According to ktkenshinx's document (linked in his sig) "MTGSalvation Modern Metagame Analysis - MTGO and Paper Data (September 2014 - January 2015)", the "Post KTK" paper meta has 4.19% Jund and 2.97% B/G rock.
Sorry if you don't think that is high enough representation, but I think that categorically disproves your assertion that it is not viable.
edit: Here's how you know your source is bad: it says burn is 4.75% of the meta. Come on, at least try to vet your data a little.
I see a change in the metagame. Using the term "warping" denotes a negative change, which is entirely subjective and therefore should be avoided in objective discussions.
All he did was define one word as the opposite of the other. Under that definition, staple could be all cards in the format that are not warping. This is why these terms should be avoided: the meaning is so nebulous as to be useless. I implore you (edit: read: everyone) to stop using the terms "staple" and "warping".
All of which is based on inference and guess-work.
You guess that if lightning bolt were removed from the format that no new decks would become viable, but there is no real way of determining that short of removing it and seeing what plays out.
Tossing out other buzzwords with little definable meaning isn't helping... lightning bolt certainly "defines the meta" since it is the most played card (or at least near the top).
You've convinced me: "warping" is simply the term used for new cards which rival or surpass the perceived power level of cards already existing in the format.
I think there is a lack of consensus on what that even means, which is why people are having a hard time agreeing upon which cards are warping and which are not.
Seriously though, saying lightning bolt isn't warping is silly. It's almost the most played card in the format, if not strictly the most played period.
Go to MTG Top 8, go to Modern, select "Last Two Weeks" and you will see that Pod is currently 4%. Delver is at 27%. Burn is 12%. Jund is 1%. Aggro decks make up 68% of the meta.
He said of the 84 deck sample size of MTGO dailies...
I'm not sure why people have the impression that turning burn spells into 2 damage spells instead of 3 is a thing that is only relevant in the mirror.
Dragon's claw can be jammed by anyone playing any deck that feels like it is too slow for burn - provided the problem is big enough to justify SB slots. Whether it should be 4 of your sideboard depends on the meta of course, but lets not pretend like there are no printed answers to the deck.
And lets not go down the "dies to removal" line of thinking - almost everything dies to removal!
The effect severely slows down the Burn deck as it relies on the speed of 3 damage per card effects. When this goes down to 2 damage per card, you need a few more draw steps to close out the game, which incidentally is what other decks need to stabilize or just kill the burn deck.
I'd really like to hear people elaborate more on which parameters create a format staple, versus which create a format warping card... are they really any different? Is "warping" simply a term used until it becomes an accepted staple?
I think bant is a hard deck to play and build. For that reason, it is not seen as a good choice by many.
I've tried a ton of builds with bant, and it seems to be at its strongest when built more as a tempo deck then midrange. We are quite different from Jund or Abzan because black offers proactivity (hand disruption instead of counterspells, bob instead of cruise/dig) whereas blue offers reactivity. These considerations are important - we're more similar to say delver than Jund in that we want to land a threat early and protect it. Our form of protection is in resiliency. Loxodon smiter can't be stopped by hand disruption and counterspells, and geist of saint traft can't be stopped by removal. These two threats make a great tag team against many of the top decks in the format. A tight decklist seems well positioned.
I don't like Rhox war monk because it seems easier to remove than the above 3-drops, and after trying finks with geist and smiter, I realized that having too many 3 drops really slows the deck down instead of helping it.
One guy I don't see others trying is Venser, Shaper Savant. This guy can be a real blowout and problem solver. I'd encourage others to give him a try... remember he isn't countering spells and therefore can return even uncounterable spells to their owners hand, which is relevant more often than you think (abrupt decay, counterflux).
Edit: Also he allows amazingly oppressive sequences.
Turn 1 noble hierarch
Turn 2 loxodon smiter or geist
turn 3 having 4 mana up on their turn is hard to play around, and you can just bounce their land EoT if they do nothing.
turn 4 restoration angel to protect threats or bounce a land again.
A few turns swinging with smither or geist is enough, and venser and restoration angel protect your board really well with the help of cheap countermagic.
That leaves us 6 cards in the sideboard and 7 in the main. The 7 in the main can obviously be extra counter spells. Bant Charm, Remand, Mana Leak and Vapor Snag all can fill that void. I'd even be willing to cut the 4 Thought Scour in the deck to add more of a threat base in spells. I think it could be a good basis since I feel that red decks are going to be all over the place. Plus, nothing is greater than remanding a treasure cruise back to someone's hand after they delved.
lookin at it, what could green offer?
I think the shell you see there is a more controlling shell, which is better for a red splash imo. With respect to the shell,green is going to offer ramping into aggressive board presence and red will offer better reach, control and sideboard. For that style of deck, red is probably better. I would definitely be more comfortable. That being said, that deck looks like it's built specifically to counter burn, and wouldnt suggest running so much burn hate MD at any paper event.
Between hooting mandrils, tarmo, treasure cruise, knight of the reliquary AND snapcaster I think you are stretching your graveyard too much. Stubborn denial will be worse than mana tithe much of the time as well. I'm also not sold on harm's way.
I'm not convinced with that list. I'm not sure i even see why kotR is there, considering you have no utility lands to fetch with him. He would be better as loxodon smiter.
Sorry if you don't think that is high enough representation, but I think that categorically disproves your assertion that it is not viable.
edit: Here's how you know your source is bad: it says burn is 4.75% of the meta. Come on, at least try to vet your data a little.
B/G is not viable? The data disagrees with you. Sure, MTGO has seen it vanish, but still very much "viable" in the paper meta.
Hyperbole will be the death of us.
Would you be so kind as to point out, and support with evidence (not MTGtop8 please) a card that does FORCE a certain colour or deck?
I would assert that nothing fits your definition, and it therefore has little honest use.
You guess that if lightning bolt were removed from the format that no new decks would become viable, but there is no real way of determining that short of removing it and seeing what plays out.
Tossing out other buzzwords with little definable meaning isn't helping... lightning bolt certainly "defines the meta" since it is the most played card (or at least near the top).
You've convinced me: "warping" is simply the term used for new cards which rival or surpass the perceived power level of cards already existing in the format.
Is warping even a useful term then? Wouldn't all cards that are good then be warping?
I think there is a lack of consensus on what that even means, which is why people are having a hard time agreeing upon which cards are warping and which are not.
Seriously though, saying lightning bolt isn't warping is silly. It's almost the most played card in the format, if not strictly the most played period.
What do you even mean by "warping"?
He said of the 84 deck sample size of MTGO dailies...
Dragon's claw can be jammed by anyone playing any deck that feels like it is too slow for burn - provided the problem is big enough to justify SB slots. Whether it should be 4 of your sideboard depends on the meta of course, but lets not pretend like there are no printed answers to the deck.
And lets not go down the "dies to removal" line of thinking - almost everything dies to removal!
The effect severely slows down the Burn deck as it relies on the speed of 3 damage per card effects. When this goes down to 2 damage per card, you need a few more draw steps to close out the game, which incidentally is what other decks need to stabilize or just kill the burn deck.
I'd really like to hear people elaborate more on which parameters create a format staple, versus which create a format warping card... are they really any different? Is "warping" simply a term used until it becomes an accepted staple?
You sure that they have not done this already?
I've tried a ton of builds with bant, and it seems to be at its strongest when built more as a tempo deck then midrange. We are quite different from Jund or Abzan because black offers proactivity (hand disruption instead of counterspells, bob instead of cruise/dig) whereas blue offers reactivity. These considerations are important - we're more similar to say delver than Jund in that we want to land a threat early and protect it. Our form of protection is in resiliency. Loxodon smiter can't be stopped by hand disruption and counterspells, and geist of saint traft can't be stopped by removal. These two threats make a great tag team against many of the top decks in the format. A tight decklist seems well positioned.
I don't like Rhox war monk because it seems easier to remove than the above 3-drops, and after trying finks with geist and smiter, I realized that having too many 3 drops really slows the deck down instead of helping it.
One guy I don't see others trying is Venser, Shaper Savant. This guy can be a real blowout and problem solver. I'd encourage others to give him a try... remember he isn't countering spells and therefore can return even uncounterable spells to their owners hand, which is relevant more often than you think (abrupt decay, counterflux).
Edit: Also he allows amazingly oppressive sequences.
Turn 1 noble hierarch
Turn 2 loxodon smiter or geist
turn 3 having 4 mana up on their turn is hard to play around, and you can just bounce their land EoT if they do nothing.
turn 4 restoration angel to protect threats or bounce a land again.
A few turns swinging with smither or geist is enough, and venser and restoration angel protect your board really well with the help of cheap countermagic.
I think the shell you see there is a more controlling shell, which is better for a red splash imo. With respect to the shell,green is going to offer ramping into aggressive board presence and red will offer better reach, control and sideboard. For that style of deck, red is probably better. I would definitely be more comfortable. That being said, that deck looks like it's built specifically to counter burn, and wouldnt suggest running so much burn hate MD at any paper event.
I'm not convinced with that list. I'm not sure i even see why kotR is there, considering you have no utility lands to fetch with him. He would be better as loxodon smiter.