[Primer] Boros Burn

[magicdownunder]

I can't stand the Dancers but Gx Devo and Gx are real MU online sadly (at least its also good vs Ux Devo) T_T

[Whole]

It seems that anything less than 4 Magma Jets is wrong X_X. I feel that the scry 2 is so crucial to the deck to either hit the necessary lands on curve or to prevent flooding in the mid to late game.

[BlakLanner]

I can't stand the Dancers but Gx Devo and Gx are real MU online sadly (at least its also good vs Ux Devo) T_T

Yeah, look at my Round 3 highlights today to see what SFD does to Mono Green.

[BrainsickHater]

Ivan Floch's deck may be a total bitch to play against, but he's playing one of the best UW lists I've seen. Jim Davis's only real problem with his Planar Cleansing list (besides the general sluggishness of the deck) at Providence was that it lost to mutavault pretty hard. Ivan obviously resolved that issue.

Matt Sperling's deck is certainly geared towards a specific metagame. He doesn't need Chained to the Rocks in the main deck, since he doesn't expect to see decks that he absolutely needs Chained to the Rocks against. Against MU he can constrict their devotion and use SB, Stoke, and Helix to win a race 90% of the time. Post-board he shits on them with SFD. Against BW he just applies pressure and when they play a fatty it's too late; they can't race his burn. Sperling didn't consider Green Devotion or Monsters real decks (the only decks we regularly need Chained against) and
rightly assumed they wouldn't make a strong showing. I don't think us Plebians can afford to cut Chained at our scrub-level SCG events, but I wish I could play a list like Sperlings.

Lastly, current list for SCG Syracuse:

[deck]
Creatures:
4 Young Pyromancer
4 Chandra's Phoenix

Other Spells:
4 Chained to the Rocks

4 Shock
4 Magma Jet
4 Lightning Strike
4 Skullcrack
4 Boros Charm
3 Warleader's Helix
1 Stoke the Flames
1 Mizzium Mortars

Lands:
4 Temple of Triumph
4 Sacred Foundry
3 Mutavault
2 Battlefield Forge
1 Temple of Silence
9 Mountain

Sideboard:
3 Boros Reckoner
3 Mizzium Mortars
2 Banishing Light
2 Wear // Tear
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
1 Pillar of Light
1 Hushwing Gryff
1 ???
[/deck]

Firstly, shout-out to Rhyno who I regularly turn to for advice on the deck.

After having the idea of putting a MM back in the main presented to me I like it. BW and GW
should experience at least a mild-surge in popularity after the PT, and MM is great against both. Also has applications in a million matchups of course.

Reckoners in the side started as a concession to Green Devotion, but I like them better against GW than Flamespeaker as well. Also good in every creature-centric matchup.

I originally had 2 Assembles in the list, but I still don't enjoy how narrow it is. One Assemble has become Pillar of Light, which I like against G-Devo as well as decks that I expect to see after the PT.


The final slot I don't know what to do with, but here are all the options I'm considering.

W//T, Gryff, Pillar, Chandra: I could see myself running one more of any of these cards. They're all good in many matchups, and most of them have applications against a lot of the PT decks.

Assemble the Legion: I mean I played them for a reason. MB auto-win is a cool thing.

Mutavault: Why not.

n1 MM from main to side: I get the 4th Helix back but still get 4 MM if I want them.

Any suggestions or advice are extremely welcome

[magicdownunder]

@BrainsickHater: I recommend the 4th Mutavault since that card is solid vs UW control which I expect will be out in force, I also wanted to say BW (control or midrange) are actually rather well tuned in delaying us since they tend too run 8 or more discards spells which is quite brutal against 4cc spells.

[Rhyno]

I haven't tested the WB Midrange matchup since the last time it was popular, but shouldn't Gryff be great against it? It counters Sin Collector if you're on the play and demands an answer if they want to stabilize with Obzedat.

I'm probably going to drop my 3rd Wear//Tear for a 2nd Gryff. I admit my 3 Wear//Tears were probably in response to an unusual amount of Dredge and Constellation in my local meta.

[Lightning_Dolt]

I don't get the reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS6UwPJHMOA

[magicdownunder]

Quick update about my videos:

As some may know I recently lost all my data (including 1.5 weeks worth of footage) so all those DEs I ran with HK (4 of them 3-1, 4-0x3 are gone) and my Modern games (it maybe a hidden blessing since I just ran the same list in every MU).

Anyhow since these next three weeks are rather busy I won't be able too play too much magic (though I'll still be online trying too sell slightly overpriced but convenient boosters) I'll be only running 8-Mans with standard whenever I have time.

Here is the first set running a slightly edited version of William Yowell list

SE Report 7343716
[url=https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHsuh_cuCMI&lis ... zWSu-QWADg]G1 Mirror SE 7343716[/url]
G2 Bg Devo vs YOLO SE 7343716
G3 Mirror SE 7343716 <-- DtR Lurker

I didn't run the list for long since I really dislike Eidolon of the Great Revel in this metagame and not running Shock just feels so very wrong.

[LP, of the Fires]

Minus the lack of magma jet, I like sperlings deck a lot. I posted something similar a week or so ago, because searing blood is just really good against the decks I'd expect people to play(pack rat, elvish mystic, mostly).

@L_D: you can be the whinest poster ever and it's pretty infuriating. wa wa wa

[dauntless268]

The problem with Searing Blood / CTTR is that you kind of have to choose between the two since both are dead vs. control (certainly the one that the we saw at the PT).

[sirzevo]

Here's me playing against U/W control last night (it's an hour long video... what a surprise) I think I make a few misplays which I usually realize and call out in the video. I'm playing a slightly modified MDU deck for a TCGPlayer Diamond event coming up. I'm thinking I need a little more help against control. I'm also expecting all of the Mono decks. Here's the video.

Here's the deck list:

[deck]Creatures
4 Young Pyromancer
4 Chandra's Phoenix

Enchantments
3 Chained to the Rocks

Instants
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Strike
4 Magma Jet
2 Searing Blood
3 Shock
4 Skullcrack
1 Stoke the Flames
4 Warleader's Helix

Lands
8 Mountain
4 Sacred Foundry
4 Temple of Triumph
3 Mutavault
2 Battlefield Forge
1 Temple of Silence
1 Temple of Malice

Sideboard
2 Hushwing Gryff
2 Banishing Light
2 Pillar of Light
1 Stoke the Flames
n2 Chandra, Pyromaster
3 Mizzium Mortars
3 Toil // Trouble[/deck]

[Valdarith]

The problem with Searing Blood / CTTR is that you kind of have to choose between the two since both are dead vs. control (certainly the one that the we saw at the PT).

One is a lot more dead than the other.

[Kaitscralt]

Um, Elspeth?

Floch's list is not playing any maindeck Elspeth. Game one he wins with Jace ultimate or Mutavault or decking his opponent.

[Kaitscralt]

Also opponent concessions

[Lightning_Dolt]

Minus the lack of magma jet, I like sperlings deck a lot. I posted something similar a week or so ago, because searing blood is just really good against the decks I'd expect people to play(pack rat, elvish mystic, mostly).

@L_D: you can be the whinest poster ever and it's pretty infuriating. wa wa wa

you know what's even more infuriating? Playing against UW control.

[BrainsickHater]

Oh my god I need to know how to make that rainbow slug thing

[BlakLanner]

It's a frog!

[Whole]

Gerry Thompson just wrote an article on "Burning Control." At first he said "The issue with Burn is that its clock is relatively slow. When paired against an opponent playing a fast creature deck, Burn will probably find that it's much slower." and I was getting a little excited. Then he immediately followed up with "When that's the case, it has to use its valuable spells on creatures rather than the player just to not lose, but then Burn has a difficult time actually winning." and then I lost all hope.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/29062_.html

[Purp]

Shit article by a guy with an even shittier haircut.

[Khaospawn]

Somebody made a frog and I was summoned!

[conSeeDed]

I just ran in an IQ yesterday and Rabblemaster just overran everything but Naya. With WW, MUD and Rabblemaster all being potentially difficult matches for us, has anyone tried Circle of Flames (I had to check, it is mono-directional so none of or stuff dies) ? As we are all aware, mono red has trouble with enchantments, MUD usually doesn't run enchantment removal, and WW usually only usually runs brave the elements. Am I missing anything or is it just too situational?

Edit: I didn't actually face it but I didn't see a good match vs it outside of a turn 4 Chandra and good top decking.

[Whole]

What build are you running? I think WW and Rabblered are free wins, and while Mono Blue isn't easy, I'd say it's 50/50 or even slightly favored towards us and can be a matchup that leaves you a lot of room to just sequence better than your opponent.

[Purp]

Rabblemaster Red poses no threat to us.

[conSeeDed]

I'm running MDU's list from about a week ago. The deck I saw was basically a T4 win if everything is unanswered so that takes me to the thought of burning out the biggest threats. I saw several games where they hit a 3\1 Foundry Street Denizen on T2 and then 2 or 3 3\1s on T3 plus whatever else they throw out there. Therefore I see those guys and Rabblemaster as the two most explosive threats. If we draw equal quality hands then it feels like it would come down to top decking. Early phoenixes seem like a dead card, someone better than I would have to say if YP$ is a good T2 or if you just take too long to get started with him at that point (and I don't know if they run burn for it and mirrors). I don't know why I didn't think about eidolon before, but I'm guessing that's the play vs them even if it draws searing blood?

[Elricity]

You want to save YP until it can make a token if at all possible. Phoenix is a late game finisher versus these decks. You should only play it early if you must or if their board is of no serious threat at the moment.

You have 16+ terminates and swords to plowshares for the first 2-3 turns and then it's generally curtains for them. It's only an issue if you end up with a hand with very few of them, which can happen and you just have to do the best you can.

Game 2/3 just gets worse for them and they have to hope on peak eruptions.

[BrainsickHater]

Holy shit you're right

[NotARobot]

Just had to share this screencap... we all know his feels at that moment

[Valdarith]

Yeah, he was REALLY salty through most of that matchup and I can't really blame him.

[LP, of the Fires]

If you're smart and don't mono lava spikes, the aggro matchup are super favorable. You can still lose, but youre basically playing the best control deck possible vs then.

[Elricity]

If you're smart and don't mono lava spikes, the aggro matchup are super favorable. You can still lose, but youre basically playing the best control deck possible vs then.

Nah man, haven't you heard, if you use all your spells killing their creatures, like, you're guaranteed to lose that game because burn has no other win conditions. Maybe if it ran elixir and card draw, it could be awesome like UW control.

All the cool kids lava spike all their cards, all the time. Don't you want to be one of the cool kids? Maybe even one of the Kool Kidz?

[Platypus]

You can see an example of the Rabblemaster match up here (Round 14: Sterling vs Dezani):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJfC6bn2o4

[Elricity]

Gerry Thompson just wrote an article on "Burning Control." At first he said "The issue with Burn is that its clock is relatively slow. When paired against an opponent playing a fast creature deck, Burn will probably find that it's much slower." and I was getting a little excited. Then he immediately followed up with "When that's the case, it has to use its valuable spells on creatures rather than the player just to not lose, but then Burn has a difficult time actually winning." and then I lost all hope.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/29062_.html

I saw that someone in the comments did his best to tell them
why this was dumb. If it was one of you, good job for trying.

[Whole]

if you're referring to the Donald Smith poster, yea that's me.

[Elricity]

if you're referring to the Donald Smith poster, yea that's me.

You're doing God's work.

I'm still confused why "I have a ton of removal and 8-10 win conditions" is hard to see as a control deck as opposed to "I have a ton of (more expensive) removal and a few win conditions".

[hoeiberg]

if you're referring to the Donald Smith poster, yea that's me.

Nice try man, nice try

[Rhyno]

If you're smart and don't mono lava spikes, the aggro matchup are super favorable. You can still lose, but youre basically playing the best control deck possible vs then.

Nah man, haven't you heard, if you use all your spells killing their creatures, like, you're guaranteed to lose that game because burn has no other win conditions. Maybe if it ran elixir and card draw, it could be awesome like UW control.

All the cool kids lava spike all their cards, all the time. Don't you want to be one of the cool kids? Maybe even one of the Kool Kidz?

This message
brought to you by /r/spikes

[LP, of the Fires]

Yeah, GerryT's comment was dumb. That decklist was interesting and maybe worth playing but implying burn is weak vs. aggro is fucking stupid.

[Elricity]

I'm just convinced people are required by their editor to write about decks they don't like and/or understand so you get the equivalent of writing someone's phone number on a bar's bathroom wall.

[zemanjaski]

They're definitely writing about decks they have never played. This happens a lot with SCG.

[Elricity]

That much is obvious, I'm just curious if they're forced to or they drunkly fire off a post just because.

For example, and I respect if you don't want to answer this, it appears CFB's writers write more about what they're comfortable about or they're straight up that they're doing stream of conciousness. I don't know if that's CFB editors not forcing them to write what they don't know or forcing them to know about what they write, both, or neither.

If that makes sense.

It seems so systemic that I feel it has to be a management issue with some of these sites. Thinking about these things is kind of a hobby of mine.

And clearly I'm making assumptions about a process I know nothing about.