Goldfish's meta share numbers are problematic because wotc creates artificial diversity through selective mtgo list releases, which skews meta shares. My personal feeling is that this leads to underestimates, and that means that burn is possibly higher than goldfish says. However, we're not talking about 50% meta share, and Modern is so genuinely diverse such that even the #1 played deck is likely under 10% unless it's broken like Eldrazi was. Because of that, I think that such a narrow hate card is not necessary.
Burn was listed at 7.5 % or something, but yeah, I get what you're saying. Is there a less narrow hate card that works against Burn that's actually viable?
EDIT: To elaborate, recurring damage from creatures is the second best way to win the mirror match (the first is winning the die roll), so if you’re able to efficiently remove them, it helps swing things in your favour. It also helps in most other creature aggro matchups as well.
Yes, Searing Blood. Creatures are where you win the mirror and killing creatures while still affecting their life total is how you keep them from winning. Blood is also relevant elsewhere.
I know nothing about the alleged rule change. It would mess with a ton of cards and interactions while not really accomplishing anything, unless WOTC is trying to just remove rules and effects to further simplify the game. I feel if it were happening, there would be a major reaction. The relative silence suggests that is just a rumor.
I scrubbed out in a seven round tournament yesterday, going 1-3 drop on a standard naya list. Losses were to mardu pyromancer and two mirror matches, while I beat dredgevine. The second burn mirror I was manascrewed hard in two games, but besides that nothing major to report. I'm going to take some time off from modern burn, been running it for six months or so now and with the recent pptq season I'm kinda exhausted. I live in the Pittsburgh area, though, and may give it one last go at eternal weekend.
I haven’t heard anything about an upcoming errata, but they have been talking about just not using life loss moving forward to make things easier to understand (Creeping Chill is a good recent example), which I think is a reasonable change. Maybe they’ll just errata the more recent stuff when they make “Arena-friendly Modern”.
Personally, I’d like to see them restrict life loss to just self-damaging abilities (e.g. “Pay N life” triggers) so they can’t be avoided and use damage for offensive stuff.
This came from something on blogatog about a month ago. WotC seems to go back and forth between whether black has cards that deal direct damage to the player or cause loss of life, and it seems to be on the whims of the card designer/design team. Maro said something along the lines of this being "resolved" soon. I don't believe he was clear as to whether future cards would all be one or the other or if previous cards would get errata.
I'm currently working on the UW Control section. I'm wondering if it would be prudent to split it up since UW actually underwent a considerable change between when I threw things together before and today. UW used to be the Spreading Seas/Gideon deck and now it's Jace/Teferi/Terminus.
I definitely think Risk Factor has a place in current Modern Burn. It feels like a grind card and the thing that makes it good is the fact that it can be cast twice. When you are casting it late game you are doing late games things such as a boros charm level of damage, or a draw effect that gets you to the end. There aren't any great places to put it so you have to leverage sacrificing some part of the burn deck to increase it's late game effectiveness. Here is my own personal idea for the deck.
Notes: creature based decks are rampant at my place so I have 2 grims and 4 searing blaze main.
I'm currently working on the UW Control section. I'm wondering if it would be prudent to split it up since UW actually underwent a considerable change between when I threw things together before and today. UW used to be the Spreading Seas/Gideon deck and now it's Jace/Teferi/Terminus.
I will do Bant Spirits next and then KCI.
I don't think there is a need to do KCI. At the time of the vote, it was slightly more relevant, but I think you should post a new vote after Spirits (which does merit an analysis). I myself have never played against it and have never even seen it at my LGS, but maybe that's just me. I'm saying this because I know you work hard on the primer and I don't want you to waste time on less important matchups. I also noticed that the mirror isn't an option for the analysis and I think it's very important, because Burn is very popular and knowing how to play the mirror is just as important as knowing any other matchup.
That sounds reasonable. Apologies for not having Burn there, I don't know what I was thinking.
I'll finish UW, do bant, and get a new poll up next week. I'd anticipate it'll be a week into November before I get the bant write-up done, since I'll be in Germany for a week at the end of this month. Maybe I'll pass the sleepless jet lag time with good beer and reading/writing stuff about bant spirits. Who knows?
Went 3-1 tonight with my first dredge experience including creeping chill...**** that card. I managed to win in three, but yeah game one I got rolled as the opponent was able to get three free drains off with that card. You'd think WOTC would say "hey this will be played in dredge, maybe we should force them to pay B or something to get the exile effect."
Magic gets interesting when the rules of the game are broken by card text. "Paying for effects" is a rule that can be very dangerous when broken. You'd think they'd be very careful about making things free, but evidently they aren't. Considering some of the free stuff they've printed lately, it's sad that the best free spell we have is Gut Shot.
I'm considering a return to ravenous trap in the SB as an instant-speed, free method to attack the graveyard. Right now I am running two relics, one RiP to combat yard-based tactics. I'm considering upping it to four with a 2-2 trap to RiP or relic split. I only played once but there were 3-4 dredge players there out of thirty or so people.
As for those wondering how to fight it, ultimately dredge is worse but not unstoppable. Don't be afraid to play and crack a relic turn two or three if they have already started to accumulate a large bin. Unlike decks relying on delve or other one-time gy use, dredge is a deck that really wants momentum and we really only need to slow them down by a turn or two in post-board games to be in a position to win. The player I was up against was using nature's claim in the board to hit hate and his own shriekhorns. That's why I am considering trap and relic > less vulnerable to their anti-hate methods. That applies to KCI too.
For two mana, relic pops and exiles a graveyard in one go, as opposed to RiP sitting there waiting for nature's claim (which will always be boarded in as a life gain option). I'm not trying to stop them from playing. I'm tryinig to force the dredge player to basically start their game over. I can do more with my lands in play than them, so if they can't use free graveyard recursion for a turn or two that's probably all I need.
So I agree that Rest In Peace has become somewhat sub-optimal with the abundance of Nature's Claim I've been seeing in sideboards recently. My question is - why do we then run Relic of Progenitus over Tormod's Crypt? Relic gets the cantrip, but Crypt costs nothing to cast, allowing us to leave mana open for something like Skullcrack should we need it (as in, against Creeping Chill). Relic's cantrip is sweet for burn, but since it costs 2 to go off on casting, or requires one open mana, is it really better than Crypt?
I like Relic against decks like BridgeVine, as I can immediately start to shrink their yard. Crypt is cheaper, yes, but also more limited in its usefulness, in my oppinion.
So I agree that Rest In Peace has become somewhat sub-optimal with the abundance of Nature's Claim I've been seeing in sideboards recently. My question is - why do we then run Relic of Progenitus over Tormod's Crypt? Relic gets the cantrip, but Crypt costs nothing to cast, allowing us to leave mana open for something like Skullcrack should we need it (as in, against Creeping Chill). Relic's cantrip is sweet for burn, but since it costs 2 to go off on casting, or requires one open mana, is it really better than Crypt?
Yes.
If I am playing gy hate in the form of a permanent, I want it to cycle so that if I have to crack it in response to a nature's claim, the opponent is slowed far more than I am. I want that card draw. When I beat dredge Monday, I had enough damage on board to kill the sole blocker game 3, a stinkweed imp, with landfall, throw a bolt face, then swing with a goblin guide and monastery swiftspear for a total of 5 in combat. I brought him from 11 to zero. I had no other relevant cards. If I had played crypt, I might lose that game if he's able to dredge another chill or something.
Crypt isn't sooooooo bad, but it is ultimately a bit worse and you'll occasionally lose a game where that crypt basically gave your opponent three more life and the time needed to recover.
Ravenous Trap is a bit different because it doesn't have to sit on the board before use. In that case, you are either going to surprise your opponent by throwing it down to deal maximum damage without risk of a nature's claim OR they are going to play slower to work around it which is fine by me. In fact, for now I'd argue Trap is really good because it will probably be another couple weeks before anyone expects it. I'll be playing over the weekend at modern FNM and a Saturday $1K with a 2-2 relic/trap split.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Goldfish's meta share numbers are problematic because wotc creates artificial diversity through selective mtgo list releases, which skews meta shares. My personal feeling is that this leads to underestimates, and that means that burn is possibly higher than goldfish says. However, we're not talking about 50% meta share, and Modern is so genuinely diverse such that even the #1 played deck is likely under 10% unless it's broken like Eldrazi was. Because of that, I think that such a narrow hate card is not necessary.
EDIT: To elaborate, recurring damage from creatures is the second best way to win the mirror match (the first is winning the die roll), so if you’re able to efficiently remove them, it helps swing things in your favour. It also helps in most other creature aggro matchups as well.
I scrubbed out in a seven round tournament yesterday, going 1-3 drop on a standard naya list. Losses were to mardu pyromancer and two mirror matches, while I beat dredgevine. The second burn mirror I was manascrewed hard in two games, but besides that nothing major to report. I'm going to take some time off from modern burn, been running it for six months or so now and with the recent pptq season I'm kinda exhausted. I live in the Pittsburgh area, though, and may give it one last go at eternal weekend.
Personally, I’d like to see them restrict life loss to just self-damaging abilities (e.g. “Pay N life” triggers) so they can’t be avoided and use damage for offensive stuff.
I will do Bant Spirits next and then KCI.
Notes: creature based decks are rampant at my place so I have 2 grims and 4 searing blaze main.
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Searing Blaze
4 Boros Charm
2 Lightning Helix
2 SkullCrack
2 Risk Factor
1 stomping ground
2 sacred foundry
4 Inspiring Vantage
3 mountain
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
I don't think there is a need to do KCI. At the time of the vote, it was slightly more relevant, but I think you should post a new vote after Spirits (which does merit an analysis). I myself have never played against it and have never even seen it at my LGS, but maybe that's just me. I'm saying this because I know you work hard on the primer and I don't want you to waste time on less important matchups. I also noticed that the mirror isn't an option for the analysis and I think it's very important, because Burn is very popular and knowing how to play the mirror is just as important as knowing any other matchup.
I'll finish UW, do bant, and get a new poll up next week. I'd anticipate it'll be a week into November before I get the bant write-up done, since I'll be in Germany for a week at the end of this month. Maybe I'll pass the sleepless jet lag time with good beer and reading/writing stuff about bant spirits. Who knows?
As for those wondering how to fight it, ultimately dredge is worse but not unstoppable. Don't be afraid to play and crack a relic turn two or three if they have already started to accumulate a large bin. Unlike decks relying on delve or other one-time gy use, dredge is a deck that really wants momentum and we really only need to slow them down by a turn or two in post-board games to be in a position to win. The player I was up against was using nature's claim in the board to hit hate and his own shriekhorns. That's why I am considering trap and relic > less vulnerable to their anti-hate methods. That applies to KCI too.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
Yes.
If I am playing gy hate in the form of a permanent, I want it to cycle so that if I have to crack it in response to a nature's claim, the opponent is slowed far more than I am. I want that card draw. When I beat dredge Monday, I had enough damage on board to kill the sole blocker game 3, a stinkweed imp, with landfall, throw a bolt face, then swing with a goblin guide and monastery swiftspear for a total of 5 in combat. I brought him from 11 to zero. I had no other relevant cards. If I had played crypt, I might lose that game if he's able to dredge another chill or something.
Crypt isn't sooooooo bad, but it is ultimately a bit worse and you'll occasionally lose a game where that crypt basically gave your opponent three more life and the time needed to recover.
Ravenous Trap is a bit different because it doesn't have to sit on the board before use. In that case, you are either going to surprise your opponent by throwing it down to deal maximum damage without risk of a nature's claim OR they are going to play slower to work around it which is fine by me. In fact, for now I'd argue Trap is really good because it will probably be another couple weeks before anyone expects it. I'll be playing over the weekend at modern FNM and a Saturday $1K with a 2-2 relic/trap split.