A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
 
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on Burn
    In a Mardu list running Bump in the Night, I think you should run only Blackcleave Cliffs as the fastlands, as you will sometimes need that untapped black source on turn one more than an untapped white source.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from zenbitz »
    When do you board Lavamancer out? Control?


    If you side in Rest in Peace you should board him out.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Can't believe they unbanned Jace the ******* mind sculptor! I 100% expected BBE but Jace is insane!
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from VegaTDM »
    How about that vexing devil in the pro tour?


    I still think this card stinks. You should never really give the choice to your opponents on the outcome of the cards you cast.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from Max WB »
    Shattering Spree is really good against lantern and affinity

    You might want to look back in the forum. I thought it would be great against affinity as well, but a few people explained to me why it isn't great against affinity.
    I took the choice of 2 Grim Lavamancer on the main instead of only one while keeping 20 lands. In order to do that, I moved 2 Skullcrack to the side

    Yeah, I did the exact same thing once. I'm not doing it anymore, but it seems to work out well. However, I now prefer to not put 2 copies of Skullcrack in the sideboard because I need those extra sideboard slots for more useful things. Instead, I'm trying 1 copy of Grim Lavamancer in the main over a land, because 19 lands does actually work pretty well, and leaving all copies of Skullcrack in the main. The problem is that having two copies of Grim Lavamancer is a pain, however unlikely it may be. Also, Grim Lavamancer isn't an immediate threat and it doesn't do damage right away, so topdecking it when you need a burn spell isn't great, and it provides a chance for your opponent to interact by killing it. It makes up for it by being amazing against small creature decks, which is why I like having 1 copy in the main.


    I agree that 2 lavamancers maybe are too much in an open field, but it suits my needs in my current meta. Also, I've cut the Skullcracks to 2 because there is not much lifegain going around here, and I don't think 2 in the side is too clunky, but that is my personal feel.

    Also, I think 19 lands is fine, but I personally prefer 20. I just don't like to be mana screwed.

    I read the reasoning on the shattering spree, and it makes sense. However, there is not much affinity in my local meta as opposed to chalices and laterns (and even some other odd artifact decks, such as tezzerator). I'm not against splashing green for DRev, or even running smash to smithereens, if you insist in full boros. The sideboard has some 3-6 flex slots which you can adjust for your local meta. In my list, the flex slots are:

    • Kor Firewalker
    • Graveyard hate (cage and RIP)
    • Shattering spree (could be replaced by Smash to Smithereens)

    If there were fewer Bogles players and Leylines running around my LGS, I think I'd drop the 2 Wear // Tear for 2 Smash.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Hello my fellow burn players!

    Some time ago, I posted a comprehensive sideboard guide for the modern burn deck here and on reddit, and was updating it from time to time. However, lately I got very busy IRL and could not keep the guide up to date with the current meta.

    This past few days I was at home sick, and found some time to update my guide. I proudly present it:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/163yoCtAmk4SvS0d2EhtpC-AodwX42YpVwMkpdmuRYZI/edit?usp=sharing

    Note this is the same link of the old one, so with you had it saved, it should still work.

    Some notes regarding the chosen list and sideboard:

    • Lately, I've found the green splash for Destructive Revelry lackluster, and often got mana screwed with some DRevs in my hand. So, I took the radical choice of going full Boros.
    • Why Wear // Tear and Shattering Spree over Smash to Smithereens? We need some enchantment removal to deal with pesky leylines (abundant in my local meta), and Shattering Spree is really good against lantern and affinity, also while being extraordinary against Chalice of the Void.
    • I took the choice of 2 Grim Lavamancer on the main instead of only one while keeping 20 lands. In order to do that, I moved 2 Skullcrack to the side, as in my local meta there is little lifegain around, and most of it comes from the sideboard. Also, my local meta is full of small creature decks, and lavamancer is a beast against them.

    As always, you can leave comments on the sideboard guide with suggestions. I hope this helps you guys!
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 15/01/18)
    My predictions for the PT:

    1. No Eldrazi Tron in the top 8
    2. 2 Lantern Control decks in the top 8
    3. No BGx/Tarmogoyf decks in the top 8

    A BOLD predction:
    • If there are at least 2 lantern and 2 affinity in the top 8, Mox Opal bites the dust.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    It sucks when you lose to a deck more than the player, which happens in modern quite a bit


    I think this is one of the major issues of the current modern meta. Often it seems like individual player skill is less of a factor in deciding the outcome of a match than the deck choice. There are lots of lopsided matches in modern, and even if you're the one of the best pilots of said deck, it doesn't really matter if you get paired against a bad matchup.

    For example, I'm a Burn player. If I get paired against Ad Nauseam, I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose, and there is little that I can do to win aside from crafting a sideboard dedicated to beat Ad Nauseam (which probably would make me vulnerable to other matchups). On the other hand, if I get paired against Storm, I'm pretty sure I'm going to win.

    I share the feeling that Modern currently is a big game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, and if you decide to play Rock, you'll always lose to Paper (with little that you can do to help you win that matchup), while always winning the Scissors matchups. It is clear that WotC likes this kind of meta. However, it also can be very frustrating to competitive players, because your performance seems to be more dependant on your luck in the pairings than in your skill in the game.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    I'm baffled that I think it is equally possible that either WotC could unban/ban cards just to shake up the meta going to the PT or they would unban/ban nothing because they think Modern has a healthy meta.

    However, I agree on terms that there are 5 "best decks" in the format. I think Death's Shadow, Scapeshift and Eldrazi Tron are all great decks, but I think Affinity and Storm are just not as good as them. I also think Burn is as strong as Affinity or Storm in the current meta.

    Maybe PT Rivals of Ixalan will show us which are the "true" best decks in the format.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Burn
    Two spicy Burn lists in the last SCG Modern Classic:

    http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=116403

    http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=116454

    Some interesting points:


    Any thoughts? Personally, I still can't understand the latest dissatisfaction with Eidolon and the reasons behind people moving away from it.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from RPD »
    @elconquistador1985 great primer! Lots of great information, but two things

    1) I think that the SB section promotes oversideboarding in some matchups. I can't speak about all of them, but vs knightfall (which I've played a ton) you should never bring cage in. it doesn't hit enough cards, any burn spell should be better than it.

    2) Have you thought about running the numbers on vexing devil? I like how your analysis reveals the common conception about creature quality (goblin guide is the best one, then eidolon and so on) and it would be great to see where vexing devil falls.


    1: That might be true. I think I kind of envisioned it as "things to consider when building a sideboard" rather than "things to sideboard", since there's no actual 15 card sideboard that section is going off of. I'll revisit that.


    What should we bring against Knightfall then? RIP, Paths and Palms (Palms only if we are on the draw)?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Burn
    Guys, how do you sideboard against Scapeshift?

    I'm running a pretty stock RWg list, the one with 4-ofs of everything, and 20 lands:



    On the play, I cut the 4 Searing Blaze and bring in 2 Path and 2 Destructive Revelry (as many Scapeshift players in my LGS bring in Chalice of the Void and Courser of Kruphix, and have mainboard Prismatic Omen).

    On the draw, I cut the 4 Searing Blaze, 2 Eidolons and a Mountain to bring in 3 Path, 2 Palm and 2 Revelry.

    What do you guys think of this sideboard plan?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    I was checking the Tier 1 (Modern) forum, and I realized that currently we got in Tier 1:

    • 2 Aggro decks (Affinity & Burn)
    • 2 Midrange decks (Death's Shadow & Eldrazi Tron)
    • 2 Combo decks (Storm & Scapeshift)
    • 1 Control deck (UW Control)

    I think this is the telling of a really nice and healthy meta.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Burn
    As a suggestion to the "Articles" section of the primer, I think it would be nice to have this one listed on the "ancient ones" subsection:

    http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3692_Whos_The_Beatdown.html

    I know it is not specifically about Burn or RDW, but it is a damn good article, and when I originally read it I felt like my eyes were open and my mind was blown.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from wolffman »
    It's like they know this deck is a problem, but just can't bring themselves to ban the actual storm cards and wipe it out of the format. Compared to how they completely removed other decks, it is odd that storm just keeps getting small nerfs. How many times do you have to ban cards from a deck before we admit it is just not healthy for the format?


    I have the same feeling. It looks like WotC thinks storm is important to the format, but they also think it can be broken af. Go figure.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.