[Deck] Burn

[Dark_Cynic87]

It won't ever come to burn. It enables their Needles, stifles, creature removal and etc. Not to mention it's pump abilities are useless as games shouldn't go past turn 5 anyway. And, as always, there's no room in the build for a card that doesn't guaruntee damage to an opponent. Just ask Grim Lavamancer.

Pce,

--DC

[DalkonCledwin]

Mana:
2x Wasteland
4x Great Furnace
12x Snow-Covered Mountain

Creatures
3x Mogg Fanatic

Three for One:
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Rift Bolt
4x Lava Spike
4x Chain Lightning

Win Burn:
4x Fireblast
3x Shrapnel Blast
2x Price of Progress

Other Burn
4x Incinerate
4x Magma Jet

Utility:
3x Ankh of Mishra
2x Mindstorm Crown
1x Fork

Sideboard:
3x Red Elemental Blast
1x Pyroblast
3x Shattering Spree
3x Sulfuric Vortex
4x Flamebreak
1x Mogg Fanatic

This is the deck I am working on building... just curious what everyone thinks?

[urdjur]

Cathal: I like your previous list better. I don't think scrying sheets will be fast enough however.

Question to all: Why are people still running Shattering Spree in the board? It's 1 cc so it can't handle Chalice@1. It's also sorcery speed, so it can't get us out of scepter/chant locks or other upkeep locks. I think Smash to Smithereens should be a 4-of in all burn sideboards - maybe even a few in the main.

I think it's funny that this archetype has been around for ages, and still there is no consensus on fundamental things, such as:

*What creatures should be run, if any?
*Are non-basic lands worth it?
*Do street wraith/bauble/manamorphosis have any place in burn - if so, which do and in what amount?
*What about artifacts and shrapnel blast?

Of course it will always be a question of pros and cons, but it's amazing that there's still no real clear cut answer on which pros are to be harnessed and which cons are to be avoided. Here are 2 sample lists (I omit Side Boards) of my own devising - I'd like your opinion on which one is better (not considering individual card choices, but comparing the two overall concepts).

List 1 - Artifact Burn
LANDS (18)
12 Mountain
3 Barbarian Ring
3 Great Furnace

ARTIFACTS (9)
3 Mishra's Bauble
3 Urza's Bauble
3 Cursed Scroll

SPELLS (33)
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Incinerate
4 Magma Jet
4 Fireblast
3 Shrapnel Blast
2 Price of Progress

Pros: This list combines strong possibilities for a turn 3 kill and excellent possibilities for a turn 4 kill, with the stamina and colorless damage in Cursed Scroll and Barbarian Ring in case things go wrong. There are many instants in the spell list, to help with the slow draw from the baubles.

Cons: Wastelands, pithing needle and artifact destruction can find targets. The baubles make it somewhat harder to discern which hands to keep, but only running 6 of them makes this less of an issue. Also, arifacts in GY contribute to Tarmogoyf.

List 2 - Straight Meta Burn
20 Mountain
0-cc (4)
4 Fireblast (really 6 cc)
1-cc (16)
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt (really 3 cc)
4 Lava Spike
2-cc (12)
4 Incinerate
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift
3-cc (8)
4 Flamebreak
4 Flame Javelin

Pros: A list like this leaves no openings, and is heavily metagamed against chalice/top. It maximizes opponent's dead cards, and has main deck hate against control, threshold and goblins. It gives nothing extra to Tarmogoyf - only instants and sorceries.

Cons: It's decidedly slower than artifact burn, at least on paper, but since it's also harder to disrupt, it might be quicker in practice.

Which of these two list types do you prefer?

I suspect that an optimal burn deck is ultimately so boring, redundant and consistent, that every deck builder is prone to cool-thingitis. Probably, 20 mountains, 40 spells and no filler (bauble/wraith/manamorph) is excellent tournament wise, but it is just so boring to discuss so people start running cool stuff to make burn more tricksy. And then they need to run cards like Magma Jet to keep the deck together. Or maybe I'm wrong? Maybe tricks is the way to optimize burn lists - who can say for sure?

Another question: What can a burn player do against Counterbalance? Is there any sideboard card (such as a 3cc REB or something) that helps?

[Moczoc]

When Lightning Helix came out everyone played R/w burn, so what about to play Oblivion Ring?(and Helix again). O-Ring solves the three biggest problems: Chalice, Counterbalance and Tarmogoyf.

[Twoshirty]

well there urdjur, actually shattering spree can handle chalice at one, you have to replicate it...dont believe me look it up...sorry for just jumpin in.

[urdjur]

Fair enough.

I like the idea of white splashed burn. Lightning Helix is a negligable improvement, but the sideboard options are great. Potentially greater than the drawback of opening us to Wasteland - something that is further mitigated by sideboarded Blood Moons.

Would Goblin Legionairre have a place in that deck too, as Mogg Fantastic's bigger brother?

Would ORings even be run in the main in such a deck?

[Moczoc]

You're right, the only thing Lightning Helix does is compensate the lifeloss from Fetchlands you have to play if you add white :laugh:

Still I would see Oblivion Ring definitly see as a maindeck candidate, since it can remove creatures that are threatening us and remove cards that prevent the opponent from being burned away.

[NecroYawgmoth]

White would be a nice idea... but somehow... Wasteland :/


Just a question to all of you:

Why are Keldon Marauders so disrespected by players?

I think, it's a good card in Burn, isn't it?

okay, you could say that they hit the table only for 2 turns, but Mogg Fanatic doesn't life any longer normally...

They can help you in the damagerace, or stall the board for 1 round.
They can put a Goyf in Bolt-range, stop oppsing creatures from attacking and they chump as good as Fanatic does.
In the worst case, they do only 2 dmg, but Magma Jet does the same
In best scenario they do 5 fo 2, and that's very good, and imo more damage than Mogg will ever do.

The only 2 Scenarios where Fanatic is better is against Ichorid, and when opponent has an Jitte, so why no one likes Marauders?

...your thoughts about Marauders in Burn, please

YawG

[Black Rain]

this is legacy right?

[heroicraptor]

In the worst case, they do only 2 dmg, but Magma Jet does the same
Magma Jet is infintely better with the phrase "Scry 2."
Marauders frequently get chumped and become "1 damage now and 1 damage in two turns" for 1R.


this is legacy right?

The following banner is lying:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/images/misc/sourcelogo.jpg

[kensook]

Magma Jet is infintely better with the phrase "Scry 2."
Marauders frequently get chumped and become "1 damage now and 1 damage in two turns" for 1R.

Although it is true that Marauders may get chump blocked frequently, it still has the potential to do 5 damage for 2, which would be the best burn spell at the cost of 2. Even if it does get blocked, it would most often kill the creature that blocked it and will buy us some time to kill the player (at least against some decks like aggro). I include Marauders as a 4-of in my burn deck, along with magma jet with its awesome scrying powers.

I seriously can't wait for WotC to print another 1-for-3 burn spell or at least a good burn spell. It's been a while since I've changed any cards in this deck.

[matamagos]

I think marauders are cooler in play than in paper.
if you look at the card it doesn't seem very good, but damm... when you play it second turn opponent's life begins a free fall.

in burn we sacrifice card advantage for damage speed, which is the essence of keldon marauders and the essence of all the deck.

conclusion: marauders are good IN THIS DECK, not in others. so it's logical that someone who hasn't tried them in burn thinks they are shitty.

[idraleo]

I went 9th on a 84 peopLe tournament, Losing by bad draws against the most positive MU of the day. I lost the chance to did top8 by a funkbrew deck without Finks and Jitte, and without any card against me in his sideboard. G1 i' d rape him, g2 and g3 he did Duress, Tourach, Goyf, Sinkhole, Sinkhole, Sinkhole, Vindicate, Vindicate on my lands, i scoop on drawing all times my 3cc spells.

// Lands
17 [CS] Snow-Covered Mountain
2 [OD] Barbarian Ring

// Creatures
4 [10E] Mogg Fanatic

// Spells
4 [LG] Chain Lightning
4 [A] Lightning Bolt
4 [FD] Magma Jet
4 [BOK] Flames of the Blood Hand
4 [CHK] Lava Spike
4 [EX] Price of Progress
4 [TSP] Rift Bolt
4 [VI] Fireblast
2 [10E] Incinerate
3 [DS] Flamebreak

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [JU] Flaring Pain
SB: 2 [10E] Pithing Needle
SB: 3 [SC] Pyrostatic Pillar
SB: 4 [A] Red Elemental Blast
SB: 3 [GP] Shattering Spree


Classic decklist, i' d love maindeck Flames, they let me took 2 game against dredge on the razor edge, something like eot 6 dmg, my turn Flames+Fireblast... 3rd turn clock, seems an epic cum on theyr face lol

Flames also blast the last 7 life of the opponent of the last turn, that reads many times it and ask god why the hell somebody print a card that avoids CoP XD

My mu was

MUC
Dragon Stompy
dredge
dredge
Dreadstill
Funkbrew
Funkbrew

[Radley]

i think it's a great idea to add 4 countryside crusher as it will improve your topdecking 100% as we only need a few mana. and i think i'd rather use tattermunge maniac for added dmg in early turns instead of mogg fanatic.

[idraleo]

i think i'd rather use tattermunge maniac for added dmg in early turns instead of mogg fanatic.

Any dredge player could masturbate on this ^^

Seriously, did you think that in this metagame a weaker 2/1 body that can' t defend is far playable?

[Joink]

Here’s my list.
I’ve been goldfishing it abit, seems to reach the kill in turn 4-5 quite steady.
Kind of depends on how much of an impact the PoP does.

I’m a little worried about dealing to much damage to myself using 4 Flame Rifts and a couple of wraiths on that...but I really think the wraiths help out alot.

Any ideas tips or ideas for the list?

CREATURES (2)
2 Street Wraith

SORCERIES (19)
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Flame Rift
3 Flamebreak

INSTANTS (20)
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Shard Volley
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
3 Magma Jet
3 Incinerate

LANDS (19)
2 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain

SIDEBOARD
4 Pyrostatic Pillar
4 Shattering Spree
3 Tormod’s Crypt
2 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast

[ScatmanX]

Agains't what do you guys side in what cards?
I'm just wondering, mainly, about Pyrostatic Pillar, once I think CotV or Null Rod would be better options.
How does REB plays forr you people? I don't have the deck yet, but I'm thinking that there are better cards to run. Is it becouse of the rise of AdNT? Because agains't control, I would personally add more cards that deal dmg over time...

[idraleo]

You don' t need to side against control based decks such as Landstill or Muc. Reb got to be sided against Counterbalance and against AdNT, moreover to stop theyr Mystic Tutors.

[Radley]

Any dredge player could masturbate on this ^^

Seriously, did you think that in this metagame a weaker 2/1 body that can' t defend is far playable?

if you want to play defense i dont think burn deck suits you. honestly, do u prefer to block than attack?

[lebarion]

if you want to play defense i dont think burn deck suits you. honestly, do u prefer to block than attack?

The problem with Tattermunge Maniac is that it may not cause any damage, even if it is not countered. It is a worse topdeck than Fanatic or Marauders, cause they do at least 1 point of damage if not countered.

[idraleo]

Assume that a Tattermouge will never deal damage over the second turn if you are on the play. Or perhaps, it won' t did 99% times, it is a ridiculous topdeck, can' t chumpblock opponent's Goyf and live you without the only way to handle on Bridges. It doesn' t sound as a good call.

[Pienterekaak]

if you want to play defense i dont think burn deck suits you. honestly, do u prefer to block than attack?

Still, sometimes you need to block in order to survive, a Keldon Marauders does this, and still does damage.

[redmage]

@ Joink

The list looks pretty good. I tend to favor agressive lists and yours certainly leans that way.

As for tips/ideas, I'd suggest giving 2-3x Cave-In a try (over 2-3x of your Flamebreaks). It's certainly metagame dependant; however, it being a "free spell" is definitely icing on the cake, and it comes online faster than Flamebreak vs. Gobs & Ichorid (the two aggro decks with the best chances of racing you). I've found that sweeping x/2's usually does the job to stall long enough for the win, and there's not many x/3's that come down fast enough to make a difference for the opponent. The other changes I'd make are -1x Mountain (dependant on the Cave-In switch), -1x Price of Progress, and -1x Flame Rift in order to sneak in at least 3x Mogg Fanatic/Keldon Marauders (I tend to prefer Fanatics).

I've said it before, but the problem with Flamebreak is that it actually feels like you're taking a "break" when you want to be winning. The ideal Flamebreak is on turn 3, yet your ideal turn 3 is burning 11+ dmg for the win. These two scenerios are completely at odds with each other.

Many people look at Cave-In the wrong way. Don't look at Cave-In as being card disadvantage. Instead, look at is as a free Pyroclasm (Cave-In), and a free Shock (the red card you pitch) for the low price of 2 life (-1 life for each effect). Now the question becomes; "we don't run shock; so what card do we have that we'd rather it were a pseudo Shock?". Ideally...none; however, in reality burn decks do tend to have plenty of "dead cards" that I'd happily convert into useful damage.

Top-decked a Fanatic/Marauder too late in the game? Pitch it as a free shock.
A 2nd sweeper? Pitch it as a free shock.
A 2nd Fireblast? Pitch it as a free shock.
A 2nd Flame Rift? Pitch it as a free shock.
A "dead" Price of Progress? Pitch it as a free shock.

Overall, it's not that difficult to find a "dead" card which can easily be converted into useful damage, and converting otherwise dead resources can be quite helpful when it comes to speedy kills.

I will say this; goldfishing is not the best way to test Cave-In. When they're goldfishing people tend to hold on to it, and that often leads to a one card hand of only Cave-In. If you're going to try it, then make sure to test it vs. actual decks/opponents.

@ Radley

Countryside Crusher is an easy target for your opponents' dedicated creature kill spells. It's far more beneficial for burn to have the virtual card advantage that goes along with turning their crature kill spells into dead cards. Along with the points made by others, Tattermunge has the same problem. The only reason Fanatic & Mauraders are even considered in burn is that you are guaranteed dmg. if they hit the board (aside from a wasted stifle effect).

[LordEvilTeaCup]

Here’s my list.
I’ve been goldfishing it abit, seems to reach the kill in turn 4-5 quite steady.
Kind of depends on how much of an impact the PoP does.

I’m a little worried about dealing to much damage to myself using 4 Flame Rifts and a couple of wraiths on that...but I really think the wraiths help out alot.

Any ideas tips or ideas for the list?

CREATURES (2)
2 Street Wraith

If you like deck thinning effects like Street Wraith, then I would suggest using Manamorphose. Really, I never got why it's not an auto-include in every burn deck. What's the draw back? I mean, if they even bother countering it, then they would countered whatever other spell you would have played instead. There is also the example of it being a bad topdeck which I find a little silly. The chances of you playing manamorphose and not having a burn spell in hand to use the mana is very low. Manamorphose really seems to be the only deck thinner without a drawback as Wraith hurts and Baubles are slow. My 2 cents.

[Joink]

@ redmage

Thanx for the reply.
Cave-In sounds good for this deck, I noticed while goldfishing that flamebreak often tends slow me down quite a bit, as you noted.
So I'm definitely going to try this *free* option out.

I'll give the ol moggs a try as well, I do prefer them over Marauders for some reasons.
1) Mana cost, cutting a couple of CMC2 for CMC1 should speed things up abit.

2) I don't really see many scenarios where the marauder will do more damage than the mogg. Sure you have 2 *guaranteed* points from the marauders, but do you always have the time to wait for the last damage?
Turn 2 should be a good deal of burn, not 1dmg and a beater imo, not for this deck.

3) Marauders attract creature removal as well, where moggs are a bit more versatile.

Sooo, those are the changes:
+3 Mogg Fanatic
+3 Cave-In

-3 Flamebreak
-1 Mountain
-1 Price of Progress
-1 Flame Rift

As this drops the amount of self inflicted damage, I thought it might be open up for the last 2 Street Wraith for more consistency.
Dropping what I feel is the weakest at the moment, Incinerate.

This would leave me with 1 left, so I figured I could even that out with an additional Magma Jet for even more consistency.

+2 Street Wraith
+1 Magma Jet
-3 Incinerate

I'm not quite sure about this though, Incinterates 1 extra damage or the awesomeness of digging 2 with Jet for that desperate finisher?

Anyways, this would be the new one, I'm gonna try it out when I get time.

CREATURES (7)
3 Mogg Fanatic
4 Street Wraith

SORCERIES (18)
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
3 Flame Rift
3 Cave-In

INSTANTS (17)
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Shard Volley
4 Fireblast
3 Price of Progress
4 Magma Jet

LANDS (18)
2 Barbarian Ring
16 Mountain




@ LordEvilTeaCup

Thanx for the reply.
It's true that you won't end up with 2 mana from Manamorphose without a target to spend them on very often.
The drawback, if compared to wraiths are ofc that they won't make you keep a 1-land-hand, which you sometimes might with a wraith (imo).

But I guess I couldn't hurt to run both of them, the question is what to cut for them?

[redmage]

Really, I never got why Manamorphose is not an auto-include in every burn deck. What's the draw back?

Personally, I see a few issues with Manamorphose.

First, I agree with Joink regarding mulligan decisions. There are times when one land hands don't look that bad. Wraiths have no problem with this; however, MM could certainly present some issues by forcing one into more unwanted mulligans.

Second, it's not that an opponent would have just countered whatever other spell I might have played. My ideal turn 2's consist of 2x 'Bolts'; so by countering a Manamorphose my opponent will have often stalled not only one, but two of my spells in order to give himself/herself a 'timewalk'. As I said earlier, I tend to favor aggressive lists; so I don't like the idea of my cantrips opening me up to giving the opponent an extra turn in order to find that Chalice@1, Counterbalance, etc..

Third is simply the speed itself. With cantrips you want to use them ASAP, and for Manamorphose that means on turn 2. As I said earlier, I tend to favor agressive builds (specifically, ones that streamline towards the turn 3 win). My ideal game goes...

Turn 1) Land -> Bolt
Turn 2) Land -> 2x Bolts
Turn 3) Land -> Bolt, Flame Rift, Fireblast... GG

Consisting of only nine cards; that can be done on the play, or on the draw.

I simply don't like MM making me wait until turn 2 in order to see how the game is shaping up. When it comes to my ideal gameplan, turn 2 is the 'midgame', and a midgame cantrip/thinner isn't what I'm looking for while streamlining my deck. I completely agree with you that "Baubles are slow" (generally netting you a card turn 1.5), but forcing one to wait until turn 2 seems even slower to me.

@ Joink

Good luck with the fine tuning.

As for the Wraith, Jet, and Incinerate numbers, let me know how they work out for you.

Personally, I'd probably run something like:

3x Wraith
3x Jet
2x Incinerate

Wraith: I agree that it's the best cantrip/thinner for the deck, but they can add up pretty quicky.

Jet: A great smoother; however, I 'never' want to see more than one of them, and they're not a part of my ideal game plan at all. Also, with Cave-In there's no immediate 2nd turn need to dig for that 'guaranteed 3rd turn land' in order to bring your sweeper online. Actually, Jet is another card that I often find myself easily pitching to Cave-In.

Incinerate: Metagame dependent, but if your opponents pop a single fetch land in the first three turns, then one is just as good, if not better than a Flame Rift, for the turn 3 win scenerio listed above.

[LordEvilTeaCup]

Personally, I see a few issues with Manamorphose.

First, I agree with Joink regarding mulligan decisions. There are times when one land hands don't look that bad. Wraiths have no problem with this; however, MM could certainly present some issues by forcing one into more unwanted mulligans.

Second, it's not that an opponent would have just countered whatever other spell I might have played. My ideal turn 2's consist of 2x 'Bolts'; so by countering a Manamorphose my opponent will have often stalled not only one, but two of my spells in order to give himself/herself a 'timewalk'. As I said earlier, I tend to favor aggressive lists; so I don't like the idea of my cantrips opening me up to giving the opponent an extra turn in order to find that Chalice@1, Counterbalance, etc..

Third is simply the speed itself. With cantrips you want to use them ASAP, and for Manamorphose that means on turn 2. As I said earlier, I tend to favor agressive builds (specifically, ones that streamline towards the turn 3 win). My ideal game goes...

Turn 1) Land -> Bolt
Turn 2) Land -> 2x Bolts
Turn 3) Land -> Bolt, Flame Rift, Fireblast... GG

Consisting of only nine cards; that can be done on the play, or on the draw.





Hmmm, interesting points. I am going to have to disagree on the muliganning decision point however, as it's very dangerous to keep a one land hand with Wraith. I mean, how do you know that the card you get from cycling is a land. You just don't. At least with MM you know where you stand. Both hands should probably be tossed. Granted, I will give you if I already went down to 5 and still see one land... then Wraith is stronger in this position. Good point about getting timewalked turn 2, but not sure if that is enough to make Wraith better. The points of damage you take can really affect things. Like you said, they don't play nicely with each other.

Also, MM is in no way slow just because you have to wait until turn 2. You really don't need cantrips to ensure a first turn burn, because we already have a large enough amount of turn 1 plays. The need for turn 1 cycle is too rare imo to make it a strike for Manamorphose. Having played with both, I just can't help but think MM is a superior cantrip.

A cantrip, however is definitely as to allow us to use less crappy burn spells like incinerate... Also, the fact that we can go down on one land is also useful.

[kensook]

Although I don't play any fillers or cantrips in my list, I would say that I like street wraith better than manamorphose. One huge thing about street wraith is that its not counterable. Yes, stifle would be able to counter it, and you would lose 2 life and a card, but compare that situation to when a manamorphose would get countered, where you essentially give your opponent a time walk. Unless you play in a meta where there are a lot of aggro and you can't take the lifeloss, I would definitely recommend you to play street wraith over manamorphose.

Also, about cave-in. As it has been advocated before, burn almost functions like a combo deck, where every card in the deck (except for mountains) are a combo piece, since all of them do damage in somewhat form. With cave-in, although it lets you have a free pyroclasm and a shock (to your opponent and to yourself), it makes you lose one of those essential combo pieces that you need to win as fast as you can. Cards in burn are all good topdecks; even mogg fanatic or keldon marauders deal damage for sure if it resolves. I would not want to lose a cave-in and another burn card for a pyroclasm and a shock, but rather play flamebreak and another burn that would otherwise be pitched by a cave-in.

[redmage]

@ LordEvilTeaCup

I agree that one land hands can be dangerous, but I don't really feel that Wraith exacerbates the issue like MM would/could. Of course you never know that the card you cycle into will be a land, that goes for any cantrip, but Wraith gives you access to more cards now with no questions asked.

Simply playing the numbers, I'm fairly confident that my deck will give me the land I need in a pretty timely manner when given access to enough cards (especially when given immediate access). Basically, If I'm even going to consider keeping a one land hand, then it's going to have to start with the following 5 cards:

4x 'Bolts' (excluding Shard Volley)
1x Mountain (I wouldn't do it with a B. Ring)

That leaves two 'mystery cards' left.

If there's A Flamebreak in there, or any 3cc spell, then it's definitely going back. If the 'mystery cards' are any combination of two 2cc spells, MM included, then it's definitely going back. If it's 2x Wraiths, then I'd actually be the most inclined to keep it. That would mean I'd have access to 10-11 cards by my second turn mainphase (when I'd actually be playing the 2nd land), and I'm quite confident that my deck would most often provide a 2nd land with access to that many cards. A Wraith with a Fireblast (or a Cave-In depending on the matchup) would be my next most likely 'keep' scenerio, and after that I'd be more prone to tossing the hand back. Of course, this all depends on my opponent, and the matchup involved as well. These are merely generalizations for which one land hands I'd honestly consider keeping.

@ kensook

I've never really liked comparing Burn to combo decks because burn lacks the ability to just 'go off'. I've always seen it as more of a highly distilled aggro deck; one that's unconventionally immune to dedicated creature kill, and aiming for the turn 3-5 win.

That said, if you're a proponent of the combo comparison, then you should absolutely love Cave-In. One of the main tenets of combo is the idea of resource conversion, and Cave-In does it in spades.

Are you familiar with Who's The Beatdown? (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/3692.html), by Mike Flores. It's a classic Magic article that every player should read. In it he perfectly illustrates the concept that one of the most common reasons for game loses is misassignment of role. For example, if you start recklessly tossing all of your 'bolts' at an aggro decks creatures (i.e., playing the control role), then you won't get very far. Agressive Burn lists don't play the control role very well, and the longer you're forced into that role the more likely you are to lose. The main issue with Flamebreak is that it is inherently a control card when burn wants to be playing the aggro/combo role.

1) Flamebreak forces players (at least those who don't use cantrips) to play 20+ lands in order to hit their 3rd turn land drop the most consistantly.

2) Flamebreak forces the use of the 4th Jet (another control card, and one that I never want to see doubles of) in order to scrye 2nd turn; again, for that 'guaranteed' 3rd turn land drop. I want to be dealing 6 dmg turn 2, not forced into dealing only 2 (as with what often occurs when needing Jet's 2nd turn scrye).

Running 18 lands still has the numbers slightly in your favor to hit a 3rd turn land drop; however, that drop is not as much of a necessity as it is when you're relying on Flamebreak to be able to come online. Cave-In allows you to 'safely' increase your threat density without dramatically hindering your ideal gameplan.

As I said earlier, Burn often finds itself with dead/expendable cards that it would happily convert into useful/free damage. Fireblast is such a key early component that having 4x is pretty mandatory; however, drawing a second usually always equates to it being a dead card. Flame Rift is our only guaranteed 4-for-2, but again a second is often dead, or too dangerous. Smart opponents will often fetch basics during the first few turns making PoP dead, or only a 2-for-2 by turn 3. Jet doesn't have a place in the ideal gameplan at all (a turn 3 win scenerio), and would only do 2 dmg anyways. A 3rd turn drawn Fanatic may be a guaranteed 'ping'; however, why not sweep & shock, for the low cost of 2 life, while using the excess mana for more impactful spells?

In short, you're generally not losing a 'combo piece' with Cave-In. Instead, you're converting 'dead' resources while keeping the pressure on with your still-available mana. It allows you to safely increase your threat density, and it comes online faster vs. the very few aggro matchups that have the best chances to actually race you.

[kensook]

@redmage

...may I see your decklist? :tongue:

[redmage]

Sure, it's been awhile since I've broken it out; so it's a bit torn up at the moment due to my preference for "old faced' cards, and that Fanatics & Incinerates are legal in Type II again. I'll post what I've still got sleeved and see if I can piece together what's missing.

Still sleeved:
4x Rift Bolt
4x Lava Spike
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lightning Bolt

3x Flame Rift
1x Fork (was testing it over the 4th Flame Rift to up the Instant/Sorcery ratio, and trim a bit of the 'suicide burn' while testing the 4th Wraith)
1x Price of Progress
4x Fireblast

3x Magma Jet
3x Cave-In

4x Street Wraith (testing the 4th in the 2nd PoP slot)

15x Mountain
2x Barbarian Ring

Sideboard at the time:
2x ???????? (blank sleeves. Probably was 2x P. Needles or PoPs)
4x Shattering Spree
3x Tormod's Crypt
2x Red Elemental Blast
2x Pyroblast
2x Nullrod

That leaves 8 open slots in the maindeck. If I recall, those were filled with a combination of the following.

3-4x Mogg Fanatic
3-4x Incinerate
1-2x Browbeat
0-1x Price of Progress

If I were to throw a list together today it would probably look pretty close to this:

Maindeck:
3-for-1's: 20
4x Mogg Fanatic
4x Rift Bolt
4x Lava Spike
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lightning Bolt

4-for-2's: 12
3x Incinerate
3x Flame Rift
2x Price of Progress
4x Fireblast

Sweepers: 3
3x Cave-In

Draw/Manipulation: 8
3x Street Wraith
3x Magma Jet
2x Browbeat

Lands: 17
15x Mountain
2x Barbarian Ring

Sideboard:
3x P. Needle
4x Shattering Spree
3x Tormod's Crypt
2x Red Elemental Blast
2x Pyroblast
1x Price Of Progress

Of course, it's all meta dependent; so your mileage may vary.

[Moczoc]

There are so much good cards for burn, I often don't know if I should include another Mogg Fanatic, Magma Jet or Flames of the Blood Hand because I don't know what numbers of which cmc are ideal.

Does anyone have much experience with the burn mana curve or even a mathematical solution?

[DalkonCledwin]

If I were to throw a list together today it would probably look pretty close to this:

Maindeck:
3-for-1's: 20
4x Mogg Fanatic
4x Rift Bolt
4x Lava Spike
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lightning Bolt

4-for-2's: 12
3x Incinerate
3x Flame Rift
2x Price of Progress
4x Fireblast

Sweepers: 3
3x Cave-In

Draw/Manipulation: 8
3x Street Wraith
3x Magma Jet
2x Browbeat

Lands: 17
15x Mountain
2x Barbarian Ring

Sideboard:
3x P. Needle
4x Shattering Spree
3x Tormod's Crypt
2x Red Elemental Blast
2x Pyroblast
1x Price Of Progress

Of course, it's all meta dependent; so your mileage may vary.

How is Mogg Fanatic a 3 for 1? At best it is a 2 for 1....

Also how is Incinerate or Price of Progress a 4 for 2? I could see Price of Progress doing 4, sometimes even 6 damage... but it is not a hard 4 for 2.

In any case, the deck looks really really good as it is, I really like it. The only change I would personally make is to run Flamebreak over Cave In, but thats just personal preference.


There are so much good cards for burn, I often don't know if I should include another Mogg Fanatic, Magma Jet or Flames of the Blood Hand because I don't know what numbers of which cmc are ideal.

Does anyone have much experience with the burn mana curve or even a mathematical solution?

Basically you want to build a deck with at least 16 one drops all of which need to be able to deal 3 damage (usually Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning, Lava Spike, and Rift Bolt), then you usually want between 10 and 12 two drops (usually 4 Magma Jet, 4 Incinerate, and between 2 and 4 Price of Progress), then you want between 2 and 4 board sweepers which the CMC for them is negotiable (I usually run 3 Flamebreak), and then finally you want 4 Fireblast but because of it's alternative casting cost, the card is a bit off the curve so its not particularly important to worry about when figuring out the curve. Other than these cards, everything else you put into the deck is negotiable.

For lands you want about 18 to 19 lands that all produce Red Mana.

[LordEvilTeaCup]

Well, I have to say at least that I have been convinced to try Cave-In. I do agree that there are plenty of times where you find yourself holding a card that is pretty much a brick in burn. However, perhaps a build using Keldon Marauders would be more suited with Cave-In than fanatic. It will pretty much guarantee Mr.Marauder is getting a hit in if this bad boy resolves.

[redmage]

Sorry about the wait. I've been out of town the last few days, and just got back.


How is Mogg Fanatic a 3 for 1? At best it is a 2 for 1....

A lot of the time you're right, but if your opponent's game stutters within the first three turns, then he can easliy lead to trouble. I was referring to the 3rd turn win scenerio that I mentioned on the last page. A first turn Fanatic (in place of the 4th 'bolt'), 3 more 'bolts', a 4-for-2, and a Fireblast (along with 3 lands) can still give you a 3rd turn win on the play, or draw. If a Fanatic's able to attack turns 2 & 3 unhindered, then he can ping for the 3rd point after his third turn attack dmg. I'll certainly admit that he's not an optimal 3-for-1; however, he has the capability to help the goldfish just the same, and agressive burn is still shy of enough desired/unconditional 3-for-1's that we need. Ideally we'd want 25-27 'bolts' (depending on the use of cantrips) in order to have the best chances of getting 4 in our first 9 cards.. Used differently he can also be quite helpful vs. Gobs & Ichorid; the two aggro matches that have the best chances at racing Burn.



Also how is Incinerate or Price of Progress a 4 for 2?

As for Incinerate, I explained that on the last page:



Incinerate: Metagame dependent, but if your opponent pops a single fetch land in the first three turns, then one is just as good, if not better than a Flame Rift, for the turn 3 win scenerio listed above.

In my meta, I'm almost certain to see my opponents pop a Fetch within their first 3 turns; so it functions as an instant speed 4-for-2 as far as my goldfish is concerned.

As to PoP... the points you bring up are much of the reason why I choose to only run two of them preboard. I definitely consider it to be the most conditional card in the list, but I'm looking to get 4 dmg out of it when used. I hold no illusions thinking that aggressive burn lists don't rely on conditional cards. I merely grouped the spells by their desired functionalities, not to imply that all of the spells were guaranteed to provide such.

[redmage]

There are so much good cards for burn, I often don't know if I should include another Mogg Fanatic, Magma Jet or Flames of the Blood Hand because I don't know what numbers of which cmc are ideal.

Does anyone have much experience with the burn mana curve or even a mathematical solution?

I broke it down once, but I'm not sure if it's in this thread or the old Burn thread (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2636).

If you're going for the most aggressive list (balls out for the turn 3 win), then you get your opening 7 + 2 draws for a total of 9 cards seen by turn 3 on the play. In those 9 cards you want 4 'bolts', a 4-for-2, a Fireblast, and three red lands.

To figure out deckbuilding totals it's quite easy.

Y = The number of your desired card.
C = Cards seen (for turn 3 you'll see 9 on the play, 10 on the draw)
D = Teck total (Usually 60, but you can lower it by subtracting any cantrips like Street Wraiths)
X = Optimal number of "Desired Card" in the deck

Y*D/C=X

So to figure out bolts on the play with a standard 60 card deck it would be:

4*60/9 = 26.67

That means for the best chances to hit 4 bolts in our first 9 cards we'd want 27 'bolts' (rounded off).

We want 3 lands; so it'd go...

3*60/9 = 20

So 20 lands total would give you the best chances to hit 3 by turn 3 on the play.

I run 3 Wraiths; so if I were figuring land count for my deck on the draw it would be...

3*57/10 = 17.1 lands

Anyways, that's enough examples that you've probably got the idea.

[matamagos]

apliying this formula to turn 3 killing I came to this baubleburn list:

[22 card of 1 cc]
4 chain lighting
4 rift bolt
4 lighting bolt
4 lava spike
4 mogg fanatic
2 shard volley

[6 cards of 2 cc]
2 keldon marauders
4 price of progress

[16 utillity cards]
4 fireblasts
4 street wraith
4 mishra's bauble
4 manamorphose

[16 lands]
1 barbarian ring
4 fetchlands
11 mountain

this gives us D=48

lands: 3*48/9 = 16.000

1 cc: 4*48/9= 21.333 = 22

2 cc: 1*48/9 = 5.333 = 6

fireblasts: 1*48/9 = 5.333 they should be 4 by force. 4/5.333 = 75% of what we really need

typical problems of baubleburn:

seeing a mishra's bauble in topdeck mode: we face this by having 18 instants in the deck, which can be played in opponen'ts turn

counter at manamorphose: in the sideboard we should run 4 red elemental blast to substitue them

I have studied also the D = 50 and the D = 52 options (replacing manamorphose) and this version gives the best "maths"

I only hope a baubleburn enters a top8 someday....

Edit: no way. after some testing manamorphose is too bad. it slows the deck. i don't know if we can save mishra's bauble accompanied of some fetchlands. Now i have replaced manamorphose for magna jet, in order to find quickly fireblast. but here we make 18 damage points, not 20...

here is a list made with a silly purpose, having the biggest amount of turn 3 kills PLAYING AGAINST THE WALL.

[23 card of 1 cc]
4 chain lighting
4 rift bolt
4 lighting bolt
4 lava spike
2 mogg fanatic
4 spark elemental
1 shard volley

[7 cards of 2 cc]
4 magma jet
3 price of progress

[16 utillity cards]
4 fireblasts
4 street wraith
4 mishra's bauble


[18 lands]
1 barbarian ring
8 fetchlands
9 mountain

this is the best option I have found testing AGAINST THE WALL, that's why I run 4 spark elemental and only 2 mogg fanatic, cause against the wall they are superior. also I consider I win when I make 18 points of damage, cause 20 is almost impossible in 3 turns.

when I start a hand my objective is to see 4 "lighting bolt or similar", 3 mountains, 1 magma jet or price of progress and 1 fireblast in turn 3. then I win in turn 3.

I will post the percentage of victories when I have done some more testing, in order to have a useful stadistic information.

for the moment I have only one useful conclusion:

8 fetchland + 4 mishra's bauble + 4 magma jet + 4 street wraith = YOU HAVE TO THINK PLAYING BURN

this has surprised me a lot. Very often I must take care of what of these cards playing first and what later in order to increase the probabilities of drawing what I need. the scrying effect of magma jet and bauble+fetch has proven incredibly useful.

[BurnMage]

So I search the thread, and read through a most of the 40 pages of Burn Information. I have a quick question.

Why not Fork? Is the standard "Float 2 Mana", "Sac 2 Mountains for Fireblast", "Cast Fork and copy Fireblast", "Deal 8 damage on the 3rd/4th turn" no longer a usable combo?

[Zach Tartell]

The biggest problem with fork is that it opens you up to savage 2-for-1's. Like, as a player with any sort of counterspells, I'd gladly Force away almost any card to hit that Fireblast so your Fork fizzles, dodging 8 damage.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

So I search the thread, and read through a most of the 40 pages of Burn Information. I have a quick question.

Why not Fork? Is the standard "Float 2 Mana", "Sac 2 Mountains for Fireblast", "Cast Fork and copy Fireblast", "Deal 8 damage on the 3rd/4th turn" no longer a usable combo?

Fork is bad in multiples and bad as a topdeck.

But whene you like it play 1 of it.

[Gibbie_X]

Why the hell is everyone running Street Wraith? That has to be the most insane thing I have ever read. Are you playing with 64 cards? What is the purpose of a random draw spell when it should be filled with something that goes to the dome?
For that matter, why Keldon Marauders? A possible 5 damage for 1:r:? There has to be a better choice for that.
I'm really surprised no one has but Reckless Charge in there deck. Add that with Marauders, you swing for 7 first turn, and enough for flashback, another 6, then 1. A possible 14 points of damage, from 2 cards.

Lands
14 Mountain
2 Barbarian Ring

Creatures
3 Greater Gargadon
4 Spark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Mogg Fanatic

Spells
4 Rift Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Magma Jet
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Reckless Charge
2 Smash to Smithereens
2 Price of Progress
2 Fireblast
2 Blazing Shoal
1 Pyrokinesis

The Fanatic is the only card capable of doing less then 2 damage. I think the Smash to Smithereens is essential with the amount of artifacts almost every deck is running. Granted, Sensei's Divining Top is a little tricky. But popping a Chalice with that will be so sweet...

I know the Pyrokinesis won't go to the dome, but it can clear critters out of the way for your charged Fanatic.

I had a dude drop a Spark Elemental, swing, then Blazing Shoal, removing Greater Gargadon, hitting for 13 first turn. I didn't like that at all. Even removing Pyrokinesis or Fireblast can be too deadly for words.

That's my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Street Wrath cycles for free. That effectively increases the chance that you'll draw good burn spells like Bolts as opposed to filler burn.

[georgjorge]

3 Gargadons just as a combo with the 2 Blazing Shoal ? Bad odds. You might think you can suspend it and then beat with it, but you have very few permanents, and most games will be over before he enters play.

Also, with only 16 lands, it doesn't look like you will often be able to either play Charge the turn you play the creature for haste, or flashback it. Which makes it just an unreliable Bolt.

I like the maindeck Smash to Smithereens though.

[bigbear102]

Burn gains card advantage by making a lot of the opponents cards dead. This works a lot less when you play creatures, and actually is negative when you play pump spells on those creatures.

I would definitely cut the Gargadons and the pump spells. And how do you expect to pay 3 for the fb on Charge running 16 land? That seems very risky.

[kensook]

So a new card from Conflux that might be useable in this deck...

Volcanic Fallout 1RR
Instant (U)
Volcanic Fallout can't be countered.
Volcanic Fallout deals 2 damage to all creatures and players.

I honestly think this is better than Flamebreak. Sure it does 1 damage less, but it's good against blue control (obviously) and it hits all creatures including creatures with flying. I had a problem with Flamebreak against affinity where it wouldn't hit those damn 0 mana flying creatures and I lost because of that. And some decks use flying critters that we should consider as a bigger demerit against Flamebreak these days. Not to mention it's an instant unlike the sorcery speed Flamebreak has. What do you guys think?

We probably don't need to discuss this card against Cave-in (the other generally accepted board sweeper used in this deck) since people that are using that card won't be using this card anyways.

[throst54]

Flamebreak hits threshed mongeese.

However Im thinking that Volcanic Fallout will greatly improve the goblin and elf matchups.
Elves have been getting some good cards in the past few sets, and you cant ignore them.

[Illissius]

Wait, why do we care if the card is uncounterable against Goblins and Elves (the latter also being a case where 3 damage might very well matter)? This card was designed against one deck and that deck is Faeries.

[throst54]

We dont care that its uncounterable, we care thats its instant speed.
Though I guess its good against CBtop and manlands?

Warchief, matron, matron, driver cant kill you in one turn now, and other such goblin shenanigans.

[Illissius]

Ah. Good point.

[Finn]

Wow, another decent sweeper. Has anyone ever tried to change the focus of the deck slightly to include several different sweepers? I figure it would slow the deck, but also make it a bit more resilient to some of its worst problems: Chalice and swarms.

[Cire]

Wow, another decent sweeper. Has anyone ever tried to change the focus of the deck slightly to include several different sweepers? I figure it would slow the deck, but also make it a bit more resilient to some of its worst problems: Chalice and swarms.


I actually Had that very Idea so I tried to make a quick decklist with that in mind

4 Rift bolt
4 Magma Jet
4 Lightning bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Chain lightning
4 Volcanic Fallout
4 Flamebreak
3 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Price of Progress
2 Smash to smithereens
2 Cursed Scroll
2 Cave in

16 Mountains
4 Barbarian Ring


It's pretty slow obviously compared to Real Burn, but with 10 sweepers it's pretty good against aggro, and with so many 3 cc spells better against Trinisphere and CB, also the volcanic fallout is good as a suprise spell against landstill (can't be countered and kills attacking mishra's or can lead to 1-2 (not that good but hey))

[GGoober]

I've been doing a lot of testing with Sulfuric Vortex as a MD card. It's given me consistent Turn4 wins (yes I know, that's fairly slow, but I still get the 6 Bolts T3 wins that we all do in burn :D). But instead of being a win-more card, Vortex is actually a card that improves the bad matchup, and is not a win-more card at all. It improves the Stax matchup tremendously, and gives great consistency for Turn4, Turn4.5 (i.e. opponent's upkeep Turn4) wins.

I've posted on MTGS about the inclusion of Sulfuric Vortex as a MD card. Here's my reasons:

1. Given 2 turns, it's a Flames of the Blood Hand, a very good burn that usually isn't run because it's not too flexible.
2. Given 3 turns, you've gotten a bigger flame rift.
3. Dodges 3Sphere, Chalice, Countertop (usually). Against Stax, this card improves your matchup tremendously since Ancient Tomb + Sulfuric Vortex = quick end to your opponent. It also shuts down angels' lifelink ability.
4. The gain life ability is just an additional pro. You usually want to use this card as a turn by turn Flame Rift. It does stop StP + Dreadnought/Goyf etc.

Regarding Sulfuric Vortex acting as a flame rift: for the experienced burn player, you know how often your life is usually around the 10-20 range when you are knocking your opponent into his coffin. And it is not surprising that the opponent, at 4 life, catches up and kills you with 2 goyfs when you're at 18-20. Sulfuric Vortex solves this problem and abuses the fact that your life > opponents life most of the time unless you're facing Goyf sligh. Play the card like an overcosted Flame Rift but it stays in play until removed, therefore hitting that last remaining life from your opponent away. Burn is the perfect deck that allows suicidal cards like Flame Rift/Vortex to be run since it's a deck that's dedicated to ignore the creature base, but just focus on that 20 life point your opponent has.

Most of the time when you draw Vortex on turn 3, you're guaranteed a turn 4.5 win (opponent's turn 4). It frees your next turn so that you can cast spells while continually doing damage.

I am not arguing about the power of Vortex since I believe I've made it clear that it's a really good sideboard card in burn. I'm arguing for its spot in the maindeck, given how it fits well in the curve at 3cc, and increasing consistencies of wins (mainly the matches you were winning but ended up losing because you burned out of burn and topdecked lands even though your life is 20 v.s. your opponent's life at 5). To fit the deck to maindeck Vortex, we need at least 19 lands, from my testing. Also, Flame Rift would have to go, but would be conveniently replaced by Price of Progress.

Just a thought. I've been playing burn for awhile, and this is the most consistent list I've had in awhile. I'm really hating Barbarian Ring sometimes. They are great when you reach Threshold and hellbent without cards, dealing that last needed 2 damage, but they are vulnerable to wastelands, weakening the manabase. This deck needs at least 2 mana to function fast, and losing a land is somewhat bad. Functioning at 1 mana is simply too slow.

I've also been testing Grim Lavamancer, and have mixed feelings about him. He's very strainous on the manabase but in a Ring-less build, he's a good source of additional damage, and playing him Turn 1, and swinging for 1 damage is similar to what Moggy does, but he gives more resources for the deck if unremoved. Not sure yet. I'm interested in testing a Ringless build with 3-4 Grim Lavamancers together with 4 Mogg Fanatics and 4 Keldon Marauders. Not sure whether going Ringless, hence avoiding the Wastelands and improving your PoP one-sidedness is worth cutting for 3-4 Grim Lavamancers that dies to everything but will be a great replacement if the opponent cannot remove him


On Volcanic Fallout (CON), I'm not a big fan of it since it doesn't kill threshed Mongeese, which is a pain in the butt if we want to improve the matchup against Thresh. It does work against the LS matchup so I recommend it as a sideboard card, while still maindecking Flamebreaks/Cave-Ins.

[Tanarin]

And it seems Burn just keep getting gifts:

Banefire X:r:
Sorcery (R)
Banefire deals X damage to target creature or player. If X is 5 or greater, Banefire can't be countered by spells or abilities and the damage can't be prevented.

Maybe a good one-of finisher in the board...Maybe even against 'still?

[heroicraptor]

If Burn gets 6 land, Burn has (or should have) lost the game.

[Mantis]

Is Ankh of Mishra any good in Burn? I know this way we derive from the ideology that no non land permanents should be played but there's not too much artifact hate running around and this can quickly deal 4~6 damage before it gets taken care off. It is a horrible lategame topdeck however and the synergy between Ankh and PoP isn't too good.

[GGoober]

I've tried Ankh Burn with Shrapnel Blasts, but it's a little too slow. Ankh will be great with Wastelands, but that would dull down the manabase. A LD Burn deck would do well with Ankh, but Red LD is too slow in this Format.

[GGoober]

New Spoiler from [CON]

Hellspark Elemental - 1r
Creature - Elemental (U)
Trample, haste
At end of turn, sacrifice Hellspark Elemental.
Unearth 1r
3/1

Interesting but Marauders is strictly better. It acts as a good 2 copies of Incinerate, but we would rather just play Incinerate. It is much better than those who advocate Spark Elemental though

[kensook]

It looks worth testing, although it would probably fit into Goyf Sligh better.

[matamagos]

with this one, marauders and spark we have many critters that we can sacrifice easily to pay some cost.

Is there some card that does something good by sacrifiying creatures???
I have thought on greater gargadon, but he is not fast enough... some other idea?

[GGoober]

Back in the old Extended 6 years back, I ran RDW with Keldon Brawlers (shittier Jotun Grunt), and Blistering Firecats etc. A good sac spell is Reckless Abandon

Reckless Abandon R
As an additional cost to play, sacrifice a creature, Reckless Abandon deals 4 damage to target creature or player.
Sorcery

It was my favorite spell back then and in the philosophy of RDW, it fits well, since you push all your damage through, and the last points, you can sac.

It might be worth running in a build with the Sparks and Keldon Marauders, but I think you need at least 14 creatures to capitalize on the card before it becomes a dead draw.

I personally wouldn't run it in the Legacy format due to Counterbalance and Chalice, which further weakens the deck.

[matamagos]

From tempest we have:

Jinxed Idol
2 Mana
Card Type: Artifact
Rules Text (Oracle): At the beginning of your upkeep, Jinxed Idol deals 2 damage to you.
Sacrifice a creature: Target opponent gains control of Jinxed Idol. (This effect doesn't end at end of turn.)

Which maybe can substitue sulfuric vortex in the sideboard. But it doesn't seem good enough.

[Darkenslight]

What abourt Hell's Thunder, and the new Hellspark Elemental spoiled on MTGS? Both have Unearth, and are relatively cheap to play; also, they both do 3 damage.

[matamagos]

In fact we are discussing Hellspark Elemental. Read the 4 or 5 newests posts.

And a burn deck will never have 5 lands to pay Hell's Thunder's unearth. We want to kill in turn 4, and we sacrifice mountains to fireblast and shard volley. 5 mana are too many.

[Curby]

Incinerate: Metagame dependent, but if your opponents pop a single fetch land in the first three turns, then one is just as good, if not better than a Flame Rift, for the turn 3 win scenerio listed above.


In my meta, I'm almost certain to see my opponents pop a Fetch within their first 3 turns; so it functions as an instant speed 4-for-2 as far as my goldfish is concerned.

I can't agree with this analysis. If you see a bunch of suicide in your meta, you can reasonably expect to win after dealing 18-19 damage, but you can't choose a weak card and rationalize its inclusion by saying it actually does more damage. It does exactly what it does, and a card that does more damage would do more damage.

Could I replace your Lightning Bolts with Shocks, and claim that because of fetchlands Shock is good enough? No, cards do what they do regardless of your opponent's life total (yeah, yeah Razor Pendulum). The only thing that changes is what your deck as a whole needs to do to win.

I get that you weren't actually saying that Incinerate does 4 damage, but rather that any further damage wouldn't be necessary in a particular case. However, a three turn kill against a live opponent is a very seldom thing. Between discard, countermagic, resource denial, opposing life gain, drawing spells that do 2 damage, and having your Fanatic/Marauder die prematurely, you will very often need more than 20 damage "in hand," so I would argue that you do in fact need all the damage you can get. Even when goldfishing, you don't always get the perfect cards, and sometimes you definitely need that last point.

I would argue against Flame Rift because it does so much damage to you, and in certain aggro-heavy metas and the mirror match that is fatal. However, to say that Incinerate hurts them just as much is just not true.

That said, I generally like your thoughts on Burn decks, and will definitely try out Cave-In in the main instead of Flamebreak. As you said, burn doesn't often see totally dead cards, but it does see wildly suboptimal cards for a given situation.

I still do like Keldon Marauders though. :tongue:

[GGoober]

@kirbysdl: That's precisely why I advocated Sulfuric Vortex in the main. The problems I had with burn is: I bring my opponent to 4-6 life and he stabilizes and counters everything or beats with goyfs.

It's not a rare occassion that you're at 18 and your opponent's at 4 and you lose. I like Vortex because it maximizes one card over many turns, and stops life-gain shennanigans. Most importantly, burn can afford that self-damage because the life gap is huge in the early game. You usually stay at 15-20 while you watch your opponent go: 20->17->13->7->4->you lose because you topdeck crap or he stabilizes with countertop/chalice

Vortex escapes both Countertop and Chalice, which are the main demons of the deck and capitilizes on the fact that burn always has more life than the opponent in the first 3 turns. Once in play, it will push through that remaining damage that is often hard to push through, in all my testing, it's a good card that improves your bad matchups and makes your better matchups a little slower, but it's definitely not a win-more card, which is why I suggest running them.

[Curby]

@kirbysdl: That's precisely why I advocated Sulfuric Vortex in the main. The problems I had with burn is: I bring my opponent to 4-6 life and he stabilizes and counters everything or beats with goyfs.

The fundamental problem with Vortex though is that it doesn't guarantee damage, and that runs against Burn's philosophy. I might still try it for kicks though. =)

[Moczoc]

It guarantees damage more than anything else. And first, it starts with burning your opponent for 2.

Like crz87 I am totally sold on Vortex. I'm personally going up to 4 in maindeck. It's just so great that it makes sure that the game will end soon and fast. Without it I lost many games with an opponent on <5 life.

[Captain Hammer]

I think Ankh of Mishra is more worthy of maindeck consideration than Sulfuric Vortex.

It deals FIVE damage to your opponent everytime they crack a fetchland.

Even if you're facing off against the handful of decks that don't play fetchlands, they usually still make land drops the first four turns.

Ankh is golden against every matchup that Vortex is golden against (stax, control etc).

So effectively, Ankh is a 2cc Sulfuric Vortex that becomes straight up broken against the 90% of the decks that play fetchlands.

Cards like Sulfuric Vortex, Ankh of Mishra, Blood Moon and Magus of the Moon make me pray that Wizards will someday print a red dark ritual. Sorcery based mana acceleration is Red's thing nowadays afterall.

Maybe if enough people write/email in to Wizards requesting it, we just might get a Blood Ritual (a red Dark Ritual).

And that card by itself would push Burn into tier one thanks to Vortex+Ankh+8 Moon effects that can now all be played turn one.

[GGoober]

Captain Hammer, I disagree,

Because I piloted Ankh Burn with MD Vortex, and unlike Vortex, Ankh is useless after turn 3. Almost useless, since burn needs 4-5 turns to win or it loses when the opponent stabilizes.

Ankh was golden when I played first and dropped it on second turn, with opponents fetching, but its effectiveness drops for every turn you delay, with either your opponent going first or you drawing it after turn 3. Vortex on the other hand is always useful whenever you play it. It doesn't get countered by Spell Snare, and avoids countertop and Chalice@2.

I can't stress how good the card is. It's enabled me to push through all the MU where my opponent is low at 3-6 life. It just sits there and deals damage throughout. If you resolve 2 Vortex, it's LOL you win. Burn is a funny deck. It capitilzes on the situation of your opponent, abusing the metagame of fetches. Ankh is a good candidate since it abuses opponent's fetches, but Ankh isn't great in a meta where Countertop/Spell snare is prevalent, nor if you topdeck it late game.

I recommend 3, not 4 Vortex. I've tested the numbers and 3 MD Vortex suits the 19land curve very well. 4 Vortex causes you to draw too many vortex early game which is useless if you can't play them.

[Captain Hammer]

I guess it really depends on your meta. But in a tuned meta where 70% of the decks play atleast 8 fetchlands, Ankh is insane.

If your opponent doesn't play out lands past their second land just to not get hit by Ankh, you gain an advantage from that too.

But I guess Vortex is great for avoiding burn's pitfalls too.

Either way, have you emailed wizards asking them to print...

Blood Ritual R
Sorcery
Add RRR to your mana pool.
Blood Ritual deals three damage to you.

yet.

That card may not seem unbalanced.

It's actually an oncolor (Rites of Flame and Seething Song prove this is a red ability now) and very thematic. The whole take three damage and bleed yourself fits in perfectly.

But in legacy, it would push Burn into tier one thanks to the turn one Ankh, Vortex, 3 Bolt, Blood Moon and Magus possibilities that it offers.

[Curby]

Really? That looks awful black to me. Red would have you sac a mountain. =)

In any case, Red's not getting a 3-for-1 ritual until black gets a 3-for-1 bolt. Meaning... keep waiting. :wink:

[FoulQ]

I have a question about the SB: Does this deck just assume autoloss to Chalice? Or is it worth it to run 3-4 shattering sprees instead of smash to smithereens...I'm confused on the replicate ability. You could do it three times and the first would be countered by chalice and then they'd have to counter it twice. With StS they'd just have to have a force or daze or whatever. Ultimately if you must must MUST destroy chalice then I think Shattering Spree is better, but wonder if anybody has opinions on this? Also, just wondering if vexing shusher is established as sideboard auto?

Here is my list right now:

(1cc)
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Mogg Fanatic

(2cc)
4 Magma Jet
3 Price of Progress
2 Incinerate

(3cc)
3 Flamebreak
3 Sulfuric Vortex

(...cc)
4 Fireblast

(land)
19 Mountain

(sideboard)
1 Price of Progress
4 Pyrostatic Pillar
4 Shattering Spree
4 Vexing Shusher
2 Cave-In

----------------
I hate hate hate HATE getting barbarian ring wastelanded. The theory of burn is to make opponent's lose a lot of their valuable tools. Wasteland is played in a bajillion decks. Getting barbarian ring wastelanded is terrible terrible bad. That extra push is now taken care of by sulfuric vortex anyway.

Depending on metagame, if there is not much ichorid, I will play 4 marauders over 4 fanatics.

Also the sideboard clearly needs some work, I have sorted that out yet. I hate counterbalance.

[Captain Hammer]

Is Blood Moon not worth sideboarding?

If it resolves, it's an autowin against 60% of the meta.

[GGoober]

It's only auto win 70% of the time if you land it turn 1-2. Most decks pack 2-4 basics just to escape moon effects. Actually ALL Thresh decks pack 3 basics now. They'll FOW or daze a turn 1 Moon, but will ignore it when it comes into play later. Burn can't play moon that fast therefore it does nothing much for it.

TBH, I hate Barb Rings too. Especially with Wastes + Stifle, it sucks. You can't afford to lose lands in Turns 1-4 in burn. I've been contemplating playing a full basic land and running 2-4 Grim Lavamancers. They are amazing as long as your opponents don't remove them. If we think about it, the removals aren't that bad on him considering that you would have dealt at least 3 damage with him hopefully (attacked once, used ability once). Not sure. He would be great against TA knowing that their only removal is Snuff out, which benefits us anyway :P

[bowvamp]

A plan that could smooth out the late game would be to run 2 scrying sheets in burn. I just absolutely love that land! It sucks vs wasteland though (just about every non-fetch, non-basic land does)

[GGoober]

It just sucks in Burn. Period.

Barbarian Ring's only problem is that it's non-basic. It adds red which is crucial in Burn. Sheets add colorless, which proves dangerous if you start with an opening hand of 2 lands (1 sheet). You cannot use Sheet until turn 3, which is horrible in the deck since you want to be playing spells. Not to mention, burn only runs 18-19 lands, so 2 sheets mean that you only have 17 snow permanents, making it a waste of slot.

[redmage]

I can't agree with this analysis. If you see a bunch of suicide in your meta, you can reasonably expect to win after dealing 18-19 damage, but you can't choose a weak card and rationalize its inclusion by saying it actually does more damage. It does exactly what it does, and a card that does more damage would do more damage.

The issue here is that you're not actually disagreeing with my analysis; you've merely created a straw-man argument to disagree with. I never made the claim that Incinerate "actually does more damage"; so that aspect of your argument is mute from the get go.

As to Incinerate being a "weak card", that's certainly debatable. The fact that it's an Instant alone gives it a strong measure for consideration when it comes to final inclusions. Instants are a precious commodity for agressive builds (my preference), and most decks contain more than 2/3rds Sorcery speed plays (lands, a few creatures, and the actual Sorceries themselves). "Agressive build" Burn players should always be looking for ways to increase their Instant/Sorcery ratio; even if just by small increments. Also, Incinerate is a "guaranteed" 3 dmg where PoP can be quite conditional turns 2-4.


I get that you weren't actually saying that Incinerate does 4 damage, but rather that any further damage wouldn't be necessary in a particular case.

Then why misrepresent my position in order to disagree with yourself? If you see little/no fetches in your meta then by all means go with another option; however, if you're quite likely to see a fetch popped within the first three turns, then Incinerate will improve your Instant/Sorcery ratio, inflict less suicide dmg, and be just as fast as Flame Rift as far as your goldfish is concerned.

When it comes to the 2 mana slot the top choices are Flame Rift, Incinerate, PoP, and Marauders. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses; and it's up to you (your playstyle) and your meta conditions to decide what the "best" choice for your deck is.


However, to say that Incinerate hurts them just as much is just not true.

Exactly, that's why I don't understand why you keep bringing up this imaginary claim in your post.



Could I replace your Lightning Bolts with Shocks, and claim that because of fetchlands Shock is good enough?

My Lightning Bolts? Not a chance; however, I would propose that one could replace some of my "filler cards" with Shocks (in a Fetch-dense meta) in order to increase the Instant/Sorcery ratio, and get closer to that "27 bolts" ideal (for agressive builds) that I mentioned earlier.

Personally, I avoid Shock because, in my meta, I already capitalize on opponents' fetches with Incinerate, and I want to avoid multiple hands with 2+ cards that are in need of that "Fetch-assist" in the first 3 turns. If someone were to test that route, I would definitely keep the numbers to a maximum of 6 Incinerates/Shocks total.



However, a three turn kill against a live opponent is a very seldom thing.

It certainly can be; however, I still prefer agressive builds that attempt to streamline towards that ideal by optimizing their chances.



That said, I generally like your thoughts on Burn decks, and will definitely try out Cave-In in the main instead of Flamebreak. As you said, burn doesn't often see totally dead cards, but it does see wildly suboptimal cards for a given situation.

Thanks, and good luck with Cave-In. If it fits your meta it can definitely be a nice asset when it comes to resource conversion and a timely early sweep without any mana investment.



I still do like Keldon Marauders though. :tongue:

LOL

If you find that it most often gets in for an unblocked attack in your meta, then you've probably made the right choice.

[Seriously]

on a side note. lightning bolt, a card that was once considered too strong, is now not that strong. but instead of printing something stronger, wizards continues to print shock. whats to come, a 1 damage spell for R ? why dont they print some solid burn spells ? because it would upset the type 2 balance too much to have some strong burn ?

R
instant
deal 3 damage to target creature or player
split second

RR
instant
deal 5 damage to target creature or player

or will lightning bolt be the ultimate 3 for R burn spell ever ?

[GUnit]

Actually ALL Thresh decks pack 3 basics now.

This is so far from the truth that I actually find it offensive. Some of the most successful threshold (and Team America, if you count it) decks in recent months have had exactly ZERO basics. Three is uncommon, and even so a blood moon is probably cutting off splash colors if it resolves early against such a deck.

The "My Deck Has The Tools To Win, So It Wins" argument is tired. In order to avoid blood moon screwing you, you need to either:

A) Counter it
B) Have the foresight to know it's coming AND draw fetchlands instead of duals, so that you can fetch out basics
C) Luck your way into drawing your basics.


Now, please bear in mind that I'm not arguing for the inclusion of Blood Moon in Burn. I couldn't care less about it.

[juventus]

on a side note. lightning bolt, a card that was once considered too strong, is now not that strong. but instead of printing something stronger, wizards continues to print shock. whats to come, a 1 damage spell for R ? why dont they print some solid burn spells ? because it would upset the type 2 balance too much to have some strong burn ?

R
instant
deal 3 damage to target creature or player
split second

RR
instant
deal 5 damage to target creature or player

or will lightning bolt be the ultimate 3 for R burn spell ever ?

Because t2 is much more important than 1.5, and both of the cards you're suggesting would be too powerful in t2.

[Omega]

Agreed with above. To print a Legacy highly playable card, they have to print it T2 first. And no way they are going to screw T2 just to make Legacy happy.

Robert

[FoulQ]

Whoa, whoa, why would you EVER consider blood moon for burn? They are already going to be fetching for basics because of PoP and because they don't necessarily need all their colors (if certain colors only function for creature removal / artifact hate / etc.). Blood Moon is terrible and will only help against Team America and some threshold (which should be a not terrible matchup in the first place).

[Seriously]

Because t2 is much more important than 1.5, and both of the cards you're suggesting would be too powerful in t2.

yeah, thats what I meant by:


because it would upset the type 2 balance too much to have some strong burn ?


ancestral recall - last in unlimited
lightning bolt - last in 4th
dark ritual - last in masques
healing salve - last in 8th
giant growth - still around

so giant growth is the only thing weak enough to reprint ? the only thing left that wouldnt completely wreak havoc in standard ? thats sad.


how about:

R
instant
deal 2 damage to target creature or player. If you played this spell during your main phase, it deals 4 damage instead.

[matamagos]

what about the debate shattering spree vs. smash to smithereens?

I think shattering is better if you have 3 lands in play, otherwise I would prefer to have smash in hand. Chalice of the void will be set in play with only one counter, so smash can deal with it. However, if our opponent has fow or daze in hand our smash will be countered, but they will not counter a spree played with 3 mana.

In the other hand playing a spree always slows us a turn, since you are not dealing any kind of damage and you are spendig 2 or 3 mana to cast it. Smash doesn't slow us so much.

[kensook]

If you know you are not going to play against multiple artifacts or control decks with problematic artifacts, play Smash to Smithereens. If not, then play Shattering Spree. It's generally safer to play with Spree because it is easier to resolve than StS, but StS brings you closer to your goal while removing the artifact.

[Pltnmngl]

So let me get this straight...Burn hasn't gotten anything worth running for the last couple sets?

[Dark_Cynic87]

You kids have lost sight of what the main goal really is:

Make as few of their cards pro-active cards relevant as possible. This means no non-basics to make both their wastes and their stifles irrelevant. No permanents other than Mogg Fanatics//Keldon Marauders and Mountains. And the final and most important rule: Make as many of your cards have the capability of being lethal as possible. No blood Moons. No Barbarian Rings. No mana accel. None of that crap.

It's believed that Shattering Spree is the best to rid yourself of chalices, 3spheres, and other pesky artifacts. There is no such thing as an auto-loss to Chalice @ 1. You have a solid enough curve that in no way is it an auto-loss. They have to chalice @ 1, 2, 3, and have out Teeg before you can consider it an auto-loss.

This Incinerate argument is stupid and pointless because no matter which card you run, they will still either pop a fetch or won't. It adds nothing to either card, nor does it take away. Incinerate is for those who aren't willing to take the risk of an extra 4 damage a turn. It's a more conservative choice than Flame Rift. Nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing wrong with Flame Rift either. It really is, as it's been stated, a meta choice.

I believe this list so far has been as tailored as it's going to be. There shouldn't be too much discussion needed as no good burn has been printed recently. There are slots that are up to personal choice, but it's easy enough to pick those according to your meta that it's largely insipid to discuss.

I think that a lot of losses given to this list are based more on poor playing decisions and a lack of searching (which shouldn't be considered anyway as it would take from the focus of the list) for the most important cards (i.e. mass creature removal, combo hate, CB removal and an overall lacking of answers that don't read "X to the dome").

Pce,

--DC

[ScatmanX]

Pltnmngl: Rift Bolt comes to mind...

[Dark_Cynic87]

Rift Bolt should be considered a staple as it's got two casting costs, and therefore gives itself a bit of versatility through Chalice and Counterbalance. Barring a turn one Trinisphere, it's Lightning Bolts//Chain Lightnings 9-12.

Also in relation to my post above, Ancient Grudge is also a decent choice, although its Flashback cost is a moot point and therefore loses a lot of it's alure as it can't handle more than one artifact. I would say that Spree is your best bet. Gets around Chalice and can take out many artifacts at once.

Pce,

--DC

[Seriously]

Pltnmngl: Rift Bolt comes to mind...


yes, rift bolt is good for dealing 3 damage in the long run. but suspend or the alternate 2R cost make it weak for instant speed targetting.

rift bolt was released October 6, 2006 in the time spirial set. since then theres been planar chaos, future sight, lorwyn, morningtide, shadowmoor, eventide, shards of alara and now conflux.

what good burn has there been ?

shard volley ? thats doo doo with fireblast.

flame javelin ? 6/RRR for 4 damage ? thats doo doo too.

am I missing something ? wheres the good solid burn ?

[Sims]

There have been a few lists that have incorporated 2-3 Flame Javelins for decent effect. Is it the most optimal burn card? No, but you take what you can get.

Hell, I still occasionally play Ogre-Dokken for the fuck of it sometimes, but Flame Javelin is a solid card. I wish it was 3-for-5 or 6 instead of 3-for-4, but again... Running it as a 2-3 of has never hurt me any time I've taken Straight Red into one of my local tourneys.

[Tanarin]

If you know you are not going to play against multiple artifacts or control decks with problematic artifacts, play Smash to Smithereens. If not, then play Shattering Spree. It's generally safer to play with Spree because it is easier to resolve than StS, but StS brings you closer to your goal while removing the artifact.

I can actually see maybe running a 2-2 split on spree and StS. I don't think it is smart to drop spree altogether, especially if you for some reason see a lot of affinity in your meta.

[Sims]

I can actually see maybe running a 2-2 split on spree and StS. I don't think it is smart to drop spree altogether, especially if you for some reason see a lot of affinity in your meta.

You can get through Affinity with just Smash, because Price of Progress makes that deck cry blood.

[heroicraptor]

Here's my list:

// Lands
19 [UNH] Mountain

// Creatures
4 [10E] Mogg Fanatic

// Spells
4 [LG] Chain Lightning
4 [U] Lightning Bolt
4 [CHK] Lava Spike
4 [TSP] Rift Bolt
4 [NE] Flame Rift
4 [10E] Incinerate
4 [FD] Magma Jet
3 [EX] Price of Progress
3 [MM] Cave-In
3 [VI] Fireblast

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [A] Red Elemental Blast
SB: 2 [IA] Pyroblast
SB: 3 [10E] Pithing Needle
SB: 2 [SHM] Smash to Smithereens
SB: 2 [GP] Shattering Spree
SB: 3 [SC] Sulfuric Vortex

I want to try Sulfuric Vortex in the main, but I don't know what I should swap out for it. Any suggestions?

[ScatmanX]

-1 or 2 flame rift
-1 or 2 Incinerate
-1 or 2 Magma Jet

fit in 2 to 3 Vortex (you have cave-in, so you can have 3 I guess)
and the 4th Fireblast

[Shugyosha]

yes, rift bolt is good for dealing 3 damage in the long run. but suspend or the alternate 2R cost make it weak for instant speed targetting.

rift bolt was released October 6, 2006 in the time spirial set. since then theres been planar chaos, future sight, lorwyn, morningtide, shadowmoor, eventide, shards of alara and now conflux.

what good burn has there been ?

shard volley ? thats doo doo with fireblast.

flame javelin ? 6/RRR for 4 damage ? thats doo doo too.

am I missing something ? wheres the good solid burn ?

The "no more than 4 card with the same name except basics" goes back to several things, one of them being the "42 Bolts, 18 Moiuntains" deck which is the prototype of an autopilot deck. Its not unbeatable but its mere existence would be rediculous. It takes any decision making out of MTG.

[Curby]

shard volley ? thats doo doo with fireblast

flame javelin ? 6/RRR for 4 damage ? thats doo doo too.


That first one seems to be more of a knee-jerk reaction than the result of testing. When I tested 18 land (2 being Barb Ring), 4 Fireblast, and 2 Shard Volley, I still saw more land than I needed with 12 total sac effects in the deck (Fireblast counts for 2). I refuse to go to less than 18 land because then I have to mulligan too often with 0- and 1-land openers. Anyway, if you fear having too many sac-land spells and too few land, that's exactly why newer lists prefer Cave-In over Flamebreak: pitch what's least useful in any given game.

I agree that Flame Javelin is sub-par. I'd prefer the tricks of Flames of the Blood Hand or Pulse of the Forge over the ability to hit creatures. 4 damage spent on creatures is a lot to not spend on the opp. (but it still can't kill Tombstalker).

More thoughts on Sulfuric Vortex: If only it guaranteed damage when it hit, e.g. 2 damage when it comes into play, and 2 damage to all players during MY upkeep. The only saving grace is that people are unlikely to side in (or keep in) enchantment removal just for 4 cards in your deck, but "splash" damage from BEB and such will still hurt. Again, any non-land permanent must guarantee damage to merit inclusion.


Instants are a precious commodity for agressive builds (my preference), and most decks contain more than 2/3rds Sorcery speed plays (lands, a few creatures, and the actual Sorceries themselves). "Agressive build" Burn players should always be looking for ways to increase their Instant/Sorcery ratio; even if just by small increments.

I certainly agree with that. I once beat a ScepterChant deck on the back of my Instants, cast during my Upkeep. =)


I never made the claim that Incinerate "actually does more damage"; so that aspect of your argument is mute from the get go.
...
Then why misrepresent my position in order to disagree with yourself? If you see little/no fetches in your meta then by all means go with another option; however, if you're quite likely to see a fetch popped within the first three turns, then Incinerate will improve your Instant/Sorcery ratio, inflict less suicide dmg, and be just as fast as Flame Rift as far as your goldfish is concerned.
...
I still prefer agressive builds that attempt to streamline towards that ideal by optimizing their chances.

First of all:


In my meta, I'm almost certain to see my opponents pop a Fetch within their first 3 turns; so it functions as an instant speed 4-for-2 as far as my goldfish is concerned.

Again, I realize that your main point is that you need to do 19, not that Incinerate actually does 4. The first problem I have is that you then say "well, Incinerate is good enough because we don't really need 20." You could substitute almost any 1-less-damage card with that argument. E.g. put the Flame Rifts back in instead of Incinerate, and put the Shocks in instead of Lightning Bolt. The deck as a whole still does the same amount of damage. Regardless of what your deck needs to do to win, each individual card still just does what it says, and any excuse for the power level of one card could be used as an excuse to include another. You can certainly run Incinerate for its strengths, but its weaknesses are still weaknesses.

In this post you once again mention that you optimize for the goldfish. My second counterargument is that if anything, we should expect a need for more than 20 damage when goldfishing for accurate results. What you hope to be a kill oftentimes isn't, because of the aforementioned countermagic, lifegain, discard effects, resource denial, etc. that run rampant in Magic. In other words, if you're expecting the imaginary opponent to help you kill him, you should expect that opponent to hinder you as well. Otherwise, just goldfish for 20 and call it even.


If you find that it most often gets in for an unblocked attack in your meta, then you've probably made the right choice.

Yeah, my opponents tend to be hesitant to block my 3/3 early on, esp. with Cave-In in the deck. That's another reason to include Cave-In, of course: Flamebreak kills my Marauders. Plus, he does tie up the ground game on the opponent's turn before he can attack, and any hesitation on the part of my opponent is a good thing.


It takes any decision making out of MTG.

It would still lose to the deck with 5 fewer Bolts and 5 more Fireblasts, and anyway you still need to decide whether or not to mull. :laugh:

Speaking of mulling, are there any 4-land openers you'd keep (pre-board)? When playing burn I've started to throw back anything except hands with 2 or 3 land.


If you know you are not going to play against multiple artifacts or control decks with problematic artifacts, play Smash to Smithereens. If not, then play Shattering Spree. It's generally safer to play with Spree because it is easier to resolve than StS, but StS brings you closer to your goal while removing the artifact.

I'd simplify this to "use Spree in a meta with a lot of Chalice, and Affinity, and StS otherwise." As I (and others) mentioned many pages back, the joy with StS is that we can side it in during marginal cases where they have utility artifacts that don't really break us, e.g. Aether Vial or some equipment. In general we're more cautious siding in Spree because sometimes we'd rather let them keep their artifact and do more damage instead. At the cost of being more easily disrupted, StS gets around that problem and can therefore be used more often.

Shattering Spree used to get around Countertop is arguable. You're not going to destroy many tops because they can hide it on top of their library in response, at which point we ask what artifacts do they have that are must-kill?

Shattering Spree against other control is also arguable. What artifacts do they run that are must-kill? Dreadnought?

[kensook]

Shattering Spree used to get around Countertop is arguable. You're not going to destroy many tops because they can hide it on top of their library in response, at which point we ask what artifacts do they have that are must-kill?

Shattering Spree against other control is also arguable. What artifacts do they run that are must-kill? Dreadnought?

Sorry to be unclear, I didn't mean Countertop by control with problematic artifacts, but specifically Dreadstill and Painter's Combo. Also control decks with chalice (some MUC builds come to mind) might also be a problem with just StS. But yeah, I agree with your statements about StS vs. Spree, and StS will probably be a better choice in most metas.

[Seriously]

The "no more than 4 card with the same name except basics" goes back to several things, one of them being the "42 Bolts, 18 Moiuntains" deck which is the prototype of an autopilot deck. Its not unbeatable but its mere existence would be rediculous. It takes any decision making out of MTG.


burn is pretty much autopilot now, I dont see what harm a few more solid burn spells would do. magic has many cards, that are essentially the same card with a different name too. relentless rats is rediculous, I'd rather have relentless burn.

relentless rat is relentless.

[Darkenslight]

Is there ny potential in Lightning Storm from Coldsnap? 3 damage +2 per land chucked seems quite strong; only downside being that if they have more land than you, you're boned.

[Curby]

Is there ny potential in Lightning Storm from Coldsnap? 3 damage +2 per land chucked seems quite strong; only downside being that if they have more land than you, you're boned.

Our builds tend to be pretty land-light and we sac them to Fireblast (and possibly B Ring/Shard Volley) as it is. If you ever get an opener with 4+ land you should mull it anyway: it's much more likely that you'll get a better grip of 6 than draw and win on the back of your Lightning Storm. In short, even if the opponent couldn't send it back to you (and note the popularity of Loam now), it'd still suck.

Also a counterspell results in a many-to-1 card advantage play for them.

If you want a 3-drop that's conditional, try Browbeat first. But I'd rather run Flames of the Blood Hand or Pulse of the Forge as better 3-drops.

[bowvamp]

ok, so the build that I'm running right now is as follows:

4 Rishadan Port
17 Mountain
4 Price of Progress
4 Lava Spike
4 Fireblast
4 Blood Moon
4 Rift Bolt
4 Magma Jet
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Cave-In
3 Active Volcano
SB: 4 Plague Boiler
SB: 4 Sun Droplet
SB: 4 Smash to Smithereens

It runs a megaton of nonbasic hate, just how I like it. The problematic decks that do play basics play islands, so your active volcanos are uber-sinkholes. I am playing plague boiler just in case I play a deck like stax, chalice.dec, or whatever I feel the need to board it in against. I really like Cave-In, because it takes some of my situational cards and puts them to a good use. I run rishadans because they allow me to have an ok late game. Blood moon is awesome because of how broad a spectrum of decks fear it.

[Lcpdenijs]

@ bowvamp:
Nice build. Can you also tell us what results you get against the current metagame?

[georgjorge]

Has anyone tried Sirocco in the side against blue yet ? It would act as a MUCH better Flame Rift (whatever they discard is one less counter for your burn, or one less draw spell to get that counter in their hand). It's even an instant. Spells which give your opponent choices are sketchy (I don't like Browbeat either), but an opponent having 2-3 blue cards in hand has to make a pretty tough choice.

[bowvamp]

I believe that sirocco has chronic brainstorm before sickness, they hide their spells, and make yours worthless...

[Knuckles29]

Is noone talking about Hellspark Elemental? If it was mentioned I missed it. Because it is basically a Bolt with Flashback

[GGoober]

I might write up a primer for Red Sligh. The old Extended (7 years back) list I played ran a bunch of cheap 1 drops (Jackal Pups) and relied on Reckless Abandon for good "fling" damage.

If I were to run a Sligh version of Burn, I would probably play:
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Spark Elemental
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Reckless Abandon

The only thing I hate about Hellspark in Burn is that it's 2cc, which clogs up all of our 1cc plays. Marauders is still much better in my opinion.

[Knuckles29]

I'm going to disagree. You get 5 tops out of Marauders. 6 from Hellspark. The haste part is relivant b/c it lets you time the swing. The trample means no chump blocks from say a 2/2 Hound. I just think that it fills the 2 drop creature as burn role better IMO.

[GGoober]

Sure it does 1 more damage, but that's accounting that you play him on Turn 2 without being killed (Fanatic, StP). He follows up nicely on Turn3, but what I'm saying in Burn, you're more likely to be emptying your hand as fast as you can and bring their life down low in Turns 3-4. Marauder has the great ability to be useful even in topdeck mode since it's at least 2 damage. Hellspark is real crappy in topdeck mode mid-game since your opponent would have had a Goyf in play by then,

Although, now that I think about it, if your opponent has goyf, he probably would have swung at you (assuming he assumes that you're playing traditional burn, i.e. no creatures with haste), so that Hellspark might be useful.

I'm not dismissing Hellspark. I'm just saying that under most situation, Keldon Marauders is more reliable in pushing 2-5 damage, while Hellspark is less reliable at pushing 6 damage. He probably can get 2-4 across. I do like the extra card advantage built in the card. Like I said, I'll write up a primer for Red Sligh soon. Reckless Abandon is amazing in that list with 8 mini-ball lightnings :)

[Darkenslight]

I believe that sirocco has chronic brainstorm before sickness, they hide their spells, and make yours worthless...

Please remember that Sirocco also causes loss of life, not damage.

Are there any cards from Conflux in the deck that would help Burn, aside form Hellspark?

[Eseph]

Please remember that Sirocco also causes loss of life, not damage.

Are there any cards from Conflux in the deck that would help Burn, aside form Hellspark?

Aside from Hellspark not being worthwhile you mean?

The only card in Conflux that really shows promise for this deck is Volcanic Fallout as a possible substitute for Flamebreak, depending on how important hitting flyers, or hitting elves at instant speed is to you. The uncounterable effect is interesting, though will only be relevant the first time you use it to kill off a couple Mishra's Factory through a CB.

[heroicraptor]

I was thinking about Burn's awful combo matchup, and I came up with this abomination:

4x Bloodstained Mire
4x Badlands
4x Blood Crypt
7x Mountain

4x Mogg Fanatic

4x Thoughtseize
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Lava Spike
4x Rift Bolt
2x Flame Rift
3x Incinerate
4x Magma Jet
3x Price of Progress
2x Cave-In
3x Fireblast

Sideboard
2x Pyroblast
3x Red Elemental Blast
3x Pithing Needle
2x Smash to Smithereens
2x Shattering Spree
3x Hymn to Tourach

Thoughts?

For comparison, here's my Mono decklist for comparison:
19x Mountain

4x Mogg Fanatic

4x Chain Lightning
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Lava Spike
4x Rift Bolt
3x Flame Rift
3x Incinerate
3x Magma Jet
3x Price of Progress
3x Sulfuric Vortex
3x Cave-In
3x Fireblast

Sideboard
1x Flame Rift
1x Incinerate
1x Magma Jet
3x Red Elemental Blast
2x Pyroblast
3x Pithing Needle
2x Smash to Smithereens
2x Shattering Spree

[scrow213]

What do you do against Chalice or Trinisphere?

[heroicraptor]

Shattering Spree and Smash to Smithereens
I'm running 2x of each while I test to see which I prefer.

[scrow213]

Shattering Spree is better.

[bowvamp]

Please remember that Sirocco also causes loss of life, not damage.

Are there any cards from Conflux in the deck that would help Burn, aside form Hellspark?

Uhm, what exactly does that mean? Because as far as I remember all I said was that sirocco is bad against decks playing brainstorm... they put it on the stack in response and make you cry...:cry: Hellspark won't help burn. Wizards should seriously throw some nice burn spell into some random expansion that has nothing special to do in the color red :tongue:.

EDIT: Actually hellspark might help burn, I just don't think it will.
EDIT2:Shattering spree is actually worse vs. decks that run mana artifacts. Nothing makes combo feel the burn (get it?) like a good 2 for one with an incinerate to the face tacked on! (the 2 for one is chrome mox...) And your plan vs. chalice at 1 is to pitch those cards to cave-in, and try to get by with 2cc or higher cards. Your plan vs. trinisphere is to pray for Smash to Smithereens and in the meanwhile try to play only the most worthy cards at their new 3cc cost. Certainly winnable...

[scrow213]

Why would you want Smash to Smithereens vs Trinisphere? Or Chalice? Either way, they will cost the same. You get a Shock tacked on, but if they are running either of these artifacts, chances are they are running more as well. So why not spend :r::r::r: under Trinisphere and take out 3 artifacts, instead of :2::r: to hit one and deal 2 damage?

[Squee_6]

What do you think about Browbeat? Do you never have the Problem of an (nearly) empty hand?

[scrow213]

I strayed away from 3cc spells in burn as much as possible. I ran 18 lands, and between Shard Volley and Fireblast, I almost never had 3 open mana. Although :2::r: for 5 damage isn't a bad deal.

[heroicraptor]

Why would you want Smash to Smithereens vs Trinisphere? Or Chalice? Either way, they will cost the same. You get a Shock tacked on, but if they are running either of these artifacts, chances are they are running more as well. So why not spend :r::r::r: under Trinisphere and take out 3 artifacts, instead of :2::r: to hit one and deal 2 damage?

Smash does 3 damage.

Did anyone actually look at the first list i posted?

[scrow213]

Smash does 3 damage.

Did anyone actually look at the first list i posted?

My mistake, I should probably RTFC next time. Sorry. Anyway, on to your list. I would personally play Mono Red, because with a low curve you don't want to get screwed with Wastelands. Or B2B. You just don't have enough lands to make that work.

As for the Mono Red list, I personally think 4x Price of Progress is the right amount. It is too good against too many decks. I also play 4x Fireblast and 4x Shard Volley, as I try to maximize my 3-for-1 burn spells. Lastly, I would try a couple of Barbarian Ring in your deck in place of Mountains. I always played them and liked knowing there was a (nearly) uncounterable Shock on the board.

[bowvamp]

Have you ever played against stax? Smash to smithereens works early as well as late. If you hit their mana artifacts as stated before, they get pwned. Umm, also I'm not sure about replicate because it seems to me that it copies the spell, not increases it's cc. I'm not sure but to me it looks like you'll be paying 2R to kill 1 artifact...

Shard Volley is pretty much always gonna be worse than shock. Sure it's a 3 for 1 burn, but if you play it t1 or t2 it'll void another 3 for 1. Plus, you want to be saving the mountains for fireblast. Barb. Ring is a mountain that will deal more damage to you than the opponent and has a lategame shock built in. Tell me if I'm missing something, but why is this better than just running a mountain? (burn should never hit 7 spells in the yard before killing the opponent)

[scrow213]

Have you ever played against stax? Smash to smithereens works early as well as late. If you hit their mana artifacts as stated before, they get pwned. Umm, also I'm not sure about replicate because it seems to me that it copies the spell, not increases it's cc. I'm not sure but to me it looks like you'll be paying 2R to kill 1 artifact...

Shard Volley is pretty much always gonna be worse than shock. Sure it's a 3 for 1 burn, but if you play it t1 or t2 it'll void another 3 for 1. Plus, you want to be saving the mountains for fireblast. Barb. Ring is a mountain that will deal more damage to you than the opponent and has a lategame shock built in. Tell me if I'm missing something, but why is this better than just running a mountain? (burn should never hit 7 spells in the yard before killing the opponent)

I pilot Stax, actually. Mana artifacts? You mean Mox Diamond? That's hardly "pwned". Yes, replicate increases the cost of the spell, of that I am certain. You can pay :r::r::r: for Spree and hit 3 artifacts under Trinisphere. Not to mention that Stax has no problem dropping both Chalice @1 and 2, with Trinisphere to boot. If you make it to late game with Stax, you are in bad shape, given the small number of lands you run and Stax's plethora of ways to wreck your mana (Armageddon, Smokestack, Trinisphere increasing costs, and to a lesser extent Ghost Quarter, which reduces the likelihood of drawing any additional lands).

As far as never hitting 7 spells in the yard, how do you plan to win then? 7 spells at 3 damage each = 21 damage. Count the fact that Shock, Mogg Fanatic, etc are not 3 damage, plus Fireblast and Shard Volley adding lands to the yard, increasing to Thresh, and Ring easily comes online.

Just stating that Spree can't be stopped by Chalice, and Smash to Smithereens can. Once it is locked out, you have no chance at recovering from Trinisphere/Smokestack.

[kensook]

Sure Spree is better than StS against stax, but it's also true that StS will be better against most other decks. Unless you have numerous decks playing chalice in your meta I would go with StS for the 3 damage (or maybe the split like some people do).

Price of Progress definitely should be played as a 4-of.

[bowvamp]

Sure Spree is better than StS against stax, but it's also true that StS will be better against most other decks. Unless you have numerous decks playing chalice in your meta I would go with StS for the 3 damage (or maybe the split like some people do).

Price of Progress definitely should be played as a 4-of.

I completely agree. PoP has always been a 4 of. Also, about those 7 cards in the yard for a perfect game, well guess what? It's just that! It's a perfect play! You have won. Why run a land that damages you? I mean, it just fuels the fire as far as your control matchup goes. Turn 3 with 7 cards in the yard pretty much means you win. It just absolutely sucks to have to play this land early in the game. The one advantage I see is if you topdeck it late game, it's better than your average mountain. But lategame, your topdecks should mostly be determined by Magma Jet. If you had 7 cards in the yard and you saw this guy and a burn spell with jet, which would you choose?

[scrow213]

I completely agree. PoP has always been a 4 of. Also, about those 7 cards in the yard for a perfect game, well guess what? It's just that! It's a perfect play! You have won. Why run a land that damages you? I mean, it just fuels the fire as far as your control matchup goes. Turn 3 with 7 cards in the yard pretty much means you win. It just absolutely sucks to have to play this land early in the game. The one advantage I see is if you topdeck it late game, it's better than your average mountain. But lategame, your topdecks should mostly be determined by Magma Jet. If you had 7 cards in the yard and you saw this guy and a burn spell with jet, which would you choose?

I am saying you will always hit 7 cards in the yard before you win, not just on a perfect draw. You basically can't win without hitting threshold. What if you have to throw a burn spell at a lackey or something? Not every spell you draw will be aimed at your opponent, and you will inevitably hit threshold, making it better than a mountain.

[bowvamp]

You really don't get how much taking 1 for a mountain effect is... it is even wastable.
"will always hit 7 cards in the yard before you win" is so not true, it is scary. You yourself gave the perfect scenario and you've already won at 7 in the yard. Even when you hit threshold it's still -1 mountain for fireblast. Even if you hit threshold, it is essentially a 2 mana shock (magma jet minus scry) because it costs 1 plus the 1 mana you're not getting from it when you sac it.

[scrow213]

Even if you hit threshold, it is essentially a 2 mana shock (magma jet minus scry) because it costs 1 plus the 1 mana you're not getting from it when you sac it.

It's a two-mana Shock that takes the place of a land, not a spell. So you are not losing a spell for it, you are losing a land. What this means is if you run out of steam, and you topdeck a land, there is a chance it can win you the game instead of... not. All I am saying is that I have always liked it, except the rare instances when I draw both opening hand. Considering the odds of that, I think it is worth the slots.

[ScatmanX]

Why do you say Shard Volley is 3 for 1? only mana right? because costs two cards. If I played burn, I would run 1 nonetheless.
As for Jet, guess that 2 is right, as said above.
And PoP, really, theres no right number. Depends too much on the meta.

[Pltnmngl]

What do you guys recommend for a meta that PoP is useless in?

[scrow213]

I guess that depends what your meta really is. What decks do you see a lot of?

[Pltnmngl]

I'm part of a pretty young community. Not many non-basics around here. Pretty hodge-podge.

[scrow213]

I'm part of a pretty young community. Not many non-basics around here. Pretty hodge-podge.

Well do you see a lot of high-caliber decks, or any of the "Decks to Beat" or is it all just random homebrew.dec?

[ScatmanX]

Goblins
Eva Green
Combo
The Rock
Merfolk
MonoU
Faeries
the mighty queen
sui black
Arent gratly affected by PoP...

[bowvamp]

Umm, what's the mighty queen? I'm pretty sure that eva green, some builds of goblins, some builds of mermen, and the rock run a fair amount of non-basics. I would suggest running 4 PoP in pretty much any meta as this is my favorite card in burn, but if your meta is tribal/combo, run another deck!

[jjjoness']

the mighty queen -> probably Quinn.
In this meta I would play PoP in the side, since it's still good against some decks. Also you should play at least 4 boardsweepers in the main, I'd prefer 4 Flamebreak. This is really nuts against Gobs, Merfolk and Faeries. Actually your meta is pretty nice for burn, no Chalice.dec, no Counterbalance.dec and a lot of controldecks that autolose to burn.

[Pltnmngl]

Well do you see a lot of high-caliber decks, or any of the "Decks to Beat" or is it all just random homebrew.dec?

Mostly home-brew with a little goblins sprinkled in there.

[scrow213]

Mostly home-brew with a little goblins sprinkled in there.

I guess it is hard to say without knowing what these decks are running. Flamebreak or Volcanic Fallout(?) seem like they make good choices, depending on what creatures you see (Goblins, Bob, Mongoose, Kird Ape etc). But like I said, without knowing what the decks are or how they operate, it is hard to say what would really work.

[bowvamp]

Since it's home-brew + goblins, I have come up with a radical new idea. Run this:

4 Flamebreak
4 Pyroclasm
4 Rough/Tumble
4 Lava Spike
4 Fireblast
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Magma Jet
22 Mountain

Play around with this, it is great against the random hombebrew (normally revolves around creatures) and goblins. Rough/Tumble is a pyroclasm for decks that are bad against pyroclasm, and an answer to any of the angels/dragons/other flying guys you may see.

[bowvamp]

Hmm, well if you insist (I doubt they'd be dead for long in his meta)
-4 Rough/Tumble
+4 Cave-In

[Jason]

I played in a 29-person GP Trial tournament on Saturday in Madison, WI and decided to go with the most non-interactive deck I could with my card pool - Burn.

I have had this deck built for quite some time and haven't had a chance to play it any tournaments and I did zero play testing before the tournament, so I'm certain I did not perform as well as I could have.

Here is the deck I played:

17 Snow-Covered Mountain
3 Barbarian Ring
3 Browbeat
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
2 Flame Rift
3 Flamebreak
2 Incinerate
4 Magma Jet
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Rift Bolt
2 Smash to Smithereens

Sideboard
3 Mogg Fanatic
4 Pyrostatic Pillar
3 Sirocco
2 Smash to Smithereens
3 Sulfuric Vortex

Round 1 - Affinity
Game 1, I lost the die roll so my opponent played first. He led out with Disciple of the Vault and Ornithopter. I shot him 3 to the face on my turn 1. His turn 2 went City of Brass Disciple and Worker and poke for 1. My turn 2, I double bolted him. So he was at 10 and I was at 19. He attacked and casts Atog and plays Frogmite. I didn't kill him my next turn as I and he goes nuts with Atog and Fling. I should have won game 1, but I miscounted damage and went for Browbeat instead of just winning, so we went to game 2.

I brought in 2 Smash to Smithereens and took out 2 Browbeat. This game was very similar to the first - a race. Only this time he didn't get out Atog or Ravager and a turn 3 Flamebreak wrecked his day. Unfortunately the Flamebreak didn't kill the Ornithopter which the next turn, my opponent top-decked Cranial Plating and swung in for something like 8. I ended up throwing a Magma Jet at the Ornithopter the next turn and burned him out by turn 6.

Game 3 was exactly the same, except he had no Ornithopter this time. Turn 3 Flamebreak and turn 4 Fireblast for the win.

1-0-0

Round 2 - RG Vial Goblins
Game 1, he led with Goblin Lackey. I burned him for 3. Turn 2, he brought in Warchief through Lackey. He played a Piledriver and passed turn. I passed my turn 2, saving a Magma Jet for the Piledriver (I wasn't expecting to throw burn at creatures so much!). Next turn I burned him for near-lethal and found a Fireblast for the win by turn 6.

Game 2, he led out with a Goblin Lackey. I burned him for 3. He attacked with Lackey and brought in Kiki-Jiki (?). My turn 2, I passed turn. He played Pyrostatic Pillar and I responded with double Lightning Bolt to his face. He attacked and brought in Siege Gang with Lackey. My turn 3, I played Flamebreak (shot myself for 5...blasted Pillar) and wiped his board. He played another Pyrostatic Pillar and I couldn't find anything except Flame Rift for the next two turns, so I just waited until Fireblast came along for the win.

2-0-0

Round 3 - TES/ANT (I can't tell the difference)
Game 1, he won the roll. He plays land and says go. I play Lava Spike. He untaps, plays a land and wins through LED/Infernal Tutor/IGG.

Game 2, I board in 4 Pyrostatic Pillar and take out 3 Browbeat and a Smash to Smithereens (I believe). I mulligan to six and end up keeping a hand of:
2 Mountain
1 Chain Lightning
1 Fireblast
1 Pyrostatic Pillar
1 Magma Jet
Turn 1, I play Chain Lightning for 3. He draws, plays a land, double rituals Ad Nauseum and wins that turn. Super.

2-1-0

Round 4 - Aggro Loam
Game 1, let's just say Price of Progress wins games.

Game 2, I stupidly sideboard out the 2 Smash to Smithereens for 2 Sulfuric Vortex. He plays Zuran Orb and has the Loam engine going. I can't win and he burns me out with Seismic Assault.

Game 3, I bring back in 4 Smash to Smithereens and take out the 2 Sulfuric Vortex, 1 Browbeat and 1 Flamebreak. I lead out with 3 to the face. He cycles. My turn two, I pass turn. His turn 2, he plays Chalice at 1 and I end-of-turn Smash it. My turn 3, I again pass the turn. He plays a land, cycles and plays Life from the Loam. I end-of-turn play Price of Progress for 6. My turn, play Price of Progress for 6, Lightning Bolt for 3 and Fireblast for 4. He showed me he was trying to slow-roll a Zuran Orb and I say "Thank you for that".

3-1-0

Round 5 - RU CounterBalance-Top featuring Progenitus via Show and Tell
We drew into the top 8, but played it out for fun. Counterbalance + Top equals bad news for Burn (but I knew that going in). Game 1, he had Counterbalance and no top and I burned him out; he actually attempted to counter a Flame Rift with Progenitus on one of the blind Counterbalance. Game 2, he had CBT going and I was going to drop Sulfuric Vortex on turn 3, but he dropped Show and Tell into Progenitus on his turn 3 instead. Game 3, he had Counterbalance and no top, but with Brainstorm and Telling Time (what?!) he was able to stop me and Progenitus ended up smashing face for the win. I did indeed join the Facebook group for people who have been killed by Progenitus.

3-1-1

Top 8
RG Vial Goblins (not the same person)
Game 1, he had the nuts. Turn 1, Vial. Turn 2 double Lackey. Turn 3, Vial in Piledriver and play Warchief. His Lackey hit Ringleader and another Piledriver. I couldn't hit the third mana for Flamebreak so his creatures turned sideways at my face for the win.

Game 2, I boarded in 2 Mogg Fanatic and 1 Smash to Smithereens and took out 3 Browbeat. Turn 3 Flamebreak and turn 4 double Fireblast took him down.

Game 3, he led out with turn 1 Vial. I played Chain Lightning. His turn, he played a Piledriver. My turn, I passed turn. He put Lackey into play with Vial. His turn 3, he played Port swung for 4 and put Ringleader into play with Lackey and found Matron. He passed the turn to which I cast Magma Jet. My turn 3, he Ported me which I responded with Lightning Bolt from the land getting tapped. I should have played Mogg Fanatic that turn, but I instead stupidly played Flame Rift, putting him at 7 (he fetched once). I had a Fireblast in hand yet too. He put nothing into play with Vial. His turn 4, he put a counter on Vial, played Matron, found Warchief, put it in play and played another Lackey and swung for the fences. I cast Fireblast on Piledriver as a last-ditch effort but he ended up winning the next turn anyway. I believe I could have taken him to a draw if I would have played the Fanatic, but I didn't. After the match, he did tell me he actually tested against Burn (to which I was thoroughly shocked...who tests against Burn? Honestly)

If I would have won, I believe I would have ended up playing Goblins the next round in the top 8 (piloted by a significantly worse player than this one) and possibly 42 Land in the finals, so I am sort of upset I didn't win, as 42 Land seems like a bye for Burn. I didn't stay after I lost, so I'm not 100% sure that is correct. The top 8 consisted of myself with Burn, 2x Goblins decks, 42 Land, TES/ANT (the same one I lost to in the Swiss), CBT Progenitus, and two decks I'm unsure of.

What I learned: Browbeat is less than optimal in these types of tournaments. I would have been better suited to cut them and add 2x Shard Volley and 1x Flamebreak. I was never really short land, where Shard Volley was going to cripple me. And that 3 damage could have really helped. Plus, for the aggressive matches, I really did need the board sweeper. I didn't run Volcanic Fallout mostly because I didn't have any, but if I did, I don't know if I would have played it anyway - the 3 damage was significant in at least one game as it pulled the opponent down closer to lethal. It was a good time, and I figured I'd let people know Burn is still a viable deck to be scared of.

[bowvamp]

first off, I'm seeing a sudden resurgence of browbeat. Come on guys, it's a 3 mana spell. That means in order to be worth it's salt it gotsa do 9 damage. That or have a boardsweeping effect.

Next, I have been pleasantly surprised by how good fulminator mage is in this deck. He is my lategame clock that has a good sac effect. Some use fanatic, I use fulminator. He is used in the same slot as blood moon was. Anyone else have any testing done recently?

Also to the above poster my recommended changes to your list:
as you said cut the browbeat.
+1 mountain. (it'll make you more consistent)
+2 take a tangent cards. (you need to venture into unknown territory, I know this from experience)
-2 Incinerate (there is better, but even that's not good)
+2 more tangent cards.
-2 StS (better in the board)
+2 take a tangents(they're good for ju!)

[Pltnmngl]

Tell me someone tried this at Chicago. Please?

[Pltnmngl]

What do you guys think about this?

3 Sulfuric Vortex
2 Pyrostatic Pillar

4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Flame Rift
4 Flamebreak

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Chain Lightning
4 Incinerate
4 Magma Jet

19 Mountain

4 Price of Progress
3 Pithing Needle
2 Smash to Smithereens
2 Shattering Spree
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
2 Cursed Scroll

My goal was to maximize resource advantage (both life, permanent and virtual card advantage) while minimizing player interaction and keeping on a slight budget.

[Tacosnape]

For reference, I've been tinkering around with the white splash. Helix is always nice in races. Ethersworn Canonist helps against combo, and Jotun Grunt is fantastic against Goyf, Survival, or anything that just boarded out all its creature removal.

4 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Plateau
4 Mountain
2 Chrome Mox

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

4 Lightning Helix
4 Incinerate
4 Price of Progress
4 Magma Jet
3 Flame Rift

4 Fireblast
3 Flamebreak

SB:
4 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Jotun Grunt
4 Vexing Shusher
3 Smash to Smithereens

[NecroYawgmoth]

White-Splash is a nice idea, but I dislike the Chrome Moxes

...what about Oblivion Ring instead of Incinerate...

...it helps in the Damagerace as it removes Goyfs or such big Threats (it also removes CoP:Red)

YawG

[Paradigm Shift]

If you go white splash for targeted removal, try Path to Exile. It's the perfect StP for Burn.

On that note, don't go white for removal.

[bigbear102]

For reference, I've been tinkering around with the white splash. Helix is always nice in races. Ethersworn Canonist helps against combo, and Jotun Grunt is fantastic against Goyf, Survival, or anything that just boarded out all its creature removal.

4 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Plateau
4 Mountain
2 Chrome Mox

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

4 Lightning Helix
4 Incinerate
4 Price of Progress
4 Magma Jet
3 Flame Rift

4 Fireblast
3 Flamebreak

SB:
4 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Jotun Grunt
4 Vexing Shusher
3 Smash to Smithereens

Taking a deck that has no real CA and adding Chrome Mox probably isn't a great idea. Post board it gets better, but I don't think it's worth it. Lotus Petal would almost be better in that slot, as after your 2nd land you don't really want to see any more. That is also why I have gone from Flamebreak to Pyroclasm. There are a lot fewer Mongeese running around and more Faeries/Elves.

I also like the white splash in this deck, it gives you a much better SB against the tough matches. Jotun Grunt is also playable MD, but that takes away the surprise factor.

[Garban]

Hi all! ^^

White splash? I think that´s a bad idea. It is nice to play with a solid mana base and in any case, i would prefer green splash for Krosan grip. And i would also prefer to play RG sligh in that case, because if you get a worse mana base, i think it´s better to run creatures. So I think this deck is and must continue being monored.


Path to Exile, Jotun grunt? You should win before Tarmo scares you. Relic is great against decks that run Tarmo like Canadian or Team America and you can “recover” that card. In my opinion, cards that don´t make damage like pyroclasm or path to exile… are really bad in this deck. I think you should run volcanic fallout instead. On the other hand I find my opponents usually don´t take out STP in g2, g3 so it´s not easy to surprise with any creature :tongue:

About Ethersworn Canonist… countetop is very problematic but it should also prevent us for many combo decks. But if i waited for many countertop and combo decks… i wouldn´t play burn… xD Any case, you can run Pyrostatic Pillar


I would like to know about the deck´s history. Surely you would find it strange there, but, is there any relation with the deck builder Seth Burn and the name of this deck? :confused: This deck bornes with the introduction of legacy, right? Any reference old list?

[rufus]

I would like to know about the deck´s history. Surely you would find it strange there, but, is there any relation with the deck builder Seth Burn and the name of this deck? :confused: This deck bornes with the introduction of legacy, right? Any reference old list?

The original burn deck is something like:
20xMountain
40xLightning Bolt
(Traditionally this is referred to as the lightning bolt deck.)
It effectively predates organized competitive constructed play.

Although it's actually weak compared to other decks possible with the card pool of that era, it was a popular example of the sort of deck that necessitated the 'four card rule' because it is much easier to assemble than 25 Lotus, 25 Timetwister, 10 Lightning Bolt.

I recall taking 2nd in a (relatively small) Type 1.5 tournament with a bauble burn deck after defeating a Necropotence deck and a Turbo-Stasis (Howling Mine & Arcane Denial) deck in the late 90's.

Notably, burn has always been a second tier deck.

[Pltnmngl]

No critiques on my deck?

[4eak]

@ Pltnmngl


No critiques on my deck?


3 Sulfuric Vortex
2 Pyrostatic Pillar

4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Flame Rift
4 Flamebreak

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Chain Lightning
4 Incinerate
4 Magma Jet

19 Mountain

4 Price of Progress
3 Pithing Needle
2 Smash to Smithereens
2 Shattering Spree
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
2 Cursed Scroll

My goal was to maximize resource advantage (both life, permanent and virtual card advantage) while minimizing player interaction and keeping on a slight budget.

I'm not completely familiar with your metagame, although I just read a few posts that show you may be in an undeveloped meta, 'homebrew + goblins', where maindeck PoP is useless (odd, but interesting), but I'll offer advice if you want it. I test burn a good deal; it is one of the first decks I run against with anything new deck I brew simply because I learn a lot about a new deck by playing it against burn. Additionally, played correctly, burn has better odds against more decks than most people would be willing to give it credit--some decks in fact just suck against burn (and they take the chance they won't see burn at the top tables, which is usually the case). I hope my advice will be useful.

I question Sulfuric Vortex and Pyrostatic Pillar. I don't think they should be maindeck, although they can be strong sideboard choices. Neither of these are maximizing resource advantage in my eyes -- they are strictly good against certain decks and strictly poor against others. Sure, you might try to call it virtual card advantage, but in an undeveloped meta, the average lifeloss incurred through these cards really can count as a loss in turns (and a loss in mana resources and cards that would have been drawn otherwise). Both of these cards still hurt you, cost a good deal (you've adjusted proportions, but that doesn't mean they are worth the mana), and I don't think they really shore up weaknesses effectively enough. Keep those in the side.

If I was maximizing resources, I would move just slightly towards the sligh-burn model (although, depending on the creatures, I'd still call it burn). It enables you to play more roles, and it is honestly more consistent and generically useful against anything and everything.

Without PoP in the main, I would suggest this shell:


Lands: 19
19 Mountain

Creatures: 8
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Keldon Marauders

3-for-1 Spells: 16
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

Unique/Utility Burn: 8
4 Magma Jet
4 Fireblast

Open slots: 9


I'll be happy to provide further explanation for any of the cards if you want. The creature choices may seem odd, but they are never dead and both have a 1 for 1 ratio at the very bare minimum (like Magma Jet), and often even more. I actually think of them as Utility Burn, and they are especially powerful against decks that run creatures themselves.

Given that you face some creature-heavy decks, Flamebreak seems very strong. These would normally be PoP in my list.

4 Flamebreak

That would leave 5 more slots.

Incinerate (as you have in your list) isn't a bad choice at all. For these 5 slots, I have to admit that I am somewhat unorthodox, but it comes from a good deal of testing (we have dozens of burn decks that have been tested in our database).

I have to admit that Sensei's Divining Top as 1-2 in Burn has been very good for us. Limit diminishing returns by running few, but when you do draw one, it almost always amazing. It isn't scry, but it is damn good when you are pushing for the last 2-3 burn spells.

I have been very pleased with 4x Street Wraith. This isn't life conservative, but it certainly isn't as bad as some might think (nothing like Vortex or Pillar). I rarely see more than 15 cards per game (average is closer to 12 or 13). I usually pay no more than 2 life per game (the average is actually less), and I get immediate 56 cards. Street Wraith is fundamentally different from Baubles in that I get to see my cards 'now', and because it isn't really isn't very counterable (outside of stifle), and it has proven to function as a worthwhile investment to drop to 56 cards. The card quality of not filling those 4 slots with less effective burn spells has been worth the the 2 life per game (or less).

That doesn't mean you will always pay the average, but you get an average benefit of having 56 for an average cost of less than 2 life per game and whatever loss in turns that could bring about (which has been worth it). Test it. Learn how to mulligan with Street Wraiths, and you'll see they are quite extraordinary.






peace,
4eak

[Garban]

I recall taking 2nd in a (relatively small) Type 1.5 tournament with a bauble burn deck after defeating a Necropotence deck and a Turbo-Stasis (Howling Mine & Arcane Denial) deck in the late 90's.
¿? I´m confused :frown: Didn´t Type 1.5 arrive in 2004? Wasn´t Necropotence banned…?

@ 4eak:

I think that Street Wraith or others like manamorphose and baubles shouldn´t be run. With these cards you should cut down your lands to keep on the rate. So, it´s more difficult to know about keeping your hand.

About wraith, I would only think on it, if I hoped for many Ichorid decks. It will make tarmos bigger too soon and as you said, stifles can also hurt you. If I didn´t hope for many agro decks (so, the 2 life lose is not worrying), i would prefer to run flame rift instead. Well, I think there are many options less problematic.

About sensei, I also find it bad :P In my opinion, you shouldn´t turn the deck slower and you are also losing a card (no cantrip) On the other hand, manipulation is not very important in this deck and you would need fetchs (stifle again) to take real advantage of it.

[kicks_422]

Here's my Burn deck on MWS.

// Lands
20 [UNH] Mountain

// Creatures
4 [10E] Mogg Fanatic

// Spells
4 [FD] Magma Jet
4 [CHK] Lava Spike
4 [IA] Incinerate
4 [R] Lightning Bolt
4 [BOK] Flames of the Blood Hand
4 [DS] Flamebreak
4 [VI] Fireblast
4 [TSP] Rift Bolt
4 [LG] Chain Lightning

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [SC] Pyrostatic Pillar
SB: 4 [IA] Pyroblast
SB: 3 [SC] Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 4 [GP] Shattering Spree

I know Price of Progress isn't there. I totally forgot about it. I might replace the Incinerates with those. I run 20 lands to keep the mana smooth for the 3cc spells, with Flames of the Blood Hand something I'm very fond of as it gets around Counterbalance and life gain. I'd like to fit in Sudden Shocks somewhere, I was thinking of replacing Incinerates with them, but those slots will be taken by Price of Progress...

[4eak]

@ Garban


I think that Street Wraith or others like manamorphose and baubles shouldn´t be run. With these cards you should cut down your lands to keep on the rate. So, it´s more difficult to know about keeping your hand.


You'll notice that the last sentence of my previous post shows that you have to learn how to mulligan with Street Wraiths. The lands were cut from 20 to 19. Goto 18 if you want.

You'll also see that I'm not advocating baubles or manamorphose. Their playability is too conditional for a general field. Street Wraith isn't really conditional. Beyond the mulligan-learning curve, it is a very clear trade.


About wraith, I would only think on it, if I hoped for many Ichorid decks. It will make tarmos bigger too soon and as you said, stifles can also hurt you. If I didn´t hope for many agro decks (so, the 2 life lose is not worrying), i would prefer to run flame rift instead.

Stifle is not a dead card against burn (although, it isn't a good one against burn either). Rift Bolt, Mogg Fanatic, Keldon Marauders, and Barbarian Ring (not in the deck, but still a common choice) are also affected, and that isn't including our sideboard options. Stifle is a poor argument against street wraith, especially as it is usually Force-fodder.

The tarmogoyf issue is certainly more relevant, but not very persuasive either. It might not matter in the first place if we have street wraith in the GY, as our opponent may already have a creature in theirs. Additionally, in this proposed deck, you'll see that we are already running Mogg Fanatic and Keldon Marauders. Goyf would get the pump no matter what usually.


Well, I think there are many options less problematic.


The only real problem you've shown is that it makes deckbuilding and mulliganing a bit more complex. Adding that complexity to burn is honestly not very problematic: burn is so simple a deck that it can easily afford a bump in minimum player skill requirements.


About sensei, I also find it bad :P

Test it. I didn't believe it either until I did. It is nice to have fetches, but they aren't even necessary in practice. A singleton top has zero diminishing returns, and it does a fine job of digging at a time when you already have plenty of mana available.

It is functionally a colorless cantrip that provides vital information advantage in the last stages of the game (which is exactly when you really need this card).

Top has been a card that we've notoriously undervalued in general magic. Don't let history repeat itself; go test it first.


In my opinion, you shouldn´t turn the deck slower

I'd argue that Sensei's Divining Top and Wraith's are not slowing the deck down at all. Like Magma Jet, these cards improve the quality of your draw by a large margin, essentially making the deck just as or even more effective than without the filtering.

I also think you've misassigned Burn's role in Legacy. Even if I did make the deck just a hair slower (which I'm not even claiming), it still might be worth it.

Pure burn is definitely a combo deck, a 4th turn combo deck on average (and I'm being generous), and that's assuming you've not been disrupted. It is easily locked out by tons of cards designed against it for years (it has been a common strategy), and its clock is not impressive in this format.

Burn is a 2nd or 3rd tier deck (we just have to face that fact), and it is often the underdog (even if isn't as awful as some think). Unleashing your hand is not how this deck can win anymore; because you are often in a losing position, then you must play a moderate and even controlled approach.

Burn is not fast a deck, and successful pilots and deckbuilders will not be gunning for 3rd turn suicide speeds unless they are forced to do it. For burn to be viable, you have sit, sandbag, and even control the board in some cases, and very carefully chip away at your opponent. Speed is no longer a strength of Burn; Burn's strengths include its raw internal consistency, virtual CA production in certain forms, and most importantly its reach.

Sligh, in fact, is the natural evolution of the deck (and there are several reasons why it has been more effective than burn in tournaments). Burn with Sligh-like cards of Fanatic/Marauders keeps its near immunity to board control, deadly topdecks, and its strength of reach, but adds another dimension to the deck, enabling more lines of play and flexible ways to win.

Adding card filtering improves the odds we see the best card of a given function. A card like Top improves consistency, and it sticks to the strengths of burn.

I'd sacrifice speed at this point, moving from 4th turn to 5th turn, for resilience, better options, and versatile threats. Burn's fundamental turn is already too slow for Legacy. Slowing it down might be worth the rewards we'd gain. We really do have to approach this deck differently if we want to win with it.






peace,
4eak

[kicks_422]

Very well said. Those are exactly my thoughts when I fleshed out my Burn build. Why try to go for an average Turn 3 kill when Turn 4 or 5 is good enough. The deck won't be racing faster decks anyway, and Turn 4 or 5 is still pretty quick against most decks.

[EdsonDettoni]

Hi magic-hollics,

I saw the original "=^_^= Kawaii =^_^= Burn =^_^=" by Vladimir Mishustin, here http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=24375 , and I think i can make it better.

I habe been played last week with this deck, and i never have felt so winner like now.

This is the result, its competitive cause is really fast:

(20)
9 Mountain
4 Wooded Foothills (those are for Barbarian Ring Threshold)
4 Bloodstained Mire

3 Barbarian Ring

(4)
4 Keldon Marauders (5 damage for 2. Mogg Fanatic its cheap, but it deals 3 damage or less most of the time)

(18)
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Shard Volley (I was skeptic about this card, but it works very well. 4 is bad when you might draw 3 of them)
3 Price of Progress (I don't like when this is not useful. Some deck dont use lands eather. I have 1 on SB).
4 Magma Jet
4 Fireblast

(18)
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Flame Rift (This replaces Mogg Fanatic, but its fast).
2 Browbeat (This maybe would be changed by Flames of the Blood Hand, cause 4 its a god aount of damage, and saves the lack of gain life cards).

SB

1 Price of Progress
4 Ensnaring Bridge (Flamebreak don`t hurt tarmos and stalkers, and this stops progenitus).
4 Scald
4 Smash to Smithereens (Challice, Trinisphere and other are bad experiences)
2 Shattering Spree

Average Casting Cost =1,37 (2,7)
(Real) mana curve
0 x 4
1 x 19
2 x 15
3 x 2

The Deck hits oneself i think 6 damage in a game, but is fast an stable. I'll be thanful for your comments and advices.

I dont try more sligh like Hellspark cause its not eficient (6 x 4 mana), and reckless abandon its slow and dependient of context.

Edson.

[bowvamp]

Lol, this again?
First off, why 1 PoP in the board? Most decks use lands, and your board is for improving your hard matches, not increasing consistency.
Next, the deck needs to ditch shard volley in favor of 1 PoP, and 2 Mogg fanatics. Otherwise, your deck loses to chalice (not that 1 change in CA's gonna do anything, it just doubly stinks to have lost a land for a lightning bolt).

I'd take out your little lands-fueling-lands hoax. It'll decrease your consistency due to shuffling away the rewards of your magma jets. Chances are, if you put a card on the bottom, you want it there.

From there, I'd experiment with everything from ankh of mishra to winter orb in the flame rift spot.

EDIT:
Also, from the title, he himself probably entered the deck, and wanted it to be looked at so he titled it as such. It really isn't very original.

[Ozymandias]

If you have all those fetchlands, might I suggest 1-2 taigas to power Krosan Grip from the board? You never have to fetch one if you don't need it, and then you have an easy out to spheres and chalices.

[caenel]

First of, I'd like to say hi to all here at the source.

I've been lurking around without a user account for some time now, gathering information about all kind of decks, and thought it would be about time to start posting myself.

Yesterday I played in my first tournament (legacy of course) since about 3 years (I've been playing magic since 1998). I thought I'd drop in a quick report about my matches and experiences while playing my burn deck through 6 rounds of Swiss.

First a little build up on how I came to playing a straightforward burn deck.
As stated before, I have little to no experience with the current decks or tournament scene. Reading up on things here was about my only source of information. Before the tournament, 5 decks where in the running: Dredge Ichorid, BUG Landstill, Armageddon Stax, Pox and Burn.

In testing, it soon became apparent that I should not be playing Ichorid or Landstill (simply because my lack of experience with the decks and lack of knowledge of the field). Pox looked strong, but too often I found myself emptying the opponents hand, clearing away his lands and not finding a kill condition quickly enough to finish the game before he could recover. Out was Pox.
The day of the tournament I still had 2 contenders. I played a testing game with my Stax deck, had a godly Ancient Tomb + Mox Diamond into Trinisphere opening, dropped City of Traitors and Crucible of Worlds on the second turn and was looking strong... only to loose the game by only drawing lands, a secondary Trinisphere and secondary Crucible for the next 7 or so turns... needless to say I lost horrible (to Trinket Mage beatdown, how bad can it get!). After that, playing Stax just didn't seem right, so Burn it was.

Here's the pile I ended up playing:

main deck:

3 Browbeat
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Flame Javelin
3 Flamebreak
4 Incinerate
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Magma Jet
3 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt

2 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain

sideboard:

3 Ensnaring Bridge
1 Flamebreak
1 Price of Progress
4 Scald
3 Shattering Spree
3 Smash to Smithereens

I chose not to play any creatures to give my opponent as much dead cards as possible.

The tournament turned out to be rather successful because when it began, 51 players sat down to give it a shot at top 8. That's 6 rounds of play. I figured I'd be happy with a 3-3 finish. Here's how it went for me:


Round 1: BGW Rock with Sensei's Divining Top

Game 1: Not much to say here. Despite his turn 1 Top and Kitchen Finks that slowed it down a little, I burned enough to finish it.
(sideboard: +3 Smash to Smithereens, +3 Shattering Spree, -3 Flamebreak, -3 Price of Progress)

The sideboarding here was a big mistake. I didn't see any non-basic land this game (game 2 showed him having a lot of non-basics in there) and some artifacts... I overboarded artifact hate badly

Game 2: This game is really close, I have sufficient tempo with my burn, but a Kitchen Finks found via another turn 1 Top slowed the game down enough for him to find a CoP: Red with 3 open mana... Needless to say that it just went downhill from there.
(sideboard: +3 Price of Progress, -3 Shattering Spree)

Game 3: Sadly, this last game was a blowout. He gets a first turn Top yet again and uses it to find a turn 3 CoP: Red. The Top keeps finding mana for the next couple of turns and soon a Kitchen Finks is added with 4 mana open. Beatdown starts and he always leaves at least 5 mana open for the CoP.

0-1-0 (1-2 in games)

Not the start I hoped for, next round will be better!


Round 2: 4c Landstill

Game 1: I get a good fast draw and burn him down quickly to 4 life (with some help from his fetchlands). He has 3 Force of Wills to counter some burn, but sees no other countermagic. He gets 8 life when Swordsing his own Nantuko Monasteries, but cannot find answers quickly enough and dies to even more burn.
(sideboard: +4 Scald, +1 Price of Progress, -3 Flamebreak, -1 Magma Jet, -1 Flame Javelin)

Game 2: I keep a nice up tempo hand with one Scald in it. On turn 2, I manage to resolve Scald despite him digging for a Force of Will with Brainstorm. I draw a second Scald and manage to resolve it on turn 3 (after a Chain Lightning I baited got countered). He plays another Mishra's Factory next turn (he has Factory x 2 and Tundra x 2 now) and passes the turn. I draw, burn him down to 12 and pass the turn with 2 mana open. He tries Fact or Fiction (taking 4 damage from Scalds) at end of my turn, I respond with a Price of Progress for 8, sealing the game.

1-1-0 (3-2 in games)


Round 3: Counter Top

Game 1: This is blowout. He can't get his Counterbalance on the table in time and I just draw my burn too fast.
(sideboard: +4 Scald, +1 Price of Progress, -3 Flamebreak, -2 Magma Jet)

Game 2: This game saw my oppenents wet dreams come true. He opened with land, Mox, Counterbalance. Followed this up with Top next turn, making al my quick 1 mana burn spells useless. Turn 3 saw a Tinker Mage fetching another Top. I couldn't kill the mage because I only had 1 mana burn on Sorcery speed and let it be. His turn 3 saw a Jitte + equiping and hitting me for 2... The 2 Jitte counters quickly grew to about 8 and that was too much life for me to handle. The Mage went all the way.
(sideboard: -3 Browbeat, +3 Smash to Smithereens)

Game 3: I had a good start here again, with an early Scald, but Counter/Top was on the table quickly too. It was a race then. He played a Dark Confidant to gain card advantage with his Top. This allowed me to force him in taking damage some way or another, either by getting a spell with some cost on top of his deck to draw with the Confidant, taking Scald damage with Top activations or just taking my burn spells. He was at 2 life when I reacted to his draw with a Price of Progress (for about 8 then, knowing he just put a land on top of his deck to draw with the Confidant). He reacted by activating Top with a Wasteland, I reacted to the Top activation with a Fireblast to the dome. He calculated a little (he had a Swords in hand to play with his Mox Diamond to gain some life and get rid of the Confidant) and saw it was enough to get hime to 0 and that was it.

2-1-0 (5-3 in games)


Round 4: UG ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh

Game 1: This game is close, with me being able to burn him to 2 the turn he can attack me for lethal damage with his 2 Nimble Mongoose and Tarmogoyf. If only I had a Flamebreak, it would have been a different story.
(sideboard: +4 Scald, +1 Flamebreak, +3 Ensnaring Bridge, -3 Browbeat, -3 Price of Progress, -2 Flame Javelin)

Game 2: Here I made a big mistake. I did not mulligan. My opening hand was Scald, Rift Bolt, Lightning Bolt and 4 Mountains. I figured I couldn't draw that much more land... the next 3 draws were Mountain, Incinerate, Mountain, Barbarian Ring. Game over.

2-2-0 (5-5 in games)

Though this seems to be a hard matchup, with Daze and Spellsnare countering early and a quick clock from him, I feel a bit bad about the mulligan call. I wonder how it would've ended if I mulliganed.


Round 5: random BG beats

This was my opponents first tournament and his deck was some sort of BG extended/type2 beats (Birds of Paradise, Call of the Herd, Tombstalker, some new green Hydra creature), supported by some equipement (1 Jitte and 2 Swords of Fire and Ice). He managed to get a 2-2-0 record with it.

Game 1: I start with the standard suspended Rift Bolt on turn 1. He plays a Jitte turn 2, Call of the Herd on 3. I burn the token. He flashes it back and I burn it again. No other creature follows quickly and I burn him down to 0.
(sideboard: +3 Smash to Smithereens, +3 Ensnaring Bridge, +1 Flamebreak, -3 Price of Progress, -4 Magma Jet)

Game 2: He starts quickly with a Birds, followed by Kitchen Finks. He plays a second Birds and I Flamebreak to clear (except for the smaller Finks now). I get an Ensnaring Bridge down. I kill the Finks and another creature with a second Flamebreak and bring my hand down to 2 cards. He plays another Finks, Tombstalker and Yavimaya Elder and they all stare at me from behind my Bridge. My handsize stays down to maximum 1 card and I burn it out from there.

3-2-0 (7-5 in games)

Mission accomplished, 3 wins made. Now I wanted that 4th one.


Round 6: Landstill

Game 1: This one was over in a hurry. I just drew too much burn for him to stabilize.
(sideboard: +4 Scald, +1 Price of Progress, -3 Flamebreak, -1 Flame Javelin)

Game 2: Even more amazing. I had a hand with 1 Mountain, 1 Scald and 5 one mana burn spells (1 Chain Lighting, 2 Rift Bolt, 1 Lightning Bolt and 1 Lava Spike). My first draw netted me another Mountain and away I went. I drew another Lightning bolt, Mountain and Price of Progress to seal the deal on turn 4. Just amazing draws both games here. I think the match lasted 10 minutes.

4-2-0 (9-5 in games)


So, at the end of the day I'm very happy to finish 11th of the field with the best tie-breakers of the 4-2-0 bunch. But mostly, I had a blast playing an almost no thinking deck ;-)


In retrospect, I would chance a couple of things though:

Price of Progress would go into the main as a 4-off, just too good.
Flamebreak would be reduced to 2 maindeck, but 2 sideboard slots go to it.
The 6 artifact removal spells in the board go and will be replaced by 3 Krosan Grip and 3 Tormod's Crypt.
I'll play some (3/4) fetchland in the main along with 2 Taiga to support the Grips.


So I think this would be the deck I'd try it out with now:

main deck:

3 Browbeat
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Flame Javelin
2 Flamebreak
4 Incinerate
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Magma Jet
4 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt

2 Barbarian Ring
11 Mountain
2 Taiga
4 Wooded Foothills

sideboard:

3 Ensnaring Bridge
3 Tormod's Crypt
3 Krosan Grip
2 Flamebreak
4 Scald


That's about it, comments on my build or other suggestion to improve my playing are of course greatly appreciated.

Props:

to all my opponents who where more than great
Bert for helping me decide on which deck to play
David for helping me with some playtesting at home
Outpost Antwerp for hosting the event
everyone of the organizing staff for running a smooth tournament


Greetz and thanks for reading

[4eak]

@ caenel

Thanks for the report.


Scald

Wow. I've never seen this card before. It looks pretty freaking sweet, and your report certainly made it sound pretty good too. What do you think a turn 2 Scald nets you in an average game against CB/Top.dec?

I'll be testing it.


Flame Javelin

Haven't you found these a bit difficult to cast at 3cc? 2x would look like the max I'd wanna run.





peace,
4eak

[pi4meterftw]

Hi all! ^^

White splash? I think that´s a bad idea. It is nice to play with a solid mana base and in any case, i would prefer green splash for Krosan grip. And i would also prefer to play RG sligh in that case, because if you get a worse mana base, i think it´s better to run creatures. So I think this deck is and must continue being monored.


Path to Exile, Jotun grunt? You should win before Tarmo scares you. Relic is great against decks that run Tarmo like Canadian or Team America and you can “recover” that card. In my opinion, cards that don´t make damage like pyroclasm or path to exile… are really bad in this deck. I think you should run volcanic fallout instead. On the other hand I find my opponents usually don´t take out STP in g2, g3 so it´s not easy to surprise with any creature :tongue:

About Ethersworn Canonist… countetop is very problematic but it should also prevent us for many combo decks. But if i waited for many countertop and combo decks… i wouldn´t play burn… xD Any case, you can run Pyrostatic Pillar


I would like to know about the deck´s history. Surely you would find it strange there, but, is there any relation with the deck builder Seth Burn and the name of this deck? :confused: This deck bornes with the introduction of legacy, right? Any reference old list?

Nobody would ever take out swords if they're running creatures themselves, cause they can swords their own guys. Against red, the correct strategy is to give up cards for life. Incidentally, if you lose to red, you probably feel like giving up cards for life.

[caenel]

@4eak



Scald
Wow. I've never seen this card before. It looks pretty freaking sweet, and your report certainly made it sound pretty good too. What do you think a turn 2 Scald nets you in an average game against CB/Top.dec?

On average a Scald on turn 2 would net you between 4-6 damage against a blue based deck (like Landstill/CounterTop). With Scald in play, most activations of the Top would cause 1 damage too, a great added benefit. These figures are far from stellar, but the added bonus when dropping a turn 2 Scald is that the opponent has to think with every play she makes to avoid taking extra damage. This becomes crucial when they hit below 10 lives, because they know that one barrage of your spells could finish them (and a simple counterspell would do 2 damage as well).



Flame Javelin
Haven't you found these a bit difficult to cast at 3cc? 2x would look like the max I'd wanna run.


I think running 3 Javelins main deck are enough, but I really like them. They are great combined with Fireblast at end of turn to generate a quick win when the opponent is at 11 or so. (Bolt, Javelin and Blast, that's 11 damage right there). I usually sideboard some of them out against decks that pack too many counters, but against CounterTop they really help, by providing some diversity to the mana curve to help play around Counterbalance.

[kicks_422]

Why not Flames of the Blood Hand over Flame Javelin? It hits only players, but I imagine you wouldn't want to hit creatures with a 4 damage spell. It also has a very relevant anti-life gain clause.

[LordEvilTeaCup]

Why not Flames of the Blood Hand over Flame Javelin? It hits only players, but I imagine you wouldn't want to hit creatures with a 4 damage spell. It also has a very relevant anti-life gain clause.

The 3cc slot is harder to counter with the countertop engine than most of our spells, but they will never flip over a 6cc card to counter Flame Javelin. I think that alone might give Flame Javelin the edge.

[Garban]

@4eak:


(About wraith) The only real problem you've shown is that it makes deckbuilding and mulliganing a bit more complex. Adding that complexity to burn is honestly not very problematic: burn is so simple a deck that it can easily afford a bump in minimum player skill requirements.


That hasn’t to do with player skills… With street wraith in hand, you have less information than if it were the “real card”. It’s not a problem of “learning about mulligan”, it’s simply a worse situation.



I'd argue that Sensei's Divining Top and Wraith's are not slowing the deck down at all. Like Magma Jet, these cards improve the quality of your draw by a large margin, essentially making the deck just as or even more effective than without the filtering.

I also think you've misassigned Burn's role in Legacy. Even if I did make the deck just a hair slower (which I'm not even claiming), it still might be worth it.

Pure burn is definitely a combo deck, a 4th turn combo deck on average (and I'm being generous), and that's assuming you've not been disrupted. It is easily locked out by tons of cards designed against it for years (it has been a common strategy), and its clock is not impressive in this format.


“Pure burn is definitely a combo deck” ??? I find this really inappropriate. Anyway I think I can guess what you mean in general. As you said, with magma jet for example you are worrying about deck consistency, not for the fastest kill. Well, inspite of that, magma is very popular, even considered a basic card in burn. I also like it and play with it, but I wouldn't compare it with sensei or nothing similar…

@ pi4mterftw:


Nobody would ever take out swords if they're running creatures themselves, cause they can swords their own guys. Against red, the correct strategy is to give up cards for life. Incidentally, if you lose to red, you probably feel like giving up cards for life.


A User suggested to play with Jotun in side (RW Burn). In similar cases, people usually argue that your opponent will take out the removal in next game, so it’s a nice option to surprise. Therefore, I only wanted to comment that they shouldn’t forget about STP. Surely we all know about how STP can hurt us. That’s one of the reason cause I like Keldon in this deck. We can only gain 2 damages of it (STP) but as you have said, anyway (with no creatures in deck), STP wouldn’t be really a dead card.

@ caenel:

I haven’t tested Scald, but I guess sulfuric vortex would be better cause it’s also nice against counterbalance and in other problematic situations.

About Javelin, I’m actually playing with 3 of them. As you have said, it’s a nice card against counterbalance, and i would say the opposite about Browbeat. In my opinion, you should only run these cards (high cost) to prevent chalice or counterbalance and you can´t make good use of Browbeat in these situations.

@ kicks 422:


Why not Flames of the Blood Hand over Flame Javelin? It hits only players, but I imagine you wouldn't want to hit creatures with a 4 damage spell. It also has a very relevant anti-life gain clause.



The 3cc slot is harder to counter with the countertop engine than most of our spells, but they will never flip over a 6cc card to counter Flame Javelin. I think that alone might give Flame Javelin the edge.

Also it could be nice to kill rhox war monk.

[4eak]

@ Garban


That hasn’t to do with player skills… With street wraith in hand, you have less information than if it were the “real card”. It’s not a problem of “learning about mulligan”, it’s simply a worse situation.

Yes, Street Wraith makes mulliganing more difficult, but that isn't necessarily a "worse situation"--your argument is a non sequitur. Sure, if all other things are equal in the deck, making mulligans more complicated is a "worse situation" than having it easier. But, the card quality to be gained by using street wraith is hardly just equal to decks that don't use it, and thus it really isn't a "simply worse situation"; you've just failed to acknowledge what is actually happening.

The point is that putting yourself at a slight information disadvantage in such a hugely redundant deck is very much worth the benefit of card quality gained when you move from a 60 to a 56 card deck.


“Pure burn is definitely a combo deck” ??? I find this really inappropriate.

Go on... I'm listening. What was so inappropriate?


As you said, with magma jet for example you are worrying about deck consistency, not for the fastest kill. Well, inspite of that, magma is very popular, even considered a basic card in burn. I also like it and play with it, but I wouldn't compare it with sensei or nothing similar…

Why wouldn't you compare Magma Jet to SDT or Street Wraith?

Magma Jet is about the fastest kill; often, in part, because it enables you to win in situations that you would not have won otherwise.

My point is that Magma Jet's improvement in the overall card quality and consistency of the deck means you kill faster on average than you would without the card. Magma Jet improves the stability and resilience of the deck to control and disruption, but it also let's you run only the most effective burn cards available. You will win more games on average with the card than without, and I've certainly found the same to be true with a singleton SDT and a set of Street Wraiths.

Burn is the most redundant deck in the game of magic. Seriously. Filtering exists not to fill in the gaps between cards of disparate functions (as Cantrips would for other decks), but it exists in burn to fill in the gaps between the most effective burn spells so that you don't have to run inferior versions. SDT and SW both play the same role that Magma Jet plays, and they've certainly improved our average kill turn in testing.

For the record: Magma Jet has been one of the more debated cards in the deck. I think Magma Jet has proven itself, and I would easily call it a base card in burn, but the benefits of its card quality mechanic was not immediately recognized by all. With enough testing, eventually everyone started running it--but this wasn't always the case. Many people have doubted the value of filtering and card quality improvements provided by Magma Jet.

Likewise, I think you've made the same mistake about Top and Wraith that others have made by rejecting Magma Jet. It doesn't sound at all like you've even tested the cards, nor have you understood that the same reasons we would run Magma Jet can easily be applied to SDT and SW.

What I've offered is far from being "simply worse". Go read, study the math behind the deck, test what I've said, and then offer real criticism. If you don't like street wraith or SDT, no problem; but, your unsubstantiated disagreement certainly isn't a good argument about why others should or shouldn't use the cards.






peace,
4eak

[Garban]

Yes, Street Wraith makes mulliganing more difficult, but that isn't necessarily a "worse situation"--your argument is a non sequitur. Sure, if all other things are equal in the deck, making mulligans more complicated is a "worse situation" than having it easier. But, the card quality to be gained by using street wraith is hardly just equal to decks that don't use it, and thus it really isn't a "simply worse situation"; you've just failed to acknowledge what is actually happening.


I only meant about the point of mulligan. I don't know where is my non sequitur. Also, finding a street with the "scry" of magma jet would be like if you saw one less card. Sorry, but i haven't understood well the last part. May be, because i have some problems about the languague. Of course, it's my problem ^^ i only wanted to apologize for that. (Also if i write a little strange :frown: )



Go on... I'm listening. What was so inappropriate?


I really don't undersand why you said that sentence. For me, Burn is a nice example of an aggro deck. I don't think we should turn the debate talking about differences between aggro, combo or something similar.




Burn is the most redundant deck in the game of magic. Seriously. Filtering exists not to fill in the gaps between cards of disparate functions (as Cantrips would for other decks), but it exists in burn to fill in the gaps between the most effective burn spells so that you don't have to run inferior versions. SDT and SW both play the same role that Magma Jet plays, and they've certainly improved our average kill turn in testing.

That's the point. In my opinion, manipulation is not very important in this deck. For that reason i find my magma jets better after introducing my side. Well, as you wanted, i will finally compare :smile: Street hasn't to do too much with magma jet. In this way, one of the main functions of magma jet is about hiding the lands. Street wraith doesn't give manipulation, about sensei, it's true it would have a similar role (like magma), but there are many obvious differences between these 2 cards.

Returning about street, i don't think there are many differences between a lightning, a chain or a lava spike. You also must run Fireblast, magma, POP, etc So, i don't think there are so many garbage slots, even none.

May be the worst card in my build is incinerate. Also, Is there many difference between an incinerate and a lighting bolt? Really i find no problem about running incinerate, it also gives me a balance between cards of cost 1 and 2 that can be good against COTV. Actually i have found Flame Javelin also nice to go against counterbalance. Really, i don't feel like having bad/fill cards in my build.




It doesn't sound at all like you've even tested the cards, nor have you understood that the same reasons we would run Magma Jet can easily be applied to SDT and SW.

Well, if you want to know it, true, i have't tested sensei ^^ But i think ,that doesn't mean i can have my argumments against it. For example if i told you to run lava axe, you would surely find it like a bad option without testing it. Only an example, don't get angry with me :cry: (you know sensei is even worse :laugh: :laugh:) Of course, it's better if you test the card :wink: In general, it sounds me like if you would play sensei in any deck cause the card cuality you gain.
:tongue:

[4eak]

@ Garban


I really don't undersand why you said that sentence. For me, Burn is a nice example of an aggro deck. I don't think we should turn the debate talking about differences between aggro, combo or something similar.

If you don't want to debate it, then there isn't a point to telling me that you find my description of burn's role as a combo deck as being "really inappropriate".

I am certainly not the only other person to categorize Burn as a combo deck either. Check the opening posts for Burn; several have viewed this deck in the same way, and for good reason.

The deck does its best to not interact with the opponent (nearly definitional of combo), and only does so on two occasions:

a.) The tempo gained for knocking out a creature is worth the loss of damage straight to an opponent's head (very rarely the case)
b.) Burn's vulnerability to several control strategies sometimes requires it to slow role, sandbag, and hold back before it can alpha strike, and thus it interacts with control decks by carefully aiming and shooting.


In this way, one of the main functions of magma jet is about hiding the lands. Street wraith doesn't give manipulation

Card quality is card quality. You are pointing at a difference in the mechanics by which you increase card quality, but this does not show how Street Wraith and Magma Jet aren't playing the same role. Both cards improve the card quality of the deck.

[Scry] and [moving from 60 to 56 card decks] are both about card quality. They are both playing the same role.

Now, you might want to argue that Magma jet is more effective (and I certainly haven't said otherwise) at improving card quality that Street Wraith, but that is fundamentally different than saying the cards aren't working towards the same basic goal of improving card quality.

Street Wraith's way of "Hiding lands", so to speak, is that it enables you to play less of them in the first place. Street Wraith "hides extraneous lands and less effective burn spells". Street Wraith lets you see sideboard cards much earlier as well.

Lastly, given the diversity of decklists, I highly doubt that all the burn spells you're playing are obviously equal in card value to each other. You said it yourself, Incinerate probably might actually be less valuable, and that seems like a prime candidate to try replacing with SW.

These are the only obvious choices:

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Magma Jet
3 Fireblast
18 Land

We can add more land, filler cards like Incinerate, board control, PoP, or cards that play around CB more effectively. This is somewhat more metagame dependent. I wouldn't be against filling that list in more, but the truth is this: burn is still playing filler, inferior spells in certain slots. Improving card quality hardly seems unnecessary or somehow not worth testing.


Well, if you want to know it, true, i have't tested sensei

Again, go test. I'm not just looking at Street Wraith and SDT and just plain guessing how they affect the deck, unlike you it sounds. I'm only reporting what I've actually tested, and I'm giving a theory as to why it has produced those results (which you aren't comprehending, sadly).


In general, it sounds me like if you would play sensei in any deck cause the card cuality you gain.

More and more decks have been playing SDT. I'll say it again:

Top has been a card that we've notoriously undervalued in general magic. Don't let history repeat itself; go test it first.






peace,
4eak

[matamagos]

If we play Top shouldn't we play also fetchlands?
Other decks that play Top have lots of cards with great sinergy with it. I can't see many card in burn with sinergy with Top. Maybe shrapnel blast if we introduce also great furnace, but I think it's not the good path in burn to introduce nonbasic lands. We become vulnarable to wasteland, stifle and back to basics. And of course ankh of mishra has been discussed a lot and it has been discarted in the end.

[Garban]

Street Wraith's way of "Hiding lands", so to speak, is that it enables you to play less of them in the first place. Street Wraith "hides extraneous lands and less effective burn spells". Street Wraith lets you see sideboard cards much earlier as well.


No, you are wrong at the point of the lands. You are going to find the same lands, playing with or without street. You have said it. It is like playing with 56 cards. So, if you don’t reduce your lands, you will find even more. Therefore, you can play with less of them to keep the rate. (but i repeat, it doesn’t mean that you will find less lands in each game)




Again, go test. I'm not just looking at Street Wraith and SDT and just plain guessing how they affect the deck, unlike you it sounds. I'm only reporting what I've actually tested, and I'm giving a theory as to why it has produced those results (which you aren't comprehending, sadly).



The fact that i don’t find street like a good option, doesn’t mean that i don’t know what it can bring in. Time ago, i played Burn with manamorphose that finally disappointed me. Of course they are different, but they play the same role.


Well, I’m going to summarize the advantages and disadvantages about street wraith, that both have said until this moment:


Advantages:

- You can take out of the build the “less valuable” spells

- You can find a little earlier some important cards (side cards) Well, you said much earlier, i have changed it ^^ :P


Disadvantages:

- 2 lifes loss

- Less information about mulligan and in “scry”

- It can make Tarmo bigger

- Stifle can counter it


On the other hand, we could debate how these arguments can be more or less relevant:


As i explained before, I don’t find important the main advantage. I think it’s even fine to play with another 2CMC card (incinerate)

About the life loss, inspite of being a fast deck, you’ll have problems with some decks. Also flame rift is not a consolidated card cause that problem.

About tarmo, you said that with mogg and keldon in the deck, it would be less relevant. I agree with you. But street is even more problematic. You should use it as soon as possible. Anyway it is also an argument against mogg and keldon. (I run both)

About stifle, well, i think, it shouldn’t be too much complicated to go around it. But if you don’t play it during your turn, you are losing the option to play a possible sorcery. Also if i needed a burn spell (topdeck) i would be a little scared finding street (about stifle) Stifle is not a dead card against burn, true. Well, it’s almost like that if you don’t run mogg and keldon cause suspend is optional, and it’s also less relevant with the creatures.


So my conclusion is that street is not a good option, but of course it’s only my opinion.

[4eak]

@ matamagos


If we play Top shouldn't we play also fetchlands?

In testing, we've found Top worthy both with and without Fetches. They aren't necessary, but I've been pleased with fetches myself.

@ Garban


No, you are wrong at the point of the lands.

I should have been even clearer for you. My quotation marks were a play on your previous statement, and really just meant: "the way in which card quality is improved". One of the largest "ways in which card quality is improved" by Magma Jet is by "hiding lands" -- I was just using it as a metaphor.

Remember that this disagreement sparked from your refusal to "compare [Magma Jet] with sensei or nothing similar…". I was responding to your claim, and pointing out that as they play very similar roles (improving cards advantage), then they are definitely can and should be compared. Card Quality can be achieved through different means, but it all boils down to the same measurable value type in the end (even if we aren't ourselves capable of calculating it). I'm saying that you definitely should be comparing Magma Jet with Top and SW.

To elaborate for you:

The method by which SDT and Street Wraith's card quality are achieved differ from Magma Jet. Even the degree of their card quality improvement may differ with Magma Jet, which I don't dispute. The fact remains that Street Wraith and SDT are improving card quality, and even if the mechanics are arguably working at a different stages of the game altogether, it is relevantly possible to compare them to Magma Jet.

Additionally, in the case of Street Wraith, you'll see the right proportion of lands in the deck (as you said), yes, but you shouldn't see as many lands on average because you should be winning earlier due to playing more efficient and more effective burn spells. In other words, improvements in card quality will result in seeing fewer total cards of the 56 cards than you would of 60 cards.



The fact that i don’t find street like a good option, doesn’t mean that i don’t know what it can bring in. Time ago, i played Burn with manamorphose that finally disappointed me. Of course they are different, but they play the same role.

I wasn't implying you didn't know anything about the cards, but I have implied that you don't know enough about the cards; and, clearly, some honest testing experience could improve your knowledge.

Also, Manamorphose is substantially more conditional (as I said before) than Street Wraith, and while it aims to play the same role, its conditional playability makes it substantially worse. You would initially think these are so similar in effect and playability that a judgment on one should pass for the other, but they aren't (both in practice and on paper).


About tarmo, you said that with mogg and keldon in the deck, it would be less relevant. I agree with you. But street is even more problematic. You should use it as soon as possible. Anyway it is also an argument against mogg and keldon. (I run both)

You've overestimated the impact of this card with regards to opposing Goyfs.

Without having tested it myself, I also assumed that you would need to cycle street wraith immediately. When you sit down and play with the card correctly, you'll find that you won't cycle street wraith unless a more optimal play could be made. For example, when facing discard effects, you won't necessarily cycle immediately because you would often just pitch Street Wraith (as you would have pitched what it replaced, like Incinerate), protecting your top card.

More importantly, you must remember: the deck is exceedingly redundant, so it's often the case that you'll be holding optimal or optimal enough cards to make a play in a given turn, especially since you only have 56 cards. In those cases, you will choose to wait to Street Wraith. Why cycle if you don't have to? You'll still get the card quality gains, even if you aren't required to cycle immediately.

It isn't difficult to consider all the possible lines of play in this deck, especially in the first couple turns (which is sometimes all you'll see with burn). Often the other cards in your hand will be all you need in the moment, and so you won't need to Street Wraith immediately.

Street Wraith won't necessarily be pumping Goyf as soon as you seem to think. And, of course, street wraith merely increases the odds of pumping goyf, but it isn't necessarily the card that will do that. If opponent's creatures are in the GY or your own are in the GY, then Street Wraith won't have an effect.

Most people run a handful of creatures, and for good reason -- they often become the most efficient and versatile cards in the deck. Adding Street Wraiths won't have much more affect on Goyf than it normally would for most players. If someone didn't play creatures, then I could see the Goyf argument holding a bit more water.


- 2 lifes loss

You need to be more specific than this. The average cost of running 4x Street Wraiths (which is what we are really concerned about) isn't as big as -2 life loss. It's closer to -1 than -2.

Assuming a 5 turn game, you have a 57-60% chance to see Street Wraith on an average game (depending on whether you draw or play).

There will many games where you never see the card, but you still reaped the benefit. The average is lower than -2 life loss.


- Less information about mulligan and in “scry”

Yes. I concede, this is true. I would like to point out that you only have less information in about ~40% of your opening hands. Again, this just boils down to two issues:

a.) Burn is so ridiculously redundant in nature that having less information isn't very problematic. There are much fewer circumstances to be unsure about a given hand than you've implied.
b.) Experience and practice helps you curb the hands that would be questionable.

I think you overemphasize the impact of the negative in this respect too. It is usually a moot point when you sit down and actually play with the cards.


Stifle can counter it

Yes, it can counter it, but this isn't a good enough reason not to play Street Wraith.


Stifle is not exceedingly common (and nobody would be boarding it in against us).
Stifle has several other targets for most builds, so not playing Street Wraith doesn't make Stifle a dead card (which you stated).
Stifle isn't usually cast in the first place -- it is usually pitched to FoW or Brainstormed away in the decks that do play the card.



Well, I’m going to summarize the advantages and disadvantages about street wraith

What you've failed to state is that the advantages are constant and nearly guaranteed benefits, while the disadvantages are conditional and often curbed by player skill and experience.





peace,
4eak

[Garban]

Street Wraith's way of "Hiding lands", so to speak, is that it enables you to play less of them in the first place. Street Wraith "hides extraneous lands and less effective burn spells". Street Wraith lets you see sideboard cards much earlier as well.

Sorry, but i understood that, like if you find it like an advantage. I say this now, cause i only want to point that if you take out a mountain (to keep the rate) you will be “fixing” only 3 slots. (with the 4 street wraith)

[4eak]

@ Garban


Sorry, but i understood that, like if you find it like an advantage. I said this now, cause i only want to point that if you take out a mountain (to keep the rate) you will be “fixing” only 3 slots. (with the 4 street wraith)So?

Your above argument is that moving to 56 cards is not that same thing as replacing 4 bad burn spells. I didn't say otherwise, even if you didn't like the metaphor. I know for a fact that cantrips will not be improving the mana base of any Burn deck running pure basic mountains (minus some minuscule concerns about land/spell ratio differences that can be created using cantrips), but that wasn't the point of the metaphor at all -- I just didn't feel like taking the time to explain what I'm about to say to you below, so I said it in much fewer words. Don't be put off by the metaphor. The argument wasn't about the mechanics of the cantrip and how it improves card quality, but rather that certain cantrips do improve card quality in Burn (which I hoped I wouldn't have to flesh out). The whole point of the argument was to show you that Magma Jet and SDT/SW should be compared because they are both about improving card quality.

You are demonstrating that you understand, to some extent, how a free cantrip improves card quality as we move from 60 to 56 cards. I agree, the 1st Street Wraith of the 4 is approximately replacing a single land, and thus it really would be appear that it adds no value to the deck whatsoever, while the remaining 3 Street Wraith's are the complete replacements which are improving card quality.

But, I think we should extra careful in how we think about what that 1st Street Wraith was doing. I find the best way to consider cantrips is by ratios of functions, not on a single cantrip by cantrip basis, but I'll try to accommodate. What if you only played 1x Street Wraith in the deck? We need to say that 33% of that card is replacing a land, and the rest is truly replacing inferior functions.

The reason the 1st Street Wraith didn't "replace" anything was because there isn't such a thing as an "inferior" basic land. The function was as optimal as you could get. You could just as easily have argued (and it is probably more accurate) that 30-33% of each Street Wraith is replacing a land, and the rest is actually improving card quality. This is the nature of the cantrip in a deck that has no value differences between its mana sources (unlike decks that have certain lands they would much rather see more often than others).

For example, you wouldn't play Street Wraith in this deck:

17 Mountains
43 Lightning Bolt

There is nothing to replace, all functions are of equal value, and moving to 56 cards or 30 cards even, should have no effect.
Nitpick: playing fewer total cards would have an effect even on the Mountain-Bolt deck: it would reduce the variance of its draws, narrowing the bell curve of "lands drawn by turn X" and making it slightly more consistent. Such an effect would almost certainly not be worth paying Street Wraith life for, of course. ~Nihil Credo
That isn't the Burn deck we get to play though.

As I said before, it gets more complicated though. As you should have more efficient and effective spells, you shouldn't need as many land, proportionately, as you would have needed with less mana efficient spells in a deck without cantrips. You will in fact see less land per game in a Burn deck that wins earlier on average -- that is the nature of efficiency created through cantrips.

Let me reiterate my answer to your original problem with comparing Magma Jet to SDT or SW, again:

The method by which SDT and Street Wraith's card quality are achieved differ from Magma Jet. Even the degree of their card quality improvement may differ with Magma Jet, which I don't dispute. The fact remains that Street Wraith and SDT are improving card quality, and even if the mechanics are arguably working at a different stages of the game altogether, it is relevantly possible to compare them to Magma Jet.

I'm not implying that SW or SDT are miracles and unfreakin-believably awesome cards. They aren't. I'm not trying to stretch the truth on what a cantrip does for this deck. We are talking about marginal improvements in the deck at best. But, be honest, this deck needs as much advantage as it can get.

I'm only saying that SW and SDT are very viable options (which is the claim you reject), and clearly can't just be ruled out because someone who hasn't even taken the time to test it (or fully understand what it does on paper) says "it's bad" and "[You're] turning the deck slower". You need a better argument to support these sorts of claims, and you haven't provided one.







peace,
4eak

[scrow213]

4eak

Going to nitpick for a minute here.


that is fundamentally different than saying the cards aren't working towards the same basic goal

Things are never "different than" each other. They are only "different from" each other. Moving along...


I am certainly not the only other person to categorize Burn as a combo deck either.

So what? How does this affect the deck's construction?


[Scry] and [moving from 60 to 56 card decks] are both about card quality. They are both playing the same role.

No. They are playing similar roles. They do both create card quality. One happens to cost you 2 life and let you draw one random card. The other happens to cost your opponent 2 life (kind of what we are going for) and lets you see 2 cards, and decide whether you want to draw either of them in the future.


Street Wraith's way of "Hiding lands", so to speak, is that it enables you to play less of them in the first place. Street Wraith "hides extraneous lands and less effective burn spells". Street Wraith lets you see sideboard cards much earlier as well.

You play "fewer" lands, not "less" lands. Anyway, how many fewer lands are you running, now that you have 4x SW? And how exactly does SW let you see SB cards "much earlier" as well? In a later post, you said it averages out to 1 damage a game, which to me sounds like you would see SB cards a half turn sooner, on average. That doesn't sound like "much earlier" to me.

Now please bear in mind, I am not saying SW is not worth playing, or that either card is clearly better than the other, but you have some very faulty reasoning sir. You are turning copies of "Pay 2 life, draw a card" into some miracle cure for Burn. You are twisting the facts to make it sound more powerful than it really is. It's decent, I will concede that point. That is about where I draw the line. A decent card, worth trying.

Edit: I DO see where you said "I'm not implying that SW or SDT are miracles and unfreakin-believably awesome cards. They aren't." I think this goes against a lot of what you are saying in the previous posts, however, saying things such as "only playing a 56-card deck" (it comes off as if to say "it's so good it's like we are cheating") and "lets you see sideboard cards much earlier" is like you are saying "Duh! You want to see SB cards soon, right? Play this card!".

[4eak]

@ scrow213


Things are never "different than" each other. They are only "different from" each other.

Wow, grammar police. I used an informal American English expression. According to linguists, 30% of Americans choose to use the word "than" in this context. I said something non-standard, but it seems hardly worth nitpicking.

In any case, it sounds like you understood the meaning of the sentence, even if you didn't like exactly how I said it.


So what? How does this affect the deck's construction?

Establishing a deck's role seems rudimentary to card selection and deck construction. In this case, we should choose cards that improve our odds of winning as early as possible with the least amount of interaction as possible. Of course, we must take into account what type of interactive control features we expect to face, and build in response, possibly slowing the deck slightly to avoid interaction.


No. They are playing similar roles. They do both create card quality.

Card quality improvement IS the role in this discussion. They are played in the deck to create card quality; they are playing the same role.

You need to re-read what I've said. It isn't how Magma Jet/SDT/SW create card quality, it is the fact they they are creating card quality that allows us to compare them. The question was about whether we could compare Magma Jet and SDT/SW, and we certainly can.


You play "fewer" lands, not "less" lands.

Seems like a reasonable mistake. "Land" is usually an uncountable noun. You understood the sentence; I'm not worried. Don't waste my time.


Anyway, how many fewer lands are you running, now that you have 4x SW?

Have you been reading? Go back and check to find the answer. Garban and I even agreed on this point. Do you even understand what we were talking about?


And how exactly does SW let you see SB cards "much earlier" as well?

That is a good question. I don't know the answer. It's a reasonable amount for a Burn deck which has very limited options for digging to sideboard cards.


Now please bear in mind, I am not saying SW is not worth playing, or that either card is clearly better than the other, but you have some very faulty reasoning sir.

Which cards did you think we were comparing? You've nitpicked at my grammar, but you've yet to show the faulty reasoning, sir. I'll be happy to explain anything you may have misunderstood, or if I made a mistake, I'll be happy to retract my original thought.

Show me.


You are turning copies of "Pay 2 life, draw a card" into some miracle cure for Burn. You are twisting the facts to make it sound more powerful than it really is.

You are confused. You need to read again -- everything from post #904 to present. Your nitpicking has missed the big picture of what was debated. This argument is not about any 'amazingness' of SW or SDT. I haven't said anything of the sort, even if you are trying to make it look like that. The issue has always been about viability.

Garban said they were strictly bad cards in burn. I said they weren't. You are (poorly) reading my arguments for viability, which are not sensationalist claims. I'm sorry if you don't like my writing style. I'm hoping your next post will show criticism of content instead of trivial grammar.






peace,
4eak

[FoulQ]

@ 4eak

So through all you've said, is your build something like this? (this is what I'm currently testing)

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Magma Jet
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
3 Flamebreak

4 Street Wraith
3 Sensei's Divining Top

4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
10 Mountain

(my own sideboard)
SB: 4 Pithing Needle
SB: 4 Vexing Shusher
SB: 4 Pyrostatic Pillar
SB: 3 Smash to Smithereens

[scrow213]

Well, let's get the grammar discussion out of the way:

It's not "grammar police" to correct you when you use very incorrect words. I didn't say "You used a conditional tense in a complex sentence!" Furthermore, regardless of how many people would use the word "than" in that sentence, the word "than" is still the wrong word. Plenty of people use "LOL" in writing, but it does not make those things correct. Additionally, while the word "land" is an uncountable noun, in this context it is "land cards" which is certainly countable. Hence it should be "fewer lands" not "less lands". Lastly, there is a distinct difference between "non-standard" and "wrong". "Different than" is utterly wrong, "ain't" is non-standard. Now that we have that business out of the way, on to the discussion.

Whether the deck is combo, aggro, or control is completely irrelevant to the deck's design. The goal with all burn is to throw 20 to the dome as fast as possible while not dying. Saying "Nuh uh! It's combo!" or "No wai! It's aggro!" makes no fucking difference. The deck's goal is still "Play a lot of burn spells to deal 20 damage really fucking fast." Burn spells are inherently interactive and simultaneously non-interactive. They can burn creatures (interactive) or reach (non-interactive), so you aren't trying to decide which type of card to play.

As for card quality, I can concede the point that they are both (or all three, including Top) card-quality spells. They attain this end in entirely different ways, with different outcomes, but they are indeed card quality. However, while we can compare the three cards, I do not think we should. This is where the cards differ from each other. Magma Jet, since it is a burn spell, should not be compared to SDT or SW, since the other two only provide card quality. In my opinion, Magma Jet is clearly superior, as it nets better card quality, while still moving towards the deck's goal. I can see how SW could be treated the same, as it draws a card as well, but certainly not SDT.

As to my question asking how many fewer lands you run, that was rhetorical. I understand it would generally be one fewer, to which my point was that one fewer land is of negligible consequence. Yes, I am following. I apologize that inflections of tone do not transfer well to written language.


Which cards did you think we were comparing? You've nitpicked at my grammar, but you've yet to show the faulty reasoning, sir. I'll be happy to explain anything you may have misunderstood, or if I made a mistake, I'll be happy to retract my original thought.

I was referring specifically to Magma Jet and SW. The faulty reasoning are statements such as SW hides lands by allowing you to play fewer of them. You are playing one land fewer (negligible), and Magma Jet can Scry 2, meaning you can move one or two lands each time you play Magma Jet. I also pointed out that you said "see sideboard cards much sooner" which is not the case. You can see sideboard cards marginally sooner, but not sooner than you could with Magma Jet or even SDT for that matter, so that point is moot.

And once again, I am not saying that any of the options are definitely better than the rest, but I personally think Magma Jet is better. It lets you shift 2 cards (potentially) and deals damage in the process, while SW saps 2 life, and gives you a blind draw (while also thinning your deck in a manner). Top is entirely different, and I think the fact that it only gives card advantage while providing nothing else (cantrip, deck thinning, damage, etc) makes it a less-optimal choice out of the three.

[4eak]

@ FoulQ

Pretty close.

1-2x SDT
4-6x Fetch (we've played without them too)
19 land total

I've been impressed with Keldon Marauders as well.



@ scrow213


It's not "grammar police" to correct you when you use very incorrect words.

You understood what I said, so what's the problem? The point of language is to transmit ideas. A word is correct when it's successful in transmitting the appropriate idea. My words were successful in those sentences, and therefore even "correct", even if you personally didn't like it. Grammar is only necessary insofar as it promotes the transmission. Language changes (life is rough), and if I used an expression that you don't like (but still understood): Tough.

I certainly didn't point out your grammatical mistakes (which, btw, you do have some) because it didn't matter. If I saw you correcting everyone's grammar in this thread, then perhaps I wouldn't think so much of it. So far, attacking trivial grammar looks like a poor rhetorical device you employ when you don't actually have anything better to criticize.


Whether the deck is combo, aggro, or control is completely irrelevant to the deck's design.

It seems pretty relevant. Feel free to elaborate on this point. Role and design walk hand-in-hand. You can't know one without the other.


Saying "Nuh uh! It's combo!" or "No wai! It's aggro!" makes no fucking difference.

That is an irrelevant appeal. By the way, this is the sort of rhetorical criticism you should be offering. At least it separates the chaff from the substance of an argument.


Burn spells are inherently interactive and simultaneously non-interactive. They can burn creatures (interactive) or reach (non-interactive), so you aren't trying to decide which type of card to play.

Burn spells might play a stronger control role in a deck just splashing for it, but it isn't as prominent in this deck. The vast majority of the deck is looking to play a non-interactive game, even if those spells can be used differently in other decks which play different roles themselves.

There certainly are choices to be made though. Not all burn spells can interact with creatures (Lava Spike), and some Burn spells are used simply because of some interaction with creatures (Flamebreak).


However, while we can compare the three cards, I do not think we should.

The fact that you've thought about why you wouldn't run them and you've conceded they play similar roles means you are in fact comparing them. You definitely should compare them. Comparing doesn't imply equality, just relevance.

Whether you 'should or should not run them' is a different problem altogether. The rest of your rant is about 'why you like Magma Jet more than SW/SDT', and that isn't what I have been debating at all. I know Magma Jet is better, but that doesn't exclude us from running the other cards.


The faulty reasoning are statements such as SW hides lands by allowing you to play fewer of them.

I rejected that claim already. Have you done your reading like I asked? You've walked into the middle of the debate, but you've not taken into account what was said before, or more importantly, why it was said.

"Hiding Lands" was merely a metaphor. It was a shortcut I shouldn't have used. The mechanics by which Scry and a Cantrip improve card quality are literally different, but the point is that they lead to the same type of value (even if Magma Jet and SW differ in amounts) that should be compared.

Again, the debate was not at the time about 'how' card quality is improved, just about whether they should or should not be compared based upon the roles they play. You've already conceded they play similar roles, and maybe even that they have the same roles after you think about it. Read not only what I said, but consider why I said it. I was rejecting the claim that these cards are not to be compared--that wasn't faulty reasoning.


You can see sideboard cards marginally sooner, but not sooner than you could with Magma Jet or even SDT for that matter, so that point is moot.

You see them sooner. Pretty simple. Debate the word "much" all you want. It certainly is marginal in decks that have better options or play a different role. Given current burn lists, moving from 60 to 56 cards still has relevant impact, even if it's only a few percentage points for any given card, it all adds up.

Again, I have no idea why you are implying that I'm arguing to run SW or SDT at the expense of running Magma Jet. The cards are not mutually exclusive. You would know that if you had taken the time to read the debate from top to bottom.


And once again, I am not saying that any of the options are definitely better than the rest, but I personally think Magma Jet is better.

You seem pretty hellbent on not playing SDT/SW (without an impressive argument either) and personally thinking outloud that "Magma Jet is clearly better", but then you aren't saying anything definitely at all, according to this statement?

Congratulations.

Stay on topic. You've missed what I've been debating, so read in context.







peace,
4eak

[LordEvilTeaCup]

Anyone have thoughts on the Volcanic Fallout versus Flamebreak debate? Ultimately, I suppose it is a meta decision, but I believe Fallout deserves serious attention.

[4eak]

Volcanic Fallout is obviously good against blue-based aggro decks. Merfolk in particular, Counterslivers (depends) and Faeries (flyers, so Fallout is obviously better) as well. For most everything else I prefer Flamebreak. Against Lord-based decks, it may require an additional burn spell to clear the field though.

The instant speed could be decent against Ichorid tokens, which are often generated en masse on their fundamental turn (leaving no time to answer at Flamebreak's sorcery speed). If it doesn't get therapy'd away, then it could timewalk you several turns, perhaps even just win on its own if they expended too many resources to roll you. Alongside bridge-removal through Fanatic/Marauders, Fallout wouldn't be awful.

I also like the card against Landstill decks which abuse Elspeth (admittedly, itself answered by our targeted burn) or DoJ. If you can handle their win conditions, then slow-rolling them becomes even easier.

As you said, it seems like a reasonable maindeck choice for an especially metagamed burn deck. I could also see Fallout easily justified in the side for burn in general.






peace,
4eak

[LordEvilTeaCup]

Volcanic Fallout is obviously good against blue-based aggro decks. Merfolk in particular, Counterslivers (depends) and Faeries (flyers, so Fallout is obviously better) as well. For most everything else I prefer Flamebreak. Against Lord-based decks, it may require an additional burn spell to clear the field though.

The instant speed could be decent against Ichorid tokens, which are often generated en masse on their fundamental turn (leaving no time to answer at Flamebreak's sorcery speed). If it doesn't get therapy'd away, then it could timewalk you several turns, perhaps even just win on its own if they expended too many resources to roll you. Alongside bridge-removal through Fanatic/Marauders, Fallout wouldn't be awful.

I also like the card against Landstill decks which abuse Elspeth (admittedly, itself answered by our targeted burn) or DoJ. If you can handle their win conditions, then slow-rolling them becomes even easier.

As you said, it seems like a reasonable maindeck choice for an especially metagamed burn deck. I could also see Fallout easily justified in the side for burn in general.






peace,
4eak

Good points. Actually, perhaps fallout would be better in the Goblin MU as well. The instant gives your opponent more opportunities to over-extend.

[Tacosnape]

The problem with Street Wraith is the same problem as Street Wraith in every other deck in the universe: You don't know what card you're paying your 2 life for.

In point, take the hand of:

Mountain
Mountain
Mountain
Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Rift Bolt
?_____________?

Three land and three simple, average, 1-for-3 burn spells. If the blank space is a Mountain, you might consider tossing this hand back.

If it's any other burn spell, you almost certainly keep it.

If it's a Street Wraith, you run a risk. You don't know if the Street Wraith is essentially a mountain or a burn spell. Therefore you don't know if it's correct to mulligan the hand or not. And you're paying 2 life to guess at information you get for free if you don't run the Wraith. If you cycle that Wraith and it's a land, you're looking at a mana-heavy hand, and 2 less life worth of time to topdeck more burn spells to outrace your opponent. If you cycle it and get the burn spell, you're in decent shape, but you still cut your race time by two life. And that makes a difference in a world of Tarmogoyfs.

Wraith gets worse every time they print better burn spells, also. And there's more than 40-42 good burn spells worth running in a deck now.

[4eak]

@ Tacosnape


The problem with Street Wraith is the same problem as Street Wraith in every other deck in the universe: You don't know what card you're paying your 2 life for.

Street Wraith is actually much worse in decks that aren't Burn, and for most decks, the above is a very real problem to SW's playability. Anyone who is willing to do the math behind Burn's opening hands won't have nearly the same problems as other decks though. The difference boils down to role redundancy in Burn. Unlike most decks which have, at the bare minimum, 4-5 different card functions in the deck, often with greatly varying conditions to playability, Burn has very predictable needs and functions. Street Wraith is about averages, and Burn is pretty straightfoward in this regard.

General decks barriers to Street Wraith playability:


Decks which see lots of cards per game will not want Street Wraith (because it's life loss scales up).
Decks which aren't redundant (often those decks which rely upon Brainstorm/Ponder for digging and re-ordering libraries) would be less inclined to play Street Wraith.
Decks which are looking to assemble a specific sets of cards in order to validly keep a hand would not play Street Wraith.

There are probably even more problems in running Street Wraith in other decks. These are just a few. Very few problems are relevant to Burn though (Burn's construction is somewhat unique).

The information lost by playing Street Wraith can be huge to many decks. Even if it was Cycling--Pay 0, I wouldn't play Street Wraith in a lot of decks. Unlike most decks though, and due to its massive redundancy, there is a minimal amount of information lost to Burn by opening a hand with Street Wraith.

Take your example hand. You have an 11-12% chance to open a 3-Land + SW hand.


Mountain
Mountain
Mountain
Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Rift Bolt
?_____________? (Street Wraith)

I would keep that hand. Out of your remaining 50 functional cards, you should have 15-16 lands and 33-35 burn spells, and a 5% chance to pay another 2 by drawing Street Wraith. Cards like Fireblast would have made it even easier to keep.

I think the hard choices come from opening something like a 2x SW hand, a 6% chance. 5 out of 6 of those hands will have a Mountain in them already, but the remaining hands where you don't have a land are where you lose out from a forced Mull.


And you're paying 2 life to guess at information you get for free if you don't run the Wraith.

I would rephrase this as:

100% of the time you are paying ~1.5 life per game to play a 56-card deck, and 40% of the you are paying 2 life to guess at information you would have had for free if you didn't have Street Wraith. Most of the time, you aren't evening having to think about how to mulligan, you just get the benefit without paying the mulligan question cost.

For the 40% of the time you do have to think harder about your hand, the question is really: how necessary is that information you must guess? In Burn, it isn't very necessary. The sticking points are when you are drawing too few land or too many land. Be honest, this deck is fairly consistent in that respect.

75% of your opening SW hands will have a land, and 63% will have at least 2 lands. The other 4-5 cards shouldn't be problematic--they all do roughly the same thing.

If this were a deck that had more than 2 (sometimes splashed for 3) functions in it, then SW would make opening hand considerations too complicated. With practice and thought, Burn pilots should not have many issues with mulliganing, even when they do encounter SW.






peace,
4eak

[Nihil Credo]

Two questions regarding SW:

1) If Street Wraith weren't available, what card (or combination of cards) would you play in its slots?

2) Is that card so bad that a majority of the time, upon drawing it, you would be happy to pay 2 life to cycle it away?

[TheRock]

There are two other advantages to running Street Wraith:

1. The curve of your deck drops ever so slightly and you're not stuck with 3 drops that you can't cast and loads of 2 drops that you can't cast as often.
2. It makes Barbarian Ring, a great choice for a few lands, much better cards.

I generally don't find Stifle to be a problem since you can cycle the Wraith when they tap out (which any deck revolving around cantrips or FoF eventually has to), but it will be a problem if you run fetches to complement it.


As for Flamebreak, I generally don't like the card as the posts here document well enough. It's a sorcery that Goblins can permanently pin down with a Port unless you get a 4th land and Merfolk can simply laugh off. Unless your metagame has Zoo or a lot of other X/3 bodies in it, I generally prefer Cave-In. However, I'm really starting to like Fallout since it's an instant and it can't be countered, so I would lean to Fallout over Flamebreak right now. The ability to kill a swinging Factory and Mutavault is a very nice bonus.

[4eak]

@ Nihil Credo


1) If Street Wraith weren't available, what card (or combination of cards) would you play in its slots?

This is (forgive me) the burning question, regardless of whether or not you are considering SW. Burn has been seeking the last 8-12 slots for a long time.

I said before, this the bare minimum, heart and soul, list:


4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Magma Jet
3 Fireblast
18 Land

I would be willing to argue that we should add to the bottom-line list:

+1 Fireblast
+1-2 Land
+4 Price of Progress

I'm sure most could agree to this; if not, I can explain. Basically, we wish we could just stop adding cards right here, but unfortunately, we can't. This puts us at ~12 slots open. What do you put in those 12 slots? The most common choices for these slots have included:

Incinerate -- 2 for 3 (half efficiency)
Browbeat -- I won't get into this card unless I have to...
Flamebreak -- The best of the 3, but metagame dependant, and often most useful where PoP is less useful, so these are sometimes considered substitutes for each other.

Other cards include (ordered by function):

Mana-efficient, temporary creatured-based damage:
Keldon Marauders
Spark Elemental
Hellspark Elemental

Long term (capable) damage sources:
Mogg Fanatic
Sulforic Vortex
Cursed Scroll
Grim Lavamancer

Random/Utility Burn:
Fork
Flame Rift
Barbarian Ring
Flames of the Bloodhand
Char
Shard Volley
Shrapnel Blast
Sudden Shock

Depending on colors splashes, sideboards, and distinct metagame choices like Sulfuric vortex, the rest of the deck becomes filled out. Burn lists vary almost exlusively in the last slots, and that's a strong indicator that they are comparatively less valuable than the widely used shell. Testing will show you they are filler burn cards.

Of those, our testing has shown the Sligh model to be the most effective evolution of this deck. I suggest Mogg Fanatic and Keldon Marauders, as they always deal damage, regardless of control cards. If you don't want creatures, then Flame Rift could merit a slot. This leaves me with ~4 slots open. (I usually consider Sensei's Divining Top as the card that replaces my 19th or 20th land, but we can think of 1x SW as doing this if you want.)


Is that card so bad that a majority of the time, upon drawing it, you would be happy to pay 2 life to cycle it away?

For those last 4 slots, yes. I would rather pay 2 life and see a more efficient card. It lowers my mana curve and speeds my fundamental turn. For most, the question would be: do I Browbeat for 3, Incinerate for 2, Flamebreak for 3 or do I pay zero mana and 2 life to see a better card? If I'm not tuning Burn to beat any one specific deck, the answer will be cycling SW.






peace,
4eak

[Garban]

Good points. Actually, perhaps fallout would be better in the Goblin MU as well. The instant gives your opponent more opportunities to over-extend.

I love volcanic fallout ^^ Yes, i prefer it against goblins. Vial, warchief and rishadan port make instant speed really useful. Sometimes, it can be worth to attack with keldon after playing it (well, really, this is not relevant :laugh: ) Wort, Boggart Auntie could be the only problem.



1) If Street Wraith weren't available, what card (or combination of cards) would you play in its slots?



This is my current list:

// Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)

// Lands
19 [BD] Mountain (2)

// Creatures
4 [AT] Mogg Fanatic
4 [PLC] Keldon Marauders

// Spells
4 [CHK] Lava Spike
4 [LG] Chain Lightning
4 [U] Lightning Bolt
2 [IA] Incinerate
4 [FD] Magma Jet
4 [EX] Price of Progress
4 [TSP] Rift Bolt
4 [VI] Fireblast
3 [SHM] Flame Javelin

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [CNF] Volcanic Fallout
SB: 4 [SC] Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 4 [GP] Shattering Spree
SB: 3 [ALA] Relic of Progenitus



I run Flame Javelin due to Counterbalance. Keldon helps me against Merfolks and Relic also makes them better in some pairings as well as moggs. I think that the rest are common choices. About my side, combo is hardly played here. Actually, even less with the growing popularity of Baseruption.


Following with the sweepers, I would like to make you a question. At the moment, i'm siding the fallouts against Baseruption/Countertop but i must test it more. Do you think it’s worth?


@ TheRock:



As for Flamebreak, I generally don't like the card as the posts here document well enough. It's a sorcery that Goblins can permanently pin down with a Port unless you get a 4th land and Merfolk can simply laugh off. Unless your metagame has Zoo or a lot of other X/3 bodies in it, I generally prefer Cave-In. However, I'm really starting to like Fallout since it's an instant and it can't be countered, so I would lean to Fallout over Flamebreak right now. The ability to kill a swinging Factory and Mutavault is a very nice bonus.


About cave-in, i think that a card lose is very hard in this deck. Its free cost could be nice to kill tokens but you would need instant speed to defend a fast attack by Ichorid. I think it’s not a good choice. About manlands, it’s nice to have the option, but you could also make your POP worse.

[Tacosnape]

Cards I would run 4 of before I ran 4 Street Wraith:

Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Lava Spike
Rift Bolt
Price of Progress
Incinerate
Fireblast
Flame Rift
Flame Javelin
Flamebreak
Magma Jet (And anyone who knows me knows I hate this card in burn, so there's some idea of how much I hate Street Wraith.)

There's 44 right there, without even touching into good to semi-viable creatures, which goes:

Hellspark Elemental
Mogg Fanatic
Spark Elemental
Ball Lightning
Keldon Marauders

Additionally, I'd run mediocre burn spells like Thunderbolt/Volcanic Hammer/Flames of the Blood Hand/etc over Wraith. Or I'd splash white for Lightning Helix. Etc.

[LordEvilTeaCup]

@Tacosnape: You have a list?

[Garban]

Magma Jet (And anyone who knows me knows I hate this card in burn, so there's some idea of how much I hate Street Wraith.)


That sounds me familiar ^^ i also hated magma jet in Burn. Some really bad experiences with it at topdeck xD I have discussed a lot about this card. People only told me that it was great to get down two mountains. I said that it was almost impossible, that i had it even difficult to find one ^^ Actually i even love them so I’ll try to change also your opinion hehe:

- It can be even nice to search a land xD (to play a rescuer sweeper against goblins for example).

- Against Countertop/Chalice it can be useful to get down some burn spells.

- Apart from the lands, manipulation is relevant when you introduce your side.

- Sometimes you’ll have to kill some creatures (lackey, warchief, meddling, etc.) So here, the one less damage will be irrelevant.

- The more bad topdecks (creatures) or conditional cards (POP) you run, the more useful it will be. Also the creatures (mogg/keldon) contribute to a longer play and magma makes itself better in that way.


Really, I thought i would be able to say more and better arguments, but reading myself now, it seems not :laugh: May be, I wouldn’t run magma jet in case i would want to run Flame rift. I find it as if they were in opposite ways.


About Hellspark elemental or his little brother, i would prefer to run even… well, almost any card over them :laugh: :P With these cards you are breaking deck’s concept. About Hellspark you should also remember that STP is the main creature removal. (i know you said semi-viable cards but well... xD)

I think that thunderbolt is also a decent burn spell ;D

[TheRock]

You don't run manlands, you run Fallout to destroy manlands since it is an instant. I have long since cut Cave-In, but in a metagame where more than half of my opponents just scoop to Pillar or Vortex, I would run it again in a flash.

Truthfully though, if you can't do 20 damage with seven burn spells, then something is seriously wrong. The one damage you lose for replacing Flamebreak with Fallout isn't too relevant unless you need to sweep for three.

[sunshine]

I would never sleeve up burn without Magma Jet. There is exactly one situation where Jet I am not happy to draw Jet and that's when you're opponent is at three and you're in topdeck mode, and even then it's not bad. In almost every other case Jet is the card I most want to draw (with obvious exceptions such as oppoent as 8 with four non basics in play...). When you need to draw gas Jet's ability to smooth your draws is just amazing, and hitting your third land drop on time can be a very big deal. This may be slightly meta dependent but Jet at the end up my opponents turn is my ideal second play of the game.

[Garban]

@ TheRock:

Yes, I don’t run manlands. Perhaps, I have explained myself bad. I know it is a little strange but I’m saying that killing opponent’s manlads “can be bad” due to POP. Well, against merfolks I usually take out the 4 POP to introduce Volcanic Fallout, so in that case it would be nice to kill mutas ^^ Of course it’s not a problem and it’s nice to have the option ;D

[Finn]

Aren't the Mishra Factories handy at buying time off an opponent while you burn their head? I would think that this is a very handy thing, and that it would be more of an issue than taking damage from PoP.

Garban, you should be beating Merfolk with or without dedicated hate. Just hit the lords and Reejereys.

[sunshine]

Aren't the Mishra Factories handy at buying time off an opponent while you burn their head? I would think that this is a very handy thing, and that it would be more of an issue than taking damage from PoP.

Garban, you should be beating Merfolk with or without dedicated hate. Just hit the lords and Reejereys.

The best way to beat Merfolk is by running Volcanic fallout, at least in your board. We really want to be sending targeted at creatures as little as possible, especially since, I'm not saying you wont ever have to do it but it is a much less desirable situation than running a sweeper. I think this MU in particular is what gives Fallout the nod over Flamebreak if it didn't have it already. Three mana is a lot, especially when there are Dazes and Cursecatchers kicking around - getting your board sweeper countered can be game over if you dedicate three mana and a turn to it.

Edit: I have actually tested the Merfolk MU more than any other with burn - it does not necessarily fall into the "you should be winning this anyway" category.

[4eak]

Magma Jet discussions, oy.

I'll confirm; Merfolk isn't a match you should necessarily be winning without dedicated hate.

Merfolk run up to 16 maindeck counters to our spells, 8 of them on a stick. At the very least, they heavily disrupt our mana-curve. Merfolk have a clock and the means to stay alive to use it.

Burn is on par with the best hands of the aggro decks in Legacy, and only slightly better than aggro's average hand. Reach (avoidance of interaction) and consistency are Burn's advantages over them, but our speed is closer to even than most would like to admit. Aggro decks can already race Burn often enough to make us worry, but heavy aggro with built-in disruption can pose serious problems.





peace,
4eak

[Justin]

About Hellspark elemental or his little brother, i would prefer to run even… well, almost any card over them :laugh: :P With these cards you are breaking deck’s concept. About Hellspark you should also remember that STP is the main creature removal. (i know you said semi-viable cards but well... xD)

Another problem with these cards is that 3 power is very underwhelming in Legacy. An opponent will very often have a 3/4 Goyf or another 4+toughness creature sitting on the board at any given time. Too often these elementals won't be able to push through any damage at all. They might be OK in standard, but not in Legacy.

[Finn]

Sunshine, coming from the other side, we hate the matchup.

[matamagos]

Is pyrostatic pillar enough to win ad nauseam deck??

I'm a little worried about that cause my meta is beginning to be full of them.

I thought about playing Fork to copy ad nauseam, but the only benefit we would take is maybe playing a fireblast to deal 4 damage. And having 2 mountains untaped to do it means that we haven't played 2 lighting bolts to deal 6 damage. So finally I suppose Fork will not enter the list.

[idraleo]

Is pyrostatic pillar enough to win ad nauseam deck??



No, most of the times it can' t kill a good player of ANT. Personally, i start to run 3 copyes of Thorn of Amethist in my sideboard against those decks, it is completely unexpected, it slows a bit our gameplan but shuts completely our opponent' s one and is more pretty against other combo-based such as Belcher or Enchantress or Solidarity.

[matamagos]

What about chalice of the void set at 0???

It's only useful in this pairing but it's faster than pyllar os thorn and it can stop turn 1 killings if we are on the draw.

[idraleo]

4 cards to stop 8-9 cards seems not a good plan ^^'''

[troopatroop]

4 cards to stop 8-9 cards seems not a good plan ^^'''

Making all your spells cost 1 more seems bad too. I'd play Pillar, it's still a HUGE pain in the ass. Much better than Thorn here.

[matamagos]

4 cards to stop 8-9 cards seems not a good plan ^^'''

I agree, but what else can I do if a lot of people in my store play ad nausem? I forget my burn deck?

chalice stops led's and lotus petal, 2 of the most important cards in ad nauseam. and we also hit chrome mox, mox diamond and pact of negation.

[idraleo]

against ANT, it stops ONLY Led' s and Petal, chrome and diamond isn' t played, pact of negation is a 1x, and most of the time ANT player will side it out.

@troopatrop, probably post sb your game will be this, assuming that ANT player had a decent hand and that they will side off AN, try to go and combo off like old Iggy-pop: turn1 3 damage, turn 2 Pillar, and on turn 3 they'l probably combo on your face, doing a first small tendril (5-6 copyes) and going to win with the second one. It happens most of the times, because they obv will play LED and Petal on theyr turn 1, to get mana without deal damage to theyrself. Playing this way, do or not a 2nd turn Pillar is unrelevant, assuming they had a normal hand and that they know how to play theyr deck. So, Thorn will probably slow our gameplan too, but it shuts opponent one, and is efficient against Belcher, where Pillar probably doesn' t work as well as we want.

[matamagos]

maybe we can play sphere of resistance, since we only play 4 mogg as creatures. This will stop combo elves and... alluren??? I'm not quite sure of that. Someone is good at the rules of static effects???

EDIT:

I have found in the report section a match between ad nauseam and burn, it's quite funny. The ad nauseam player speaks:

2nd Round - BR Discard/Burn?? (Won 2-0)

Game 1 - (I win the dice roll.) I play a Gemstone Mine and pass the turn, and he plays a Mountain, Lightning Bolts me, and passes the turn. I end of his turn Brainstorm into (Dark Ritual, Cabal Ritual, Lotus Petal) which was amazing for me at the time. I draw my second Dark Ritual, and once again go Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, Ad Nauseam. I draw plenty of good good stuff and cast Burning Wish to get my Tendrils out from under my Chrome Mox and win.

Boarding In: (Not-A-Thing.)

Game 2 - He plays a Mountain and passes the turn, I open up with a hand of (Lion's Eye Diamond, Lion's Eye Diamond, Gemstone Mine, Dark Ritual, Infernal Tutor, Brainstorm, Orim's Chant). I play my Gemstone Mine, cast Dark Ritual, cast both Lion's Eye Diamonds, cast Infernal Tutor, breaking the Lion's Eye Diamonds in response going to get Ad Nauseam. I proceeded to win with my main deck Tendrils after revealing plenty of good stuff.

[davidboan]

Hi guys,

I'm a long time lurker thats finally decided to get an account. I wanted to share with You a build that has worked really well for Me for a long time. My meta is really aggro heavy, has no combo and very little control which makes Burn a pretty good option in My opinion. Here is My list.

LAND
20 Mountain

DUDES
4 Mogg Fanatic

STUFF
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Flamebreak
4 Incinerate
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Magma Jet
4 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt

SIDEBOARD
4 Pithing Needle
4 Red Elemental Blast
4 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Shattering Spree

[idraleo]

-4 FLamebreak +4 Vulcanic Fallout

[Dark_Cynic87]

Ad Nauseam doesn't give a crap about the 0cc cards in their list as they run 4x Dark Rits, 3-4 Cabal Rits, and anywhere from 14-16 lands, considerably more than TES. All they will do is play them, let them get countered and build up their storm, and then Tendrils you into oblivion. Or even better, drop their 0cc cards turn one and combo off before you get to two mana to drop the Chalice. Also, some people run Spell Snare instead of Pyroblasts in their storm lists.

Use Pyrostatic Pillar. It punishes them even when the get rid of it. That, and Storm has this tendency to run lots of non-basix, and PoP punishes them. I've learned that it's unwise to play Doomsday and Ad Nauseam against Burn and just to stick with the IGG as soon as possible, preferably turn one or two, 3 at the latest, and to always fetch my basics first. Storm is a fairly bad matchup for you IF they know what they are doing. If they are a scrub, then they'll just Ad Nauseam, pay too much life and you can burn them to death after the resolution of Ad Nauseam.

Otherwise, you could try Magii of the Moon or Blood Moon, although I don't know how well that will turn out because of what I'm about to explain.

Don't run anything other than Mountains. The idea of burn is that every non-land card in it needs to have the potential of being lethal. Also, your goal is to make as few of their disruption pieces relevant as possible. Nothing that can be Needle'd, wasted, or removed from the game without dealing damage. No manlands, no wastelands, no fetches (stifle), and no creatures that don't do damage when they are killed (Mogg Fanatic or Keldon Marauders are examples of good choices).

Pce,

--DC

[rockout]

I tried searching this forum before posting, but I did not find a suitable answer to my question, so I pose it now:

What do you guys think of Hellspark Elemental?
4 manage for 6 damage and the unearth ability gets around counter balance.

What do you guys think of Everlasting Torment over Sulfuric Vortex or as a split out of the board?
Everlasting Torment stops COP: Red and other stuff. Also, in a pinch it can shrink a goyf or tombstalker.

Thanks.

[keys]

Running creatures in Burn, even Hellspark, enables your opponent's creature removal. I think fanatic is the only exception.

If you run any creatures, the deck becomes Sligh.

[FoulQ]

Dark_Cynic's post directly above yours deals with the issue of creatures lightly, and keys answered it well. Hellspark Elemental does not guarentee damage like fanatic and marauders. And like keys said, if you run them, you are playing a fundamentally different deck. With such a simple deck concept, we have little new cards to test (as "shock" is clearly inferior to "lightning bolt"), but this was one of them. I've been trying to design a burn deck with it (as I play pretty exclusively red) and all of them have failed.

Personally I'm not a fan of everlasting torment. But I've never really thought of the idea of shrinking fat in a pinch. I tested it when it came out and dismissed it but...anybody else test this card more extensively?

[matamagos]

I tried searching this forum before posting, but I did not find a suitable answer to my question, so I pose it now:

What do you guys think of Hellspark Elemental?
4 manage for 6 damage and the unearth ability gets around counter balance.

What do you guys think of Everlasting Torment over Sulfuric Vortex or as a split out of the board?
Everlasting Torment stops COP: Red and other stuff. Also, in a pinch it can shrink a goyf or tombstalker.

Thanks.

Hellspark is very suboptimal. 1.5 damages for each mana invested.

Everlasting torment is an option but I haven't played it cause vortex seems better. Vortex does damage, and if you want to kill tarmos through everlasting you will have to play two bolts to kill them, so you generate card disadvantage in a deck that doesn't have any kind of extra draw. A better way to deal with tarmos is blocking them with fanatics and just play your bolts to your opponent's head.

I have a proposal about the never ending counterbalance subject: what about vexing shusher in the side?

I know he dies to removal but in the second game it's expected your opponent would have sided off all kind of removal from the maindeck.

[davidboan]

-4 FLamebreak +4 Vulcanic Fallout


Flamebreak is a meta call for My build. My meta is a lot of tribal aggro decks with no Merfolk and very little Faeries. Elves are the most common and the extra 1 damage makes a hell of a difference in that match up. Another popular choice is Zombies and the no regeneration clause on Flamebreak is brutal in that match up.

[matamagos]

Hi guys,

I'm a long time lurker thats finally decided to get an account. I wanted to share with You a build that has worked really well for Me for a long time. My meta is really aggro heavy, has no combo and very little control which makes Burn a pretty good option in My opinion. Here is My list.

LAND
20 Mountain

DUDES
4 Mogg Fanatic

STUFF
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Flamebreak
4 Incinerate
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Magma Jet
4 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt

SIDEBOARD
4 Pithing Needle
4 Red Elemental Blast
4 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Shattering Spree


If there are no wastelands or stifles in your meta you can go for some barbarian rings instead of 20 mountain.

Also maybe 4 red elemental blasts and 4 sulfuric vortex are too much if you say that you don't face control very often.

And most important, you have to make place in the side for a substitute to price of progress when you face these monocolored random decks that you mention.

[davidboan]

If there are no wastelands or stifles in your meta you can go for some barbarian rings instead of 20 mountain.

Also maybe 4 red elemental blasts and 4 sulfuric vortex are too much if you say that you don't face control very often.

And most important, you have to make place in the side for a substitute to price of progress when you face these monocolored random decks that you mention.


Wastelands and Stifles show up randomly which is part of the reason I don't run Barbarian Ring.

The sideboard cards are anti hate. Chill is pretty common amongst the odd ball blue decks I see and life gain is the main way they try to hate Burn in My meta.

In the match ups where Price of Progress is dead I board them out for the 4 Sulfuric Vortex if I have nothing else to bring in.

[FoulQ]

@ matamagos: Actually, I think people see shusher so much that they keep their removal in. Plus he dies to BEB of course if they need him to (but this isn't necessarily a huge negative). I see many people keeping in StP actually to save their goyf. I prefer a 2/2 vortex/shusher split or just 4 vortex because the only card they have to deal with it is BEB. Is it too slow? Well, burn has trouble winning large events, so obviously yes, but that's the way burn is.

[matamagos]

and life gain is the main way they try to hate Burn in My meta.

What kind of lifegain?

Maybe you can go -2 incinerate +2 flames of the blood hand. Incinerate is one of the cards I like the less from your list. In addition 20 lands are well enough for 3cmc's (I suppose you run 20 to play easily the flamebreaks).

[kicks_422]

Actually, if he replaced the 4 Incinerates with 4 Flames of the Blood Hand, we have the same list. The 3cc of FotBH also gets around Counterbalance, and the one turn no-life-gain clause is just enough to steal games from Loxodon Hierarchs, Lightning Helixes, Rhox War Monks, etc.

[Dark_Cynic87]

@ Creature Discussion: A trivial amount of creatures (4) is almost necessary for the aggro matchup. Aggro can race burn; I feel the matchup is 50/50, and swings in the favor of the better player. You use Maruaders or Fanatics to use as blockers to slow them down, and when Fanatics block, they then ping for one at the opponent, or if at all possible, take out a critter. Essentially acting as 2/1's with trample. Marauders are not as good as Fanatics. Sure, they swing once if possible, but chances are that they get blocked or StP'ed. They still do the damage when they leave play, but it's not as focused or mana efficient as Mogg Fanatic. Also, Mogg Fanatic helps the Ichorid Matchup. The most important thing in the matchup is to keep 3 creatures off the table and remove the bridges. Mogg helps with this being able to take out Ichorid or Narcomoeba while removing any bridges in the 'yard all at once. It's my opinion that Flamebreaks also help the matchup as they can kill any zombies that may be made while you are looking for Mogg (which is where Magma Jet really comes in handy, as does Browbeat, which is a good card as long as you understand how to use it). Obviously you should have 3-4x sideboard slots devoted to graveyard hate as Loam, Ichorid, and the like are all problems due either to their speed (Ichorid) or their disruption (Loam; Chalice, etc.).

Flames of the Blood Hands is good for when they try to swords their own goyf to stay alive. It doesn't hit critters, but with it costing 3 mana and it's effect other than damage, you won't be playing it before their turn 3 anyway at the soonest, so you shouldn't need to play it. I recommend these as a 3-of in the main with 3 Flamebreak in the side in a more controlling, better developed metagame, and vice versa in a creature-dominated/zoo/goblin/merfolk meta.

Hope I'm helping, I like the idea behind burn; destructiveness from simplicity, creating card disadvantage by simply ignoring most pieces of disruption. I just don't play it because I get bored. I like seeing it win, though, so I try to help.

Pce,

--DC

[revenge_inc]

So what about THIS (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=25943) burn list that came 11th out of 474th at BOM3?

[badjuju]

So what about THIS (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=25943) burn list that came 11th out of 474th at BOM3?

That list is awesome. I almost want to just drop all of my money cards and just play that deck. But same problem as DC - I'll probably be bored out of my mind outside of tournament play.

Other than that, is there much to discuss? Burn isn't a very intricate nor complex archetype - everything that's there is there for a pretty blunt reason. You can argue efficiency between various cards, but I think both Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders are great for maximizing damage.

[davidboan]

What kind of lifegain?

Maybe you can go -2 incinerate +2 flames of the blood hand. Incinerate is one of the cards I like the less from your list. In addition 20 lands are well enough for 3cmc's (I suppose you run 20 to play easily the flamebreaks).

The life gain is creatures with lifelink and Jittes mostly. the 20 land thing is a carry over from the days when I was running Anarchy in the sideboard but it does help when I have to be able to play turn 3 Flamebreak or die in match ups like Goblins.



Actually, if he replaced the 4 Incinerates with 4 Flames of the Blood Hand, we have the same list. The 3cc of FotBH also gets around Counterbalance, and the one turn no-life-gain clause is just enough to steal games from Loxodon Hierarchs, Lightning Helixes, Rhox War Monks, etc.

Yeah. I've seen Your list posted somewhere (probably here). I've thought about Flames of the Blood Hand and I like it but I like the fact that Incinerate can hit creatures. I wanna test it more.

[Dark_Cynic87]

You have:
4x Bolt
4x Chain
4x R. Bolt
3x Magma Jet (you should only run 3x; 4 is sub-optimal)
3x Flamebreak/Earthquake/Rolling Earthquake

If that's not enough to take out critters, IDK what is. Flames of the Blood Hands are very useful against the best removal spell in the game--StP. When they swords their creature to stay alive, you can respond with Flames, dealing 4 damage and stopping their lifegain ftw. It's even funnier to do FotBH into a Fireblast in response to their swords.

Pce,

--DC

Oh, and that list at BOM3: Not burn, kinda crappy. Not a fan of all the creatures. I'd maybe use 2x of the Unearth Creatures along with 4x Moggs, but I wouldn't run 11-12 creatures. That IS sligh, and less competitive IMO.

[ScatmanX]

I think tha Flames of the Blood Hand agains't STP is way bad. They're only going to stp their dudes when they really need to. What you have to do is burn them in response. FotBH other abillity becomes uselles.

Nevertheless, Having them agains't Rhox war monks, Exalted Angels is very good. (agains't Jitte is kind of shitty, since you only stop 2 life. Then Smash to Smiterens or Shattering Spree could be better)

Oh, and Guillaume de Sauza's list looks more like Sligh than Burn.
Not saying it's bad though.

[Dark_Cynic87]

I think tha Flames of the Blood Hand agains't STP is way bad. They're only going to stp their dudes when they really need to. What you have to do is burn them in response. FotBH other abillity becomes uselles.


I think you are wrong about it being way bad. StP is used a LOT. It's not like you can't keep the mana open, a lot of the cards you run are instant; your turn or their turn it doesn't matter. Play your sorceries turn one and two, by turn 3 you can leave mana open for the response and if there isn't a swords, just bolt them a couple times eot. Wash, rinse, repeat, playing sorceries prn. (people do swords their own critters fairly often when almost dead, and burn is very good at making you almost dead.)

And as you mentioned, it has other relevant, legitimate applications.

I can't see why you wouldn't play it if you see a bit of landstill and UGw Thresh (Warmonk is played in this, giving you even more opportunities to make it a relevant ability).

Pce,

--DC

[matamagos]

I think tha Flames of the Blood Hand agains't STP is way bad. They're only going to stp their dudes when they really need to. What you have to do is burn them in response. FotBH other abillity becomes uselles.
Not saying it's bad though.


This trick is very predictable. It's very easy for your opponent to think "ei, if I wait to the last turn to sword my critter he will kill me in response with one of his instants" (cause burn plays a lot of instants). So a good player will sword before his last turn, and here is where flames of the blood hand become very useful.

Today beaters are really big, so playing flames in response to a sword will make 4 damage and will prevent 3-5 lives gained. Virtually you are dealing 8-9 damages for 3 mana. Of course this is the best scenario you can imagine for flames, normally they are not so good.

[Wallace]

So what about THIS (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=25943) burn list that came 11th out of 474th at BOM3?


It's a nice list but I don't know if it qualifies as Burn or Sligh. IMO if your gonna run that many creatures then why not just run Goyf Sligh?

[Dark_Cynic87]

Today beaters are really big, so playing flames in response to a sword will make 4 damage and will prevent 3-5 lives gained. Virtually you are dealing 8-9 damages for 3 mana. Of course this is the best scenario you can imagine for flames, normally they are not so good.

They don't swords their critter until they have to because creatures are how they win, and you make them race you via burn spells. When they swords their creature turn 3/4, they gain 4-ish life. That's like countering one of your bolts, on average, maybe a Fireblast (by turn 3 they can get a land, instant, sorcery in the gy, maybe artifact but that's only Goyf Sligh I'm pretty sure and that means no white). That's what burn does; makes them understand that there's a clock, and they HAVE to keep up or die.

Pce,

--DC

[matamagos]

I will try to start a debate about another subject:

Would you kill a dark confident played by your opponent??? I think he is one of the best friends of the burn player.

Normally, if a play against Pikula (aka B/W confident) I will let him alive. It is a slow deck and we can win them with an empty hand only by topdecking some bolts.

However against some landstill's builds I'm not sure wheter to kill him or not. If they get card advantage they will make your play impossible through counterspells.

[ParkerLewis]

I will try to start a debate about another subject:

Would you kill a dark confident played by your opponent??? I think he is one of the best friends of the burn player.

Normally, if a play against Pikula (aka B/W confident) I will let him alive. It is a slow deck and we can win them with an empty hand only by topdecking some bolts.

However against some landstill's builds I'm not sure wheter to kill him or not. If they get card advantage they will make your play impossible through counterspells.

Confidant in Landstill ? An incredibly slow deck with lots of high cc cards ? I don't know if they're trying to make a joke on you by doing this, or if you're the one joking by saying you don't know if you should let it live or not : )

[Taurelin]

Would you kill a dark confident played by your opponent???

It depends on several things.

a) Is it a deck that also runs CounterTop? In this case I'd probably kill him immediately, because he helps them to find CB, and with Top they hardly take any damage.

b) Is it a deck that runs Jitte? In that case each carrier is a potential gamewinner, so yes.

c) Which burn-spell do I have available? If I have a Magma Jet at hand, Confi is a nice target. But I probably wouldn't waste a Bolt.

d) Flamebreak!

[matamagos]

Confidant in Landstill ? An incredibly slow deck with lots of high cc cards ? I don't know if they're trying to make a joke on you by doing this, or if you're the one joking by saying you don't know if you should let it live or not : )

I was not clear. I meant a deck more similar to dreadstill or dreaded fish. These decks sometimes play black to include confidant. The classic landstill list doesn't play confidant, sorry to create confusion.

[Dark_Cynic87]

I will try to start a debate about another subject:

Would you kill a dark confident played by your opponent??? I think he is one of the best friends of the burn player.

Normally, if a play against Pikula (aka B/W confident) I will let him alive. It is a slow deck and we can win them with an empty hand only by topdecking some bolts.

However against some landstill's builds I'm not sure wheter to kill him or not. If they get card advantage they will make your play impossible through counterspells.

It doesn't depend too much. Kill it as cost-effectively as possible as soon as you can. Card advantage wins games, and there's no reason to let him live. You win by turn 4 on a normal day, them seeing 2-3 more cards can screw you over. Pikula may be an exception, but I don't like to risk it. I see no reason with a list full of burn not to pick him off. It's too risky to not kill him IMO.

Pce,

--DC

[Nazgath]

Well, since there's a discussion on 'Format & Article Discussion' about the card Reckless Abandon (http://magiccards.info/ud/en/94.html), I've decided to finally post my list after having tested it on public MWS during 3 days:

// Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)

// Lands
19 [A] Mountain (1)

// Creatures
4 [TE] Mogg Fanatic
4 [PLC] Keldon Marauders
4 [CFX] Hellspark Elemental

// Spells
4 [A] Lightning Bolt
4 [LG] Chain Lightning
4 [CHK] Lava Spike
2 [UD] Reckless Abandon
4 [TSP] Rift Bolt
4 [FD] Magma Jet
3 [EX] Price of Progress
4 [VI] Fireblast

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [EX] Price of Progress
SB: 4 [R] Red Elemental Blast
SB: 4 [SC] Pyrostatic Pillar
SB: 2 [SHM] Smash to Smithereens
SB: 1 [A] Fork
SB: 3 [DS] Flamebreak

Originally, I had a singleton Barbarian Ring in the 20 lands, but I cut it for various reasons. Fireblast, slowness and lifeloss to name a few.

At first, Reckless Abandon was a 2-of, and I don't have enough testing to say 3 is the optimal number, but 4 is certainly too much in this build. Too bad it's not an instant. The reason Reckless Abandon has suddenly become more appealing is due to the recent printing of Hellspark Elemental.

Also, I'd like to maybe fit in a sideboard Fork 1-of against non-blue decks, but I haven't yet decided if it's worth it.


Enjoy.

[idraleo]

Well, since there's a discussion on 'Format & Article Discussion' about the card Reckless Abandon (http://magiccards.info/ud/en/94.html), I've decided to finally post my list after having tested it on public MWS during 3 days:

Originally, I had a singleton Barbarian Ring in the 20 lands, but I cut it for various reasons. Fireblast, slowness and lifeloss to name a few.

At first, Reckless Abandon was a 2-of, and I don't have enough testing to say 3 is the optimal number, but 4 is certainly too much in this build. Too bad it's not an instant. The reason Reckless Abandon has suddenly become more appealing is due to the recent printing of Hellspark Elemental.

Also, I'd like to maybe fit in a sideboard Fork 1-of against non-blue decks, but I haven't yet decided if it's worth it.


Enjoy.



Hi

i'm another deck archetype, sincerely yours,

Sligh

[Nazgath]

Hi

i'm another deck archetype, sincerely yours,

Sligh
I'm just wondering, if I post it in Sligh, will you come running to tell me it's actually a Burn deck due to the transformational sideboard?

[matamagos]

The biggest problem I see in the list is the lonely price of progress. the second one is the lack of flamebreak to open the path to your critters.

Reckless abandon has been discussed some pages ago. It's a nice idea and maybe has some future, but it takes so many slots that probably will make it unplayable. In fact I have always considered him as a one of when anything else makes the cut.

[Clark Kant]

I think this post makes more sense here than else where...

Keldon Marauders, Hellspark Elemental and Mogg Fantastic are good enough creatures that most burn decks already play them (or probably should) anyways, Hellspark adds much needed reach without having to play card draw, and the other two creatures are just too good not to play.

And 12 creatures is enough to absolutely support 2-3 Reckless Abandon. If you wish to play more, then obviously, stuff like Spark Elemental or Jackal Pup which are also solid threats can be cosndiered.

Reckless Abandon does absolutely make for a fantastic finisher, even just a very minimal amount of playing with it proves this point.

Here's just a quick and dirty sample list...

Creature [12]
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders

Instant [16]
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Manamorphose
4 Price of Progress

Sorcery [14]
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
2 Reckless Abandon

Land [18]
18 Mountain

Given that Hellspark readily provides you with another burn spell at a moment's notice, I honestly prefer Manamorphose to Magma Jet for my card draw, but I know that's a touchy subject. So if you like Magma Jet, play it over Manamorphose.

And as I said previously, if you're willing to play Jackal Pup (possibly even instead of Mogg Fantastic) or Spark Elemental (both solid cards in their own right), then you can easily go up to 4 Reckless Abandon. The deck already wins on turn three more frequently than any other aggro or burn list, but making that shift makes the turn three win ever more likely.

And I actually do think that approach has merit as well. Because like I said, Reckless Abandon makes for a really really strong finisher, ranking right up there with Fireblast and PoP.

[Dark_Cynic87]

Honestly. Wtf. Sligh ftl in a burn thread.

Jackal Pup isn't comparable to Fanatic. Fanatic serves many, many purposes, while pup is for damage. I would never play Pup over Mogg. Mogg is an answer to Lackey, Bridge from Below and Narcomoeba. Also, it's a chump blocker that can kill a x/2 creature and/or thrown at their head after blocking.

Creature-wise you aren't including good choices. If you run more than 4-6 creatures, why isn't Grim Lavamancer at the top of the list to be included?

I don't like Sligh. It's too unfocused. I've tried, it's just not what works the best in my experience. Your creatures are never as good as theirs, and it makes your board sweepers worse. Not exactly a win-win situation.

Pce,

--DC

[matamagos]

I did top8 yesterday in a 40 people tournament.
Here is the report:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=348927#post348927

The list I took seems very solid to me. No barbarian rings, no browbeat and no experiments in the maindeck (quite a lot in the side).

[DragoFireheart]

How relevant is this deck still? Is it still burn if it runs a few creatures like mogg and Keldons? Can this deck handle CoTV for 1?

[davidboan]

How relevant is this deck still? Is it still burn if it runs a few creatures like mogg and Keldons? Can this deck handle CoTV for 1?

Burn is still as playable as it has ever been. Moggs and Keldons are normally the only creatures You would see in it, any others and it starts moving more towards sligh. Chalice at 1 is bad but isn't a total shut down, it shuts down about half of the deck in game 1 and slows You down til You can find Shattering Spree in game 2 and 3

[stuckpixel]

We had a burn deck a few weeks back T8 running flame javelins to help with reach against countertop/chalice. He also ran Grim Lavamancers - which I personally don't agree with in burn, but it seemed to work for him.

He lost round one to Merfolk (me), but won out through another 4 rounds to T8, I believe he even made it to T4.

I think Javs + barbarian ring + rift bolt + volcanic fallout give the deck enough reach against counter-top and chalice that it might be worth considering. Your money spells get shut down, but you aren't completely out of it. Not to mention Fireblast.

[badjuju]

Is Mogg Fanatic getting cut after the M10 rule changes?

[jjjoness']

What can't Mogg Fanatic do after M10 that he does today?
I mean it doesn't really matter that often. There aren't that many creatures in Legacy that he can kill or wants to kill by damage stacking.

[dr4g0n]

Is Mogg Fanatic getting cut after the M10 rule changes?

I always thought running Fanatic moved the deck more towards sligh. Personally, I don't think there's much that Fanatic accomplishes more than keeping goblins in check, and even then, you could just burn the lackey rather than sac the Fanatic. Not that it's not a viable card, but I don't think it's that good to run competetively.

[Michael Keller]

What can't Mogg Fanatic do after M10 that he does today?
I mean it doesn't really matter that often. There aren't that many creatures in Legacy that he can kill or wants to kill by damage stacking.

It was critical being able to put damage on the stack with him; it's one of his previous most defining characteristics.

[e=mc^2]

It was critical being able to put damage on the stack with him; it's one of his previous most defining characteristics.

The question asked was weather or not Fanatic being nerfed makes a difference in this deck.

I don't think that before the rules change Fanatic was getting many two for ones in legacy. It can still accomplish its main purpose of being a creature which does not activate any of the opponent's removal.