Dropped the single Volley and split the others. I think it was 3 Blaze, 2 Helix, 3 Skullcrack, which started as 3/4/4 and 1 Volley. I also had 2 Grims.
thanks for your feedback, im glad to hear that it went well. I also think helix is the "worst" card in our flex cards, i could see myself cuting another helix (go down to 2 helix, 3 skullcrack and 3 blaze) to play 3 skewer.
Except the game that you were stuck at 1 land, did you had a hand with 2 or more skewer in hand ? If yes, how did it work for you ?
I don't see why it's not an auto 4 of in everyone's book. Spectacle shouldnt be an issue ever. This is what our deck does. Deals damage. Even with 2 in hand it should nvr be an issue unless it's your only 2 or topdeck mode. But this is only us.not counting any time the opponent may do something to cause them to lose life
Can anyone post the lists they are testing with Skewer? I'm curious to see who's playing 19 or 20 lands. I've been playing 19. Also thinking that removing both grim lavamancers from the mainboard to make room is perhaps a mistake. Should probably leave 1 in at least. Are most people running at least a 1 of Shard volley? I saw the legacy player was playing 4!!!
As to having 2 Skewer's in hand with nothing else... I'd say most of the time you should be prioritizing playing your first skewer asap. You should only run into a problem if you keep a 1 lander hand like elcon described earlier. As he pointed out, there are always fetchlands and shocklands we can hope our opponent will play if we have no other outlet. I hadn't even thought of that before!
Anyway, I like the idea of lowering the overall curve of the deck. Playing with 19 lands and extra 1 cost spells goes a long way in consistency and speed for the deck.
As he pointed out, there are always fetchlands and shocklands we can hope our opponent will play if we have no other outlet. I hadn't even thought of that before!
Yeah well only if they fetch during our main phase. If they fetch at the end of our turn, we still cant cast skewer (because its a sorcery).
Hi Forum. I've lurked for a while but never posted. First, thank you Elconquistador for keeping this going. Lots of good info! Weighing in on the Skewer the Critics debate. I really like adding this to our burn lists and wonder are we close to a point where we legitimately go mono red? I'm thinking swapping all Lightning Helix for skewer and then swapping Boros Charm for Exquisite Firecraft as a finisher. It's more mana, but it is a 4 damage spell that can't be countered. We could always keep dual colored shock lands in the main for sideboard tech. I'm curious about all your thoughts.
Increase in chalice and possibly LoS so idk if we can quite cute white/green. Ive been on mardu as well. With this new bolt i think my list will be something like this:
Changes ive made in the main to make room for 3 skewers are:
-1 vexing devil
-1 lavamancer (maybe 2 instead of eidolon?)
-1 eidolon (which i feel is wrong?)
The reason im on this build is simply most interaction, most instants, and dont lose speed. Right now in this list we see 29 burn spells. Of which 14 are instants, and also of which 21 can hit dome or creatures. 21 possible 1 drop burn spells and 8 two drops. Overall i believe my curve averages at 1.268. Yes i plan on buying another Cliffs to replace 1 blood crypt but im currently buying a lions eye diamond for edh. I have been on the 19 land team since about a week after i tested 20 lands and a week testing 18 lands and ive been on burn since modern came out so im on 19 for good.
Sb is still in the air for changes as id like to fit in some number of satyr firedancer and possible some number of immolation shaman. Also thinking of fitting in some enchantment hate now too. Something like 2 RoG and 1 Skullcrack, 2 rakdos charm and 1 smash. Keep paths and palm (maybe cut palm?) And cut searing blood. That will make 5-6 spaces in sb. Maybe put 2nd lavamancer in sb. So my next point of discussion, bc i didnt rly see much, if any, discussion is on immolation shaman. Is it worth sb slots? And for that matter... is satyr still good sb tech in a big tourney?
Hi Forum. I've lurked for a while but never posted. First, thank you Elconquistador for keeping this going. Lots of good info! Weighing in on the Skewer the Critics debate. I really like adding this to our burn lists and wonder are we close to a point where we legitimately go mono red? I'm thinking swapping all Lightning Helix for skewer and then swapping Boros Charm for Exquisite Firecraft as a finisher. It's more mana, but it is a 4 damage spell that can't be countered. We could always keep dual colored shock lands in the main for sideboard tech. I'm curious about all your thoughts.
I think that you're better off just playing Charm if you're going to play white in the sideboard, because you aren't getting any of the maindeck benefits of having a mono-R manabase that way and just aren't forced to fetch for white early. Charm is better than Firecraft anyway. I don't think mono-R is strong enough in the main, personally.
Once I get my set of skewers I will work on testing a mono red list, probably with 18 lands, with sideboard options from possibly white or green just to see how the idea works of being mono red but I do agree I think we still need to have a second color main board.
Edited for sideboard. I'm testing Cindervines but may switch them back to Revelry if I don't care for them. I still want to explore what graveyard hate I would like to play.
Using Frank Karsten's new article on hypergeometric distribution, I wanted to try and mathematically support the notion of an ideal number of lands for a burn deck. I initially defined this as the number of lands that maximizes the chances of seeing either two, or two or three lands in your opening hand, and then seeing exactly two or three lands by turn four. The rationality behind this definition is that in an opening hand of burn, I want to see two or three lands, but two is preferred. Additionally, I want to see no more than two or three lands by the end of turn four, when we ideally win. I used the hypergeometric calculator found in the article to run calculations for land counts between 15 and 25, feeling confident that the correct number landed somewhere in between there. I then used basic Excel programming to determine percentages for the question I asked above. The excel spreadsheet is included as an attachment to this post.
An explanation of how to read the chart will follow. For all boxes, the number highlighted in gold is the ideal percentage that we want from that specific calculation. For example, if our goal was solely to figure out the ideal number of lands so that we maximize our chances of seeing exactly two in our opening hand, then the ideal number of lands would be 17, as shown in the first column of the orange chart. The orange chart is a data collection chart, where I plugged in the results of the hypergeometric calculator. The green chart takes that data and compresses it into 2-3 land ranges for our opening hand and turn four. The blue chart then takes all data collected, and tries to answer my previously given definition of an ideal number of lands. As you can see, if you are interested in seeing exactly two lands in your opening hand, and then seeing exactly two or three lands by turn four, then the ideal number of lands in your burn deck is 16, which gives you a 19.12% chance of meeting your requirements. If you are comfortable seeing two or three lands in your opening hand instead, the number increases to 17 at a 30.72% chance. If you want to factor both options into account, as I wanted to, then look at the "Total" portion on the right hand side. 17 is the ideal number, followed very closely by 16.
After my first attempt, this was all that I discovered and set about to testing 17 lands. What I had found was that, while my flooding significantly went down, my opening hands felt riskier. When it was solid, it was very solid, but when it was shaky it was noticeably so. I decided to modify my definition of the ideal number of lands in a burn deck to try and minimize the chances of seeing zero or one lands in my opening hand. While we deal with one land hands better than most decks, they still represent what will likely be the riskiest decision we have to make in a given game, and the decision in which we have the least amount of information to make it. As such, I decided to include minimizing one land hands as part of my calculation. I also consciously chose not to try and minimize four or more land hands. The reason for this is twofold. First, it happens so infrequently, especially at five or greater, that I didn't think it worth correcting for. Second, we can intuitively determine that we would have to reduce the number of lands that we play in order to correct for opening hands of four lands or greater, and I was already unhappy with 17 as it was. My new definition of the ideal number of lands in a burn deck became the number of lands that maximizes the chances of seeing either two, or two or three lands in your opening hand, minimizes the chances of seeing zero or one lands in your opening hand, and then seeing exactly two or three lands by turn four.
These calculations are found in the purple and red areas in the chart. The purple chart represents a mirror of the orange chart, raw data collected from the calculator. The red chart pulls from the four other charts to answer my new definition of an ideal number of lands in a burn deck. If you are only interested in seeing two lands in your opening hand, we see that the number of ideal lands increases by a full two, to 18 lands and a 12.28% chance. If you are comfortable with seeing two or three lands in your opening hand, we see that this number also increases by two, to 19 lands and a 21.31% chance. Finally, if you want to factor in both options as important, we see from the "Total" column that 19 represents the ideal number of lands, followed very closely by 18.
I was very happy with how this interpretation mirrored the first interpretation, and I feel this validated the results. This calculation does have limitations. For instance, it assumes that all factors are equally weighted, and that may not be the case. It may be more important for you to open with two or three lands, than it is to not see more than two or three lands by turn four; this can't account for that. Second, it obfuscates the individual bits of data that may be valuable to examine. With 19 lands, you still get one landers a full 22.12% of the time; that may be too much for you and you may choose to add a land at the expense of a lower overall game plan percentage. Of course, this all also assumes I performed the calculations correctly, and that my given definition of an ideal number of lands for burn is comprehensive and accurate.
Nevertheless, if you agree that the ideal number of lands in a burn deck maximizes seeing two, or two or three lands in your opening hand, minimizes seeing zero or one lands in your opening hand, and maximizes seeing two or three lands by turn four, and you also agree that all of these factors are equally important, then I feel confident in suggesting 18 or 19 lands as your ideal land count. The difference in value between the two is small enough that I believe either are valid options; 19 has the best odds by about .25%, or 1 in 400 games, but 18 gives you an extra burn card to play with. This may come down to any individual aspects of the deck you personally value more. Would you prefer to maximize your 2-3 land openings, avoid flooding, and play a faster, more goldfished version of burn? You might prefer 18. Would you prefer to avoid 0-1 land openings, hedge against land destruction, or try to play a longer, more assured version of burn? You might prefer 19. I do believe the correct answer is between one of these two, and while any other land count may individually improve aspects of our game, it would harm our overall strategy. I am going to keep looking over the numbers to see if I can find a way to better decide between the two.
Thanks a lot for this. This is real nifty. I decided to cut out a fetch and play 19 lands, even though I play a Risk Factor. I mostly hit 3 lands most of the time anyway, and Risk Factor's a one-of anyways.
nothing against doing your own research and by all means please do because the more people that do it the closer we get to figuring it all out but elcon already did this in the primer and if you look at the data 19 is probably your best option. Again I'm not trying to criticize or be rude or tell you not to do it but to try and save you some time from doing too many numbers we could try saying within 17221 that way you would use less time trying to figure out the other numbers because we know on the primer he use 18 to 20.I am glad that there are other people trying to investigate the right move so please do not take this in any way as me call you stupid or anything like that
nothing against doing your own research and by all means please do because the more people that do it the closer we get to figuring it all out but elcon already did this in the primer and if you look at the data 19 is probably your best option. Again I'm not trying to criticize or be rude or tell you not to do it but to try and save you some time from doing too many numbers we could try saying within 17221 that way you would use less time trying to figure out the other numbers because we know on the primer he use 18 to 20.I am glad that there are other people trying to investigate the right move so please do not take this in any way as me call you stupid or anything like that
Not at all! I appreciate the input. The reason I decided to do this is because, if I'm reading elcon's math correctly, it focuses more on opening hand statistics and doesn't try to take into account lategame flooding, which could potentially make us want to lower our land count. This isn't a failing on those stats; just a different question he was trying to answer. I wanted to see if the expected 18-20 land range stayed optimal when our turn 4 goldfishes were taken into account. The results stayed the same, which makes the calculations look identical, but it was actually two distinct questions we were asking. I also wanted to test for a wider spread of land counts, from 15-25, on the off chance the real best number of lands was far outside the realm of what we would expect (it wasn't).
Also whoever was asking about being mono red...I'm going through on gather the list of viable options as far as burn spells with converted Mana cost 3 or less and it is appearing that we would end up running more creatures and probably being more like red deck wins than burn but I could be wrong and I would probably also try cards that are a little more out of the norm if going mono red like thunderous wrath because I believe we would end up running magma jet but there may also be a way to throw something like collateral damage in as a way to kill our spark creatures like hellspark elemental and spark elemental after they've attacked.
Just curious... If we ran 8 gonblins, would that be enough to run goblin grenade?
nothing against doing your own research and by all means please do because the more people that do it the closer we get to figuring it all out but elcon already did this in the primer and if you look at the data 19 is probably your best option. Again I'm not trying to criticize or be rude or tell you not to do it but to try and save you some time from doing too many numbers we could try saying within 17221 that way you would use less time trying to figure out the other numbers because we know on the primer he use 18 to 20.I am glad that there are other people trying to investigate the right move so please do not take this in any way as me call you stupid or anything like that
Not at all! I appreciate the input. The reason I decided to do this is because, if I'm reading elcon's math correctly, it focuses more on opening hand statistics and doesn't try to take into account lategame flooding, which could potentially make us want to lower our land count. This isn't a failing on those stats; just a different question he was trying to answer. I wanted to see if the expected 18-20 land range stayed optimal when our turn 4 goldfishes were taken into account. The results stayed the same, which makes the calculations look identical, but it was actually two distinct questions we were asking. I also wanted to test for a wider spread of land counts, from 15-25, on the off chance the real best number of lands was far outside the realm of what we would expect (it wasn't).
Nice work, Creevy! There's definitely value in an independent verification. I'll read through it all and check out the spreadsheet when I have time. For the record, excel has a hyper-geometric function (at least Libreoffice does, called hypergeom or hypgeom or something).
Also whoever was asking about being mono red...I'm going through on gather the list of viable options as far as burn spells with converted Mana cost 3 or less and it is appearing that we would end up running more creatures and probably being more like red deck wins than burn but I could be wrong and I would probably also try cards that are a little more out of the norm if going mono red like thunderous wrath because I believe we would end up running magma jet but there may also be a way to throw something like collateral damage in as a way to kill our spark creatures like hellspark elemental and spark elemental after they've attacked
I still think mono-red isn't quite there. I think you could do it in the main by cutting Charm and Helix for Skewer and Flame Rift, but Modern doesn't have Flame Rift or anything quite like it. Firecraft is too expensive, and a lot of the other options are just bad. Collateral+Spark/Hellspark/Keldon probably isn't good enough.
Except the game that you were stuck at 1 land, did you had a hand with 2 or more skewer in hand ? If yes, how did it work for you ?
As to having 2 Skewer's in hand with nothing else... I'd say most of the time you should be prioritizing playing your first skewer asap. You should only run into a problem if you keep a 1 lander hand like elcon described earlier. As he pointed out, there are always fetchlands and shocklands we can hope our opponent will play if we have no other outlet. I hadn't even thought of that before!
Anyway, I like the idea of lowering the overall curve of the deck. Playing with 19 lands and extra 1 cost spells goes a long way in consistency and speed for the deck.
Yeah well only if they fetch during our main phase. If they fetch at the end of our turn, we still cant cast skewer (because its a sorcery).
Here is my main deck that i will be tester before gp toronto
4 lightning bolt
4 rift bolt
4 lava spike
4 boros charm
4 goblin guide
4 eidolon of the great revel
4 monastery swiftspear
1 grim lavamencer
20 lands (1 stomping ground, 2 sacred foundry, 4 inspiring vantage, 2 mountain, 11 fetch)
3 searing blaze
3 skullcrack
2 or 3 lightning helix
2 or 3 skewer the critics
4 Lightning bolt
4 Rift bolt
4 Lava spike
4 Boros charm
3 Searing blaze
3 Skullcrack
2 Lightning helix
4 Skewer the critics
4 Goblin guide
4 Eidolon of the great revel
4 Monastery swiftspear
1 Grim lavamencer
19 lands (1 stomping ground, 2 sacred foundry, 4 inspiring vantage, 2 mountain, 10 fetch)
4 Cindervines
4 Searing Blood
4 Path to Exile
1 Skullcrack
1 Exquisite Firecraft
1 Kor Firewalker
B00NTY
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Scalding Tarn
2 Arid Mesa
3 Mountain
2 Blood Crypt
2 Sacred Foundry
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Bump in the Night
4 Skewer the Critics
4 Rift Bolt
4 Boros Charm
4 Shard Volley
3 Searing Blaze
Sideboard is still pending, pretty sure on 4 Eidolon of the great revel a number of skullcrackand 3-4 smash to smithereens
Here's my mardu list
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Goblin Guide
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Monastery Swiftspear
Instant (15)
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Lightning Helix
3 Searing Blaze
2 Skullcrack
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Skewer the Critics
Land (19)
3 Arid Mesa
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Inspiring Vantage
3 Mountain
2 Sacred Foundry
4 Wooded Foothills
2 Relic of Progenitus
3 Path to Exile
4 Smash to Smithereens
1 Searing Blaze
2 Skullcrack
1 Searing Blood
2 Exquisite Firecraft
This is what I have on cockatrice right now. I don't recall another instance of having 2 Skewers in hand, but I'll remember to keep track of it.
I think that you're better off just playing Charm if you're going to play white in the sideboard, because you aren't getting any of the maindeck benefits of having a mono-R manabase that way and just aren't forced to fetch for white early. Charm is better than Firecraft anyway. I don't think mono-R is strong enough in the main, personally.
11x Fetches
3x Blood Crypt
2x Stomping Ground
2x Mountain
Creatures
4x Goblin Guide
4x Monastery Swiftspear
4x Eidolon of the Great Revel
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Lava Spike
4x Rift Bolt
4x Skewer the Critics
4x Bump in the Night
4x Gonti's Machinations
2x Shard Volley
4x Skullcrack
4x Searing Blaze
4x Ravenous Trap
1x Rakdos Charm
3x Cindervines
2x Assassin's Trophy
1x Murderous Cut
Edited for sideboard. I'm testing Cindervines but may switch them back to Revelry if I don't care for them. I still want to explore what graveyard hate I would like to play.
An explanation of how to read the chart will follow. For all boxes, the number highlighted in gold is the ideal percentage that we want from that specific calculation. For example, if our goal was solely to figure out the ideal number of lands so that we maximize our chances of seeing exactly two in our opening hand, then the ideal number of lands would be 17, as shown in the first column of the orange chart. The orange chart is a data collection chart, where I plugged in the results of the hypergeometric calculator. The green chart takes that data and compresses it into 2-3 land ranges for our opening hand and turn four. The blue chart then takes all data collected, and tries to answer my previously given definition of an ideal number of lands. As you can see, if you are interested in seeing exactly two lands in your opening hand, and then seeing exactly two or three lands by turn four, then the ideal number of lands in your burn deck is 16, which gives you a 19.12% chance of meeting your requirements. If you are comfortable seeing two or three lands in your opening hand instead, the number increases to 17 at a 30.72% chance. If you want to factor both options into account, as I wanted to, then look at the "Total" portion on the right hand side. 17 is the ideal number, followed very closely by 16.
After my first attempt, this was all that I discovered and set about to testing 17 lands. What I had found was that, while my flooding significantly went down, my opening hands felt riskier. When it was solid, it was very solid, but when it was shaky it was noticeably so. I decided to modify my definition of the ideal number of lands in a burn deck to try and minimize the chances of seeing zero or one lands in my opening hand. While we deal with one land hands better than most decks, they still represent what will likely be the riskiest decision we have to make in a given game, and the decision in which we have the least amount of information to make it. As such, I decided to include minimizing one land hands as part of my calculation. I also consciously chose not to try and minimize four or more land hands. The reason for this is twofold. First, it happens so infrequently, especially at five or greater, that I didn't think it worth correcting for. Second, we can intuitively determine that we would have to reduce the number of lands that we play in order to correct for opening hands of four lands or greater, and I was already unhappy with 17 as it was. My new definition of the ideal number of lands in a burn deck became the number of lands that maximizes the chances of seeing either two, or two or three lands in your opening hand, minimizes the chances of seeing zero or one lands in your opening hand, and then seeing exactly two or three lands by turn four.
These calculations are found in the purple and red areas in the chart. The purple chart represents a mirror of the orange chart, raw data collected from the calculator. The red chart pulls from the four other charts to answer my new definition of an ideal number of lands in a burn deck. If you are only interested in seeing two lands in your opening hand, we see that the number of ideal lands increases by a full two, to 18 lands and a 12.28% chance. If you are comfortable with seeing two or three lands in your opening hand, we see that this number also increases by two, to 19 lands and a 21.31% chance. Finally, if you want to factor in both options as important, we see from the "Total" column that 19 represents the ideal number of lands, followed very closely by 18.
I was very happy with how this interpretation mirrored the first interpretation, and I feel this validated the results. This calculation does have limitations. For instance, it assumes that all factors are equally weighted, and that may not be the case. It may be more important for you to open with two or three lands, than it is to not see more than two or three lands by turn four; this can't account for that. Second, it obfuscates the individual bits of data that may be valuable to examine. With 19 lands, you still get one landers a full 22.12% of the time; that may be too much for you and you may choose to add a land at the expense of a lower overall game plan percentage. Of course, this all also assumes I performed the calculations correctly, and that my given definition of an ideal number of lands for burn is comprehensive and accurate.
Nevertheless, if you agree that the ideal number of lands in a burn deck maximizes seeing two, or two or three lands in your opening hand, minimizes seeing zero or one lands in your opening hand, and maximizes seeing two or three lands by turn four, and you also agree that all of these factors are equally important, then I feel confident in suggesting 18 or 19 lands as your ideal land count. The difference in value between the two is small enough that I believe either are valid options; 19 has the best odds by about .25%, or 1 in 400 games, but 18 gives you an extra burn card to play with. This may come down to any individual aspects of the deck you personally value more. Would you prefer to maximize your 2-3 land openings, avoid flooding, and play a faster, more goldfished version of burn? You might prefer 18. Would you prefer to avoid 0-1 land openings, hedge against land destruction, or try to play a longer, more assured version of burn? You might prefer 19. I do believe the correct answer is between one of these two, and while any other land count may individually improve aspects of our game, it would harm our overall strategy. I am going to keep looking over the numbers to see if I can find a way to better decide between the two.
Not at all! I appreciate the input. The reason I decided to do this is because, if I'm reading elcon's math correctly, it focuses more on opening hand statistics and doesn't try to take into account lategame flooding, which could potentially make us want to lower our land count. This isn't a failing on those stats; just a different question he was trying to answer. I wanted to see if the expected 18-20 land range stayed optimal when our turn 4 goldfishes were taken into account. The results stayed the same, which makes the calculations look identical, but it was actually two distinct questions we were asking. I also wanted to test for a wider spread of land counts, from 15-25, on the off chance the real best number of lands was far outside the realm of what we would expect (it wasn't).
Just curious... If we ran 8 gonblins, would that be enough to run goblin grenade?
Nice work, Creevy! There's definitely value in an independent verification. I'll read through it all and check out the spreadsheet when I have time. For the record, excel has a hyper-geometric function (at least Libreoffice does, called hypergeom or hypgeom or something).
I still think mono-red isn't quite there. I think you could do it in the main by cutting Charm and Helix for Skewer and Flame Rift, but Modern doesn't have Flame Rift or anything quite like it. Firecraft is too expensive, and a lot of the other options are just bad. Collateral+Spark/Hellspark/Keldon probably isn't good enough.