinion and experience but when i played it, it was always 4 to the dome. i think thats changed with there being bolt, path, and push. not to mention the plethora of other ways to kill it currently so its less likely they just take 4
I think your experience implies you were playing it against a meta that never plays removal, which is extraordinarily atypical, or it's confirmation bias. I've done the math on this against typical amounts of removal from typical decks. The answer is about 2 damage on average for a turn 1 devil, and it goes down from there.
It got played in a pro tour deck that did very well on Day 1. It can't be that much garbage. I have always thought because of it being a punisher card, it did better in less competitive or skilled metagames and worse at higher levels of play, I may have to reevaluate this.
It's a mistake to attribute the success of the deck as a whole to 4 cards. Nothing about this suggests that devil is a good card that should be reevaluated and that everyone else for the last 5 years has been wrong about it. It's still hot garbage and the performance of a single deck doesn't imply that it's not.
At best, this just means that a bunch of people will come to the conclusion that it's fantastic because of a single deck and they'll play it, evaluate it by using confirmation bias, and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread. It'll be Shrine of Burning Rage all over again: hot garbage that people claim isn't hot garbage because "look at that one time it was played and the player won!"
Thought it was hot garbage a year ago. Thought it was hot garbage last week. Still think it's hot garbage today and will continue to think that even if the winning deck has 4 copies of Vexing Devil in it.
I think that Vexing Devil is worth approximately 2 damage on average, and I'd rather play Shock than something that averages to Shock but has a large standard deviation.
i understand everyone has their own opinion and experience but when i played it, it was always 4 to the dome. i think thats changed with there being bolt, path, and push. not to mention the plethora of other ways to kill it currently so its less likely they just take 4
I think your experience implies you were playing it against a meta that never plays removal, which is extraordinarily atypical, or it's confirmation bias. I've done the math on this against typical amounts of removal from typical decks. The answer is about 2 damage on average for a turn 1 devil, and it goes down from there.
It got played in a pro tour deck that did very well on Day 1. It can't be that much garbage. I have always thought because of it being a punisher card, it did better in less competitive or skilled metagames and worse at higher levels of play, I may have to reevaluate this.
It's a mistake to attribute the success of the deck as a whole to 4 cards. Nothing about this suggests that devil is a good card that should be reevaluated and that everyone else for the last 5 years has been wrong about it. It's still hot garbage and the performance of a single deck doesn't imply that it's not.
At best, this just means that a bunch of people will come to the conclusion that it's fantastic because of a single deck and they'll play it, evaluate it by using confirmation bias, and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread. It'll be Shrine of Burning Rage all over again: hot garbage that people claim isn't hot garbage because "look at that one time it was played and the player won!"
I get what you're saying and when I played it I was playing against affinity, rg and uw tron, living end, bw tokens. Remember this was a long time ago that was back when I lived in Indiana and that's been over 6 years ago. The only time someone would not take 4 to the Dome is if they were below 8 life in my experience. Obviously that is a very long time ago decks of changed things of come out people don't play half those decks anymore so obviously the information I have given is outdated but for me it was always a good card which is why I was running it when I did. We also have gotten better tools since he was printed and since I was using him so the list has changed because of that too.
That's the ancient times back when modern was brand new (started in late 2012), Boros Charm didn't even exist yet and devil and bump in the night had just been printed. So sure, there weren't a whole lot of good options to play back then. There are now and devil isn't one of them.
Couple of interesting meta calls in the Burn decks that went 6-4 or better at the PT this weekend.
Running 3x Lightning Helix in the main board in favour of 1x Shard Volley (some lists even ran 2x)
2x Ensnaring Bridge in the sideboard. This seems like pretty good tech if humans is going to start becoming a real thing (it was the most represented deck at the PT). Seems like it could help improve the ETron matchup as well.
Vexing Devil is not what Burn is looking for, I promise you. That doesn't mean the deck can't win with Devil, it means the deck is so hyperconsistent it can win in spite of Devil.
That Vexing Devil list didn't end up with 18 points or more, unless I missed it when I was glancing through them.
For the record, the guy was 7-0 when he was on camera and that means he was 4-0 drafting and 3-0 playing modern. Any Burn build can win 3 straight rounds of modern, whether it's playing Devil or not.
I don't want to say that it's definitely a bad card though. It seems like it can be good against certain decks, but those decks where it shines against don't seem to be very popular right now.
Bedlam: My main problem with him was being unable to hold back skullcrack when I wanted to cast him
Firedancer: I loved him, had a lot of fun against human/merfolk/eldrazi/elves (decks with a bunch of creatures and little to no removal); Currently I dropped them in favor of Ensnaring Bridge.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
We bring in path vs a lot of these creature decks and it can't hit face. It doesn't have the downside of giving them a land. It has interesting flexibility in that it can hit a vial or a creature. It can also come in vs a lot of artifact decks.
Some time ago, I posted a comprehensive sideboard guide for the modern burn deck here and on reddit, and was updating it from time to time. However, lately I got very busy IRL and could not keep the guide up to date with the current meta.
This past few days I was at home sick, and found some time to update my guide. I proudly present it:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/163yoCtAmk4SvS0d2EhtpC-AodwX42YpVwMkpdmuRYZI/edit?usp=sharing
Note this is the same link of the old one, so with you had it saved, it should still work.
Some notes regarding the chosen list and sideboard:
As always, you can leave comments on the sideboard guide with suggestions. I hope this helps you guys!
You might want to look back in the forum. I thought it would be great against affinity as well, but a few people explained to me why it isn't great against affinity.
Yeah, I did the exact same thing once. I'm not doing it anymore, but it seems to work out well. However, I now prefer to not put 2 copies of Skullcrack in the sideboard because I need those extra sideboard slots for more useful things. Instead, I'm trying 1 copy of Grim Lavamancer in the main over a land, because 19 lands does actually work pretty well, and leaving all copies of Skullcrack in the main. The problem is that having two copies of Grim Lavamancer is a pain, however unlikely it may be. Also, Grim Lavamancer isn't an immediate threat and it doesn't do damage right away, so topdecking it when you need a burn spell isn't great, and it provides a chance for your opponent to interact by killing it. It makes up for it by being amazing against small creature decks, which is why I like having 1 copy in the main.
I agree that 2 lavamancers maybe are too much in an open field, but it suits my needs in my current meta. Also, I've cut the Skullcracks to 2 because there is not much lifegain going around here, and I don't think 2 in the side is too clunky, but that is my personal feel.
Also, I think 19 lands is fine, but I personally prefer 20. I just don't like to be mana screwed.
I read the reasoning on the shattering spree, and it makes sense. However, there is not much affinity in my local meta as opposed to chalices and laterns (and even some other odd artifact decks, such as tezzerator). I'm not against splashing green for DRev, or even running smash to smithereens, if you insist in full boros. The sideboard has some 3-6 flex slots which you can adjust for your local meta. In my list, the flex slots are:
If there were fewer Bogles players and Leylines running around my LGS, I think I'd drop the 2 Wear // Tear for 2 Smash.
In every other rmatchup i like smash to smithereens more because the 3 damages are too important for our gameplan, but against affinity we need to go in full control mode, and killing 3 or more artifacts instead of just one is a huge deal.
Also volcanic fallout is very very good against affinity.
.
Ravager hoses you. Man lands hose you. Ravager and man-lands really hose you.
Burn is not a value deck. We're a get 'em dead deck. We don't ever want to go full control--largely because our threats aren't as good as most other threats.
To me affinity is about killing a few key guys and burning face before they can close the door on you. The best way to do this is 2 for 1 cards.
Searing blaze, Searing Blood, Smash to Smithereens, Destructive Revelry can all kill a creature AND damage your opponent.
I can appreciate the utilization of Shattering Spree vs Lantern and vs Eldrazi Tron. But I think against Affinity, you want instant speed cards.
I still think this card stinks. You should never really give the choice to your opponents on the outcome of the cards you cast.
Thought it was hot garbage a year ago. Thought it was hot garbage last week. Still think it's hot garbage today and will continue to think that even if the winning deck has 4 copies of Vexing Devil in it.
I think that Vexing Devil is worth approximately 2 damage on average, and I'd rather play Shock than something that averages to Shock but has a large standard deviation.
i understand everyone has their own opinion and experience but when i played it, it was always 4 to the dome. i think thats changed with there being bolt, path, and push. not to mention the plethora of other ways to kill it currently so its less likely they just take 4
I think your experience implies you were playing it against a meta that never plays removal, which is extraordinarily atypical, or it's confirmation bias. I've done the math on this against typical amounts of removal from typical decks. The answer is about 2 damage on average for a turn 1 devil, and it goes down from there.
It's a mistake to attribute the success of the deck as a whole to 4 cards. Nothing about this suggests that devil is a good card that should be reevaluated and that everyone else for the last 5 years has been wrong about it. It's still hot garbage and the performance of a single deck doesn't imply that it's not.
At best, this just means that a bunch of people will come to the conclusion that it's fantastic because of a single deck and they'll play it, evaluate it by using confirmation bias, and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread. It'll be Shrine of Burning Rage all over again: hot garbage that people claim isn't hot garbage because "look at that one time it was played and the player won!"
I get what you're saying and when I played it I was playing against affinity, rg and uw tron, living end, bw tokens. Remember this was a long time ago that was back when I lived in Indiana and that's been over 6 years ago. The only time someone would not take 4 to the Dome is if they were below 8 life in my experience. Obviously that is a very long time ago decks of changed things of come out people don't play half those decks anymore so obviously the information I have given is outdated but for me it was always a good card which is why I was running it when I did. We also have gotten better tools since he was printed and since I was using him so the list has changed because of that too.
all 5 had at least one lavamancer in the main
all 5 had destructive revelry in the side
all 5 had searing bloods in the side
none had vexing devil
EDIT:
forgot about the the 24-26 pts, he also had lavaman in the main, drev & blood in the side, and 0 devil
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
For the record, the guy was 7-0 when he was on camera and that means he was 4-0 drafting and 3-0 playing modern. Any Burn build can win 3 straight rounds of modern, whether it's playing Devil or not.