I think my real issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Burn is. It has a bit of an identity crisis in that people are always debating whether it's aggro, aggro-combo, or combo, and I think this heavily influences deckbuilding rationalization. I firmly believe Burn is a combo deck, so to me this would be akin to Storm throwing Bolts into the main deck in case they have creatures.
I think the concern is if he won despite Shrine, not because of or even apathetic to it. Burn's core is so good, it can be fine to run a few suboptimal cards and still perform well. That doesn't mean the cards don't make your deck objectively worse. That's what (I believe) happened with Wild Nacatl. I don't believe Nacatl was ever good for Burn, I believe Burn is a really tight deck and was good despite Nacatl.
But the goal, I believe, is to find the most optimal version(s) of Burn. I'm hesitant to accept that there's a version like that with Shrine in it, and I'd rather not have people losing matches they might otherwise win. It seems so against what we're trying to do, it feels like playing Needle Drop for the late game draw off the card.
I think a huge part of playing burn is bottlenecking the opponent's mana. The longer the game goes on, the more mana your opponent has to play with, and the more likely it is that you're just dead. I play under the assumption that a two mana spell should deal at least 4 damage (which is why Boros Charm is an auto include but Helix is more questionable). Even if Shrine can do more damage than Eidolon, which is by no means a certainty, Eidolon does what you want right when you want it. If he hits the opponent once and then gets removed, he's worth his card slot. That's the same as the other creatures in the deck, if they hit twice they're worth it.
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.
Yeah, the only reason Claim//Fame is run is to resurrect an 8/8+ creature and give it haste. Pretty good for 3 mana.
So, I usually find elconquistador to be a bit abrupt sometimes, however this time he was really just spelling out the factual statistics and the true history of Vexing Devil (hint: I played it too in Dega Burn back before Khans of Tarkir), but as dicey of a play it was back then its a complete mistake at this point with Fatal Push. That's why people are playing even less creatures and posting results without Eidolon. Just remember, deathstroke, you did ask for an opinion and one was offered. I also think its a complete mistake at this point and I can't ever imagine a scenario where it will ever be added back into Burn. You might as well sell those cards so you can get a couple more staples that you desperately need for your deck like 4 boros charm which will always be the right call, and you could even focus on Goblin Guide while its more reasonable in price than it was.
I also ran Nacatl last year at Gen Con and won one of the big modern tournaments there. It's time is also done. Current Modern = 1. Play a ton of creatures and jam them on the field into destruction so that you can hopefully overrun them. 2. Play a couple creatures and control the situation / play creatures that have evasion, or 3. Play the least amount of creatures as possible as to avoid being tempo played.
So I think I kind of want to try out the Shrine of the Burning Rage for my upcoming weekly modern tournament. I don't know if 4 is really the right number and I'm thinking I'll land back on 3, maybe even 2. I'm perfectly ok with trying Eidolon out of the main just for fun. Eidolon is starting to feel like a trap card again. I'd also like to run 4 R/W Fastlands in the main. My current list runs no Grim and runs 1 or 2 Shard. Shard is going to have negative synergy with Shrine so it has to go. My list is pretty similar to the GP's list.
I really am thinking about trimming the Shrine down to 3. In doubles its icky. Even 2 might not be that bad. I'd still like to try it out though. I'm going to go ahead and keep the Eidolon out and I'm trying to figure out what I will run in it's place. I'm loathe to run Grim but that might be about it. Shard is real bad with shrine. I'm kind of tempted to run 3 Inspiring and 1 Blood Crypt for Bump in the Night. I could even do something like running a Blood Crypt main and 1 stomping ground in the side. Anything is up in the air right now.
If you're gonna run Shrine, I would highly suggest running 4. Shrine is the type of card that, while bad in multiples, is at its best on turn two and get much worse with each passing turn. Therefore, you want to be running the full playset to maximize the chances that you get the full value out of the card. To run less than 4 would not only decrease the chance of multiples, but decrease the chance you see it in your opening hand. Eidolon and Searing Blaze are both cards like this as well, and I would never advocate running any less than 4 of them if you choose to run them at all. Even though doubles feels bad, you cause more problems than you solve by thinning the numbers.
Also, definitely don't run a splash land in the sideboard. Sideboard slots are so precious, and a land is always useful even if you have to shock yourself to use it. Much better to run the Stomping Grounds in the main.
P(1 land) = 24.4, 22.1, 19.8 for 18, 19, 20
P(2 lands) = 33.7, 33.2, 32.3 for 18, 19, 20
P(3 lands) = 23.6, 25.4, 26.9 for 18, 19, 20
I'd put more weight on the sum of 2 and 3 land hands, which is pretty insensitive to whether you're playing 18, 19, or 20 (57.3%, 58.5% and 59.3%, respectively). Outside of that, there are situations you can call absolute mulligans, (0 lands or more than 3 lands) and that goes from 18.2% to 19.2% to 20.7%, respectively. 1 landers are complicated keeps, but if you assume that it works out to keeping about half of 1 landers, then you're looking at net keep rates of 69.6, 69.7, 69.3 for 18, 19, 20. However, having 19 or 20 lands means you're more likely to pull a 1 lander off by hitting lands. It's about 30.4, 28, and 25.5 to see 0 lands through 3 draws given that you had a 1 lander. Its about 45.7, 43.2, and 40.7 through 2 draws. Beyond all of that, there's dealing with land destruction.
I don't think there are really strong statistical arguments for any of them and it comes down to personal preference. I like 19, but haven't played with 18 or 20 at all.
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?
I actually play 18 lands as well. I'm not skilled with statistical math myself, but according to a chart I found in someone's signature here, 18 lands maximizes the chance that we'll open on exactly two lands (34%), with a 24% chance each that we'll open on 1 or 3. This is as opposed to 19 lands, where the percentages were 22% we open with one, 33% we open with two, and 25% we open with three. This is all from memory, but I think the numbers were correct.
My recommendation is to cut the two Lavamancers and add in the fourth Blaze and the fourth Helix. Blaze especially you really wanna see on turn two, to get rid of their turn one creature and let your creature hit them for another turn.
Can any of you think of any discard protection in the Modern card pool that can be played for 2 or less mana outside of Leyline of Sanctity? I feel like discard is one of Burn biggest issues. Each IoK basically reads "one mana: gain three". Collective Brutality is often "two mana: gain five".
What are current thoughts on Mardu Burn and Naya Burn. Currently i am running the standard Naya Burn with green for sb like destructive revelry, main differences is i run 1 atarkas main and 4 skull crack main. While the list has been doing very well, i was curious about Mardu Burn, is there any competition between the 2 variants? Is Naya simply just better and proven? Or is Mardu becoming more appealing?
It is my personal (and unpopular) belief that Mardu is a better three color Burn deck than Naya. I run Mardu at my LGS because the meta is slower and grindy there, so I don't need to save the life that a Boros build would give me. I think Boros or Boros+g is correct if you expect to conserve your life a lot, and Mardu is correct if you don't.
Shrine is interesting. I think it suffers from being a general nonbo with what Burn is trying to do. It's an awful topdeck and takes time to tick up, so you really wanna see it early. But if you're playing it early, then you aren't casting a Burn spell that turn and trying to close the game out, and with each turn that passes Burn gets weaker. Not to mention it costs three mana to activate, which for (most) Burn decks would be the only time they would ever have to see that many lands.
There's one thing I'm pretty certain about: I would rather see Eidolon than Shrine at pretty much all stages of the game.
With the amount of land destruction seeing play in Modern right now, I agree that you need at least two fetchable sources of each color in order to effectively bet on your deck.
Quick question for everyone. I have exactly five slots in my sideboard for artifact hate, running Boros (no splash). Would you say it's better to play 4x Wear//Tear and 1x Shattering Spree, or 3x Wear//Tear and 2x Shattering Spree? If anyone is particularly skilled at math and has a way to objectively evaluate this, it would be much appreciated. As far as I can tell, it would be the difference between the chance that you don't see enchantment removal based on dropping a Wear//Tear, and the amount of time that destroying multiple artifacts or hitting a chalice on 2 matters.
I ran 3 and 2, and when splashing for D. Rev, kept those numbers. The worst artifact against us is Chalice on 2. It stops Wear//Tear and Revelry. We can bring in all 5 of our artifact hate, and all of it hits Chalice on 1. But we can save the 2 Shattering Spree for Chalice on 2, or, if need be and we don't draw our other hate, hit it on 1. A one of Shattering Spree is much wmharder to draw, and when we need it, we NEED it. It is also a bomb against Affinity. Of course, we lose some enchantment hate. But typically, we only need to blow up one Leyline. If they have multiples in the opening hand, it was bad luck, anyway.
Quick question for everyone. I have exactly five slots in my sideboard for artifact hate, running Boros (no splash). Would you say it's better to play 4x Wear//Tear and 1x Shattering Spree, or 3x Wear//Tear and 2x Shattering Spree? If anyone is particularly skilled at math and has a way to objectively evaluate this, it would be much appreciated. As far as I can tell, it would be the difference between the chance that you don't see enchantment removal based on dropping a Wear//Tear, and the amount of time that destroying multiple artifacts or hitting a chalice on 2 matters.
I've been working on a script that reads all magic cards in json format, reads a Burn deck list, and analyzes that deck list in various ways. It's at an early stage, but I've got the capability to estimate average amount of damage in hand for keeps and mulligan given some mulligan criteria, estimate the frequency with which you have a color fixing problem (assuming that you have a color problem if your lands in your 7 card hand can't reach all of your colors, as well as checking this ratio at the end of 3 turns, average non-land CMC in hand, average damage per CMC in hand. I generated 10000 7 card hands.
Assumptions: Rift Bolt has CMC=1. Searing Blaze always deals 3. Grim Lavamancer is worth 1 damage. All other creatures are worth 2 (though that's really other creatures are worth their power in damage except Swiftspear is bumped up to 2). In the Mardu list I used, Burst Lightning is worth 2. Atarka's Command always deals 3.
In all cases, the mulligan criteria I chose produced a mulligan rate of about 21%. The criteria were:mulligan all hands with more than 3 lands or less than 1, keep all 1 landers with average CMC < 1.66 and at least 1 creature (though I should change that to at least one Guide/Swift only).
For instance, my early analysis shows that a 3 color deck has a color problem in about 42% of 7 card keeps and this goes to 17$ by T3 (where color problem means that your mana lands + fetches are not able to grab all of your colors). For a straight RW deck, this is 4& and 1.5% respectively.
The average opening hand has about 13.5 damage in hand. The average damage in hand by T3 is about 20. I haven't yet gone so far as checking how much damage could be cast.
The average damage in hand given the mulligan rules above for my Naya list is shown here (it's identical to RW since AC=Skullcrack given the assumptions above). The mulligan histogram is bimodal, with regions for too few and too many lands. A "damage score" might be a useful mulligan criterion, but I haven't looked at it yet.
Issues going forward: I need to do something better for creature damage, but it's probably reasonable to assume that they deal damage once on average. I need to come up with a model for Atarka's Command as well. I also want to produce an estimator for amount of damage cast as a function of turn, though that would be just glorified goldfishing. I could do something more sophisticated by generating an opposing deck that has some probability to play a discard spell or removal and allow that opposing deck to affect the outcome.
I'm open to suggestions for mulligan criteria or other measures that you might think are valuable.
PS: I wasn't kidding when I said I think this game is a statistics problem.
I just want to say that this is fantastic. Thank you for this.
But the goal, I believe, is to find the most optimal version(s) of Burn. I'm hesitant to accept that there's a version like that with Shrine in it, and I'd rather not have people losing matches they might otherwise win. It seems so against what we're trying to do, it feels like playing Needle Drop for the late game draw off the card.
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.
If you're gonna run Shrine, I would highly suggest running 4. Shrine is the type of card that, while bad in multiples, is at its best on turn two and get much worse with each passing turn. Therefore, you want to be running the full playset to maximize the chances that you get the full value out of the card. To run less than 4 would not only decrease the chance of multiples, but decrease the chance you see it in your opening hand. Eidolon and Searing Blaze are both cards like this as well, and I would never advocate running any less than 4 of them if you choose to run them at all. Even though doubles feels bad, you cause more problems than you solve by thinning the numbers.
Also, definitely don't run a splash land in the sideboard. Sideboard slots are so precious, and a land is always useful even if you have to shock yourself to use it. Much better to run the Stomping Grounds in the main.
Thanks for the number crunching on that, elcon.
I actually play 18 lands as well. I'm not skilled with statistical math myself, but according to a chart I found in someone's signature here, 18 lands maximizes the chance that we'll open on exactly two lands (34%), with a 24% chance each that we'll open on 1 or 3. This is as opposed to 19 lands, where the percentages were 22% we open with one, 33% we open with two, and 25% we open with three. This is all from memory, but I think the numbers were correct.
EDIT: Here's that chart, courtesy of user Curby.
My recommendation is to cut the two Lavamancers and add in the fourth Blaze and the fourth Helix. Blaze especially you really wanna see on turn two, to get rid of their turn one creature and let your creature hit them for another turn.
It is my personal (and unpopular) belief that Mardu is a better three color Burn deck than Naya. I run Mardu at my LGS because the meta is slower and grindy there, so I don't need to save the life that a Boros build would give me. I think Boros or Boros+g is correct if you expect to conserve your life a lot, and Mardu is correct if you don't.
There's one thing I'm pretty certain about: I would rather see Eidolon than Shrine at pretty much all stages of the game.
I believe I agree with you. Thanks for the reply!
I just want to say that this is fantastic. Thank you for this.