I think the new Gideon is good against non interactive combo decks such as Ad Nauseam, however, as elconquistador1985 said, the double white makes it hard to maindeck. It seems like a decent sideboard card in decks like Abzan CoCo, maybe Bant Eldrazi.
However, this new Gideon isn't as good against Burn as white Leyline or Collective Brutality. We can easily kill him.
I've noticed that some burn players use Sudden Shock in their board. Is this just used as a guaranteed shock against control decks, or am I missing something else?
Sudden Shock lets us kill Sakura-Tribe Elder without letting the opponent sacrifice it in response. Also, it allows us to deal with infect creatures more efficiently as the opponent can't cast any pump spell on them. I'm not sure, but I think it kills Arcbound Ravager cleanly, without your opponent moving +1/+1 counters around.
So, it is a card to deal with pesky creatures, not to use against counterspell control. Against blue control we use Exquisite Firecraft
On the matter of Grim Lavamancer, I think it is meta-dependent. I think running 2 on the mainboard these days is too much. Maybe the right amount is to run only one mainboard.
That said, only testing will show how it should fit in a Burn deck. From the latest top 32 lists of GP Vancouver and SCG Indy, half of the burn decks ran no Lavamancers. There were 4 lists, 2 Naya (1 with Nacatl) and 2 Boros. The Nacatl list ran 1 Lavamancer, and one of the Boros lists ran 2 Lavamancers. I think this is inconclusive, and we shall wait to see what is the right approach.
I am testing a list with no Lavamancers, and will share my results with you. Maybe other people could do the same? I've noticed MagicDownUnder was running a Naya list without Lavamancers on MTGO to some success. Maybe he could give us some insight?
As elconquistador1985 said several times before, Boros isn't more consistent than Nacatl-less Naya. It is less painful, but is equally consistent to Naya. Less self-hurt does not equal to more consistency.
The consistency issues Naya had appeared from running Wild Nacatl. Without the cat, both decks run the same amount of creatures and burn spells, so there is no inconsistency here."Inconsistencies" due to mana fixing aren't much of a issue if you run the right amount of fetch lands (10-12 on Naya).
There is no consistency tradeoff between Nacatl-less Naya and Boros. There is a tradeoff between speed/explosiveness and a less painful landbase. However, if you're not running Nacatl, you can run both fastlands to try to make your landbase less painful.
I am increasingly finding him disapointing. I used to run 2 Lavamancers mainboard but recently cutted both from the deck, and added a 4th Path to Exile on the sideboard to improve the matchups against creature-based decks. He shines against infect, elves and the mirror. However, on all other matchups, I think he is too much slow. Do you guys think it is still worth it to mainboard him?
The fact that Exquisite Firecraft is legacy playable shows that it has the power for modern, it just isn't a good fit because the counter protection is not super relevant right now, 3 CMC, and sorcery speed.
I really want it to be good in Modern as I love the card, but I expect that won't happen unless mono-red becomes a reliable tier-1 option.
By that logic, Lodestone Golem had to be restricted in Vintage,so it clearly has the power to be absolutely broken in Modern. Firecraft is not a powerful card, it just happens to fit better in Legacy (where, as I understand it Burn is not a good deck to start).
At least be realistic and wish for chain lightning, what would be more realistic. price of progress would be way to broken in modern
We are not gonna get any of those lol. Chain lightning would be too good.
While i agree that we prob will not get any of these, where exactly is chain lightning too good? It is a sorcery bolt that your opp can copy -> strictly worse than lightning bolt which we have in modern
Chain lightning is worse than Lightning Bolt. No argument here.
However, it is 3 damage for R . We play Lava Spikes and Rift Bolts, and Chain Lightning is arguably better than both. Just see that in legacy people play 4 Chain Lightning mainboard. If it was modern legal, all Burn lists would run 4 copies of it.
The clause that people can copy it for RR is negligible in modern.
Also, it is unlikely that we will get 3 damage for R in standard. Recently, we got Incendiary Flow which is worst than Chain Lightning. I doubt wizards would print some bolt-esque card in standard in the forseeable future.
Is Kor Firewalker much too Narrow for its slots in the SB?
Its only really effective in one MU - not even Zoo really cares about it much.
Kor Firewalker is, on theory, the mirror-breaker. It is narrow, as it is a card we bring in only in the mirror. Most of top 32 burn lists either from GP Vancouver or SCG have cut him from the SB.
I think you can cut him if you don't expect to face a lot of burn in the field. I run it in my sideboard because there are some 3-4 other Burn players in my LGS.
I would like to reignite the Boros vs Naya discussion. Recently, on MTG Goldfish, Boros Burn is listed as having a greater meta share than Naya (not differentiating between Nacatl or No-catl, I think their Naya definition is to run Atarka's Command):
I, however, feel like Naya (without Nacatl) is the best current build, as it is equally consistent to Boros but faster, while with a little more self-hurt. However, the folks at MTG Goldfish seem to think otherwise. Personally, I think Boros Burn is best in an aggro-dominated (lots of affnity, zoo, death's shadow etc) meta, as it hurts itself less. Maybe its spike in popularity is a reaction to the current uprise of Affinity? However, I feel like Naya is best against Jund/Junk, Tron (all variants) and Valakut (all of them listed currently as tier 1 decks) decks as it is faster.
What I'm asking is, which build is the right meta call nowadays?
The Brain in the Jar deck probably would've beat me regardless, as I was land short, and never could gain momentum back.
I didn't sideboard properly for the Bogles deck. Although, I wasn't running the Anguished Unmakings that I wished I had had, I did have some Wear//Tear in my sideboard that I didn't bring in... Never saw the Leyline the first two matches, so didn't expect to see it... I think I just played sloppily to close, which was sort of frustrating since I started so strongly...
I see the merits of Jund burn, but I'm strictly Mardu... I think my black sideboarding options (when I sideboard correctly) help me more than just DRev will... I do see the power of Atarka's Command, though, but it doesn't entice me enough to drop black and go green for my 3rd color. I have had Rakdos Charm and Bump in the Night win me several games before, so I'm loyal to those cards and the Mardu configuration...
Not bringing in Wear/Tear is a clear cut mistake regardless of whether or not she had Leyline (which, for future reference, is a staple in Bogles sideboards). We can't reliably race the deck, so we need to interact with it to win, and enchantment removal is one of the best ways we can do that.
This. Also, another great sideboard card against Bogles is Deflecting Palm, as it does not target. Also, always bring in all your enchantment destruction to deal with Leylines and some nasty auras.
You should always have enchantment destruction in your sideboard to deal with Leyline, as it is a huge obstacle in our gameplan.
Why are people using Nacatl? Question is not meant to be accusatory, just want to gain some more general knowledge about burn. Reasons for against Nacatl in my experience with/against burn are:
-seems to require about 6 life to get a 3/3 that is dead to just about every piece of removal without gaining advantage
-does not seem to match up well against the pace of all of these eldrazi decks I am seeing come out of the woodworks
-seemed to have been good mainly against traditional TRON and infect, but I've been seeing a sharp decrease in those (by all means chime in on what I'm not seeing)
-doesn't have the same explosiveness as swiftspears or guide, factoring in removal at least
-is also a bad topdeck like most creatures except it doesn't allow the haste surprise factor
I have everything except nacatl but I am hesitating on picking them up as I do not see the advantage. I'm seeing a lot of eldrazi variants, grixis control, Jund/abzan, and burn as the main parts of my meta.
The safe way to rule out Nacatl is to do some testing. Its not an expensive card, so it should be easy to get a playset of them. That said, I can share my playtesting experience.
I was on Boros Burn and was willing to do the leap to Naya. I got a playset of Atarka's Command and Wild Nacatl, and some Stomping Grounds. I initially tested the Nacatl version against a diverse field (Infect, BW Tokens, Grishoalbrand, Jund, Junk, Grixis) and was utterly displeased with the cat. It felt like it did close to nothing, as not having haste is a deal braker to me. Atarka's Command on the other hand, overperformed and its the main reason Naya builds are faster than Boros builds.
Therefore, I decided on a Naya list without Nacatl. However, I can see why some people like to run it in Burn, as it makes the deck feel more like a creature-based aggro build such as RDW or zoo with lots of reach in the burn spells. However, that's not how you should want to play Burn. Burn is a lot more akin to combo decks than to Zoo decks or Red Deck Wins. Your goal with the deck is to resolve 7 spells (3 * 7 = 21), not to have a wide board with lots of creatures.
Round 1: Owling Mine (2-0)
Round 2: Jund (2-1)
Round 3: Cheerios (2-0)
Round 4: GW Tron (2-0)
Round 5: BUG Control (1-2)
Round 6: Death's Shadow Aggro (2-1)
Round 7: Naya Burn (No Nacatl) (2-0)
Round 8: Living End (2-0)
Round 9: Scapeshift (ID into top 8)
Quarterfinals: Scapeshift (From round 9) (2-0)
Semifinals: Skred Red (2-1)
Finals: GW Tron (2-1)
I have to say I was extremely lucky during the whole event. This was my first time joining an event with this many people (around 240). You could call it beginner's luck. There were a few misplays but luck was still on my side. I might post a more detailed report soon, but if anyone has a specific question, feel free to ask.
I believe Naya Burn (no nacatl) was a good meta call for this event. There were a lot of Tron players and dodging some match-ups played a significant role towards winning the event.
I'm thankful to the community since I've read a lot from this forum and other sites. It helped me gain knowledge on how to play certain match-ups and what to expect from each deck.
I checked your list, and noticed you don't run either Kor Firewalker nor Dragon's Claw. Do you missed them? You said you lost the mirror, maybe it was due to the lack of a mirror-breaker such as those cards?
What are your feelings on the single Shard Volley mainboard? What's the reasoning behind running it? Wouldn't a Skullcrack or a Lightning Helix be better in its place?
Also, I'm really interested in a detailed report, if you write it I'll check it for sure! Grats on the win, my friend!
So based on the fact that there's more cheap removal flying around, I've decided to bench the Nacatls and test out Jund Burn. One of my friends has been grinding with it on MTGO to pretty good results. Here's the 75 I intend to test initially:
I think the 60 is pretty ironclad, but the sideboard is another story. I'm not very convinced by Dragon's Claw, but my friend swears by it. I also think I want a few more Fatal Pushes for the likes of Eldrazi and Jund. Any thoughts?
You should defintely be running some amount of Skullcrack in the 75. Personally, I dislike Shard Volley, so I would replace them for 2 Skullcracks.
Also, Fatal Push is the black replacement for Path to Exile, so it is definitely worth running some amount of them. However, you're packing a full set of Searing Blood which along with 2 Fatal Push is, in my opinion, too much removal. If your meta is aggro/creature heavy, I would run a 2/2 split of Fatal Push and Searing Blood and put 2 Skullcracks in the SB. If you're not running that much into aggro, I would recommend running 3 Push and 3 Skullcrack and leave the Searing Blood out of your 75 (if you want to keep 2 Shard Volleys MB).
Dragon's Claw is a decent replacement for Kor Firewalker when you don't have access to white mana, so I think it is fine to run them. I know some Naya Burn players who run them in the side instead of Kor Firewalker for the surprise factor, so it is a legit card to consider. Maybe 4 is too much to run on the SB, I would run 2 or 3.
That said, here's my suggestion for your sideboard:
I want to run 19 lands (really don't want to go 20 lands), with 4 shocklands and 2 mountains for sure. Help me decide on the right amount of fetches and fastlands:
If I run 11 fetches, that would leave me with only 2 fastland spots. Should I do a split of 1 Inspiring Vantage and 1 Copperline Gorge or go for 2 Vantages (as I'm running more white than green spells)?
If I run 10 fetches, I would have 3 fastland spots, and I could run 2 Inspiring Vantages and 1 Copperline Gorge. However, I'm not sold on the 10 fetchland plan. Would the extra fastland compensate less fetches?
I feel like we don't need land destruction in the SB. The matchups where it would be relevant are already good matchups for us (Tron, Scapeshift) and you have other ways to deal with Inkmoth Nexus (Path, Bolt and even Destructive Revelry because the Inkmoth Nexus becomes an artifact creature when activated).
So, I think when you put Molten Rain in the SB you are taking a slot of what could be a relevant card.
However, this new Gideon isn't as good against Burn as white Leyline or Collective Brutality. We can easily kill him.
Sudden Shock lets us kill Sakura-Tribe Elder without letting the opponent sacrifice it in response. Also, it allows us to deal with infect creatures more efficiently as the opponent can't cast any pump spell on them. I'm not sure, but I think it kills Arcbound Ravager cleanly, without your opponent moving +1/+1 counters around.
So, it is a card to deal with pesky creatures, not to use against counterspell control. Against blue control we use Exquisite Firecraft
That said, only testing will show how it should fit in a Burn deck. From the latest top 32 lists of GP Vancouver and SCG Indy, half of the burn decks ran no Lavamancers. There were 4 lists, 2 Naya (1 with Nacatl) and 2 Boros. The Nacatl list ran 1 Lavamancer, and one of the Boros lists ran 2 Lavamancers. I think this is inconclusive, and we shall wait to see what is the right approach.
I am testing a list with no Lavamancers, and will share my results with you. Maybe other people could do the same? I've noticed MagicDownUnder was running a Naya list without Lavamancers on MTGO to some success. Maybe he could give us some insight?
The consistency issues Naya had appeared from running Wild Nacatl. Without the cat, both decks run the same amount of creatures and burn spells, so there is no inconsistency here."Inconsistencies" due to mana fixing aren't much of a issue if you run the right amount of fetch lands (10-12 on Naya).
There is no consistency tradeoff between Nacatl-less Naya and Boros. There is a tradeoff between speed/explosiveness and a less painful landbase. However, if you're not running Nacatl, you can run both fastlands to try to make your landbase less painful.
I am increasingly finding him disapointing. I used to run 2 Lavamancers mainboard but recently cutted both from the deck, and added a 4th Path to Exile on the sideboard to improve the matchups against creature-based decks. He shines against infect, elves and the mirror. However, on all other matchups, I think he is too much slow. Do you guys think it is still worth it to mainboard him?
Chain lightning is worse than Lightning Bolt. No argument here.
However, it is 3 damage for R . We play Lava Spikes and Rift Bolts, and Chain Lightning is arguably better than both. Just see that in legacy people play 4 Chain Lightning mainboard. If it was modern legal, all Burn lists would run 4 copies of it.
The clause that people can copy it for RR is negligible in modern.
Also, it is unlikely that we will get 3 damage for R in standard. Recently, we got Incendiary Flow which is worst than Chain Lightning. I doubt wizards would print some bolt-esque card in standard in the forseeable future.
Kor Firewalker is, on theory, the mirror-breaker. It is narrow, as it is a card we bring in only in the mirror. Most of top 32 burn lists either from GP Vancouver or SCG have cut him from the SB.
I think you can cut him if you don't expect to face a lot of burn in the field. I run it in my sideboard because there are some 3-4 other Burn players in my LGS.
I would like to reignite the Boros vs Naya discussion. Recently, on MTG Goldfish, Boros Burn is listed as having a greater meta share than Naya (not differentiating between Nacatl or No-catl, I think their Naya definition is to run Atarka's Command):
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern#paper
http://imgur.com/a/B3iV1
Also, Modern Nexus seems to corroborate the metagame, but it does not differentiate Boros from Naya:
http://modernnexus.com/metagame-breakdown-jan-17/
I, however, feel like Naya (without Nacatl) is the best current build, as it is equally consistent to Boros but faster, while with a little more self-hurt. However, the folks at MTG Goldfish seem to think otherwise. Personally, I think Boros Burn is best in an aggro-dominated (lots of affnity, zoo, death's shadow etc) meta, as it hurts itself less. Maybe its spike in popularity is a reaction to the current uprise of Affinity? However, I feel like Naya is best against Jund/Junk, Tron (all variants) and Valakut (all of them listed currently as tier 1 decks) decks as it is faster.
What I'm asking is, which build is the right meta call nowadays?
This. Also, another great sideboard card against Bogles is Deflecting Palm, as it does not target. Also, always bring in all your enchantment destruction to deal with Leylines and some nasty auras.
You should always have enchantment destruction in your sideboard to deal with Leyline, as it is a huge obstacle in our gameplan.
The safe way to rule out Nacatl is to do some testing. Its not an expensive card, so it should be easy to get a playset of them. That said, I can share my playtesting experience.
I was on Boros Burn and was willing to do the leap to Naya. I got a playset of Atarka's Command and Wild Nacatl, and some Stomping Grounds. I initially tested the Nacatl version against a diverse field (Infect, BW Tokens, Grishoalbrand, Jund, Junk, Grixis) and was utterly displeased with the cat. It felt like it did close to nothing, as not having haste is a deal braker to me. Atarka's Command on the other hand, overperformed and its the main reason Naya builds are faster than Boros builds.
Therefore, I decided on a Naya list without Nacatl. However, I can see why some people like to run it in Burn, as it makes the deck feel more like a creature-based aggro build such as RDW or zoo with lots of reach in the burn spells. However, that's not how you should want to play Burn. Burn is a lot more akin to combo decks than to Zoo decks or Red Deck Wins. Your goal with the deck is to resolve 7 spells (3 * 7 = 21), not to have a wide board with lots of creatures.
However, I think the question is still relevant, as I would like to know his thoughts on not running Kor Firewalker or Dragon's Claw.
Thanks for the heads up!
I checked your list, and noticed you don't run either Kor Firewalker nor Dragon's Claw. Do you missed them? You said you lost the mirror, maybe it was due to the lack of a mirror-breaker such as those cards?
What are your feelings on the single Shard Volley mainboard? What's the reasoning behind running it? Wouldn't a Skullcrack or a Lightning Helix be better in its place?
Also, I'm really interested in a detailed report, if you write it I'll check it for sure! Grats on the win, my friend!
You should defintely be running some amount of Skullcrack in the 75. Personally, I dislike Shard Volley, so I would replace them for 2 Skullcracks.
Also, Fatal Push is the black replacement for Path to Exile, so it is definitely worth running some amount of them. However, you're packing a full set of Searing Blood which along with 2 Fatal Push is, in my opinion, too much removal. If your meta is aggro/creature heavy, I would run a 2/2 split of Fatal Push and Searing Blood and put 2 Skullcracks in the SB. If you're not running that much into aggro, I would recommend running 3 Push and 3 Skullcrack and leave the Searing Blood out of your 75 (if you want to keep 2 Shard Volleys MB).
Dragon's Claw is a decent replacement for Kor Firewalker when you don't have access to white mana, so I think it is fine to run them. I know some Naya Burn players who run them in the side instead of Kor Firewalker for the surprise factor, so it is a legit card to consider. Maybe 4 is too much to run on the SB, I would run 2 or 3.
That said, here's my suggestion for your sideboard:
4 Destructive Revelry
3 Dragon's Claw
3 Fatal Push
3 Skullcrack
1 Grafdigger's Cage
1 Searing Blood
I'm having a hard time deciding the land base for my Nacatl-less Naya Burn deck:
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
2 up to 3 Arid Mesa
1 up to 2 Inspiring Vantage
0 up to 1 Copperline Gorge
2 Stomping Ground
2 Sacred Foundry
2 Mountain
Creatures
4 Goblin Guide
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Searing Blaze
4 Boros Charm
4 Atarka's Command
3 Lightning Helix
4 Rift Bolt
3 Path to Exile
2 Kor Firewalker
3 Skullcrack
1 Lightning Helix
2 Deflecting Palm
4 Destructive Revelry
I want to run 19 lands (really don't want to go 20 lands), with 4 shocklands and 2 mountains for sure. Help me decide on the right amount of fetches and fastlands:
Thanks for the help!
So, I think when you put Molten Rain in the SB you are taking a slot of what could be a relevant card.
Thats my 2 cents.