How does Rain of Gore deal with Leyline of Sanctity?
Why waste MB slots for Grip and then wonder where you'd make room for Faithless Looting?
Grips should be in the side unless your meta is filled with Leylines in the main, meaning people are playing too much Storm and possibly Burn and you should change up your approach accordingly.
Rain of Gore is for lifegain, period. Side it in vs Martyr/Proc, and against anyone you think will start dropping Kitchen Finks.
Splashing White seems bad. What else does it bring to the table beyond Helix, which is merely a more-expensive Lighting Bolt in this deck? I think you're missing the point of what a Burn deck should be doing and what it's trying to do. Maybe you should look up the RDW options elsewhere on the boards which lean more creature-heavy.
I just don't like the idea of swapping it out so that I'm never certain of what I'm hitting with a Cascade spell. Typically, I Cascade knowing I'm going to hit a Living End, and that unless they have countermagic or some other trick that it's going to go off. Cascading at the last possible second to maximize the momentum swinging my way, you know? Adding other spells, even relevant hate spells, just causes that to go haywire. Not knowing what I'd hit, I'd be guessing and hoping that whatever I hit is what I was hoping to find. I might be talked into siding out the Ends for one reason or another, but I just do not think a Cascade deck like this should have variance as to what the Cascade'd spell can be in any given game.
I just never care about Macabre coming back, and if she makes the trip back from the yard I'm surprised. I hardly ever drop her just to fill up the yard, as she isn't very big or tough. She's one of the very few that I run that die to bolt or helix. She's straight up utility, and in that regard I have to think she does a better job than Offalsnout. She's cheaper to use, hits more targets, and is a better body to have on the field if it comes to that. Between her and a few Jund Charms in the side, I think I'm feeling pretty good about GY hate.
I have to go with Krosan Grip over Beast Within, if only for Split Second alone. I've explained my feelings on Beast Within in previous pages of this thread. It's neat in that it can do a handful of things, but other cards that we already play (or should be playing) do them better.
I could see a blue version of the deck, but I think losing green would hurt it. Violent Outburst is the Cascade spell of choice, and cards like Brindle Boar and Krosan Grip/Beast Within give the deck answers in what would otherwise be bad matchups. Mulldrifter is neat, but it's just not the beater that I'd want it to be. Two cards is nice, sure, but in a deck in which I'm cycling at least three or four times in the first 3 turns, I'm not really hurting for card draw.
Leyline seems interesting. Can't say I'd want to make room for it in the main, but I could see it being an odd surprise. Gotta say though that it's not really kicking people in the balls the way I want to. Snappy is strong, but not enough to warrant 4 main slots taken up just to hate it. Aggro seems like it'd be fine playing around it with the exception of 'Goyf, and Storm decks may cringe but they are capable of going off around a Leyline.
Night of Souls' Betrayal could work, I guess, but that's really slow, considering they can pump their Ascendants into beating range as early as turn 2.
This is pretty close to what I do. Macabre really shines here. I'm only really worried when they pump an Ascendant up by turn 2 or 3. Otherwise, just go off as normal. Macabre keeps pesky Martyrs from coming back. If I were to become really worried about the deck, I'd look at Leylines as answers. Trying out Jund Charm in my side these days, I'll post how it's going if I come across some Martyr decks.
Fulminator loves me when I go against something like a control deck; if I can stick just one down he usually wrecks them enough to keep them from getting to where they want to be. He's not NECESSARY for the deck, but he's very welcome and fits in very well. As I've said before, I'm usually happier to see him than I am seeing Beast Within.
Ran into a Living End build while testing out a Burn deck the other day. Typical list similar to what I run, except he was packing Jund Charms. I asked the player post match about it and was convinced to add them to the sideboard. Looking at my last list, I took Fulminator and Macabre #4's out and added 2 Jund Charms. I also cut the Scalding Tarns, added 1 Verdant Catacomb, and cut down a few basics to add 3 Copperline Gorges and 2 Blackcleave Cliffs. They were missed. I'm quite happy where the mana base is at right now.
The main I feel pretty good about. I like have Sudden Shock in for a variety of reasons. The sideboard is what I'm not so thrilled about. Admittedly, I just kinda put it together from older lists posted in this thread and from what I see getting played on MTGO; Smash to Smithereens I usually never use and would like to replace it with other stuff, perhaps Searing Blaze or other Flamebreaks and Sudden Shocks. I've also been thinking about Cryoclams at the suggestion of a friend; so many of the decks I'd pull it in against would be susceptible to it, and if it hits it's just better than something like Molten Rain or Fulminator Mage.
Spruced up the deck a bit today, hoping to add to the consistency of it. By spruced up mainly I mean changed the mana base to include fetches and a pair of shocks.
I'm still a little squirmy about the sideboard; I haven't missed Beast Within yet, but I might. The only time I can think of recently where I was happy to have it in hand was post-Gifts Ungiven when Iona was calling Black. Literally in only one game did I thank the heavens I had the card, most other times I wish it was something else.
Faerie Macabre is just the nuts-tech so so so often. It kicks Gifts in the nuts, it kicks Melira and/or Affinity in the nuts if they try to sac-out in response to Living End, it can quickly bring a 'Goyf to modest size, and really it's just always a great trick to have up our sleeves. I've been happy going to 3 main and 1 side.
I've liked having Brindle Boar instead of Kitchen Finks for life gain. This is mainly because I can control when I gain life off of Boar and I can control putting him into the bin if I'm going to go for a Living End. Also, not as much of a factor but still worth mentioning is that his one green cost is easier to hit than Fink's double green/white. Of course, I tend to see more burn decks in testing rooms and 2-Player queues than I do in daily events, so he may not stick around long.
Chewy is self-explanatory. Regarding Krosan Grip and Ricochet Trap: which should be 3 and which should be 4?
Zoo can fish on turn 3. Turn 3 combo is not the problem. Zoo is a turn 4 deck. Zoo is the best aggro available. Combo should be 1 turn faster than zoo. If control staples were off of the ban list decks like storm and scapeshift(which is actually a turn 4-5 deck) would be great for the meta and would even the playing field. Noobs that didn't want to interact with their opponents or use a side board would complain because their aggro deck would no longer be the fastest deck, but that is how a big card pool format should be.
Lulz, is there any statement or observation one can make about Modern that doesn't end with you spinning it off into "teh controls can save everting in Modern!"? And anyway, yeah, no; comboing out reliably in 2-3 turns was enough of a problem for Wizards to decide to put a lid on the enablers. Zoo can, under the right signs and the right stars and with all that other crap in alignment GET THERE in 3, but more likely it was clocking in at 4, usually 5...just like many other decks in Modern. Decks getting the heavy bans, control, combo, aggro or whatever they were, were the ones coming in by turn three consistently enough to warrant notice. Storm decks didn't get totally shut down; they just have to work harder to be as refined as they used to be. Zoo hasn't been spayed or neutered; they just have to make due without one powerful engine and one powerful creature, neither of which were necessary for the deck (Zoo had been around before either card was printed). I understand the concept of control, combo, and aggro keeping each other in check, but I feel like that just unbanning some of your favorite cards is not the only way or the better way of fine tuning a format.
You act like this format is busted. It's really not. The more I've been playing the more I'm finding it to be a rather balanced and entertaining environment where many decks of many walks of life are finding ways to get by and make a place for themselves.
so combo is the problem, or combo on turn 3 is the problem...
Combo on turn 3 is the problem. Really, any reliable turn 3 win is the problem, but combo tends to take the cake as a combo deck is more likely to run nothing but a few pieces and then nothing but cantrips and deck manipulation.
You disagree that there should be more consistency available at large because of combos? Wouldn't you agree that printing less (fast/broken) combo and more deck manipulators would make the game more fun?
No, I don't agree. Combo is fun, combo is neat. Many players play just because of combo. Getting rid of combo isn't the answer. Getting rid of the tools that enable super fast combos or wins is the next best thing.
More deck manipulation could help control have the relevant combo counter consistently before turn 4 or so...
I'm not buying it. You're talking about helping out ONE deck archetype against Combo. Easier and better just to be rid of the enablers as they have done.
Ummm... it's the same thing? You can't ban a card because it makes a combo deck too consitent without removing that consistency from the card pool for all other, fair decks to use. You know what card would be great for helping a Control deck find the right answers T1? Preordain. Ponder.
See above. So, yeah. Cool if those cards help a small section of decks find answers. The decks that don't run them, or don't even run those colors, are still boned. And, please, isn't there still cheap manipulation and card drawing out there? What's that? Slight of Hand? Serum Visions?
TL;DR -- You're wrong; Wizards banned consistency, and not the combos. Consistency with any winning strategy means you are consistently winning, and Wizards does not want any deck, T3/T4 kill combo deck or otherwise, to consistently win against a wide range of decks.
Um, see the first response in this post. Note that this is likely my fault more than anyone else because in the original post the initial instance of "comboing off" was not intended to be read as literally "comboing" but instead as securing a winning position. If Wizards were to go after TRUE consistency, fetches and most all card draw would be banned.
A note on "consistency": Consistency in a deck isn't what banning Ponder or it's ilk is about, or at least not as most of you are using the term. Consistency is fine. Consistently Comboing off and winning turn 3 is not so fine. So please, save your explanations on why you think Consistency is good, and your tangents about mana screw; those of us that play constructed don't need to be told by you how good "consistency" is. Those bans are all about making sure decks like Storm or Splinter Twin Combo don't "consistently" go off before turn 4 or so.
A note about "Modern's barrier to entry": If you bought Burnwillows, I feel for you a little bit. However, not as much as you might think. Burnwillows were never a "staple". They were part of an engine, a narrow piece for a combo that saw play in two decks. Anyone capable of accurately analyzing Modern could have told you that it wasn't a totally safe investment. Getting into Modern starts with buying an "evergreen" mana base of fetches and shocks, followed by Scars duals and Filter lands if necessary. Then there are guys like 'Goyf, Dark Confidant, and a few others that you'll have to make a decision about (though NONE of them are necessary for the format by any means). Most everything is moderately affordable. And I'm saying that as one of the cheapest MTG players I know. So, again, I get you being a little sore that those Burnwillows aren't so hot anymore, but they were never a staple, and there were already signs that that engine was going to get axed (unlike the kitty).
A note about "Ban-happy DCI": No deck was killed in this recent banning. So anyone "waving the flag" of how DCI is just killing the next best deck is provably wrong and just being a reactionary stooge. Zoo wasn't THE BEST DECK EVER, nor was it some UNSTOPPABLE BEAST in Modern. It's HILARIOUS how many of you go with the gut reactions typical of an 8 year old without actually taking the time to think things through. To the guy talking about how he "can't play his favorite deck", please, tell me what deck that is. If it's one of a few certain degenerate combos, welp, I don't feel too bad for you. If it's most anything else, you probably can play it, but you likely think that losing a piece or two and being forced into maybe making your own changes and making up some new tech are just hurdles too big for you to jump.
Not necessarily. This doesn't work against all decks, but losing Living End just means you have to start hardcasting to win. I came up against a deck which Surgical Extraction'd away my Living Ends, and I still won just by dropping fatties and beating face (off the back of well timed Fulminator, mind you).
The decks that give me the biggest headaches are Burn and Control decks with lots of cheap counters. Remanding a Living End hurts BAD.
What I don't get is why Modern is "such a pain" to break into for some people. So, at the top we have the mana base which is a healthy amount of money to invest in. Then 'goyf. After that, it's a rather affordable format where many strategies are viable. There are aggro decks, control decks, combo decks, denial decks, tempo decks...where's the pain? Where's the barrier? I mean, you've stated already that your personal barrier is that you don't have a meta to game in, but one can be found or started rather easily if more people would be open to it instead of writing it off because of things like the bannings.
What did people expect with the creation of a new eternal format? That they would just be able to hammer everything out all at once? It's a safe environment to get into. No one is going to ban the mana base. No one is going to ban 'goyf. Wizard's has already said they intend to reprint staples like that in the future. The water's fine, gentlemen. Stop wimping out and jump in already.
You forgot to mention how it kicks Gifts Ungiven in the nuts, along with any random Mindslaver decks you might run across.
Why waste MB slots for Grip and then wonder where you'd make room for Faithless Looting?
Grips should be in the side unless your meta is filled with Leylines in the main, meaning people are playing too much Storm and possibly Burn and you should change up your approach accordingly.
Rain of Gore is for lifegain, period. Side it in vs Martyr/Proc, and against anyone you think will start dropping Kitchen Finks.
Splashing White seems bad. What else does it bring to the table beyond Helix, which is merely a more-expensive Lighting Bolt in this deck? I think you're missing the point of what a Burn deck should be doing and what it's trying to do. Maybe you should look up the RDW options elsewhere on the boards which lean more creature-heavy.
I have to go with Krosan Grip over Beast Within, if only for Split Second alone. I've explained my feelings on Beast Within in previous pages of this thread. It's neat in that it can do a handful of things, but other cards that we already play (or should be playing) do them better.
I could see a blue version of the deck, but I think losing green would hurt it. Violent Outburst is the Cascade spell of choice, and cards like Brindle Boar and Krosan Grip/Beast Within give the deck answers in what would otherwise be bad matchups. Mulldrifter is neat, but it's just not the beater that I'd want it to be. Two cards is nice, sure, but in a deck in which I'm cycling at least three or four times in the first 3 turns, I'm not really hurting for card draw.
Leyline seems interesting. Can't say I'd want to make room for it in the main, but I could see it being an odd surprise. Gotta say though that it's not really kicking people in the balls the way I want to. Snappy is strong, but not enough to warrant 4 main slots taken up just to hate it. Aggro seems like it'd be fine playing around it with the exception of 'Goyf, and Storm decks may cringe but they are capable of going off around a Leyline.
This is pretty close to what I do. Macabre really shines here. I'm only really worried when they pump an Ascendant up by turn 2 or 3. Otherwise, just go off as normal. Macabre keeps pesky Martyrs from coming back. If I were to become really worried about the deck, I'd look at Leylines as answers. Trying out Jund Charm in my side these days, I'll post how it's going if I come across some Martyr decks.
Ran into a Living End build while testing out a Burn deck the other day. Typical list similar to what I run, except he was packing Jund Charms. I asked the player post match about it and was convinced to add them to the sideboard. Looking at my last list, I took Fulminator and Macabre #4's out and added 2 Jund Charms. I also cut the Scalding Tarns, added 1 Verdant Catacomb, and cut down a few basics to add 3 Copperline Gorges and 2 Blackcleave Cliffs. They were missed. I'm quite happy where the mana base is at right now.
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Shard Volley
4 Rift Bolt
4 Incinerate
4 Magma Jet
2 Sudden Shock
3 Flamebreak
3 Flame Javelin
4 Arid Mesa
1 Blood Crypt
1 Stomping Ground
10 Mountains
3 Smash to Smithereens
4 Rain of Gore
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Krosan Grip
The main I feel pretty good about. I like have Sudden Shock in for a variety of reasons. The sideboard is what I'm not so thrilled about. Admittedly, I just kinda put it together from older lists posted in this thread and from what I see getting played on MTGO; Smash to Smithereens I usually never use and would like to replace it with other stuff, perhaps Searing Blaze or other Flamebreaks and Sudden Shocks. I've also been thinking about Cryoclams at the suggestion of a friend; so many of the decks I'd pull it in against would be susceptible to it, and if it hits it's just better than something like Molten Rain or Fulminator Mage.
4 Violent Outburst
3 Demonic Dread
3 Living End
Cycling Creatures
4 Monstrous Carabid
3 Jungle Weaver
3 Ridge Rannet
4 Street Wraith
4 Deadshot Minotaur
3 Architects of Will
Utility Creatures
3 Faerie Macabre
3 Shriekmaw
3 Fulminator Mage
3 Mountain
2 Forest
2 Swamp
3 Forbidden Orchard
1 Blood Crypt
1 Stomping Ground
4 Arid Mesa
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Ingot Chewer
1 Faerie Macabre
1 Fulminator Mage
3 Brindle Boar
3 Krosan Grip
4 Ricochet Trap
I'm still a little squirmy about the sideboard; I haven't missed Beast Within yet, but I might. The only time I can think of recently where I was happy to have it in hand was post-Gifts Ungiven when Iona was calling Black. Literally in only one game did I thank the heavens I had the card, most other times I wish it was something else.
Faerie Macabre is just the nuts-tech so so so often. It kicks Gifts in the nuts, it kicks Melira and/or Affinity in the nuts if they try to sac-out in response to Living End, it can quickly bring a 'Goyf to modest size, and really it's just always a great trick to have up our sleeves. I've been happy going to 3 main and 1 side.
I've liked having Brindle Boar instead of Kitchen Finks for life gain. This is mainly because I can control when I gain life off of Boar and I can control putting him into the bin if I'm going to go for a Living End. Also, not as much of a factor but still worth mentioning is that his one green cost is easier to hit than Fink's double green/white. Of course, I tend to see more burn decks in testing rooms and 2-Player queues than I do in daily events, so he may not stick around long.
Chewy is self-explanatory. Regarding Krosan Grip and Ricochet Trap: which should be 3 and which should be 4?
Lulz, is there any statement or observation one can make about Modern that doesn't end with you spinning it off into "teh controls can save everting in Modern!"? And anyway, yeah, no; comboing out reliably in 2-3 turns was enough of a problem for Wizards to decide to put a lid on the enablers. Zoo can, under the right signs and the right stars and with all that other crap in alignment GET THERE in 3, but more likely it was clocking in at 4, usually 5...just like many other decks in Modern. Decks getting the heavy bans, control, combo, aggro or whatever they were, were the ones coming in by turn three consistently enough to warrant notice. Storm decks didn't get totally shut down; they just have to work harder to be as refined as they used to be. Zoo hasn't been spayed or neutered; they just have to make due without one powerful engine and one powerful creature, neither of which were necessary for the deck (Zoo had been around before either card was printed). I understand the concept of control, combo, and aggro keeping each other in check, but I feel like that just unbanning some of your favorite cards is not the only way or the better way of fine tuning a format.
You act like this format is busted. It's really not. The more I've been playing the more I'm finding it to be a rather balanced and entertaining environment where many decks of many walks of life are finding ways to get by and make a place for themselves.
Combo on turn 3 is the problem. Really, any reliable turn 3 win is the problem, but combo tends to take the cake as a combo deck is more likely to run nothing but a few pieces and then nothing but cantrips and deck manipulation.
No, I don't agree. Combo is fun, combo is neat. Many players play just because of combo. Getting rid of combo isn't the answer. Getting rid of the tools that enable super fast combos or wins is the next best thing.
I'm not buying it. You're talking about helping out ONE deck archetype against Combo. Easier and better just to be rid of the enablers as they have done.
See above. So, yeah. Cool if those cards help a small section of decks find answers. The decks that don't run them, or don't even run those colors, are still boned. And, please, isn't there still cheap manipulation and card drawing out there? What's that? Slight of Hand? Serum Visions?
Um, see the first response in this post. Note that this is likely my fault more than anyone else because in the original post the initial instance of "comboing off" was not intended to be read as literally "comboing" but instead as securing a winning position. If Wizards were to go after TRUE consistency, fetches and most all card draw would be banned.
A note about "Modern's barrier to entry": If you bought Burnwillows, I feel for you a little bit. However, not as much as you might think. Burnwillows were never a "staple". They were part of an engine, a narrow piece for a combo that saw play in two decks. Anyone capable of accurately analyzing Modern could have told you that it wasn't a totally safe investment. Getting into Modern starts with buying an "evergreen" mana base of fetches and shocks, followed by Scars duals and Filter lands if necessary. Then there are guys like 'Goyf, Dark Confidant, and a few others that you'll have to make a decision about (though NONE of them are necessary for the format by any means). Most everything is moderately affordable. And I'm saying that as one of the cheapest MTG players I know. So, again, I get you being a little sore that those Burnwillows aren't so hot anymore, but they were never a staple, and there were already signs that that engine was going to get axed (unlike the kitty).
A note about "Ban-happy DCI": No deck was killed in this recent banning. So anyone "waving the flag" of how DCI is just killing the next best deck is provably wrong and just being a reactionary stooge. Zoo wasn't THE BEST DECK EVER, nor was it some UNSTOPPABLE BEAST in Modern. It's HILARIOUS how many of you go with the gut reactions typical of an 8 year old without actually taking the time to think things through. To the guy talking about how he "can't play his favorite deck", please, tell me what deck that is. If it's one of a few certain degenerate combos, welp, I don't feel too bad for you. If it's most anything else, you probably can play it, but you likely think that losing a piece or two and being forced into maybe making your own changes and making up some new tech are just hurdles too big for you to jump.
The decks that give me the biggest headaches are Burn and Control decks with lots of cheap counters. Remanding a Living End hurts BAD.
What did people expect with the creation of a new eternal format? That they would just be able to hammer everything out all at once? It's a safe environment to get into. No one is going to ban the mana base. No one is going to ban 'goyf. Wizard's has already said they intend to reprint staples like that in the future. The water's fine, gentlemen. Stop wimping out and jump in already.