[Deck] Burn

[Basara]

chandra phoenix is a bad creature,comparing phoenyx to sulfuric vortex is bad , sulfuric is an enchantment and they are really hard to remove , compared to creatures, that are easily exiled by the premier removal spell :sword to plowshares, so the phoenix is never coming back again because it will removed, also it doesnt prevent life gain , thats the real power of sulfuric vortex , preventing opposing jittes and batterskull is absolutely powerful...

[Curby]

Also, Ooze is the new Goyf, and is especially potent against Burn because of Marauders and Hellspark, combined with life gain.

[DragoFireheart]

I have no issue with Chandra's Phoenix but your discounting of the importance of preventing life gain. Most of the decks that can gain life have the ability MD, that is the biggest reason for running Vortex MD. Also, you only need to cast Vortex once.


I wasn't discounting the Vortexs anti-healing effect. That's honestly the only advantage it has over the birds. In some matchups it's game breaking, but others it's either only as good as the bird or worse.

You only need to cast the bird once. The vortex is still vulnerable to counters/removal. Once a vortex is countered or destroyed we can't get it back. The bird is only vulnerable to Stp and can be recast otherwise.

Meanwhile, Vortex makes our aggro or combo matchups harder. The bird is better to have main decked, while the vortex is better in the side.

If you are running into so many decks that contain large amounts of life gain, you may want to consider not running burn in your meta.

[Curby]

Vortex in balanced metas belongs in the side. Phoenix belongs nowhere near the 75.

[DragoFireheart]

Vortex in balanced metas belongs in the side. Phoenix belongs nowhere near the 75.

Explain.

[JDK]

Explain.

Maybe because STP is the most common creature removal spell, Enchantments are not as easy to get rid off and Vortex prevents lifegain - the biggest issue of this deck, alongside Leyline.

Sulfuric Vortex offers so much more for :1::r::r: than Chandra's Phoenix does.

[jares]

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/434/reforgethesoul.jpg

:eek:
Unfortunately, it will be foolish for us to rely on Miracles to happen all the time, at EXACTLY the right time. :cry:

Thunderous Wrath might merit some consideration as a one-of in the deck, simply because drawing into it at any time when you have mana is certainly a good thing; the same cannot be said for Reforge the Soul.

Regards,
jares

[jares]

Chandra's Phoenix is not "too slow" if we are comparing it against Sulfuric Vortex.

Chandra's Phoenix:

- Deals two damage right away instead of waiting for the opponents upkeep.
- More resilient to removal compared to Vortex. Requires a swords to remove, which means one less swords for your Guides or Devils. Bolts and blockers won't stop it forever.
- Doesn't deal damage to you, making it better against other aggro decks looking to race you.

Both cards kill at about the same speed. The Phoenix is better against blind matches compared to Vortex. If you were considering main-decking Vortex, put that may birds in it's place and put the Vortexes in the side board.
Let me try and make a direct comparison between Chandra's Phoenix and Sulfuric Vortex, awarding points to either card depending on whichever has the edge for that specific point:

Chandra's Phoenix has evasion, but is unable to guarantee 2 damage, and will require a combat phase to be able to possibly deal damage. Sulfuric Vortex can ensure that damage will be dealt because it's effect is triggered by a phase that is built into the game, with the exception of a rare occurrence of a Stifle or Trickbind being played. Edge: Sulfuric Vortex.
Chandra's Phoenix is unable to prevent life-gain. Sulfuric Vortex prevents life-gain for as long as it is in play. Edge: Sulfuric Vortex.

Kindly note that the current meta is littered by life-gain effects, not because the game plan of the current decks is to gain life, but because the current staples in Legacy have these abilities somewhat like bonus effects (e.g. Umezawa's Jitte, Scavenging Ooze, Batterskull, etc.). I find it unacceptable for us to say that we should consider not playing Burn because our opponents come prepared for us - I believe that the proper response for any deck is to say that we should also come prepared for them! :wink:

Chandra's Phoenix is much more vulnerable to removal spells when compared to Sulfuric Vortex because Creature removal is much more common than Enchantment removal. Edge: Sulfuric Vortex.
Chandra's Phoenix edges Sulfuric Vortex out in the event that these cards are indeed removed from play because it's able to "revive" itself. Edge: Chandra's Phoenix.
Chandra's Phoenix does not deal damage to its owner, while Sulfuric Vortex deals 2 damage to its owner regularly. Edge: Chandra's Phoenix.
Chandra's Phoenix can be used defensively as a blocker, while Sulfuric Vortex does not have any defensive options (unless you consider the prevention of life gain as "defensive"). Edge: Chandra's Phoenix.
Because the damage from Sulfuric Vortex is much more difficult to prevent when compared to Chandra's Phoenix, it can generally be considered to be a better top-deck. Edge: Sulfuric Vortex.
Final Score: Chandra's Phoenix = 3; Sulfuric Vortex = 4.
Winner: Sulfuric Vortex.

Note that this scoring system does not take into consideration that these points should be weighted based on the importance of each point. For example, the ability to prevent damage and avoid the most common removal spells would certainly be more valuable than the ability to block (for Burn, at least).


Do let us know if any additional points should be added to the list.

I hope that helps.

Kind Regards,
jares

[Rubik's Man]

I wasn't discounting the Vortexs anti-healing effect. That's honestly the only advantage it has over the birds. In some matchups it's game breaking, but others it's either only as good as the bird or worse.

"Or worse"? You've admitted that Vortex does have game-breaking upsides, so to warrant Phoenix over Vortex you need to prove that Vortex is significantly worse. Exactly what matchups make Vortex so bad that you prefer Phoenix?

Would it be control decks, since Chandra's Phoenix gets around counterspells? But Stoneblade has streams of spirits to chump, Plowshares and lifegain that Vortex would've prevented. Also, spending a three mana a second time after it's countered to get in two damage isn't exactly a threat to them. Maybe BUG Control, then? I doubt that you have Phoenix in there for a rare deck like BUG.

Against RUG Tempo, they'll have enough counterspells and bolts saved up for your burn or Phoenix itself after your early beatdown. This means you can't recur Phoenix every turn for lack of mana. If they've stalled you out enough that you have 5+ mana to get a burn spell past a counter every turn, they'll be too far ahead by then. You can argue that this situation will never happen and we should have them dead early. If this is true, then any discussion of Vortex vs. Phoenix is irrelevant because you don't play either until late-game. By the way, it seems difficult to keep Phoenix going after they Bolt it and set a CounterTop lock.

Against combo decks with disruption, Phoenix is marginally better because she gets around their counterspells if they have any. However, the choice between the two never has time to become relevant because of their turn-three fatties, Tendrils, what have you.

Maverick: 4 Swords to Plowshares and Scavenging Ooze are there to ruin Phoenix. Flyers + Mother of Runes too if they really need to escape 2 damage a turn. I'll grant that they also have Pridemages for Vortex, but neither should be boarded in here anyway.

To restate my point, in no major matchups will Vortex be so much worse that you'll be wishing you had Chandra's Phoenix.



You only need to cast the bird once. The vortex is still vulnerable to counters/removal. Once a vortex is countered or destroyed we can't get it back. The bird is only vulnerable to Stp and can be recast otherwise.


You actually need to recast the bird each time you return it from your hand. I've shown that Vortex's extra vulnerability is worth it when needed, and that the Phoenix's rebirth isn't worth it.



Meanwhile, Vortex makes our aggro or combo matchups harder.

Against combo, both are equally bad. Against aggro, why would you board in either Phoenix or Vortex?



The bird is better to have main decked, while the vortex is better in the side.

Wat. I was wondering earlier why you would board in Chandra's Phoenix or Sulfuric Vortex against aggro or combo, not really realizing you intended Phoenix as a maindeck card. So you're cutting one of: 1-2cc creatures, 1-2cc burn, Fireblast for Chandra's Phoenix? To make your matchup better against a control deck with no swords to plowshares or blockers?



If you are running into so many decks that contain large amounts of life gain, you may want to consider not running burn in your meta.

If you are running into so many decks that cannot Plow or Path to Exile your Phoenix or block it, I think Zoo is a better option than anything. Against decks that gain life, we have fast enough burn to overwhelm them and Smash to Smithereens and Sulfuric Vortex in the sideboard to seal the deal.

[Mikeleroi]

It is hard, but do you think Reforge the soul could have a place into the deck?

If it is on your initial hand, is a wasted slot, we all agree. Drawing it on turn 1-2 is the same. This leaves us on a tough position, we should draw it on turns 3/4/5 (if we are on turn 6, probably we're going to lose anyway :tongue: Even though we have magma jet to look for it...

:eyebrow: Thunderous wrath, vexing devil, and now this; all the 3 so close...

[Suneloon]

It is hard, but do you think Reforge the soul could have a place into the deck?

If it is on your initial hand, is a wasted slot, we all agree. Drawing it on turn 1-2 is the same. This leaves us on a tough position, we should draw it on turns 3/4/5 (if we are on turn 6, probably we're going to lose anyway :tongue: Even though we have magma jet to look for it...

:eyebrow: Thunderous wrath, vexing devil, and now this; all the 3 so close...

I really feel that only the Devil belongs in straight burn. The miracles are simply not viable without some "brainstormy" effects.

[Zilla]

It is hard, but do you think Reforge the soul could have a place into the deck?
It theoretically could, but my gut feeling is that it doesn't belong here. Your goal with this deck is to do the absolute maximum amount of damage possible with your opening 7 and the 3-4 cards you draw after it possible. This card directly opposes that paradigm; if it's in your opening grip it's absolutely dead, putting you one card further away from your goal. That one card makes a huge difference in this deck.

Without Brainstorm to get rid of it, it's basically a mulligan any time you draw it in your opening 7. Personally, I'd rather just have more burn in that slot.

[jares]

I really feel that only the Devil belongs in straight burn. The miracles are simply not viable without some "brainstormy" effects.
I agree. The Miracle effect, by design, induces inconsistencies in the deck, and so far, only Brainstorm is able to address these inconsistencies.

Thunderous Wrath could still possibly be considered simply because you would want to play the effect of the spell at any point in time. Unfortunately, Reforge the Soul isn't the type of spell that you would easily want to play at any point in the game - and it may even do you more harm than good.

Regards,
jares

[kasparovski]

Hi guys, been reading for some time now but this is my first post here.
I've been playing burn lately (a normal version of the list that made those tops) and a friend of mine just sent me a message talking about Devil and Wrath.
My first thought was that devil was great to substitute FoD or something and Wrath would be hard to play without brainstorm.
So Brainstorm would be good with fetches, fetches would be good with Lavamancer, then vexling etc and started thinking on a built for UR Burn that i think would kick ass. This is what i come up so far:

Creatures [16]
4 Goblin Guide
4 Vexing Devil
4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Snapcaster Mage

Instants/Sorceries [24]
2 Daze
4 Force of Will
3 Ponder
4 Brainstorm
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Thunderous Wrath
2 Price of Progress

Lands [18]
3 Misty Rainforest
3 Arid Mesa
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Island
2 Mountain
4 Volcanic Island

Sideboard
3 Faerie Macabre
4 Red Elemental Blast
2 Smash to Smithereens
1 Shattering Spree
2 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Mindbreak Trap

Sideboard obv arguable depending on meta etc but i think mb as a lot of synergy with very good cards and was able to take a lot of the weaker ones from the builts i saw.
Let me know what you guys think.

[jares]

Hi guys, been reading for some time now but this is my first post here.
I've been playing burn lately (a normal version of the list that made those tops) and a friend of mine just sent me a message talking about Devil and Wrath.
My first thought was that devil was great to substitute FoD or something and Wrath would be hard to play without brainstorm.
So Brainstorm would be good with fetches, fetches would be good with Lavamancer, then vexling etc and started thinking on a built for UR Burn that i think would kick ass. This is what i come up so far:

Creatures [16]
4 Goblin Guide
4 Vexing Devil
4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Snapcaster Mage

Instants/Sorceries [24]
2 Daze
4 Force of Will
3 Ponder
4 Brainstorm
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Thunderous Wrath
2 Price of Progress

Lands [18]
3 Misty Rainforest
3 Arid Mesa
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Island
2 Mountain
4 Volcanic Island

Sideboard
3 Faerie Macabre
4 Red Elemental Blast
2 Smash to Smithereens
1 Shattering Spree
2 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Mindbreak Trap

Sideboard obv arguable depending on meta etc but i think mb as a lot of synergy with very good cards and was able to take a lot of the weaker ones from the builts i saw.
Let me know what you guys think.
Hi There,

Your list is looking a lot like the U/R Delver lists that are being discussed in the thread below (without the Delver :tongue:):

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22676-Deck-U-R-Delver/page23

You might benefit more by discussing your build in that thread, as the considerations that are being made there are very similar to the ones that you've noted.

Kind Regards,
jares

[kasparovski]

Hi There,

Your list is looking a lot like the U/R Delver lists that are being discussed in the thread below (without the Delver :tongue:):

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22676-Deck-U-R-Delver/page23

You might benefit more by discussing your build in that thread, as the considerations that are being made there are very similar to the ones that you've noted.

Kind Regards,
jares

Oh, thank you, you're right! I didn't knew that thread exist and lol at my built not having the main card of their deck! I was like, can't be that powerful that i thought it wouldn't be worse it and i just realised it transforms into a 3/2 with flying, i had missed the flying part since it's not written on the card! So yeah, my list should definitely have Delve, maybe instead of Snapcaster, won't even post it there cause they already have very similar ones. I'm a bit disappointed that i'm not the genius that saw it coming but at the same time really happy cause it kind of confirms that it will kick ass.

edit: on another note, i think the UR Delver version is now stronger than the version being discussed on this thread because wrath and devil took most of their inconsistencies and brought many advantages and imho that doesn't happen in such a bigger scale on this built.

[jares]

Oh, thank you, you're right! I didn't knew that thread exist and lol at my built not having the main card of their deck! I was like, can't be that powerful that i thought it wouldn't be worse it and i just realised it transforms into a 3/2 with flying, i had missed the flying part since it's not written on the card! So yeah, my list should definitely have Delve, maybe instead of Snapcaster, won't even post it there cause they already have very similar ones. I'm a bit disappointed that i'm not the genius that saw it coming but at the same time really happy cause it kind of confirms that it will kick ass.

edit: on another note, i think the UR Delver version is now stronger than the version being discussed on this thread because wrath and devil took most of their inconsistencies and brought many advantages and imho that doesn't happen in such a bigger scale on this built.
Glad to have helped. Good luck with building your deck. :smile:

Cheers,
jares

[Dmnd]

I think Burn has to face a new problem card:

Thalia, Guardian of Thraben

I testet vs this card recendly and it performs incredebly strong vs Burn.
At the moment there are alot DTB that are hard matchups for Burn.
Dredge / GW Maverick / TES / Sneakshow /
and RUG is always close
With Thalia this popular it got a little bit harder to win with Burn.

I think this Deck needs a change with Vexing Devil beeing legal.
I want my Burn Deck to be much less agressive and much more like a controle Deck.
I want the Board to look that much in my favor, that every Devil i play cant ever be a 4/3 creature becaus my opp. has to use his removal for other creatures and cant handle additional aggression.
I have some idears in mind but no time to test it yet. If you have some suggestions how this could work please share them with me.

regards

[TeenieBopper]

Vexing Devil and Miracle Wheel suck. Risky Bet is stupid good.

You're welcome.

[DragoFireheart]

Vexing Devil and Miracle Wheel suck. Risky Bet is stupid good.

You're welcome.

Don't you hate Legacy?

[Kich867]

Vexing Devil and Miracle Wheel suck. Risky Bet is stupid good.

You're welcome.

What's your reasoning for Vexing Devil being bad? Only does 4 damage?

[TeenieBopper]

What's your reasoning for Vexing Devil being bad? Only does 4 damage?

The same reason Browbeat and Book Burning are bad. Letting your opponent control which mode you get is never a good idea. They're always going to choose whichever mode is best for them.

[DragoFireheart]

The same reason Browbeat and Book Burning are bad. Letting your opponent control which mode you get is never a good idea. They're always going to choose whichever mode is best for them.

Ok, but both of those cards are bad for many other reasons.

For burn, 1 for a 4/3 or 4 damage sounds fine regardless of what they choose.

[Infinitium]

The same reason Browbeat and Book Burning are bad. Letting your opponent control which mode you get is never a good idea. They're always going to choose whichever mode is best for them.

Being a strictly worse 4/3 OR 4 dmg for 1 doesn't really mean much by itself since both effects are so undercosted by themselves. It will need testing, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see this in sligh.

Browbeat is bad because 3 cards for 3 mana is bad in burn, not because the opponent can choose to have it deal damage instead (which is usually the worse choice by far for the opponent). Book burning is bad becasue it's a mill spell.

[TeenieBopper]

So when you play Vexing Devil on turn 1, everyone is going to look at their hand and ask themselves a question: Do I have a Swords/Bolt/removal spell? If yes, let it resolve. If no, they'll take the 4 damage. That's only marginally better than Chain Lightning.

Most decks probably have somewhere on the order of 4-7 dead cards against burn (removal). When you play Vexing Devil, you're doing two things: making those cards live again, and making it so your opponent chooses which is best for them/worse for you.

[Suneloon]

Exept removal hasn't been dead against burn since Goblin Guide.

[Kich867]

So when you play Vexing Devil on turn 1, everyone is going to look at their hand and ask themselves a question: Do I have a Swords/Bolt/removal spell? If yes, let it resolve. If no, they'll take the 4 damage. That's only marginally better than Chain Lightning.

Most decks probably have somewhere on the order of 4-7 dead cards against burn (removal). When you play Vexing Devil, you're doing two things: making those cards live again, and making it so your opponent chooses which is best for them/worse for you.

So what's the difference here between Goblin Guide or Hellspark Elemental or Grim Lavamancer? Goblin Guide actually gives them a card ~30% of the time.

Contrary to popular belief burn isn't always on the play. If they don't have removal, it did it's job, if they do have removal, it wouldn't have mattered. Unlike Goblin Guide who's small enough to chump out / if they don't have removal they'll find it.

As Suneloon mentioned, removal is far from dead against Burn. In fact, removal is generally the most important of your cards against burn as the creatures burn runs has potential to do 6-8 damage for 1 mana, vastly superior to a single bolt.

[DragoFireheart]

Exept removal hasn't been dead against burn since Goblin Guide.

This. Burn has turned into a Burn/RDW hybrid as of late since pure burn is trash and isn't fast enough, while too many creatures is bad since other decks do it better. A mix of hasty creatures and/or creatures with reach + burn seems to be the wining combination.

[RogueBuild]

I think Burn has to face a new problem card:

Thalia, Guardian of Thraben


This isn't a problem. Its at best a speed-bump. Leyline is a problem, CB w/ Top is a problem. Active Jitt/Batterskull/SoFI are problems. Even Kitchen Finks are problems, just smaller problems. Thalia is a speed-bump. Play around like you would daze or use 1 of the 30ish cards in your deck to kill it if you really need to.



Exept removal hasn't been dead against burn since Goblin Guide.

And that I would say is the mistake of the person running GGuide.



This. Burn has turned into a Burn/RDW hybrid as of late since pure burn is trash and isn't fast enough, while too many creatures is bad since other decks do it better. A mix of hasty creatures and/or creatures with reach + burn seems to be the wining combination.

And for the 1,000,000th time the answer can not be "go faster" (because you can't) and shouldn't be give up one of the few advantages you had to start with ("dead" card advantage) by adding creatures because the opponent will almost always have removal for it. That only leaves 1 real option, which i have covered plenty in previous posts so I will stop here before I type 3 pages again.

[jares]

I think Burn has to face a new problem card:

Thalia, Guardian of Thraben

I testet vs this card recendly and it performs incredebly strong vs Burn.
At the moment there are alot DTB that are hard matchups for Burn.
Dredge / GW Maverick / TES / Sneakshow /
and RUG is always close
With Thalia this popular it got a little bit harder to win with Burn.

I think this Deck needs a change with Vexing Devil beeing legal.
I want my Burn Deck to be much less agressive and much more like a controle Deck.
I want the Board to look that much in my favor, that every Devil i play cant ever be a 4/3 creature becaus my opp. has to use his removal for other creatures and cant handle additional aggression.
I have some idears in mind but no time to test it yet. If you have some suggestions how this could work please share them with me.

regards
You might want to try out RogueBuild's configuration using sweepers such as Flamerift and Volcanic Fallout in the main deck.

Thalia, GUardian of Thraben should indeed be cause some setbacks, but it seems to me that you can always throw removal towards her direction if it really becomes a problem.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

Vexing Devil and Miracle Wheel suck. Risky Bet is stupid good.

You're welcome.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Unfortunately, the comment above is also an example of the type that we shouldn't be too concerned about, as it obviously does not merit a meaningful discussion - we would all be better-off ignoring statements that are made without the proper reasoning.

Let me try making such a statement:

"Lightning Bolt and Fireblast suck. Lava Dart is stupid good."

-jares

[DragoFireheart]

And for the 1,000,000th time the answer can not be "go faster" (because you can't) and shouldn't be give up one of the few advantages you had to start with ("dead" card advantage) by adding creatures because the opponent will almost always have removal for it. That only leaves 1 real option, which i have covered plenty in previous posts so I will stop here before I type 3 pages again.

I'm not sure running lots of sweepers is the answer, but it's an avenue worth trying. I'm not fond of the list you sent me however and I think it could be tweaked to be something superior. I do like your concept of (nearly) creatureless burn and sweep.

[Que]

Let me try making such a statement:

"Lightning Bolt and Fireblast suck. Lava Dart is stupid good."

-jares

Hey man don't diss Lava Dart. ¬_¬

[Kich867]

Hey man don't diss Lava Dart. ¬_¬

Haha I wrote something similar but realized it started to go way too deep into nostalgia-mode.

I've won more games off the back of lava darts than I can count! Granted, I was.. what.. 14 at the time or something? Lava Dart was a 4-of auto-include in every red deck I built haha.

I started playing in Judgment, and it's still by far my favorite set to this day. I just miss the way cards were built back then, even a lot of the commons and uncommons you can say "Wow, they suck", but they were all designed pretty well or were flavorful enough. Nowadays? I don't know, most of these cards I'm seeing are so mundane and uninteresting. I miss things like Hunting Grounds, Anurid Brushhopper, Mirari, madness cards, Commander Eesha... T_T;;

*Nostalgia Mode engaged* Currently, the most memorable / best day of my life is when I got 6 teeth pulled and my mom bought me 6 packs of judgment per tooth. I. Shit. Bricks. [/nostalgiamode]

[jares]

Letting your opponent control which mode you get is never a good idea.
The above statement is a fallacy, and believe that this is the fallacy that creates misconceptions about why cards like Browbeat and Vexing Devil are good or bad. Let me prove my point:

Card Name: someImaginaryCard
Casting Cost: someFairValue
Type: Sorcery
Text: Your opponent chooses: You win the game, or your opponent losses the game.

Surely this imaginary card will not get printed, but it serves as a counterexample for the statement above, as the effect of "allowing your opponent to choose the outcome" is negligible.

The entire point of these cards that allow your opponent to "choose" is that the "choosing part" is part of the cost of playing the card - this is why Vexing Devil is undercosted as either a 4/3 creature or a 4-damage effect. The question we have to ask when evaluating these cards is "will I be getting good value for the cost that I'll be paying, including the cost of allowing my opponent to choose the resulting effect?".

As I have stated ever since Vexing Devil got spoiled, I find no benefit in over-thinking the details of this card, and we should all just go on and test it for ourselves and provide the results when we're done. Arguing in circles will not get us anywhere.

-jares

[jares]

Hey man don't diss Lava Dart. ¬_¬
Oh, sorry, I meant Lava Axe. :laugh:

Too much lava going around (Spikes, Darts, Hounds, etc.).

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

Vexing Devil and Miracle Wheel suck. Risky Bet is stupid good.

You're welcome.

followed by...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Unfortunately, the comment above is also an example of the type that we shouldn't be too concerned about, as it obviously does not merit a meaningful discussion - we would all be better-off ignoring statements that are made without the proper reasoning.

Let me try making such a statement:

"Lightning Bolt and Fireblast suck. Lava Dart is stupid good."

-jares

While I agree with Jares in general, if ever there is going to be printed a playable draw card for a Burn, I think this is it.

I had to go find it because I had not seen anything about it until Teenietiny mentioned it:

Risky Bet: 1R
Instant, discard hand, draw 2 cards.

Its cheap so it doesn't break our curve. Its an instant so you can play it at the end of their turn. We are not going to cast it until we are otherwise out of gas anyway so the discard part shouldn't be an issue. Really, if we cant make this draw card work then the only thing left to try is:

Zeus's Bolt: R
Instant: 3 damage target player, draw a card.

But that will never be printed... Point being I don't think we can ask for much better in a Burn playable draw card.

Oh, 1 other note... playing it would put an end to the idea of playing TWrath.

[jares]

While I agree with Jares in general, if ever there is going to be printed a playable draw card for a Burn, I think this is it.

I had to go find it because I had not seen anything about it until Teenietiny mentioned it:

Risky Bet: 1R
Instant, discard hand, draw 2 cards.

Its cheap so it doesn't break our curve. Its an instant so you can play it at the end of their turn. We are not going to cast it until we are otherwise out of gas anyway so the discard part shouldn't be an issue. Really, if we cant make this draw card work then the only thing left to try is:

Zeus's Bolt: R
Instant: 3 damage target player, draw a card.

But that will never be printed... Point being I don't think we can ask for much better in a Burn playable draw card.

Oh, 1 other note... playing it would put an end to the idea of playing TWrath.
I actually like Risky Bet as a card too, especially considering that this will probably be as good as it gets when it comes to card-drawing from red. :tongue:

I'm unsure, though, if this card will be a good fit for Burn.

These are my initial considerations for Risky Bet:

You only want to play this card if you don't have anything valuable in hand anyway, which can happen fairly quickly.
Paying 2 mana to draw 2 cards will likely still be a tempo loss unless you have more mana to spare for the turn. This probably means that we will need access to at least 3 Mountains to be able to maintain some degree of tempo with the available mana (with the exception of Fireblast of course); we could always draw into more Mountains that would give us the necessary mana to use the spell/ability we want to play.
Based on point #2, it would probably be a good idea to maximize the number of 1-cost cards that we can cast after playing Risky Bet. Cards that come into mind are Shard Volley (which I've experimented with in the past as a singleton) and Spark Elemental (which won't really be a reliable mid/late game option anyway), though neither would be ideal inclusions.
The inclusion of this card would have some positive impact on fueling Grim Lavamancer or activating Threshold for Barbarian Ring.
This card does have dis-synergy with Thunderous Wrath (considering that Miracle cards already induce their own set of inconsistencies).
It might be worth considering for 2-3 slots in the deck. Having too many Risky Bets is... risky, as you don't really want to draw into additional Risky Bets on the same turn.
Risky Bet somewhat increases your exposure to conditional counterspells like Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, and Daze.
Based on point #2, Risky Bet will also be able to make good use of mana floods.

Do let me know if there's anything else that could be added to the list.

Cheers,
jares

[Gheizen64]

Here's what my testing have been telling me.

Vexing Devil is good. If you play 4 Goblin Chesus and 4 Mancer (and i think you should), making removal live isn't an issue. The card play better than i tought, and will do 4 damage OR blank a removal that would have gone toward your guide/mancer most of the time.
I never felt bad playing risky bet for now. Being an instant make it so much better, keep mana open and casting things EoT is what you want anyway because of PoP, bolts and mancer activations. Yes, it's tempo loss, but imho it's better than the worst 3, and maybe 4, card of burn. So far i've never been disappointed by it. A card i've dropped is marauder. With Risky Bet and Devil, optimizing your mana development is even more important than usual.

Will post some more later since now i'm at work.

[jares]

I never felt bad playing risky bet for now. Being an instant make it so much better, keep mana open and casting things EoT is what you want anyway because of PoP, bolts and mancer activations. Yes, it's tempo loss, but imho it's better than the worst 3, and maybe 4, card of burn.
Actually, Risky Bet could possibly not cause any tempo loss if you have enough mana to cast the cards that you would draw into, though the chances of that happening might not be too reliable.

Regards,
jares

[Gheizen64]

Actually, Risky Bet could possibly not cause any tempo loss if you have enough mana to cast the cards that you would draw into, though the chances of that happening might not be too reliable.

Regards,
jares

Or, more simply, it's not tempo loss if you have 0 cards in hand since you'd do nothing anyway.

[jares]

Or, more simply, it's not tempo loss if you have 0 cards in hand since you'd do nothing anyway.
If you're referring to having zero cards in hand at the end of the turn of when you played Risky Bet, then I believe that we're on the same page. Something like this:

Untap Step: Three Mountains in play, no cards in hand.
Draw step: drawing Risky Bet.
Main Phase: Tap 2 Mountains, play Risky Bet. Draw Lightning Bolt and Fireblast.
Play Lightning Bolt and Fireblast.

As previously noted, the odds of this happening might not be too high.

Cheers,
jares

[Kich867]

If you're referring to having zero cards in hand at the end of the turn of when you played Risky Bet, then I believe that we're on the same page. Something like this:

Untap Step: Three Mountains in play, no cards in hand.
Draw step: drawing Risky Bet.
Main Phase: Tap 2 Mountains, play Risky Bet. Draw Lightning Bolt and Fireblast.
Play Lightning Bolt and Fireblast.

As previously noted, the odds of this happening might not be too high.

Cheers,
jares

I think he's referring to: You had a risky bet in your opener, you drop everything you have, then on turn 3-4 you just EOT it as your last card, play something if it's an instant, then untap and draw and hopefully play 2 more cards and end it.

[Gheizen64]

After a bit more games, i realized having a second risky bet in your hand is effectively like having just 1 (barring counters). Decreased their numbers from 4 to 3. I don't want to see 2 of them too often.

[RogueBuild]

I already thought about the 2 Risky's in hand. If you find yourself in that position keep in mind that they are instance, Cast 1, cast 2nd in response. The card does NOT say "as part of the casting cost discard you hand". That means it is the 1st part of the resolution of the spell. This gives you a chance to cast any instances you draw off the 1st Risky before the 2nd Risky resolves. This does require having enough land and that you draw more instances but you do have a chance of getting something out of each of them.

Oh, and I was already thinking 3 for the same reason.... 2 if I found it to be problematic.

[Curby]

Sorceries and permanents (the sort that we'd run, at least) are still dead when you draw them off the first resolving Bet. Sorceries and permanents probably make up about 3/4 of most Burn decks, so you're likely just wasting 1R by stacking them. (My deck only has Bolt/PoP/Fireblast as instants.) There's also the problem of having mana to do anything after stacking Bets, which itself costs 2RR.

[RogueBuild]

Sorceries and permanents (the sort that we'd run, at least) are still dead when you draw them off the first resolving Bet. Sorceries and permanents probably make up about 3/4 of most Burn decks, so you're likely just wasting 1R by stacking them. (My deck only has Bolt/PoP/Fireblast as instants.) There's also the problem of having mana to do anything after stacking Bets, which itself costs 2RR.

I said "This gives you a chance to cast", I didn't say it was a good chance. Really the only likely time I could see a double Risky paying off is if I got a FireBlast off the 1st to resolve. I would still have 2 lands when the 2nd resolves and 2 cards. Otherwise you need to have at lest 5 lands in play.

[Gheizen64]

I already thought about the 2 Risky's in hand. If you find yourself in that position keep in mind that they are instance, Cast 1, cast 2nd in response. The card does NOT say "as part of the casting cost discard you hand". That means it is the 1st part of the resolution of the spell. This gives you a chance to cast any instances you draw off the 1st Risky before the 2nd Risky resolves. This does require having enough land and that you draw more instances but you do have a chance of getting something out of each of them.

Oh, and I was already thinking 3 for the same reason.... 2 if I found it to be problematic.

If you have 6 lands (you need 4 for 2 risky bet + AT LEAST 2 more for casting two more instant in response) into play and 2 Risky Bet in hand, you're playing against your dog probably.

[CabalTherapy]

I participated in a big tournament yesterday. I went 6 : 1 : 1 with this list:

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Fireblast
4 Flame Rift
4 Price of Progress
4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
1 Sulfuric Vortex
18 Mountain
1 Barbarian Ring

4 Faerie Macabre
3 Volcanic Fallout
3 Smash to Smithereens
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Pyroblast
1 Sulfuric Vortex
1 Tormod's Crypt

Round 1: Spiral Tide 2:1
Round 2: UGB Control 2:0
Round 3: DelverBurn 2:0
Round 4: Burn 2:1
Round 5: Threshold 1:2
Round 6: Threshold 2:0
Round 7: Painter 2:0
Round 8: ID

I was 6th out of (around) 130 players, pretty cool.^^

Top 8: Lost 0:2 against Hive Mind.

[RogueBuild]

If you have 6 lands (you need 4 for 2 risky bet + AT LEAST 2 more for casting two more instant in response) into play and 2 Risky Bet in hand, you're playing against your dog probably.

See my previous post. The 1 just above where you said that...



As for something new, I have started testing Risky Bet and have found it to be solid addition! I am running 3. Yes, I get a few instance where I get 2 in my hand but even then if you only have mana to cast 1 its a 2 for 2, could be worse. Using them as a followup to a Magma Jet has been great. That extra card has gone a long way to edging out a win in some close games.

Another thing I am reconsidering is Fetch lands. Before with just the fetches I didn't see a lot of impact in using them; Risky however, is making me reconsider them. I will leave it to someone else, likely Jares, to do the math n this as I am too lazy but what i think we would find is that the combination of Fetch+Risky magnifies the draw of either 1 alone enough to make Fetches worth including even if you don't run Grims. So that is what I am looking at now.

With the inclusion of 3 Risky's what I have pulled out: -1 Fireblast (I had 3 but unless you have 3+ lands in play you don't want a Fireblast in hand when you cast Risky), -1 PoP, -1 Vortex. All 3 cards are now in my SB in place of the 3 Flame Javelins that I no longer see a real need for. I still need to do a lot of playing around to see what I will want to move to the SB for them, but this seems a good place to start.

Anyway, so far I'm happy with them so i just need figure out the Fetch land and what 3 cards exactly I pull out for them.

[Dmnd]

Hey,

maybe its my playstyle but i always keep as much Cards in hand as i can. If my Hand is empty i want my opp. to be dead.

But if i would play Risky Bet. It would only be 2 of them. Think that should be the best number.

Vexing Devil gets alot better together with Lava Mancer. If there are enought Creatures your Opp. has to remove Devil is a great card.

regards

[jares]

Hey,

maybe its my playstyle but i always keep as much Cards in hand as i can. If my Hand is empty i want my opp. to be dead.

But if i would play Risky Bet. It would only be 2 of them. Think that should be the best number.

Vexing Devil gets alot better together with Lava Mancer. If there are enought Creatures your Opp. has to remove Devil is a great card.

regards
At the top of my head, I also feel that, if I were to play Risky Bet, [2x] would be the most reliable configuration. I haven't done any testing on it though, so I'll still need to find out for myself.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

Another thing I am reconsidering is Fetch lands. Before with just the fetches I didn't see a lot of impact in using them; Risky however, is making me reconsider them. I will leave it to someone else, likely Jares, to do the math n this as I am too lazy but what i think we would find is that the combination of Fetch+Risky magnifies the draw of either 1 alone enough to make Fetches worth including even if you don't run Grims. So that is what I am looking at now.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure about what you mean by the following: "the combination of Fetch+Risky magnifies the draw of either 1 alone". Could you please expound on that?

Kind Regards,
jares

[RogueBuild]

Hey,

maybe its my playstyle but i always keep as much Cards in hand as i can. If my Hand is empty i want my opp. to be dead.

But if i would play Risky Bet. It would only be 2 of them. Think that should be the best number.

Vexing Devil gets alot better together with Lava Mancer. If there are enought Creatures your Opp. has to remove Devil is a great card.

regards

Against most aggro-ish creature I will hold back a bit as well, making sure I have something for problematic creatures until i either A) have a sweeper in hand, or B) enough damage in hand to kill even if it is not in 1 turn. I played Goblins as my main deck for years and the biggest mistake I watched other goblin players make is over extending the board. Learning not to leave your self open to a sweeper to wipe you out. I see Burn the same way; if I draw a less then amazing hand, such as 4 lands, I will slow-play it, not committing to many burn spells to the head until I either have a sweeper in hand or enough Burn in hand to kill them. Risky Bet helps loosen the grip a bit. I can be free to swing a bit more freely.

[RogueBuild]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure about what you mean by the following: "the combination of Fetch+Risky magnifies the draw of either 1 alone". Could you please expound on that?

Kind Regards,
jares

ok, without digging around for my logic textbook to figure out exactly how the formula would be it would work something like this...

If I remember correctly in an older post you said each land you draw would reduce the odds of drawing a land on your next draw by about ~1% starting with about ~30% after the opening (this is just an average).

Let us assume that we are now 4 turns into the game and 1/3 of the cards we have drawn is land so we still have a ~30%. When you cast Risky Bet you would have ~60% chance the 1st card is NOT a land, and the next card would be ~1% +/- based on if you drew a land with that 1st card.

Using either card alone you can do statics to figure out the odds of drawing X# of land or non-land cards by a given turn. But if you are using both Fetch lands and Risky the odds magnify, because you have to take into account the odds you get both Fetch lands and Risky.

Again, none of these numbers are going to compare to the type of %'s you would see if you were playing blue and might still be too small to make Fetch lands worth it to many, but I am at lest reconsidering them.

[jares]

ok, without digging around for my logic textbook to figure out exactly how the formula would be it would work something like this...

If I remember correctly in an older post you said each land you draw would reduce the odds of drawing a land on your next draw by about ~1% starting with about ~30% after the opening (this is just an average).

Let us assume that we are now 4 turns into the game and 1/3 of the cards we have drawn is land so we still have a ~30%. When you cast Risky Bet you would have ~60% chance the 1st card is NOT a land, and the next card would be ~1% +/- based on if you drew a land with that 1st card.

Using either card alone you can do statics to figure out the odds of drawing X# of land or non-land cards by a given turn. But if you are using both Fetch lands and Risky the odds magnify, because you have to take into account the odds you get both Fetch lands and Risky.

Again, none of these numbers are going to compare to the type of %'s you would see if you were playing blue and might still be too small to make Fetch lands worth it to many, but I am at lest reconsidering them.
Ah, if I understood correctly, you're referring to the rate at which a deck is able to Thin and draw-into its deck (e.g. Blue Deck are able to do this at a much advanced rate; Dredge is somewhat like the exception because that deck is able to access its cards more quickly via the graveyard).

I currently don't have time to be precise about the numbers that would support this, but I'm certain that Fetch Lands and Risky Bet will surely increase this "deck-thinning rate" (for lack of a better term) significantly (relative to the usual rate at which Burn is able to do this), given that Burn traditionally does not concern itself too much with these effects/functions.

I'll try to post some figures on this when I can (likely to be when I start testing Risky Bet for myself).

Cheers,
jares

[blindspotxxx]

With Risky Bet is it worth reducing creatures even more in this deck? The more VCA we get the better right?

[RogueBuild]

With Risky Bet is it worth reducing creatures even more in this deck? The more VCA we get the better right?

I would say yes, but I only run 4 now anyway, 4 Hellsparks.

[jares]

With Risky Bet is it worth reducing creatures even more in this deck? The more VCA we get the better right?
It really depends on how much you're willing to bet on Risky Bet. Hehe :tongue:

I personally wouldn't like Risky Bet to affect how I would configure the rest of my deck, at least not too much. Currently, I'm not even sure if I would use the card, but it at least looks like something worth testing. Others have already done their testing, and the results look like they're worth looking into.

I've noted somewhere that increasing the number of 1cc cards in the deck would lessen the probability of having Risky Bet cause a Tempo Loss, so maybe this should also be taken into consideration alongside the idea of lessening the number of creatures. RogueBuild's configuration is unique (essentially not running any creatures), and would seem to be the best way to explore your line of thinking further, so you might want to consult with him regarding his philosophy and play style. For the more generic Burn build, though, lessening the number of creatures will surely affect the early-game consistency, so this will have to be thought-through more carefully.

Kind Regards,
jares

[AlmostGrown]

There is a Legacy daily tonight in 3 hours, 20 minutes (11:30pm EST). Here is my list, any suggestions?
Sorceries:
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
Instants:
4 Price of Progress
4 Magma Jet
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Fireblast
Creatures:
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Goblin Guide
Lands:
14 Mountain
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Barbarian Ring

Sideboard:
3 Pithing Needle
3 Red Elemental Blast
3 Smash to Smithereens
3 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Volcanic fallout

[blindspotxxx]

Looks fine except for the fetchlands :)

[Vacrix]

Has anyone considered playing post-board Ensnaring Bridges? Its great against Show and Tell (I expect to be more heavily played upon the advent of Grizzlybang) and Reanimator, and obviously you can play it to efficiency against any deck with creatures.

[RogueBuild]

Has anyone considered playing post-board Ensnaring Bridges? Its great against Show and Tell (I expect to be more heavily played upon the advent of Grizzlybang) and Reanimator, and obviously you can play it to efficiency against any deck with creatures.

I've seen it played but my thought is all the decks you would really need it against, at 3cc, its too slow to get out.

[AlmostGrown]

Looks fine except for the fetchlands :)

I need them to feed Barbarian Ring, unfortunately.


on Ensnaring Bridge: Sometimes 3cc is just too much to get to. And the decks we want it against can usually destroy it anyway. Angel of Despair :(

[jares]

Looks fine except for the fetchlands :)
Actually, I've also been considering running Fetch Lands alongside Barbarian Rings and without Grim Lavamancers, and I'm interested to see how that will work. It seems counter-intuitive, but I believe that the inclusion of a few Fetch Lands will be able to help in Deck Thinning and activating Threshold (given that Hellspark Elemental is being run) without causing any major drawbacks.

As an additional note, I would suggest cutting-down on the Magma Jets, as you won't generally want to see one in the opening hand and especially not in multiples (my personal preference would be to not run any at all).

I hope that helps in time. :smile:

Kind Regards,
jares

[jares]

I did some testing on Dangerous Wager, and so far it hasn't looked very promising. I believe that some have already tested this card, and have had okay results, but I've found it to be unreliable, and many times did I wish for the card to be something else. As previously noted, it often caused tempo loss, which many times did cost me the game.

Do let me know if I missed something specific in my testing, or if the positive results that have been previously noted required some specific configuration to make the card work.

Vexing Devil was so-so to okay, and I'll continue testing this card until I'm convinced that it belongs to this deck without question.

Kind Regards,
jares

[blindspotxxx]

Wow you guys are having trouble getting threshold? :p Never happened to me yet with Austin's List.

[jares]

Wow you guys are having trouble getting threshold? :p Never happened to me yet with Austin's List.
I don't expect people to have too much trouble with reaching Threshold in this deck, but having the extra means of getting there would surely help, considering that Hellspark Elemental ain't too Threshold-friendly. :tongue:

Cheers,
jares

[Angels]

There is a Legacy daily tonight in 3 hours, 20 minutes (11:30pm EST). Here is my list, any suggestions?
Sorceries:
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
Instants:
4 Price of Progress
4 Magma Jet
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Fireblast
Creatures:
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Goblin Guide
Lands:
14 Mountain
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Barbarian Ring

Sideboard:
3 Pithing Needle
3 Red Elemental Blast
3 Smash to Smithereens
3 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Volcanic fallout
I dont really like the fetchlands. Let us know how it works for you.

[jares]

I did some testing on Dangerous Wager, and so far it hasn't looked very promising. I believe that some have already tested this card, and have had okay results, but I've found it to be unreliable, and many times did I wish for the card to be something else. As previously noted, it often caused tempo loss, which many times did cost me the game.

Do let me know if I missed something specific in my testing, or if the positive results that have been previously noted required some specific configuration to make the card work.

Vexing Devil was so-so to okay, and I'll continue testing this card until I'm convinced that it belongs to this deck without question.

Kind Regards,
jares
I did some more testing on Dangerous Wager, and at this point I would say that it has been very disappointing, given that my expectations for it were for the card to at least be "okay". Do let us know if anyone else has had better experiences with the card, as I would be interested in how it turned out during your testing.

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

I did some more testing on Dangerous Wager, and at this point I would say that it has been very disappointing, given that my expectations for it were for the card to at least be "okay". Do let us know if anyone else has had better experiences with the card, as I would be interested in how it turned out during your testing.

Cheers,
jares

I would have to ask exactly how are you judging it? If viewed as a pay 2, draw 2 card at instant speed, almost any color deck could and many would play that. The only drawback is the discard. I have found that to rarely be an issue as I just dump the rest of my hand first. Normally by turn 4 or 5 I'm in top-deck mode anyway just like anyone else. Now I can get 2 more cards off the top of my deck. Sure, you run the risk of drawing lands, but that's the case with quantity over quality.

Now if you are viewing it the way most cards in Burn are viewed, how much damage did it deal for the amount of mana? Then of course it isn't going to look good, it doesn't deal damage. By that benchmark it would even be worse the Magma Jet which many people already don't like (I am not one of them). It will not speed up the clock as turn 3 is still the fastest you can win and it can not be used to cause a turn 3 kill. It only has a slightly better increase of playing a part in a turn 4 kill. What it does do is draw more cards and more cards means more damage which leads to increasing the likelihood of a kill starting on turn 5, often times because you cast Wager at the end of the opponent's turn going into your 5th turn. It is only a net gain of 1 more card but there have been lots of played cards in MTG that only gave you a net gain of 1 card.

So that is the question; do you expect it to give you more cards in hand in turns 4-6 so you can make up for the cards you discarded to black, had countered, lost because you had no choice but to nuke a Lackey, or just drew too many lands? Or do you just see it the way you see every other non-land card in Burn: a ratio of X Damage:Y Mana in which case it is not at all shocking people would find it underwhelming.

[jares]

I would have to ask exactly how are you judging it? If viewed as a pay 2, draw 2 card at instant speed, almost any color deck could and many would play that. The only drawback is the discard. I have found that to rarely be an issue as I just dump the rest of my hand first. Normally by turn 4 or 5 I'm in top-deck mode anyway just like anyone else. Now I can get 2 more cards off the top of my deck. Sure, you run the risk of drawing lands, but that's the case with quantity over quality.

Now if you are viewing it the way most cards in Burn are viewed, how much damage did it deal for the amount of mana? Then of course it isn't going to look good, it doesn't deal damage. By that benchmark it would even be worse the Magma Jet which many people already don't like (I am not one of them). It will not speed up the clock as turn 3 is still the fastest you can win and it can not be used to cause a turn 3 kill. It only has a slightly better increase of playing a part in a turn 4 kill. What it does do is draw more cards and more cards means more damage which leads to increasing the likelihood of a kill starting on turn 5, often times because you cast Wager at the end of the opponent's turn going into your 5th turn. It is only a net gain of 1 more card but there have been lots of played cards in MTG that only gave you a net gain of 1 card.

So that is the question; do you expect it to give you more cards in hand in turns 4-6 so you can make up for the cards you discarded to black, had countered, lost because you had no choice but to nuke a Lackey, or just drew too many lands? Or do you just see it the way you see every other non-land card in Burn: a ratio of X Damage:Y Mana in which case it is not at all shocking people would find it underwhelming.
All those considerations are good in theory, and I have used those points in trying to fit it into the deck, but I try to make it as simple as possible: "could I have won the game if Dangerous Wager was instead the card(s) whose slots I gave it to?". The simple answer to this question was "yes", and that essentially meant that it lost me the games where that question was relevant.

Another minor consideration was the tempo loss of spending mana to draw two cards instead of playing a burn spell in the place of the draw spell. I've observed that the tempo loss happened too often (and also occasionally caused some losses), as we normally also try our best not to go past 3-4 lands in play.

I could imagine that your configuration would be able to benefit more from the card, given the more tempo-oriented nature of your build. That might indeed be the best way to utilize Dangerous Wager in a Burn Deck.

Kind Regards,
jares

[Basara]

I just tested a new burn build , dropping 4 flame rifts for 2 magma jets and 2 thunderous wrath..., also the creature base is just devil,lavamancer(obviously with fetchs 0 barbarian ring.),and Goblin guide , the results are awesome , the crude power of thunderous wrat and devil is like having ur deck with 8 or 9 price of progress.. magma jet is not that bad after all.. im starting to love the card

[jares]

I just tested a new burn build , dropping 4 flame rifts for 2 magma jets and 2 thunderous wrath..., also the creature base is just devil,lavamancer(obviously with fetchs 0 barbarian ring.),and Goblin guide , the results are awesome , the crude power of thunderous wrat and devil is like having ur deck with 8 or 9 price of progress.. magma jet is not that bad after all.. im starting to love the card
Good to hear positive results for the use of Thunderous Wrath. I did expect Magma Jet to surely be able to help, but I still worry about the probabilities of drawing into Thunderous Wrath in the opening hand without the possibility of getting it back into the deck; [1x] in the deck would provide an 11.67% probability, and [2x] in the deck would have a 22.15% probability - and these numbers go up if we were on the draw. Have you experienced the effect of these numbers first-hand?

You might also like to try a creature base with Hellspark Elemental rather than Grim Lavamancer (and with Barbarian Ring instead of Fetches), as a hasty creature could also potentially help in the situations where a mid-game Vexing Devil is played.

Kind Regards,
jares

[jares]

Good to hear positive results for the use of Thunderous Wrath. I did expect Magma Jet to surely be able to help, but I still worry about the probabilities of drawing into Thunderous Wrath in the opening hand without the possibility of getting it back into the deck; [1x] in the deck would provide an 11.67% probability, and [2x] in the deck would have a 22.15% probability - and these numbers go up if we were on the draw. Have you experienced the effect of these numbers first-hand?

You might also like to try a creature base with Hellspark Elemental rather than Grim Lavamancer (and with Barbarian Ring instead of Fetches), as a hasty creature could also potentially help in the situations where a mid-game Vexing Devil is played.

Kind Regards,
jares
I have been testing Thunderous Wrath in a U/R Delver build, and I must say that it has been very entertaining, at the very least. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for what I've been able to observe from its inclusion in Burn lists. In Burn, drawing it in your opening hand or drawing into it when you're not able to pay for it would automatically make the card dead (unless you eventually get to 6 mana); the same is untrue for the U/R Delver build, as the mere presence of Brainstorm is able to smooth-out the edges, not to mention that other cantrip effects are also able to increase the frequency of Miracles happening.

So far, I would say that Thunderous Wrath's inherent inconsistencies don't look very welcome in Burn, a deck that relies on each card being able to "do their business".

Cheers,
jares

[Curby]

So far, I would say that Thunderous Wrath's inherent inconsistencies don't look very welcome in Burn, a deck that relies on each card being able to "do their business".

Cheers,
jares

Please let us know what happens if you get a chance to try it in mono-red. I do love it when testing agrees with theory. :wink:

[paeng4983]

Hello burn thread! Just want to share my thoughts on some new cards based on our playtestings with my brother.

Thunderous Wrath's
Well, obviously this is not a good addition to a mono R one. In a U/R builds - yes on theory (or on paper). During the 1st 10 to 15 games using UR deck with 2 TW and 4 brainstorm as our only cantrip in it, the percentage of you aiming for a miracle is not that high. However, adding 4 ponder (that makes 8 cantrips or just simply at 6 cantrips) makes the percentage a little higher. BUT WHY focus on that miracle thing? You have bolts, chain, POP and snapcaster recycling burn spells. That's much easier than trying to fit this TW in the UR deck's style. I think TW fits more in a control type of deck where it abuses the likes of Jace TMS, brainstorm and sensei's divining top. So as for me, TW is a no for burn or UR deck.

Vexing Devil
Uhmmmm.... This dude is prone to spot removals and a bad top deck during crucial point of the game. But on the positive side, a 4/3 body is not bad especially if its up against any x/4 dudes and those 4/5 tarmogoyf or 5/5 KOTRs. But, seriously, how is he performing in your playtesing/ tournament esperiences? I'd like to convince myself before buying a set of it. Another, if, in any case, it fits you, what did you remove for him?

Thanks.

^_^ \m/

[egosum]

Devil only shines in sligh (i.e. 16 creatures that remain in table, counting heim, for instance 4x Guide + Lavamancer + Figure + Devil). This is what testing says to me so far.

Greetings,

Iñaki.-

[jares]

Vexing Devil
...I'd like to convince myself before buying a set of it.
If you're not in a rush, I would suggest that you wait for the price of Vexing Devil to go down, because I don't believe that it's a good enough card to be retailed at $15. As much as I've found it to be very good in Burn (and even in the U/R builds), it's a creature that has very limited use, and I've even found the $6 Goblin Guide to be better at doing Vexing Devil's job. At this point, my testing has shown me that its inclusion in Burn is indeed warranted, and that I'll eventually need to get my own set too. :tongue:

Good luck kabayan. :smile:

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

Please let us know what happens if you get a chance to try it in mono-red. I do love it when testing agrees with theory. :wink:
So far, I've found that randomly dealing 5 damage for :r: is the bomb! But that's not really news for any of us is it?

Thunderous Wrath is really that kind of card for Burn - it's a high-risk, high-reward kind of card if used without the proper support. If you're willing to live with the probabilities of drawing into a dead card every so often, then that also means that you'll also have the probability of drawing a Miracle from time to time. Take note, though, that you're more likely to draw one in your opening hand than to draw into a Miracle during the game - this, in fact, is the summary of my findings, such that the probabilities work against you when "blindly" (i.e. not playing Brainstorm) playing into a Miracle (I can provide the mathematical basis for these findings, but that will take some time to write down).

Do let me know if anyone else might have had a different set of results that might be worth looking into.

Kind Regards,
jares

[Basara]

Vexing devil is overpowerd if your list was running figure of destiny, just replace him with vexing and you will see the results , maybe you can replace hellspark too , for my testing the devil is just 4 damage for R , because even if they have STP they will save for other creature or for gaining life...later in the game he is just a blocker or an inmenent problem for the opponent , please do not replace bolts with vexing , replace creatures like FOD,Hellspark or marauder (gg is still the best creature),..


As for thunderous wrath , is just a bad card in ur opening 7 , but if u see the card in the game dude.... that is an overpowered effect.. if you dont like risk dont play the card . if u do like run 2 and play magma jet... it helps..

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I run 3 Thunderous Wrath in my Burn list. It was superb. I drew it a few times in my opener, and as my first draw while on the draw, but it did not slow down the deck at all. Actually just made my sideboarded Cave-in's easier to decide how to play.
T-Wrath added with Vexing Devil will make Burn in the right hands overpowered.

I have found that the only time people let Vexing Devil stay in play is, late game (No real surprise there, and in the second turn after a first turn Vexing Devil in which they already took 4 to get rid of.

I love both additions.

[jares]

I run 3 Thunderous Wrath in my Burn list. It was superb. I drew it a few times in my opener, and as my first draw while on the draw, but it did not slow down the deck at all. Actually just made my sideboarded Cave-in's easier to decide how to play.
T-Wrath added with Vexing Devil will make Burn in the right hands overpowered.

I have found that the only time people let Vexing Devil stay in play is, late game (No real surprise there, and in the second turn after a first turn Vexing Devil in which they already took 4 to get rid of.

I love both additions.
I'm curious about how badly Thunderous Wrath affected the game when it was a dead card in game 1, and whenever Cave-In wasn't drawn (or boarded-in) for games 2 and 3. I would appreciate it if you could expound on these cases further, as I believe that these are the situations that need to be looked-into in detail given that the "5 damage for :r:" part isn't really a surprise at this point.

Shown below are some numbers that might help with these considerations:

With [3x] Thunderous Wrath in the deck, a player would have a 31.54% chance of drawing at least one Thunderous Wrath in the opening hand.

Kind Regards,
jares

[TheDeadMan]

With the format being defined by fetch lands, daze, and knight it seems to me that a standby of older sligh/burn decks might be a house: ankh of mishra. Netting a single fetch is 5 damage and tempo counters now become much less effective.

[Humphrey]

Ankh sucks. Its to slow and most decks can operate with 2-3 lands. It can be dodged easily and its the worst topdeck ever.
At best its 4 damage for 2 and x for you. Run Flame Rift instead..

[CabalTherapy]

I am testing the following list right now and it looks pretty powerful to me.
I really don't know if 1-2 Thunderous Wraths are playable in burn, rather say "no" but let's see what the future reveals.

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift
4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
2 Keldon Marauders
4 Vexing Devil
1 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain

I am not shure if 18 Mountains are enough. I've been playing with 19 for a long time but due to the Vexing Devils the mana costs are so low that I think that 18 is enough too.

My SB looks like this now:
4 Fearie Macabre
3 Volcanic Fallout
2 Shmash to Smithereens
1 Shattering Spree
2 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Sulfuric Vortex

[baghdadbob]

I've been playtesting with thunderous as a 1 of, it has been very good to me so far. I'm interested in hearing what other peoples experience has been with him and the vexing devil. Devil has also been really good to me. I love dropping him turn 1. This is my list right now...


1 Thunderous Wrath
4 Vexing Devil
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Goblin Guide
4 Flame Rift
1 Browbeat
3 Price of Progress
4 Lava Spike
3 Fireblast
4 Scalding Tarn
15 Mountain
4 Hellspark Elemental
1 Spark Elemental

SB: 2 Anarchy
SB: 1 Smash to Smithereens
SB: 4 Leyline of the Void
SB: 4 Mindbreak Trap
SB: 2 Red Elemental Blast
SB: 2 Pyroblast

[Basara]

I've been playtesting with thunderous as a 1 of, it has been very good to me so far. I'm interested in hearing what other peoples experience has been with him and the vexing devil. Devil has also been really good to me. I love dropping him turn 1. This is my list right now...


1 Thunderous Wrath
4 Vexing Devil
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Goblin Guide
4 Flame Rift
1 Browbeat
3 Price of Progress
4 Lava Spike
3 Fireblast
4 Scalding Tarn
15 Mountain
4 Hellspark Elemental
1 Spark Elemental

SB: 2 Anarchy
SB: 1 Smash to Smithereens
SB: 4 Leyline of the Void
SB: 4 Mindbreak Trap
SB: 2 Red Elemental Blast
SB: 2 Pyroblast
browbeat is a bad card , if you want 3cmc spells that deal 5 damage , try brimstone volley , also your sideboard is interesting , anarchy looks nice vs maverick , but what about trying chaos warp?? is really nice too , leyline of the void are bad , u cant really cast them if you are packing gy hate try something like faerie macabre , mindbreak trap is for combo i suppose?? , well i prefer pyrostatic pillar , but i normally dont pack any hate against ultrafast combo decks , i just auto-loose to them and prepare better for other matchups....ohh and spark elemental is just a bad card you shouldnt be playing this , try flame rift the fourth pop or a a sweeper effect...

[jares]

I am testing the following list right now and it looks pretty powerful to me.
I really don't know if 1-2 Thunderous Wraths are playable in burn, rather say "no" but let's see what the future reveals.

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift
4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
2 Keldon Marauders
4 Vexing Devil
1 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain

I am not shure if 18 Mountains are enough. I've been playing with 19 for a long time but due to the Vexing Devils the mana costs are so low that I think that 18 is enough too.

My SB looks like this now:
4 Fearie Macabre
3 Volcanic Fallout
2 Shmash to Smithereens
1 Shattering Spree
2 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Sulfuric Vortex
I wouldn't suggest going down to 18 lands, as minimizing the number of lands available will also affect the probability of the deck being able to maintain its preferred tempo. We surely would be able to successfully cast most of the cards that we have in the deck, but what's more important is that we are able to cast it at the best possible time (which can be translated simply into not missing a land drop in the first three turns). I prefer to maximize the probability of opening with 2 lands, so I run 20 lands, and use Fetch lands to control the mana-flooding.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

I've been playtesting with thunderous as a 1 of, it has been very good to me so far. I'm interested in hearing what other peoples experience has been with him and the vexing devil. Devil has also been really good to me. I love dropping him turn 1. This is my list right now...

At this point, I would say that, if you would want to include Thunderous Wrath in the deck, then [1x] would be the safest number. Keep in mind, though, that since Burn isn't the type of deck that goes through several turns, the chances of getting a Miracle (even with a full set of Wraths) are slim.

Kind Regards,
jares

[CabalTherapy]

I wouldn't suggest going down to 18 lands, as minimizing the number of lands available will also affect the probability of the deck being able to maintain its preferred tempo. We surely would be able to successfully cast most of the cards that we have in the deck, but what's more important is that we are able to cast it at the best possible time (which can be translated simply into not missing a land drop in the first three turns). I prefer to maximize the probability of opening with 2 lands, so I run 20 lands, and use Fetch lands to control the mana-flooding.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares

Yes, I think that I will change my list to 19 lands which I am used to play.
-1 Hellspark Elemental
+1 Mountain

[jares]

Yes, I think that I will change my list to 19 lands which I am used to play.
-1 Hellspark Elemental
+1 Mountain
That looks okay, given that you won't really need a full set of Hellspark Elementals to be able to utilize its strengths - in fact, having too many of those might be too much redundancy for your own good.

Cheers,
jares

[Basara]

Guys what about reckless abandon is that a real card for the deck??? , 4 damage for R seems great... also has good synergy with hellspark and keldon marauders... is just an incredible card ... i would run only 2 or maximum 3...

[jares]

Guys what about reckless abandon is that a real card for the deck??? , 4 damage for R seems great... also has good synergy with hellspark and keldon marauders... is just an incredible card ... i would run only 2 or maximum 3...
That card has actually been explored quite a few times in Burn, and even alongside Spark Elemental. The thing is, Burn really doesn't want to play too many creatures, and fewer creatures means lesser reliability of the card. At the end of the day, Reckless Abandon is one of those cards that adds a bit more explosiveness to the deck in exchange for a lot more inconsistency.

Kind Regards,
jares

[Dewin]

Hi guys, is Vexing Devil working well enough for you? I don't have too much hopes on it but I haven't tested it yet. Maybe it could fit in a very aggro list. I was thinking in something like this:

3 Plateau
3 Badlands
3 Bloodstained Mire
3 Arid Mesa
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Steppe Lynx
4 Goblin Guide
4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Vexing Devil
4 Lava Spike
4 Bump in the Night
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
SB: 3 Smash to Smithereens
SB: 4 Pyroblast
SB: 4 Faerie Macabre
SB: 4 Searing Blaze

Spell Snare would be a dead card at least in g1 but the mana base is really terrible xD What do you think?

[NeoTech]

Hi guys, is Vexing Devil working well enough for you? I don't have too much hopes on it but I haven't tested it yet. Maybe it could fit in a very aggro list. I was thinking in something like this:

3 Plateau
3 Badlands
3 Bloodstained Mire
3 Arid Mesa
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Steppe Lynx
4 Goblin Guide
4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Vexing Devil
4 Lava Spike
4 Bump in the Night
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
SB: 3 Smash to Smithereens
SB: 4 Pyroblast
SB: 4 Faerie Macabre
SB: 4 Searing Blaze

Spell Snare would be a dead card at least in g1 but the mana base is really terrible xD What do you think?

This looks like.... Rbw Sligh?

Though this isn't much of a Burn build, I will give you my suggestions.

6 Mountains, cannot realistically support 4 Fireblasts, let alone 6 Non-Basic mountains... So I consider this mana base to be unstable if your opponent runs wasteland.
6 lands is hardly enough to support Bump in the Night's Flashback, so why run Bump at all? Searing Blaze main would be superior.

When playing burn you need to remember that you are creating virtual card advantage. This means that you play cards that make a lot of your opponents cards dead, such as board sweepers, wastelands, spot removal, etc. I think that any burn build that is missing Price of Progress is missing out on a large contributer to burn's strategy.

[Dewin]

6 Mountains, cannot realistically support 4 Fireblasts, let alone 6 Non-Basic mountains... So I consider this mana base to be unstable if your opponent runs wasteland.
6 lands is hardly enough to support Bump in the Night's Flashback, so why run Bump at all? Searing Blaze main would be superior.


The number of "real" lands is not a problem. Lynx needs so many fetchs to work. You can see for example these old Lynx Burn lists:
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=5425&iddeck=39322
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=5344&iddeck=38652

The reason for the Bump is that playing only 4 two-mana spells hasn't too much sense to me due to Spell Snare. And there are no more Burn spells that can deal 3 damage for one mana (well, maybe Shard Volley could work but it can be problematic with Fireblast).

The list pretends to be a kind of suicide deck, extremely fast but also very unstable. Anyway I recognize that the list seems quite terrible for the current meta with decks like Canadian or UR Delver (POP) that can easily punish such a weak mana base. Maybe I could try with the Shard Volley (-3 Badlands, -4 Bump in the Night, +3 Mountain, +1 Isamaru, + 3 Shard Volley) as sometimes I could use it in resp to wasteland. I just want to test Vexing Devil in a explosive list that it's where I think that it could fit better. But yep, it seems more like a 4fun list than a really competitive one.

[kicks_422]

Running 4 Vexing Devil and 4 Thunderous Wrath. Been having a great time burning everybody out. :tongue:

[david.gerco]

So, I've been testing both Thunderous Wrath and Vexing Devil...
Conclusions:
Sure Thunderous Wrath is good but it's more times bad than good. It's a blowout when you draw it because it surrounds Counterbalance and Spell Snare and also of course because it's 1 mana 5 damage but really, the amount of times it's bad gets way over the amount of times it's good. I tested over 100 times in the past month both with 1,2 and 4 copies and I didn't like it. This was my experience of course.
Maybe it was effective around 40% of the time, which for me is not enough...

About Vexing Devil well...Only! I repeat ONLY if you change for Keldon Marauders or Figure of Destiny and maybe Hellspark Elemental it'll be good. Still, I think the best change is for Figure of Destiny.
Most of the people choose to pay the 4 mana because it's agressive when it goes on the beatdown. Early game he's really good, mid game still good but late game meh:confused: not enough!
Anyway, I must still write one thing.
Against creature decks the Devil is way better then the ones we use normally. I even risk to say that after game 1, this should be the only creature in the board. (against white weenie, maverick [special], RUG,etc.)
Against Lingering Souls deck it's not very good also.

Well, I'll continue to test and I will check how things are going.

PS: Btw, I run fetchlands in my burn list and Searing Blaze is being awesome in the past weeks :)

[jares]

Sure Thunderous Wrath is good but it's more times bad than good.
This observation is correct, and can be supported by the mathematical probabilities that govern the game (though I'm too lazy to look into the exact numbers as of the moment). In summary, the economy of having a 5-damage spell for :r: is great, but the risk of having a dead card in hand is greater (of course, it's worth noting that it's an entirely different case when Thunderous Wrath is played alongside Brainstorm). In a competitive environment, this induced inconsistency is simply unacceptable - unless you prefer taking the high-risk, high-reward route.

I hope that helps.

Kind Regards,
jares

[Basara]

guys how do u board in against sneak and show decks?? , is impossible to win for me in that matchup , sure pyroblast hits show and tell , but they have like tons of counterspell (missdirection,fow,spell pierce) , and also they have sneak as a backup plan , that is just imposible to remove...

[david.gerco]

Hello there ;)

Well, I was watching yesterday Legacy Starcity open and let me say: "That burn player....meh:confused:" ... What was that? He could have won the game to the Protean Hulk combo guy by simply destroying both creatures with a Chain and a Fireblast and his opponent wouldn't be able to play the Pact! Well, anyway....Sometimes I make ever worse mistakes ahah :laugh:
Going on...
Sneak and Show...hmm... Game 1 should be ours if we're a bit lucky but I believe it's not very favorable to the burn player.
The only big solutions you have is to bring blasts sure (good solutions indeed) and Ratchet Bomb or Powder Keg (which is very very slow and ineffective)
In the past days I used to have Phyrexian Metamorph for Iona but can also be a solution.
And I think I don't have much more things to say.
Hope it helps ;)

[Firstborn]

Yes, the Sneak/Show matchup is bothering me too as I expect the deck to have significant presence in my local meta over the next few weeks. IMO it's not a favourable match for us at all.

At the moment, the best I can think of is to load up on REB/Pyroblasts for S&T/counterspells and use Pithing Needle against Sneak Attack. I'd personally write off game 1 against Sneak/Show which means we then need to win the next two. The worry is they'll board in Leylines post G1 which we need to then dedicate even more SB slots to overcoming, thus watering down our deck even more.

If there are any other SB suggestions against Sneak/Show, I'd love to hear them.

[CabalTherapy]

Yes, the Sneak/Show matchup is bothering me too as I expect the deck to have significant presence in my local meta over the next few weeks. IMO it's not a favourable match for us at all.

At the moment, the best I can think of is to load up on REB/Pyroblasts for S&T/counterspells and use Pithing Needle against Sneak Attack. I'd personally write off game 1 against Sneak/Show which means we then need to win the next two. The worry is they'll board in Leylines post G1 which we need to then dedicate even more SB slots to overcoming, thus watering down our deck even more.

If there are any other SB suggestions against Sneak/Show, I'd love to hear them.

I think that there aren't any options against Sneak Show. Burn ist a straightforeward deck which is pretty strong but loses agains certain cards/synergies... Playing burn means that you know that you may lose to ridiculous situations. Of course we have a lot of great SB cards but agains some decks things are not going well at all. So the best way to "beat" Sneak Show ist simply trying to be faster than they are and to hope that you don't have to play agains them. ^^

My current SB looks like this:
2 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
4 Faerie Macabre
1 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Volcanic Fallout
3 Smash to Smithereens

[iamfrightenedtoo]

Pyroblast
Red Elemental Blast
Pithing Needle
Anarchy
basically is what you need to beat Sneak and Show. Unfortunately you also need a way to beat combo and Reanimator.

if you add green via Fetch Lands and Taiga you could use Hull Breach, or any green enchantment killer to get rid of Leyline. Personally I like Anarchy, but I know a lot of people feel its too slow.

I think, we can beat any Delver, Stoneblade, Maverick build without the sideboard. maybe we should just build a sideboard for Reanimator, Dredge, Storm, and Sneak Show.
Pyroblast and Red Elemental take care of parts of Reanimator, Storm, Sneak and show. Grafdigger's (or any thing you like) will takeout Reanimator, and Dredge. Pithing Needle will take care of Sneak and Show.

3 Pyrostatic Pillar
3 REB
3 Pyroblast
3 Grafdigger's Cage
3 Pithing Needle

Is what I would go for. Maybe I don't know.

Maybe its time we adapted Burn to evolving Meta. Every other deck in the format Evolves every so often, we really cant be so arrogant to think Burn is susceptible to needed changes.

why not Ensnaring Bridge? its slow, you wouldnt be able to drop it until turn three without help that might hinder the deck, but it would shut off Sneak and Show. they run two cards in their whole 75 that could get rid of it without counter magic, and we can run 8 spells that counter blue spells.
you could use Bridge against Maverick, most people I play against side out Pridemage to Burn because it is basically useless... you might be able to steal a game dropping an Ensnaring Bridge on them. Just a thought. Not even a very good one, but these decks are getting harder and harder to deal with.

[Firstborn]

I think, we can beat any Delver, Stoneblade, Maverick build without the sideboard. maybe we should just build a sideboard for Reanimator, Dredge, Storm, and Sneak Show.

I'm thinking of doing exactly that. Reanimator/Dredge/Storm/Sneak are the big four decks in my meta which worry me.



If you add green via Fetch Lands and Taiga you could use Hull Breach, or any green enchantment killer to get rid of Leyline. Personally I like Anarchy, but I know a lot of people feel its too slow.

I wonder about splashing white via Plateau/Arid Mesa for Disenchant against Leylines. Another option against Sneak Attack too.

Assuming this is the case, maybe a SB from the following:

Disenchant
REB and/or Pyroblast
Pithing Needle
Grafdigger's Cage
perhaps Ensnaring Bridge

Thoughts?

[Basara]

What about progenitus in the sideboard? , if they show and tell , we just put the progenitus and we attack first , finish the match quickly... , and what about chaos warp , it kills sneak attack and leyline...

[david.gerco]

Just like CabalTherapy said, we have to accept that in some matchups the only choice we have is to try to burn them out as fast as possible.

Well, this is the eternal question.....TEST people, TEST :)
Want to splash green, you'll open yourself to wasteland but be able to blow enchantments.
Want to splash white, same thing.
Wastelands are all around so I would not advise you to splash another color.
Ensnaring Bridge, Chaos Warp,... are the best choices we have without splashing.
For white, Disenchant,etc.
For green, Hull breach, naturalize, krosan grip,etc.

Progenitus? Do you think is profitable to waste 1 slot on the sideboard just to be able to slow down the Sneak&Show player? I don't think so. They still have Emrakul which blows your permanents...
For my experience, especially in this meta, I wouldn't splash another color. But test and see if it's profitable.
Go Burn ;)

[jares]

Ensnaring Bridge and Pyroblast/Red Elemental Blast seem to be the most reliable choices here, given that we won't really need to alter the deck configuration too much to support it, and that these cards could also possibly be useful in other match-ups. Unfortunately, though, it's true that the Sneaky Show match-up, along with Reanimator, Dredge, and Storm-based decks, are all uphill battles for Burn, and we'll really have to accept the fact that, being the hyper-linear archetype that it is, Burn will have a weaknesses against combo decks.

Good luck :smile:

Kind Regards,
jares

[Basara]

after lots and lots of testing , i have to say sneak and show , is the most difficult matchup for burn , even more difficult than dredge or reanimator , you dont have profitable ways to interact with them , except crazy sideboard hands with 3 pyroblast and 1 pithing needle.. is just unwinnable, is like playing vs ultrafast combo decks like belcher..

[Raggedjoe]

I really don't like splashing in burn. Fetch lands basically will lose you the game far too often vs Delver, between the life loss in an already tight matchup, to the complete blowout you face if you keep a 2 lander and one gets stifled. I have found the best way to beat lay line is Pillar + creatures. It works.

Right now I am running:
3 Bridge/Fallout
3 Pillar
3 Macabre
3 REB
3 Smash to Smithereens

[Tacosnape]

I like it when threads illustrate my point completely about Show and Tell being stupid.

Run this sideboard:
4 Pithing Needle
4 Surgical Extraction
7 Red Elemental Blast/Pyroblast

Against Sneak and Show, Board in all 15 cards. Board out a lot of your slower burn - You only need a couple dudes on the ground to win this matchup. Then just screw with them. Needle Sneak Attack. Counter Show and Tell, or Force, or Dig, or whatever. Surgical anything you don't want to see or think they're holding, or Surgical to get information on the situation.

Needle will solve a lot of your other problems, and all the blasts will give you game against pretty much anything. If you want RUG Delver improvement, you could go to 6 Blasts, 3 Surgicals, and 2 Relic of Progenitus. Or you can just try to be burn and win.

[RogueBuild]

"grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change,
he courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference"

Let me give you a hint: we lose to Sneak Attack/Show n Tell. Accept it.

Focusing on trying to better your chance against SA/SnT is a lost cause. Sure stack you SB with 6-8 cards for it (most of which are useless against other problem match-ups or we would already be running them), but what do you pull out to put them in? All you can do is go slower post board and that just gives the SA/SnT player time to get the combo and counters to protect it. And, even with 6-8 cards in the SB for it you will never make it a favorable match-up. Focus on match-ups you can effect.

[Angels]

Hey guys, I'm running the traditional burn deck with Goblin Guides, Hellspark Elemental, and Keldon Marauders as my creatures.

My sideboard has the following cards:
Smash to Smithereens
Faerie Macabre
Pyroblast/REB
Pyrostatic Pillar
Chaos Warp (for COP red)
Volcanic Fallout

All the cards are vital in the deck for us to win. My question is what cards do we take out for certain match ups. If I'm adding pyro/reb and Pyrostatic Pillar for U/R or RUG Delver, what cards would I take out?

[Raggedjoe]

Hey guys, I'm running the traditional burn deck with Goblin Guides, Hellspark Elemental, and Keldon Marauders as my creatures.

My sideboard has the following cards:
Smash to Smithereens
Faerie Macabre
Pyroblast/REB
Pyrostatic Pillar
Chaos Warp (for COP red)
Volcanic Fallout

All the cards are vital in the deck for us to win. My question is what cards do we take out for certain match ups. If I'm adding pyro/reb and Pyrostatic Pillar for U/R or RUG Delver, what cards would I take out?

It depends on your list really. I usually drop my 4 Flame Rift and 2 Keldon vs those two for 3 Pillar and 3 REB.

[Basara]

yes , drop flame rift , and use red elemental blast to protect your price of progress , play araound daze and if you dont have pressure you should play around spell pierce too , dont burn creatures vs RUG , becuase they will side in scavening ooze that will give them some life to survive , chump blocking with marauder is mvp here..

[(nameless one)]

My friend won an Unlimited Mox Pearl with this list:

4 Goblin Guide
2 Grim Lavamancer
3 Hellspark Elemental
4 Vexing Devil
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

17 Mountain
2 Barbarian Ring

SB:
4 Leyline of the Void
3 Pyrostatic Pillar (MVP as it locks decks)
2 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
2 Reroute
2 Shattering Spree

Rd1 loss to AnT
Rd2-4 win against Delvers (Not sure if Canadian or Delver Burn)
Rd5 win against Mirror
Rd6 win against Landstill

Quarterfinal win against Landstill
Semifinal win against W/G Maverick?
Final win against WBG Maverick?

[Wilkin]

My friend won an Unlimited Mox Pearl with this list:

4 Goblin Guide
2 Grim Lavamancer
3 Hellspark Elemental
4 Vexing Devil
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

17 Mountain
2 Barbarian Ring

SB:
4 Leyline of the Void
3 Pyrostatic Pillar (MVP as it locks decks)
2 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
2 Reroute
2 Shattering Spree

Rd1 loss to AnT
Rd2-4 win against Delvers (Not sure if Canadian or Delver Burn)
Rd5 win against Mirror
Rd6 win against Landstill

Quarterfinal win against Landstill
Semifinal win against W/G Maverick?
Final win against WBG Maverick?

His final win was against me. 2-0. Deadguy Ale.

[Sunday Funday]

My friend won an Unlimited Mox Pearl with this list:

4 Goblin Guide
2 Grim Lavamancer
3 Hellspark Elemental
4 Vexing Devil
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

17 Mountain
2 Barbarian Ring

SB:
4 Leyline of the Void
3 Pyrostatic Pillar (MVP as it locks decks)
2 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
2 Reroute
2 Shattering Spree

Rd1 loss to AnT
Rd2-4 win against Delvers (Not sure if Canadian or Delver Burn)
Rd5 win against Mirror
Rd6 win against Landstill

Quarterfinal win against Landstill
Semifinal win against W/G Maverick?
Final win against WBG Maverick?

Round 2-4: one Canadian Thresh, one Team America, and not sure the other one.

[Strassbaw]

Deck list after seeing minor success for burn in Starcity's Worcester Open 2012:

4 Goblin Guide
3 Grim Lavamancer
3 Keldon marauder
3 Vexing Devil

4 Lightning bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast
2 Searing Blaze
2 Flame Rift

10 Red Fetch
9 Mountains

Sideboard:
2 Surgical extraction
2 Tormad's Crypt
4 Pyrostatic Pillar
3 Red elemental blast
2 Smash to smithereens
2 Sulfuric vortex


Short explanation for deck changes: Stifle seems to be getting less play in decks like Rug delver, so fetch lands are more safe to play. Vexing devil may help Grim lava mancer along with the fetch lands to optimize Grim lava mancer activated ability. Besides combo decks, cards like searing blaze assisted by fetch lands can help create a 2 for 1 effect which does not happen often in burn. Maverick has been a hard match up for generic burn (Samual Davis build) and this version of the deck will help the agro match up. My side board is mostly dedicated to combo decks to make up for what my list lacks in beating combo. Losing hell spark elemental is rough, but the card is slow and poor against other creature decks. I'd appreciate some insight.

Ps: whats a good sideboard card for burn against show and tell (besided rebs and pyroblasts).

[Rubik's Man]

To beat Griselbrand, I find that Vexing Devil is great at helping at least to get opponents down to 7 before they can activate his ability. I'll grant that I have no experience with systematic testing but given the recent growth of Reanimator and Sneak Show, I wouldn't run fewer than 3 and have had good experiences. I would rather cut Lavamancer to fit them in than Keldon Marauders, which guarantees 2 damage once it resolves, provides 3 more potentially, and can play the role of chump blocker for opposing fatties like Goyf and Knight of the Reliquary. I also think that Hellspark Elemental is important to keep in for dodging counterspells and discard, in addition to providing reach similar to what Lavamancer can offer. Grim Lavamancer, however, tends to hit only for 1 each turn until the lategame, likely to be blocked and unlikely to survive. In the current metagame, he likely either faces a removal spell or you're playing a combo deck without removal, in which case he's a dead card anyway.

Though he wins our hardest matchup, Vexing Devil always comes out against anyone with Swords to Plowshares, usually for Sulfuric Vortex and some combination of Sulfuric Vortex, Smash to Smithereens, and Red Elemental Blast (depending on which deck exactly I'm against).

Also, remember that Pyroblast can more easily be Misdirected, which we can easily fix with the switch to REB. While Pyroblast can hit any target just to get threshold in a pinch, we can afford to miss out on that more than we can afford to have it hit with a Misdirection.

I was wrong about the Misdirection/Red Elemental Blast thing; ignore it.

[Viridia]

REB can be Misdirected aswell by misdirecting it to the Misdirection itself

[Rubik's Man]

REB can be Misdirected aswell by misdirecting it to the Misdirection itself

I'm embarrassed. Thank you for letting me know.

[paeng4983]

Hello there burn thread.
I played yesterday in a small legacy at Mindstorm Shop (QC). We had it 5 rds with T4 play-offs. Unfortunately for me I wasn't able to make the cut because I lost my 1st two games against RUG because of mana flood. Then managed to win all my last three assignments (junk, ur infect and RUG). Thus landing 9th or tenth, I think I was. Ensnaring bridge (EB) was my MVP, halting lethal blows from delver, tarmo, nimble, blighted agent, KOTR, etc. I decided to put EBs in the MD because I was expecting sneaky show and other fatty creature base decks to be around.
Anyway, here's my list.

12 R fetches
9 mountain
4 guide
4 grim
4 L.bolt
4 c.lightning
4 lave spike
4 rift bolt
4 pop
4 fireblast
3 sulfuric vortex
4 ensnaring bridge

SB
3 pyrostatic pillar
4 seering blaze
3 smash to smithereens
3 REB
2 anarchy

[DragoFireheart]

Has anyone had any success using a only basic lands as the only permanents and the rest as instants/sorceries for the main deck (no Goblin Guide, Sulfuric Vortex, Keldon Marauders, etc)?

[CabalTherapy]

Has anyone had any success using a only basic lands as the only permanents and the rest as instants/sorceries for the main deck (no Goblin Guide, Sulfuric Vortex, Keldon Marauders, etc)?

This isn't possible in a high-speed format such as Legacy anymore.

[paeng4983]

Has anyone had any success using a only basic lands as the only permanents and the rest as instants/sorceries for the main deck (no Goblin Guide, Sulfuric Vortex, Keldon Marauders, etc)?

This is possible, but I think most of the time, you'll end up losing the game because of two reasons: (i) not enough mana was given for you to cast the spells in your hand, and (ii) too much mana was given, not even a single burn spell was given.

^_^

I think with the meta right now, MD ensnaring bridge is a good call for burn users.
From my list, Im thinking of removing the guides replacing them with incinerate (maybe) or any other good burn spells out there, then retaining the 3 vortexes, 4 bridges and 4 grims are my permanents (aside from the lands). Any thoughts on this?

Thanks

[rufus]

Has anyone had any success using a only basic lands as the only permanents and the rest as instants/sorceries for the main deck (no Goblin Guide, Sulfuric Vortex, Keldon Marauders, etc)?

I'd think you run into issues with card quality and reach. I always wonder about piling in a bunch of 'free' cantrips in with the burn and see how far it gets, but I think it ends up terrible:

'Freetrips'

4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Street Wraith
4 Manamorphose

3-for-1 Burn

4 Lighting Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

High Quality Burn

4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast

Lands

2 Barbarian Ring
14 Mountains


That still leaves 8 slots to fill, and It's hard to say no to stuff like Vexing Devil/Goblin Guide or even Immolating Souleater

[jares]

I'd think you run into issues with card quality and reach. I always wonder about piling in a bunch of 'free' cantrips in with the burn and see how far it gets, but I think it ends up terrible:

'Freetrips'

4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Street Wraith
4 Manamorphose

3-for-1 Burn

4 Lighting Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

High Quality Burn

4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast

Lands

2 Barbarian Ring
14 Mountains


That still leaves 8 slots to fill, and It's hard to say no to stuff like Vexing Devil/Goblin Guide or even Immolating Souleater
I have also explored this configuration in the past (as others have done before me), and have found it to be disappointing. I would encourage you to see for yourself, though, as I could certainly say that I did have fun in the process of discovering how this build works.

Cheers,
jares

[Basara]

we dont have another cards vs show and tell , sadly is a very difficult matchup for us ,

[paeng4983]

I use 4 ensnaring bridge in my MD, to help me fight sneaky show decks. And not just that, it also stops any creature during late games because most of the time you're not holding any card.
I also use 3 vortex in my MD, to help me fight those life gaining equipments.
I also increased to 21 lands (12 fetches and 9 basics), because I had 7 cards with 3cc.

:-)

[evanmartyr]

Admittedly I haven't read too deeply back into this thread, but I think a Maverick-heavy meta might warrant another look at Flamebreak. It tops the curve, but answers nearly all their usual creatures other than KotR, acts as a Searing Blaze for the entire board, and could be especially worthwhile in builds that are low on creatures.

As for a good answer to Sneak/Show, splashing blue for some Gilded Drakes is likely to be your best bet, since it's cheap, simple, and half the time they enable it themselves...your best bet other than ignoring the matchup completely, at least.

[Vandalize]

Admittedly I haven't read too deeply back into this thread, but I think a Maverick-heavy meta might warrant another look at Flamebreak. It tops the curve, but answers nearly all their usual creatures other than KotR, acts as a Searing Blaze for the entire board, and could be especially worthwhile in builds that are low on creatures.

As for a good answer to Sneak/Show, splashing blue for some Gilded Drakes is likely to be your best bet, since it's cheap, simple, and half the time they enable it themselves...your best bet other than ignoring the matchup completely, at least.

Isn't Flamebreak a little expensive? I mean, they run Thalia and Mom. Perhaps Pyroclasm does the same thing, but without the player-hit part.

[DarkAkuma]

Isn't Flamebreak a little expensive? I mean, they run Thalia and Mom. Perhaps Pyroclasm does the same thing, but without the player-hit part.

My burn is still somewhat more old school. I have a couple Flamebreaks in the main, and 2 more in the board. While I can't atest to their usefulness in match ups against the popular decks of the moment, in the past the doing damage to players was a bonus. Pyroclasym only hits creatures, in a deck that's basically designed to get the opponents life total to zero asap. Both Pyroclasm and Flamebreak help ensure your around in the game long enough to get that goal, but Flamebreak also moves towards it itself. I've won many games finishing with a Flamebreak with 0-1 creatures on board. You can see it as paying an additional cost of 3 life yourself. Its still worth it when it gets 2+ creatures, or helps get the kill shot.

[ToasTer86]

How do we deal with game breaking enchantments like

[leyline of the sanctity (http://deckbox.org/mtg/Leyline%20of%20Sanctity)]
[chill (http://deckbox.org/mtg/Chill)]

[Viridia]

I don't think you can, Leyline can be raced if you get lucky with creatures and your opponent doesnt have too much removal.
And Chill only comes down on T3 so you can do some damage before that and hope you can finish them after.

[DarkAkuma]

How do we deal with game breaking enchantments like

[leyline of the sanctity (http://deckbox.org/mtg/Leyline%20of%20Sanctity)]
[chill (http://deckbox.org/mtg/Chill)]

Things like Leyline of Sanctity is were understanding your meta game comes in. Every single slot in the sideboard is extremely valuable since so many cards that hate this deck out exist. Anarchy can work, but at 4cc it's of course harder to cast. Creatures too as mentioned. Vexing Devil shines here. Also cards like Flamebreak, Flame Rift, and Sulfuric Vortex don't target, if you're running them, though don't race well as they damage you just as much. And if this leyline is a real problem in your meta, you could maybe consider a minor color splash for Naturalize, Krosan Grip, or Disenchant.

For Chill. It sucks, but it's not game over if it lands. If you think it might hit play, make sure to keep a 3 land hand. Try to use blasts to keep it from hitting, though you will probably fail. But with access to 8, it can happen. Double Chill is when it really starts to hurt.

[slave]

In regards to Leyline;
I assume with all the Fetches people are running that this shouldn't be impossible to bring in from the SB in game 2.
Has anyone ever tried running Burning Wish and SB'ing answers like Reverent Silence?

I have another question too - seeing as how Burn decks almost always see more lands than they need after T3, has anyone got ways to use them as a weapon, similar to what Black does with Ravens' Crime? Other than Fireblast, I can't think of any.....

[david.gerco]

In regards to Leyline;
I assume with all the Fetches people are running that this shouldn't be impossible to bring in from the SB in game 2.
Has anyone ever tried running Burning Wish and SB'ing answers like Reverent Silence?

With Burning Wish we are getting to away from Burn's game plan....Really, its too much :)


I have another question too - seeing as how Burn decks almost always see more lands than they need after T3, has anyone got ways to use them as a weapon, similar to what Black does with Ravens' Crime? Other than Fireblast, I can't think of any.....
The only thing it comes to my mind is Flame Jab

[iamfrightenedtoo]

Countryside Crusher is amazing in Burn. especially because you do not need more than 3 lands for the deck to run optimally. Crusher also insures you never see a useless land again. I like it.

[conankudo4]

Countryside Crusher is amazing in Burn. especially because you do not need more than 3 lands for the deck to run optimally. Crusher also insures you never see a useless land again. I like it.

Countryside Crusher is horrible for multiple reasons:

1: He's a creature in a deck that has very, very few creatures overall. Because of this, any creature hate sitting in their hand (Swords, Bolt, Pulse, etc) will be used on it before it has a chance to do anything. It doesn't help that normal burn creatures are psuedo-resistant to removal in the sense that you'll have either already gained the value out of the card by the time they have a chance to remove it (Goblin Guide), or the card will be leaving the battlefield within a turn or two, and removing them is pointless (Keldon, Hellspark). So all of the removal will have their markers pointed straight at it, especially since it has to wait until until your next upkeep before it does it's ability and is helpful to you in any way.

2: Going off the point before, it lacks both Haste or an effect that immediately affects the board. Going off of the list of common creatures in burn:

Goblin Guide: Haste, directly affects the board by dealing quick damage, and gaining info on the opponent's hand/next draw.

Hellspark Elemental: Haste, trample, if unguarded another Lightning Bolt. Also has the potential of forcing your opponent to block to prevent some of the damage.

Keldon Marauders: Does 1 damage upon battlefield entrance and exit, and will be smashing the opponent for 3 unless blocked.

Figure of Destiny: Doesn't affect the field... and personally I dunno why people feel like running this thing really. >.< Thankfully have been inching away from this since the printing of Vexing Devil / the metagame decks moving at a much faster pace.

Countryside Crusher has no immediate affect on the field, and will not be able to damage them in the slightest before being removed. In a normal deck that would be all fine and dandy, but for a deck like Burn, that demands that it plays faster than the opponent can kill them, Crusher just doesn't cut it.

3: His effect is... clunky. You don't abuse it very much (the best you're going to get, assuming he doesn't die is maybe 5/5 or 6/6), there are going to be situations where you're going to want that land (set up for spells, second Fireblast, just needing more mana in general, etc) and he doesn't change the board state much since most Legacy creatures can fight him easy (Goyf, Mongoose/Delver when active, Knight, Stoneforge plus X artifact, any fish team, etc all tango with him), so he doesn't change too much by just being a slab of meat on the field.

4: No matter how big he gets, he can be chump blocked all day.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I don't know if I care about any of this.
I guess we all just have to play as though every land will get Wastelanded, every creature will get STP'd, and every spell will get counterspelled.
honestly why even play the stupid game? Other than that figure out a way to play a deck with no lands, creatures, or spells.

Countryside crusher is a spell that I believe needs to be answered. So whilst being answered lets Burn creatures which are all pretty irrelevant, have a better chance at being relevant.

also you cannot 0talk about needing the extra land that Countryside Crusher wont afford you if you claim the creature will just be killed anyway. If it becomes a 6/6, great that is 3 lands that you did not need that it took away.

also, if you can get him out against Reanimator it helps you beat the deck after Iona hits the board. It has for me anyway.

Don't play it if you don't want to, I was simply offering a suggestion that has worked for me.

[Curby]

We play basic mountains to avoid Wasteland. We play hasty creatures, recurring creatures, and creatures with guaranteed damage to maximize damage when facing removal. We play a lot of similar spells to reduce the effectiveness of opposing disruption: when every spell is roughly the same, countering our spells is less rewarding. Compare to a typical combo deck, which always has a "key" spell that both enables the kill and becomes the weak point for disrupting the combo.

So, yes, burn is built to survive a hostile environment. It HAS to be built this way because those disruptive factors exist, and we in turn have no defense against such disruption except to be consistent in the face of it.

Your last paragraph is perhaps the most important. At the end of the day, it's up to each of us to decide what to run. However, Crusher is not exactly a new suggestion, and I agree with the conventional wisdom advising against its use in Burn.

[Dmnd]

I would like to talk about a new Topic.

I think you are all familiar with Pyrostatic Pillar.
Did someone of you tested Pyrostatic Pillar against the familiar faces like TES / Maverick / Goblins /Reanimator / RUG / UR or maybe even UW?

I startet some testing against Goblins and i would say vs. Goblins its horrible but i only had about 10 Games.

Another cards bothering me is Thalia, Guardian of Thraben. With Maverick now nearly always playing her four times i think Burn needs a specific answer to adress the "new" Maverick style beeing so popular.
How well works Sulfur Elemental for this matter?
I will do some Testings on my one but that will take atleast a few weeks until i had enought time for it. I would be glad if somebody already has an answer.


regards Dmnd

[iamfrightenedtoo]

For me, Pyrostatic Pillar is only useful against comb0o. Against Maverick, RUG, Goblins, UW, UR, Merfolk, it deals to much damage to you. It doesnt slow them down as much as it should. I have played it a lot against these decks and honestly I can think of it working once or twice.

In regards to Thalia, I have never had a problem with her. Thalia is very easy to kill. Sulfur Elemental would work good against Mother of Runes. I also, have never had a real problem with Mother of Runes, occasionally she gets out of hand, but she does have summoning sickness, and you should never play a spell that can be cast at a creature until you need to.

Lightning Bolt, and Chain Lightning do not need to be played until late game for the kill, or if there happens to be a problematic creature.

There is one real topic that needs to be discussed in this forum.

Burn becoming obsolete in legacy again.

Combo is impossible, I dont care what we can sideboard for, Combo is too consistent for us anymore.

Hightide is beatable, almost easy.

T.E.S. I think I am 0/x against. There discard is terrible to try and play around with our hate.

I dumped Burn as Show and Tell became popular. although honestly I cannot see what we could sideboard to take care of this stupid deck.

Griselbrand never scared me, we can do a lot of damage quickly which makes them think twice about dealing themselves 14 damage to draw cards.

Reanimate, the only time I have been able to beat Reanimate is when I was able to get Countryside Crusher out, got it big enough to attack and forced my opponent to block and kill Iona. I have tried a lot of grave hate for Reanimate, but they have figured out a way around it.

Belcher is a joke, 0/x against. I used to run Mindbreak Trap for Belcher and other combo, but any combo with counter or discard, it just gets nullified.

Dredge which is kind of combo is pretty easy to beat.

Dreamhalls I have never played against. I doubt it is a winnable matchup for us.

[conankudo4]

I would like to talk about a new Topic.

I think you are all familiar with Pyrostatic Pillar.
Did someone of you tested Pyrostatic Pillar against the familiar faces like TES / Maverick / Goblins /Reanimator / RUG / UR or maybe even UW?

I startet some testing against Goblins and i would say vs. Goblins its horrible but i only had about 10 Games.


In regards to Pyrostatic, I agree with iamfrightenedtoo in the sense that it's only good against combo (and affinity in some cases, although that's kind of a combo deck in its own right). That being said, it's a house against combo (High Tide has to counter it to survive, and I've had storm decks [both TES and ANT] actively scoop upon resolution to the card). It's not in my sideboard at the moment, just due to combo not being large in the larger meta (and the spots need to have hate for the things that currently are running amok), though I do run them locally (we have a High Tide player, along with a few players who have storm built for funsies) to counteract combo.




Another cards bothering me is Thalia, Guardian of Thraben. With Maverick now nearly always playing her four times i think Burn needs a specific answer to adress the "new" Maverick style beeing so popular.
How well works Sulfur Elemental for this matter?
I will do some Testings on my one but that will take atleast a few weeks until i had enought time for it. I would be glad if somebody already has an answer.


regards Dmnd

A good answer for Thalia that I've learned is that, once you realize that you're playing Maverick/Death and Taxes, is that you keep one bolt in hand since they'll either aim to try to play Thalia, or they'll try to slip out a Jitte and equip it to something. Paying 1R for a single Lightning Bolt really isn't all that bad, since it'll slow them down enough that you should be able to outrace them, and they'll have to find some new answer to try to slow you down so they can beat you, which you can promptly answer unless it's StPing a 12/12 Knight or something XD).

[Dmnd]

Hey

thanks for the fast answers. Now i dont have to test the Pillar myself.
I dont think that Burn is as weak as you say iamfrightenedtoo. Atleast in my current Meta Combo isn't that popular. Still the most common Combo Deck around here is Dredge and thats easy beatable with Burn. Merfolk and Goblins both DTB atm get crushed with Volcanic Fallout in Sideboard.
With my testing it was about 70 - 30 in favor of Burn.

But i think you are right in a combo heavy Meta Burn isn't that great.

But to the Maverick / Thalia problem again. For me it feels like i have to kill nearly every creature they cast. Mother - i have to kill her / Thalia - needs to die. Early Knight-- kill it or be killed by it either for dmg or caus of sword into 10 life ;)
Maybe i just play the matchup wrong. But a good Maverick player gets at Max 2 points of dmg from Price of Progress so i dont know hot to get in 20 Points of Dmg.
Do you just go for the face? Only play a Burn spell on Jitte equip -> attack or on Mother ?

regards Dmnd

[conankudo4]

Hey

thanks for the fast answers. Now i dont have to test the Pillar myself.
I dont think that Burn is as weak as you say iamfrightenedtoo. Atleast in my current Meta Combo isn't that popular. Still the most common Combo Deck around here is Dredge and thats easy beatable with Burn. Merfolk and Goblins both DTB atm get crushed with Volcanic Fallout in Sideboard.
With my testing it was about 70 - 30 in favor of Burn.



IMO Given the current meta structure, how well a burn deck does in a tournament is directly in relation to how many Sneak and Show/Reanimator decks are running around, since those are the two matchups that we just flat out lose to (Reanimator a bit less so, but SnS is basically an auto-loss). The only other matchups in the meta that are bad are Maverick and (though this is with outdated data since I've made heavy alters since then) Merfolk, now that they've sped up with the addition of Master of the Pearl Trident. And both of those are about 60/40 in the favor of the opposing player, but they're not exactly unwinnable.




But to the Maverick / Thalia problem again. For me it feels like i have to kill nearly every creature they cast. Mother - i have to kill her / Thalia - needs to die. Early Knight-- kill it or be killed by it either for dmg or caus of sword into 10 life ;)
Maybe i just play the matchup wrong. But a good Maverick player gets at Max 2 points of dmg from Price of Progress so i dont know hot to get in 20 Points of Dmg.
Do you just go for the face? Only play a Burn spell on Jitte equip -> attack or on Mother ?

regards Dmnd

Unfortunately, there's no real answer to this, since it mostly depends on the board state. What makes the Maverick vs Burn matchup so interesting is that most of it is based off of the Burn player's ability to micromanage their spells for the maximum output (when to hold bolt to kill stuff, when to strike, when to use PoPs, etc etc), and the Maverick player's capability to successfully maintain a board state, and outrace a deck that's built to outrace them. The main reason the matchup ends up going against the favor of the Burn player is that they just simply have more things that can kill us that we need to kill than we can afford to waste our ammo on to kill.

Good rules to go by for the matchup though:

Kill order should go something on the lines of 1:Thalia 2: MoR 3: Anything equippable to a Jitte if it's on the field that can attack next turn.

Don't get greedy with PoP! If you wait too long, then you'll miss your opportunity to actually deal damage to them. >.< Wait for them to have tapped out their Wastelands for something and blast them them, even if it's only for 2-4, because that's better than nothing. Also be sure to do it before they have a Knight without summoning sickness on the field.

You'll need to prioritize your spells so that you have instants (bolts/Jets) to kill anything relevant ASAP, but most of your sorceries should be going straight at them, since if you aren't putting them on a fast enough of a clock they will outlast you. But again, it all varies on the board state of the game itself on what you should do. This matchup can vary in what happens pretty dramatically.

[conankudo4]

So, we have a decklist from the SCG open last weekend that top 32d:

//Burn, by Austin Yost
4 Vexing Devil
4 Goblin Guide
4 Arid Mesa
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
2 Bloodstained Mire
4 Grim Lavamancer
10 Mountain
4 Flame Rift
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt

// Sideboard:
SB: 3 Mindbreak Trap
SB: 4 Faerie Macabre
SB: 4 Smash to Smithereens
SB: 2 Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 4 Red Elemental Blast

The use of Grim Lavamancer in a fast meta like this seems odd IMO. Doesn't seem like it'd be fast enough. But then again, I suppose for the fast matchups, you would just board it out and then you keep it in for the remaining, more control-based matchups.

[StaticLynx]

Ah, to touch base on Figure since I occasionally -do- see it still being played.
It's the best use of that extra mana that you otherwise couldn't use. Same reasoning behind Coralhelm, sorta.
Difference is Burn should never have mana that they're not using, but meh. It happens.

Anyways, Lavamancer.
On the play shoots their MoM, kills lots of strays. Flipped or Un-flipped Delver. Occasionally early game Gofy, Stoneforge, Bob, almost everything you run into really. He was ALWAYS have ammo in this deck, and worst case scenario a creature that shoots them in the face for two every turn that they can't do a whole lot about.
While this deck isn't really top tier I'm actually building it. I think it's fantastic right now of all times. My local Meta has hardly any storm and I don't see this losing to RUG or Maverick anytime soon. Simply put, this deck just wins the race.

While I'm still indecisive about Figure, at least I know why he's used, and can be a game winner if not dealt with. Just like Coralhelm.

[Tombstalker]

Would furnace of rath help with show and tell? My friend is a burn player looking for sideboard options against the combo matchups you are talking about, specifically show and tell but also against storm. Im not that familiar with burn so ill just ask you guys. I was thinking he could drop it in off show and tell then untap and throw 6 damage bolts...idk maybe chancy though.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Furnace seems real bad in the match-ups you mentioned. It makes Griselbrand swing for 14 and it makes the storm player only have to count to 5.

Forward Austin Yost's list (above) to your friend.
It looks like the Traps are for Storm and I'm guessing Vortex would come in against Show and Tell to negate the lifelink on Griz... Otherwise REB's counter Show + Tell.

[Tombstalker]

Ace/Homebrew- Ok ill do that thanks.

[Gheizen64]

The new Ash Zealot should replace all the Hellspark/Marauders you still have in your deck. Card is pretty good, and double red shouldn't be a problem if you run only mountains and barbarian rings.

[Justin]

I'm not sure about Ash Zealot. It's pretty terible against Nimble Mongoose and other three toughness creatures. Hellspark and Keldon force the opponent to lose their 3/3 by blocking with it or take 3 damage. Maybe in a meta absent of RUG Devler, Ash Zealot could be considered.

[Gheizen64]

I'm not sure about Ash Zealot. It's pretty terible against Nimble Mongoose and other three toughness creatures. Hellspark and Keldon force the opponent to lose their 3/3 by blocking with it or take 3 damage. Maybe in a meta absent of RUG Devler, Ash Zealot could be considered.

Goose really shouldn't have threshold by T3.

[conankudo4]

I'm not sure about Ash Zealot. It's pretty terible against Nimble Mongoose and other three toughness creatures. Hellspark and Keldon force the opponent to lose their 3/3 by blocking with it or take 3 damage. Maybe in a meta absent of RUG Devler, Ash Zealot could be considered.

To be perfectly honest, I see him actually being pretty good in the delver matchup (though I obviously haven't had the chance to test him yet). He should eat their geese pretty handily unless you both them late game (I've honestly never really seen Delver decks hit threshold against me unless the game stalls out, but that might be just me), and applies all of the same threats that Marauders or Hellspark do while lasting for longer than one combat. That's his main plus. He's a hasty guy (which means he immediately puts pressure on the field and has potential to do damage to your opponent ASAP) that has a very solid body (2/2 with an extra bonus of first strike) that threatens to be an extra consistent 2 damage each turn. He'll also be awkward to block with goyfs. Then it's extra ability is just lying there, on the offshoot that it might get used in some matchup for extra damage (though not Delver, pretty obviously).

[KobeBryan]

What did sullivan do to win game 3?

[death]

Jedi mind tricked his opponent into blowing up the Vortex with Pridemage tapping Wasteland.. opening up P.o.P win

[lithiux]

Ensnaring Bridge is a hilarious piece of tech that I would have never thought to use. The Vexing Shusher is (get ready for it) vexing to me though. Is it just to make sure your lethal PoP or Fireblast get off? It seems expensive to me and broadcasts what you're about to do.

[bigbear102]

Vexing Shusher and Ensnaring Bridge give burn a combo that is almost unbeatable by RUG and Countertop decks in game 2. Without artifact removal, Shusher ensures that Brifge will hit, and then you win over time. If you go into game 3 it's a chess match whether you leave them in or take them back out to race because your opponent most likely added 2-4 useless cards if you no longer have Bridge.

I never liked Bridge, but it seems reasonable here.

As far as broadcasting your plays, it's burn...

As for the people having problems with Maverick, Grim Lavamancer is great, just make sure you lead with Guides and whatever other guys you have to draw removal. Even if he gets sent farming, that's 1 less STP they can gain life with. Popping early is smart here, and I typically would race them and only kill Thalia. I play 3 main vortex to deal with Jitte and then board Smash to Smithereens, that way my burn spells go where they are supposed to more often.

[Thunderkraken]

I am new to this site, but I have been playing legacy burn on a weekly basis for about 2 years now.

I am always looking for new ideas about the deck to try and make it more efficient. Two cards I include that I haven't seen in any lists, or even discussed in great depth are (an obvious one): Thunderous wrath and one that I have never seen mentioned: Noxious Revival.

Wrath has obvious pros and cons. You never want it to be in your opening hand or to be your t1 draw. However it speeds up your clock immensely. I have been running 3-4 and have had a lot of success with the card. The synergy with magma jet is very strong. Just wondering what peoples thoughts about the card are. I searched the thread and didn't really find anything.

The second card, Noxius Revival, is a bit odd I'll admit. The first response I get is that it doesn't do damage. This is obvious, but for 2 life this card becomes any burn spell in your graveyard. Also since I run wrath the synergy between the two cards is nothing short of amazing. For RR and 2 life you do ten damage. I have had this happen often. I will admit Revival is usually the first card I will side out, but it is a very strong card in my opinion and has earned it's place in my burn deck.

I'll post my burn list, but there is nothing special about it save for these two cards. It runs the standard 16 "bolts" 3 keldon marauders, 3 hellspark, 4 Magma Jet, 4 FB, 4 Goblin Guide, 4 Wraths, 4 revivals and 18 mountains.

My SB changes on a weekly basis based on what decks people are playing. I deal with a lot of Stoneblade variants, Tezz Affinity, fish, Combo decks, and aggro such as zoo and goblins. Control decks are scarce due to time constraints at my venue. The reason I do not main board PoP is due to a lack of non-basics. A lot of people can't afford them so I have them side-boarded to avoid having dead cards.

[bigbear102]

Thunder kraken,

Thunderous Wrath seems bad to me at first, especially with just Magma Jet to set it up. I have been known to run 8-12 fetches, 1 Taiga and 2-3 Sylvan Library. It gives you additional gas as well ascard selection, and in your case would make wrath much more consistent.

You could also modify your deck significantly into what I like to call ArtiBurn. It involves Sensei's Divining Top, Ankh of Mishra, Shrapnel Blast, and 4 Great Furnace. You could also run Shrine of Burning Rage, but if your meta is fast that card kinda sucks.

Noxious Revival is an interesting inclusion, I may have to test it, especially with the 1 Taiga that can cast it. I doubt there will be room, as I run 4 PoP main and have the 3 Sylvans.

If people are having a lot of trouble with Maverick, Noxious Revival could bring back your bolt or your artifact removal. I dunno if it's good enough without testing a bit, but it might be playable.


I do have a venal question though, does everyone on here save their burn spells? I typically only use Spikes and Rift Bolts ASAP, and obviously creatures when it makes sense, and tend to hold everything else until I need to cast it, which is typically when I have a window of opportunity or excess mana/too many cards in hand. The reason I ask is that whenever I see someone else playing burn, they cast their bolts early until they have 0-2 cards in hand mid-game. Obviously if you can kill them or are playing ensnaring bridge that makes sense, but it seems to me that a lot of people I see just try to cast everything ASAP, and it normally seems like the wrong play to me. Let me know what your play style is, I'm curious as to whether I am in the minority or not.

[sperry023]

I've been poking around for a little while because I am slowly piecing together Burn as an "extra" deck, so pardon the no-experience-theory-crafting in my response.

I think the problem with Noxious Revival is that it doesn't "become" the best burn card in your GY, it just puts it on top. Burn decks can already run out of gas easily, and NR is straight card-disadvantage. I loved feeling like a miser when I was testing Miracles in Standard and could use NR, but in a more powerful environment I don't know if it would cut it, especially when Thunderous Wrath is really the only target that would make it somewhat worth it. Maybe I'll change my tune when I get some testing under my belt, but this card isn't on the top of my list of things to try.

[bigbear102]

True, for some reason I was forgetting the top of the library part, it does suck without Miracles, and 1 isn't enough to justify it. Not really sure why I was considering it.

My decision right now is whether or not Fetches are worth it to feed Lavamancer and a splash with Stifles running around.

[Black Metal]

I've been playing legacy burn for about 3 and a half years on a weekly basis. I have a couple of things I'd like feedback on but there are a couple of things I'd like to respond to first.

Fetches: Running fetches with Grim Lavamancer is pretty much a necessity in my opinion. It helps the deck in multiple ways. The most obvious effect is adding to your graveyard. In my experience, running 9 fetches, you get around 2-4 extra cards in your grave. Fetches also help out burns mid to late game significantly. Fetching drops the land count in your library. This means that when you start to run out of steam and you start wanting to draw a burn spell every turn to finish your opponent, you'll draw more burn and less useless lands. It's also an essential component of being able to splash.

Noxious Revival: I agree with sperry023. When you use it, you are a card behind. Unless it gives you a Price of Progress of 4 or more damage, it is inefficient.

Thunderous Wrath: This card also looks a bit sub-par to me. You don't ever want to run a card in your deck that causes you to mulligan an otherwise keepable hand. Also, the extra damage you get from it usually isn't significant because it ends up being the bolt that is auto-countered. I've seen it as a 1 of, but no more than that.

Splashing: This is an option I've been toying with a bit. Stifles aren't really an issue in my opinion because, in my situation, the splash is for side-board options. This means they don't even know the fetch is for the splash until the ability has resolved and it is too late for them to stifle it.

Ash Zealot: Definetly not worth including. Both Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauder are better. Even with removal Keldon gets in 2 damage. It also attacks for three and is rarely blocked because its' one attack is not worth the trade. The same is true about Hellspark. Its attack is not worth the trade, and also has potential for 6 damage off one card. Zealot might be better in more creature oriented burn decks that run Vexing Devil and other fast red beats.

Figure of Destiny: I actually love this card in the deck. It works best at 2-3 slots. It uses any spare mana you have. And if not dealt with, can get extremely big and win games.

Ensnaring Bridge: I also love this card in the deck. It helps with a lot of burn's bad match-ups. It locks out fatty against both sneak&show and reanimator. It has also won me games against dredge, where my opponent could not attack with his zombies or fatties, while I pinged him to death with Grim Lavamancer.

Vexing Shusher: Haven't tried this card yet. It looks like an extremely strong side-board card to me though. Burn hates when our Fireblasts and Price of Progresses get counter. So Vexing Shusher looks pretty good.

[cartoonist]

I play a pretty standard list, but splashed white for a trio of Lightning Helix, cutting Flame Rifts. Does what it's supposed to, but it can buy an extra turn, and gives a bit of room for a set of fetches.

[jtos84]

To beat Griselbrand, I find that Vexing Devil is great at helping at least to get opponents down to 7 before they can activate his ability. I'll grant that I have no experience with systematic testing but given the recent growth of Reanimator and Sneak Show, I wouldn't run fewer than 3 and have had good experiences. I would rather cut Lavamancer to fit them in than Keldon Marauders, which guarantees 2 damage once it resolves, provides 3 more potentially, and can play the role of chump blocker for opposing fatties like Goyf and Knight of the Reliquary. I also think that Hellspark Elemental is important to keep in for dodging counterspells and discard, in addition to providing reach similar to what Lavamancer can offer. Grim Lavamancer, however, tends to hit only for 1 each turn until the lategame, likely to be blocked and unlikely to survive. In the current metagame, he likely either faces a removal spell or you're playing a combo deck without removal, in which case he's a dead card anyway.

Though he wins our hardest matchup, Vexing Devil always comes out against anyone with Swords to Plowshares, usually for Sulfuric Vortex and some combination of Sulfuric Vortex, Smash to Smithereens, and Red Elemental Blast (depending on which deck exactly I'm against).

Also, remember that Pyroblast can more easily be Misdirected, which we can easily fix with the switch to REB. While Pyroblast can hit any target just to get threshold in a pinch, we can afford to miss out on that more than we can afford to have it hit with a Misdirection.

I was wrong about the Misdirection/Red Elemental Blast thing; ignore it.

I have played quite a bit of burn in my day, and vexing devil is not very good to say the least. It seems very good. Almost like a four damage lighting bolt. If you think about it grim lavamancer is going to win your tougher matchups because it has the potential to do more damage than four. In either case both creatures can be removed with no effect. Vexing devils probably the card that is going to win your easiest matches. I watch all kinds of people play burn with vexing devils, or people who get sidetracked into burning their opps creatures when it is not neccessary. It will be rare that you should target creatures. On a similiar note goblin guide has the potential to do 6 damage quickly. Vexing devil seems good, and you can win with it, but it is not optimal in my opinion.

[Aachie]

Heyho,
I'm playing MTG for more than four years now, but I never took place in any tournaments so far.
After having a break that lasts about a year now I decided to start playing some Legacy. I furthermore decided to start with building a Burn-Deck for that purpose, cuz its the cheapest Deck to get and the easiest Deck to play, but it's still viable and able to win. So I looked up alot of Decklists and talked to a lot of ppl. After doing that I noticed that Burn might be the easiest Deck to play and the cheapest to build, but u'll still need some time to figure out how ur list should be look like. Of course there are some spells like Lightning Bolt that has to be in the list, but there are also a lot of cards that some ppl play, others dont (like the Vexing Devil vs. Lavamancer discussion above).

So, long story short, here's my Deck: http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/330983

I'm well aware of the fact that four copies of Price and Fireblast might be too much, but I rly don't know what to play instead. As u see I prefer Vexing Devil over Lavamancer. Playing Keldon Marauders instead of four Price and four Blasts might be an alternative, but they seem kinda slow to me.

Thank you for your comments in advance.

Aachie

[Apollo]

While it can appear at first glance to be a deck that autopilots itself this is far from the case. As Patrick Sullivan stated (who has had his share of success with the deck) in his write up when he recently top 4'd at SCG you don't have any margin for error as the deck lacks the raw power to overcome mistakes. It actually takes patience and thought to squeeze out wins more then you think. The cards may be fundamentally easy to play but that doesn't mean when to play them, what to play around, etc is. As for your list Price of Progress is an amazing card, and outside of the very few decks that run only basic land is the best burn spell, I'd run 4 MD its that good. I also like Sulfuric Vortex in the MB, especially considering how many DR Shamans I'm seeing everywhere, I'd rather ignore this card then waste burn on it. I also don't like vexing devil. in my meta i play against a guy who runs them in his burn and they are just not consistent enough. I never like giving the opponent the chance to make the optimal decision.

[Aachie]

Yea,
after playtesting a lot yesterday via Cockatrice with a friend I have to say that u r right.
It only seems to be easy at first glance. Thank you for replying btw.
The thing I'm not that sure about is the Barbarian Ring. In 15 matches I played it barely seem to have any influence.
Additionally it has antisynergy with Lavamancer, which is the card u wanna cut the Devils for I guess?
Doesn't it make more sense to cut the Elementals for the Mancers? They also has antisynergy with the Mancer.

Aachie

[datanaga]

Hello,

IMHO this build is still best (especially in creature heavy meta), I love to kill stoneforge mystics with searing blazes maindeck:)

http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=49536

If your meta is more combo oriented, it is relevant to switch searing blazes for flame rifts in MD/SB.

[Aachie]

Hey,
I rly don't now what to think about the Lavamancer.
When I first came up with the idea to play Burn, a lot of tournament players I know through frieds told me not to play the Lavamancer.
I mean, you need R and two cards in your graveyard to burn for 2. In the opening hand its pretty much a dead card while Vexing Devil or Hellspark Elemental can easily burn your opponent for up to 6 life.
Of course I have to admit that the Lavamancer is nice later in the game and combined with fetchies, but do u rly last long enough to make use of it?
I did not playtested with Lavamancer in list 'til today, but maybe I'll try.
But what I experienced is, that you lose if you don't kill fast. I playtested a lot against Zoo, Reanimator and Manaless Dredge.
Preboard against Manaless Dredge and Reanimator with Burn is a pain n the arse. If ur opponent has bad luck, u can win. Otherwise Manaless Dredge will win turn 3 or 4 and Reanimator can get out an Iona in turn 2 or 3. I don't think that u are fast enough against this with Lavamancer.
But as I said, I'll playtest with and without it to see what happenz. ^^

Aachie

[Hapless Researcher]

Is it possible to be successful without the fetches? I would like to try this as a budget option for a while, but the fetches push it into non-budget.

[Aachie]

It is possible, yeah.
But I would not recommend running Lavamancers without fetchies.
A lot of decks that don't run Lavamancers and Fetchies run Barbarian Rings and Vexing Devils/Hellspark Elementals instead.
Although Fetchies are not the only cards that make a Burn deck non-budget.
Chain Lightnings are pretty much the most expensive card and I can't imagine running a Burn deck without them.

Aachie

[anakyn]

So, long story short, here's my Deck: http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/330983


My 2 cents:

1) please don't play Searing blaze if you have no fetchlands... and if you wanna go the fetchlands route, then play Lavamancer instead of Devils (but I prefer the no fetchlands - no Lavamancer route)

2) I'd play only 11-12 creatures, cutting either the Marauders or the Hellsparks for the 9-12 slots

3) with the free slots I'd play 2 (or maybe 3) Sulfuric vortex maindeck: there are too many lifegain mechanics around right now

4) play 4 Fireblast no matter what

5) keep the 2 Barbarian rings. They make you win some games you would have not won without them.

6) play 4 storm hate SB. You can choose between Mindbreak trap (my favourite) and Pyrostatic pillar. To find some place for these 4 slots I'd cut the Fallouts and the Vortexes (you should move Vortexes on mainboard)

[anakyn]

The choice between the Lavamancer - fetches route and the standard route (no Lavamancer and no fetch) seems to me related to the meta:

- Lavamancer route is a bit slower but is stronger against creatures decks like Maverick, Merfolks and Zoo. It also provides a cheap answer to Stoneforge mystic and more gas for the mid/late game. The real gem here is Searing blaze imho: they're played in the SB of course, but when they come in they are maybe our best cards.

- classic build is faster, so I'd play it in a meta full of combo (we must kill them as fast as possible) or generally in a meta without too many creatures deck.


One of the main difference between the 2 builds concerns the strategy against artifacts, especially Jitte: while Lavamancer build can kill equipped creatures very easily and cheaply (with Lavamancer or Searing blaze, or even classic bolts since we have more gas), classic build usually prefers to play 3-4 Smash to smithereens SB.


The only card I would never play (but that's just my preference) is Volcanic fallout: usually they are played in classic builds where we have no Lavamancers to deal with creatures, but imho they are useful only against decks we should already beat without them.
My opinion is: if your meta is full of creatures, go with Lavamancer-fetches; if it's not, then you won't need Volcanic neither.

[Aachie]

Thank yu very mch for that reply anakyn, helped me out a lot.
The thing with the Lavamancers + Fetchies was discussed a lot above now and I alrdy get it, but u bringing it to the point helped me a lot to figure out what to play and what not.
I also dont liked the idea of running Lavamancers, but I saw shitloads of decks do so and got kinda convinced I'd have to run 'em too. :/
Thanky again for your advice. ;P

Aachie

[Aachie]

Hi,
so I build two decks now, one with and one without the Lavamancers.
Only thing I'm not really comitted about is the SB.
Through cutting the Blazes and Vortexes out I had a lot of space in my SB, so I added a fourth Crypt and three Bridges.
I was thinking about running four Pyroblasts in the SB, but that card does not seem to be really worth it. You only want board it against blue-heavy decks, but if a deck is blue-heavy it also has a shitload of counterspells in it and will always have a backup that your hydroblast can't break through, I guess.

So, here are the lists: 1.Without Mancers http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/330983

2. With Mancers http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/356222

Aachie

[Aachie]

Deck 2* http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/356222

[LeoCop 90]

Did anyone consider splashing black for Bump in the Night ? it is basically another lava spike,since you surely won't pay its flashback cost. I think it would be good in a very fast list with no (or very few) creatures.

And,if splashing black, could it be a good idea to run some discard spell main deck ?
I thought 4 Inquisition of Kozilek main deck and 4 Thoughtseize in the sideboard; this way you would have a chance against combo also in the first game, then in the second game 8 discard spell should be enough to prevent your opponent from comboing off. Obviously when playing against other decktypes you would probably side out the discard stuff.
I understand that running discard main deck make more difficult for us to kill our opponent,but it also slows him down,let us know what he has in hand...it can be useful also against decks other from combo. What do you think ?

[anakyn]

I was thinking about running four Pyroblasts in the SB, but that card does not seem to be really worth it. You only want board it against blue-heavy decks, but if a deck is blue-heavy it also has a shitload of counterspells in it and will always have a backup that your hydroblast can't break through, I guess.


My reasoning about Pyroblast/REB is exactly the same, that's why I don't run them anymore in my SB: the only decks where you wanna bring them in are also the decks which can easily counter them.


Both your lists seems pretty good to me:
- your "Classic" burn is almost exactly my own build: the only differences are Hellsparks (I prefer Marauders), Tormod's (I use Faerie macabre in those anti-GY slots) and Pillars (I prefer Mindbreak for anti-Storm)
- your Lavamancer build has only one fault imho: I would swap Flame rifts and Searing blazes, playing Rifts MB and Blazes SB. That's simply because Blazes could be completely dead cards against many decks (remember that there MUST BE a creature to target, otherwise you can't cast them), while Rifts could be risky but are never dead. And you could also up the fetchlands count to 12, like many lists do: more food for Lavamancer is always good.


And I'm curious about one of your choices: why do you play Hellsparks in one build and Marauders in the other?

[Hapless Researcher]

I think I'll try the classic build for a bit. I have owned the Chain lightnings since the 90's so that's not an expensive add.

Something like:

4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders

4 Lighting Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
3 Flame Rift
3 Sulfuric Vortex

2 Barbarian Ring
16 Mountain

[Voley]

I would drop hellspark for vexing devil.

[Hapless Researcher]

I would drop hellspark for vexing devil.


Personally, I think Devil is absolute trash. I hate giving my opponent options.

[anakyn]

I would drop hellspark for vexing devil.

Same opinion here.


I know many people don't want to give opponent choices, but both choices are pretty good for us here...
It's not like Browbeat which is surely trash cause it's 3-cc, Devil is just 1.

Most times your opponent will make you sacrifice it: that means you just threw an empowered Lava spike on their faces, which is very good for our plan.

Do they have StP or Path? Ok, your Hellspark would have died in the same way, only you have spent just 1-cc instead of 2-cc.

The only advice I'd like to give here is: if you also have a Guide in your hand, play the Guide before Devil. Not only you deal damage faster cause of haste, but you'll draw removal to it so maybe they won't have removal for Devil.


I suggest you to try them before rejecting the idea.
Right now I would consider them pretty staple in any "classic" build.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I maindeck Cave-in, I do not know if I would outside local meta, but it always seems to be a blowout.
It misses Tarmagoyf, and Threshhold Goose, but it tags just about anything else that is annoying.

I do not like Removing the red spell, but have honestly never had an issue with it.
Goblins, Elves, Thalia, Mother of Runes, Delver, Giest,

I know people like Volcanic Fallout or whatever its called, but I like the free cost, that is what I go for.

I do not like Vexing Devil, could care less about the choice, actually I think that is the best part of the card, because it also tells us what our opponents have. I just think there are better cards.

[anakyn]

I just think there are better cards.


Not arguing about better red cards in general, but are there better red 1-cc creatures apart from Goblin guide and Lavamancer (which we don't use if we're playing classic Burn)?

Because here the question is: "how many 1-cc creatures I wanna play?"
If the answer is "just 4" (which I doubt), then goodbye Devil.
If it is "more then 4", Devil seems to me the best option out there (unless you build the Lavamancer list, of course).

[TarmoX]

Not arguing about better red cards in general, but are there better red 1-cc creatures apart from Goblin guide and Lavamancer (which we don't use if we're playing classic Burn)?

Because here the question is: "how many 1-cc creatures I wanna play?"
If the answer is "just 4" (which I doubt), then goodbye Devil.
If it is "more then 4", Devil seems to me the best option out there (unless you build the Lavamancer list, of course).

Testing the Devil i have to admit his power! He make pressure on my opponent and if Plowed let other traditional Burn creature safe to attack!

[Aachie]

I also think that the Devils are the best choice for your second 1cc.
I playtested a lot since I posted my last decklists and I'm really pleased by using them.
These are the lists I am currently collecting the cards for.
I'll start building the first version (classic) and I'm going to play it in some tournaments.

http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/330983

http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/356222

Aachie

[Kazadoom]

I have not played competitively for a long time but,
I just wonder why you do not play 4xPrice of Progress.

Are there certain matchups where they inefficient draws?
Can it be played around?

Atm my build looks like this:
(Lacking some cards like Guides, Devils, Hellspark)

Lands (18)
8 Fetches
10 Mountains

Creatures (4)
4 Keldon Marauders

Bolts (16)
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

2cc (16)
4 Flame Rift
4 Price of Progress
4 Incinerate (-->Hellspark)
4 Magma Jet (--> could be Guides)

4 Fireblast
2 Sulfuric Vortex

Would the inclusion of Guides and Hellspark strengthen the deck a lot?
Schould I go up to 19 Lands? Splash white for Helix and SB?

[anakyn]

I have not played competitively for a long time but,
I just wonder why you do not play 4xPrice of Progress.

Are there certain matchups where they inefficient draws?
Can it be played around?

Price is incredibly strong vs certain matchups and almost dead vs others, that's why he can be played 3x instead of 4x.

It can be played around in many ways also vs decks playing duals, for example fetching for basic lands instead of duals, or wastelanding their own non-basic lands.
If they don't play any duals Price is a house of course.




Would the inclusion of Guides and Hellspark strengthen the deck a lot?
Schould I go up to 19 Lands? Splash white for Helix and SB?


In my opinion, you simply can't play Burn at competitive level without 4x Guides. They're as important as bolts.

Since you already play Marauders as 2-cc creature, I'd skip Hellsparks and go for another 1-cc creature: it can be Devil or Lavamancer, but I'd choose Lavamancers just because you play several fetchlands.


I wouldn't splash white. If you splash white you are playing another kind of deck.

[Lord Seth]

Not arguing about better red cards in general, but are there better red 1-cc creatures apart from Goblin guide and Lavamancer (which we don't use if we're playing classic Burn)?

Because here the question is: "how many 1-cc creatures I wanna play?"
If the answer is "just 4" (which I doubt), then goodbye Devil.
If it is "more then 4", Devil seems to me the best option out there (unless you build the Lavamancer list,of course).Vexing Devil should not be viewed as a creature. It's a stronger Lava Spike that sometimes becomes a creature if your opponent thinks they can handle it.

I don't think Vexing Devil should ever be approached from the viewpoint of it being a 1-drop creature.

[David Kaplan]

Patrick Sullivan has tried a few different splashes and continues to come back to mono-red burn. He has tried splashing green and white for a zoo-hybrid with nacatl, kird ape, tarmogoyf, steppe lynx and wasteland. He did not like the lynx. Two blue splashes were tested, the traditional Snapcaster/Fow build (not truly a burn deck) and earlier a creatureless build with Thunderous Wrath. He abandoned both slower decks due to losing one out of eight games because of being wastelanded. I have not seen a serious black splash, which likely only yields Bump in the Night and possibly Dark Confidant and Thoughtseize for the board.

I dislike the Snapcaster build, as you end up playing a very different deck.

I've been running a burn deck that trims down the curve by removing flame rift and moving vortex to the board for delver and brainstorm, allowing you to drop to 19 lands. I favor it against spell pierce/daze decks. Being able to Brainstorm away land and creatures later in the game is very helpful. I have not found any blue cards I want to sideboard. Submerge is weak when it only clears the way for guide. I've found how often you have delver/brainstorm over vortex/flame rift beats how often you get your volcanic wastelanded.

[BigBear]

I always wondered why this type of deck doesn't run at least one Ankh of Mishra

Seems like it would usually be good for at least 4 damage and with all the fetch lands in this format you could force your oppenent to take danage just to cast anything.

[slave]

Earlier - someone posted about a black splash.
I realise black has some strengths for this type of strategy - and even Tombstalker could work - but black has the same weakness to enchantments as red. Cards that would work could be Bloodchief Ascension, but I don't know how playable that could even be....
Other colours are stronger for a splash to deal with the weaknesses of red.


I always wondered why this type of deck doesn't run at least one Ankh of Mishra

I'm with you, Burn is a cheap deck - yes - but doesn't have to considered a budget deck only.
Stuff it - I'm gonna pop one in my deck for the hell of it.

Another thing that surprises me;
Considering this deck can easily function off few lands and we're mono-coloured (in the vast majority of build anyway), why do so few lists run mana-denial, like Wasteland and Rishadan Port?
I understand Burn doesn't wanna mulligan EVER - but considerng this deck struggles in the late game and really struggles against fast decks, I assumed that slowing our opponent would've been pretty useful?!?

[Aachie]

In classic-burn ( no Lavamancer ) you play between 18 and 19 Lands. If u want to add Wastelands or Ports you would want to add 4, to make it functional.
If you do so, you cut the number of lands that are ablte to produce red mana by 4, to 14 or 15.
Plus you completely forgott about Price of Progress.
Price benefits from your opponent playing nonbasic lands. What's the point in playing Price, if you plan to destroy your opponents nonbasics?
Also Wastelands are ( quite similar to Price though ) easy to play around.

Aachie

[lochlan]

Another thing that surprises me;
Considering this deck can easily function off few lands and we're mono-coloured (in the vast majority of build anyway), why do so few lists run mana-denial, like Wasteland and Rishadan Port?

Why on Earth would this surprise you? Price of Progress is one of the best cards in the deck, playing Wasteland seems awful. [Ninja edit: Aachie beat me to it, I guess.] You're not really gaining tempo if you're reducing your clock, right? And sinking two mana into Port activations seems much worse than just casting your burn spells. Or perhaps you mean that Port is intended for the long game--when Burn has already won or is going to lose because the opponent stabalized? Rishadan Port is firmly a control card, Burn is one of the most aggressive decks around. The two just don't fit.

[Aachie]

Destroying Lands is simply not the thing to focus on in burn.
Imagine this: Your opponent wins the dice roll, drops a Underground Sea (e.g.), your turn.
You drop a Wasteland, trigger it to destroy your opponents Underground Sea.
Now you and your opponent both have no lands in play. Literally nothing happened. You did not even cast a burn spell and will not be able to cast a 2cc spell or two 1cc spells next turn.

It also could be the case that your opponent drops the Land and drops a creature with it. Destroying the land after that feels kinda pointless.

The second round will look like this:
Your Opponent: "Hey, now I know that hes playing Wastelands in his burn deck, Im gonna play around 'em by dropping basic lands"
You: "Fuck..."

Aachie

[LeoCop 90]

Black splash has the same weakness of monored against enchantments... but you can play thoughtseize , duress, inquisition of kozilek to prevent your opponent from casting enchantments.
I think i would play 4 discard spells main deck with a black splash. This make burn competitive also against combo decks faster than us. Moreover, bump in the night is really strong,just another lava spike.

[Darkenslight]

Destroying Lands is simply not the thing to focus on in burn.
Imagine this: Your opponent wins the dice roll, drops a Underground Sea (e.g.), your turn.
You drop a Wasteland, trigger it to destroy your opponents Underground Sea.
Now you and your opponent both have no lands in play. Literally nothing happened. You did not even cast a burn spell and will not be able to cast a 2cc spell or two 1cc spells next turn.

It also could be the case that your opponent drops the Land and drops a creature with it. Destroying the land after that feels kinda pointless.

The second round will look like this:
Your Opponent: "Hey, now I know that hes playing Wastelands in his burn deck, Im gonna play around 'em by dropping basic lands"
You: "Fuck..."

Aachie

I hear Ghost Quarter is good in a RUG/BUG-heavy metagame. After all, it reads, "Tap, sacrifice this: destroy target land." Plus it has additional hate potential against most of the other decks. However, it still suffers from that same problem as Waste.

[Aachie]

Heyho Community,
I have another question about my Burn Decks.
I'm not here to discuss the content of my main- or sideboard with you this time.
I playtested both lists a lot and I'm satisfied with it and how it works.
The thing I wanna discuss with you is the usage of the sideboard.
I really have some problems to decide which cards to switch, when I have to board.
Any clues?

http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/330983

http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/356222

Aachie

[Kazadoom]

against Aggro I'd nearly always side our my flame rifts and Vortex to side in some bridges. ( I dont play Vexing so it does not hinder me that much)
In some matchups price of progress is bad and can be sided out.

Most of the time I get rid of the least efficient card (really depends on the matchup) and side in cards that either hinder my opponent (Pillars, Bridge, Smash)

[DragoFireheart]

Personally, I think Devil is absolute trash. I hate giving my opponent options.

- You're not giving your opponent an option.

[namrufmot]

Is burn with creatures that much better than without creatures? I haven't played burn since before the Goblin and Devil came out. Can someone explain the best way to use them when going first and then late game? Both of those can be dead draws late game and both are targets for removal. I used to love playing burn because all the STP and such were 100% useless when playing all burn spells and no creatures.

Also, why has Flamebreak fallen out of many decklists? It used to be a BOMB for me back in the day. Almost every deck today plays creatures that are killed by it.

[DragoFireheart]

Is burn with creatures that much better than without creatures? I haven't played burn since before the Goblin and Devil came out. Can someone explain the best way to use them when going first and then late game? Both of those can be dead draws late game and both are targets for removal. I used to love playing burn because all the STP and such were 100% useless when playing all burn spells and no creatures.

Also, why has Flamebreak fallen out of many decklists? It used to be a BOMB for me back in the day. Almost every deck today plays creatures that are killed by it.

Goblin Guide and Vexing Devil: you just turn them sideways or, if the opponent has a high amount of life, Vexing Devil is just a Lava Spike +1. There isn't a critical mass of burn spells to avoid using creatures as of now. It's why people still run creatures in burn.

Flamebreak sees less use because:

1. Most creatures are just too big.
2. Delver Flies once he transforms.

Sulfuric Vortex is a much better CMC 3 spell since it gives us constant damage and stop life gain from things like Batterskull.

[namrufmot]

Goblin Guide and Vexing Devil: you just turn them sideways or, if the opponent has a high amount of life, Vexing Devil is just a Lava Spike +1. There isn't a critical mass of burn spells to avoid using creatures as of now. It's why people still run creatures in burn.

Flamebreak sees less use because:

1. Most creatures are just too big.
2. Delver Flies once he transforms.

Sulfuric Vortex is a much better CMC 3 spell since it gives us constant damage and stop life gain from things like Batterskull.

Thanks...if we still lack optimal burn spells, why don't we use the 0cc baubles that draw us more cards? Think it used to becalled 42 card burn...

[Bruno Mars]

hey I'm playing this build right now:

2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Goblin Guide
3 Hellspark Elemental
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
3 Sulfuric Vorterx
19 Mountain
1 Barbarian Ring

I do not like the Barbarian Rings to because of Lavamancer and Fireblast. Thats why i play just one! What do you think about Hellspark Elemental? Are 3 okay? What do you think about Keldon Marauders vs Hellspark Elemental?

thanks greets

[JPettie]

hey I'm playing this build right now:

2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Goblin Guide
3 Hellspark Elemental
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
3 Sulfuric Vorterx
19 Mountain
1 Barbarian Ring

I do not like the Barbarian Rings to because of Lavamancer and Fireblast. Thats why i play just one! What do you think about Hellspark Elemental? Are 3 okay? What do you think about Keldon Marauders vs Hellspark Elemental?

thanks greets

I don't agree with playing Grim Lavamancers in a deck with Hellspark Elemental, Barbarian Ring, and no Fetchlands. It seems counterproductive, the Grim Lavamancers will be starved most times, especially early on and not be as potent. I prefer Hellspark Elemental over Keldon Marauders just for the fact if you have to discard or draw a land late into the game, you can still unearth the Hellspark for a play. Keldon comes down and does atleast two, for a cost of two, I think it depends on your meta. If your meta is heavy on creatures, you could run Keldon over Hellspark if you feel like you will be getting blocked a lot. Another course of action for a creature heavy meta is just to drop all creatures but grims/goblin guides, and getting some fetch lands to feed the grim and use it as a removal spell for creatures, and on top of that you can sideboard into searing blaze because of the fetchlands. I also think that 21 lands over 20 would work a lot better if you are running 3 sulfuric vortex mainboard, the barbarian ring should be in a burn deck with no grims and probably no hellsparks in my opinion.

[Shax]

The new spoiled card Skullcrack will def. find it's way into my Burn decks from here on out. It is good enough to replace Sulfuric Vortex. Vortex from another look is usually better since it is a enchantment, but being able to just hold the anti-life gain spell in hand and then response with it gives Burn another trick that will win them many games.

[FLESHGRINDER]

Yeah, I'm excited about Skullcrack too.

Here's my list; it got me second place in a ~20 person tournament

Main Deck:

4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
2 Keldon Marauders

4 Rift Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift
4 Fireblast
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
3 Sensei's Divining Top

17 Mountain
2 Barbarian Ring

Side Board:

3 Flamebreak
3 Smash to Smithereens
4 Tormod's Crypt
3 Red Elemental Blast
2 Pyroblast

-I run the Flamebreaks because last time I played, there where at least 4 RUG/Delver decks, and I hated losing to Nimble Mongoose.
-I might switch the 5 REBs out for something else, because someone earlier stated the blue decks always have a backup counter anyways.
-The Sensei's Divining Tops are in because I was trying out Thunderous Wrath, but miracle cards are shit without Brainstorm, and I kept SDT. It lets me smooth out my draws so I don't get mountain after mountain, and I can set up the cards so I draw two bolts on a turn to speed up the game and win faster.

Is Vexing Devil worth it? I'm personally on the side of not using because it gives my opponents options, but I'm willing to try it because I can see the value in it.

I would like to suggest everyone tries out Sensei's Divining Top, though. It really shined through for me and won me a couple games

Other than that, I would love to hear anyone's suggestions for how I can improve my deck

[Gedaco]

I play burn since I remember I'm a kiddo and burn's mission is to kill the opponent as soon as possible.

I can't deny that in some situations, other non-convencional 'burn cards' can help winning games and improve certain matchups but from my experience, burn will ever be burn and the bests lists, run the 'normal' cards.


About Skullcrack...
Yeah it's nice but is it better then the consistent damage from Sulfuric Vortex? Is it better then a card that is more difficult to answer? My answer is NO and I don't have more to say :)

[DragoFireheart]

Skullcrack will never replace Sulfuric Vortex.

And burn decks don't use baubles because they can cause awkward starting hands, slow us down, and are just terrible in general.

[movingtonewao]

does anyone here think ash zealot is good? first strike and haste means none of the x/1 and x/2s will be able to trade, and the ability could be relevant occasionally.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I think its worth a look. We run any number of cards like Hellspark Elemental, and Keldon Mauraders. which are the same casting cost, and one more power and toughness more, but neither of their abilities are even close to Ash Zealot's.

try it at a local tournament a few times.

[Snap_Keep]

Hellspark has always been pretty bad.

At least now with Deathrite becoming so popular people will figure this out for themselves.

[CabalTherapy]

Hellspark has always been pretty bad.


Seriously...?


Since there are not so many good burn spells, Hellspark has been always a good choice.
The format isn't super-fast nowadays and due to that Hellspark is a solid card.


And what is more important:
"Boros Burn" following the burn strategy and not the typical Boros sligh one.


Something like that:

4 Goblin Guide
4 Vexing Devil
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Boros Charm
3 Fireblast
3 Price of Progress
3 Flame Rift

20 lands consisting of fetchlands, Plateau, Mountain and maybe one Plains.
I think that a whitesplash could be viable because of the new Charm and of course SB Disenchants and stuff.
Lighting Helix is a great card too but it serves as a Incinerate here, so no Helix.

[LeoCop 90]

the new boros charm is really good, an instant flame rift that affects only the opponent. Moreover, white splash offers also Steppe Lynx , that can easily replace vexing devil.... the only problem is that we have to run a lot of fetches ( 10 or more ) together with the lynx to ensure that it is almost always an attacking 4/5.
Obviously the sideboard with a white splash become better, and offers enlightened tutor to have more versatility.

[JPettie]

the new boros charm is really good, an instant flame rift that affects only the opponent. Moreover, white splash offers also Steppe Lynx , that can easily replace vexing devil.... the only problem is that we have to run a lot of fetches ( 10 or more ) together with the lynx to ensure that it is almost always an attacking 4/5.
Obviously the sideboard with a white splash become better, and offers enlightened tutor to have more versatility.

The problem with adding white to the burn deck is we are now open to wasteland and our deck is already running less land than most decks. We would have to go the dual land route because it wouldn't make sense to fetch a plains on turn two and not be able to cast a lightning bolt on turn 3 to finish them off because we are sitting on a plains that only works with one card in our deck. On top of that, what would we even enlightened tutor for? The cost of playing enlightened tutor in our deck messes with our efficiency of just being a burn deck. We want to dodge wastelands and make them wasteland their own lands to our price of progress instant cast, and be mono red like a boss so they can't do anything to our lands, along with not being land screwed for playing two colors.

[troopatroop]

4 Delver of Secrets
4 Goblin Guide
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Vexing Devil
3 Snapcaster Mage

4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning
2 Forked Bolt
3 Price of Progress
2 Fireblast
4 Brainstorm
2 Ponder
3 Daze
2 Sulfuric Vortex

3 Volcanic Island
1 Island
4 Mountain
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Wooded Foothills
2 Misty Rainforest


I think burn without delver isn't really trying, and blue offers alot more than just brainstorm/delver. Daze is wonderful, and Snapcaster -> Price is quite good against the field atm.

does anyone have any thoughts about opening up to blue? What does Mono Red really GIVE you these days? It's actually a fairly cheap splash...

[Vandalize]

4 Delver of Secrets
4 Goblin Guide
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Vexing Devil
3 Snapcaster Mage

4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning
2 Forked Bolt
3 Price of Progress
2 Fireblast
4 Brainstorm
2 Ponder
3 Daze
2 Sulfuric Vortex

3 Volcanic Island
1 Island
4 Mountain
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Wooded Foothills
2 Misty Rainforest


I think burn without delver isn't really trying, and blue offers alot more than just brainstorm/delver. Daze is wonderful, and Snapcaster -> Price is quite good against the field atm.

does anyone have any thoughts about opening up to blue? What does Mono Red really GIVE you these days? It's actually a fairly cheap splash...

You might want to post that in the UR Delver thread.

@JPettie Man, Burn does play Fireblast. The deck couldn't care less for its lands.

The new Boros Charm should definetely replace Flame Rift, which is as awful as a spell can get. Don't forget that it can double-strike an Hellspark Elemental or a Vexing Devil, which is also good damage, and protect your permanents from destruction (that's pretty irrelevant, actually).

EDIT: This is what my list will be, after Gatecrash release:

Lands [20]
4 Arid Mesa
3 Wooded Foothills
2 Bloodstained Mire
4 Plateau
5 Mountain
2 Barbarian Ring

Creatures [11]
4 Goblin Guide
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Vexing Devil

Spells [29]
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Chain Lightning
4 Boros Charm
3 Price of Progress
3 Fireblast
3 Skullcrack

SB: 3 Disenchant
SB: 3 Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 2 Shattering Spree
SB: 4 Mindbreak Trap
SB: 3 Pyroblast/Pithing Needle

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I think it is criminal that we are having a discussion about adding white to burn because of the Buros Charm, and leaving out Lightning Helix.
Skullcrack is bad. SKullcrack will be good in Standard, not in Legacy. If you are going to add a spell because it negates an ability for your opponent to gain life, then you are going away from what Burn wants to do.

People look down on Burn players because our decks are proactive, not reactive. We rarely really have interaction with our opponents, unless they get a jump on us with a problematic creature that we have to deal with. We basically tap mountains and deal an average of 3 damage per mountain tap. It doesn't mean we are any worse or less skilled in Magic then the people who play Force of Will, and Brainstorm. If you add Skullcrack then you have to wait to cast it to maximize the value if the card, and that is not what Burn does, Burn wants you to do the 3 damage. Burn does not want you to pay an extra mana to do it. Otherwise you might as well play Thunderbolt, or Incinerate.
Lightning Helix is good because because for two mana you get a 6 point swing, that you never have to wait to cast. Lightning Helix also lets you target a creature, which is kind of huge for us.

4 goblin guide
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 rift bolt
4 lava spike
4 fireblast
4 price of progress
4 flame Rift
4 boros charm
4 lightning helix

I may take out one fireblast, one price of progress, and a flame Rift so I can add in

4 path to exile

then add the lands, which I could care less about
10 fetch,
4 plateau
3 mountain
2 plains

Flame Rift is awesome, I used to be against it, but I love it. I saw first hand how awesome it was a few weekend ago in Columbus. I opted to play Dragon Stompy, instead of Burn. I was hopeful that I could hit a lot of good match-ups, (I did not, I actually hit all bad match-ups) with the exception of my first round opponent playing Burn. It was game two, I had him dead on board, I knew he had a Fireblast in his hand with two mana to sac and a Flame Rift. (Obviously I did not "Know" this, but the poker player in me had him on that hand. I had an arc slogger in the board, and he had a goblin guide. I was at ten, he was at 6. I had no mana available. he attacked me with his Guide, I knew if I blocked with my Slogger his only line was to firebast the Slogger to give him another turn. I also knew if he did not have what I thought that the game was over. I blocked, he fireblasted the Slogger, I drew a Gathern Raiders, and he scooped. I also had a Jitte on board and a Chalice of the Void at one. If i wasnt aware of the deck, maybe I dont block. It has happened in reverse, while I was playing Burn. I attacked with the seemingly pathetic 2/2 and my opponent let it slip, and I won. Flame Rift makes those plays possible. (also my opponent revealed to me Flame Rift, after the match) that was game three.

game two went as I forget the exact details, but at the end we were both at four, and my opponent was dead next turn. I knew the game was mine. I knew the match was mine. He played a Fame Rift. He forced us to a third game, and possible fourth game. Otherwise the match was mine. Ultimately the match was mine, but Flame Rift gave my opponent a chance where other Burn spells would not.

If you would afford me another Pro Flame Rift story. I was playing Burn (usually do) against enchantress. I got game one, just raced him before he was able to play Solitary Confinement.

Game two, he pre-gamed Leyline. I used Goblin Guide, and Hellspark to get him within eight. He was chump blocking with Argothians, I drew a Cave-in (I sideboard them) cast it, he took 2, to get him to 6, I attacked with two guides, he blocked one. He had two Chill's out at this time. I passed turn. He did a bunch of things that Enchantress does. he drew Solitary Confinement, but was unable to play it. He was forced to pass turn. I top decked a Flame Rift, and won the game, and the match.


I like Path to Exile. There are a lot of times in a match that we have to deal with creatures. Not all the time, but enough times that it is a problem, Path to Exile makes it easier to deal with those creatures. It also fetches lands for your opponent. A good opponent would go for a basic land, if it was an option, but opponents who do not think that far ahead in the game, might go for a nonbasic land, which just adds fuel for Price of Progress.

[Atikin]

There is good reason to not run path to exile and it has been beaten to death but the general gist is that the games you lose cause you had path in hand and not a burn spell outweighs the games you lose because you had a burn spell but needed path. Also wanted to mention that they can't get non basics if you path.

Edit: Even if it did, you shouldn't evaluate a card based on your opponent making the wrong play.

[baghdadbob]

Yeah the only time you would want to path anything would be if it had a jitte equipped or against batterskull, but in that case you would probably just be better off with artifact hate like smash to smithereens. I would say it would be good against creatures with life link as well but those are few and far between. The only thing I could think of would be like Baneslayer Angel (which no one runs). Rhox War Monk can still just be killed with burn spells. Path is just wasted spots i.m.o. As for skull crack... ehh no. It's a decent s/b card I guess, but I still probably wouldn't run it there. My s/b is almost all combo and artifact hate.

4x Mindbreak Trap
4x Surgical Extraction
3x Red Elemental Blast
3x Smash To Smithereens
1x Shattering Spree

I've had the same s/b for the last year or two and don't plan on changing it anytime soon.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

ugh, I did just flake on Path to Exile not being able to fetch non basics. I would still run it. There are always times I need to kill off a creature. (this does not need to be argued, just how I feel on all the matches I have played. (the same argument, about puling a Path when you need a burn spell can be made for creatures, and lands.) might as well only run burn spells and as few lands as you possibly can, if you are going to use that logic.

[Atikin]

ugh, I did just flake on Path to Exile not being able to fetch non basics. I would still run it. There are always times I need to kill off a creature. (this does not need to be argued, just how I feel on all the matches I have played. (the same argument, about puling a Path when you need a burn spell can be made for creatures, and lands.) might as well only run burn spells and as few lands as you possibly can, if you are going to use that logic.

Your clearly struggling to use logic and so theres no point in arguing with you. The LOGIC in running lands is so that you can playing your spells, and yes, EVERY deck tries to plan as few lands as it possibly can. I dont know how to put this to you, but if a deck can hit its curve with 18 lands, its not gonna run 24. And if its a control deck and its fine with 22 lands, its not gonna 30. EVERY DECK runs as few lands as it possibly can. This has got to be one of the most idiotic posts Ive ever seen. Why post a list and state your reasoning when you turn around with a whining post of "don't critique my list, this does not need to be argued, it hurts my feelings." If you came to the source, youre looking for discussion, if you dont want to argue/discuss, your wasting your time. I shouldnt have expected anything more from someone suggesting path to exile in the burn thread though... Im done.

Edit: Guess im not done... no shit the same argument can be made about pulling a burn/land/whatever spell when you need a path, if you'd bother to read we stated the opposite happens MORE FREQUENTLY. This means that the scenario where you dont want path happens more than where you do. I never said that there isn't a case where you would want path.

[JPettie]

You might want to post that in the UR Delver thread.

@JPettie Man, Burn does play Fireblast. The deck couldn't care less for its lands.

The new Boros Charm should definetely replace Flame Rift, which is as awful as a spell can get. Don't forget that it can double-strike an Hellspark Elemental or a Vexing Devil, which is also good damage, and protect your permanents from destruction (that's pretty irrelevant, actually).

EDIT: This is what my list will be, after Gatecrash release:

Lands [20]
4 Arid Mesa
3 Wooded Foothills
2 Bloodstained Mire
4 Plateau
5 Mountain
2 Barbarian Ring

Creatures [11]
4 Goblin Guide
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Vexing Devil

Spells [29]
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Chain Lightning
4 Boros Charm
3 Price of Progress
3 Fireblast
3 Skullcrack

SB: 3 Disenchant
SB: 3 Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 2 Shattering Spree
SB: 4 Mindbreak Trap
SB: 3 Pyroblast/Pithing Needle

To say something like we don't care about lands because of our essentially last cast spell to win a game requires sacrificing mountains is very hard to swallow. Then again the only thing worse to say would be that Flame Rift is as awful as any spell gets. First off, and before I dissect your deck choices, lands are of few in our deck to begin with being burn and we need to hit them, not for them to be destroyed by a wasteland and set us back a turn because essentially that one wasteland destroying our Plateau we are now losing three damage done to them every turn because we lost a land to cast a one for three spell. Flame Rift is a two for four, and at that it is a one color dependent cast spell, making it an all-star in a one color deck that depends on damage being dealt to someone every turn, especially when someone is at eight and you have a Fireblast to follow. Now you want to replace a staple in our burn decks because it doesn't damage ourselves as well, and because it has two other abilities that have to be put in a perfect situation scenario to even be useful. It also relies on having the addition of white in our deck, and when they wasteland your Plateau and you can't cast your Boros Charm, I will be laughing my way to the bank when I can cast my Flame Rift and I am never afraid of Wastelands just winning the game for my opponent. I know everyone wants to get excited and hope for things to be great for Burn from a new set, especially around spoiler time, but another addition like Skullcrack, which is worse than Flame Rift and costs the same amount, along with having the better option of just playing Sulfuric Vortex which is ten times as good as Skullcrack, is just foolish. Just as a ending tip, and maybe you just don't want to like or accept my opinion but I would not be playing Barbarian Ring in a deck with Grim Lavamancer emptying your graveyard to even be effective, it will become a dead card and get destroyed by Wasteland. I would also think about the effect of drawing something like a Vexing Devil on turn 4-5, when an opponent can literally choose to let it get into play and not do four when if it dealt four, for example: Flame Rift (being drawn over Vexing Devil), would have won you the game, and a turn in Legacy can mean a loss, especially for a deck that falls off very fast late into the game, like Burn. I can see how Vexing Devil can be an awesome turn one, along with the likes of a Goblin Guide, but it doesn't have any effect late into the game when any just straight damage spell would win the game for us. Anyway, I wish everyone the best of luck and I like thinking about changes to Burn, but I will always offer my constructive criticisms and hope they are taken in a fashion that shows I don't mean any harm with them.

[JPettie]

Your clearly struggling to use logic and so theres no point in arguing with you. The LOGIC in running lands is so that you can playing your spells, and yes, EVERY deck tries to plan as few lands as it possibly can. I dont know how to put this to you, but if a deck can hit its curve with 18 lands, its not gonna run 24. And if its a control deck and its fine with 22 lands, its not gonna 30. EVERY DECK runs as few lands as it possibly can. This has got to be one of the most idiotic posts Ive ever seen. Why post a list and state your reasoning when you turn around with a whining post of "don't critique my list, this does not need to be argued, it hurts my feelings." If you came to the source, youre looking for discussion, if you dont want to argue/discuss, your wasting your time. I shouldnt have expected anything more from someone suggesting path to exile in the burn thread though... Im done.

Edit: Guess im not done... no shit the same argument can be made about pulling a burn/land/whatever spell when you need a path, if you'd bother to read we stated the opposite happens MORE FREQUENTLY. This means that the scenario where you dont want path happens more than where you do. I never said that there isn't a case where you would want path.

I would agree with the statement that the situation occurs when you want a burn spell to just end out a game over anything else, and adding things into an already strong drawing deck, for example: Vexing Devil, Path to Exile , completely distorts our chances of winning games as Burn. As Burn, our every draw, even our starting seven, has to be just right to beat out decks that play very powerful cards. We want the most efficient drawing and acting deck in terms of things like Grim Lavamancer against heavy creature metas, and Sulfuric Vortex against heavy life gain decks. We can go on and on about how great a card would be in the Burn deck, but in the end, if it isn't just straight damage for effective cost, it just doesn't cut it, especially round one of a best of three match.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

wow there needs to be an age requirement for this thread.
Nothing hurts my feelings, its Magic the Gathering, grow up kid. I was simply stating you need not waste your time responding (in a hypothetical argument) about adding white to Burn, because Atikin said

"Atikin
There is good reason to not run path to exile and it has been beaten to death but the general gist is that the games you lose cause you had path in hand and not a burn spell outweighs the games you lose because you had a burn spell but needed path. Also wanted to mention that they can't get non basics if you path."

But what do I know? I just read....try it. Logically if we were having an argument about something, and you tell me we have beaten an object to death, then likewise I am going to state my final opinion, and let you know you need not reply....

and no, I was simply being sarcastic, about running the fewest possible lands.....possible..... You cant live your life saying "Well this card is bad because you might draw it when you need something else." Otherwise, just run something else. but you are probably 12 so why bother even talking.

I happen to often find myself saying, "man, I wish this was a Path to Exile right now, instead of card x." Probably happens twice every 4 rounds. Maybe that is not enough to add a Path to Exile in a boros deck, maybe it is,IDK, but talking about it, is the point of this.

[JPettie]

wow there needs to be an age requirement for this thread.
Nothing hurts my feelings, its Magic the Gathering, grow up kid. I was simply stating you need not waste your time responding (in a hypothetical argument) about adding white to Burn, because Atikin said

"Atikin
There is good reason to not run path to exile and it has been beaten to death but the general gist is that the games you lose cause you had path in hand and not a burn spell outweighs the games you lose because you had a burn spell but needed path. Also wanted to mention that they can't get non basics if you path."

But what do I know? I just read....try it. Logically if we were having an argument about something, and you tell me we have beaten an object to death, then likewise I am going to state my final opinion, and let you know you need not reply....

and no, I was simply being sarcastic, about running the fewest possible lands.....possible..... You cant live your life saying "Well this card is bad because you might draw it when you need something else." Otherwise, just run something else. but you are probably 12 so why bother even talking.

I happen to often find myself saying, "man, I wish this was a Path to Exile right now, instead of card x." Probably happens twice every 4 rounds. Maybe that is not enough to add a Path to Exile in a boros deck, maybe it is,IDK, but talking about it, is the point of this.

Either way, these arguments are of no value to the Burn thread, if it is about someone being called a kid or any age requirements. Feel free to state any opinions, that is what we have at the end of the day, free speech. I just don't find the use in insults and repetitive statements within a completely constructive and open thread.

[LeoCop 90]

I would like to point out that in my opinion steppe lynx is without any doubt superior to vexing devil . Let's examine the two cards in differenti moments of the game :

Early game(turn one) : if we play a vexing devil turn one, our opponent will make him die because he can't afford to have a 4/3 creature attacking him on the next turns. Steppe lynx has the same power of vexing devil if we play a fetch (4/5) but she doesn't let our opponent have a choice. She can be killed by a removal , but if our opponent has a removal will surely let vexing devil resolve then kill him.

Mid-late game: they're both bad topdecks. vexing devil will resolve then be killed / blocked like steppe lynx.

So if you're planning a white splash for boros charm or anything else, please don't play vexing devil , play steppe lynx. The only negative aspect of the lynx is that she needs fetches to be strong and forces us to play a number of fetches that goes from 12 to 14 .

[Admiral_Arzar]

I would like to point out that in my opinion steppe lynx is without any doubt superior to vexing devil . Let's examine the two cards in differenti moments of the game :

Early game(turn one) : if we play a vexing devil turn one, our opponent will make him die because he can't afford to have a 4/3 creature attacking him on the next turns. Steppe lynx has the same power of vexing devil if we play a fetch (4/5) but she doesn't let our opponent have a choice. She can be killed by a removal , but if our opponent has a removal will surely let vexing devil resolve then kill him.

Mid-late game: they're both bad topdecks. vexing devil will resolve then be killed / blocked like steppe lynx.

So if you're planning a white splash for boros charm or anything else, please don't play vexing devil , play steppe lynx. The only negative aspect of the lynx is that she needs fetches to be strong and forces us to play a number of fetches that goes from 12 to 14 .

Oh god, time to nip this in the bud now. Steppe Lynx is AWFUL. Do not play it, it is only good if dropped on turn one and if you play at least 12 fetches. I played the card in Sligh Zoo and absolutely hated it (Vexing Devil hadn't been released). If I put the deck back together I would absolutely play Devil instead, it's a far better card and is also red. If you're going to splash white, do it for Lightning Helix, Boros Charm, or for god's sake even something like Jotun Grunt, but don't do it for Steppe Lynx.

[LeoCop 90]

Could you give some reasons for your statement that lynx is worse than devil ?
Sure lynx needs about twelve fetches ,but apart from this she is better than vexing devil.
i think i don't have to repeat what i said in my last post, but if there is something wrong in my logic please let me know

[Atikin]

Could you give some reasons for your statement that lynx is worse than devil ?
Sure lynx needs about twelve fetches ,but apart from this she is better than vexing devil.
i think i don't have to repeat what i said in my last post, but if there is something wrong in my logic please let me know

Just based on theorycrafting:

The general gist I get is it has the same weaknesses if not more than devil, and very few advantages. Burn wants every card to count and deal damage regardless of the situation. If you look at the most successful lists, every card (bar lavancer) can do unconditional damage to the face. The problem with devil is that if it isn't dropped on turn 1 or 2 you'd usually rather have a lava spike. Alongside that, a starting hand with devil basically forces you into a play that you might not always want to take, which is to drop the devil ASAP.

Now looking at lynx, its even more restrictive than devil (and most lists don't even run devil, I don't). First off, if you aren't running fetches it plain sucks, but that's not a big deal. Both are bad top decks, even If you draw a fetch after lynx it's not any better than drawing a devil in the same scenario. There's also the obvious that it sucks at blocking. Digging further, if you dont play it by turn 2 at the latest, it'll usually average out to a 2/3. Even if you drop sphinx on turn 1 the most it gets in for on turn 2 is four, same as devil. If you drop it turn 2 it could potentially hit for 6 next turn, but this is pretty much the only positive I see to this card. You also have to remember that it forces you into a play(not fetching) that you might not always want to take. So even the best case scenario has its drawback. Beyond the best case scenario, it's almost strictly worse than devil.

Basically, very rarely will it better than devil, and even devil has been cut for the most part.

[LeoCop 90]

I explain more clearly my point of view. Both devil and lynx are cards that want to be dropped turn one, otherwise they're bad.
But if you drop a devil turn one, your opponent can simply decide to take 4 damages and put it in the graveyard. If you drop a lynx turn one, your opponent is forced to face lynx attacking on the next turns, and lynx will hopefully be a 4/5 for at least two attacks.
Aniway, i don't run lynx nor devil, but i think that if you're splashing white and you would run devil, you should run lynx instead.

[Atikin]

I explain more clearly my point of view. Both devil and lynx are cards that want to be dropped turn one, otherwise they're bad.
But if you drop a devil turn one, your opponent can simply decide to take 4 damages and put it in the graveyard. If you drop a lynx turn one, your opponent is forced to face lynx attacking on the next turns, and lynx will hopefully be a 4/5 for at least two attacks.
Aniway, i don't run lynx nor devil, but i think that if you're splashing white and you would run devil, you should run lynx instead.

If mono red doesnt run devil, i dont see why we would splash and run what youre arguing is an equivalent or slightly better (which its not). If you swing with lynx on turn 2 for four, thats basically the ideal scenario. And devil would have burned them for four anyways. I recommend you just run it and see what we are talking about if you don't believe the arguments we have laid out. Lynx is bad, plain and simple. Even if you manage to convince yourself it's equivalent, we dont run devil so we wouldn't run lynx. Whats the point in splashing for cards that the mono red list already doesn't run.

[JJ-JKidd]

If mono red doesnt run devil, i dont see why we would splash and run what youre arguing is an equivalent or slightly better (which its not). If you swing with lynx on turn 2 for four, thats basically the ideal scenario. And devil would have burned them for four anyways. I recommend you just run it and see what we are talking about if you don't believe the arguments we have laid out. Lynx is bad, plain and simple. Even if you manage to convince yourself it's equivalent, we dont run devil so we wouldn't run lynx. Whats the point in splashing for cards that the mono red list already doesn't run.

Is it possible to run Blood Moon in a Jund/RUG/BUG infested meta?

[JPettie]

Is it possible to run Blood Moon in a Jund/RUG/BUG infested meta?

Yes, and it can be very efficient against a lot of decks, even as just a one of when you sideboard.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I side board Blood Moon, it is massively powerful. Of course it has to resolve, but if it does, Jund/RUG/BUG usually cannot recover.
The best part about it, is the look on your opponents face, after it resolves, and they cant play spells. Probably the same look we give on a first turn Chalice for one, and a second turn Chalice for two.

[JJ-JKidd]

I side board Blood Moon, it is massively powerful. Of course it has to resolve, but if it does, Jund/RUG/BUG usually cannot recover.
The best part about it, is the look on your opponents face, after it resolves, and they cant play spells. Probably the same look we give on a first turn Chalice for one, and a second turn Chalice for two.

Im currently working on an SB that looks like this:

3 Ensnaring Bridge
2 blast effects
3 Mindbreak Trap
3 Blood Moon
4 graveyard hate of which, I cant think of yet. (suggestions?)

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

[Atikin]

Im currently working on an SB that looks like this:

3 Ensnaring Bridge
2 blast effects
3 Mindbreak Trap
3 Blood Moon
4 graveyard hate of which, I cant think of yet. (suggestions?)

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

My current sb:

4 Vexing Shusher
4 Mindbreak Trap
3 Smash to Smithereens (testing)
3 Ensnaring Bridge
1 Searing blaze

Shusher against any deck where resolving spells is more critical then winning fast. Mindbreak trap against combo. Smash against any deck with any artifact other than top basically. Bridge goes in against most creature decks. Same with blaze.

[JPettie]

Im currently working on an SB that looks like this:

3 Ensnaring Bridge
2 blast effects
3 Mindbreak Trap
3 Blood Moon
4 graveyard hate of which, I cant think of yet. (suggestions?)

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

I prefer running Surgical Extraction for graveyard hate, and on top of that I sometimes side it in against counter spell decks to sort of check out their hand to see if the coast is clear as a one of. I really like the idea of it in the format because it can solve a lot of problems as a one of in a lot of match ups, and is not only for graveyard hate. The preferred for just graveyard hate I believe is Faerie Macabre because it cannot be countered, only stifled, and it has the affect of taking two of any cards you want, it is better against reanimator when they have multiple targets to reanimate and you need to take care of both of them. Against dredge it sort of lacks the same presence something like a Surgical Extraction would by taking all of their Ichorid(s) or all of their Nacromebia(s) to stop them from Dread Return and being a pain each turn. I think it depends on your meta but there are a ton of options and I think Faerie and Surgical are on the top of my list for burn efficient spells. I have yet to test much else, other than Tormod's Crypt which I don't prefer because it can be stopped, or even induced into cracking by artifact hate, and even countered by spells in reanimator. As for the rest of the sideboard, I like the Mindbreak Traps, I run three to four usually depending on the meta. Blood Moon seems especially good lately with the popularity of Scapeshift decks going up, and another option against that sort of deck would be Ankh of Mishra. I would be careful running too many Blood Moon(s) though because they can be a pretty bad draw after the first one, and sometimes halt you from winning when you needed to. I have yet to really put Ensnaring Bridge to that great of use, I usually have four Vexing Shusher(s) and run them with Ensnaring Bridge against RUG decks, and Counter Top with Angels, it really can be good against Counter Top if they don't expect it, but lately I've stayed a little bit away from Ensnaring and just win through my Vexing Shusher(s). I would also consider Pithing Needle as a one to two of against heavy blue deck meta(s), sometimes naming a Jace can really end their win condition, and it has uses I have yet to really find but I'm sure there are many. Another option would be something like Searing Blaze if you run the fetchland burn deck if the meta near you is heavy with creatures that just run over your deck by equipping things or just being a nu-sense like the example of Deathrite Shaman lately. Like with a lot of things, a lot of it depends on experience and understanding your local meta, and being able to efficiently plot out sideboard spots and have running examples of what you take out and put in against decks you are used to facing and even some you might be new to facing. Anyway, I hope I was of some help and good luck with burn, keep piloting it people!

[JPettie]

My current sb:

4 Vexing Shusher
4 Mindbreak Trap
3 Smash to Smithereens (testing)
3 Ensnaring Bridge
1 Searing blaze

Shusher against any deck where resolving spells is more critical then winning fast. Mindbreak trap against combo. Smash against any deck with any artifact other than top basically. Bridge goes in against most creature decks. Same with blaze.

I see the reason people use Smash to Smithereens, and if you aren't running the fetchland burn, it makes total sense, but for me, running the fetchland Burn deck, I prefer to run three mainboard Sulfuric Vortex and that usually takes care of the MUD decks and other troubling life gaining artifacts and frees up space in my sideboard for something like Searing Blaze to side in while I wait for Sulfuric to show up so I can keep creatures off the board and keep them from equipping something very good against burn.

It seems like right now your sideboard only covers MUD, Misc Blue Decks, Stoneforge Decks, and Combo. I don't see Ensnaring Bridge really being all that good against an experienced dredge player or reanimator player, but I think, depending on your local meta of course, that you need to dedicate some graveyard hate or even some new decks floating around in popularity. Good luck! :)

[JJ-JKidd]

I prefer running Surgical Extraction for graveyard hate, and on top of that I sometimes side it in against counter spell decks to sort of check out their hand to see if the coast is clear as a one of. I really like the idea of it in the format because it can solve a lot of problems as a one of in a lot of match ups, and is not only for graveyard hate. The preferred for just graveyard hate I believe is Faerie Macabre because it cannot be countered, only stifled, and it has the affect of taking two of any cards you want, it is better against reanimator when they have multiple targets to reanimate and you need to take care of both of them. Against dredge it sort of lacks the same presence something like a Surgical Extraction would by taking all of their Ichorid(s) or all of their Nacromebia(s) to stop them from Dread Return and being a pain each turn. I think it depends on your meta but there are a ton of options and I think Faerie and Surgical are on the top of my list for burn efficient spells. I have yet to test much else, other than Tormod's Crypt which I don't prefer because it can be stopped, or even induced into cracking by artifact hate, and even countered by spells in reanimator. As for the rest of the sideboard, I like the Mindbreak Traps, I run three to four usually depending on the meta. Blood Moon seems especially good lately with the popularity of Scapeshift decks going up, and another option against that sort of deck would be Ankh of Mishra. I would be careful running too many Blood Moon(s) though because they can be a pretty bad draw after the first one, and sometimes halt you from winning when you needed to. I have yet to really put Ensnaring Bridge to that great of use, I usually have four Vexing Shusher(s) and run them with Ensnaring Bridge against RUG decks, and Counter Top with Angels, it really can be good against Counter Top if they don't expect it, but lately I've stayed a little bit away from Ensnaring and just win through my Vexing Shusher(s). I would also consider Pithing Needle as a one to two of against heavy blue deck meta(s), sometimes naming a Jace can really end their win condition, and it has uses I have yet to really find but I'm sure there are many. Another option would be something like Searing Blaze if you run the fetchland burn deck if the meta near you is heavy with creatures that just run over your deck by equipping things or just being a nu-sense like the example of Deathrite Shaman lately. Like with a lot of things, a lot of it depends on experience and understanding your local meta, and being able to efficiently plot out sideboard spots and have running examples of what you take out and put in against decks you are used to facing and even some you might be new to facing. Anyway, I hope I was of some help and good luck with burn, keep piloting it people!

Thanks for the feedbacks! Anyway, kinda thought that is the negation of Price of Progress because of Blood Moon more beneficial? Or the other way around?

[Atikin]

My current list with some explanations:

4 Goblin Guide
4 Grim Lavamancer

2 Sulfuric Vortex

4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
3 Searing Blaze

4 Chain Lightning
3 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

3 Arid Mesa
4 Bloodstained mire
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Wooded Foothills
5 Mountain

SB:

3 Ensnaring Bridge
4 Vexing Shusher
4 Mindbreak Trap
3 Smash to Smithereens
1 Searing Blaze


Running the fetches to power lavamancer and searing blaze. Deck thinning is also cool.

Searing Blaze:
The most up to debate slot, I am not sure what I would replace it with if I was to take them out. Good in most match-ups. Match ups where they are weak are match ups that we generally lose to anyways.

Rest of main deck is pretty standard.

Sideboard pretty standard, trying to shore up the weaker match ups. Dont run graveyard hate as we can beat most graveyard decks, devoting gy hate just for dr seems weak, and dredge is only becoming less popular with time.

Open to any and all constructive criticism.

[JJ-JKidd]

My current list with some explanations:

4 Goblin Guide
4 Grim Lavamancer

2 Sulfuric Vortex

4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
3 Searing Blaze

4 Chain Lightning
3 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

3 Arid Mesa
4 Bloodstained mire
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Wooded Foothills
5 Mountain

SB:

3 Ensnaring Bridge
4 Vexing Shusher
4 Mindbreak Trap
3 Smash to Smithereens
1 Searing Blaze


Running the fetches to power lavamancer and searing blaze. Deck thinning is also cool.

Searing Blaze:
The most up to debate slot, I am not sure what I would replace it with if I was to take them out. Good in most match-ups. Match ups where they are weak are match ups that we generally lose to anyways.

Rest of main deck is pretty standard.

Sideboard pretty standard, trying to shore up the weaker match ups. Dont run graveyard hate as we can beat most graveyard decks, devoting gy hate just for dr seems weak, and dredge is only becoming less popular with time.

Open to any and all constructive criticism.

Thats a lot of fetches. Im gonna try this build. Will Searing Blaze resolve even if there are no creatures in play?

[Atikin]

Thats a lot of fetches. Im gonna try this build. Will Searing Blaze resolve even if there are no creatures in play?

Can not be cast without a target so they need a creature. Additionally, if the target dies while its being cast it will fizzle due to illegal target.

Let me know how it works out for you!

[JPettie]

Thanks for the feedbacks! Anyway, kinda thought that is the negation of Price of Progress because of Blood Moon more beneficial? Or the other way around?

Price of Progress is invaluable and should only be sided out against decks that have very few non-basics (Dredge/Other Burn Decks) or as a trick when people are playing around it by fetching basics and slowing themselves down. Blood Moon just can be a one of and be a bomb, but if if you play too many it will mess with your consistency and can lose games when you'd rather top deck a burn spell.

Blood Moon for me is a sideboard card to hate out Scapeshift decks in my local meta personally.

[JPettie]

My current list with some explanations:

4 Goblin Guide
4 Grim Lavamancer

2 Sulfuric Vortex

4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
3 Searing Blaze

4 Chain Lightning
3 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

3 Arid Mesa
4 Bloodstained mire
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Wooded Foothills
5 Mountain

SB:

3 Ensnaring Bridge
4 Vexing Shusher
4 Mindbreak Trap
3 Smash to Smithereens
1 Searing Blaze


Running the fetches to power lavamancer and searing blaze. Deck thinning is also cool.

Searing Blaze:
The most up to debate slot, I am not sure what I would replace it with if I was to take them out. Good in most match-ups. Match ups where they are weak are match ups that we generally lose to anyways.

Rest of main deck is pretty standard.

Sideboard pretty standard, trying to shore up the weaker match ups. Dont run graveyard hate as we can beat most graveyard decks, devoting gy hate just for dr seems weak, and dredge is only becoming less popular with time.

Open to any and all constructive criticism.

I don't like the idea of Searing Blaze mainboard because not every deck plays creatures consistently, especially storm which is very popular lately. If you want to play Sulfuric Vortex I would run another land up to twenty-one to support three costing cards and run another Sulfuric Vortex because three is a better number statistically to deal with a heavy life gain meta. Searing Blaze can be much better in a sideboard, unless your meta is super creature heavy. Just think about if you are playing against a storm player and you end up with a hand like (Searing Blaze, Searing Blaze, Fireblast, Goblin Guide, Land, Land, Lightning Bolt) and that can consistently happen, and it would leave you to mulligan where if you just had Flame Rift(s) or any other cards for just strict burn you would be having a much better time against the storm player. I would suggest taking all three Searing Blazes out, putting them in your sideboard, and adding Sulfuric Vortex, Land, and another Flame Rift. You could even go down to three Mindbreak Trap and two Smash to Smithereens and have two slots open for three sideboard Searing Blaze. When I think of changing my Burn deck, I have to really consider the consistency of why we play a one color deck. I know that any change to the deck can really hurt our turn three and turn four consistency in terms of wins. I have been in a lot of games where I changed my deck and had to rely on my top deck card to either win or lose a game, and I would hate the fact that I top decked a Searing Blaze against a storm player when all I needed was any other just straight burn damage to beat them. Just try to think of how your meta is and you gotta just expect to be thrown a curve ball sometimes and it would be better to be ready for it than not, I would think.

Another quick point I want to make, is you are only running five mountains and you have fifteen fetches. This seems like a bad way to have a late game, if you are forced to fire off a Fireblast early game, what do you do when you only have three mountains left in your deck, and you might have the problem of failing to find, especially in some grindy match ups against counter decks. I would suggest going down to something like twelve fetches which still has the consistency to power Grim Lavamancer, and keeps you from failing to find when you search out one of your now nine mountains. You can play with the numbers here, but I definitely would up your mountain count and lower the fetches a little bit, even something sort of risky like seven mountains and fourteen fetches.

[LeoCop 90]

What about Chaos Warp in sideboard ? it can take care of problematic cards like leyline of sanctity or other enchantments /artifacts that lock our deck. Probably it is better than Ratchet Bomb.
Obviously against artifacts Smash to Smithereens or Shattering spree are better, but I'm thinking to do a 2/2 split between Shattering Spree and Chaos Warp.