Quote from RochiTomRochi »
@ElCon - I really don't think Pithing Needle is a card we have to be afraid of... Apart from fetchlands and a 1 or 2-of Grim Lavamancer we don't have any other cards with activated abilities. If they cast Pithing Needle, I'd crack my fetch pre-emptively in response. Its really not a big deal unless I was holding a land up for Searing Blaze, but I doubt Pithing Needle is high on the sideboard list coming in against us...
Ideally, our opponent will T1 Fetch+Shock, meaning 1 less burn spell is needed. In some scenarios a keepable hand (keepable, not optimal) will have fetch + Lightning Bolt, some other 1 and 2CMC spells but no Goblin Guide or Monastery Swiftspear. If we're on the draw, ending T1 killing their mana dork or with our opponent at 14 (maybe even 12 with Thoughtseize!) seems solid. Hiding the information that we're Burn instead of Valakut, Jund or Grixis by not using Arid Mesa to make them lose 3 life themselves is valuable.
I don't think Pithing Needle is something we need to be afraid of either, but I do believe there's a stronger argument to split fetches because of Pithing Needle than there is to remove Mesa and play Tarn solely because it will matter once in a blue moon. The situation where Needle destroys you are ones where you can't fetch in response, because you just got hit with IoK, they saw 2 of the same fetch in your hand, and you've suddenly lost the game.
Ideally, they fetch+shock, but what if they don't? What if they lead with a fast land? What if it's Merfolk? What if it's Tron? What if they lead with Fetch->Island->Serum Visions? What if they were going to fetch+shock regardless? In those situations, you've chosen to waste your T1 for no reason. Lightning Bolt is your only out to salvage that turn, but what if you needed to save it to kill something? So, you're banking on your opponent fetching+shocking, not having Guide/Swift, having Lightning Bolt in hand... on top of that, it only matters in Game 1 because it sounds impossible for you to get to Game 2 without your opponent knowing you're playing Burn. It also has to be a large tournament rather than a small local one (because everyone local knows you play Burn) and it has to be an early round (because everyone at the top tables is scouting the other top tables). That's a long list of small probabilities. If you're playing SCG Opens or GPs every weekend, how often do you think Scalding Tarn nets you a result you want? Once a month? Frankly, that sounds way too high to me. Once every 3 months? Maybe even less?
You're better off mulliganing your marginal hand, or dropping Lavamancer/Rift Bolt/Lava Spike on T1. You're an aggro deck, just come out of the gates swinging like an aggro deck should. If you lead with that, your opponent will either fetch+shock (because they have to) or alter their plans and possibly make their color fixing worse because they're scared of you. In the first situation, it was going to happen anyway and your Tarn ruse wouldn't matter. In the latter, you're disrupting your opponent. I prefer those outcomes.
All things being equal (ie. dollars don't matter), I'm convinced that a 12 fetch build should play 3 of each red fetch because of Pithing Needle, even if it's almost irrelevant. The "drop Mesa for Tarn" argument is even less relevant and can just backfire on you because you're making bad T1 plays when you should have just led with Spike.
Quote from jmonk »Quote from elconquistador1985 »What matchup are you talking about? Skullcrack is just a player only Lightning Strike if your opponent never plays lifegain. Searing Blaze has the possibility to kill something, and is otherwise a Lightning Strike to their face.
the match up I am talking about is Grixis Death shadow. in the match up searing blaze literally only kills Snapcaster mage. why on gods green earth would I prioritize sideboard out skullcrack before searing blaze.
GDS won't beat you without creatures and they won't be gaining any life because they don't like killing their own DS. Blaze will deal 3 damage to their face if you target Death's Shadow just as well Tasigur and Snap. It straight kills Snap. A block+Blaze can kill Tasigur and Gurmag, and still deal 3 to the face. Blaze is 3 damage that might do something else good. Skullcrack is 3 damage and only 3 damage. Blaze is better in that matchup.
Quote from MisterMuffin21 »Talking about lands, did anyone try Gemstone Mine? Seem like a neat land for 3+ color list (Mardu, naya, jund) and the downside seem manageable. I wouldn't replace a Fetch/shock with this, but I think I could definitely play it over one or two fastland/Mountain.
It's painless fixing, but I'd rather my lands didn't disappear on T3/4 when I need 1 more land to win the game. I'd prefer Mountains and Fastlands over 1-2 Gemstone Mine.
1
1
1
Just played a game against Scapeshift. He was at 7, I had a Boros Charm in hand, and a Machinations on the field with one energy in my pool. I passed the turn to my opponent. He cast Scapeshift and went off, aiming six triggers at me. I cast my Charm in response, let one trigger resolve (gaining an energy counter), and popped the Machinations for the win. He called me out for slow rolling--I call it making him commit to his triggers.
1
1
1
1
Yeah, the card was definitely talked about when it first got spoiled, but it was generally decided that it wasn't very good. To be honest, I was one of the people thinking that as well.
It's funny, even with 18 lands I find myself flooding more than I do starved. I really love the low curve of this build, and I feel like it has many of the benefits of the Mardu builds going around, without playing weaker 1 mana burn spells or too many Shard Volleys to make that happen.
One game, I was playing against some sort of dredge/aggro deck. I think it was that new dredgevine deck floating around, or something similar to it. I had a Gonti's out with an energy counter already. He went to his turn, played a swiftspear, bolted me for three (giving me a second energy counter), then used the bolt to fuel a Become Immense. He swung at me for lethal, but I popped the Gonti's in response, surviving it. I was able to finish him off next turn.
Another game I played a Gonti's, then fetched (one energy counter). Played a second Gonti's, then fetched (three counters). Played a THIRD Gonti's, then fetched (6 counters). Then popped them all for an 18 point lifeswing.
Gonti's definitely has some hoops you have to jump through. But, the things is, all of the hoops you need to jump through to make it happen, tends to happen naturally as an effect of playing a three color deck in the modern format. I need to take damage twice? I fetch almost every turn, and opponents are usually trying to kill me with creatures. It stretches my manabase to three colors, making it more painful? The card gains me the life back. It's a permanent and can be destroyed? Please bring in enchantment removal against me, I'm begging you. Not to mention, Abrupt Decay is at an all-time low. It's too slow of a card? False--it's just as fast as the opponent dictates it to be, based on their level of aggression. The times when it's slow are the times where you can afford for it to be slow.
It seems like a really uniquely designed card that has answers built in to all of its problems, not only in the card itself but the format as a whole.
1
For what it's worth, for the past few days I've been PMing with elcon concerning strategy between the three versions of Burn I consider to be competitive (Boros, Naya, Mardu). At no point did he ever force his opinion down my throat, or tell me that I was wrong for considering all three of these versions of Burn. He performed some calculations for me out of the goodness of his heart, and let me make my own decisions based on the raw numbers he provided. I think if people were to read our conversations, it would be all but impossible to say he was pushing an agenda towards me.
I think people are reading a negative tone where there isn't one. It might be neutral or factual, but it's not disrespectful. Elcon provides statistical data to the burn forum and then offers his opinions based on his results. I don't really feel it's his responsibility to say "it's my opinion" before every post--that should be implicitly understood.
For the record, the numbers I saw are making me reconsider Boros as the version of Burn I want to be running--and at no point did he suggest that. It's all from me.
1
2
I think this conversation is going on in part because Eidolon isn't as good as he used to be, since we're seeing higher CMCs in Modern. And that's true, but that doesn't mean he's bad. I don't see people cutting Blazes because threats are bigger nowadays, or Skullcracks because lifegain is on the downtick. I feel like people are trying to innovate for the sake of innovation, but Burn is already so tight, and that's a good thing. I feel it's time to return to the principles of what Burn is, which is a deck trying to shrink down a game of Magic. Shrine all but fizzles against aggro decks (where Eidolon would shine outside of Affinity), and trying to go long against decks built for disruption plays right into what they want. I'll be honest, it feels like a no brainer.