1) Excluding Dryad Arbor, I run the standard 19 lands.
2) I don't run Dryad Arbor, and honestly, in my meta have never had need to.
3) 3 Blossoming Defense MainBoard, No Apostle's, and run 3 Nature's Claims in the Side. This is mostly due to my meta being Chalice, Detention Sphere, and Affinity heavy.
4) Wild Defiance. Still triggers, even if the opponent redirects the pump to their own creature, Once it lands, tends to stick, and can't be "burned" away with enough direct damage spells.
5) Honestly, Dredge and Azorious control has been tough to get past.
6) Easily bust affinity, burn, and Titan/ Valakut dekcs
7) Melira, and any combination of straight sweepers.
I've had quite a few games where Searing Blaze was a dead card, there were no targets on the other side of the field. It is great when it works, it's lackluster when there's no creatures to target.
In my experience, besides the mirror, there will always be a target for Searing Blaze, whether it's already on the field when I draw, or one pops up.
Also, what's the general consensus on Bump in the Night? Yay or nay? I mean, it seems like it fits the deck well, and if you only run 2 or 3, you only require one black source. My biggest complaint about it is its sorcery type, as I adore casting spells on an opponents turn.
Is there any consensus on a budget burn deck that anyone can forward me too? I've spent a fair bit of time reading around and haven't found anything recent or convincing.
strictly worse mean that is worse in every escenario, if you need G by turn 1 fastlands give you this, but without damage, so is NOT strictly worse (or superior), they are different.
i totally agree here, yes, path is a card that you should avoid if you can (thats why why dont need it in the maindeck), but is a necessary evil in some match (thats why is in the sideboard!)
You won't. There's no scenario where a competitive burn deck will require 1 G on turn 1, because no competitive burn deck plays a single cost G spell.
Yes, by now it is obvious that along with Swords to Plowshares, Path to Exile is the best removal in modern. I wasn't disparaging the ability of PtE to be removal, I was saying it doesn't belong in a competitive modern burn deck.
Let's list the scenarios where it would be most relevant:
Wurmcoil engine: You have better, more relevant removal options, namely Smash to Smithereens and Destructive Revelry. Yes, you'll allow the coils controller to generate the two tokens, however, who cares? If by the time they've cast the coil you can't kill them after ridding them of the coil, then chances are you won't win that duel anyway.
tarmogoyf: You can always bait them into trading with you, and then searing blaze the goyf. If not, you still have enough turns to burn them to the face to win.
sure, lets say better, but NOT strictly better (i use shock too), what bothers me is the inappropriate use of "strictly better", i´m not making the point on defending one kind of land or another.
a volcanic island is a strictly better mountain (hell, even this is not true because of wasteland/back to basics/price to progress), a shock/fast/checkland is not strictly better to each other, they are differents.
pd: Kim Sang-Eun from pro tour use 1 clifftop retreat, and i use one too (with 4-0 result in MTGO).
Alright, from what I understand about your post is that you seem to take issue with "strictly better" as opposed to "better". Fine, if it makes a difference, then the shocklands are better than Copperline Gorge, not strictly better.
I couldn't help but notice not a single list that has made Top 8 recently had Atarka's Command in it. I honestly feel like this card is overrated and shouldn't be played. Let me explain why:
1. It forces you to actually play 3-colored, unlike the light green splash for Revelry. This means the deck will lose some consistency and often deal more damage to itself than a Boros deck with a light green splash.
2. It looks like it's superior to Skullcrack, but it's not. Skullcrack's ability to (help) kill Kor Firewalkers is extremely relevant and one of the main reasons it is played. Buffing creatures with Command is admittedly sweet, but I think decks like Zoo could make more use of it.
3. There is simply no room for Command in the current Boros build. What are you going to cut? Skullcrack? Have fun with the Firewalkers. Lightning Helix? This will make the mirror significantly harder for you. Searing Blaze? This will make Affinity happy. Grim Lavamancer? I fail to see why people cut this card. Lavaman's raw power is unmatched by any other card in the Burn deck.
So long story short: Don't play Atarka's Command. Not only does it make your manabase more problematic, but it also doesn't live up to the expectations of being a better Skullcrack. Even the few times where it allows you to sneak in an extra 2 damage are probably not worth it.
Eh, I'm ambivalent about this. I personally don't run the commands, but that's for budgetary concerns. I do however, see and understand their appeal.
I'm sure this has been covered by somebody at some point, But I've noticed most of the people worried about splashing heavier green for Atarka's, are not running Copperline Gorge. Why is this? It does allow to have to fetch less often for Stomping Ground, Typically I'm only having to fetch for my white source. Every so often yes I'll wind up at 14 looking for both sources, But so far Copperline has pulled its weight.
Copperline Gorge can't be fetched with fetch lands and may come in tapped. It's strictly worse than the shock lands.
So far its worked out for me and i have not had any situations where i had a plains/forest in my hand and wished it was a mountain. I've also replaced my skull cracks with Atarka's Command main deck so green mana is more important to me.
Thoughts?
I'm of the opinion that Path to Exile isn't a burn-centric card. It causes no face burn, is situationally utilized, and there are better replacement options.
So, after some rather thorough and extensive play testing, I've come to realize that the Pack Rats are indeed quite useful in this deck. They provide more options than I initially realized. There's the obvious combo with Mutavault, and the added black mana helps a ton with devotion. It also provides a sac outlet for Liliana of the Veil, if I wish to edict an opponent. Speaking of Lili, holy ***** does she help. She's so multifaceted, and I don't even need her to stick. She draws attention away from my life total, is relatively cheap to cast, and does everything! Honestly, if I knew what to cut, and if I had a little over a hundred bucks to throw away, I'd grab another one to make a full play set.
I'm trying out 3 of each, the Desecration Demon and Phyrexian Obliterator. I kind of like the Obliterator, but the black intensive casting cost frightens me a little bit.
Greetings all. I purchased the Underworld Herald event deck, when it first debuted. I modified it, and loved it while it still dominated the meta in standard. Recently, I've had a hankering to return to playing Mono-Black Devotion once more, this time in modern. As such, I updated my old standard legal deck to function better in modern. This is what I've come up with so far:
I'll be testing it out at modern nights this week at a pair of LGS. I'll post results here, but suggestions and critique are welcome. I believe the Pack Rats may be sub optimal, however I fell in love with them when I played them in standard, and can't bring myself to part with them presently.
I would so like to fit Slaughterhorn in the list somehow too, since it can't be redirected by Spellskite or countered, but I have never been able to fit it in. Although it would be hilarious winning against an opposing kite with Slaughterhorn and a pile of exalted triggers!
That would be quite the epic win. If Spellskite is that much of an issue, then consider siding in artifact hate, which there is plenty of in Mono Green. Oxidize, Nature's Claim, heck even Naturalize.
I like playing my premium deck foil slivers deck in between rounds, doesn't mean I'm going to top 8 a gap anytime soon with it.
No, no you won't. But piloting mono~green infect, you could most certainly place in the top 8. Hence the argument that the deck could be viable, as opposed to "premium deck foil slivers deck".
I do so adore the Mono~Green infect build I employ. It's still my most favorite deck to play. Even now, when I compete in tourneys at LGSs, I whip this deck out to play casually, between matches. Perhaps it's due to the less competitive, more casual mentality of these casual duels, but I still manage to win at least over half of the duels I engage in.
Argument 3) Monogreen is better positioned in the meta, as evidenced by more success online
Counterargument: Without knowing how many players are playing each type of infect deck, its very difficult to evaluate the results. Right now, monoG infect is one of the most cost effective options online in terms of decks with a chance to win for a low price, which I expect to massively increase the number of players who try it out, compared to the number who are willing to buy fetches and hierarchs for a deck that has no apparent results.
I understand this query was posed to a different member, however I do wish to point out the inherent fallacies:
Without knowing how many players are playing each type of infect deck, its very difficult to evaluate the results.
This is incorrect because MtGG collates its data from all of the events taking place daily on MTGO. By their own admission, "...We scan through MTGO Daily Event results to bring you the latest information on the metagame!...". This means their data is an accurate and up to date reflection of which decks, cards and builds are currently not only popular, but effective. Of those decks, Mono Green Infect clocks in at #31. Meaning, out of all of the different decks, strategies and cards used effectively, Mono Green Infect is the 31st most successful.
They do track other players who utilize the mutlicolored infect builds, but those build either don't place often enough, or simply don't get results as consistently as often as the Mono Green Infect build does.
The next closest infect build is "Black Infect", which clocks in at #56. Statistically, Black Infect is the second most successful Infect deck, and it's listed at# 56.
Right now, monoG infect is one of the most cost effective options online in terms of decks with a chance to win for a low price, which I expect to massively increase the number of players who try it out, compared to the number who are willing to buy fetches and hierarchs for a deck that has no apparent results.
This is also incorrect. Sure, there may be a few players who opt for Mono Green Infect because it's cheap to build and can win and place consistently (like myself), but mono red burn is easier to use, places more consistently, is far superior and costs exactly the same. However, these are the only 2 budget decks in the entirety of the Modern Metagame. The most successful decks, which utilize the Hierarchs and fetches dominate the meta, meaning that price is not a factor for competitive modern players. Of the current meta, excluding burn the cheapest deck build is BlueRed delver, for $296.71, which is still astronomically high for someone who considers budget builds.
It's not the cost of the cards limiting the alternate infect builds from placing, it's their inherent inferiority compared to the other competitive modern decks, mono green infect included.
I'm not entirely certain what your question is, mate.
If you're asking for gameplan Vs. RUG Twin (a popular deck, atm) I simply save mana and burn if they hit 3 lands, after which I burn conservatively, or until I can burn ftw.
2) I don't run Dryad Arbor, and honestly, in my meta have never had need to.
3) 3 Blossoming Defense MainBoard, No Apostle's, and run 3 Nature's Claims in the Side. This is mostly due to my meta being Chalice, Detention Sphere, and Affinity heavy.
4) Wild Defiance. Still triggers, even if the opponent redirects the pump to their own creature, Once it lands, tends to stick, and can't be "burned" away with enough direct damage spells.
5) Honestly, Dredge and Azorious control has been tough to get past.
6) Easily bust affinity, burn, and Titan/ Valakut dekcs
7) Melira, and any combination of straight sweepers.
In my experience, besides the mirror, there will always be a target for Searing Blaze, whether it's already on the field when I draw, or one pops up.
Also, what's the general consensus on Bump in the Night? Yay or nay? I mean, it seems like it fits the deck well, and if you only run 2 or 3, you only require one black source. My biggest complaint about it is its sorcery type, as I adore casting spells on an opponents turn.
Thoughts?
www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/modern-skred-17868#paper
I apologize, I meant it provides an outlet to sac Gary, if I wish to recur him with the whip in order to retrigger his devotion. My mistake, ser.
You won't. There's no scenario where a competitive burn deck will require 1 G on turn 1, because no competitive burn deck plays a single cost G spell.
Yes, by now it is obvious that along with Swords to Plowshares, Path to Exile is the best removal in modern. I wasn't disparaging the ability of PtE to be removal, I was saying it doesn't belong in a competitive modern burn deck.
Let's list the scenarios where it would be most relevant:
Again, I'm not saying never play PtE, all I'm saying is smart plays, burn centric cards and a bit of luck far outweigh the one benefit of PtE.
Alright, from what I understand about your post is that you seem to take issue with "strictly better" as opposed to "better". Fine, if it makes a difference, then the shocklands are better than Copperline Gorge, not strictly better.
Eh, I'm ambivalent about this. I personally don't run the commands, but that's for budgetary concerns. I do however, see and understand their appeal.
Copperline Gorge can't be fetched with fetch lands and may come in tapped. It's strictly worse than the shock lands.
I'm of the opinion that Path to Exile isn't a burn-centric card. It causes no face burn, is situationally utilized, and there are better replacement options.
I'm trying out 3 of each, the Desecration Demon and Phyrexian Obliterator. I kind of like the Obliterator, but the black intensive casting cost frightens me a little bit.
4 Desecration Demon
4 Gray Merchant of Asphodel
4 Pack Rat
2 Phyrexian Obliterator
Planeswalker (3)
3 Liliana of the Veil
Artifact (2)
2 Whip of Erebos
Enchantment (3)
3 Phyrexian Arena
Instant (10)
3 Doom Blade
3 Go for the Throat
4 Hero's Downfall
3 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Thoughtseize
Land (22)
14 Swamp
4 Mutavault
2 Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx
2 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
3 Damnation
4 Disfigure
1 Doom Blade
1 Go for the Throat
1 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Thoughtseize
4 Victim of Night
I'll be testing it out at modern nights this week at a pair of LGS. I'll post results here, but suggestions and critique are welcome. I believe the Pack Rats may be sub optimal, however I fell in love with them when I played them in standard, and can't bring myself to part with them presently.
That would be quite the epic win. If Spellskite is that much of an issue, then consider siding in artifact hate, which there is plenty of in Mono Green. Oxidize, Nature's Claim, heck even Naturalize.
No, no you won't. But piloting mono~green infect, you could most certainly place in the top 8. Hence the argument that the deck could be viable, as opposed to "premium deck foil slivers deck".
Not to the best of my knowledge, which is why I prefer sweepers such as Fallout and Anger over Ghost.
Not that I'm knocking Ghost, I just find that Fallout and Anger have a broader range of applications, and are more beneficial.
I understand this query was posed to a different member, however I do wish to point out the inherent fallacies:
This is incorrect because MtGG collates its data from all of the events taking place daily on MTGO. By their own admission, "...We scan through MTGO Daily Event results to bring you the latest information on the metagame!...". This means their data is an accurate and up to date reflection of which decks, cards and builds are currently not only popular, but effective. Of those decks, Mono Green Infect clocks in at #31. Meaning, out of all of the different decks, strategies and cards used effectively, Mono Green Infect is the 31st most successful.
They do track other players who utilize the mutlicolored infect builds, but those build either don't place often enough, or simply don't get results as consistently as often as the Mono Green Infect build does.
The next closest infect build is "Black Infect", which clocks in at #56. Statistically, Black Infect is the second most successful Infect deck, and it's listed at# 56.
This is also incorrect. Sure, there may be a few players who opt for Mono Green Infect because it's cheap to build and can win and place consistently (like myself), but mono red burn is easier to use, places more consistently, is far superior and costs exactly the same. However, these are the only 2 budget decks in the entirety of the Modern Metagame. The most successful decks, which utilize the Hierarchs and fetches dominate the meta, meaning that price is not a factor for competitive modern players. Of the current meta, excluding burn the cheapest deck build is BlueRed delver, for $296.71, which is still astronomically high for someone who considers budget builds.
It's not the cost of the cards limiting the alternate infect builds from placing, it's their inherent inferiority compared to the other competitive modern decks, mono green infect included.
If you're asking for gameplan Vs. RUG Twin (a popular deck, atm) I simply save mana and burn if they hit 3 lands, after which I burn conservatively, or until I can burn ftw.