We've had a long discussion about life totals in burn and when it's relevant. That aside, if you are concerned about your life total, then you should probably be in 1 or 0 splash colors.
Gain 8 for a card probably isn't good enough against delver, but if your list has Cruise in the mirror and theirs doesn't, then it might be passable.
I agree that Magma Jet is likely better than Serum Visions, but neither make the cut in my book. They're too slow. Treasure Cruise does not give us the leisure to durdle, but rather support in elongated games.
My games against pod have generally been fine, esp in game ones where they don't see finks and any game where I draw at least two searing effects or sideboard cards.
It's odd you accuse another person of not "knowing what you're talking about," yet your own assertion is just as void of empirical evidence as their own. We call this insecurity of opinion. Then your proof is "popular opinion". Right.
I don't mean to be crass, but I call it like I see it. Google "MTGO skill level" or anything of the sort. It's been well-established that MTGO skill is at a higher level, in general, than in-paper skill. There's no opinion to be had here unless it's the right one.
With this major flaw aside, real life experience is quantitatively more impactful than theory. For example, I trust DolZero's opinion over a number of people simply because he has proven results on paper. For this reason, when he makes the claim that the Boros, or even Jeskai, build is better, there is validation to this point. In your case, flinging wild accusations about the ignorance of other posters does little to convince others. If you played the deck hundreds of times with a large sample size to back yourself up, there may be some validity to this opinion. However, numerous decks have splashed various colors to a much more significant margin than mono red.
I was not able to get an exact count, but nearly 90% of them splash a color beyond Red, most of them three colors.
There is some merit to having success with a deck, but one person's success isn't enough to override theory. Representation is not indicative of strength. If monored is the best but only 1 person plays it, there will be far fewer top eights than if a suboptimal build is piloted by 100 people. I will try to find statistics on these decks too.
By your logic, if adding another color were to make the deck inconsistent, then any deck should run only one color to remain competitive. That way no one will ever get mana screwed. (this is arguably the most consistent deck in the format.) Let's not forget the card options available with another splash: Boros Charm is a superior Flames of the Blood hand (Flames does the same thing as Skullcrack for one extra mana,) Lightning Helix is a superior Lightning Strike. Bump in the Night is a superior Shard Volley. Treasure Cruise needs no explanation. Sideboard wise black gives Rakdos Charm, Rain of Gore, and Dismember. White gives stoney silence, wear//tear, rest in peace, and Kor Firewalker. It evens has Refraction Trap for those feeling bold. Red provides zero advantage over the splashed colors other than not damage damage from shock lands. Skred is the only mono red "burn" deck I would play, because it uses the solid color to its benefit.
No, there is a balance between strength and consistency a deck needs to achieve to remain competitive/optimal. R(x) vs. delver is very easy no matter what color combination, so increasing consistency, despite a minor decrease in power (in this particular matchup) actually increases our win percentage.
Adding a color strictly improves card quality/power, while removing a color strictly improves deck consistency. Boros Charm is only better than Flames of the Blood Hand if you don't need the extra Skullcracks in the match-up, so yes it's better versus Delver. Lightning Helix is approximately Lightning Strike since paining oneself to cast the card. Bump int he Night is better than Shard Volley unless you need to kill creatures in the MU, etc. There are a lot of considerations that need to be made.
I play 3-4 color burn in paper locally, but I understand that mono red is probably strictly better against the MTGO field.
It's odd you accuse another person of not "knowing what you're talking about," yet your own assertion is just as void of empirical evidence as their own. We call this insecurity of opinion. Then your proof is "popular opinion". Right.
I don't mean to be crass, but I call it like I see it. Google "MTGO skill level" or anything of the sort. It's been well-established that MTGO skill is at a higher level, in general, than in-paper skill. There's no opinion to be had here unless it's the right one.
With this major flaw aside, real life experience is quantitatively more impactful than theory. For example, I trust DolZero's opinion over a number of people simply because he has proven results on paper. For this reason, when he makes the claim that the Boros, or even Jeskai, build is better, there is validation to this point. In your case, flinging wild accusations about the ignorance of other posters does little to convince others. If you played the deck hundreds of times with a large sample size to back yourself up, there may be some validity to this opinion. However, numerous decks have splashed various colors to a much more significant margin than mono red.
I was not able to get an exact count, but nearly 90% of them splash a color beyond Red, most of them three colors.
There is some merit to having success with a deck, but one person's success isn't enough to override theory. Representation is not indicative of strength. If monored is the best but only 1 person plays it, there will be far fewer top eights than if a suboptimal build is piloted by 100 people. I will try to find statistics on these decks too.
By your logic, if adding another color were to make the deck inconsistent, then any deck should run only one color to remain competitive. That way no one will ever get mana screwed. (this is arguably the most consistent deck in the format.) Let's not forget the card options available with another splash: Boros Charm is a superior Flames of the Blood hand (Flames does the same thing as Skullcrack for one extra mana,) Lightning Helix is a superior Lightning Strike. Bump in the Night is a superior Shard Volley. Treasure Cruise needs no explanation. Sideboard wise black gives Rakdos Charm, Rain of Gore, and Dismember. White gives stoney silence, wear//tear, rest in peace, and Kor Firewalker. It evens has Refraction Trap for those feeling bold. Red provides zero advantage over the splashed colors other than not damage damage from shock lands. Skred is the only mono red "burn" deck I would play, because it uses the solid color to its benefit.
No, there is a balance between strength and consistency a deck needs to achieve to remain competitive/optimal. R(x) vs. delver is very easy no matter what color combination, so increasing consistency, despite a minor decrease in power (in this particular matchup) actually increases our win percentage.
Adding a color strictly improves card quality/power, while removing a color strictly improves deck consistency. Boros Charm is only better than Flames of the Blood Hand if you don't need the extra Skullcracks in the match-up, so yes it's better versus Delver. Lightning Helix is approximately Lightning Strike since paining oneself to cast the card. Bump int he Night is better than Shard Volley unless you need to kill creatures in the MU, etc. There are a lot of considerations that need to be made.
I play 3-4 color burn in paper locally, but I understand that mono red is probably strictly better against the MTGO field.
Magic: the Gathering Online has the best (technical) players and the best (objectively) decks.
A controversial statement to say the least. I'd be surprised if there was popular support for such an opinion.edit: a joke maybe?
since Treasure Cruise has knocked green out of the metagame almost entirely lol.
I think you should have a look at Milan top 16, because the statment you made here is false. Scapeshift, pod, junk all play green and all placed. Green is alive and well in the meta.
I speak from my own experience and from the experiences of my clanmates who use MTGO. The average skill level online is much higher than in-paper. It's probably very hard to quantify this, but I'm certain this is popular opinion.
Scapeshift and Pod are combo decks. -.- Junk is a fair green deck, and it did well, though if you check out deck presence percentages, it's off the charts (in the down direction).
it does have good and bad players, how about providing data to back up, i mean saying a competition doesn't matter makes you seem bad, moto is a good source but paper magic has different metas then online.
point is thiers terrible players and good players in both.
have a great day.
-MH
I'll let you do your own research. Of course there are good and bad players in both contexts, but the average player skill level online is much higher than that on paper. Also, the paper metagame is about 2 weeks behind the online metagame almost all of the time.
thiers also a bunch of terrible moto players, to get stats we have to follow what is being played, POD does well, Delver does well, moto for me is for testing new decks and thats about it.
-MH
You don't know what you're talking about. Magic: the Gathering Online has the best (technical) players and the best (objectively) decks.
Or you could just beat Delver with better cards, a better sideboard, and an overall more consistent deck.
The cards are better in a vacuum, not necessarily against delver. 4 dmg for 2 mana isn't that much better than 3 dmg for 1 mana against Delver, and it's susceptible to the counter cmc 2 spell, and Lightning Helix = Searing Spear if you shock a lot, or under your assumption that life total doesn't matter, so... Doesn't seem much better MB, to me at least. IDK what white sideboard cards you want against Delver?, and adding a color (all other things constant) makes your deck strictly LESS consistent, so there's that.
Those BGx decks tend to keep that Goyf back so they don't take damage from Goblin Guide/Swiftspear/Eidolon. Even still, it's only doing about 3-4 damage per turn, where we are pushing out 4-6 damage per turn.
You're likely right here, except for the fact that their ONE card is don't 3-4 damage per turn, for the rest of the game. That's insane. Luckily, this is probably a nonissue since Treasure Cruise has knocked green out of the metagame almost entirely lol.
The online meta is about two weeks ahead of the paper meta except at rotation, so if you're planning for future events, it's better to follow than paper meta. Not the mention, SCG events are full of terrible players, in general. Maybe try to next-level GP/PT results, but MTGO results/decks are the Holy Grail when it comes to actual Magic: the Gathering.
RE: Life total not mattering against Delver. I think the Delver match-up is easy no matter what combination of colors you are playing in burn, so might as well not give them any chance of winning by damaging yourself/possibly stumbling on colors.
RE: Life total not mattering against midrange. Maybe you're right, but dork->finks or discard->Tarmogoyf quickyly turn that sentiment around.
You keep repeating yourself. I think you're just being stubborn. I've cited 45% of the metagame where life totals matter. That's not negligible, and in the match-ups where it doesn't matter, it's not entirely clear that a splash may help. I'm on R splash U for Cruise splash G for revelry, but I only play at the LGS which IS NOT the actual metagame. Of course you need G or W to defend against *****ty kids running Leylines.
I'm certain that R > Rx in the actual metagame, but I'm also certain that Rx > R locally for most people.
I think your issue is you've been to a few local events and assume that's an accurate representation of the competitive meta game. Stop making assumptions based off no evidence.
Please read my posts more carefully; I've made it very clear that the local events DO NOT accurately represent a competitive metagame.
You keep repeating yourself. I think you're just being stubborn. I've cited 45% of the metagame where life totals matter. That's not negligible, and in the match-ups where it doesn't matter, it's not entirely clear that a splash may help. I'm on R splash U for Cruise splash G for revelry, but I only play at the LGS which IS NOT the actual metagame. Of course you need G or W to defend against *****ty kids running Leylines.
I'm certain that R > Rx in the actual metagame, but I'm also certain that Rx > R locally for most people.
How about you explain what you mean by 45% of the metagame. What decks are you talking about specifically? I am talking about Affinity, Burn and Bogles being the decks where life total matters. Those are the decks where paying life for lands can mean the difference between winning and losing. I don't care about losing life to gain an advantage against nearly every other deck, because we will kill them faster than they will be able to kill us, even with the loss of 5-6 life from our mana base. Keep in mind that many of these decks will also be paying 5-6 life for their own mana base.
Considering the metagame, I am talking about the Day two metagame from GP Madrid, which is the the best data we currently have. It is the most exact representation of the meta that is available, and is setting the example of the current until the release of the next set. Looking at the data we have available, there were 220 decks that made day two at GP Madrid. 22 of them were Affinity (10%). 19 were Burn (8.6%) and 8 of them were Bogle (3.6%).
10 + 8.6 + 3.6 = 22.2% of the meta.
So in actuality, we only need to worry about losing life in 22.2% of the match ups. One of those is the mirror, which we can safely say is a 50/50 match up. Affinity has an advantage in game 1, and can usually kill us 1 turn sooner than we can kill them on average. Bogle is a hard deck for Burn to beat, and aside from Soul Sisters, is one of the toughest match ups we have. I actually expect to lose this match up when playing Burn, but I can live with having a bad match up against a deck that makes up a small portion of the field.
Now we can look at data from past tournaments*. I count a total of 23 Burn decks, 5 of which are mono red, and 2 of those mono red decks were fetching into shocks for sideboard cards (one splashing white for Wear // Tear, Stony Silence and Leyline of Sanctity, and one splashing green for Destructive Revelry). So roughly 21.7% of the decks placing with Burn are mono red (and that's being generous with 2 technically not mono red), and another 78.3% are R/x/x. Most of those decks are RW or RWx, with only one that I saw which was RBg (again, for Destructive Revelry in the board).
Burn decks splashing other colors are performing better than mono red decks. They have a higher percentage of top placements, and have stronger match ups across the board. You give up a little bit of life to have a more consistent deck with better spells and better sideboard options.
You keep repeating yourself. I think you're just being stubborn. I've cited 45% of the metagame where life totals matter. That's not negligible, and in the match-ups where it doesn't matter, it's not entirely clear that a splash may help. I'm on R splash U for Cruise splash G for revelry, but I only play at the LGS which IS NOT the actual metagame. Of course you need G or W to defend against *****ty kids running Leylines.
I'm certain that R > Rx in the actual metagame, but I'm also certain that Rx > R locally for most people.
Your life total matters in about 45% of the meta... And extra colors don't necessarily fix the rest. And Torpor Orb helps against 15% of the field, all of which are close match-ups. Delver's a bye, so you don't need SB cards dedicated to them. I guess fallout's also okay against pod's dork dork dude draws, but meh.
After getting stomped by Leyline of Sanctity last week, I am going to splash White on my R/B burn. I need to hate it out harshly. Wear // Tear and Ronom Unicorn are looking very sexy.
Is set in stone, this configuration saves me from most trouble but there's three kind of trouble that has me split:
3x Rain of Gore Because Pod with finks was fair, but Pod with finks and rhino isn't so much anymore.
3x Volcanic Fallout Because Delver is dumb popular and it just can't survive it.
3x Torpor Orb Because it's our best bet against Twin, and it also messes with Pod a little bit.
Which one would you use?
Torpor Orb since it deals with two match-ups and Delver's a bye.
Exactly... 90% of the time you pay three life for helix and it becomes essentially a searing spear. Most of what you get from the splash is an answer for leyline; for all other cards there are nearly as good side board options in mono red. I'm thinking of trying mono red with fetches main and a stomping ground plus revelries in the side. Mono red is just so good against other burn decks and delver.
You can also play 4 Skullcracks and 4 Flames of the Bloodhand, which is a total of 8 anti-life gain cards main board. Added with Leyline of Punishment in the side, the oppponent would never be given the opportunity to gain life.
Destructive Revelry is great, but it defeats the purpose of saving yourself the extra damage from shocklands. Fetchlands are always useful. I would run as many as 12 in a mono red build to filter out land draws.
Blood Moon is such a relevant card in nearly every meta game. That is the only reason I would run mono red.
Why does it defeat the purpose? you run a single shock in the side or main.
12 fetches seems like a lot; statistically if you draw 3 fetches it reduces the chance that your next draw is a land by roughly 1/10th. It's not trivial but not game breaking either.
It defeats the purpose because Stomping Ground is a shock land.
If you are so convinced mono red is superior, go ahead and play mono red. That is your choice and personal preference as a player (as mine drives me to make a Mardu build.)
Despite this, facts will only show that a white splash, or splash of any kind beyond red, is more likely to win a tournament. There are very few, if any, mono red builds I have seen top 8 compared to splashed colors.
Edit: Obviously the shock lands don't make a huge impact with Lightning Helix in the mix. Here is a RDW list that placed first http://www.mtgdecks.net/decks/view/106406
From what you can see, he/she sides Kor Firewalker. This card would require, at minimum, 4 damage with two sacred foundries to play. Yet, despite this, the deck was able to drive itself up to 1st place. I don't know why people fight pure speculative theory with empirical evidence. White is a superior color and the shocklands don't seem to be posing any problem.
I agree with you, but your logic is horrible. This place doesn't prove white is superior; it doesn't prove that shocklands are irrelevant; it doesn't prove the Kor Firewalker is any good. You don't know what match-ups he faced to even know if that was relevant at all.
I am 100% certain that if I were playing on MODO or in any real Modern tournament (meta = 16% delver, 11% burn, 9% affinity, 9% birthing pod, 6% twin, 5% scapeshift), that I'd rather be in mono red than Rx.
- The delver match-up is laughable in any color combination, so no need to add a color there
- R > Rx in the mirror unless the opponent's on 4x Leyline which is brutal, but I wouldn't bring enchantment removal g2 blind in the mirror anyway.
- Affinity is also laughable, and the only good sideboard tech would be ancient grudge for 2-for-1 or Kataki, but 4 blood, 4 blaze, X smash to smithereens already wrecks.
- I'm not so sure I want artifact removal against pod either; the best ways to beat them are searing effects and land destruction, and anger the gods, so there's that?
- Twin can definitely be helped by 4 Rakdos Charm or 4 Revelry, but postboard they play more controlling and those spells could just get countered, or they can tap our single colored source, so Combust or land destruction suffices.
- Scapeshift is fine and no sideboard color helps. W for Boros Charm can expedite the game, but other then that?
Yes, Leyline is scary, but the only deck here that runs them AFAIK is weird burn kids and then a bunch of fringe (<5%) decks, so IDGAF.
I agree that Magma Jet is likely better than Serum Visions, but neither make the cut in my book. They're too slow. Treasure Cruise does not give us the leisure to durdle, but rather support in elongated games.
My games against pod have generally been fine, esp in game ones where they don't see finks and any game where I draw at least two searing effects or sideboard cards.
I don't mean to be crass, but I call it like I see it. Google "MTGO skill level" or anything of the sort. It's been well-established that MTGO skill is at a higher level, in general, than in-paper skill. There's no opinion to be had here unless it's the right one.
There is some merit to having success with a deck, but one person's success isn't enough to override theory. Representation is not indicative of strength. If monored is the best but only 1 person plays it, there will be far fewer top eights than if a suboptimal build is piloted by 100 people. I will try to find statistics on these decks too.
No, there is a balance between strength and consistency a deck needs to achieve to remain competitive/optimal. R(x) vs. delver is very easy no matter what color combination, so increasing consistency, despite a minor decrease in power (in this particular matchup) actually increases our win percentage.
Adding a color strictly improves card quality/power, while removing a color strictly improves deck consistency. Boros Charm is only better than Flames of the Blood Hand if you don't need the extra Skullcracks in the match-up, so yes it's better versus Delver. Lightning Helix is approximately Lightning Strike since paining oneself to cast the card. Bump int he Night is better than Shard Volley unless you need to kill creatures in the MU, etc. There are a lot of considerations that need to be made.
I play 3-4 color burn in paper locally, but I understand that mono red is probably strictly better against the MTGO field.
I don't mean to be crass, but I call it like I see it. Google "MTGO skill level" or anything of the sort. It's been well-established that MTGO skill is at a higher level, in general, than in-paper skill. There's no opinion to be had here unless it's the right one.
There is some merit to having success with a deck, but one person's success isn't enough to override theory. Representation is not indicative of strength. If monored is the best but only 1 person plays it, there will be far fewer top eights than if a suboptimal build is piloted by 100 people. I will try to find statistics on these decks too.
No, there is a balance between strength and consistency a deck needs to achieve to remain competitive/optimal. R(x) vs. delver is very easy no matter what color combination, so increasing consistency, despite a minor decrease in power (in this particular matchup) actually increases our win percentage.
Adding a color strictly improves card quality/power, while removing a color strictly improves deck consistency. Boros Charm is only better than Flames of the Blood Hand if you don't need the extra Skullcracks in the match-up, so yes it's better versus Delver. Lightning Helix is approximately Lightning Strike since paining oneself to cast the card. Bump int he Night is better than Shard Volley unless you need to kill creatures in the MU, etc. There are a lot of considerations that need to be made.
I play 3-4 color burn in paper locally, but I understand that mono red is probably strictly better against the MTGO field.
I speak from my own experience and from the experiences of my clanmates who use MTGO. The average skill level online is much higher than in-paper. It's probably very hard to quantify this, but I'm certain this is popular opinion.
Scapeshift and Pod are combo decks. -.- Junk is a fair green deck, and it did well, though if you check out deck presence percentages, it's off the charts (in the down direction).
I'll let you do your own research. Of course there are good and bad players in both contexts, but the average player skill level online is much higher than that on paper. Also, the paper metagame is about 2 weeks behind the online metagame almost all of the time.
You don't know what you're talking about. Magic: the Gathering Online has the best (technical) players and the best (objectively) decks.
The cards are better in a vacuum, not necessarily against delver. 4 dmg for 2 mana isn't that much better than 3 dmg for 1 mana against Delver, and it's susceptible to the counter cmc 2 spell, and Lightning Helix = Searing Spear if you shock a lot, or under your assumption that life total doesn't matter, so... Doesn't seem much better MB, to me at least. IDK what white sideboard cards you want against Delver?, and adding a color (all other things constant) makes your deck strictly LESS consistent, so there's that.
You're likely right here, except for the fact that their ONE card is don't 3-4 damage per turn, for the rest of the game. That's insane. Luckily, this is probably a nonissue since Treasure Cruise has knocked green out of the metagame almost entirely lol.
RE: Life total not mattering against Delver. I think the Delver match-up is easy no matter what combination of colors you are playing in burn, so might as well not give them any chance of winning by damaging yourself/possibly stumbling on colors.
RE: Life total not mattering against midrange. Maybe you're right, but dork->finks or discard->Tarmogoyf quickyly turn that sentiment around.
Please read my posts more carefully; I've made it very clear that the local events DO NOT accurately represent a competitive metagame.
Your life total also matters against Delver, so +16%, and it also matters against midrange decks like Pod, so +9%, and there you have it.
The meta I reference is the MTGO meta from mtgtop8, since that's the most competitive place there is with a lot of data.
I'm certain that R > Rx in the actual metagame, but I'm also certain that Rx > R locally for most people.
Random Unicorn >
Torpor Orb since it deals with two match-ups and Delver's a bye.
I agree with you, but your logic is horrible. This place doesn't prove white is superior; it doesn't prove that shocklands are irrelevant; it doesn't prove the Kor Firewalker is any good. You don't know what match-ups he faced to even know if that was relevant at all.
I am 100% certain that if I were playing on MODO or in any real Modern tournament (meta = 16% delver, 11% burn, 9% affinity, 9% birthing pod, 6% twin, 5% scapeshift), that I'd rather be in mono red than Rx.
- The delver match-up is laughable in any color combination, so no need to add a color there
- R > Rx in the mirror unless the opponent's on 4x Leyline which is brutal, but I wouldn't bring enchantment removal g2 blind in the mirror anyway.
- Affinity is also laughable, and the only good sideboard tech would be ancient grudge for 2-for-1 or Kataki, but 4 blood, 4 blaze, X smash to smithereens already wrecks.
- I'm not so sure I want artifact removal against pod either; the best ways to beat them are searing effects and land destruction, and anger the gods, so there's that?
- Twin can definitely be helped by 4 Rakdos Charm or 4 Revelry, but postboard they play more controlling and those spells could just get countered, or they can tap our single colored source, so Combust or land destruction suffices.
- Scapeshift is fine and no sideboard color helps. W for Boros Charm can expedite the game, but other then that?
Yes, Leyline is scary, but the only deck here that runs them AFAIK is weird burn kids and then a bunch of fringe (<5%) decks, so IDGAF.