I've been testing Leyline of Combustion, and I actually like it more than I thought I would. It's a nice hedge against fair, interactive midrange/control decks, as well as combo-based decks that target you. I would put it in the same category as Exquisite Firecraft. It's by no means a requirement in a Burn board, but if you have space and you aren't really sure what to fill it with, it's a really decent choice against a variety of matches.
At FNM tonight my Rakdos Burn got matched up with Boros Burn. Game-one - after finally winning a die roll! - I drew four B spells and three lands. I thought I had made a mistake keeping it when I realized it was three Gonti's Machinations and one Bump in the Night - I thought at first it was two and two - but it turned out really well. Won going away.
He got the second game. I might have took it but I drew all four Skullcracks and didn't get the fourth land until it was too late. I wound up one point of damage short.
Something similar happened to him the last game I think; too many two drops. He had to use burn to keep Goblin Guides from killing him and I squeaked it out.
After initially hating it, I'm warming up to GM; I'm learning to use it better and I suppose I may just keep it for now.
Humorously, after losing about a million auctions for Sunbaked Canyons on eBay, there was one in the prize pack I got for second place!
Gonti's Machinations is so slept on, it's unreal. Unfortunately I can't really recommend it anymore, because Sunbaked Canyon is just that good, and I don't think we can reliably run three colors with the low land count needed for burn. Still, that card is no joke.
M20 Chandra might have been worth it if it said you cast without paying (probably would have played 2, honestly). I don't want to pay 4 mana to recur a bolt and then 5 total for 2 of them. You have to be flooding to even play it (need 4 lands in play), otherwise you pay 3 mana to roll it up and do nothing, hope it lives a turn, and then get some use out of it. Cool card, but not good enough.
Wop wop, that's what I get for not knowing how to read. I thought you could cast it for free. Ah well.
Three mana is asking a decent amount, but recasting your best spell in your graveyard is a hell of a reward. Even if it dies after one use, which is likely, at worst it could be a functional hardcasted Rift Bolt or Skewer. I don't think a one-two of is a bad idea.
I don't think it's a meta call to say that this hurts Burn more than any other deck in the format. Combo decks can more easily sculpt hands, and fair decks can more easily find silver bullet answers, or have to mulligan to 5 less often. One of Burn's biggest strengths is consistency, due to the nature of the deck. Everyone else just got consistency baked into their game plan, which is arguably a good thing. But it also means everybody got a shot in the arm but us. We're already suffering in terms of how often we show up versus how well we do. We did get Skewer the Critics, and that definitely helps. But other game plans are getting more amd more tools, and we didn't really get much in Horizons. The land helps but we really did need something that hits harder. We don't have the speed and game-breaking ability of traditional combo decks. And we can't afford the answers of traditional fair decks. Graveyard-based strategies have gotten stronger and faster, giving aggro decks another avenue aside from the traditional curve-out route (and will benefit strongly from the London mulligan). What's worse, Burn LOOKS like it's doing really well, because people still play it all the time, so I'm not expecting a fix any time soon. I think we're in for a bumpy ride.
I'm worried about Burn's ability to keep up with the modern decks of today. We're always going to be represented because of our reputation and low financial barrier to entry. But our performance has been suffering for awhile now. I expected something in Horizons to help us out, but we didn't really get anything. The new land is great but not exactly enough. Meanwhile a bunch of other decks got new tools, not to mention any breakout decks that may come from the set. Decks these days are fast and resilient, and don't harm themselves through their manabases as much as they used to. If the London Mulligan goes into effect, I think it'll be another nail in us. Burn won't drop off by any means, but it's getting harder for me to consider it a pillar of Modern when talking solely about performance.
I think 8 fetches and 3 mountains are a good starting point for grim and blaze. From there, I'd think 2 Foundry, 2 Vantage, and 4 Canyon rounds it out nicely. I'm not opposed to 3 and 3 for vantage and canyon, but I'd lean towards 4 Canyon.
You wouldn't have any desire or idea of how to calculate the % chance to find a fetch by turn 2 given a range of fetch numbers, would you elcon?
The fastland/canyon interaction isn't a huge deal. Just worth keeping in mind. There's going to be trade offs no matter what, but Blaze is one of the most boarded out cards we run, and usually I want to blaze a blocker to let my creatures swing through. It's a nerf, for sure, but it could well be worth it.
EDIT: In addition, this list has 18 lands which I know is less than what most people play. And you could easily cut a Foundry and/or basic for more fetches.6-8 fetches with 4 canyons and 4 vantages is totally doable if you feel the need.
With this manabase you get 15 sources for White, enough for over 95% consistency at seeing White on turn 2 according to Frank Karsten. You also get the optimal chance to play quick fastlands, the optimal chance for Canyon card draw when you empty your hand, 3 fetchable White sources and 3 basics. Your Blaze game might suffer a bit, and Lavamancer if you play him. But it might be worth it for how much you can have your cake and eat it, too. Also worth noting, the new land and the fastlands play well together in that you can sac the new land to bring your land count down, potentially letting you play a fastland untapped.
Is Diabolic Edict enough to cut Path from decks, for those wanting to eschew White? Can you think of a time when we need targetted removal versus decks that would have multiple creatures on the board?
I think expecting to bank on having five mana is a tall order, to be honest. I'm hopeful that we get something in this set, but I'm not sure Firebolt is it.
I've been slowly acquiring cards for Modern Burn during the last years and I've finally put it together. I plan to bring it to GP Sao Paulo!
Since I'm new to the deck, I came here with tons of questions. I got really impressed with the primer, it answered most of them and brought lots of high quality info, analysis, guides...
I saw many recent lists don't bring Enchantment hate. How do you feel about that?
I have some copies of Wear/Tear but could also splash green for Cindervines or Destructive Revelry.
Any sideboard plans for the Izzet Phoenix matchup? I understand it is favorable one, but is it worth to bring something in?
I think which enchantment hate, if any, to play is one of the most interesting aspects of Burn right now, mostly because a lot of the other questions have been 100% solved. It's definitely a metagame call, but I'm assuming you're talking about the general metagame. Elcon posts monthly Burn hate updates, which I highly recommend reviewing and basing your decisions off of. The big ones we have to worry about are Leyline of Sanctity and Worship. Bogles and Ad Nauseum both play other enchantments that are hard for us to deal with, but those matchups are so difficult it could be argued it's best to accept the loss versus them if those are the only reasons to play enchantment hate.
Neither Leyline or Worship are very popular right now. So, it might be the right call to give up enchantment hate in favor of something like Smash to Smithereens to get damage in. At the same time, you have to accept that if you do see Leyline or Worship, there's a strong chance you've just lost (playing Bump in the Night and Gonti's Machinations helps versus Worship, and Atarka's Command and Gonti's Machinations helps against Leyline). This also means you don't have to splash for enchantment hate, although pretty much all competitive Burn decks play at least one other color anyways for unconditional removal of some sort.
It might be that the correct call is to give up enchantment hate, but I think opportunity cost is another valuable thing to consider. How much would giving three damage up in exchange for Wear/Tear, or one damage up in exchange for Revelry/Cindervines, really hurt the deck? If we assume that the fastest we can consistently kill is turn four, we intend to see eleven cards of our deck. Seven of those cards being burn spells lets us deal 21 damage, and we craft a manabase optimizing our chances to see 2-3 lands throughout the game. That means we have 9-10 of those cards spoken for, so theoretically we should be able to afford at least one card that doesn't deal damage, but helps our gameplan in a significant way (such as Wear/Tear for a Leyline). This could mean that even if enchantments aren't incredibly popular, it's still worth hedging our bets and packing them in the sideboard on the off chance we see them, since mathematically we should be able to afford it.
BUT that in itself is wrong, because it doesn't take disruption into account. Inquisition of Kozilek? There goes your one non-damage card. Kitchen Finks? There goes your one non-damage card. Mulliganing? There goes your one non-damage card. There's so many ways to band-aid our initial kill, that I think we have to use those extra slots as insurance anyways. Having said that, though, Consistency is the other great strength of Burn, and it doesn't matter if we can't turn 4 kill if we keep drawing Lava Spikes to close the game out. Disruption makes us stumble, but a clock makes us lose, so then the question becomes "exactly how much, mathematically, does it matter to not be able to kill on turn 4?" and I have absolutely no idea how to answer that.
Btw has anyone tested cindervines over drev? (not just theorycrafted)
Reasons why it was good / bad?
I've tested it a lot actually. I'm at work right now so excuse my lack of notes as backup. It's both better and worse depending on your matchup and meta.
Better against spell heavy decks. It wrecks UW control, jeskai control, solid against a grindy burn mirror (terrible if mirror has a nut draw though). It was awesome vs kci and is decent against storm. Basically longer matches and/or higher spell density is where it shines.
The antithesis and where it's worse is fast aggro matches with lots of creatures. It isn't on the board long enough to make a difference with ping damage here. It's also substantially worse vs artifacts or enchantments that need to be removed immediately ie- leylines, chalice etc. Here, you always need to hold an extra mana up to make it worthwhile and can't remove chalice 1 until turn 3 at the earliest.
I like reverly better in the end for two reasons. First, it's faster instant speed interaction. Second, the decks where cindervines is great, we already have a good matchup. It felt win more to me.
I've also tested Cindervines and I support this interpretation. Cindervines is more flexible, and Revelry is more immediate. I actually prefer Vines, because I feel like versus Leyline/Chalice decks, you want to tap out to play your destruction spell on turn two anyways and hopefully swing with the creature you played on turn one. So, I think you can afford the time to pop it on turn three for a mana, since you weren't using any more mana on turn two anyways. Having said that, this does give them a whole turn to deal with the enchantment, although I'm not sure who would have enchantment hate against us post-board. I am also aware that using a mana to pop Cindervines could potentially mean another burn spell that you can't play on turn three. Nevertheless, I think the flexibility against control/spell heavy decks is worth the extra turn, but that's a preference. I think it's a deceptively personal choice, and there's no "this one is better, always" answer.
Gonti's Machinations is so slept on, it's unreal. Unfortunately I can't really recommend it anymore, because Sunbaked Canyon is just that good, and I don't think we can reliably run three colors with the low land count needed for burn. Still, that card is no joke.
Wop wop, that's what I get for not knowing how to read. I thought you could cast it for free. Ah well.
You wouldn't have any desire or idea of how to calculate the % chance to find a fetch by turn 2 given a range of fetch numbers, would you elcon?
EDIT: In addition, this list has 18 lands which I know is less than what most people play. And you could easily cut a Foundry and/or basic for more fetches.6-8 fetches with 4 canyons and 4 vantages is totally doable if you feel the need.
4x Inspiring Vantage
4x Sunbaked Canyon
4x Arid Mesa
3x Sacred Foundry
3x Mountain
With this manabase you get 15 sources for White, enough for over 95% consistency at seeing White on turn 2 according to Frank Karsten. You also get the optimal chance to play quick fastlands, the optimal chance for Canyon card draw when you empty your hand, 3 fetchable White sources and 3 basics. Your Blaze game might suffer a bit, and Lavamancer if you play him. But it might be worth it for how much you can have your cake and eat it, too. Also worth noting, the new land and the fastlands play well together in that you can sac the new land to bring your land count down, potentially letting you play a fastland untapped.
I think which enchantment hate, if any, to play is one of the most interesting aspects of Burn right now, mostly because a lot of the other questions have been 100% solved. It's definitely a metagame call, but I'm assuming you're talking about the general metagame. Elcon posts monthly Burn hate updates, which I highly recommend reviewing and basing your decisions off of. The big ones we have to worry about are Leyline of Sanctity and Worship. Bogles and Ad Nauseum both play other enchantments that are hard for us to deal with, but those matchups are so difficult it could be argued it's best to accept the loss versus them if those are the only reasons to play enchantment hate.
Neither Leyline or Worship are very popular right now. So, it might be the right call to give up enchantment hate in favor of something like Smash to Smithereens to get damage in. At the same time, you have to accept that if you do see Leyline or Worship, there's a strong chance you've just lost (playing Bump in the Night and Gonti's Machinations helps versus Worship, and Atarka's Command and Gonti's Machinations helps against Leyline). This also means you don't have to splash for enchantment hate, although pretty much all competitive Burn decks play at least one other color anyways for unconditional removal of some sort.
It might be that the correct call is to give up enchantment hate, but I think opportunity cost is another valuable thing to consider. How much would giving three damage up in exchange for Wear/Tear, or one damage up in exchange for Revelry/Cindervines, really hurt the deck? If we assume that the fastest we can consistently kill is turn four, we intend to see eleven cards of our deck. Seven of those cards being burn spells lets us deal 21 damage, and we craft a manabase optimizing our chances to see 2-3 lands throughout the game. That means we have 9-10 of those cards spoken for, so theoretically we should be able to afford at least one card that doesn't deal damage, but helps our gameplan in a significant way (such as Wear/Tear for a Leyline). This could mean that even if enchantments aren't incredibly popular, it's still worth hedging our bets and packing them in the sideboard on the off chance we see them, since mathematically we should be able to afford it.
BUT that in itself is wrong, because it doesn't take disruption into account. Inquisition of Kozilek? There goes your one non-damage card. Kitchen Finks? There goes your one non-damage card. Mulliganing? There goes your one non-damage card. There's so many ways to band-aid our initial kill, that I think we have to use those extra slots as insurance anyways. Having said that, though, Consistency is the other great strength of Burn, and it doesn't matter if we can't turn 4 kill if we keep drawing Lava Spikes to close the game out. Disruption makes us stumble, but a clock makes us lose, so then the question becomes "exactly how much, mathematically, does it matter to not be able to kill on turn 4?" and I have absolutely no idea how to answer that.
I've also tested Cindervines and I support this interpretation. Cindervines is more flexible, and Revelry is more immediate. I actually prefer Vines, because I feel like versus Leyline/Chalice decks, you want to tap out to play your destruction spell on turn two anyways and hopefully swing with the creature you played on turn one. So, I think you can afford the time to pop it on turn three for a mana, since you weren't using any more mana on turn two anyways. Having said that, this does give them a whole turn to deal with the enchantment, although I'm not sure who would have enchantment hate against us post-board. I am also aware that using a mana to pop Cindervines could potentially mean another burn spell that you can't play on turn three. Nevertheless, I think the flexibility against control/spell heavy decks is worth the extra turn, but that's a preference. I think it's a deceptively personal choice, and there's no "this one is better, always" answer.