MTG Salvation

Quick tournament report from the Worcester Open:
So far I'm 3-3. Rounds went;

R1 b/r reanimator. Lost in 3. Leyline saved the day in game 2, but couldn't find it or a bridge in game 3.

R2 Eldrazi Post. I don't like trinisphere.....

R3 12 Post. See above.

R4 opponent didn't show. Yay, a win!

R5 Infect. Won in 2.

R6 opponent didn't show. I'm on a streak!

R7 mono red sneak attack. G1 t1 chalice on 1. G2 t2 trinisphere.
Have I mentioned I don't like trinisphere?

R8 Sultai Leovold. Too much disruption and counters. Plus True-Name Nemesis wearing a Jitte is pretty much game.

R9 U/b Reanimator. Lost 2-1. Maindeck Linvala, sideboarded in Echoing Truth and Tidespout Tyrant. Was gg pretty quick.

Event was capped at 900, 720 started the day. Saw a LOT of big mana decks, Reanimator, and Lands. From what I could hear it seems like a lot of Grixis and Sultai too. Mono red Burn just seems so outclassed right now. At least today it was. Trinisphere is SUCH a beating, especially g1. G2 even with artifact removal brought in the trouble was hitting 3 lands most of the time before during to giant Eldrazi.

So, I'm trying to finalize my list for SCGWOR tommorow. What does everyone think the most stable list currently is? Also, I was looking through some various lists of all deck styles looking for ideas and came across something. Now, I usually run Leyline of the Void as gy hate. For the lists that run it, what are people's thoughts of running Helm of Obedience as well to combo with the Leyline?

Typically Eidolon and Pillar are the decks' best bet against combo decks. Leyline of the Void can be good too, as long as they use their gy as a resource.

Hey all,
Almost time to get my youngest to bed, but I'll try to respond quick at least.

In regards to what I think the deck is lacking, the best way I can put it is longevity. Burn is a deck designed to finish the game quickly, ideally before the game progresses to the midgame stage. In Modern, and even Standard on occasion, this isn't as big of an issue. Certain decks aside, Modern is generally slower than Legacy and posses less counterspells we need to be concerned with, so going mid-to-late game is difficult but possible. In Legacy, however, Burn more often needs to win early, as our spells get outclassed much faster. Burn imo is much more meta dependant than many other decks in the format. Burn's biggest strength is also it's biggest weakness I feel. Burn does the same thing with the majority of its cards at the same points on the mana curve, so while that gives it lots of consistency, it also makes the deck very predictable. I just think the deck needs some way to help keep the opponent guessing that can also help bridge it into three mid-to-late turns. I've often wondered if some amount of planeswalkers may be the answer, but I'm not totally sure.

And yes, straight mono red does have the most consistent results. But consistent and winning are not necessarily the same. Looking back at various tournament results, it's been good while since a Burn deck placed in the top 1 on a regular basis, let alone top 8.

Again, I'm just stating what my thoughts have been lately in regards to the deck. I cant say I know what the fix might be, if there is one. But I think it's worth at least examining if we can do better for the deck we enjoy.

The talk about Chasm-Crucible actually hits upon something I've been thinking about lately. Here in the USA SCG Open Worcester is coming up this weekend, and I'm definitely going to be there. I'm most likely going to be playing Burn, mainly because it's the only complete Legacy deck I have, but I also do actually enjoy playing the archetype. As I've been studying up on various Legacy decklists and pouring over whatever results I can find from any Legacy tournaments, I find myself asking the question more and more "is straight mono-red Burn still the ideal build currently?". As I look at a variety of lists it just feels like Burn is having a harder time keeping up. It seems as though each new set has brought something new or innovative to most other decks, but the last real "innovation" with Burn seems to be Exquisite Firecraft. I've been wondering more and more if we are limiting the growth of the deck by staying mono colored. I'm aware that the current builds guard us against PoP recoil, and that aside from certain numbers of a couple maindeck cards and some flex sideboard slots that the deck has pretty much stayed the same since Eidolon of the Great Revel was added, but is that really what's best for the deck to stay competitive? In doing a bit of research it seems like others have tried splashing a second color here and there before with white or green being the most common. Occasionally people have tried black as well, but it seems any discussions of changing the deck or trying new things gets met with harsh discontent; "Mono red is the only way to play Burn!" "How dare you suggest changing any of the cards!" "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" etc.... Long story short, through all the info I've looked through, it just seems like straight-up mono-red Burn is not in a good position in the current meta. I think part of it's strength is also a huge weakness at times: it's consistent. It does the same things with the same cards time and time again. And by now people have figured out what to expect when playing against it. I'd love to hear other opinions and thoughts on the matter. I still hope to bring a burn deck to the open, I just don't know what kind it will be yet.

-Phoenix-

I've had no desire to even think of playing Standard since before last rotation, and frankly that hasn't changed. If anything this just cements my earlier statement of needing a fairly decent length of time with no banning before I'll consider putting any money towards Standard. Unfortunately Wizards was in a lose-lose situation, albeit one they put themselves in to begin with. I do agree with what many others have said in that Wizards cannot ban their way to a good Standard. I think the NWO at this point is actually harming Magic and working against a balanced and diverse Standard. Personally I would love to see it done away with.

I suggest perhaps moving your question to here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/established-legacy/control/179854-deck-pox-primer
The posters seem very knowledgeable and would probably offer the best advice for your deck.

There is no strict "alternative" to Chalice unfortunately. There are other cards that can tax your opponents resources, but nothing else that straight up shuts down your opponent's ability to play cards of a certain cmc. The old SDT/CB lock performed a similar function, but with SDT being banned Chalice is sort of it.

If you are looking to slow down early plays there's always Trinisphere or Thorn of Amethyst as has been previously stated.

As you're playing Eldrazi Stompy, perhaps look at the Vintage Ravager decks for some ideas. Not all the cards will be legal of course, but the idea behind the strategy seems to be in line with what you seem to want to do.

IMO I think Wizards is facing a very difficult decision right now. If they leave Standard as is, then there is the potential for interest to decrease further and sales of Standard product to decline even more. If they ban something, whether it be a card or cards, or all energy cards in general, then there is the very real consequence of consumer confidence plummeting even more. I've seen others say that "well you knew you were taking that risk buying into Standard", which to me is a perfect example of the problem at large. I shouldn't have to worry about cards from my deck potentially getting banned in Standard. I haven't played Standard in quite a long time, partly due to lack of any deck that really interests me, but also part because I have only so much money to spend at a time and don't want to get a deck to just see it get banned if it performs too well. Luckily it seems as though Wizards is taking steps to fix that issue, so I'll be cautiously optimistic for now.

I don't really feel that energy is a problem per se, rather the lack of any cost associated with using it. It seems as though there are two opinions in regards to Monday's announcement:
1) Don't change anything and lets see if the new set has any kind of impact (I'm of the opinion that it won't have any drastic impact).
2) Ban X card or cards, if not the entire mechanic.

I think there is a third option that Wizards could pursue that would potentially solve the issue while still letting energy be a viable strategy; errata.
Wizards has the power to errata any card, keyword, ability, etc... at any time if they deem it necessary. Perhaps something along the lines of "at the end of your turn, lose 1 life for any amount of energy above X" where X is some number they determine to be fair yet not overpowered. I'd suggest 3. Something like that would make energy more of an all-in type strategy if they wanted to go off in one turn, or a slower, incremental strategy if they wanted to build advantage over multiple turns.

Bans are something that should be used only as a last resort IMO, and while the case can and has been made for the ones in Standard thus far, I'd hate to see it become the new tool Wizards uses to diversify a format. Let's say they ban energy outright, then as others have stated there is a good chance that Ramunup Red will be the dominant deck in the format. Does that mean that Wizards then should ban something from that deck at the same time as a precaution? It's a very slippery slope to start down.

Personally, I hope cooler heads prevail and not a ban, but a different solution is reached to help with Standard. I also believe that it's time for the NWO to be done away with, but that's a different discussion for a different thread/time. I just know that as a consumer, if there is another ban in Standard, that I personally will not be looking to buy into/play Standard again until I see a good run of time with no bans to the format and will just stick to other formats till then.

Hey everyone! Today I've got a budget brew for you that's not too far off from it's non-budget version. It's relatively low to the ground, hits hard and fast, and dodges basically most of the removal out there aside from board wipes. Today I present to you, Budget Bogles!



Now, as of 19:34 EST (aka 7:34 pm ) on Thursday, November 23,2017 (Happy Thanksgiving!) this deck comes out to 35.25 Tickets on mtgotraders.com .

This deck is based off of a combination of Giant Monster Games's budget Aura Hexproof (find him on youtube!) and a Bogles deck that took 5th place at the Columbus SCG Regionals. So full props to both for their original decks!

If you're not familiar with Bogles, the quick rundown is that you are trying to play a hexproof creature on turn 1 and suit it up with various auras on subsequent turns and try to get your opponent from 20 to zero as quick as possible. A quick search should show you various primers for non-budget versions of the deck.

Any questions or comments go ahead and leave below. GGs!

Hey all,
I'm finalizing my deck list for the SCG Worcester Open. I think I'm happy with the main deck, but need a little help with the sb. Here's my current list:



I have 3 Ensnaring Bridge I'd like to work into the sb somehow, just not sure how to rearrange it. Suggestions?

What's everyone's opinion of Andrea Mengucci's version of Legacy Burn? He has both Swiftspear and Grim Lavamancer mb.
Andrea Mengucci Legacy Burn

Also, after pouring over lists and watching in-numerous videos, is seems like Chalice of the Void is being main boarded more often nowadays. I'm thinking of running some amount of Smash to Smithereens in the main, either 1 or 2, with the rest in the sb. Thoughts?

What are people's thoughts on the optimal build going forward from MM17s release? Once Goblin Guide was spoiled it seems that the sales of Burn cards increased dramatically, which could mean more mirror matches going forward. Also, with Reid Duke's BUG list seeing more play, Leovold, Emissary of Trest seems to present a potential big problem for Burn going forward.

My two cents on the matter: (spoiler: looooong post)
I'm of the opinion, as others have stated, that I'd rather see nothing banned at this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cat go though, so I won't be surprised either way. I highly doubt they'd ban Gideon, but stranger things have happened.

While this thread is focused on Standard bannings, I'm going to sidetrack a little and talk about my opinions on what I think the state of the game itself is on a whole. And as Standard is a big part of the game overall I think it's pertinent.

There are two specific events in the history of the game I think are of special relevance currently. For those newer to the game, Mark Rosewater has written a vast amount of articles on just about every aspect of the game you can think of. The first one that I feel that's led Standard to where it currently is was posted on June 2, 2008 titled "The Year of Living Dangerously". In this article we are introduced, among other things, to a new rarity of card called the "Mythic Rarity". Mark stated a few points which have been referenced increasingly lately:

"How are cards split between rare and mythic rare? Or more to the point, what kind of cards are going to become mythic rares? We want the flavor of mythic rare to be something that feels very special and unique. Generally speaking we expect that to mean cards like Planeswalkers, most legends, and epic-feeling creatures and spells. They will not just be a list of each set's most powerful tournament-level cards."

As well as:
"We've also decided that there are certain things we specifically do not want to be mythic rares. The largest category is utility cards, what I'll define as cards that fill a universal function. Some examples of this category would be cycles of dual lands and cards like Mutavault or Char."
I thinks it's quite easy to say that Mythics printed in sets nowadays are the exact opposite of those statements. While not every Mythic is, you'd be hard pressed to find a deck at the top tables that wasn't comprised of a notable number of Mythics; the aforementioned Gideon, for exameple.

The second article, again written by Maro, is titled "New World Order". One of the main points of the article is the decision to reduce the complexity of cards at the common rarity to help alleviate new player confusion. Instead of individually powerful creatures/spells/effects at common, they shifted towards a more "strategic complexity". He provided an example for those who where concerned that this shift would be boring:

"For those that are worried that this is boring, I ask you to simply try the following experiment. Make two decks of just vanilla creatures and common sorceries. (This is very similar to a beginner product we made long ago named Portal.) Find a player of a similar skill level to your own and play the decks against each other. What you will find is that these games are actually quite interesting. It's easy to get caught up in all the complexity of Magic that you forget how much fun the base of the game is—and not just fun, skillful."

What do these have to do with Standard bannings? I feel that these particular decision, more specifically the lack of revisiting them, are 2 of the main reasons why our current Standard has become the way it is. Newer players may not realise, Magic was literally the first trading card game in existence, being first published in 1993. As pointed out in part 1 of a 2 part interview with Richard Garfield on StarCityGames Premium side, the trademark for Trading Card Game is in Richard Garfield's name. Let that sink in for a moment. Everything that Magic did in the early days was completely new ground. As time progressed and other similar games started to pop up it was only a matter of time before Wizards had to re-evaluate certain aspects of the game. When the Mythic Rarity came out and when the New World Order was first implemented both made sense given the direction the game was headed. Wizards needed to get the player base to continue to grow for Magic to prosper further. And both early on certainly accomplished that. I feel that the game is at a point though where those concepts need to be revisited and reviewed to see if they are still in the best interest of the game and helping to increase the player base. The game has been at that point for a good while now actually. Since (and including) the Shards of Alara block (when the Mythic Rarity was introduced) there have been a total of 17 "Standard" blocks and core sets released at present. 2008-now. That's approximately 9 years. That's a long time, in my opinion, to go without re-evaluating if the game is still going in the right direction.

I'm not suggesting that they do away with Mythics, or make cards at common hyper-confusing. But I do feel that both concepts really need to get a good hard look at by Wizards, and they need to ask themselves "are these decisions still correct?".

Now, as for bannings in standard, Sam Stoddard I think pretty much hit the nail on the head when he stated that the creatures have gotten better while the answers have gotten worse (I'm paraphrasing, I don't have a link to his exact tweet). I don't feel that interactions like the copycat combo themselves are the issue, but rather the lack of efficient interaction. CoCo itself wasn't the problem per se; it was the cards that existed in that Standard at the time with it that made it too good. The seeming push to weaken "spell" based Magic while making creatures (mostly at rare and mythic mind you) better and better. The game becoming more and more Midrange: The Gathering as opposed to Magic: The Gathering over the past few Standards. The obvious-even-to-new-players warping almost to the point of ignoring of the color pie and what each color originally had strengths and weaknesses in. The almost comical way Wizards is (in my opinion) trying to covertly get people to be less interested in formats that don't sell packs (Legacy to expensive? Getting Priced out of Modern? There's always Standard! Oh, that's stale you say? You could always draft!). These are what I feel are causing the current Standard, in addition to the more recent ones, to have become the way they are. Personally, I haven't played Standard in well over a year or so, partly due to not finding a deck that I consider challenging yet fun and reasonably affordable. I've been slowly buying into a Legacy deck. I can find "I smash my creature into your creature, ok your turn. You smash your creature into my creature, ok my turn" interesting for only so long. I'm primarily an aggro player, but I have played other deck styles over they years. I'd love to see reasonable counter magic, reasonable removal make a comeback. But Wizards doesn't want newer players to feel bad if their creature gets countered or dies too soon. So I'll wait, patiently, cautiously optomistically, that we see a return of decent answers to the format.

This makes it a little easier for people to see what the cards are.