Magic Market Index for Dec 28th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 21st, 2018
 
Ultimate Masters: MMI Review
  • posted a message on Burn
    Everything you just said is 100% correct in that we collectively need to remain respect and thus I will apologize for being insultive.

    At this point I agree to disagree about the core of our discussion, but continue to agree that this card is an automatic 4 of now going forward in Modern.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Wow what a way to divert the conversation into something that I never made a big deal about. The conversation was to differentiate the difference between Chain Lightning and Rift Bolt to see which one Skewer the Critics was akin to. News flash for ya, all 3 spells that were being discussed as the main topic are Sorcery Speed. This wasn't a win or lose argument as we both agree that it should be played in Modern burn, but when you divert the discussion into something that wasn't even a point of contention then you start to lose your side of the discussion.

    The only reason I made the statement which had sorcery speed in it was to further explain the criteria for the scenario.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from Raghouz »
    What 75 would you advice at Rakdos @frozencajun ? I am very intrigued by that.


    Rakdos Burn:

    Maindeck (56)
    4 Goblin Guide
    2 Grim Lavamancer
    4 Monastery Swiftspear
    4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
    4 Bump in the Night
    4 Lava Spike
    4 Lightning Bolt
    4 Searing Blaze
    4 Skewer the Critics
    3 Sovereign's Bite
    4 Rift Bolt
    1 Arid Mesa
    4 Blackcleave Cliffs
    2 Blood Crypt
    4 Bloodstained Mire
    2 Mountain
    2 Stomping Ground
    4 Wooded Foothills

    Sideboard (15)
    2 Fatal Push
    4 Assassin's Trophy
    1 Rakdos Charm
    3 Relic of Progenitus
    2 Dragon's Claw
    3 Rain of Gore
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from frozencajun »
    "I think it's the closest to getting Chain Lightning that we'll ever see in Modern, and being a sorcery doesn't bother me at all. I know that I'd have no hesitation about adding Chain Lightning, and this is doing a good Chain Lightning impression if you can cast it for R sufficiently often."

    You'ree hyping Skewer up to be closer to Chain Lighting rather than Rift Bolt which is just absurd. Even Rift Bolt can ALWAYS be suspended for R. Skewer is a situational Bolt that has a requirement to be R= 3 damage. That is not the case for Chain Lightning, but is for cards such as Rift Bolt, Shard Volley, or even something like Thunderous Wrath with each of those cards progressively worse in the situation needed to pull off the requirement.

    Also since when is doing damage to your opponent flavor text for burn?


    I think you're wrong that it's closer to rift bolt than chain lightning. The condition to be R=3 is "play a Burn game plan".

    It's flavor text when they don't cast things that trigger it. It's not "whenever your opponent casts a spell, ping them". It triggers on non-creature only, so a lot of an affinity deck won't care about that. KCI will, though. In matchups where you're gunning for the leyline, it won't trigger on the creatures they drop but it will trigger for things like iok. It will trigger on bogles' enchantments, but they're gaining 6 this turn and next turn and the turn after that and whoops game over just in time to blow up leyline.


    That is the whole point! It is still conditional. Is it going happen to be R=3 a decent amount of the time? Sure but there going to be times when it's not, and possibly not be able to be even castable with only 2 lands in play. That is why it is not close to Chain Lightning. Chain Lightning is ALWAYS R=3 with potential for RRR=6 under normal circumstances. You know what you can do at sorcery speed with no damage potential on the table (plenty of times our creatures get outclassed fast) and only 2 lands? Suspend a Rift Bolt. It is going to be similar to Searing Blaze in that there are going to be times where it is a dead card or not full value due to the board state.

    With all that said I think this makes Grim Lavamancer even more needed in the deck as a 2 of. He was already great at helping keep creature decks in check, but he now plays double duty even more.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    "I think it's the closest to getting Chain Lightning that we'll ever see in Modern, and being a sorcery doesn't bother me at all. I know that I'd have no hesitation about adding Chain Lightning, and this is doing a good Chain Lightning impression if you can cast it for R sufficiently often."

    You'ree hyping Skewer up to be closer to Chain Lighting rather than Rift Bolt which is just absurd. Even Rift Bolt can ALWAYS be suspended for R. Skewer is a situational Bolt that has a requirement to be R= 3 damage. That is not the case for Chain Lightning, but is for cards such as Rift Bolt, Shard Volley, or even something like Thunderous Wrath with each of those cards progressively worse in the situation needed to pull off the requirement.

    Also since when is doing damage to your opponent flavor text for burn?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    So guys, you really consider the skewer to be a card in the "core cards" 4of in the main deck of RW/g burn ?
    I would really like to believe that, and then just leave 8-9 flex cards (skullcrack, helix, blaze) as elconquistador listed it in a early post. I totally agree with your list of core/flex cards.

    The only thing that still makes me hesitate is only the "sorcery" part of the card :S
    I'm currently playing 3 skullcrack, 4 blaze and 4 helix maindeck. Yes i know i could remove 1 blaze/1 helix to add 2-3 skewer.
    I will try to test it before GP toronto, but i'm still hesitant :'(

    If you guys have the deck on mtgo/coackatrice and also want to test the card (when it will be legal) please share us your comments here.


    I do think it's likely going to prove it is good enough to be a core card. I think it's the closest to getting Chain Lightning that we'll ever see in Modern, and being a sorcery doesn't bother me at all. I know that I'd have no hesitation about adding Chain Lightning, and this is doing a good Chain Lightning impression if you can cast it for R sufficiently often.

    I will give it some play on cockatrice when I can. I'll try to specifically detail instances of using Skewer and instances when it was bad (times it uncastable, for instance), be and average cmc, cast turn, etc.


    Wow coming back to this thread I knew there would be talk about the 2 new toys, but man is some of this is hilarious.

    First off in NO way is Skewer remotely on the power level of Chain Lighting. Chain Lightning is ALWAYS 1 CMC under normal circumstances. It is more closer to Rift Bolt with Skewer getting an edge over it in some situations (mainly casting multiple burn spells in a turn without the delay associated with Rift Bolt). Rift Bolt gets the edge on turn 1 because you can't even cast Skewer on T1 (which you can at least suspend a Rift Bolt), and it also works better with Swiftspear coming off of suspend.

    Skewer is however an auto include for any version of Modern burn.

    I am on the verge of confidently stating that Rakdos is better than Boros. Rakdos has always been the faster deck but Boros was more of a resilient deck. Rakdos now only lacks enchantment hate which most Boros deck splash green for Destructive Revelry which should now be replaced by the new card Cinder Lash anyways. For the statements about Rakdos not having a sideboard that is absurd. Black brings Push to the table, but you can go Jund and play Assassin's Trophy to remove really the 2 most difficult things to deal with in Firewalker and Leyline with 1 card. This helps a ton when dealing with limited sideboard slots. Rain of Gore, Trophy, and Relic or Cage is really all you need.

    Back to Cinder Lash for a moment. It is a touch slower than Revelry for sure, but overall it is a better card than Revelry for multiple reasons.
    1. CS is better in multiples as you may not have additional targets for the other drawn copies of DR where as the static ability just stacks and thus will help close out the game.
    2. CS gets utility even if they don't see their sb card.
    3. CS's 1st ability is only for opponents and gets around Leyline since it doesn't target.
    4. CS frees up having to hold up 2 Mana.
    5. CS is proactive instead of reactive which is what burn prefers to do in general.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from frozencajun »
    Quote from frozencajun »

    If you are going to make outlandish remarks then you don’t help others that really are trying learn how to play burn or new to the game in general.


    I'll agree that outlandish remarks don't help, which is why I'm not comparing this card to treasure cruise and find it strange that you are. It should be obvious why they are not remotely comparable.

    due to the nature of burn trying to be as efficient as possible


    The other day, I said that one should play Burn in a manner that minimizes the likelihood that you run out of gas. You said that's "laughable". Now you state that the nature of Burn is to be a efficient as possible. So are you making laughable statements now or are you agreeing with me? Both statements are expressing the same idea.



    I did call it laughable you are correct because no matter how efficient you play you can still end up drawing bad cards ie multiple lands or creatures past turn 3. That should be obvious and I don’t understand why you are still fighting something that should be common knowledge for an experienced burn player.


    Unavoidable random outcomes are unavoidable random outcomes. You minimize the probability of running out of Burn spells by not wasting the ones you draw. Sometimes you can let a creature live instead of bolting it, by playing to your outs and bolting their face and accepting that you need 2 good draws to win before their clock wins. If you bolt the creature, you end up needing 3 good draws to win. That's called tight play, and you're calling it "laughable". That is downright absurd. I don't understand how an experienced Burn player would call tight play "laughable".


    Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. Even if you play as “tight“ as you possibly can you still have to draw somewhat decent which has always been a downfall of the deck.

    Let’s look at burn just as a concept for a moment. If you just go with a notion that each card represents 3 damage (I know that this is oversimplified, but this is what your opponent typically does) and we would like to have 2 lands in our opener that means we have 15 damage in our hand to start. That mean over the next 3 draws we need 2 more non lands at least for the 21 damage. So we are heavily reliant upon what we draw even with our ideal opening hand.

    RF somewhat mitigates the bad draws by either changing it out for damage or more cards.

    But hey I know you love doing math so just run the numbers yourself. What is the chance of drawing a creature or land past T3 with a stock list and let’s just say you had 2-3 creatures and 3 lands within the prior turns (I used those numbers as an average game)?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from BlueTronFTW »
    Giving your opponent a choice isn't efficient. Literally it is the exact opposite. If dealing four is just as good as drawing the cards, I'd rather just play a direct damage spell and avoid giving them the choice.

    Hey I am fine with either result. Either the card isn't good and I get some street cred or the card is good and my modern deck gets better as a result.


    Again you are using the wrong word here. Giving your opponent a choice doesn’t necessarily have to do with efficiency, but does effect consistency.

    Your last statement is great and I respond with then why not test it to help put the nail in the coffin on which it is. According to you it is a win win because you gain cred or get a better deck out of the deal so why not test to bring something to the table other than theory crafting and provide at least your own anecdotal evidence.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from frozencajun »

    If you are going to make outlandish remarks then you don’t help others that really are trying learn how to play burn or new to the game in general.


    I'll agree that outlandish remarks don't help, which is why I'm not comparing this card to treasure cruise and find it strange that you are. It should be obvious why they are not remotely comparable.

    due to the nature of burn trying to be as efficient as possible


    The other day, I said that one should play Burn in a manner that minimizes the likelihood that you run out of gas. You said that's "laughable". Now you state that the nature of Burn is to be a efficient as possible. So are you making laughable statements now or are you agreeing with me? Both statements are expressing the same idea.



    I did call it laughable you are correct because no matter how efficient you play you can still end up drawing bad cards ie multiple lands or creatures past turn 3. That should be obvious and I don’t understand why you are still fighting something that should be common knowledge for an experienced burn player.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from frozencajun »

    I am still testing the card myself but burn has went through many phases in modern alone. To not test a card is one’s choice but again I put forth someone at some point thought Treasure Cruise was good enough at 3 cmc on average and it was Sorcery speed not Instant speed. In a soon enough meta with Assassin’s Trophy being ubiquitous, it would not be unheard of for us to have 3 mana quite often. Lands and Creatures are terrible past turn 3 typically so why not change out a land or creature for either 3 cards or 4 damage?


    As I've said before, I never played with Treasure Cruise, but I suspect that you either cast it for 1 and it got you to win the game because Sorcery Ancestral Recall is really good or you cast it at 3 or 4 and it was just a spell you happened to cast right before you lost the game. Maybe TC had an average CMC of 3, but it didn't really shine until when you were casting it for 1. You can never cast Risk Factor for 1. Burn wouldn't have played "2U: Draw 3 cards", and that card wouldn't be banned today. Burn played TC because it was "U: Draw 3 cards" a lot of the time.

    I also don't think it's reasonable to compare Risk Factor to Treasure Cruise. I think your "3CMC average" statement is likely way too high and that the most likely cost was 1 or 2. TC is broken. Risk Factor is not.

    "Lands and Creatures are terrible past turn 3 typically so why not change out a land or creature for either 3 cards or 4 damage?" What did you cut to add Risk Factor? If it was a burn spell, why spend 3 mana and your turn to either deal 4 or draw 3 when you could have just played a burn spell at a better rate? Maybe you could have even played that burn spell and another in your hand this turn, but instead you're tapped out with 4 cards in hand and... you lost.


    If you didn’t play during the time stop trying to make comments that aren’t true. I played TC when it was legal and also ran Probe to also assist with getting the cost of delve down and potentially draw into it or other burn spells. On average there was 1-2 fetches and 3-4 spells in the yard. If I was to give it an actual average it was close to 2.5 mana that is why I said between 2-3 mana originally. The card had very high upside thus it was played despite the potential of not being able to get a blue source or having the blue source removed by something like ghost quarter or fulminator mage. Lavamancer wasn’t played because of the nonbo as well.

    You still don’t understand the value on this card which I have stated multiple times now. If you have played burn long enough you should know by now that burn’s main problems past turn 3 is top decking lands or creatures as we don’t need more than 3 lands and our creatures get out classed easily in Modern. This card allows us to dodge bad top decks by pitching them to recast the card. It is 2 spells on 1 card.

    As for your completely bogus scenario of holding 4 cards and being tapped out is absolutely ridiculous. I stated in my last post it more times than not be the last card in hand due to the nature of burn trying to be as efficient as possible so no you wouldn’t play this card over 4 other spells in your hand. Also there would not be a point in which you are tapped out casting it because it has instant speed.

    If you are going to make outlandish remarks then you don’t help others that really are trying learn how to play burn or new to the game in general.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from R3doxNL »
    For all of you hyped up on Risk Factor, just realize that every time you say "in situation X, side Y of RF would be really good!", what we sceptics read is "in situation X, you're not going to get side Y".

    4 dmg for 3 mana is not good or even fine. It's super clunky and terrible in multiples and dead against fast archetypes so I have no idea how you can even consider this a main deck card.

    If all this card is (maybe) good against is control, you have to make a convincing case for it to be better than exquisite firecraft which will do exactly what you want every time.


    What skeptics like yourself are missing is trying to be realistic with the card. Burn isn’t playing SSG so we can’t play it turn 1 or likely even is the GRN meta not on turn 2 either. So then it becomes well do you play this card over other cards in your hand which that answer more than likely should be no to be as mana efficient as possible. That then leaves you with it being your last card in hand which is why the scenario is being presented as such. At this point it shouldn’t be hard to point out that any of the 3 outcomes are great for us (8 damage, 4 damage and 3 cards, or 6 cards).
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from BlueTronFTW »
    Dude this game has existed for twenty five years and sligh was one of the first archetypes created for competition. I'm not against this card existing. If it helps burn I am happy. However, I am not going to test it because it doesn't pass any sort of eye test.


    I share this sentiment, especially the last part. Testing is a good thing and all, but it's absurd to me to act as if someone is fundamentally misguided and wrong for "theory-crafting" and rejecting a card after making well-reasoned and logical assessments of that card. Experiments are great. I like experiments. But sometimes an experiment isn't necessary because the theory tells you something important.


    I am still testing the card myself but burn has went through many phases in modern alone. To not test a card is one’s choice but again I put forth someone at some point thought Treasure Cruise was good enough at 3 cmc on average and it was Sorcery speed not Instant speed. In a soon enough meta with Assassin’s Trophy being ubiquitous, it would not be unheard of for us to have 3 mana quite often. Lands and Creatures are terrible past turn 3 typically so why not change out a land or creature for either 3 cards or 4 damage?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    You both did expose your lack of playing during the time of T Cruise because it more times than not wasn’t a recall. You generally paid 2-3 mana.

    I’m sorry but Elcon you should always play to your outs and this card gives you outs when top decking lands, so you are still missing the gist of it yourself. Keep in mind every time burn mulls we lose damage. It’s 2 spells on 1 card at a reasonable cost. If they take 8 I’m sure we win. If they take 4 and let us draw 3 we win (which I anticipate will be the most common scenario). If we draw 6 then we basically have a whole new hand.

    “Play in a manner that minimizes your chance of running out of gas” this absolutely laughable, burn doesn’t play deck manipulation outside of Magma Jet and for some reason I don’t think you play that card so you can help it when top decking those extra lands.

    If you want to continue the debate that is fine by me but I’m gonna be actually play testing to see how the card plays out instead of theory crafting so I apologize in advance for delayed responses.

    As of note I currently am running a “stock list” and will be taking out 1 Boros Charm and 1 Lavamancer to put 2 in the main board. I will try to play a number of games against different decks and report back.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Searing Blaze runs roughshod over enough matchups that it earns a spot even though it is high variance. Everyone has been in the "need 3 damage, no targets for blaze" situation. Everyone has been in the "blaze your bird" situation, too. There are very few matchups where Vexing Devil just reads "R: Lava Spike for 4" due to complete lack of removal (if there were a lot, we would play it in a heartbeat), and that is in stark contrast to situations where Blaze shines even though Blaze can have bad moments.

    I think the new Browbeat is better than Browbeat, but I don't think it's good enough. If I'm going to dump 3 mana on a spell, I'd rather just dump that mana on Exquisite Firecraft and see what happens on my next draw step if I need more spells. Burn benefits from being redundant, and I think that straight draw without damage directly attached to it is not good enough for the deck especially at 3CMC.


    Elcon I never advocated for removing Searing Blaze nor advocated for adding Vexing Devil just pointing out there is high variance in Searing Blaze yet we still play it because it is a very powerful card in spite of that.

    Regarding your second part about spending 3 mana and drawing cards and not dealing damage, you have forgot about when burn splashed blue to play Treasure Cruise.

    Also can you point out a situation where it is better having firecraft over risk factor with your opponent at 7, with only 1 of the said cards in hand and access to 3 mana, outside of the opponent having 2 counterspells or drawing an additional firecraft (probability extremely low)?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from BlueTronFTW »
    I want efficiency in burn spells. There's a reason that Vexing Devil tends to vanish at GPs, SCG tournaments, and modern challenges. Your opponent will pick the option that lets them win. If neither option is good, you were likely to win anyways.


    I think the word you meant to use is consistent because 1 cmc for either 4 damage lava spike or a 4/3 creature is incredibly efficient. Unfortunately to hamper your argument on consistency, burn runs typically a playset Searing Blaze which can be at times wildly inconsistent. You need your opponent to have a creature and also need to have a land enter that turn, but it sees play because it is very powerful and we run fetches to minimize the inconsistency. I could be speaking for myself, but there have been times when the opponent has no creatures in play or I don’t have a fetch land and Searing Blaze completely underperforms. I am not saying we should stop playing Searing Blaze, nor am I saying Vexing Devil is playable in modern. I stated that the new card was indeed better than it in modern and worth testing.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.