1-4 in the League (4-9 in games) is not great but I don’t know how experienced a Burn player this guy is. Nevertheless I’ve just watched 13 games of the “Shrine build” and in only 1 of them did Shrine of Burning Rage impress me, and in Match 4 and 5 in particular I strongly feel Eidolon of the Great Revel would’ve been a better card. Shrine feels very vulnerable just sitting there doing nothing, whereas Eidolon can attack for 2 if the coast is clear, and will do a guaranteed minimum 2 damage if removed by a 3CMC or less spell.
I have to question the credentials of someone who didn't board out Shrines and boarded in Kor Firewalkers in against RG Ponza. If he was running Le Briand's list, he should have probably swapped the Shrines for PoE and Grim Lavamancer.
It costs you a card, but every turn you bought with Shrine on the battlefield creates damage out of thin air. So if you survive 2 extra turns until you topdeck the next bolt, you've effectively gotten a 5-damage bolt.
How did you get 10 counters on it while flooding against a deck that plays 4/4s and hasty 5/5s? That sounds like a bad opponent who kept a garbage hand.
I suppose everyone is aware of this, but I just wanted to point out that the Shrine also charges on every upkeep even if you don't do anything. So one way to have a big shrine is just not dying for a bit...
So it seems that GP Birmingham winner loïc le briand's thoughts on Shrine over Eidolon haven't made the rounds here. Some language-related hiccups aside, I think his reasoning is sound, even when I don't agree with his assessments on some of the matchups (never had much trouble against Shadow, personally). What do you all think?
That's also cross-posted to r/LavaSpike, but there is limited response there so far.
Inspiring Vantage and Bump is a pretty sizeable nonbo. You want Blackcleave Cliffs instead. But then again, that makes flop when you SB from Mardu to Naya.
Interesting. What's the explanation of the two-peak distribution in the mulligan version?
Those plots show total damage in hand, which is approximately 3 * number of non-lands (ie. assume every card is Lightning Bolt). There are two peaks because the lower damage total peak is mulligans with too many lands and the higher damage total peak is mulligans with too few lands.
Got it. I think I was just drawing a blank on what was being presented in the charts. That makes a good amount of sense now.
maximize the probability of having 3 lands in your top 9 cards
That maximizes at about 19.5 lands, hence why you'd usually see 19 or 20 lands in stock lists.
However, this math doesn't take into account fetching, and whether the 20th land added is a fetch. And the impact of a fetch seems way higher than the small difference between 19 and 20 lands.
I think a relevant criteria should be not just what you see in your opening hand, but the likelihood that you'll have exactly 3 lands in your top 10 cards. I think running 18 lands makes it riskier to keep 1-landers.
I might cut 1 of the lavamancers for the 19th land. However, I have been playing 18 lands for a while now (around 3 months) and I have never felt more comfortable ever before.
Additionally, maybe I could indeed cut one shard volley for another searing blaze, making the 19th land more necessary (also the shard volley was great fodder for the lavamancer). I dont think I would ever go to more than 19 lands ever again, though. Any reason why everyone plays 20 lands or is it just the standard number?
Most lists I see recently actually play 19. Playing 20 means you'll hit 3 mana a bit more reliably, and you're less likely to miss landfall triggers for Searing Blaze.
I personally think 18 is too few. My 18-land Zoo deck gets stuck on 1 and 2 lands with regularity.
How would you guys say Grim Lavamancer is placed in the current meta? Should I cut him to 1-of for something else? My list in on my signature.
Thanks!!
Recent lists either moved him to SB or cut him completely. It seems he's a little slow; also, he really shines when he can pluck creatures off the board, and there aren't many good targets in the meta these days.
Also, your list seems a little light on land. I'd cut 1 Shard Volley and add an extra Vantage or red fetch.
2 card from the 60 and expect to get card when need is tough.
so if run 4 spree you still need the enchant removal. how many side can u dedicate. maybe 3 spree with the 2 d.rev or ware tear.
2 fight the tron not just chalice right. eldrazi tron more problem now then regular tron
You don't need to run 4x Shattering Spree. People run a combination of 2x Spree and 4x DRev. You won't have to remove 2x Chalice every game, but it gives you an out you'll be reasonably likely to see in your top 10 cards or so.
Heck, a recent deck placed with 2x By Force and 4x DRev.
The only realistic way you're getting around Chalice on 1 and 2 is with Replicated Shattering Spree. Chalice triggers on cast, but the copies are put onto the stack so they don't trigger Chalice and aren't countered.
Well, Volt Charge IS a card... but then again, you said realistic...
I have to question the credentials of someone who didn't board out Shrines and boarded in Kor Firewalkers in against RG Ponza. If he was running Le Briand's list, he should have probably swapped the Shrines for PoE and Grim Lavamancer.
I suppose everyone is aware of this, but I just wanted to point out that the Shrine also charges on every upkeep even if you don't do anything. So one way to have a big shrine is just not dying for a bit...
I might use Hellspark Elemental over both of these...
That's also cross-posted to r/LavaSpike, but there is limited response there so far.
Got it. I think I was just drawing a blank on what was being presented in the charts. That makes a good amount of sense now.
That maximizes at about 19.5 lands, hence why you'd usually see 19 or 20 lands in stock lists.
However, this math doesn't take into account fetching, and whether the 20th land added is a fetch. And the impact of a fetch seems way higher than the small difference between 19 and 20 lands.
Interesting. What's the explanation of the two-peak distribution in the mulligan version?
Most lists I see recently actually play 19. Playing 20 means you'll hit 3 mana a bit more reliably, and you're less likely to miss landfall triggers for Searing Blaze.
I personally think 18 is too few. My 18-land Zoo deck gets stuck on 1 and 2 lands with regularity.
Recent lists either moved him to SB or cut him completely. It seems he's a little slow; also, he really shines when he can pluck creatures off the board, and there aren't many good targets in the meta these days.
Also, your list seems a little light on land. I'd cut 1 Shard Volley and add an extra Vantage or red fetch.
You don't need to run 4x Shattering Spree. People run a combination of 2x Spree and 4x DRev. You won't have to remove 2x Chalice every game, but it gives you an out you'll be reasonably likely to see in your top 10 cards or so.
Heck, a recent deck placed with 2x By Force and 4x DRev.
Kor Firewalker, on the other hand... how much ahead are you really when the mirror has Skullcracks and Paths?
Well, Volt Charge IS a card... but then again, you said realistic...