Super quick report: I lost 0-4 last FNM, it was horrible. list in the signature.
UW control: he got down to 1 life both games and I couldnt topdeck a spell for some turns. Tried to accumulate spells to funnel his counters, but he found balance way before I accumulated enough damage.
Bogles: game 1, I go keep and he goes... Leyline of sanctity. He drew coronets as well. Could this be our worst MU?
Ponza: won g1 easy. But could not get there games 2 and 3... I really dont know how that happened, since it sure looks favorable for us, right?
Taxes: Won G1 easy again. Thalia plus surprise Worship finished g2 for him. g3 I mulld to 5 with a horrible hand...
I mean... how is this possible? going through the plays with my ops, they really couldnt think of any play that I could have chained better. It feels unrealistic that such a robust deck runs out of spells so man times in a row (I even play 2 extra shard volleys for extra reach). I am really confused...
As far as the previous question of how to play against ponza, you need to keep them off of mana and race them. I'd play searing effects against them and also bring drev to destroy Utopia Sprawl. Arbor Elf must die before they untap with it or you're in for a world of pain. Expect lifegain from them via Obstinate Baloth or other cards like it. DPalm is ok for when they seeing with their big creatures. In my experience, it's very tough if you let them get online. Keep in mind that blood moon can shut you off colors, and you might want to just avoid DRev and DPalm because of that.
What do you board out against Ponza? Does it change between play or draw? I have a hell of a time with Ponza between the land destruction, life gain, Trinisphere and Primal Command time walking me.
I mean, it was the first time I took my burn deck to this FNM, but I have been playing it forever, so I was really shocked and depressed after I lost all the rounds... Anyway, I dont think my meta is the best for a deck like burn. There is also a ton of Abzan/Jund decks that can really win life very easily.
Super quick report: I lost 0-4 last FNM, it was horrible. list in the signature.
UW control: he got down to 1 life both games and I couldnt topdeck a spell for some turns. Tried to accumulate spells to funnel his counters, but he found balance way before I accumulated enough damage.
Bogles: game 1, I go keep and he goes... Leyline of sanctity. He drew coronets as well. Could this be our worst MU?
Ponza: won g1 easy. But could not get there games 2 and 3... I really dont know how that happened, since it sure looks favorable for us, right?
Taxes: Won G1 easy again. Thalia plus surprise Worship finished g2 for him. g3 I mulld to 5 with a horrible hand...
I mean... how is this possible? going through the plays with my ops, they really couldnt think of any play that I could have chained better. It feels unrealistic that such a robust deck runs out of spells so man times in a row (I even play 2 extra shard volleys for extra reach). I am really confused...
As far as the previous question of how to play against ponza, you need to keep them off of mana and race them. I'd play searing effects against them and also bring drev to destroy Utopia Sprawl. Arbor Elf must die before they untap with it or you're in for a world of pain. Expect lifegain from them via Obstinate Baloth or other cards like it. DPalm is ok for when they seeing with their big creatures. In my experience, it's very tough if you let them get online. Keep in mind that blood moon can shut you off colors, and you might want to just avoid DRev and DPalm because of that.
What do you board out against Ponza? Does it change between play or draw? I have a hell of a time with Ponza between the land destruction, life gain, Trinisphere and Primal Command time walking me.
With all the ramp, cutting Eidolon is probably correct, especially on the draw. I'm not super high on playing drev in that matchup (better on the play), but I would bring extra searing effects. Your only hope is to race, and the maindeck is basically optimised for doing that.
I mean, it was the first time I took my burn deck to this FNM, but I have been playing it forever, so I was really shocked and depressed after I lost all the rounds... Anyway, I dont think my meta is the best for a deck like burn. There is also a ton of Abzan/Jund decks that can really win life very easily.
That can happen in a 4 round tournament, and there's no reason to get upset about it. June and Junk, however, should be good matchups for you unless they are built to hate on Burn heavily.
I mean, it was the first time I took my burn deck to this FNM, but I have been playing it forever, so I was really shocked and depressed after I lost all the rounds... Anyway, I dont think my meta is the best for a deck like burn. There is also a ton of Abzan/Jund decks that can really win life very easily.
Given how bad your meta is for Burn, you’re dedicating way too much of your sideboard to the mirror. I’d replace the 3 Kor Firewalkers with either 3 Searing Bloods or 2 Searing Bloods and a second Lavamancer.
I think you should consider dropping one or both Palms to fit in the 4th Skullcrack somewhere too.
If I were to play 4c burn, what would be the best SB card options?
Yes i aM aware that boros n naya burn are the best versions, but I want to play something new. Win or lose =>.
My lands would be 2 stomping grounds, 2 sacred foundry, and 2 blood crypts.
Thanks all!
If you were to do this, I don't think the sideboard options would change from RWg or Naya. I think all you're really picking up is 4 more Lava Spikes via Bump in the Night. You can get cute with black in the side, but I think that the other 3 colors can cover everything without it.
Between DNT, UW Control, and now Ponza, I'm beginning to consider Terra Eternal as a sideboard card. Land destruction is one of the biggest ways to gimp us. I hate that it costs three, but it might be time to start considering that. Wear/Tear or Destructive Revelry will take care of Blood Moon and Spreading Seas.
I keep getting my ass handed to me by RW Taxes. I don't know if I just play too aggressively, or not enough, but my RWg Burn list just shuts the bed everytime I play them.
I often have to send one or two burn spells at a creature, which makes me think I need to swap out some Helixes or Rift Bolts for more mainboard Searing Bloods.
Searing Blaze has got to be one of the most miserable cards in this deck by the way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Also, consider that Liliana counts as occasional mana denial, and it starts to become a significant portion of our strategy.
Well, a friend of mine just upgraded his U/W control to jeskai control, so ill be needing some advice against this match up, what i would do in this situation is mostly just fire my bolts at their end step so they tap out in my turn, but well i guess all my dudes are going to get bolted as well
Well, a friend of mine just upgraded his U/W control to jeskai control, so ill be needing some advice against this match up, what i would do in this situation is mostly just fire my bolts at their end step so they tap out in my turn, but well i guess all my dudes are going to get bolted as well
I don't think the strategy really changes between playing against UW control and UWR control. Getting your creatures bolted isn't the problem, though they do have a very high density of 1CMC removal. The problem is Helix-Snap-Helix. Anti-lifegain will be very important, but at least they don't have any stupid Gideon emblems.
His argues are relevant. I was talking on my friend Burn player and standard player that plays a lot to Bomat courier and told me that he would play that playset to his burn. I was on your opinion that WTF are you playing that that deals what, 1 ? or 2 damages ??! Here Collins explains that your other creatures pass through the line, then it brings a lot of cards if unckecked, then it answers to a discard meta with Jund, blabla.
Its downside are the irrelevant damages it deals, and to give +2/+2 to Tarmogoyf, then to take the spot to an another blast.
Ramunap ruins lol ! I suggested several pags ago, after playing my budget burn mono-red version, that I am confident on this land, especially when you are flooded of lands. Collins explains that the decks can afford only 2 of that. So extra lands you have serves: 1) Sac in Shard volley. 2) Ramunap ruins at 5 manas. 3) Bump in the night at 6 manas.
I am also happy that he tries Dire fleet daredevil, aka Red Snapboy, especially at 20 lands. Because I already played this guy and with mana, he often does crazy things.
In the midrange meta Collins targets (well, we all target), Red snapboy + Bomat courier might deserve an eye.
I am just not sold on the amount of lands. It is sure that at 20 lands we will get flooded. He is also wondering about that.
Anyway, what is your opinion, beyong that classic "Bomat is bad, blabla is bad" ? You can not pass through guy like him that try to adapt Burn. Boros may is no longer the best Burn ever, as we can see in the meta, then because Rakdos is much faster.
Edit: Also on his list I would also replace Skullcrack by Atarka command. 16 creatures is much more sense for AC.
On Bomat Courier: I'm skeptical that it's anything more than Raging Goblin with some non-italic flavor text. The reasoning looks like it depends too heavily on a set of circumstances that aren't that likely. The "it lives if they kill Guide" reasoning doesn't work if you only have Bomat sitting there.
On Ramunap Ruins: This card won't be doing any damage unless you flood or the game goes long. If you flood, I don't think that 2 damage is likely to be the difference between winning and losing because you probably need more than 2 to win. If the game goes long, a topdecked RR might be able to win, but what about the situations where you had it in play and you took 2-3 extra damage from it over the course of the game and ended up losing because of it? I much prefer Shard Volley to this. I'd definitely play Barbarian Ring, but this isn't anywhere near as good.
On Dire Fleet Daredevil: That might be legit, but I haven't played it. I definitely don't think it's more than a sideboard card.
I was very close to running courier this weekend at SCG and in retrospect I probably should have. You shouldn't look at the damage it will do, so much as the average damage it will bring. If you can get 2 cards off of it from an empty hand it's on average going to hit better than 1.5 spells, so in our deck that's going to average 4ish damage plus the minimum 1 that it dealt bringing it to probably average around 5 damage for 1. Granted there's going to be plenty of late game situations where it's not fantastic, but neither are any of the other creatures. I'm not sold 100% but I'd run Courier well before I would manamorphose.
I think the difference is that you're assuming that you get more than zero cards with any regularity. You're ignoring situations where you play it and it just dies, or it dies at a time when you could sacrifice it for fewer cards than you have in hand, or it just gets stonewalled by a tiny creature. It's a big stretch to imply that it draws 2 cards on average. It maybe draws 1 on average, and I think that's being generous.
It's also crazy to talk about it as a good card against Jund. Giving Jund more things to kill with their removal just puts you behind. Why are we even trying to do strange things to beat Jund anyway? Jund is not a hard matchup.
Edit: I'd run manamorphose long before running Courier, but I won't be running either of them because neither belongs in Burn.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm annoyed by talking about different cards, so I apologize if that's the impression I'm giving off.
However, I am of the opinion that "different for the sake of being different" isn't necessarily a good thing. There's certainly value in testing things, but I'm not convinced that everything needs to be tested before it's dismissed. I also don't subscribe to the idea that if a player who writes for SCG/CFB says "X" then "X" is undeniably correct. In this case Collins Mullen certainly hit a home run with Humans, but that doesn't mean his suggestions for Burn are correct. I also doubt he's done 1000 games of testing with it, and his judgment could be strongly affected by variance.
On thunderous wrath: it's unplayably bad without a way to manipulate your hand and the top card. Unless the game goes to 7+ turns, there's a 50% chance that it's a dead card rather than 5 damage for R and that means it's worth 2.5 damage or less. Shard Volley is much better as a spicy extra bit of damage for R.
I'm with elconquistador1985 on the issue of ''optimizing'' Burn with fringe cards. I'm also open to discuss them, but I think that the archetype is solved in the sense that it has proven to be highly competitive and showcasing some stunning results with 3 GP wins (one last year with some new tech by Loic Le Briand). Statistical power comes from at least 128 entries to obtain statistical significance. I highly doubt that intense testing with ''name a card that could be good but isn't played in a vast majority of list'' will yield probant results.
I've been on several iteration of the deck, beginning with Mardu, refusing to go down with Atarka's Command in 2015-2016 with Naya Burn and still being on Boros since then. I think that the deck is optimal as it is right now : sideboard, however, can be flexed out depending on the meta. But to me, 55-56 cards in the main seem to be necessary for the deck to be optimal. Flex could be : 19 or 20 lands? 1 or 2 Grim Lavamancer? 1 or 0 Shard Volley? And so on.
I don't disapprove testing with new cards or some other cards. It's a game, it should be fun. But I don't think that in general, we haven't seen a card that could drastically improve the results from the deck.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm annoyed by talking about different cards, so I apologize if that's the impression I'm giving off.
At the very worst, I'd say you are stern and that's a good thing. It's important to get a reality check when you only see the good side of the card. It might not be "fun" to hear for everyone, but it helps when the goal of the thread is to make the deck as competitive as possible.
It actually helped me dodge a few bad apples like Shrine of burning rage and Vexing Devil. (Especially vexing. I was a big advocate of it until I saw your post detailing why you don't like the card)
It seems really interesting. It looks a bit too similar to Bedlam Reveler, but I think it could easily succeed where Reveler failed. Definitely worth testing.
I think we should also note that Collins Mullen was just brewing and trying some wacky things. I still think a regular person's experience playing 1000 games with a deck trumps a pro player trying a new approach on a well established deck. So yeah, I wouldn't go so far as saying Rakdos is taking over Boros because of one article.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, right now, it's that some of us want to be a bit more conservative about deck choices.
(But Dire Fleet Daredevil might be something I want to try in the side.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What do you board out against Ponza? Does it change between play or draw? I have a hell of a time with Ponza between the land destruction, life gain, Trinisphere and Primal Command time walking me.
BW BW Tokens
RG Dredgeplendid Reclamation
RW Boros Burn
GB Elves
RB Dark Goblins
WU Azorius' Relic
With all the ramp, cutting Eidolon is probably correct, especially on the draw. I'm not super high on playing drev in that matchup (better on the play), but I would bring extra searing effects. Your only hope is to race, and the maindeck is basically optimised for doing that.
That can happen in a 4 round tournament, and there's no reason to get upset about it. June and Junk, however, should be good matchups for you unless they are built to hate on Burn heavily.
Given how bad your meta is for Burn, you’re dedicating way too much of your sideboard to the mirror. I’d replace the 3 Kor Firewalkers with either 3 Searing Bloods or 2 Searing Bloods and a second Lavamancer.
I think you should consider dropping one or both Palms to fit in the 4th Skullcrack somewhere too.
If I were to play 4c burn, what would be the best SB card options?
Yes i aM aware that boros n naya burn are the best versions, but I want to play something new. Win or lose =>.
My lands would be 2 stomping grounds, 2 sacred foundry, and 2 blood crypts.
Thanks all!
If you were to do this, I don't think the sideboard options would change from RWg or Naya. I think all you're really picking up is 4 more Lava Spikes via Bump in the Night. You can get cute with black in the side, but I think that the other 3 colors can cover everything without it.
I often have to send one or two burn spells at a creature, which makes me think I need to swap out some Helixes or Rift Bolts for more mainboard Searing Bloods.
Searing Blaze has got to be one of the most miserable cards in this deck by the way.
-MTG Salvation.
Current list:
12x fetches
2x sacred foundry
2x stomping ground
2x bloodcrypts
2x mountains
4x goblin guide
4x monastery swiftspear
4x lava spike
4x rift bolt
4x lightning bolt
4x tribal flames
4x searing blaze
4x lightning helix
4x boros charm
4x atarkas command
Pretty painful lands but Eff it! Burn baby!! =>
Gonna take this list to my next modern tournament at my LGS. That’s the reason why I asked about the SB options.
I don't think the strategy really changes between playing against UW control and UWR control. Getting your creatures bolted isn't the problem, though they do have a very high density of 1CMC removal. The problem is Helix-Snap-Helix. Anti-lifegain will be very important, but at least they don't have any stupid Gideon emblems.
On Bomat Courier: I'm skeptical that it's anything more than Raging Goblin with some non-italic flavor text. The reasoning looks like it depends too heavily on a set of circumstances that aren't that likely. The "it lives if they kill Guide" reasoning doesn't work if you only have Bomat sitting there.
On Ramunap Ruins: This card won't be doing any damage unless you flood or the game goes long. If you flood, I don't think that 2 damage is likely to be the difference between winning and losing because you probably need more than 2 to win. If the game goes long, a topdecked RR might be able to win, but what about the situations where you had it in play and you took 2-3 extra damage from it over the course of the game and ended up losing because of it? I much prefer Shard Volley to this. I'd definitely play Barbarian Ring, but this isn't anywhere near as good.
On Dire Fleet Daredevil: That might be legit, but I haven't played it. I definitely don't think it's more than a sideboard card.
It's also crazy to talk about it as a good card against Jund. Giving Jund more things to kill with their removal just puts you behind. Why are we even trying to do strange things to beat Jund anyway? Jund is not a hard matchup.
Edit: I'd run manamorphose long before running Courier, but I won't be running either of them because neither belongs in Burn.
However, I am of the opinion that "different for the sake of being different" isn't necessarily a good thing. There's certainly value in testing things, but I'm not convinced that everything needs to be tested before it's dismissed. I also don't subscribe to the idea that if a player who writes for SCG/CFB says "X" then "X" is undeniably correct. In this case Collins Mullen certainly hit a home run with Humans, but that doesn't mean his suggestions for Burn are correct. I also doubt he's done 1000 games of testing with it, and his judgment could be strongly affected by variance.
On thunderous wrath: it's unplayably bad without a way to manipulate your hand and the top card. Unless the game goes to 7+ turns, there's a 50% chance that it's a dead card rather than 5 damage for R and that means it's worth 2.5 damage or less. Shard Volley is much better as a spicy extra bit of damage for R.
I've been on several iteration of the deck, beginning with Mardu, refusing to go down with Atarka's Command in 2015-2016 with Naya Burn and still being on Boros since then. I think that the deck is optimal as it is right now : sideboard, however, can be flexed out depending on the meta. But to me, 55-56 cards in the main seem to be necessary for the deck to be optimal. Flex could be : 19 or 20 lands? 1 or 2 Grim Lavamancer? 1 or 0 Shard Volley? And so on.
I don't disapprove testing with new cards or some other cards. It's a game, it should be fun. But I don't think that in general, we haven't seen a card that could drastically improve the results from the deck.
Cheers !
Aggro: Naya Burn RWG
Combo: Scapeshift RG
Control: Jeskai Control UWR
Legacy
Control: Miracles UW
Aggro: Burn R
It actually helped me dodge a few bad apples like Shrine of burning rage and Vexing Devil. (Especially vexing. I was a big advocate of it until I saw your post detailing why you don't like the card)
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
It seems really interesting. It looks a bit too similar to Bedlam Reveler, but I think it could easily succeed where Reveler failed. Definitely worth testing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, right now, it's that some of us want to be a bit more conservative about deck choices.
(But Dire Fleet Daredevil might be something I want to try in the side.)