I might be late to the party, but are we going to run some numbers of Sunbaked Canyon? I'm thinking a playset, but I just wanna be sure. It can be a lot of bleeding on our part, but I know the power of Horizon canopy in an aggro deck and I'm pretty sure burn wants its own version.
Monastery Swiftspear has not felt good for me. It isn't really her fault, it's just Skewer the Critics and sometimes Rift Bolt don't work well with her.
First let's consider replacements for Swifty, I'm considering one or two copies of Shard Volley, one additional copy of Lavaman, and . . . Well? I've got one copy of Gonti's Machinations but I don't like it. I really want to stick with one-drops. I might try one copy of Light up the Stage.
Monastery Swiftspear, Skewer the critics and Rift bolt (I will also add Eidolon of the great revel and Goblin guide to the list) are all cards that should pretty much be ran at 4 in like 99% of burn list, no matter the color combo or their unwillingness to cooperate with swiftspear's prowess trigger. Swiftspear make a quite convincing impersonation of Goblin Guide a good chunk of the time and that's good enought to place her as the second or third best creature choice for burn.
I'm not a fan of Light up the stage. Card draw in burn is usually something to pass as running more burn spell over it is usually better. However, a rakdos burn list is probably the best place to test it since we have an even lower mana curve than classic/boros burn thanks to bumbs in the night and Gonti's machinations. Speaking of which, Gonti's machinations is kind of a polarizing card from what I've seen in this primer. It's either you run four or none at all, and most people seem to vouch for none. I personally think it's pretty decent and can't convince myself not playing them in my rakdos burn. Each time I cut them, I end up bringing them back in.
Now go ahead and gripe about Dragonskull Summit and there not being enough fetches
This is getting pretty meta.
The Blood Moon strategy would be to swap the Bumps for them and one other card. It's probably a bad idea but I think I will test it further.
The Bridges may be another questionable call, but I think I will test them as well.
I'd usually shun both, but they are acceptable if your meta calls for it. I ran some bridges myself when Eldrazies were popular.
Sulfuric vortex would be spicy to get. I'm excited to see what's coming.
Sulfuric Vortex Chain Lightning Fireblast Flame rift Price of Progress (One can dream all right...)
Gimme any of these and I'll be the happiest burn player alive. In fact the printing of any of these in modern would finally enable an actually playable Monored burn list.
Some have called to Treasure Cruise as an analogy for LUtS (I shared what's written below on Reddit the other day). I think that they aren't as close as people would like to believe, because draw 3 is significantly better than draw 2. Let's assume that a deck is 2/3 Burn spells, which assumes that creatures are always live draws (which isn't necessarily true) and let's ignore that Rift Bolt is almost a dead draw with LutS. We'll also assume that whatever we draw with LutS is definitely getting played this turn it next turn, rather than left in exile.
With draw 2, your outcomes are 1/9 to draw 0 spells, 4/9 to draw 1 spell, and 4/9 to draw 2 spells. LutS draws 1.33 Burn spells on average, but with some variance. It's worth 2 only 44% of the time. When you draw 1, you're basically adding a tax of R to that spell and that happens 44% of the time. That's too high for my liking.
With draw 3, it's 1/27 to draw 0, 2/9 to draw 1, 4/9 to draw 2, and 8/27 to draw 3. Treasure Cruise draws 2 Burn spells on average, also with some variance. It's worth more than 1 almost 75% of the time. I'm willing to pay a tax of 1/2U or 1/3U for the spells I draw, and the tax of U for 1 spell only happens 22% of the time.
Put another way, LutS has a 55% probability of what I consider to be bad outcomes (0 or 1 spell) because those outcomes imply that simply playing Lightning Strike in place of LutS would have been an equal or better outcome. TC has only a 25% of those same bad outcomes.
In order for me to accept that playing LUtS is worth it, I'd have to convince myself that "R: draw 2 lands" is a good outcome for the reason of "you just moved them off the top of the deck". At present, I regard that as a bad outcome. Think of it this way, instead of paying mana for a burn spell and drawing lands the next 2 turns, you pay mana to move 2 lands off you're deck and get a slightly higher probability to draw a non-land next draw step. The first situation may cause a loss, or it could cause a win if the burn spell you had instead of LUtS wins now.
And now I know why card draw failed me everytime I tried it in burn. That was a fantastic post. Saving this quote for any time I get the wrong urge to run card draw/filtering in my burn.
I don't think he's high on LUtS in Burn, but just acknowledging that some are.
I'm not a fan either, but I didn't test it yet. Most of the "Card draw" I've tested in burn didn't turn out great, but maybe it's gonna be different this time. It's the first card draw spell in red that's both one mana and a draw 2, which is technically a +1 and it's easy to enable the spectacle in burn. We can't cast it on turn 1 which is kind of a big deal and there's definitely some awkward scenarios of card exiled (two lands, two 2-mana cards that you don't have time to cast, etc), but Light up the stage still looks very good. It bring the old question of how good must a "draw" card be to be ran in burn tho.
We don't want Browbeat or Risk factor because 3 mana and we give the choice to our opponent. Even if both choices are arguably good for us, they're not straight draw power cards. We don't run Faithless looting or Cathartic reunion because they're not a +1 (Hell, faithless is a -1) and it's mana spent on card filtering instead of burning. If deck thinning was our problem, we'd be running Street wraith and Mishra's Bauble. Fantastic cantrips, but wraith is dangerous in this aggro meta, and Bauble is kinda slow, AND running either or both of those options will make mulligans really risky.
Idealy we'd want to BURN while drawing, but the cards we have that do this are kind of mediocre (See Needle drop, Electrolyze, Magma Jet)
So it's definitely the +1 for one mana that warms people up to Light up the stage, but is it really good enough for burn or are we wasting time not burning stuff?
I don't think cindervines is playable. 3cmc drev is terrible and I don't think that the pseudo-pyrostatic pillar is worth it.
My thought exactly. If we are to play enchantment hate in the side, we want it as soon as possible (and/or with added damage). I know Cindervines is technically played on turn 2, but you can't crack it until you get that third mana and so it doesn't allow me to get rid of cards like Leyline of sanctity until turn 3. Destructive revelry does it with one less mana, and that's usually one less turn for my bolts to sit in my hand. (It's also instant speed)
I want to focus on Collision // Colossus and your general comment on pump spells for a sec. Pump spell are not burn spell and have unfortunately no place in burn unless some burn effect is attached to it (See Atarka's command). We need way more creature than 12/14 creatures for a pump spell to be even decent, let alone in burn. The potential +4 damage on a creature swing is unfortunately offset by it's dependence on the presence of said creature which makes the card worhtless by itself, unlike AC that can still do 3 damage on its own with the potential for more. And there's also removal to account for.
We could get the creature count up, but then we become more akin to a zoo deck, and it's not really the place to talk about this. (don't think zoo want that either, which would mean an even bigger no in burn.) Pump spell has always been more of a thing for infect. The explosive potential is there, but removal is a little too prevalent, and we just don't run enough creature to make pump spells worthwhile in burn.
EDIT: Oh, and while we're at it, if you run white mana, you run Boros Charm. No questions.
I think the best that we can do to fill out those last 4 slots is 2 Shard Volley and (Shudders) 2 Lightning Strike. The argument for Lightning Strike is that if you are playing a mono-red deck where you aren't taking damage from your shocklands, then Lightning Strike looks a little bit like Lightning Helix if you squint your eyes just right. [Quote]Ultimately though, I think that if I'm having to put copies of Lightning Strike in my Modern Burn deck just to make it work then something has gone horribly wrong.
Still, budget red deck will get a significant boost from the printing of Skewer the critics. Until we get some better thing(s) to fully go mono red competitively, I will probably splash green for enchantment removal (Because my hatred for Leyline of sanctity is eternal). Closest to monored I'll get for now is probably something like this:
Phew. It's been a while since I made a sideboard without white or black cards...we're kinda low on interesting options in red/colorless, especially when skullcrack is already in the main. And while green offers Destructive revelry and atarka's command, it really doesn't offer much more.
What about a few Gut Shot to round out the mono red list? It was suggested in a linked list a few pages back as a card to help with explosive openings involving Swiftspear and Skewer the Critics. It’s weak in burn overall, but does seem to provide unexpected power. Outside of mono red there are better options.
I see where you're coming from and I also saw that list (thread's been very busy had a lot of catching up reading to do), but gosh... even in the good scenarios that's just 2 damage for a card. Granted with no mana, but still every other scenario it's just one damage. I don't thinke we'll run into a lot of scenario where we just can't cast Skewer the critics.
ARGHH!!! We are this close to having an actually playable mono-red list it's not even funny! Like, the first 56 or so cards write themselves, but I just can't figure out what else to play without splashing any color(s).
This is probably crazy, but...
Is it possible that a Mardu version of the deck at 19 lands wants a 1 of Mana Confluence in place of a shockland? I haven't built a 3 color mana base for this deck ever. Just thinking that a mana confluence would allow us to keep more 1 and 2 land hands without the need to mulligan. Assuming we are using the shockland untapped, that is equal to 2 turns of use vs. mana confluence. If it's only a 1 of, we can save it for our last land in hand when need be. It could help in some fringe situations where you need to cast 2 bump in the nights in the same turn, or boros charm plus path to exile.
I'm sure there are some math wizards out there who could help figure out if this helps with our mulligans and gameplay. Haven't tested this. Considering the deck should become faster with the addition of Skewer the Critics, could this land be more helpful and less painful than it looks?
If I were to go for a rainbow land in my manabase, I would personally go for Gemstone mine. The downside is there, but there's a lot of games where I was able to deal with it and no life loss is absolutely fantastic when racing. with that being said, It cannot be fetched and I Still would not recommend it over just running more shocklands unless you're trying to go four colors.
I think a comparison to browbeat is fair. Let me point out that Risk factor is obviously better than browbeat for two reasons: It's an instant and it has Jump-start. The one less damage is a downside, but it's easy to overlook when you can potentially cast the spell twice. It's a potential 8 dmg spell and even more depending on what you draw if your opponent lets you draw, which he probably will considering the deck we want to play it in is burn.
However, "Potential" imply a lot of things going your way (AKA your opponent making bad choice) and Risk factor suffer the same problem browbeat does in this sense: if your opponent lets you draw the cards (which he probably will), we basically wasted a turn doing no damage or way less damage than we could have done. Don't forget that three mana is a lot to ask of burn. There are games where we don't even see the third land and assuming you'll have a fourth land out of your draw is not wise (Hell I'm stuck at one mana some games, but then again I'm at 18 lands :P). Not to mention you'll cast it during your turn if you want to drop a land for a potential burn spell, and that's assuming the burn spell(s) you draw are 1 CMC. We also have to assume that any card we discard for the jump-start has to be a land, for any other discard is a mistake.
We also assume that the max potential of the card is achieved when it's been casted twice, and that's TWO turn / SIX mana that is not spent on burning your opponent.
another thing: assuming a scenario where we have ten card drawn by turn 4, three are lands and six are 1-CMC, 3-DMG burn spells and one is risk factor. off course, all the burn spells have been casted. Opponnent is still at 2 life. Now I have to cast risk factor and it has to draw me both a land and another 1-CMC 3 dmg burn spell. if the burn spell(s) I draw are 2 CMC or I don't draw a land, I have to wait around doing nothing until turn 5 arrives, which is an additional turn my opponent could win. If Risk factor had been ANY other burn spell, this game would already be over.
There's a reason we didn't play, or stopped playing Browbeat in the first place: three mana for potentially no damage just to secure our next few turns is not something we want in burn when in most scenario where Browbeat can be cast, just another burn spell can do the trick and actually seal the game. seven is the magic number of burn spell you usually need to kill someone, and if one of those spell is replaced by a Browbeat or a Risk factor, we basically slow oursleves down by one turn. Also, I cannot imagine a scenario where I both cast and Jump-start Risk factor without being very behind in the game.
As much as I like the card, I'm siding with elconquistador1985 on this one.
SO. As a big fan of Rakdos/FakeJund burn, I do really think Assassin's trophy has a valuable place in our sideboard. As a four-of it allows ut to run fewer (if any at all) of the "necessary" sideboards cards like Destructive revelry while filling the role of Path to exile (Without exiling), something the closest we had until now was Fatal Push and go for the Throat. I mean, that's CRAZY powerful and running it take the place of so many card we'd run. The only downside I can see is that GB ask a lot of our manabase has we still want every source of mana to still be able to produce R. dropping this turn 2 means fetching two shocklands, getting lucky with the fastlands or running tri-color/rainbow lands like mana confluence or gemstone mine.
I know the single basic Swamp might be controversial, but at this point I have twelve maindeck sources of Burn that require black and only four maindeck sources that require exactly two red. In addition, much of the land hate in Modern lets me search for a basic and put it into play. This prevents me from being shut off of black and also essentially negates Blood Moon for me. I do believe it's worth testing specifically for this list.
I did test a list with the twelve black card you're running with no swamp and I did feel like a swamp could be something I'd want, but in the end you really do need red more. The last thing you want if you're stuck at one land is to be stuck on a nonred one. I'd say up the blood crypt + Fetch ratio and/or start running blackcleave cliffs or Sulfurous springs instead.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
I'm not a fan of Light up the stage. Card draw in burn is usually something to pass as running more burn spell over it is usually better. However, a rakdos burn list is probably the best place to test it since we have an even lower mana curve than classic/boros burn thanks to bumbs in the night and Gonti's machinations. Speaking of which, Gonti's machinations is kind of a polarizing card from what I've seen in this primer. It's either you run four or none at all, and most people seem to vouch for none. I personally think it's pretty decent and can't convince myself not playing them in my rakdos burn. Each time I cut them, I end up bringing them back in.
This is getting pretty meta.
I'd usually shun both, but they are acceptable if your meta calls for it. I ran some bridges myself when Eldrazies were popular.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
Chain Lightning
Fireblast
Flame rift
Price of Progress (One can dream all right...)
Gimme any of these and I'll be the happiest burn player alive. In fact the printing of any of these in modern would finally enable an actually playable Monored burn list.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
We don't want Browbeat or Risk factor because 3 mana and we give the choice to our opponent. Even if both choices are arguably good for us, they're not straight draw power cards. We don't run Faithless looting or Cathartic reunion because they're not a +1 (Hell, faithless is a -1) and it's mana spent on card filtering instead of burning. If deck thinning was our problem, we'd be running Street wraith and Mishra's Bauble. Fantastic cantrips, but wraith is dangerous in this aggro meta, and Bauble is kinda slow, AND running either or both of those options will make mulligans really risky.
Idealy we'd want to BURN while drawing, but the cards we have that do this are kind of mediocre (See Needle drop, Electrolyze, Magma Jet)
So it's definitely the +1 for one mana that warms people up to Light up the stage, but is it really good enough for burn or are we wasting time not burning stuff?
"To burn or not to burn. That is the question."
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
I want to focus on Collision // Colossus and your general comment on pump spells for a sec. Pump spell are not burn spell and have unfortunately no place in burn unless some burn effect is attached to it (See Atarka's command). We need way more creature than 12/14 creatures for a pump spell to be even decent, let alone in burn. The potential +4 damage on a creature swing is unfortunately offset by it's dependence on the presence of said creature which makes the card worhtless by itself, unlike AC that can still do 3 damage on its own with the potential for more. And there's also removal to account for.
We could get the creature count up, but then we become more akin to a zoo deck, and it's not really the place to talk about this. (don't think zoo want that either, which would mean an even bigger no in burn.) Pump spell has always been more of a thing for infect. The explosive potential is there, but removal is a little too prevalent, and we just don't run enough creature to make pump spells worthwhile in burn.
EDIT: Oh, and while we're at it, if you run white mana, you run Boros Charm. No questions.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Goblin Guide
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
2 Grim Lavamancer
Bolts (16)
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Skewer the critics
4 Skullcrack
4 Searing Blaze
4 Atarka's command
Lands (18)
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Arid Mesa
1 Copperline gorge
2 Stomping ground
3 Mountain
4 Destructive revelry
4 Tormod's Crypt
3 Searing Blood
1 Shattering spree
1 Volcanic Fallout
2 Exquisite Firecraft
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Goblin Guide
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Skewer the critics
4 Skullcrack
4 Searing Blaze
Lands (18)
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Arid Mesa
6 Mountain
I really didn't think another set of pseudo-bolts would give me such a pitiful deckbuilder's crisis...
Are we really doomed to splash white for Boros charm (and several other relevant sideboard cards) and/or black for Bump in the night for eternity?
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
I think a comparison to browbeat is fair. Let me point out that Risk factor is obviously better than browbeat for two reasons: It's an instant and it has Jump-start. The one less damage is a downside, but it's easy to overlook when you can potentially cast the spell twice. It's a potential 8 dmg spell and even more depending on what you draw if your opponent lets you draw, which he probably will considering the deck we want to play it in is burn.
However, "Potential" imply a lot of things going your way (AKA your opponent making bad choice) and Risk factor suffer the same problem browbeat does in this sense: if your opponent lets you draw the cards (which he probably will), we basically wasted a turn doing no damage or way less damage than we could have done. Don't forget that three mana is a lot to ask of burn. There are games where we don't even see the third land and assuming you'll have a fourth land out of your draw is not wise (Hell I'm stuck at one mana some games, but then again I'm at 18 lands :P). Not to mention you'll cast it during your turn if you want to drop a land for a potential burn spell, and that's assuming the burn spell(s) you draw are 1 CMC. We also have to assume that any card we discard for the jump-start has to be a land, for any other discard is a mistake.
We also assume that the max potential of the card is achieved when it's been casted twice, and that's TWO turn / SIX mana that is not spent on burning your opponent.
another thing: assuming a scenario where we have ten card drawn by turn 4, three are lands and six are 1-CMC, 3-DMG burn spells and one is risk factor. off course, all the burn spells have been casted. Opponnent is still at 2 life. Now I have to cast risk factor and it has to draw me both a land and another 1-CMC 3 dmg burn spell. if the burn spell(s) I draw are 2 CMC or I don't draw a land, I have to wait around doing nothing until turn 5 arrives, which is an additional turn my opponent could win. If Risk factor had been ANY other burn spell, this game would already be over.
There's a reason we didn't play, or stopped playing Browbeat in the first place: three mana for potentially no damage just to secure our next few turns is not something we want in burn when in most scenario where Browbeat can be cast, just another burn spell can do the trick and actually seal the game. seven is the magic number of burn spell you usually need to kill someone, and if one of those spell is replaced by a Browbeat or a Risk factor, we basically slow oursleves down by one turn. Also, I cannot imagine a scenario where I both cast and Jump-start Risk factor without being very behind in the game.
As much as I like the card, I'm siding with elconquistador1985 on this one.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
Still, quick sideboard draft time!
4x assassin's trophy
3x Atarka's command
2x Destructive Revelry
1x Searing Blood
1x Go for the Throat
1x Contaminated Ground
2x Rakdos Charm
1x Grafdigger's cage
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)