Dismember is not strictly worse than Terminate. It's actually a pet card of mine. It's fine when run in the flex spot. But my attempts to replace 1 Terminate with it have failed rather spectacularly. I also tried 2 Dismembers, 0 Terminates. It hurt.
Dismember adds more flexibility to the deck than a 3rd Terminate, but it's often worse than the 1st and 2nd Terminate.
Against fast aggro decks, Dismember tends to be as awkward as Thoughtseize, whereas Terminate is usually a good card to have. It is also noteworthy that Dismember can't reliably kill Death's Shadow, or any creature in Affinity when Arcbound Ravager is around. The inability to kill Primeval Titan doesn't matter that much, because once it has hit the table, we are probably losing the game anyway. But a 1/1 Wurmcoil Engine is still a formidable blocker. On the plus side, Dismember can kill Rhonas the Indomitable and (attacking) Gideon, Ally of Zendikar.
From my experience, Dismember mostly competes with the 3rd Stubborn Denial or the single Lightning Bolt for the flex slot. In a metagame with lots of Eldrazi Tron, it might be good enough to replace the 4th Fatal Push. But Terminate is one of the top 3 creature removal spells in the format, whereas Dismember mostly sees play in nonblack decks that would probably run a Terminate in their colors over it if they could. In our deck, it can double as yet another lifeloss outlet. But we mostly need additional lifeloss against decks that don't do any damage to us in the early game. But these decks are often light on creatures, so Dismember is not that helpful in that regard in practice.
Dreadbore is like a bad Terminate 90% of the time, which is still OK. But it's considerably worse than Terminate against Affinity. So I would suggest to back it up with Izzet Staticaster, perhaps Kozilek's Return, and two maindeck Terminates. I consider Dreadbore mostly a sideboard alternative to having a single Dismember maindeck in a metagame with lots of big creature decks and the occasional planeswalker.
Well, my whole point was that the burn player was not forced to adjust their tactics (much) in this game. Going for the second Goblin Guide would have been a way of playing with Death's Shadow in mind. Our burn player doesn't put that much thought into the game. Our burn player just wants maximum possible damage. I also don't think that attacking with two Goblin Guides would have been strictly better. Since the Shadow player has an uncracked fetch at this point, they would have been guaranteed to make use of both Goblin Guide triggers. It would also have given away the information that the Burn player was working with a rather creature-heavy hand.
MTGO is still in extended maintenance, so lets play a little game here.
Lets assume we play Burn on the draw and are up against Grixis Shadow. We won game 1 and lost game 2, so we know what they are working with and can decide to hold back on spells if necessary. Our hand consists of the following cards:
That's a decent hand with a fairly even distribution of the things that we run in our deck. Eidolon of the Great Revel might have been even better against Grixis Shadow and these are not our best burn spells. But having two early creatures is good on the play. This hand is an easy keep.
Turn 5 Burn: We draw another Monastery Swiftspear. We cast Skullcrack, ending the game. (Life totals: Burn 8 vs. Grixis Shadow -1)
This is a fairly typical game from my experience, given that the Burn player goes first. We had a very balanced draw, not a particularly great one. Our first three draws were also pretty average: A creature, a land and a burn spell. The fourth draw could have been anything. Our creatures effectively dealt only 2 damage each, but they kept our opponent fairly busy. If we had drawn a second CMC1 burn spell, the game could have ended a turn earlier.
Our opponent had to deal with a suboptimal mana situation and they missed their 4th land drop on turn 4. This is fairly common with Grixis Shadow, though. They had a turn 2 Tasigur and a turn 3 Death's Shadow without digging, so their threat situation was probably above average. Maybe they shouldn't have terminated Goblin Guide on turn 4, if they had something else to do. But that would have given the Burn player another turn or more, depending on what we draw.
We as the Burn player were almost on auto pilot. There were basically two decisions we had to make:
1) On our turn 3, we could have killed Tasigur, the Golden Fang with Lightning Helix instead of bolting face. Given how much creature removal Grixis Shadow packs, this was an easy decision.
2) On our turn 4, we could have cast Boros Charm or Skullcrack instead of just passing the turn. But they had an open blue mana source at that point. This decision was very easy.
Yes, the game could have become more open if they had been able to play a Death's Shadow on turn 2. But the chance for this to happen was below 50%. They also wouldn't have been able to block on turn 2 without risking to lose their Death's Shadow if we had attacked with only one of our Goblin Guides (unless they kept their Street Wraiths in).
In the end, it didn't even matter whether we cast Boros Charm or Skullcrack during their end step on turn 4, assuming that they didn't have some very exotic cards in their deck to somehow counter the second spell.
According to BloodyRabbit_01:
90% of Burn players are bad at Magic.
The example above shows that sometimes it doesn't matter how good or bad they are. Without a turn 2 Death's Shadow or something really good like a Collective Brutality, the game was nearly unwinnable for the Grixis Shadow player - mostly because the Burn player went first.
Of course, not every game is that easy for the Burn player. But my point is that a fair margin of the games against Grixis Shadow are just that. They don't require the Burn player to hold back anything longer than usual. It gets even easier when the Grixis Shadow player has to dig for their threats or is stuck on two lands or flooded or doesn't draw enough removal spells or doesn't have Stubborn Denial when needed. Yes, the burn player can screw up too. But I haven't seen this happen often. They effectively play a one-color deck with a splash and they are even better at operating on low mana than us.
I can agree with most of what you wrote, Spooly. I'd like to add that I also won a bunch of games because my Burn opponent was holding back on spells because they (wrongly) assumed that my deck was in the beatdown role.
There is also one statement in your post I don't really agree with:
You have to make sure you can kill the Shadow player quickly enough that if they drop a Shadow and have Stub backup on their next turn, you're not just dead.
No, you don't have to make this sure. You can read the game state for some time and then make assumptions on how likely a certain situation is going to happen. Sometimes, you will be wrong. But in such a tight matchup, it's usually sufficient to be right most of the time.
Furthermore, if I recall right, you have been running Mana Leak in place of Inquisition of Kozilek most of the time. This changes the Burn matchup quite a bit in your favor, because you have a direct answer to Eidolon which they will likely not be aware of at the start of the game. It also means that you are less likely to end up with uncastable discard spells once they have emptied their hand. As long as they don't have enough lands to play around Mana Leak, you can completely control the game if they empty their hand. With Inquisition of Kozilek, it's almost the other way around.
I'd like to point out some statements I don't fully agree with - which doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong and I really like Bauzzy's approach of looking at what the other deck can do.
From my experience, it's nearly impossible to outrace them with Delve creatures. We need an early Shadow for this to work.
What are some of our opponent's best cards against us: Eidolon of the Great Revel, Rift Bolt (it allows them to delay damage a turn so they can play many spells in one turn)
I agree with you on Eidolon, but I view Rift Bolt as one of their weaker burn spells. Once it is suspended, they can't control it. So if we drop a Death's Shadow on our turn, they will usually bolt us anyway. If they have Monastery Swiftspear in play and suspend Rift Bolt, we know beforehand that we might want to kill that Swiftspear soon. If we have Stubborn Denial in hand, we know that there will be a burn spell for us to counter next turn. So Rift Bolt often makes it easier for us to plan our next steps.
What's the opponent thinking: Since DS isn't a fast deck I have time to build up a critical mass of burn spells that I can play at the end of their turn, untap and do a bunch more. Let the DS player damage themselves and don't help them play get to under thirteen to play a shadow.
I played dozens of matches against burn players of varying skill levels on MTGO, and not even half of them embarked on this strategy. When the burn matchup was discussed in this thread a while ago, several people made statements like "but the good burn players do". I didn't agree back then and I agree even less by now. I have lost numerous games against burn players that emptied their hand as quickly as possible. Obviously, they didn't cast instant burn spells on their turn if they didn't have to, but for the most part, they played against my deck just like they would play against other midrange decks.
So why did it work? I don't think it was because I'm a bad player. I'd like to pretend to be slightly above average. But I can be wrong. So keep that in mind. Anyway, I put quite a bit of thought in how this matchup plays out.
First of all, as long was we don't have Death's Shadow in play, there is no punishment for burning us out. If the game goes quickly, we won't have Death's Shadow about 40% of the time (I didn't do the exact math, but it seems to be around that mark). So, roughly 40% of the time, burning us out is probably already the best strategy. In game 2 and 3 they can bring in cards from the sideboard that support this strategy. With 2 copies of Deflecting Palm and 3 copies of Path to Exile, they have a pretty good shot at neutralizing our first Death's Shadow at the expense of a small setback in speed. Once again, this supports the strategy of burning us out quickly better than the strategy of holding back on burn spells. If they wait too long, we might get a second Death's Shadow or finish them or take over the game with Snapcaster Mage.
Another important aspect of this matchup is the fact that they usually run 12 creatures. That's a very low number for an aggro deck. It means that in some games, we might end up with a bunch of unusable creature removal spells in hand. If they empty their hand quickly instead of waiting, we will get less value from our discard spells as well, amplifying the effect. Collective Brutality can mitigate this problem somewhat, but we usually have only two of these in the sideboard. On the other hand, there can be games where the burn player has more creatures than we can handle with the number of removal spells we draw. In this case, they can again aggressively go after our life total and then chump block our Death's Shadow in the late game.
Furthermore, Grixis Shadow decks have evolved over time, albeit only slightly. But the evolution that has taken place has not changed the Burn matchup for the better. Early incarnations of our deck ran at least 2 Lightning Bolts and often a Temur Battle Rage or even two in place of Terminate. Current lists tend to make room for cards like Liliana of the Veil (yet another reason for the burn player to empty their hand fast) and Dismember, in an effort to improve their matchup against midrange decks and the mirror.
But I hear you say: There are lists that run 3 Stubborn Denials and 4 Fatal Push instead of the 2 Stubborn Denials, 3 Fatal Pushes and 2 Lightning Bolts of old. That might even be better, you say, because it doesn't require red mana!
But it isn't, mainly for two reasons:
Firstly, Lightning Bolt is part of the solution for the too many/too few creature removals dilemma outlined above. Lightning Bolt also makes it considerably harder for the burn player to plan their sequencing. They will often have to play with the possibility of bolt-snap-bolt in mind. Against Burn, Lightning Bolt is almost strictly better than Fatal Push once we have a red mana source (which isn't that hard to obtain).
Secondly, the sideboard of the early Grixis Shadow often contained the 3rd and 4th Stubborn Denial and the 4th Fatal Push. Often, they had also a sixth decent card against Burn, so that they cut all but 2 Thoughtseizes after sideboarding. On the contrary, many of today's Grixis Shadow struggle to replace even the 4th Street Wraith and might end up bringing in clunky cards like Dreadbore. The reason for the direction our sideboards have taken is probably that we are very much focused on the lists that ended up making top 8 or top 32 at large events. More often than not, these decks are piloted by pro players that get a few byes instead of having to grind through the entire field. So they can often afford a loss or two against the fast aggro decks, freeing up valuable sideboard slots for the deck archetypes that dominate at the top tables. When we bring our Grixis Shadow deck to a local tournament, we will often be faced with a different environment.
So, these are the reasons why I think that burning us out quickly instead of holding back is a valid strategy for the burn player and nothing that they should be looked down upon for. Our deck has more and more evolved into a value-orientated midrange deck with a twist. So fighting it - mostly - like a midrange deck seems legit to me.
What's the sideboard plan: Worse cards in the matchup: Street Wraith, Kolaghan's Command, Terminate, Thoughtseize (that's 12 cards depending on the list)
Terminate and Kolaghan's Command are a little slow in this matchup, but not actively bad. In the past, switching out a Kolaghan's Command for a Fulminator Mage (which, while a little awkward, might occasionally win the day) was something that could be considered. But since we don't run these anymore, we no longer have that option.
My sideboard plan right now (-4 Wraiths, -1 Kommand, +2 Stubborn Denial, +2 Collective Brutality, +1 Temur Battle Rage). I leave in Thoughtseize because Eidolon is very scary and I need to remove it from their hand)
That's interesting. I kind of like Kolaghan's Command against burn. It also deals with Eidolon, at the same cost of lifeloss and has various other applications once we have enough mana. Being stuck on 4 Thoughtseizes in game 2 and 3 feels bad.
What's the best cards in their sideboard: Path, RIP/other GY Hate, Deflecting Palm, Grim Lavamancer
I wouldn't bring Grim Lavamancer if I was the burn player. The risk of giving Grixis Shadow an extra bang out of Collective Brutality is very real. As the burn player, I would value my cards on how much damage they are likely to do. Grim Lavamancer will likely do no damage and doesn't work in conjunction with Rest in Peace that might be worth bringing in.
What's their worse cards in the matchup: Searing Blaze, Skullcrack,
You are definitely right about Searing Blaze, but Skullcrack is one of their better burn spells. They know we will bring two copies of Collective Brutality, so I fully expect them to leave Skullcrack in.
Any more comments on the Burn matchup from anyone else would be helpful for me if there's more insight.
There you go. This is not my first posting on that topic. We had a nice discussion on page 50 of this thread, and it wasn't the first one.
I've only played it twice, but it felt really bad both times. Spot removal is just atrocious against Mogg War Marshall and Krenko's Command, and Goblin Bushwhacker is a beating. I boarded in 2 K Return, 1 Staticaster, and 2 P&K (among other things), but you gotta draw them, and you gotta not die before you can cast them. It's like playing against Elves, except they can burn your out without having a pile of dudes in play. I don't see how it could be a good matchup.
I've played it about 15 times. Elves is slower, but has much better creatures and lots of options to turn the game around. That's why it is tier 2 and Goblins is somewhere around tier 4. The main reason Goblins is played is because it's cheap to build.
I have won more matches against Goblins than I have lost, probably around 60%, maybe even more. If this matchup feels nearly unwinnable, it might have to do with your build. Or it's just bad luck.
The old stock list with 2 Lightning Bolts, 3 Fatal Pushes, 2 Terminates and 2 Stubborn Denials is really good in this matchup. Inquisition of Kozilek and Snapcaster Mage have been the best cards in the MD for me, aided by two copies of LtLH, one copy of Kozilek's Return and one copy of Izzet Staticaster (which is totally devastating) from the side.
Once the initial rush is stopped, LtLH protected by a fatty can completely overtake the game. It's not even close at this point, unless they draw several burn spells in a row, of which they only play 8 ... and half of them require an alive goblin, which is often a rare thing at this point. Almost their entire deck, with the exception of Lightning Bolt and Mogg Fanatic, operates at sorcery speed. Their "card advantage engine" is usually Mogg War Marshal. I have seen them run Tormod's Crypt over Relic of Progenitus. Their late game plan is almost in-existent.
Burn has been a much harder matchup than Goblins for me so far. If my opponent plays a Mountain on turn 1, I usually breath out in relief when I see a Foundry Street Denizen. They always seem to have it.
OK, darksteel88, you have finally convinced me to give Liliana of the Veil another try. I had to sell several of my pet cards on MTGO in order to obtain two copies. You will be held personally responsible if Liliana does not perform well! (just kidding )
Uh, that one slipped through. I will edit it out. Thank you!
Regarding Surgical Extraction: I was firmly on the Nihil Spellbomb side when Surgical Extraction was still very popular. But when I switched from Anger of the Gods to Flaying Tendrils because of Affinity, I wanted an efficient way of getting rid of Prized Amalgam. Surgical Extraction has been fine for the most part, taking out thoughtseized Primeval Titans, exiling targets for Goryo's Vengeance and making sure that Empty the Warrens is gone for good. I missed Nihil Spellbomb in some of the midrange-y matchups, though not desperately so.
As it is, I'm still torn between the two cards. But seeing that the pro-level players are all on Nihil Spellbomb (or Leyline of the Void in one case), I might just be wrong in my newfound appreciation for Surgical Extraction.
Event is Team Constructed, not Team Unified though. Legacy member of a team using Surgical Extractions wouldn't exclude the Modern teammate from doing the same.
Thank you for the correction. I mixed it up and will edit it out to prevent confusion.
Thanks for posting these. Some additional observations:
- 2 Liliana, the Last Hope in Rob Long's maindeck, but no Kolaghan's Command
- 2 Temur Battle Rages in Dan Jessup's sideboard (none in the other decks)
- 1 Claim // Fame in Rob Long's sideboard (none in the other decks)
- All but Kendall Burdette's sideboard down to 2 Ceremonious Rejections
- Not a single Surgical Extraction in any of the sideboards
Maybe some time in the future, but I don't think it will happen soon, reasons:
The metagame has adjusted to the presence of Death's Shadow decks and looks healthy and diverse.
Grixis Shadow has not put up many spectacular finishes in recent major events, despite being played by some of the best players.
The deck is not easy to learn or easy to master. I've seen flavor of the month players move on fairly quickly. Other decks, like Eldrazi Tron, require considerable less understanding of the other decks in the format.
The Grixis version of the deck keeps some of the degenerate combo decks in check that WotC has been concerned about in the past, most notably Gifts Storm.
The Death's Shadow decks helped making blue a viable color in Modern again, both directly (in case of Grixis Shadow) and indirectly (by helping UWx control decks climb back to tier 2).
Compared to some of the other established archetypes, Grixis Shadow is not overly oppressive or linear. Games involving this deck are often fun to watch (at least for me). Also, the mirror is usually a lot more interesting than games revolving around the question who assembles Tron first.
The game plan of decks built around Death's Shadow can be attacked from multiple angles, unlike decks like Dredge that force many decks to dedicate one third of the sideboard to very specific cards.
WotC pointed out the issue of growing "ban fatigue" themselves.
Modern was just made a pro tour format again, scheduled for February 2018. Standard will completely reshape in September 2017 when 2 blocks leave the format. I doubt that WotC is also going to stir up Modern with a series of bans.
If they ban one card, it will likely be Death's Shadow. A Street Wraith ban might not be enough if the Death's Shadow decks really overtake the format. Currently, the metagame share of Grixis Shadow seems to go down.
There is a SCG going on, is the deck dominant on this tournament as well?
You can check out the twitch stream by yourself. It's a team event, so many decks are already known from what is displayed in the stream. It doesn't look as if many players went with the deck, so the answer is probably "no".
Affinity is now the number one deck in mtgoldfish's Modern Metagame Breakdown. The list is certainly not 100% accurate and we will never have exact numbers, but this is a good sign nonetheless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Against fast aggro decks, Dismember tends to be as awkward as Thoughtseize, whereas Terminate is usually a good card to have. It is also noteworthy that Dismember can't reliably kill Death's Shadow, or any creature in Affinity when Arcbound Ravager is around. The inability to kill Primeval Titan doesn't matter that much, because once it has hit the table, we are probably losing the game anyway. But a 1/1 Wurmcoil Engine is still a formidable blocker. On the plus side, Dismember can kill Rhonas the Indomitable and (attacking) Gideon, Ally of Zendikar.
From my experience, Dismember mostly competes with the 3rd Stubborn Denial or the single Lightning Bolt for the flex slot. In a metagame with lots of Eldrazi Tron, it might be good enough to replace the 4th Fatal Push. But Terminate is one of the top 3 creature removal spells in the format, whereas Dismember mostly sees play in nonblack decks that would probably run a Terminate in their colors over it if they could. In our deck, it can double as yet another lifeloss outlet. But we mostly need additional lifeloss against decks that don't do any damage to us in the early game. But these decks are often light on creatures, so Dismember is not that helpful in that regard in practice.
Dreadbore is like a bad Terminate 90% of the time, which is still OK. But it's considerably worse than Terminate against Affinity. So I would suggest to back it up with Izzet Staticaster, perhaps Kozilek's Return, and two maindeck Terminates. I consider Dreadbore mostly a sideboard alternative to having a single Dismember maindeck in a metagame with lots of big creature decks and the occasional planeswalker.
Lets assume we play Burn on the draw and are up against Grixis Shadow. We won game 1 and lost game 2, so we know what they are working with and can decide to hold back on spells if necessary. Our hand consists of the following cards:
Wooded Foothills, Inspiring Vantage, Lava Spike, Lightning Helix, Skullcrack, Monastery Swiftspear, Goblin Guide.
That's a decent hand with a fairly even distribution of the things that we run in our deck. Eidolon of the Great Revel might have been even better against Grixis Shadow and these are not our best burn spells. But having two early creatures is good on the play. This hand is an easy keep.
Turn 1 Burn: We play Inspiring Vantage, cast Goblin Guide, attack, revealing Terminate. (Life totals: Burn 20 vs. Grixis Shadow 18)
Turn 1 Grixis Shadow: They play Bloodstained Mire and pass the turn.
Turn 2 Burn: We draw a second Goblin Guide. We cast Monastery Swiftspear, play Wooded Foothills, crack it and fetch a Mountain. We cast Lava Spike, triggering Prowess. We attack with Goblin Guide and Monastery Swiftspear. They crack their Bloodstained Mire, fetch Watery Grave and cast Fatal Push on our Monastery Swiftspear, killing it. Goblin Guide reveals Kolaghan's Command. (Life totals: Burn 19 vs. Grixis Shadow 10)
Turn 2 Grixis Shadow: They play Thought Scour in their upkeep, milling away Kolaghan's Command and Scalding Tarn. They play a Blood Crypt untapped and cast Tasigur, the Golden Fang. (Life totals: Burn 19 vs. Grixis Shadow 8)
Turn 3 Burn: We draw a Mountain. We play it and cast Goblin Guide. We attack with both Goblin Guides, revealing Polluted Delta (which goes to our opponent's hand) and Death's Shadow. Tasigur, the Golden Fang blocks Goblin Guide, killing it. We bolt face with with Lightning Helix. (Life totals: Burn 22 vs. Grixis Shadow 3)
Turn 3 Grixis Shadow: They attack with Tasigur, the Golden Fang. They play Polluted Delta. They cast Death's Shadow, tapping Blood Crypt. (Life totals: Burn 18 vs. Grixis Shadow 3)
Turn 4 Burn: We draw a Boros Charm and pass the turn.
Turn 4 Grixis Shadow: They crack Polluted Delta and fetch Island. They cast Terminate, killing our Goblin Guide. They attack with Death's Shadow. We cast Boros Charm in their end step, which they counter with Stubborn Denial (Life totals: Burn 8 vs. Grixis Shadow 2)
Turn 5 Burn: We draw another Monastery Swiftspear. We cast Skullcrack, ending the game. (Life totals: Burn 8 vs. Grixis Shadow -1)
This is a fairly typical game from my experience, given that the Burn player goes first. We had a very balanced draw, not a particularly great one. Our first three draws were also pretty average: A creature, a land and a burn spell. The fourth draw could have been anything. Our creatures effectively dealt only 2 damage each, but they kept our opponent fairly busy. If we had drawn a second CMC1 burn spell, the game could have ended a turn earlier.
Our opponent had to deal with a suboptimal mana situation and they missed their 4th land drop on turn 4. This is fairly common with Grixis Shadow, though. They had a turn 2 Tasigur and a turn 3 Death's Shadow without digging, so their threat situation was probably above average. Maybe they shouldn't have terminated Goblin Guide on turn 4, if they had something else to do. But that would have given the Burn player another turn or more, depending on what we draw.
We as the Burn player were almost on auto pilot. There were basically two decisions we had to make:
1) On our turn 3, we could have killed Tasigur, the Golden Fang with Lightning Helix instead of bolting face. Given how much creature removal Grixis Shadow packs, this was an easy decision.
2) On our turn 4, we could have cast Boros Charm or Skullcrack instead of just passing the turn. But they had an open blue mana source at that point. This decision was very easy.
Yes, the game could have become more open if they had been able to play a Death's Shadow on turn 2. But the chance for this to happen was below 50%. They also wouldn't have been able to block on turn 2 without risking to lose their Death's Shadow if we had attacked with only one of our Goblin Guides (unless they kept their Street Wraiths in).
In the end, it didn't even matter whether we cast Boros Charm or Skullcrack during their end step on turn 4, assuming that they didn't have some very exotic cards in their deck to somehow counter the second spell.
According to BloodyRabbit_01: The example above shows that sometimes it doesn't matter how good or bad they are. Without a turn 2 Death's Shadow or something really good like a Collective Brutality, the game was nearly unwinnable for the Grixis Shadow player - mostly because the Burn player went first.
Of course, not every game is that easy for the Burn player. But my point is that a fair margin of the games against Grixis Shadow are just that. They don't require the Burn player to hold back anything longer than usual. It gets even easier when the Grixis Shadow player has to dig for their threats or is stuck on two lands or flooded or doesn't draw enough removal spells or doesn't have Stubborn Denial when needed. Yes, the burn player can screw up too. But I haven't seen this happen often. They effectively play a one-color deck with a splash and they are even better at operating on low mana than us.
There is also one statement in your post I don't really agree with: No, you don't have to make this sure. You can read the game state for some time and then make assumptions on how likely a certain situation is going to happen. Sometimes, you will be wrong. But in such a tight matchup, it's usually sufficient to be right most of the time.
Furthermore, if I recall right, you have been running Mana Leak in place of Inquisition of Kozilek most of the time. This changes the Burn matchup quite a bit in your favor, because you have a direct answer to Eidolon which they will likely not be aware of at the start of the game. It also means that you are less likely to end up with uncastable discard spells once they have emptied their hand. As long as they don't have enough lands to play around Mana Leak, you can completely control the game if they empty their hand. With Inquisition of Kozilek, it's almost the other way around.
So why did it work? I don't think it was because I'm a bad player. I'd like to pretend to be slightly above average. But I can be wrong. So keep that in mind. Anyway, I put quite a bit of thought in how this matchup plays out.
First of all, as long was we don't have Death's Shadow in play, there is no punishment for burning us out. If the game goes quickly, we won't have Death's Shadow about 40% of the time (I didn't do the exact math, but it seems to be around that mark). So, roughly 40% of the time, burning us out is probably already the best strategy. In game 2 and 3 they can bring in cards from the sideboard that support this strategy. With 2 copies of Deflecting Palm and 3 copies of Path to Exile, they have a pretty good shot at neutralizing our first Death's Shadow at the expense of a small setback in speed. Once again, this supports the strategy of burning us out quickly better than the strategy of holding back on burn spells. If they wait too long, we might get a second Death's Shadow or finish them or take over the game with Snapcaster Mage.
Another important aspect of this matchup is the fact that they usually run 12 creatures. That's a very low number for an aggro deck. It means that in some games, we might end up with a bunch of unusable creature removal spells in hand. If they empty their hand quickly instead of waiting, we will get less value from our discard spells as well, amplifying the effect. Collective Brutality can mitigate this problem somewhat, but we usually have only two of these in the sideboard. On the other hand, there can be games where the burn player has more creatures than we can handle with the number of removal spells we draw. In this case, they can again aggressively go after our life total and then chump block our Death's Shadow in the late game.
Furthermore, Grixis Shadow decks have evolved over time, albeit only slightly. But the evolution that has taken place has not changed the Burn matchup for the better. Early incarnations of our deck ran at least 2 Lightning Bolts and often a Temur Battle Rage or even two in place of Terminate. Current lists tend to make room for cards like Liliana of the Veil (yet another reason for the burn player to empty their hand fast) and Dismember, in an effort to improve their matchup against midrange decks and the mirror.
But I hear you say: There are lists that run 3 Stubborn Denials and 4 Fatal Push instead of the 2 Stubborn Denials, 3 Fatal Pushes and 2 Lightning Bolts of old. That might even be better, you say, because it doesn't require red mana!
But it isn't, mainly for two reasons:
Firstly, Lightning Bolt is part of the solution for the too many/too few creature removals dilemma outlined above. Lightning Bolt also makes it considerably harder for the burn player to plan their sequencing. They will often have to play with the possibility of bolt-snap-bolt in mind. Against Burn, Lightning Bolt is almost strictly better than Fatal Push once we have a red mana source (which isn't that hard to obtain).
Secondly, the sideboard of the early Grixis Shadow often contained the 3rd and 4th Stubborn Denial and the 4th Fatal Push. Often, they had also a sixth decent card against Burn, so that they cut all but 2 Thoughtseizes after sideboarding. On the contrary, many of today's Grixis Shadow struggle to replace even the 4th Street Wraith and might end up bringing in clunky cards like Dreadbore. The reason for the direction our sideboards have taken is probably that we are very much focused on the lists that ended up making top 8 or top 32 at large events. More often than not, these decks are piloted by pro players that get a few byes instead of having to grind through the entire field. So they can often afford a loss or two against the fast aggro decks, freeing up valuable sideboard slots for the deck archetypes that dominate at the top tables. When we bring our Grixis Shadow deck to a local tournament, we will often be faced with a different environment.
So, these are the reasons why I think that burning us out quickly instead of holding back is a valid strategy for the burn player and nothing that they should be looked down upon for. Our deck has more and more evolved into a value-orientated midrange deck with a twist. So fighting it - mostly - like a midrange deck seems legit to me. Terminate and Kolaghan's Command are a little slow in this matchup, but not actively bad. In the past, switching out a Kolaghan's Command for a Fulminator Mage (which, while a little awkward, might occasionally win the day) was something that could be considered. But since we don't run these anymore, we no longer have that option. That's interesting. I kind of like Kolaghan's Command against burn. It also deals with Eidolon, at the same cost of lifeloss and has various other applications once we have enough mana. Being stuck on 4 Thoughtseizes in game 2 and 3 feels bad. I wouldn't bring Grim Lavamancer if I was the burn player. The risk of giving Grixis Shadow an extra bang out of Collective Brutality is very real. As the burn player, I would value my cards on how much damage they are likely to do. Grim Lavamancer will likely do no damage and doesn't work in conjunction with Rest in Peace that might be worth bringing in. You are definitely right about Searing Blaze, but Skullcrack is one of their better burn spells. They know we will bring two copies of Collective Brutality, so I fully expect them to leave Skullcrack in. There you go. This is not my first posting on that topic. We had a nice discussion on page 50 of this thread, and it wasn't the first one.
The old stock list with 2 Lightning Bolts, 3 Fatal Pushes, 2 Terminates and 2 Stubborn Denials is really good in this matchup. Inquisition of Kozilek and Snapcaster Mage have been the best cards in the MD for me, aided by two copies of LtLH, one copy of Kozilek's Return and one copy of Izzet Staticaster (which is totally devastating) from the side.
Once the initial rush is stopped, LtLH protected by a fatty can completely overtake the game. It's not even close at this point, unless they draw several burn spells in a row, of which they only play 8 ... and half of them require an alive goblin, which is often a rare thing at this point. Almost their entire deck, with the exception of Lightning Bolt and Mogg Fanatic, operates at sorcery speed. Their "card advantage engine" is usually Mogg War Marshal. I have seen them run Tormod's Crypt over Relic of Progenitus. Their late game plan is almost in-existent.
Burn has been a much harder matchup than Goblins for me so far. If my opponent plays a Mountain on turn 1, I usually breath out in relief when I see a Foundry Street Denizen. They always seem to have it.
Regarding Surgical Extraction: I was firmly on the Nihil Spellbomb side when Surgical Extraction was still very popular. But when I switched from Anger of the Gods to Flaying Tendrils because of Affinity, I wanted an efficient way of getting rid of Prized Amalgam. Surgical Extraction has been fine for the most part, taking out thoughtseized Primeval Titans, exiling targets for Goryo's Vengeance and making sure that Empty the Warrens is gone for good. I missed Nihil Spellbomb in some of the midrange-y matchups, though not desperately so.
As it is, I'm still torn between the two cards. But seeing that the pro-level players are all on Nihil Spellbomb (or Leyline of the Void in one case), I might just be wrong in my newfound appreciation for Surgical Extraction.
- 2 Liliana, the Last Hope in Rob Long's maindeck, but no Kolaghan's Command
- 2 Temur Battle Rages in Dan Jessup's sideboard (none in the other decks)
- 1 Claim // Fame in Rob Long's sideboard (none in the other decks)
- All but Kendall Burdette's sideboard down to 2 Ceremonious Rejections
- Not a single Surgical Extraction in any of the sideboards