MTG Salvation

Quote from Lizard Buckler »

I can see the utility aspect of Goblin Guide too, since it can do 2 and then chump block, or force removal, while Vexing Devil moves slower and gives your opponent more room to play

Yeah, in essence you get to make the decisions about the line of play with Guide, whereas with Vexing Devil your opponent makes those decisions for you. So ends up being the optimal line vs the sub-optimal line, and insofar you see the difference between the performance of each in practice.

I was agreeing with your initial post. Then your started arguing with me.

I had to search back to 2012 on MTGTop8 decklists (competitive level or better) to find one without a full set of Goblin Guide.

With competitive level results though? That’s what I mean by successful decks. I’ve seen (and done) all sorts of unorthodox stuff as well, but it doesn’t really mean anything in the absence of results.

Agree, up to 12 creatures is perfectly fine. Eidolon is pretty much an auto-include 4-of. I'd also struggle to find a successful deck that doesn't run a full set of Goblin Guide, unless they are trying to make a point of going creatureless.

Lavamancer a meta card, but it still advances the game-plan pretty well even against a deck it isn't necessarily 'good' against. Its main detriment is that it's a bit slow, so against fast combo in specific it tends to be weaker.

Regarding your original question regarding Vexing Devil. You have hit the nail on the head about why it is an awkward card to run in Burn. Very much similar to why Black Vise hasn't been played since being unbanned.

Thanks, Hoser2. I've updated OP using your additions.

Mainly because of the access to a ton more quality options in legacy. Modern doesn’t have Chain Lightning, Price of Progress, Fireblast, etc. Also, meta often makes Grim Lavamancer much more valuable. Swiftspear is definitely a good card and you could run 4-of, it just depends on what sort of build you are going for. It just falls a little short of being a Core card, because the bar is higher.

That’s a bit embarrassing. I’ve fixed it. I think Hierophant and Restorer still get a slot, but Follower might be less worthwhile.

That’s variance. That’s magic. You can include as many as you want of a particular answer in the side. The trick is to have answers for all the likely matchups you think you need help with. We only have 15 sideboard slots. So often that means only having 1 or 2 cards for a specific matchup. If you can include cards that are good for multiple different matchups, then that helps save slots for others.

How do you get that card in your hand to play with any kind of consistency?

You either get it or don’t. Mulligan for it if it’s super important. Otherwise, the point of a sideboard is to swap out cards which are weak in a matchup for cards that are bombs. This won’t necessarily make any difference for a particular game, but over the course of many games will have a significant effect.

An example of this is siding is out Searing Blazes for Pillars vs Storm. Blazes are more or less dead-draws, whereas Pillar is a bomb. Drawing a Pillar makes you a favourite to win, while drawing the Blaze means you’re more likely to lose. So over the course of many games, of the 10% of games were you draw the Pillar over Blaze, you are winning those games rather than losing them. That could mean improving the overall matchup by 5-10%.

Fair. Not sure how I missed that one when I searched. Thanks for that.

Yeah, full set of Phoenix’s instead. That could be an influencing factor maybe in running Dunes.

Interesting inclusion. With 24 lands and 18 mountains, the deck isn’t going to get colour screwed very often statistically. So it seems like a pretty low opportunity cost to include the Dunes. At that rate it doesn’t have to do very much to be worth including. Though, there are plenty of good X/1s to kill depending on the matchup. Bomat Courier, Syphoner, Phoenix tokens, Earthshakers, Toolcraft Exemplars, Motorists... might even snipe an Angel of Invention if you are lucky.

It would definitely seem that Mono Red is the more consistent version.

Best performing list:



Interesting how he is running a full set of Phoenix main/side. Perhaps he was expecting a bunch of other red decks and figured it was better at fighting the opposing Glorybringers? Phoenix is quite good against the decks that rely on lots of spot removal too, so it might just simply be that.

You want to splash, then splash. Though the concept is not new. People have been suggesting it in this thread for years. I can find a decklist on MTGTop8 from 2010 running a pair of Plateau.

However, Mono-Red accounts for 97% of successful Burn lists. As such, it still appears be the better EV choice, despite certain matchup weaknesses.