I don't have Eidolon of the Great Revels yet, but I'm curious about an interaction between Collateral and this card. Imagine this: We have Eidolon out with collateral in hand plus red mana open. Opponent targets Eidolon for removal, triggering it's ability. We respond with collateral sacrificing Eidolon. It seems to me that we evade triggering Eidolon ourselves in this instance. In my mind, the spell isn't cast until the creature is sacrificed, thus it's ability won't trigger when Collateral is cast because Eidolon isn't on the field anymore. Any rules expert have a definitive answer to this?
If this is true, there's further potential for this, in a mirror match up for instance. Imagine having Eidolon out, both you and opponent are in kill range or close to it. Your opponent thinks you can't cast anything because your Eidolon is out and you're at 2 life. Surprise! We cast collateral and two more spells without taking any damage.
Hey guys, new to the deck here, just got the last couple of Snapcasters I needed for it.
I have one question about the manabase though: I don't have access to any number of Scalding Tarns at the moment; what's the best combination of fetch/shocklands to replace it? I have at my disposal 4x each of Deltas, Flooded Strands, Bloodstained Mires and Verdant Catacombs, as well as any number of shocklands. Thanks!
I'd start out with 4x Deltas, 4x Mires, 1x Catacombs and 3x Flooded Strand to try and maintain a decent amount of blue fetchlands to cover my bases against a Blood Moon.
Wouldn't the Catacombs be more important than the Strands? Strands can fetch four of your lands, where Catacombs can fetch five (assuming you're running two Blood Crypts and one Steam Vents). Even still I would suggest 2/2 split on Catacombs and Strands if no Tarns are available.
EDIT: Maybe even 2/1 in favor of Catacombs with an extra Watery Grave instead of the 12th fetch?
Again, this is for a friend's deck who has been relating to me a lot of dead land draws recently. He is a good shuffler as well.
It seems 3 mana is the top end and it has to be exceptional to have a chance. I'll relay that although I'm sure he is already aware of it. I'll suggest the drop a land but I would assume he'd probably want to add a 1 mana spell in its place. He's not going to like that I'll continue to pound him with Thought-Knot Seer and Reality Smasher. Any advice you could give in boarding in against EldraziTron that I can pass along? Thanks.
Against Eldrazi Tron I usually bring in some number of Paths and Deflecting Palms for the big creatures and Destructive Revelry for Chalice of the Void. Also tell him to sideboard out all four Eidolons.
And it seems if it isn't 1 or 2 cmc there isn't much interest.
It isn't that your ideas are being dismissed because they aren't 1 or 2 cmc. Three mana is often difficult to get to in Burn. If you want to suggest a 3 cmc spell make sure it is strong enough in the context of what Burn is trying to do to justify it often being a dead card (as in unable to cast) or that it fills a gap in the deck (for example Exquisite Firecraft in a heavy counter spell meta). Four or more cmc, don't even bother. The deck is light on lands and doesn't run cantrips (nor does it want to run cantrips). Getting to four mana is not a good thing. Playing cards that require four mana are a bad idea. If you really are getting flooded a lot running Burn, then the answer isn't add a mana sink. The answer is either get into the habit of shuffling more/better or drop a land.
I'm only running one atm, and have a Rakdos Charm in place of the second one. This is a meta call however, I don't see much Tron, but graveyard and go-wide green decks are pretty common at my LGS. In an unknown meta I would probably run two Ceremonious Rejections.
I'm still only playing deck on MTGO. Seeing a lot of Eldrazi Tron, so I'm running 2-3 Ceremonious Rejections. Two seems like about right though, since it helps with what seems like an otherwise difficult matchup.
people commonly use it as in "x shipped the tournament"
People that are using the phrase that way are incorrect. People also often use the word literally when they mean figuratively which is literally the opposite of literally. People misuse words and phrases all the time. Those people are wrong.
Yup, poker slang you're misusing. "Ship it" refers to shipping the pot to the person that won. The person who won is not the one doing the "shipping". For Nelson to have shipped the tournament he would have lost and "shipped" it to the other player.
About ruling question: Does Liliana, tLH still can +1 given no creature in the board?
Yes. The +1 is up to one creature, so you can choose zero creatures if none are on board or only you have creatures on board.
Does it means that it gonna target one creature on board and has to be my creature if my opponent doesn't have a creature. And, if both of us doesn't have any creature, she still +1 loyal counters. Just that the activated ability go to stack and fizzled itself only.
The card reads target "up to one creature". This means you can target zero creatures or one creature. If you target zero creatures then you are upticking just for the loyalty counter. There is no fizzling. You target zero creatures and zero creatures get -2/-1.
As a Burn player who is just starting to pick up this deck I would argue that it is not variance. Death's Shadow is a very tough matchup for us. It seems like it shouldn't be, but by the time the Death's Shadow player is below 9 we don't have enough Burn left in our hands to finish them off.
That's exactly why I said many Burn players don't approach the mu correctly.
Burn has to bottleneck much like against Ux control. It often comes down to how badly the Death's Shadow player can pick the Burn player's hand apart. Honestly I think it comes down to skill on both sides. When I'm on Burn I feel like a 80/20 favorite against inexperienced Death's Shadow players. When the skill level is equal the matchup can be really difficult for both sides.
It might be have been variance but I think I handled the matchup really well. I'm not that afraid of Burn anymore. It's a coin toss really. If you don't shock/bolt yourself too much and play your cards right you'll manage to sneak a Death Shadow and seal the deal with 2 attacks.
As a Burn player who is just starting to pick up this deck I would argue that it is not variance. Death's Shadow is a very tough matchup for us. It seems like it shouldn't be, but by the time the Death's Shadow player is below 9 we don't have enough Burn left in our hands to finish them off.
Beatable, but very difficult. Doesn't help that they run main board Unlife which is one of the best Burn hate cards. Leylines usually come in post board as well.
What are generally the tough matches for Burn? First game and then after the sides rotate in. I notice an significant difference there in the limited matches I experienced.
I have noticed that pretty all the recent 5-0 lists (last 10 days or so) on mtgo have notably NOT played Atarka's Command or Wild Nacatl in the Maindeck, playing only 1 Stomping Ground for Revelry out of the SB.
Is any of those player here on the forums by any chance? Even if not, do you all agree with this change? I can see that Nacatl isn't in a great spot right now, but I remeber always liking the command...
Just getting back into modern again, but currently playing Naya as one of my three decks. Basically the same list I played the last time I was in modern. I don't see much of a disadvantage of running AC main if the only other reason you're running green is for SB Revelry. My manabase just changes to one extra Stomping Ground for a mountain. It does make it a little more susceptible to Fulminator, GQ, etc.
The tradeoff from my list seems to be running more Helix main. I run a 4 AC/2 Skullcrack/2 Helix mix while the Boros builds are 4 Skullcrack/4 Helix. The lifegain may be more relevant to some metas (and also saving life by not having to fetch for an extra shock) so that could be another motivator.
I run Boros w/D Rev main. Have run Naya in the past (both with and without Nacatl), but have pretty much switched to RWg full time now. For me it is more a comfort factor than anything else. Both Boros and Naya are good options. For me though Boros is the Burn that I'm more comfortable with and have had more consistent results with. Atarka's Command is a ridiculously powerful card, but the power for me doesn't outweigh the percentage points I get by playing the list I'm more comfortable with.
Should be how it works.
Wouldn't the Catacombs be more important than the Strands? Strands can fetch four of your lands, where Catacombs can fetch five (assuming you're running two Blood Crypts and one Steam Vents). Even still I would suggest 2/2 split on Catacombs and Strands if no Tarns are available.
EDIT: Maybe even 2/1 in favor of Catacombs with an extra Watery Grave instead of the 12th fetch?
Against Eldrazi Tron I usually bring in some number of Paths and Deflecting Palms for the big creatures and Destructive Revelry for Chalice of the Void. Also tell him to sideboard out all four Eidolons.
It isn't that your ideas are being dismissed because they aren't 1 or 2 cmc. Three mana is often difficult to get to in Burn. If you want to suggest a 3 cmc spell make sure it is strong enough in the context of what Burn is trying to do to justify it often being a dead card (as in unable to cast) or that it fills a gap in the deck (for example Exquisite Firecraft in a heavy counter spell meta). Four or more cmc, don't even bother. The deck is light on lands and doesn't run cantrips (nor does it want to run cantrips). Getting to four mana is not a good thing. Playing cards that require four mana are a bad idea. If you really are getting flooded a lot running Burn, then the answer isn't add a mana sink. The answer is either get into the habit of shuffling more/better or drop a land.
I'm still only playing deck on MTGO. Seeing a lot of Eldrazi Tron, so I'm running 2-3 Ceremonious Rejections. Two seems like about right though, since it helps with what seems like an otherwise difficult matchup.
People that are using the phrase that way are incorrect. People also often use the word literally when they mean figuratively which is literally the opposite of literally. People misuse words and phrases all the time. Those people are wrong.
Yup, poker slang you're misusing. "Ship it" refers to shipping the pot to the person that won. The person who won is not the one doing the "shipping". For Nelson to have shipped the tournament he would have lost and "shipped" it to the other player.
That is awesome, but also not what shipped means.
The card reads target "up to one creature". This means you can target zero creatures or one creature. If you target zero creatures then you are upticking just for the loyalty counter. There is no fizzling. You target zero creatures and zero creatures get -2/-1.
Yes. The +1 is up to one creature, so you can choose zero creatures if none are on board or only you have creatures on board.
Burn has to bottleneck much like against Ux control. It often comes down to how badly the Death's Shadow player can pick the Burn player's hand apart. Honestly I think it comes down to skill on both sides. When I'm on Burn I feel like a 80/20 favorite against inexperienced Death's Shadow players. When the skill level is equal the matchup can be really difficult for both sides.
As a Burn player who is just starting to pick up this deck I would argue that it is not variance. Death's Shadow is a very tough matchup for us. It seems like it shouldn't be, but by the time the Death's Shadow player is below 9 we don't have enough Burn left in our hands to finish them off.
For starters, Ad Nauseam is almost unwinnable.
I run Boros w/D Rev main. Have run Naya in the past (both with and without Nacatl), but have pretty much switched to RWg full time now. For me it is more a comfort factor than anything else. Both Boros and Naya are good options. For me though Boros is the Burn that I'm more comfortable with and have had more consistent results with. Atarka's Command is a ridiculously powerful card, but the power for me doesn't outweigh the percentage points I get by playing the list I'm more comfortable with.