[Deck] Burn

[RogueBuild]

Thanks Jares, you may not agree, but at lest you understood what I was saying. As for what they could cast on turn 1 that beats the GG, thats not the point. All they have to do is Stop it from dealing damage and they put you behind on the damage you would have done if you just used a bolt spell.

The problem isn't if you run out of gas, or even when, but 3-6 damage in before they gain life or get that Counter-Top active or the nightmare situation for almost all of you, a CotV at 1. Once they start gaining life, for most of you, that's game over. Pre-SB most people playing a typical burn deck have no way to deal with an active Jitt, BatterSkull, Leyline of San., CotV at 1, or anything else that gains life, prevents damage or costs you cards.

A week ago this might not have been as big a problem, but thanks to the modern world of MTG on the web Burn is no longer the red-headed step-child that everyone knows is hiding in the corner and just hopes they don't have to deal with. You are now sitting at the grown-ups table and people will for certain come prepared. And since a lot of the things that stop Burn dead in its tracks are overall useful against other things, you will see them more.

All that being said there is another issue worth thinking about. The odds of a Burn mirror-match just went up. Unless you are happy with letting the winner be decided by the opening coin toss an adjustment to the SB might be in order. In the past I used Dragon's Claw and Sudden Shock. Of the 2 Sudden Shock might be the more useful overall. I have sided it in against various things, normally to kill things like SFM before then can activate it and drop Batterskull, but it is clearly not as strong in the mirror as D's Claw is

[Space Cowboy]

So I was lucky enough to have a LGS open recently not too far from me. (I'm kinda rural.) They had a posted Legacy game every Sunday, the rest of the week being dedicated to Standard or Booster Draft.
Not having played other than casual since Urza's Block, I thought I'd try to get back into the swing of things by starting with Burn. So much has changed since I played regularly, I didn't want to overwhelm/discourage myself. I wanted something straightforward to play so I could focus on learning what was new and the comparatively complex interactions from my normal kitchen table games.
For me, I've always found Burn to be kind of like 'GO', simple and easy to learn, hard to actually master, but rewarding if you put in any kind of effort.

I had no idea what the meta was going in, so I attempted a hybrid approach.

20 Mountains
4 Lightning Bolts
4 Fireblasts
4 Chain Lightnings
4 Rift Bolts
4 Magma Jets
4 Price of Progress
2 Volcanic Fallouts
2 Flamebreak {because I heard last minute Zoo was popular}

4 Goblin Guides
4 Hellspark Elementals
4 Keldon Raiders

Yeah, I know, nothing original at all here, maybe a little creature heavy for true Burn, but remember this was my first tourney in ages and at a new venue to boot. I'm not very experienced in creatureless tactics and didn't want to fly too far from my comfort zone.

As previously mentioned, I had next to no intel on the decks I might duel, so my Sideboard was a real headache. I played it safe, figuring Blue of all stripes would be prevalent. It seemed to me likely I'd run into some measure of Artifacts/Equipment and Graveyard manipulation, what with the focus of the last several sets. I settled on:

4 Pyroblasts
4 Tormods
2 Shattering Sprees {Called Shatners in my playcircle for esoteric reasons.)
2 Smash to Smithereens
2 Vexing Shushers
1 Ratchet Bomb {I really like the broadness of this card, but only have one}

It was like playing in a dreamworld.
I was the only Burnpilot, so no Chills, COPs, or other hate in MB or SBs.
{I'm sure that won't last.}
I didn't see a single Countertop or Storm variant all night, so my total lack of Pillars didn't matter.
A lot of the decks I saw looked like Uplifted Standard fare.

I pulled another new player for the first game, and he was playing an Uplifted Graveborn Foily deck. I don't think he'd played either Legacy or that style of deck much. All his non-focus cards were all too mana intensive and when he was able to Entomb/Re-animate, his choices were just wrong. More Exhume/Animate Dead and Large Hasty Stompie cards would have served him much better in this matchup as he hurt himself almost as much as I did. An Iona would have spelled my doom and the one Inkwell he chose game 2 came in too late. (Brrrr. That could have been a turn one with a Dark Ritual!) He only lasted past turn four the one time he started first, slowed us both down with a couple of hand removal plays (Duress and Last Rites?) doing me and average of 7.5 damage a game. Faceless Butcher, Sickening Dreams, Terastodon, even Blazing Archon {not to mention straightup creature removal like Doomblade,} were less than useless to him. I'm beginning to really feel the power of this deck.

Next up was a Aggro Zooish Deck with Big Stompies, some burn support and alot of mana acceleration. I never saw a basic land in his deck and that was all she wrote. PoP was the star of these three games and my draws were almost ideal. I took some lumps from his burn, but was mostly able to hold off his few initial baby creatures with mine. In a prolonged game his tramplers could have flattened me, but by the time he got them out and they recovered from Summoning Sickness, they only really had time for one strike, much like the Re-animator deck. This deck played for time to get to a few big, well protected creatures. Too Timmy by half for my tastes. He was able to repurpose his burn to my dome instead of removing my virtually non-existent board position. Sweepers didn't really help as they wouldn't weaken his mid-to-late game beasts enough to kill with mine, so Jets helped me bypass them and less useful creatures to get to PoPs earlier. They would have shined if he'd had any early token generators, so I'll leave them in. Didn't sub anything these games to dilute a good (IMO) matchup.

My third game turned into a route. I was up against a Blue counter/control/combo deck and the player was WAY over my league. Even though I subbed in all 4 Pyros and both Shushers, they didn't show up frequently enough and only slowed the game by a turn or two. Silly me, I thought they were going to be wasted after no use in the first two games and they weren't enough to help me by half. The evil grin he had when he finished me off by Redirected my Bolt and then FoWed my Pyro was... frustrating. Humility is good for the soul.

I walked away with a Foil Moonveil Dragon, increased and invaluable experience as well as having a great time and making several new friends. The owner is about my age and he said it was great to have another player of my maturity level in the house. I'll take that as a compliment. There was a very pretty young woman playing that night, but I didn't get a matchup with her, so I have something to come back for. While I'm happily married, I'm honest enough to admit I'd rather face off with a lady if only that they are more pleasant to look at for fifteen to twenty minutes than the average male magic opponent.

I was really happy with the smoothness and consistency of this deck, factoring in the less than top tier nature of the field I played and my relative inexperience. Next time I might try something wild like subbing some Meekstones or even Breaking Points as it would help against the prevalent creature heavy decks I saw and won't matter much against the real sharks that are going to eat me anyway. My only real regret is that I didn't get a chance to test the Rachet Bomb against locking permanents like Chalice, Chill or even Counterbalance, but with only a singleton, that wasn't really going to happen anyway. I didn't see much lifegain, so I'm leaving off Vortex or Everlasting Torment which in my mind might otherwise work well with this build.

It sounds like all of you have much better developed metas, but for a neo-Noob like me, this was a great way to ease back in. I would be extremely grateful for any consructive criticism. Sorry for the very long post and thanks for all the great if indirect advice!

[NeoTech]

So I was lucky enough to have a LGS open recently not too far from me. (I'm kinda rural.) They had a posted Legacy game every Sunday, the rest of the week being dedicated to Standard or Booster Draft.
Not having played other than casual since Urza's Block, I thought I'd try to get back into the swing of things by starting with Burn. So much has changed since I played regularly, I didn't want to overwhelm/discourage myself. I wanted something straightforward to play so I could focus on learning what was new and the comparatively complex interactions from my normal kitchen table games.
For me, I've always found Burn to be kind of like 'GO', simple and easy to learn, hard to actually master, but rewarding if you put in any kind of effort.

I had no idea what the meta was going in, so I attempted a hybrid approach.

20 Mountains
4 Lightning Bolts
4 Fireblasts
4 Chain Lightnings
4 Rift Bolts
4 Magma Jets
4 Price of Progress
2 Volcanic Fallouts
2 Flamebreak {because I heard last minute Zoo was popular}

4 Goblin Guides
4 Hellspark Elementals
4 Keldon Raiders

Yeah, I know, nothing original at all here, maybe a little creature heavy for true Burn, but remember this was my first tourney in ages and at a new venue to boot. I'm not very experienced in creatureless tactics and didn't want to fly too far from my comfort zone.

As previously mentioned, I had next to no intel on the decks I might duel, so my Sideboard was a real headache. I played it safe, figuring Blue of all stripes would be prevalent. It seemed to me likely I'd run into some measure of Artifacts/Equipment and Graveyard manipulation, what with the focus of the last several sets. I settled on:

4 Pyroblasts
4 Tormods
2 Shattering Sprees {Called Shatners in my playcircle for esoteric reasons.)
2 Smash to Smithereens
2 Vexing Shushers
1 Ratchet Bomb {I really like the broadness of this card, but only have one}

It was like playing in a dreamworld.
I was the only Burnpilot, so no Chills, COPs, or other hate in MB or SBs.
{I'm sure that won't last.}
I didn't see a single Countertop or Storm variant all night, so my total lack of Pillars didn't matter.
A lot of the decks I saw looked like Uplifted Standard fare.

I pulled another new player for the first game, and he was playing an Uplifted Graveborn Foily deck. I don't think he'd played either Legacy or that style of deck much. All his non-focus cards were all too mana intensive and when he was able to Entomb/Re-animate, his choices were just wrong. More Exhume/Animate Dead and Large Hasty Stompie cards would have served him much better in this matchup as he hurt himself almost as much as I did. An Iona would have spelled my doom and the one Inkwell he chose game 2 came in too late. (Brrrr. That could have been a turn one with a Dark Ritual!) He only lasted past turn four the one time he started first, slowed us both down with a couple of hand removal plays (Duress and Last Rites?) doing me and average of 7.5 damage a game. Faceless Butcher, Sickening Dreams, Terastodon, even Blazing Archon {not to mention straightup creature removal like Doomblade,} were less than useless to him. I'm beginning to really feel the power of this deck.

Next up was a Aggro Zooish Deck with Big Stompies, some burn support and alot of mana acceleration. I never saw a basic land in his deck and that was all she wrote. PoP was the star of these three games and my draws were almost ideal. I took some lumps from his burn, but was mostly able to hold off his few initial baby creatures with mine. In a prolonged game his tramplers could have flattened me, but by the time he got them out and they recovered from Summoning Sickness, they only really had time for one strike, much like the Re-animator deck. This deck played for time to get to a few big, well protected creatures. Too Timmy by half for my tastes. He was able to repurpose his burn to my dome instead of removing my virtually non-existent board position. Sweepers didn't really help as they wouldn't weaken his mid-to-late game beasts enough to kill with mine, so Jets helped me bypass them and less useful creatures to get to PoPs earlier. They would have shined if he'd had any early token generators, so I'll leave them in. Didn't sub anything these games to dilute a good (IMO) matchup.

My third game turned into a route. I was up against a Blue counter/control/combo deck and the player was WAY over my league. Even though I subbed in all 4 Pyros and both Shushers, they didn't show up frequently enough and only slowed the game by a turn or two. Silly me, I thought they were going to be wasted after no use in the first two games and they weren't enough to help me by half. The evil grin he had when he finished me off by Redirected my Bolt and then FoWed my Pyro was... frustrating. Humility is good for the soul.

I walked away with a Foil Moonveil Dragon, increased and invaluable experience as well as having a great time and making several new friends. The owner is about my age and he said it was great to have another player of my maturity level in the house. I'll take that as a compliment. There was a very pretty young woman playing that night, but I didn't get a matchup with her, so I have something to come back for. While I'm happily married, I'm honest enough to admit I'd rather face off with a lady if only that they are more pleasant to look at for fifteen to twenty minutes than the average male magic opponent.

I was really happy with the smoothness and consistency of this deck, factoring in the less than top tier nature of the field I played and my relative inexperience. Next time I might try something wild like subbing some Meekstones or even Breaking Points as it would help against the prevalent creature heavy decks I saw and won't matter much against the real sharks that are going to eat me anyway. My only real regret is that I didn't get a chance to test the Rachet Bomb against locking permanents like Chalice, Chill or even Counterbalance, but with only a singleton, that wasn't really going to happen anyway. I didn't see much lifegain, so I'm leaving off Vortex or Everlasting Torment which in my mind might otherwise work well with this build.

It sounds like all of you have much better developed metas, but for a neo-Noob like me, this was a great way to ease back in. I would be extremely grateful for any consructive criticism. Sorry for the very long post and thanks for all the great if indirect advice!

Space Cowboy, first let me say welcome to competitive magic, if there was ever a place to step up your legacy game MTG The Source is the place.

Here are my 2 cents on your list, which hopefully can give you some insight on playing burn down the road.

My very first, critical, suggestion is Lava Spike. Using 16 1cc (Rift Bolt being included) is important because a consistent 8-9 damage by turn 2 is ideal. The next card that was under-rated for years is Flame Rift. It has popped backup in a strong way through-out the best Burn lists. Having 8 4 damage finishers is amazing, the burst is great and the fact that is doesn't target makes great for dodging Leyline of Sanctity.

Here are my complete suggestions for your list.
-3 Mountain
+2 Barbarian Ring

-2 Volcanic Fallout
-1 Keldon Marauders
+4 Lava Spike

-4 Magma Jet
+4 Flame Rift

-2 Flamebreak
+2 Grim Lavamancer

These are simply suggestions. Burn is extremely strong right now because of how consistently fast it is.

Let me know what you think and again welcome to The Source.

[jares]

Space Cowboy, first let me say welcome to competitive magic, if there was ever a place to step up your legacy game MTG The Source is the place.

Here are my 2 cents on your list, which hopefully can give you some insight on playing burn down the road.

My very first, critical, suggestion is Lava Spike. Using 16 1cc (Rift Bolt being included) is important because a consistent 8-9 damage by turn 2 is ideal. The next card that was under-rated for years is Flame Rift. It has popped backup in a strong way through-out the best Burn lists. Having 8 4 damage finishers is amazing, the burst is great and the fact that is doesn't target makes great for dodging Leyline of Sanctity.

Here are my complete suggestions for your list.
-3 Mountain
+2 Barbarian Ring

-2 Volcanic Fallout
-1 Keldon Marauders
+4 Lava Spike

-4 Magma Jet
+4 Flame Rift

-2 Flamebreak
+2 Grim Lavamancer


I agree with these changes, though I would note that Grim Lavamancer would somewhat be less reliable when used without fetch lands. You might also want to relocate Volcanic Fallout to the sideboard instead.

Congrats on a successful "debut" in the current legacy scene, and welcome to The Source. :laugh:


These are simply suggestions. Burn is extremely strong right now because of how consistently fast it is.

Let me know what you think and again welcome to The Source.
I believe that there are decks out there that are faster and more consistent than Burn, which leads me to believe that Burn is strong now, not specifically because of its consistency and speed, but because of its placement in the current meta game.

Kind Regards,
jares

[CabalTherapy]

I believe that there are decks out there that are faster and more consistent than Burn, which leads me to believe that Burn is strong now, not specifically because of its consistency and speed, but because of its placement in the current meta game.


Burn was always a strong deck which had to suffer from opinions that burn is a "noob deck" and "way to easy to play". Although I have seen a lot of "new to game-players" playing burn.decs with Lava Axe and other really shitty stuff in Legacy tournaments, a good burn list is in my opinion always a solid choice in an unknown meta or as jares said before in the meta nowadays.

After a short break due to university stuff and other things I am about to return playing magic more often again. So, here is my list, I'm currently playing:

4 Goblin Guides
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift
1 Shard Volley

1 Barbarian Ring
16 Mountain
2 Bloodstained Mire (ignore them, I just play them because of the style. I know... I know... :P)

I am not sure about the SB but I'll be probably going to play a mix of Fearie Macabre, Volcanic Fallout, REB, Smash to Smithereens and Pyrostatic Pillar.

[DrHealex]

Ouu Ouu... I'll suggest Ensnaring Bridge, always a nice card that synergizes well with burn's dumping of hand policy, prolly in the SB replacing hellspark in some matchups.
Oh and welcome to competitive magic, it's always nice being the only guy representing a deck in one's own meta. :D

[CabalTherapy]

Ouu Ouu... I'll suggest Ensnaring Bridge, always a nice card that synergizes well with burn's dumping of hand policy, prolly in the SB replacing hellspark in some matchups.
Oh and welcome to competitive magic, it's always nice being the only guy representing a deck in one's own meta. :D

Yeah, Ensnaring Bridge is a nice card, true.^^

Thanks, thanks... but I am not new to comptetitive magic. I played Dredge, Burn und a bit Spanish Inquisiton regulary but I've decided to take a short break. And now I am going to play this game again. :)

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I run two Lavamancer in my fetchless Burn, I always find myself saying things like "I wish I ran fetch in here right now." But I also always seem to be able to use him twice in a match. Fetch just fills Mancer's graveyard, the deck still auto adds to it with its nature.

I also disagree with people calling it a noob deck.
The only non decision the deck has is the opening hand. I know pretty quickly if I am going to keep, or mulligan. No decision needed.
But Burn is filled with actual real time decisions.
I have eliminated most of these by deciding weeks ago that I would no longer attempt to kill problematic creatures.
the only creatures I kill anymore are Stoneforge(always) and game one, most affinity creatures. (this may be the wrong move, but I played Affinity for a very long time, and killing off Affinity creatures is a terrible for thing for the Affinity player to deal with. They have no other resources. game two for Affinity is easy for me. I run Cave-in, and Shattering Spree. which is overkill for Affinity but I also do not run them for Affinity, getting paired against Affinity is just the sweet aftermath of MUD, and Empty the Warrens type stuff that I have them in the sideboard.

[jares]

Burn was always a strong deck which had to suffer from opinions that burn is a "noob deck" and "way to easy to play". Although I have seen a lot of "new to game-players" playing burn.decs with Lava Axe and other really shitty stuff in Legacy tournaments, a good burn list is in my opinion always a solid choice in an unknown meta or as jares said before in the meta nowadays.

After a short break due to university stuff and other things I am about to return playing magic more often again. So, here is my list, I'm currently playing:

4 Goblin Guides
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift
1 Shard Volley

1 Barbarian Ring
16 Mountain
2 Bloodstained Mire (ignore them, I just play them because of the style. I know... I know... :P)

I am not sure about the SB but I'll be probably going to play a mix of Fearie Macabre, Volcanic Fallout, REB, Smash to Smithereens and Pyrostatic Pillar.
Unfortunately, I believe that the reputation of Burn being a "noob deck" is largely because a lot of noobs do play around with the deck without really understanding what to do with it. The reality is that Burn is a relatively easy deck to use, simply because the primary win mechanism of the deck is very straightforward (we don't normally see new players playing High Tide, do we?). This somewhat works to our advantage, though, because this allows us to catch our opponent off-guard. Like any deck, though, understanding the intricacies of how the deck is constructed takes us from being an afterthought to now being Tier 1 (finally!).

At the end of the day, it's not the deck that determines whether one is a noob or not - it's the pilot that makes the plays.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

I also disagree with people calling it a noob deck.

People of lesser understanding fail to realize that, as much as the game play of Burn is very straightforward, the margin of error for playing it is very low, such that, a misplay causing a few misdirected points of damage can easily cost you a game. I would say, though, that Burn is indeed the easiest to pilot among the tier decks, but that might just be my personal opinion.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

Burn was always a strong deck which had to suffer from opinions that burn is a "noob deck" and "way to easy to play". Although I have seen a lot of "new to game-players" playing burn.decs with Lava Axe and other really shitty stuff in Legacy tournaments, a good burn list is in my opinion always a solid choice in an unknown meta or as jares said before in the meta nowadays.

After a short break due to university stuff and other things I am about to return playing magic more often again. So, here is my list, I'm currently playing:

4 Goblin Guides
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift
1 Shard Volley

1 Barbarian Ring
16 Mountain
2 Bloodstained Mire (ignore them, I just play them because of the style. I know... I know... :P)

I am not sure about the SB but I'll be probably going to play a mix of Fearie Macabre, Volcanic Fallout, REB, Smash to Smithereens and Pyrostatic Pillar.
It's interesting that you've also tried the singleton Shard Volley. I've tested it before, but I got mixed results. How has it performed for you so far?

Kind Regards,
jares

[CabalTherapy]

It's interesting that you've also tried the singleton Shard Volley. I've tested it before, but I got mixed results. How has it performed for you so far?

Kind Regards,
jares

Shard Volley is a very good card and since it came out I've been playing it in my Burn.dec as a 1off and it (as I can remember) was never really disturbing my gameplan due to the "sac one land"-effect. Of course it is not very favourable to keep/draw it when you are screwed to one land but it was a "Lightning Bolt" in nearly every game. I just can recommend the single Volley in Burn.decs. (19 lands are clearly better than 18 for that kind of action.)

And yeah, you're right. Burn is just following Magic's simplest strategy. Bringing the opponent down to 0 as fast as possible without using crazy combo-moves or stalling the board.

[jares]

Shard Volley is a very good card and since it came out I've been playing it in my Burn.dec as a 1off and it (as I can remember) was never really disturbing my gameplan due to the "sac one land"-effect. Of course it is not very favourable to keep/draw it when you are screwed to one land but it was a "Lightning Bolt" in nearly every game. I just can recommend the single Volley in Burn.decs. (19 lands are clearly better than 18 for that kind of action.)

And yeah, you're right. Burn is just following Magic's simplest strategy. Bringing the opponent down to 0 as fast as possible without using crazy combo-moves or stalling the board.
Have you never had any problems with drawing too many Fireblast+Shard Volley, given that you're running only 19 lands? I personally like Shard Volley too, and I look at it more like a Fireblast rather than a Lightning Bolt, but playing more than a singleton seems too risky (very few players have even tried playing it). I would like to see a legacy Burn version place well with a Shard Volley someday. :tongue:

Cheers,
jares

[CabalTherapy]

Have you never had any problems with drawing too many Fireblast+Shard Volley, given that you're running only 19 lands? I personally like Shard Volley too, and I look at it more like a Fireblast rather than a Lightning Bolt, but playing more than a singleton seems too risky (very few players have even tried playing it). I would like to see a legacy Burn version place well with a Shard Volley someday. :tongue:

Cheers,
jares

This problem exists but does not occur that often that I am going to kick out Shard Volley. Playing exactly one Volley is totally ok. I've played a lot of 3-1 at local tournaments with one Volley, so I simply can recommend this card. But as you said, 2 Volleys are too much. In the case of 2 Volleys, Fireblast has to be cut down to 3 and that is not the optimal solution I think.

[jares]

I've always had a soft spot for Reckless Abandon, but it has never been given a good enough reason to be included in Burn lists. I've always looked at the transient nature of creatures as something that can be taken advantage of by using this card, and I think that it's about time to at least play around with it again, given that Keldon Marauders and Hellspark Elemental are quickly becoming staples. I might even throw in a Spark Elemental or two, just for kicks. :laugh:

It would be great if testing would reveal something interesting here, though; Hellspark Elemental's Unearth ability looks promising.

Cheers,
jares

[Curby]

I think the conventional wisdom is that Burn relies too much on every card to risk dead cards. It also ends up in topdeck mode too easily and Abandon's a dead topdeck (usually even with Hellspark). So in short, it might make more sense in a creature-dense Zoo/Sligh build than Burn, but feel free to give it a shot.

[jares]

I think the conventional wisdom is that Burn relies too much on every card to risk dead cards. It also ends up in topdeck mode too easily and Abandon's a dead topdeck (usually even with Hellspark). So in short, it might make more sense in a creature-dense Zoo/Sligh build than Burn, but feel free to give it a shot.
Those are great points. I've actually tried this a few times before, but I've always found disappointing results. It won't hurt to revisit it though.

Cheers,
jares

[CabalTherapy]

Reckless Abandon is in my opinion not a playable card in burn.decs because of what kirbysdl said in his post. We don't want cards rely on certain situation (in that case that there is a creature in play on our side of the field).
Such as Goblin Grenade, Reckless Abandon supports more the Sligh strategy or can be played in some Casual.decs.

[jares]

Reckless Abandon is in my opinion not a playable card in burn.decs because of what kirbysdl said in his post. We don't want cards rely on certain situation (in that case that there is a creature in play on our side of the field).
Such as Goblin Grenade, Reckless Abandon supports more the Sligh strategy or can be played in some Casual.decs.
I agree. Reliable damage is always a good thing, which is why Flame Rift is being used even if it has a recoil effect.

I find, though, that Reckless Abandon isn't better suited for the "normal" sligh creature, because you don't normally want to kill your own creature. In the creatures that we use for Burn, though, this additional cost comes naturally, which is why I'm interested in trying to harness this "resource". I don't expect to find positive results, though, as the dependencies induced by using the card are obvious. I do hope to be surprised, though. :wink:

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

Something that we might want to focus on is the SB. As I said a few posts ago, Burn is no longer the Red-headed Stepchild sitting in the corner people can just hope to ignore. Burn could become the new Goblins of 1.5. What I mean by that is it's cheap to build for people on a budget (no duals or even fetchlands required) and still competitive. Add to that, it has a number of high finishes and picking up steam, the hate is going to start flying. If Burn is going to remain a DTB for more than a month or 2 I think we need to be proactive in finding answers to the hate soon to be coming Burn's way... unless you preferred being a tier 2 deck people forgot about, then you can go back to sneaking up on people.

[Curby]

Burn's reasonably easy to hate out, but there still isn't enough of it piloted by good players that it's worth worrying about for most people. People are probably more worried about Reanimator and Dredge, who consistently make it to the top tables and have a common weakness, and their concerns are IMO well justified.

Saying that Burn is the next Goblins may be going a little too far. Goblins was like Zoo: an aggro deck that dominated metas for quite a while. As far as I know Burn's had good success, but not nearly on the level of these other decks. Have we ever seen two Burn decks in the top 8 of a large event? I'd be surprised if Goblins or Zoo didn't achieve that multiple times during their peaks. (I don't keep too good of an eye on event results, so I may have missed something.)

Anyway, options are limited. For hating the hate, Anarchy, Chaos Warp, Nevinyrral's Disk, Ratchet Bomb, or a splash into green or white. Alternately, and depending on the hate seen, simply using more creatures and nontargeted damage like PoP, Flame Rift, and Volcanic Fallout can work. Uncolored damage sources like Barbarian Ring help.

For Lifelink, Sulfuric Vortex and Smash to Smithereens (or Shattering Spree if you're worried about countermagic) can usually remove the sources.

[RogueBuild]

I may be jumping the gun on Burn being the next Goblins but the potential is still there. And the biggest reason for it is not dominance, but the simple fact that like Goblins, a lot of people can play it that can't afford to play any of the other top tier decks. That was one of the biggest draws to Goblins too. And Burn might be an even cheaper deck to build. A lot of people have to make a choice between playing something like Bant, Nic Fit, Mav, or whatever and only have 1/2 the cards needed and the rest is filler, or they can play Burn and have everything.

But what do I know. Maybe I'm the only person that ever sees a turn 1 CotV at 1, Trinispheres or Laylines of San.

[Curby]

You always have to metagame correctly. If everyone's playing Stax, MUD, Dragon/Faerie Stompy, etc., then you've got an uphill battle. On a national level, I'm not sure that it's as big of a deal. There was a MUD deck that top-8'd SCG Dallas, but again it's not like Stoneblade in terms of popularity. /shrug

[ThePrevailer]

It seems we are all in agreement that Burn is easy to hate out. This is [partially] what we have sideboards for. I think it would be useful to make a list of all the things people use to hate out burn, and figure out good ways to build the SB or adjust your maindeck accordingly.

These are the cards I've personally ran against Burn or had played against me, and my the choices I see to deal with these things

Everything - Nevinyrral's Disk, [almost] Chaos Warp, technically Ratchet Bomb, but I wouldn't rely on this for anything above 2cc, and even then it's bad against anything with artifact removal.

Leyline of Sanctity - use more creatures, Anarchy
Chill - Pyroblast/REB, Ratchet Bomb
COP: Red - Bomb, Pithing Needle, Anarchy
Warmth - Bomb, Anarchy
Chalice@1 - Smash/Spree
Scavenging Ooze - Needle, burn
Jitte - Smash/Spree, Needle, Sulfuric Vortex
Batterskull - Smash/Spree, burn, Vortex
CounterTop - REB, Bomb, Vexing Shusher
Iona, Shield of Emeria - Phyrexian Metamorph, everything else is too slow.


I personally don't like SB answers that cost 4, but I realize that they can be useful. Of the 4 drops, I think Disk has the most utility by far, but it's easy to play around, and your opponent gets a chance to destroy it before you can use it.

This is my current side board:
3 Pithing Needle
3 Pyroblast
3 Phyrexian Metamorph
3 Chaos Warp
3 grave hate, currently Faerie Macabre

[Curby]

Good summary. I'll just mention again that a small splash could work wonders. White gives you Demystify (vs Disenchant that gets nabbed by Spell Snare) and Swords to Plowshares or Path to Exile. StP/Demystify/Spree are mana-efficient answers that take care of all hate (except if the opp has two Leylines on the field, but a single Chaos Warp won't help there either).

This makes you play fetches and a dual or two which decreases deck consistency, in exchange for what I'd argue is a more powerful sideboard.

P.S. If you're afraid of Chalice, do not run Smash, since Spree is your best out if they get Chalices at 1 and 2 out.

[NeoTech]

It seems we are all in agreement that Burn is easy to hate out. This is [partially] what we have sideboards for. I think it would be useful to make a list of all the things people use to hate out burn, and figure out good ways to build the SB or adjust your maindeck accordingly.

These are the cards I've personally ran against Burn or had played against me, and my the choices I see to deal with these things

Everything - Nevinyrral's Disk, [almost] Chaos Warp, technically Ratchet Bomb, but I wouldn't rely on this for anything above 2cc, and even then it's bad against anything with artifact removal.

Leyline of Sanctity - use more creatures, Anarchy
Chill - Pyroblast/REB, Ratchet Bomb
COP: Red - Bomb, Pithing Needle, Anarchy
Warmth - Bomb, Anarchy
Chalice@1 - Smash/Spree
Scavenging Ooze - Needle, burn
Jitte - Smash/Spree, Needle, Sulfuric Vortex
Batterskull - Smash/Spree, burn, Vortex
CounterTop - REB, Bomb, Vexing Shusher
Iona, Shield of Emeria - Phyrexian Metamorph, everything else is too slow.


I personally don't like SB answers that cost 4, but I realize that they can be useful. Of the 4 drops, I think Disk has the most utility by far, but it's easy to play around, and your opponent gets a chance to destroy it before you can use it.

This is my current side board:
3 Pithing Needle
3 Pyroblast
3 Phyrexian Metamorph
3 Chaos Warp
3 grave hate, currently Faerie Macabre

So far my sideboard has been very successful. I went 4-2 for 9th place in last week's Mox Emerald tournament at Empire Central, beating Geddon-Stax 2-0 in round 1 from a turn 1 Chalice @ 1 plus resolved Trinishphere and Leyline of Sanctity. Not all that hard when you know what to do.

I have changed the board since then, but this is my "from now on" board.

Sideboard:
3x Sulfuric Vortex - vs. Kitchen Finks, Warmth, Batterskull, Scavenging Ooze
3x Pyrostatic Pillar - vs. Combo, GW Aggro
4x Faerie Macabre - vs. Reanimator, Dredge
2x Red Elemental Blast - vs. Blue anything / Chill
3x Smash to Smithereens - vs. Chalice, Batterskull, Jitte, Trinisphere, anything

[goblinlacky]

Hello source community
I'm Goblinlacky its been a long long time since I've played any type of competitive format but since a new store popped up near me I decided to get back on the bike again. I did some searching an stumbled onto mono red. Which I used to play pretty much play exclusively back in the day which was mono red goblins. I knew that the play might not differ that much from it plus it was pretty inexpensive for me to get into. Ok with that out of the way how would you guys perceive us fighting the hate aka warmth/sop red/ect. If their even is hate against us hopefully their to busy with other decks :laugh: Also one more thing I would also like to know/hear your thoughts on layline of the void in side instead of faerie macabre. Are the faeries that much better I do understand that layline is pretty much a dead draw since we cant cast it an even worse if we casted it an happened to draw one or more which could hurt us. But we would only need one in play an it can hose either Reanimator/Dredge on turn one which seems very solid in its own right.
with out further ado heres my list i got it from here in case you were wondering
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=44236

Creatures
4 Goblin Guide
3 Grim Lavamancer
3 Hellspark Elemental
3 Keldon Marauders

Spells
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift

Lands
2 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain

Sideboard
4 Layline of the Void
3 Pyrostatic Piller
2 Pyroblast
3 Smash to Smithereens
2 Volcanic Fallout

Also might get rid of the Grim lavamancers if they are underwhelming
-3 Grim Lavamancers
+1 hellspark
+1 Keldon Marauders
+1 Mountain
My meta is basically unknown to me which is why i play volcanic fallout in the side

edit: some reason i just messed everything up an didn't add the two mountains heck i even messed up my own name lol

[jares]

Regarding the evolution of our sideboard, I don't feel that much would need to changed in how we address the meta, even if the field would now be more aware of Burn's presence. A tweak here and there would certainly be helpful, but I don't see the meta making drastic changes to address the emergence of Burn, which likely means that we won't need to apply any drastic changes too.

Honestly, I still expect that, even amidst the success of Burn in recent tournaments, Burn will still be underestimated and under-appreciated - there will only be a few that will be wise enough to give this archetype the respect that it deserves. Also, the reality is that many inexperienced players could be expected to run this deck and crash-and-burn (pun intended), and this will also contribute to this archetype being perennially brushed-off as a "noob's deck" (which can be used to our advantage). This could probably change if Burn is able to consistently be Tier 1 for a significant period, and I guess that we'll just have to wait and see if that does happen.

Kind Regards,
jares

[jares]

Creatures
4 Goblin Guide
3 Grim Lavamancer
3 Hellspark Elemental
3 Keldon Marauders

Spells
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
4 Price of Progress
4 Flame Rift

Lands
2 Barbarian Ring
15 Mountain

Sideboard
4 Layline of the Void
3 Pyrostatic Piller
2 Pyroblast
3 Smash to Smithereens
2 Volcanic Fallout

The first thing I noticed is that you're running only 17 lands - you'll have a really difficult time winning with very few resources at your disposal. As much as we want to avoid getting flooded with lands, we do want to get at least 2 Mountains in play every game. Lists have been successful with running just 19 lands, though I personally prefer using 20 (possibly using [3x] Barbarian Ring). I actually miss using fetch lands, as I feel that the deck-thinning really helped. Unfortunately, it seems that the meta isn't that forgiving to fetches anymore.


Also one more thing I would also like to know/hear your thoughts on layline of the void in side instead of faerie macabre. Are the faeries that much better I do understand that layline is pretty much a dead draw since we cant cast it an even worse if we casted it an happened to draw one or more which could hurt us. But we would only need one in play an it can hose either Reanimator/Dredge on turn one which seems very solid in its own right.

I used to think that Leyline of the Void was also the better choice over Faerie Macabre, given that you'll want to have the hate in your opening hand anyway. Eventually, I figured that the decks that we want to board these cards into (Reanimator and Dredge) can be expected to be able to address Leyline of the Void in the form of Echoing Truth and Chain of Vapor, respectively. In contrast, Faerie Macabre is a card that neither of these decks will be able to respond to effectively, and that might be the best factor that can help you choose between the two.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares

[Curby]

Yeah, I think that was a typo. The original deck from SCG had 17 Mountains, and the deck as posted here had 58 cards.

[Pinoy Goblin]

Anyone here tried seismic assault? I played austin yost's burn build in our local tourneys and all I can say that sometimes without the early beaters and all spell cards in your opening hand the tendency is you ran out of gas and worst of it, top decking mountains multiple times, without the fetches topdecking a mountain is more probable so my thoughts are why not run seismic assault ass a two off main deck so that mid to end game we have a chance to recoup when top decking a mountain, just thinking out of the box:tongue:

kindly yours,
pinoy goblin

[rnightingale]

Why the heck should we play Seismic Assault? It's a 3cmc that needs fuel just to do 2 damage?

Sulfuric Vortex is a better 3cmc card for burn. Take note that playing burn is not just a "point and shoot" deck, it requires skill. Fetching for 1 land in a 17 to 19 Land deck doesn't change even 1% of your top deck probability.

[Pinoy Goblin]

Why the heck should we play Seismic Assault? It's a 3cmc that needs fuel just to do 2 damage?

Sulfuric Vortex is a better 3cmc card for burn. Take note that playing burn is not just a "point and shoot" deck, it requires skill. Fetching for 1 land in a 17 to 19 Land deck doesn't change even 1% of your top deck probability.

Well, I have tested sulfuric vortex and it has its pros and cons i might agree with you that it is better than seismic assault but its a case to case basis. Vortex is good only againts control decks while in a agressive aggro deck, you burn yourself to death raising your own clock,Im thinking out of the box as I have stated earlier:tongue:, But I would disagree with you with the fetches, running 10-12 fetches may change your top deck probability on drawing more lands (deck thinning). As you have stated fetching 1 land doesn't change even 1% pls give me your data(even if it is lower than 1% as u have said chances of probability are still on a positive note). . . let as say only for example less than 1% for each land fetched alas it would add up as you fetched more:smile:

[from Cairo]

rnightingale's right; Sulfuric Vortex is definitely better than Seismic Assault in this deck.

[lordofthepit]

Anyone here tried seismic assault? I played austin yost's burn build in our local tourneys and all I can say that sometimes without the early beaters and all spell cards in your opening hand the tendency is you ran out of gas and worst of it, top decking mountains multiple times, without the fetches topdecking a mountain is more probable so my thoughts are why not run seismic assault ass a two off main deck so that mid to end game we have a chance to recoup when top decking a mountain, just thinking out of the box:tongue:

kindly yours,
pinoy goblin

Seismic Assault is really terrible in this deck. If you're able to drop 3 mana, how many more lands can you possibly rip off the top in the rest of the game? You're already down 1 card and 3 mana, so you'll need at least 4 damage to compensate.

I'd rather run Shock, Shard Volley, Lava Dart, Ball Lightning, Sonic Burst, Kindle, etc. A million other unplayable cards before I'd consider Seismic Assault. Unless you have some tech to get lands in your deck cheaply!

[CabalTherapy]

The Assault does nothing in this deck.

Some time ago I've played Scirocco against all kinds of (Solidarity, Spiral Tide...) blue strom decks. I think this card is not really needed in the meta right now but good enough to keep it in mind.

And I also think that the Faerie is better than the Leyline due to the "Fuck-I-just-draw-a-leyline-possibility" and also it is a good reactive-card. It is just my preference.

[rnightingale]

Well, I have tested sulfuric vortex and it has its pros and cons i might agree with you that it is better than seismic assault but its a case to case basis. Vortex is good only againts control decks while in a agressive aggro deck, you burn yourself to death raising your own clock,Im thinking out of the box as I have stated earlier:tongue:, But I would disagree with you with the fetches, running 10-12 fetches may change your top deck probability on drawing more lands (deck thinning). As you have stated fetching 1 land doesn't change even 1% pls give me your data(even if it is lower than 1% as u have said chances of probability are still on a positive note). . . let as say only for example less than 1% for each land fetched alas it would add up as you fetched more:smile:

Why should i give you a data ? Why don't you ask Austin Yost, the creator of that wonderful deck you just copied? Anyway, you said yourself, losing life will raise your own clock hence; using fetchlands is the same and on top of that, RUG can stifle your ass, making you lose tempo.

Using Seismic Assault on Burn is pointless arguement. Your primary objective is to put your opponent in critical condition on turn 3, not casting some terrible 3cmc that makes you lose lands. Constant land drop is also important in order to pump your FOD to it's final evolution.

[Pinoy Goblin]

Why should i give you a data ? Why don't you ask Austin Yost, the creator of that wonderful deck you just copied? Anyway, you said yourself, losing life will raise your own clock hence; using fetchlands is the same and on top of that, RUG can stifle your ass, making you lose tempo.

Using Seismic Assault on Burn is pointless arguement. Your primary objective is to put your opponent in critical condition on turn 3, not casting some terrible 3cmc that makes you lose lands. Constant land drop is also important in order to pump your FOD to it's final evolution.

Well you gave me a number right (1%)????:rolleyes: Well, a good player can dodge stifle . . .plus never in my game play I see fod become its final evolution just a 4/4 max :tongue:

Well anyways enough of my seismic assault, Ill give you a sample data regarding the use of fetchlands as a deck thinner:tongue:

Let's assume we are in midgame (cause that's when we want to thin out our deck).
Let's assume we run 22 lands, 4 of which are already in play, no fetchland is used so far. It's about turn 6. we went first and play 1 GGUIDE and 1 BOLT so far. Pretty average.
Thus our library contains 60 - 7 (opening hand) - 5 (drawphases) - 1 (GGUIDE) - 1 (BOLT) = 46 cards (18 lands, 28 non-lands)

The odds on drawing a non-land card are 28/46 = 60,86%

Let's now assume "ALL" of our 4 lands we had so far were fetched
Thus our library size is reduced by 4 , so is our landcount. It's 42 cards (14 lands, 28 nonlands)

The odds on drawing a non-land card are 28/42 = 66,67% ( wow a 6% thats good imagine this in a late game with more fetches cracking up those % would go up)

That if we all drew fethches in the opening hand but try to imagine this if ever we still play in the midgame in some matches this would realy help us in the latter game in top drawing good cards 2% makes a difference what more is 6% or more in early drawing of fetches and during mid games.

[CabalTherapy]

Let's assume we are in midgame (cause that's when we want to thin out our deck).
Let's assume we run 22 lands, 4 of which are already in play, no fetchland is used so far.


Let's assume that we don't want to play midgame but instead of this, win as early as possible.
22 lands? You want to cast a Shivan Dragon or what?

Fetchlands are clearly not needed in burn.decs but everyone who feels the way like you can play them.
One fetchland does 5% of the damage to you in a game. That's the point.

[Pinoy Goblin]

Let's assume that we don't want to play midgame but instead of this, win as early as possible.
22 lands? You want to cast a Shivan Dragon or what?

Fetchlands are clearly not needed in burn.decs but everyone who feels the way like you can play them.
One fetchland does 5% of the damage to you in a game. That's the point.

common sense is hard to find these days, PEACE OUT:laugh:

[NeoTech]

common sense is hard to find these days, PEACE OUT:laugh:

The fact of the matter is this. With 19 lands you generally have about a 32% chance to draw a land, and a 68% chance to draw a spell. With this amount of land you also can expect to start off the game with a 2 land hand consistantly, which is ideal.

Sac lands are not needed, and the possibility of your opponent stifling a sac land is great because of the effect it has on our tempo. However, Sac land are good synergy with grim lavamancers, but not enough to risk tempo loss. If you like sac lands use them, you will just pay for it in the mirror or against stifle.

This information has been tested and discussed for a very long time, the conclusion was to avoid sac lands. You can argue the deck thinning as much as you like, but go back through all the information in this thread that already discussed sac lands first. It's really a dead issue. Use them, or don't.

[jares]

The fact of the matter is this. With 19 lands you generally have about a 32% chance to draw a land, and a 68% chance to draw a spell. With this amount of land you also can expect to start off the game with a 2 land hand consistantly, which is ideal.

Sac lands are not needed, and the possibility of your opponent stifling a sac land is great because of the effect it has on our tempo. However, Sac land are good synergy with grim lavamancers, but not enough to risk tempo loss. If you like sac lands use them, you will just pay for it in the mirror or against stifle.

This information has been tested and discussed for a very long time, the conclusion was to avoid sac lands. You can argue the deck thinning as much as you like, but go back through all the information in this thread that already discussed sac lands first. It's really a dead issue. Use them, or don't.
The following figures might help as a reference:

Constants:

60 Cards in the main deck
19 Lands

Probabilities:

94.19% chance to get at least 1 land in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly one land), your first draw will have a 33.96% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.
72.06% chance to get at least 2 lands in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly two lands), your first draw will have a 32.08% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.


I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares

[rnightingale]

Thank you NeoTech for educating the Goblin.


common sense is hard to find these days, PEACE OUT:laugh:

Your argument is invalid. Seismic Assault sucks. :laugh:

[RogueBuild]

1st: I tried Seismic Assault a long time ago so i would have something to do with extra land draws. The problem is you don't want to have more then 1 in the deck and you never seem to draw them the same game you draw too much land.

2nd: You can't make the argument against fetchlands using the -1 life or 5% of your starting total while at the same time running Flame Rift which is 4 damage (20%) of your starting life total. Either you think you can race anyone to 20 damage, which clearly you think you can, and doing 4 damage to each of you is worth doing, or you don't in which case Flame Rift is a bigger danger to you then a fetchland is. After all, Flame Rift is a tempo loss. You both take 4 damage but you spent 2 mana and a card to do it.

3rd: "Thus our library contains 60 - 7 (opening hand) - 5 (drawphases) - 1 (GGUIDE) - 1 (BOLT) = 46 cards (18 lands, 28 non-lands)" this is wrong. The Guide and the bolt would have been among the opening 7 or 5 draws so you should still have 48 cards in the deck.

4th: Every card game be it Magic or Poker, "insert another CCG here" or BlackJack is about odds. The odds of drawing what you need and not what you don't. And every tool you can use to increase those odds is a good tool. So saying using a fetchland only increases the odds of a non-land draw by whatever amount is still irrelevant, it still increases the odds in your favor. The valid arguments against it are do you fear Stifle or the loss of 1 life, or, in my deck, I need to hit 3 lands but don't want to run 20+ lands so running fetches risks be reducing the odds of a 3rd land draw too quickly.

5th, and this is a question: with as hard as it is to power up FoD is there a reason people don't just use Kargan Dragonlord instead? Sure he cost 2 but starts as a 2/2 (same total mana investment). He hits L4 and becomes a 4/4 flying for 4 more mana (1 more then FoD) but you don't need it all at the same time unlike FoD and can hit 8/8 in a prolonged match which it is unlikely FoD would ever do.
I don't use either I was just wondering why people use 1 over the other.

6th: "Seismic Assault sucks." is opinion and not the basis of an argument, not a winning argument anyway.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I have at no point, thought about running 19 lands.
I do not like Barbarian Ring, I have sat on two lands one being ring, not been able to cast a Fireblast and been really upset about it.
I run 17 Mountains, and it has never once messed with me, I even get Figure to be a 4/4 on games he isnt Plowshared. I also even run into the mana flood, which makes me want to run Fetches. I do not think it is such an atrocious idea as a few of you are making it out to be. Is it needed? No. Is it stupid to run them? No. Simple as that.
Even if you run Lavamancer, I do not think Fetches are needed, but it does make the Lavamancer that much more consistent.

about Kargan Dragonlord, I have always wanted to run it, I think overall it is a little better, I would rather pay the extra to get the flyer.
I just have Figures, and not Dragonlords, if I ever stumble across them I think I would change.

Double posts merged. Please avoid double posting in the future. Thanks. -zilla

[Curby]

Either you think you can race anyone to 20 damage, which clearly you think you can, and doing 4 damage to each of you is worth doing, or you don't in which case Flame Rift is a bigger danger to you then a fetchland is. After all, Flame Rift is a tempo loss. You both take 4 damage but you spent 2 mana and a card to do it.

What you're saying is true, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the inclusion of each is a trade off. If you're willing to spend two mana and a card to speed up the game, that's fine. That does NOT mean that you're automatically fine with smaller losses of life or self-damaging effects just because you're already running Rift. Some people think that the net downsides of running fetches are not worth the net benefits. Life loss isn't the only consideration, but it is a consideration, and it's certainly understandable that something that hits you for 1 won't be tolerated in a deck that plays something that hits you for 4. It all depends on the net effect, not just life loss in a vacuum.


with as hard as it is to power up FoD is there a reason people don't just use Kargan Dragonlord instead?

Yup. With FoD and two mana you've got a 2/2 attacking on the second turn. With Dragonlord and two mana you've got a 2/2 attacking on the third turn.

Also, pumping at instant speed is all kinds of relevant. This is why white weenie decks run FoD before whatever that leveling white guy is.

Lastly, Spell Snare is increasingly taking up slots previously held by FoW and Daze. As a critical source of recurring damage against a permissive deck, running out an early Figure while dodging countermagic is important.

As an aside, I don't think it's that hard to power up FoD to a 4/4, especially in slower matchups where you enter turns 5+ due to permission and disruption. In short, he can get big in the games where he needs to get big.

[RogueBuild]

I can see the 2/2 on T2 attack having an impact, but the instant speed pumping, wouldn't that only be relevant early on when I would think FoD would be the last think you want to play on T1. GGuide, Lava Spike, Rift Bolt, or any bolt I would think are better T1/T2 options. In later turns when you have 2 or more lands in play you can pump Kargan without ever having to tapout so you can still play whatever you draw.

Again, I don't play either of them in Burn, just seemed Kargan made more sense.


or another way to put it, I don't see an argument for FoD being played because its fast. I see it being played because it gives you a mid to late game threat with more meat then a 2/2, after you're out of gas. Given that is the need I would think it fills, wouldn't Kargan seems a better option.

[Curby]

A FoD that hits earlier has the potential to do more damage over the course of the game, and the damage increases linearly. A Rift Bolt that's suspended earlier also has the potential to do more damage, but the damage dealt is constant after the first turn. This means that you don't want to Suspend Rift Bolt on the turn you're trying to kill them, but there's a lot more flexibility in the timing. On the other hand, you want your creatures down early to maximize damage over the course of the game.

In short: If I had a FoD and a Rift Bolt in my opener, I'd start with the FoD.

(If you have FoD and Guide in the opener, it turns out that you deal four combat damage and have two 2/2s after two turns regardless if which you cast first, mana permitting.)


Again, I don't play either of them in Burn, just seemed Kargan made more sense.

I think these two statements are related. Theory is one thing, but I'd invite you to test them out to more fully appreciate the distinctions.

[jares]

I have at no point, thought about running 19 lands.
I do not like Barbarian Ring, I have sat on two lands one being ring, not been able to cast a Fireblast and been really upset about it.
I run 17 Mountains, and it has never once messed with me, I even get Figure to be a 4/4 on games he isnt Plowshared. I also even run into the mana flood, which makes me want to run Fetches. I do not think it is such an atrocious idea as a few of you are making it out to be. Is it needed? No. Is it stupid to run them? No. Simple as that.
Even if you run Lavamancer, I do not think Fetches are needed, but it does make the Lavamancer that much more consistent.

The following figures might help as a reference:

Constants:

60 Cards in the main deck
17 Lands

Probabilities:

91.67% chance to get at least 1 land in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly one land), your first draw will have a 30.19% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.
64.82% chance to get at least 2 lands in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly two lands), your first draw will have a 28.30% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.


Compare that to the figures below:

Constants:

60 Cards in the main deck
19 Lands

Probabilities:

94.19% chance to get at least 1 land in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly one land), your first draw will have a 33.96% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.
72.06% chance to get at least 2 lands in the opening hand. From there (if you drew exactly two lands), your first draw will have a 32.08% chance of being a land, with this probability slightly increasing every time you draw a non-land card.


If you noticed, the greatest drop-off (7.24%) is from the probability of drawing 2 lands in the opening hand, which I believe is the best case.

At the end of the day, people have subjective opinions on whether or not they would take that 7.24% risk, and the numbers are just there to help us with these decisions. Personally, I would go with the added consistency - and the tournament results have also proven this to be the more reliable option.

Cheers,
jares

[NecroYawgmoth]

Well... how much are the probalities with 18 lands?

Maybe it's closer to 19 than we think, and it's a good call.

[jares]

Well... how much are the probalities with 18 lands?

Maybe it's closer to 19 than we think, and it's a good call.
It's somewhere between the two probabilities I noted above (sorry, I feel a bit lazy right now, and don't feel like number crunching yet :tongue:). Generally, though, the increase/decrease in these probabilities are usually around 3-4% when we're considering these constants (around 12-20 copies of a specific card; this is an approximation). In other words, increasing/decreasing the land count can generally be thought-of as a 3-4% increase/decrease in the probability that you'll draw it in the opening hand. It might not sound like much, but these are the figures that we're working with whenever we fine-tune our builds.

Cheers,
jares

[iamfrightenedtoo]

since I have been playing Burn, I have Mulliganed because of no lands, three times, in 28 matches. I have drawn only one land in my opening hand nine times. Out of the nine times I have drawn one land, four of the matches I never drew another land. I lost two of them.

I have also mulliganed four times because I drew three or more lands, one of them was do to drawing five in my opener.

Thank you Jar for the numbers, they are close to what I have experienced in real matches.

I think I will keep in 17 lands, I may add an 18th, but then it will have to be a 19th, because I have a hang up about running even amounts of lands.

Ill have to start doing it at my local this month and next, I tried something new with Burn at the Indianapolis GrandPrix and it screwed me.

How does everyone really like Barbarian Ring? I have used it off and on, (in playtesting, not actual tournament play) and hate it. Do people actually find it to be helpful, or do they play it, because all the Burn lists run it?

[jares]

since I have been playing Burn, I have Mulliganed because of no lands, three times, in 28 matches. I have drawn only one land in my opening hand nine times. Out of the nine times I have drawn one land, four of the matches I never drew another land. I lost two of them.

I have also mulliganed four times because I drew three or more lands, one of them was do to drawing five in my opener.

Thank you Jar for the numbers, they are close to what I have experienced in real matches.

I think I will keep in 17 lands, I may add an 18th, but then it will have to be a 19th, because I have a hang up about running even amounts of lands.

Ill have to start doing it at my local this month and next, I tried something new with Burn at the Indianapolis GrandPrix and it screwed me.

How does everyone really like Barbarian Ring? I have used it off and on, (in playtesting, not actual tournament play) and hate it. Do people actually find it to be helpful, or do they play it, because all the Burn lists run it?
I think that Barbarian Ring is really there as an effort to minimize the tempo loss of not drawing enough lands, while at the same time helping with the case where too many lands are drawn (being a Burn "spell" itself). I have personally found it to be unreliable as a Burn spell, given that Threshold requires 7 cards in the graveyard, and that Hellspark Elemental usually doesn't stay around to help out with that. I find that the only other alternative is running Fetch Lands, though, so I feel stuck with using Barbarian Ring as the best compromise.

Additional Notes:

The vulnerability to Wasteland surely sucks, but it also helps that Barbarian Ring is colorless, uncounterable damage (except maybe for Stifle).


Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

I find the Barb. rings tend to just be wasteland magnets and when you only draw 2 lands, 1 is a ring and it gets wasted it starts to hinder your game.

Outside of Burn I love the card, in burn where you may only draw 1 or 2 lands I don't like making 1 an easy target to destroy.

[Curby]

On the other hand, it can be instrumental in pushing the last few points of damage through a control player's rapidly stabilizing wall of permission. It's situational, and therefore somewhat of a metagame consideration: how often will you see a situation where it helps?

[Suneloon]

I think that Barbarian Ring is really there as an effort to minimize the tempo loss of not drawing enough lands, while at the same time helping with the case where too many lands are drawn (being a Burn "spell" itself). I have personally found it to be unreliable as a Burn spell, given that Threshold requires 7 cards in the graveyard, and that Hellspark Elemental usually doesn't stay around to help out with that. I find that the only other alternative is running Fetch Lands, though, so I feel stuck with using Barbarian Ring as the best compromise.

Additional Notes:

The vulnerability to Wasteland surely sucks, but it also helps that Barbarian Ring is colorless, uncounterable damage (except maybe for Stifle).


Cheers,
jares


This is a very accurate observation. I'm down to just one barbarian ring (and 18 mountains). I mostly don't like drawing it. But on occassion it is stellar. So I just can't seem to let it go entirely.

[NeoTech]

Barbarian Ring, for me, has always been a star performer.
It is just one of those cards where it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Whether it is for finishing damage or poping off a Mother of Runes or Thalia, it is always a welcomed land drop for me.

[jares]

Barbarian Ring, for me, has always been a star performer.
It is just one of those cards where it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Whether it is for finishing damage or poping off a Mother of Runes or Thalia, it is always a welcomed land drop for me.
That's all nice, but would we be able to get an objective assessment of why you find Barbarian Ring to be a good card for Burn?

Cheers,
jares

[NeoTech]

That's all nice, but would we be able to get an objective assessment of why you find Barbarian Ring to be a good card for Burn?

Cheers,
jares

Certainly Jares. I have had many situations where Barbarian Ring is used as my last burst of damage. It is basically a situational (being Threshold) Seal of Fire. But it has its additional uses of producing mana (the 1 damage is not that big of a deal), un-counterable (not including Stifle), being a colorless source of damage, and can take out a lot of the low cc staples of Legacy. Delver, Snapcaster, Stoneforge Mystic, Qasali Pridemage, Mother of Runes, Mishra's Factory/Mutavault, Grim Lavamancer, Noble Hierarch, etc...

This, of course, is not to say that I am always burning creatures down. But it is always a decision we have to make. And making the right decision can make or break a Burn player, as we all know.

So lets look at the positives and negatives of Barbarian Ring.

Pros': 2 damage, Colorless, Un-counterable, produces mana, kills plenty of legacy staples.

Cons': Take damage for tapping for mana, doesn't sac to Fireblast, threshold requirement, Wasteland target

Now the pros and cons are subject to criticism and debate. This is may not convince anybody to use Barbarian Ring, but hopefully give everybody a basis to make their decision.

My argument for the cons: Everybody has a Wasteland target, running 2 Barbarian Ring's isn't going to kill you or make you worry about Wasteland. On your opponents side of the board, they wish Wasteland was something better against Burn and will end up Wasting their own lands to avoid a lethal Price of Progress. Taking 1 damage is not that critical, if you win by turn 5, you probably haven't taken more than 2-3 points from it. Threshold is not that difficult in a control match-up, or anything with disruption, we have all got to our threshold with no problems, remember this deck like to cast every turn. Can't sac it to Fireblast, is probably the most prominent arguement, trust me I wish it was a mountain in addition to its other types too, but it isn't & we can't change that. But honestly, how often has that fact cost you the game?

I think the barbarian Ring argument would be more valid if the current lists were running a full set of 4. But since they are not, the 2 Barbarian Rings has been a good amount, never drawing it any more or less than we need to.

Just my thoughts.

[jares]

Certainly Jares. I have had many situations where Barbarian Ring is used as my last burst of damage. It is basically a situational (being Threshold) Seal of Fire. But it has its additional uses of producing mana (the 1 damage is not that big of a deal), un-counterable (not including Stifle), being a colorless source of damage, and can take out a lot of the low cc staples of Legacy. Delver, Snapcaster, Stoneforge Mystic, Qasali Pridemage, Mother of Runes, Mishra's Factory/Mutavault, Grim Lavamancer, Noble Hierarch, etc...

This, of course, is not to say that I am always burning creatures down. But it is always a decision we have to make. And making the right decision can make or break a Burn player, as we all know.

So lets look at the positives and negatives of Barbarian Ring.

Pros': 2 damage, Colorless, Un-counterable, produces mana, kills plenty of legacy staples.

Cons': Take damage for tapping for mana, doesn't sac to Fireblast, threshold requirement, Wasteland target

Now the pros and cons are subject to criticism and debate. This is may not convince anybody to use Barbarian Ring, but hopefully give everybody a basis to make their decision.

My argument for the cons: Everybody has a Wasteland target, running 2 Barbarian Ring's isn't going to kill you or make you worry about Wasteland. On your opponents side of the board, they wish Wasteland was something better against Burn and will end up Wasting their own lands to avoid a lethal Price of Progress. Taking 1 damage is not that critical, if you win by turn 5, you probably haven't taken more than 2-3 points from it. Threshold is not that difficult in a control match-up, or anything with disruption, we have all got to our threshold with no problems, remember this deck like to cast every turn. Can't sac it to Fireblast, is probably the most prominent arguement, trust me I wish it was a mountain in addition to its other types too, but it isn't & we can't change that. But honestly, how often has that fact cost you the game?

I think the barbarian Ring argument would be more valid if the current lists were running a full set of 4. But since they are not, the 2 Barbarian Rings has been a good amount, never drawing it any more or less than we need to.

Just my thoughts.
That's a good list of pros and cons. There might be some minor points that may have been left out, but those are generally the considerations that you would want to look into when considering the meta that you would want to build your deck around.

At the end of the day, the weight of each of these considerations will differ from player to player, and the best we can do is to provide solid reasoning for how we value each of these points regarding Barbarian Ring.

Thanks for obliging.

Cheers,
jares

[iamfrightenedtoo]

@Neotech
those are good points, which is why I asked the question about it. I re-think B-Ring almost everytime I think about Burn.
To me though, I ave a philosophy with Burn, where I do not want a card in my deck that will be a dead draw. (Obviously, this cannot be 100%) because anytime after three, a mountain -for me- is a dead draw.) But, you need to have (X) amounts of lands, so I do not count lands.
As for creatures, again, in the meta game currently, we need creatures, and most of our creatures are never Dead draws.
When it comes to late game critical situations, if you draw a creature, it can usually save you the game, (if only to block a would be killing creature.)

For Barbarian Ring, I cannot get over drawing it late game when I need a Firebalst, and a mountain to cast it.

For me as well, it is also the same argument against Flame Rift. Flame Rift deals me and my opponent four damage. Barbarian Ring will deal me two damage, before it deals my opponent two damage.

B-Ring works, but it is another Flame Rift philosophy. We either love them or hate them, personally I hate them, but I will still always re-consider them every I go over my deck.

[NeoTech]

That's a good list of pros and cons. There might be some minor points that may have been left out, but those are generally the considerations that you would want to look into when considering the meta that you would want to build your deck around.

At the end of the day, the weight of each of these considerations will differ from player to player, and the best we can do is to provide solid reasoning for how we value each of these points regarding Barbarian Ring.

Thanks for obliging.

Cheers,
jares

Agreed. Nobody can make a card choice for anybody else. We just have to show different perspectives of the choices we have available and hopefully point people in the direction that best fits their play-style and preference.

[jares]

For me as well, it is also the same argument against Flame Rift. Flame Rift deals me and my opponent four damage. Barbarian Ring will deal me two damage, before it deals my opponent two damage.

B-Ring works, but it is another Flame Rift philosophy. We either love them or hate them, personally I hate them, but I will still always re-consider them every I go over my deck.
I personally like Flame Rift very much. I've always liked being able to make use of my life total as a resource that can advance my game plan ahead of schedule, somewhat like how Phyrexian Mana has carved its own niche in the general meta. As a former Pox player, I'm sure that you can appreciate what I mean.

All things being considered, though, the inclusion of the card is still a matter of preference plus meta considerations, as the drawbacks of dealing damage to yourself can't be more obvious.

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

When I played B-Ring in Burn I often found myself holding it like a spell unless I absolutely needed it as a land because I didn't want it getting wasted. Burn can run just fine against most decks with just 2 land, but with just 1 land things get a bit tougher. And if you need to play around things like Daze you really need to hit 3 lands. With Wasteland being so common and Burn having no other targets for it in a deck that tends to have 17-19 lands in the 1st place, it just seems like an unwarranted risk. Now if you wanted to play with a higher number of lands, swapping spells with B-Rings, or if you were playing R/u or R/? for some kind of card draw or non-land mana sources so you could recover if you lost a ring to wasteland that's an option, but then you are not playing Burn anymore anyway.

[FEELtheBURN]

Hey everyone
I recently competed in legacy for the first time at a local gaming store after playing casually for years. Before everyone tears the decklist apart know that I do realize it contains many suboptimal or unusual choices. Replacements are on the way, which will be discussed at the end. Going into the tournament, I had no idea what decks were being played so I completely guessed on the sideboard.

Original List
Creatures: (13)
3x Jackal Pup
4x Hellspark Elemental
4x Keldon Marauders
1x Ball Lightning
1x Figure of Destiny

Artifacts/Enchantments: (6)
3x Sulfuric Vortex
2x Cursed Scroll
1x Meekstone

Instants/Sorceries: (22)
4x Fireblast
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Rift Bolt
4x Lava Spike
3x Price of Progress
2x Flame Rift
1x Smash to Smithereens

Land: (19)
18x Mountain
1x Barbarian Ring

Sideboard: (15)
4x Pithing Needle
4x Faerie Macabre
3x Red Elemental Blast
1x Pyroblast
1x Grafdigger’s Cage
1x Gorilla Shaman
1x Smash to Smithereens

Local Tournament:
Other Decks:
Combo Elves
RUG Threshold
White Stax
Reanimator
Goblins
UR Delver
BW Deadguy
MonoW Vial Stoneblade (D&T?)
BGW Nic Fit Rock
UGW Blade

Game 1: Combo Elves
Easily summarized, my opponent got nutz hands both games. In addition my decklist does not have any good sideboard options. As a result…
0-2
First time playing combo elves, you can bet I'll be getting some volcanic fallouts

Game 2: RUG Threshold
First game: His fetchlands + PoP = Win (along with 2 recurring hellsparks)
Second game: I kept a bad opening hand that had a flame rift and smash to smithereens. My opponent establishes a tarmogoyf and three flipped delvers and rides them to victory.
Third game: I land a first turn Meekstone and the look on my opponent’s face was priceless. Follow it with a Figure of Destiny and it’s game.

Once again, against all those delvers he managed to draw and early nimble mongoose means I need volcanic fallouts (prefer them since they cannot be countered)

Game 3: White Stax
First game: Turn 1 Trinisphere quickly followed by Batterskull beatdown
Second game: Turn 1 Trinisphere followed by a Chalice of the Void followed by a Batterskull beatdown
0-2 …..I don’t know if my opponent just got really good opening hands or what
I am unfamiliar with stax decks but what are some strategies? My opponent has also been playing an extremely long time so was very experienced piloting it.

With a bye in the fourth round that ended the day at 1-2.
I managed to get in additional games against B/W Deadguy: Unbelievably easy. The only difficulty was a CoP: Red he had one game which can be pithing needled.

Besides reconfiguring the sideboard, these are some changes I'm considering.
-3 Jackal Pup
So many better one drop creatures: Goblin Guide, Grim Lavamancer, Figure of Destiny
-1 Ball Lightning
For being a 1 drop it got pretty extensive testing...all lackluster
-1 Meekstone
Out of maindeck, possible sideboard option
-2 Flame Rift
I understand burn wants to do 20points as fast as possible but the damage I took back just wasn't worth it many times. I don't care if it takes one more turn to secure a win
-1 Smash to Smithereens
Out of maindeck, only time I drew it was against RUG, sideboard option
-1 Barbarian Ring
For some reason 1 drops are attracted to the top of my deck, unfortunately it was barbarian ring...never encountered a situation that made it worth it so it's going for another burn spell

Thanks for any input or constructive criticisms.

[goblinlacky]

Hey everyone
I recently competed in legacy for the first time at a local gaming store after playing casually for years. Before everyone tears the decklist apart know that I do realize it contains many suboptimal or unusual choices. Replacements are on the way, which will be discussed at the end. Going into the tournament, I had no idea what decks were being played so I completely guessed on the sideboard.

Original List
Creatures: (13)
3x Jackal Pup
4x Hellspark Elemental
4x Keldon Marauders
1x Ball Lightning
1x Figure of Destiny

Artifacts/Enchantments: (6)
3x Sulfuric Vortex
2x Cursed Scroll
1x Meekstone

Instants/Sorceries: (22)
4x Fireblast
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Rift Bolt
4x Lava Spike
3x Price of Progress
2x Flame Rift
1x Smash to Smithereens

Land: (19)
18x Mountain
1x Barbarian Ring

Sideboard: (15)
4x Pithing Needle
4x Faerie Macabre
3x Red Elemental Blast
1x Pyroblast
1x Grafdigger’s Cage
1x Gorilla Shaman
1x Smash to Smithereens

Local Tournament:
Other Decks:
Combo Elves
RUG Threshold
White Stax
Reanimator
Goblins
UR Delver
BW Deadguy
MonoW Vial Stoneblade (D&T?)
BGW Nic Fit Rock
UGW Blade

Game 1: Combo Elves
Easily summarized, my opponent got nutz hands both games. In addition my decklist does not have any good sideboard options. As a result…
0-2
First time playing combo elves, you can bet I'll be getting some volcanic fallouts

Game 2: RUG Threshold
First game: His fetchlands + PoP = Win (along with 2 recurring hellsparks)
Second game: I kept a bad opening hand that had a flame rift and smash to smithereens. My opponent establishes a tarmogoyf and three flipped delvers and rides them to victory.
Third game: I land a first turn Meekstone and the look on my opponent’s face was priceless. Follow it with a Figure of Destiny and it’s game.

Once again, against all those delvers he managed to draw and early nimble mongoose means I need volcanic fallouts (prefer them since they cannot be countered)

Game 3: White Stax
First game: Turn 1 Trinisphere quickly followed by Batterskull beatdown
Second game: Turn 1 Trinisphere followed by a Chalice of the Void followed by a Batterskull beatdown
0-2 …..I don’t know if my opponent just got really good opening hands or what
I am unfamiliar with stax decks but what are some strategies? My opponent has also been playing an extremely long time so was very experienced piloting it.

With a bye in the fourth round that ended the day at 1-2.
I managed to get in additional games against B/W Deadguy: Unbelievably easy. The only difficulty was a CoP: Red he had one game which can be pithing needled.

Besides reconfiguring the sideboard, these are some changes I'm considering.
-3 Jackal Pup
So many better one drop creatures: Goblin Guide, Grim Lavamancer, Figure of Destiny
-1 Ball Lightning
For being a 1 drop it got pretty extensive testing...all lackluster
-1 Meekstone
Out of maindeck, possible sideboard option
-2 Flame Rift
I understand burn wants to do 20points as fast as possible but the damage I took back just wasn't worth it many times. I don't care if it takes one more turn to secure a win
-1 Smash to Smithereens
Out of maindeck, only time I drew it was against RUG, sideboard option
-1 Barbarian Ring
For some reason 1 drops are attracted to the top of my deck, unfortunately it was barbarian ring...never encountered a situation that made it worth it so it's going for another burn spell

Thanks for any input or constructive criticisms.

-3 pups
-1 ball lightning

+4 goblin guides i love these little guys i dont know why but hasted 2/2 it pretty smexy

-1 meekstone
-2 cursed scrolls idk how good these were for you but they just seem slow to me im sure others can give better reasoning then I :laugh:

+3 lava mancer or figures personally ive been testing the mancer an sometimes he gets their while other times hes just lack luster. So maybe figures are prolly better so test both an see what you like best.

On flame rift sometimes that one turn can mean your death in the end burn wants to kill asap before your opponents beat you by board position though sometimes the flame rift might be your doom but ill take that chance to have a faster clock. Also how good have the vortexs been for you in the main ive seen ppl run them in the side/main wondering which was preferred as well as match ups.

[FEELtheBURN]

I understand every deck runs goblin guide with success, I'm still trying to figure out why.
1 Red mana for a 2/2 with haste is a steal but has the land effect ever come back to bite anyone?
I was able to get some extra games against RUG and lands provided me the win when his three delvers did not flip for 2 turns or so. Part luck but still noticeable. I feel like the times they do get land its worth taking two damage. I'll definitely do some playtesting though...how are they when drawn after the first 3 turns?

-1 Meekstone I agree
-2 Cursed Scroll
The repeatable use is amazing if the game goes a little longer than expected. The mana activation price may seem steep, but when holding on to an extra land or something with no burn spells it seems like card advantage. Its biggest use is against those small critters with protection (like white). Definitely keeping them.

Grim Lavamancer and Figure of Destiny
I will be playing a total of 3 each to see how it performs. The Grim Lavamancer is like a quicker cursed scroll and helps round out my 1 drop permanents. Only played one Figure of Destiny but I can tell I'll need 2 more. Once again it comes down to the game lasting the extra turn or so with no cards/unlucky topdeck mode. I never got him and was unhappy...maybe sideboard out against fast/non-interactive combo decks. Other than that I cannot think of a time he would not be useful. Each of these creatures is great on its own which is why i feel they need to be included. (I understand this is a meta/personal preference call)

Flame Rift...whatever works for you but my playstyle wasn't diggin it

3 Sulfuric Vortex
I never seem to draw these enough, seeing it appear in the occasional game even though there are three. The main reason for maindecking these is the abundance of Blade decks that are in my area. Any life gain can be detrimental to a burn gameplan so an unanswered batterskull or jitte can be game ending while kitchen finks is straight up annoying. Otherwise it's a great third turn drop to keep the moment going. It may not always do the most damage but it's a clock usually in the burn player's favor. Otherwise it's great to bait out counterspells to get those fireblasts through, etc.
At the very least, I would put 2-3 in the sideboard if you are not as big a fan.

I have 3 chain lightning on the way (still looking for the fourth) with the figures and lavamancers and sideboard cards like volcanic fallout and pyrostatic pillar. These should really help take the deck to the next level.
Just for the record: Jackal Pups really aren't a bad card, it's just that in legacy there are so many better options.

[Space Cowboy]

@NeoTech (#2003 and others) Thanks for the warm welcome and thoughtful suggestions. All of the cards you brought up are A-list choices but I didn’t include them for the simple reason that I didn’t own them at the time. Two Rings are a classic auto-include and are now available for my deck/sideboard. Only the threshold exception (and the threat of Wasteland,) keeps it from being a mainboard all the time. I haven’t seen a lot of Thalias or Mothers, but those are good points to watch for. (Post #2059 was MOST helpful.) The Spikes replaced a mountain, a Marauder and the Fallouts as you proposed. Lavamancers are problematic in my mind. When I’ve tried them in the past a few times in causal and they seemed kind of slow and really never got tucked in like I had hoped. As has been previously mentioned, like Rings I think they work best with fetchlands and I think that dilutes the one-sided effectiveness of the Prices. They’re both definitely still in my B-List. Switching Flame Rifts for Jets is my only serious hesitation as I really like the Jets for the Library manipulation, but with fewer lands, and thus a decreased chance of pockets, Rifts might be more viable. (Post #2061 echoes my feelings. I guess I’m not experienced enough to have a solid opinion of my own yet.) It’s more of an operator error thing at this point.

@Goblinlacky and FEELtheBURN-(#2027&2065) It seems a lot of us troglodytes are coming out of our caves. I have to admit, it’s a little strange diving back in after so long. I quit playing competitively back when they stopped letting you play all your cards. In hindsight, I totally understand it was a necessary move that allowed Wizards to stay in business, but at the time it seemed like a real slap in the face. Many of us felt that after supporting the game and spending a small fortune, it was wrong to limit what you could bring to the table. The Legacy format didn’t start until sometime in 2004 and just seemed like ‘spin’ at the time. By that time a lot of good players had left in contempt. Those were dark times, but the game survived and was ultimately made stronger by it. I’m still impressed by its ever increasing popularity.

Back on topic, having read all 2000+ posts on this thread, I’ve come to the conclusion that we’ve pretty thoroughly identified all the definitive core cards, and the remaining choice or two are just a matter of local Meta and personal taste and/or playstyle. Unless upcoming sets produce cards equal or better than the existent ones, this debate seems pretty much over to me. I don’t see any trend from Wizards towards power creeping burn. (Creatures are a different story.) Rotating out a couple of the least optimum cards to avoid playing a cookie cutter deck is fine, but not worth arguing/flaming over. I still see some room as to proving what ones actually work best in concert together. I am learning a great deal from this thread about the changing hate threats, different Sideboard options to combat them and the relative effectiveness those lifelines have.

Wow! 555 words and nothing really helpful, original or even terribly relevant to say. Thank Ghod I’m still handsome….

[Space Cowboy]

@FEELtheBURN:
Goblin Guide fuels a significantly more explosive Price of Progress, IF they run primarily non-basics. {Huh? in Legacy?}

2 Jackals got put in the Fire and Lightning deck, and for years it was an auto-include but its been obsolesed and there were a lot of other sub optimal cards in there as well (for actual Burn.) Wizards LOVES to throw junk in pre-mades as part of its 'allow the player to feel good about themselves by identifying the bad cards' policy. (This explains why the neo-'Lucky Charms' keep showing up in base sets. One more Angel Feather and I'm going to scream.) Plus it forces you to buy upgrades and they are in the business of selling cards. Can you imagine the outrage if a scrub were to pilot a stock storebought deck to the top of the Nationals... It did allow me to me foil out my deck alot cheaper with some of the reprints however.

My 'traditional' background made me want to include Meekstones early on as well, it seemed to be a no-brainer in what is by definition a creatureless deck, but the look on their faces is not worth the tempo loss/bad topdeck. (Okay, maybe once.) I did have it in my sideboard for a while. The problem is, even if you go long, I've observed too much Art hate lately. But you've already noted this. If we were surfers, we'd be the longboard guys...

Grimmy and FoD a both great creatures in other decks, but they were brought up and beat to death about 1500 posts ago... I (irrationally) still like Spark Elemental, but the prevaling opinion is that Hellspark is better due to it's recursion option. (But it costs TWO!)

Lifegain is almost universally sneered at around my neck of the woods, but if that changes, I've been wondering about including Everlasting Torment. It kills lifegain, stops damage prevention (Bye bye Witchbane, Leyline, Shroud, Hexproof, That Smug White Player, etc.) and makes your temporary creatures (Hellspark, Marauders) do lasting, permanent hurt to your opponent's creatures. I must be missing something REALLY obvious as I've never seen the card mentioned even once here and I can't imagine I've come up with something useful all on my own.

Opinions seem mixed on Sweepers like Fallout and Flamebreak, but against certain archetypes, they're priceless. As to which one is better, well, Burn seems like a deck were decimal places mean the difference between sucess and failure.

Gotta go, I can hear the Flame Bombers coming over the horizon...

[FEELtheBURN]

Completely overlooked the synergy between goblin guide and price of progress. I will have to pick up some goblins and one more PoP to try it out.
I understand many of the burn cards have been beat to death in this discussion. I just wanted to try a few odd choices to stray from the cookiecutter list, but more playtesting is only getting it closer (hard to beat the most efficient red cards already named in the format).
The main idea of posting my own experiences and meta is in hopes of not necessarily finding new card choices, but to list my own development of the deck as I become more familiar with it in a competitive environment and what strategies work against other decks. Not every game will consist of emptying your hand at the opponent as fast as possible (though it does work in many instances)
For example, without any sweepers trying to kill the most important elves in combo elves and what to do against first turn trinispheres.
Everlasting Torment is nice, but for the mana cost I imagine the damage from sulfuric vortex will be helpful in more situations than the prevention from torment. It seems more like a sideboard option which is precious space. Definitely has a lot of potential against white though so I may have to try them out just to know...I just haven't faced enough protection I guess.

[gatherer]

Well this is my first post here.

I got back into playing when Zendikar came out, and while I was very leery of legacy at first I have grown to love this format.

Recently I went 6-3 with Burn at the Legacy GP in Indy.

Now I was going in to this tournament with 3 byes. Also on the drive down to Indy I was set on either playing Dredge, Zoo or Affinity. I had played Dredge in a local tournament the night before we left and I wasn't really comfortable playing it so it was a distant 3rd. I was planning to play affinity in a grinder and see how it works. It didn't and I really didn't want to play Zoo.

So the night before the GP I was deckless.

friends recommended I sleeve up Burn. one recommended burn with a splash of Blue for Snapcaster and Delver. I like it but I really wanted to just keep things in red. Here is the deck I registered and sleeved up after running around and buying 18 mountains that were all the same. Since I didn't bring basic land with me.

Creatures:
4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders

Instants:
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress

Sorceries:
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Lava spike
4 Rift Bolt

Lands:
2 Barbarian Ring
18 Mountain

SB:
4 Leyline of the Void
2 Smash to Smithereens
4 Red Elemental Blast
2 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Pyrostatic Pillar

Needless to say during the first 2 rounds I played against a friend who was playing RUG Delver. I went 0-8 during that time. I wasn't all that confident after that.

Round 4 - Rob

I sat down across from my opponent and I don't remember this match up other then he was playing RUG Delver. I won in 2 quick games.

Round 5 - Charlie

He was playing enchantress and I again won in 2 quick games. I remember playing through some lock cards that didn't allow me to target him. Game 2 I remember there was a time where he could have paid a cumulative upkeep on I think it was Energy Storm and choose not to in order to play other stuff. That gave me a one turn window and his life dropped from 9 to 0.

Round 6 - Mary Jacobson

This round bugs me the most. because I got my first ever Game loss during a deck check. What happened is simple I bought a pack of sleeves that came packaged as 2 sets of 40 sleeves. I opened one pack and sleeved up all my cards that were nicely sorted from writing out my deck list. Then I ran around finding my mountains and sleeved them up in the other pack of sleeves. During this deck check Judges discovered that the sides of the sleeves were visably different. I appealed on the basis that it was an honest mistake and still got the game loss. Mary was playing Zoo and I was on tilt. I lost. ohhh well.

5-1

Round 7 - Greg

He is playing U/W Stoneblade and I win game one. I didn't catch on that he didn't play a single counterspell the whole of game one. I have red elemental blasts and other stuff in the deck and less burn and reach. I loose game 2 to a bunch of Ethersworn canonists, Thalias and other white stuff. Still on tilt from round 6 I don't change my board and loose the game with him on 4 life and me with 2 red elemental blasts in my hand. at one point he was at 1 and I had a red elemental blast in my hand.

Round 8 - Chris

Esper Stoneblade. fun. I loose game 1 to a Umezawa's Jitte. Game 2 I manage to get there even though the Jitte hits the table. I vow not to let a creature attack and do damage with it attached. That’s how I also manage to take game 3 as well. Even though I had Smash to Smithereens I wish I had more.

Round 9 - Alex

Reanimator. I lose to turn 2 Iona naming red game 1. I hate this match up. I side in the 4 leylines of the void. I draw my 7. No leyline, draw my 6 no leyline. Same for 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. I keep. he show and tells Iona turn 4 and that is that.

Cards I liked:

Price of Progress, such a blow out sometimes.

Hellspark Elemental, Unearth can't be countered and if it is stifled you just do it again next turn.
Instant speed burn, being able to pass the turn and burn them at the end of their turn is great.

Things I disliked:

Leyline of the Void - OK I only had one match up where I needed it but it was an either have it in the opener or it's a dead card. I'd rather start trying out some of the other graveyard hate.

Keldon Marauders - 2 damage for 2 mana is terrible. often when I played this guy turn 2 they'd have a bigger blocker out before I could swing turn 3. Sometimes he'd get in for 5 damage. but I felt like if late game I drew this guy I was drawing dead. If he came with haste he'd be OK, otherwise I'd like to have more burn or Figure of Destiny in this slot to try out.

Smash to Smithereens - This is here because I wasn't playing enough of them. I should have had more. and maybe a few main deck there are so many artifacts to kill.

Red Elemental Blast - Why am I trying to win a counter spell war? Sure it deals with problematic permanents, but if they are playing blue they are probably ready for that with counterspell backup.


Right now the deck looks like:

Creatures:
4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders (I'm open to suggestions)

Instants:
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress

Sorceries:
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

SB:
4 Faerie Macabre
2 Phyrexian Metamorph (a Great answer to Iona on red)
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
3 Sulfuric Vortex
4 Smash to Smithereens

I'm open to suggestions as to what to try out.

[jares]

Completely overlooked the synergy between goblin guide and price of progress. I will have to pick up some goblins and one more PoP to try it out.
I understand many of the burn cards have been beat to death in this discussion. I just wanted to try a few odd choices to stray from the cookiecutter list, but more playtesting is only getting it closer (hard to beat the most efficient red cards already named in the format).
The main idea of posting my own experiences and meta is in hopes of not necessarily finding new card choices, but to list my own development of the deck as I become more familiar with it in a competitive environment and what strategies work against other decks. Not every game will consist of emptying your hand at the opponent as fast as possible (though it does work in many instances)
For example, without any sweepers trying to kill the most important elves in combo elves and what to do against first turn trinispheres.
Everlasting Torment is nice, but for the mana cost I imagine the damage from sulfuric vortex will be helpful in more situations than the prevention from torment. It seems more like a sideboard option which is precious space. Definitely has a lot of potential against white though so I may have to try them out just to know...I just haven't faced enough protection I guess.
I also like viewing Goblin Guide's ability as a free "peek" into the opponent's eventual hand. I really find it as a bonus rather than a drawback, given that Burn is designed to have as little interaction with your opponent's cards as possible.

As for all the other stuff going on, I'm sure you'll discover what works for you sooner or later. You can refer to the several successful builds that have been posted here as reference.

Good luck with the deck building!

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

Right now the deck looks like:

Creatures:
4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders (I'm open to suggestions)

Instants:
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress

Sorceries:
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

SB:
4 Faerie Macabre
2 Phyrexian Metamorph (a Great answer to Iona on red)
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
3 Sulfuric Vortex
4 Smash to Smithereens

I'm open to suggestions as to what to try out.
I have the same thoughts about Keldon Marauders, but I don't think that we have better choices than that. Maybe you could try the following:

[-1] Keldon Marauders
[-1] Hellspark Elemental
[+2] Figure of Destiny

This suggested configuration gives you two more 1-CC drops, while also balancing the probability that you'll draw too many of these 2-cost cards that could affect your desired tempo. Figure of Destiny also gives you options in the mid-game (being a potential 4/4 creature). If you like Hellspark Elemental better, you could probably go with only [2x] Keldon Marauders.

Red Elemental Blast - Why am I trying to win a counter spell war? Sure it deals with problematic permanents, but if they are playing blue they are probably ready for that with counterspell backup.
I've noticed that Vexing Shusher has rarely been mentioned recently, but I'd like to note that I've been using it in my sideboard ever since I started playing Burn, and it has been very good to me so far. That might be another sideboard option that could help someone else - if you want to win a counterspell war, then making your spells uncounterable is probably the best way to go about it.

Cheers,
jares

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I flamed out of the Indy GP with Burn, but my first match was a good RUG Delver/Counterbalance player. With Goblin Guide I was able to beat the player, decently easily, even though he resolved a Counterbalance in two games against me.

The games might have been different obviously if he had resolved a Divining Top. He didn't, and I was able to use G-Guide to manipulate his Counterbalance.

also I vote to change the name of Burn to Punt Red, or 3 And Out.

[jares]

I flamed out of the Indy GP with Burn, but my first match was a good RUG Delver/Counterbalance player. With Goblin Guide I was able to beat the player, decently easily, even though he resolved a Counterbalance in two games against me.

The games might have been different obviously if he had resolved a Divining Top. He didn't, and I was able to use G-Guide to manipulate his Counterbalance.

also I vote to change the name of Burn to Punt Red, or 3 And Out.
May we ask for the list that you played?

I doubt that the name of this archetype will ever be changed - Burn is just too descriptive of what the deck does and tries to achieve.

Cheers,
jares

[CabalTherapy]

@gatherer
I don't know how many games you have played with burn because it is hard to tell which cards you like and which not after some few rounds.
I agree on the Leyline. It is not a good card here and the faerie is a lot better.
But I strongly disagree on the Marauders. CC2 3/3 and 2-5 damage is very good and I like this card very much. Even if you draw it in the lategame you can deal 2 damage at least and slow down you opponent because you've got this 3/3 blocker/attacker.

"Burn" should stay "Burn" :tongue:
B rutal
U ltra
R ed
N emesis

[gatherer]

@CabalTherapy

I have played burn at LGS events a lot but I do admit part of my down fall at GP indy was the lack of practice, the deck had been sidelined recently.

As for Keldon Marauders, when I mentioned it just seemed underwhelming it was because most of the time it was 2 damage for 2 mana and generally prevented a hit to me from a Goyf or something similar. I feel with the deck if I start playing on the defensive I've lost the game. Yes I will admit sometimes the Marauders were great at 5 damage for 2 mana.

But I brought up mana cost and result for the simple reason that I think burn's cards should be mana efficient. a bolt is 3 damage for 1 mana, same with chain lightning, rift bolt, Lava spike. Hellspark elemental at the minimum is 3 damage for 2 mana and can quite often be 6 damage for 4 mana. The value of Price changes with what your opponent is playing. Goblin guide is the same way, if they drop an early blocker it might just be a 2 damage for 1 mana creature. If they don't it can do all the heavy lifting.

I just don't see Keldon Marauders as efficient enough. However it is still in my deck at the moment because I haven't figured out something that is better. I guess it is all about personal taste.

[NeoTech]

@CabalTherapy

I have played burn at LGS events a lot but I do admit part of my down fall at GP indy was the lack of practice, the deck had been sidelined recently.

As for Keldon Marauders, when I mentioned it just seemed underwhelming it was because most of the time it was 2 damage for 2 mana and generally prevented a hit to me from a Goyf or something similar. I feel with the deck if I start playing on the defensive I've lost the game. Yes I will admit sometimes the Marauders were great at 5 damage for 2 mana.

But I brought up mana cost and result for the simple reason that I think burn's cards should be mana efficient. a bolt is 3 damage for 1 mana, same with chain lightning, rift bolt, Lava spike. Hellspark elemental at the minimum is 3 damage for 2 mana and can quite often be 6 damage for 4 mana. The value of Price changes with what your opponent is playing. Goblin guide is the same way, if they drop an early blocker it might just be a 2 damage for 1 mana creature. If they don't it can do all the heavy lifting.

I just don't see Keldon Marauders as efficient enough. However it is still in my deck at the moment because I haven't figured out something that is better. I guess it is all about personal taste.

In my opinion, I think that if there was a choice to replace Keldon Marauders with it would have to be Sulfuric Vortex. With life gain being the optimal way of combating Burn, via Jitte, Batterskull, Warmth, and Kichen Finks. Sulfuric Vortex allows for us null their life gain solution and keep up our tempo with reccuring damage.

Though I myself have not implimented this change, it has been something on my mind. I think that everybody is in agreement that if there was a card slot to be changed, Keldon Marauder's would be it, and it is just a difficult choice to make because he has proven to be quite the useful 2 drop creature from time to time.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

my list usually is
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast
2 Sulfuric Vortex
4 Golbin Guide
3 Figure of Destiny
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
17 Mountain
Sideboard
4 Faerie Macabre
4 Mindbreak Trap
2 Anarchy
2 Cave-In
3 Shattering Spree

however my group convinced me to go with Fetch lands and two Taigas so I could splash Green in my sideboard to handle Batterskul and Counterbalance.
I have never had a problem against Batterskull, ever, but I wanted to try something a little new, and I changed.
everything was the same except for
-1 Keldon Marauders
-1 Fireblast
-10 Mountain

+1 Ancient Grudge
+1 Taiga
+ 8 Fetch
+1 Taiga

My sideboard altered as well
-2 Cave-In
-3 Shattering Spree
-2 Anarchy

+2 Ancient Grudge
+2 Krosan Grip
+3 (I cant even remember the junk here. never used it)

The idea was noble, I expected a ton of variants of Maverick, and Stoneforge.
I played one Stoneforge, and that was it.

I won Match one 2-1 against RUG Delver/Counterbalance, Wizards Awarded me that tough match-up with Reanimator in round two.

Round two
Reanimator
game one turn two Iona - Punt. game two, turn two Iona in yard, Macabre. I was able to get him to 3 before he Show'd (whatever creature redirects damage from player to it.) I Fireblasted twice, to get it off the board, I still had two lands left..... --Right here was the mistake, I had no other cards in hand. I should have waited a turn, to draw more damage cards, because next turn he reanimated Sphinx of Steel wind, and I was not able to get there.

Round three
Dredge
I don't know, I was given 5 turns in Two games, usual stupidity from Dredge.
Game one, two turns, Dredge just does what it does. I stalled him out with Macabre in game two, I Macabred two early Dredge targets, and a Flame-Kin Zealot he went off, and attacked next turn for win. (If I would have had my sideboard, I would have had Cave-in, and had at least another turn (theoretically if I drew it.)

Round four
MUD
Game one, was close, real Close. He eventually got two Worm-Coil Engine, could not handle it.
game two.
Turn one Chalice for one, turn two Chalice for two, turn 3 Worm-Coil Engine. Now this is where it gets shifty. I drew two Ancient Grudges, and a Krosan Grip. These if it was my sideboard, and I drew them, would have been Shattering Spree. Shattering Spree would have won it for me.

Round five
Affinity
I thought this was going to be game over for him. Thought I was going to right the ship. I was already out of contention for day two, but I play for points, I have no shame.
Game one, I do not know what went wrong, but my maindeck Ancient Grudge actually saved me by getting rid of a Plating. great, but not great because it hit the board turn one, on his second turn he dropped an Etched champion, I wasnt scared, because I knew I could race him, his second Plating was also killed by my Graveyard Ancient Grudge. I needed 5-6 turns to win, when I calculated the math on turn 3, his third Plating gave him a quicker clock.
game two.
more of the same, except by turn three, he had three Etched Champions in play, He was at critical damage, but when I needed one more turn to kill him, he dropped two plantings on the board same turn, and equipped them...... you get the rest.

Round six.
I am 1-4 at this point, and extremely pissed. (Not so much pissed, more shell shocked.)
Stoneforge variant.
game one, I had the biggest brain fart I have ever had. I was battling, Usually Stoneforge is a joke for me. I honestly get excited to play against Stoneforge, and Maverick.
So were gong at it back and forth, one turn three I get Sulfuric Vortex. I know he cannot get rid of it, I know I have the match. He casts Jitte. and attacks, cool don't care. he gets another attack in and passes turn. I draw Ancient Grudge, I go to cast it, and notice my Vortex. (Now in my head, I think He cannot gain life. So I do not care about Jitte. I only need two turns at this point to get him. He needed at least three. so I let the Jitte go, Burn Burn pass. he removes four counters from Jitte, and gets there. No clue what happened to my brain that I forgot/didn't care about the pump ability on Jitte, it happened I was already on tilt from the previous four matches, whatever congratulations game two.
Game two: I don't know, he got the god Stoneforge hand. I had to mull twice, and still had nothing.

Round Seven
I got there in round seven, because my opponent didn't. (I have been working on a report to my experiences with this as the title...)
My opponent no show'd, I got the win...

Round Eight:
Burn
Game one:
I enjoyed the match, but I could tell the kid did not play Burn all that much.
Easily took game one, thanks to him playing B-ring and Flamerift. he did 10 damage to himself while only doing 8 to me on turn three.

Game two:
He won the Goldfish war. it was close, but he got there.

Game three: same as game one, he did as much damage to himself as he did to me, we were both at 4, I had the Fireblast, he didn't.

at this point all but three out of 12 of my fellow local players were out of contention for day two. . My group was getting hungry, and annoyed, we bounced.

[NeoTech]

my list usually is
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Rift Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast
2 Sulfuric Vortex
4 Golbin Guide
3 Figure of Destiny
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders
17 Mountain
Sideboard
4 Faerie Macabre
4 Mindbreak Trap
2 Anarchy
2 Cave-In
3 Shattering Spree

however my group convinced me to go with Fetch lands and two Taigas so I could splash Green in my sideboard to handle Batterskul and Counterbalance.
I have never had a problem against Batterskull, ever, but I wanted to try something a little new, and I changed.
everything was the same except for
-1 Keldon Marauders
-1 Fireblast
-10 Mountain

+1 Ancient Grudge
+1 Taiga
+ 8 Fetch
+1 Taiga

My sideboard altered as well
-2 Cave-In
-3 Shattering Spree
-2 Anarchy

+2 Ancient Grudge
+2 Krosan Grip
+3 (I cant even remember the junk here. never used it)

The idea was noble, I expected a ton of variants of Maverick, and Stoneforge.
I played one Stoneforge, and that was it.

I won Match one 2-1 against RUG Delver/Counterbalance, Wizards Awarded me that tough match-up with Reanimator in round two.

Round two
Reanimator
game one turn two Iona - Punt. game two, turn two Iona in yard, Macabre. I was able to get him to 3 before he Show'd (whatever creature redirects damage from player to it.) I Fireblasted twice, to get it off the board, I still had two lands left..... --Right here was the mistake, I had no other cards in hand. I should have waited a turn, to draw more damage cards, because next turn he reanimated Sphinx of Steel wind, and I was not able to get there.

Round three
Dredge
I don't know, I was given 5 turns in Two games, usual stupidity from Dredge.
Game one, two turns, Dredge just does what it does. I stalled him out with Macabre in game two, I Macabred two early Dredge targets, and a Flame-Kin Zealot he went off, and attacked next turn for win. (If I would have had my sideboard, I would have had Cave-in, and had at least another turn (theoretically if I drew it.)

Round four
MUD
Game one, was close, real Close. He eventually got two Worm-Coil Engine, could not handle it.
game two.
Turn one Chalice for one, turn two Chalice for two, turn 3 Worm-Coil Engine. Now this is where it gets shifty. I drew two Ancient Grudges, and a Krosan Grip. These if it was my sideboard, and I drew them, would have been Shattering Spree. Shattering Spree would have won it for me.

Round five
Affinity
I thought this was going to be game over for him. Thought I was going to right the ship. I was already out of contention for day two, but I play for points, I have no shame.
Game one, I do not know what went wrong, but my maindeck Ancient Grudge actually saved me by getting rid of a Plating. great, but not great because it hit the board turn one, on his second turn he dropped an Etched champion, I wasnt scared, because I knew I could race him, his second Plating was also killed by my Graveyard Ancient Grudge. I needed 5-6 turns to win, when I calculated the math on turn 3, his third Plating gave him a quicker clock.
game two.
more of the same, except by turn three, he had three Etched Champions in play, He was at critical damage, but when I needed one more turn to kill him, he dropped two plantings on the board same turn, and equipped them...... you get the rest.

Round six.
I am 1-4 at this point, and extremely pissed. (Not so much pissed, more shell shocked.)
Stoneforge variant.
game one, I had the biggest brain fart I have ever had. I was battling, Usually Stoneforge is a joke for me. I honestly get excited to play against Stoneforge, and Maverick.
So were gong at it back and forth, one turn three I get Sulfuric Vortex. I know he cannot get rid of it, I know I have the match. He casts Jitte. and attacks, cool don't care. he gets another attack in and passes turn. I draw Ancient Grudge, I go to cast it, and notice my Vortex. (Now in my head, I think He cannot gain life. So I do not care about Jitte. I only need two turns at this point to get him. He needed at least three. so I let the Jitte go, Burn Burn pass. he removes four counters from Jitte, and gets there. No clue what happened to my brain that I forgot/didn't care about the pump ability on Jitte, it happened I was already on tilt from the previous four matches, whatever congratulations game two.
Game two: I don't know, he got the god Stoneforge hand. I had to mull twice, and still had nothing.

Round Seven
I got there in round seven, because my opponent didn't. (I have been working on a report to my experiences with this as the title...)
My opponent no show'd, I got the win...

Round Eight:
Burn
Game one:
I enjoyed the match, but I could tell the kid did not play Burn all that much.
Easily took game one, thanks to him playing B-ring and Flamerift. he did 10 damage to himself while only doing 8 to me on turn three.

Game two:
He won the Goldfish war. it was close, but he got there.

Game three: same as game one, he did as much damage to himself as he did to me, we were both at 4, I had the Fireblast, he didn't.

at this point all but three out of 12 of my fellow local players were out of contention for day two. . My group was getting hungry, and annoyed, we bounced.

Hey Frightened. I am very curious if you felt the splash of green helped the deck play out in any way, or do you think the changes hurt you in the long run? Ancient Grudge does seem like an excellent 1 of main deck if you have the splash green, I am only worried if it is worth it, or if a Smash to Smithereens would just be better keeping to a mono-red build.

Were your mulligans through-out the tournament due to a lack of land in your opening hand? I only ask because I am curious if you feel like you need to re-consider your land count being at 17.

[jares]

In my opinion, I think that if there was a choice to replace Keldon Marauders with it would have to be Sulfuric Vortex. With life gain being the optimal way of combating Burn, via Jitte, Batterskull, Warmth, and Kichen Finks. Sulfuric Vortex allows for us null their life gain solution and keep up our tempo with reccuring damage.

Though I myself have not implimented this change, it has been something on my mind. I think that everybody is in agreement that if there was a card slot to be changed, Keldon Marauder's would be it, and it is just a difficult choice to make because he has proven to be quite the useful 2 drop creature from time to time.
I believe that a few successful Burn builds have already tried to go with a main-decked Sulfuric Vortex, and I would agree that it would be an acceptable alternative to the slot for Keldon Marauders, especially in a meta littered with the aforementioned cards. I guess that the major consideration for such a change would probably be the fact that it's a 3-cc card, but otherwise, it'll likely just fit right in.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

Were your mulligans through-out the tournament due to a lack of land in your opening hand? I only ask because I am curious if you feel like you need to re-consider your land count being at 17.
I personally think that running just 17 lands causes major concerns, and I have already posted the figures for this configuration. I personally wouldn't go below 19 lands, but at the end of the day, we will all have to make our own choices for the risks that we want to take. Also, note that running fetches lowers the land count even further within the game, which increases the likelihood that keeping a hand with one land would be a bad idea given that you're less likely to get that second land to maintain the tempo.

I hope this helps.

Kind Regards,
jares

[gatherer]

Keldon Marauders.. If I was to remove this from my Decklist (Found in my first post on page 104) I'd have 4 slots available. Sulfuric Vortex is an option, But I doubt I want 4. I have also thought about Smash to Smithereens as a 4 of.

Sulfuric Vortex, Of course works with any matchup. Keeps pressure going. but should I really have 4??

Smash to Smithereens doesn't work with a bunch of matchups like Dredge or Reanimator. But tons of decks are using Artifacts these days and being able to kill an artifact game one is kind of nice.

Of course the matchup I really want to improve is Reanimator.

[jares]

Keldon Marauders.. If I was to remove this from my Decklist (Found in my first post on page 104) I'd have 4 slots available. Sulfuric Vortex is an option, But I doubt I want 4. I have also thought about Smash to Smithereens as a 4 of.

Sulfuric Vortex, Of course works with any matchup. Keeps pressure going. but should I really have 4??

Smash to Smithereens doesn't work with a bunch of matchups like Dredge or Reanimator. But tons of decks are using Artifacts these days and being able to kill an artifact game one is kind of nice.

Of course the matchup I really want to improve is Reanimator.
Running [4x] Sulfuric Vortex will definitely be the wrong call because you don't really want it early, and having it in multiples isn't also very favorable. I'd run [3x] at most, but [2x] might be the safest call (then maybe have the 3rd one in the sideboard if necessary).

As for the Reanimator match-up, I'm sorry to say this, but there really ain't much we can do in the main deck to address that without diluting the deck drastically. The best we can do is address that weakness from the sideboard.

Cheers,
jares

[NeoTech]

Keldon Marauders.. If I was to remove this from my Decklist (Found in my first post on page 104) I'd have 4 slots available. Sulfuric Vortex is an option, But I doubt I want 4. I have also thought about Smash to Smithereens as a 4 of.

Sulfuric Vortex, Of course works with any matchup. Keeps pressure going. but should I really have 4??

Smash to Smithereens doesn't work with a bunch of matchups like Dredge or Reanimator. But tons of decks are using Artifacts these days and being able to kill an artifact game one is kind of nice.

Of course the matchup I really want to improve is Reanimator.

Unfortunately Reanimator is our roughest match-up, we have to hope they cannot get Iona out game 1, and then game 2 we HAVE to find graveyard hate. I have dedicated 5 slots to graveyard hate, 4 Faerie Macabre and 1 Tormod's Crypt and I have still had match-ups where I don't draw any hate. This match-up would probably by my strongest reason to splash another color, ideally white for Path to Exile. But splashing another color may drop consistency only to improve the match-up against one deck.

[NeoTech]

Running [4x] Sulfuric Vortex will definitely be the wrong call because you don't really want it early, and having it in multiples isn't also very favorable. I'd run [3x] at most, but [2x] might be the safest call (then maybe have the 3rd one in the sideboard if necessary).

As for the Reanimator match-up, I'm sorry to say this, but there really ain't much we can do in the main deck to address that without diluting the deck drastically. The best we can do is address that weakness from the sideboard.

Cheers,
jares

Jares, you and me think a lot alike my friend. :laugh:

[iamfrightenedtoo]

@Neotech
Land was never a problem, a game or two I drew only two lands, but even that really didnt hurt me too bad.
Splashing green was detrimental. The deck runs smoothly and effectively because of its mono colored nature. Out of my five losses, I honestly think I could have won two of them, and at least had a fighting chance with one more had I kept my regular build. I do however enjoy Fetch lands, I do not think they hurt that much. I just hate the continual shuffling and searching.

Reanimator, and Dredge are just hard. Flat out we are not really equipped to tangle with them.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

@jars @ neotech
I run 2 Sulfuric Vortex main, and absolutely love it. It is an all-star. You never want to draw many of them, and it is situational, but no deck wants to see it, and it puts your opponent on tilt. Decks that can handle it game one, it forces the player to occupy more attention on it than they normally wish too. Decks that cannot handle it game one, the players constantly grumble about it.
For me, 2 Sulfuric Vortex will have a permanent spot in my builds, until something better is printed.

[jares]

Jares, you and me think a lot alike my friend. :laugh:
Good to know that I'm making sense. :smile:

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

@jars @ neotech
I run 2 Sulfuric Vortex main, and absolutely love it. It is an all-star. You never want to draw many of them, and it is situational, but no deck wants to see it, and it puts your opponent on tilt. Decks that can handle it game one, it forces the player to occupy more attention on it than they normally wish too. Decks that cannot handle it game one, the players constantly grumble about it.
For me, 2 Sulfuric Vortex will have a permanent spot in my builds, until something better is printed.
Good to know that Sulfuric Vortex is working very well for you given that it's a 3-cc card and that you're running only 17 lands. I personally like that card's placement in the meta now, and I'll also do some testing with it to see for myself.

Cheers,
jares

[FEELtheBURN]

@jars @ neotech
I run 2 Sulfuric Vortex main, and absolutely love it. It is an all-star. You never want to draw many of them, and it is situational, but no deck wants to see it, and it puts your opponent on tilt. Decks that can handle it game one, it forces the player to occupy more attention on it than they normally wish too. Decks that cannot handle it game one, the players constantly grumble about it.
For me, 2 Sulfuric Vortex will have a permanent spot in my builds, until something better is printed.

It's just funny how things work out. I run three maindeck and never seem to see them. Overall, I think it can be agreed upon 2 minimum no matter what meta is being encountered.
As far as Keldon Marauders is concerned, I'm not sure it would be the first thing to cut from the deck. I know a true burn deck wants as many 3 for 1 spells as it can manage, but burn also prevails through cards like the Marauders and Hellspark Elementals that provide card advantage.
This is how I see it: For 2 mana a minimum of 2 damage is being done, alright not the best...but the 3/3 body has always made some type of impact on the game. If he does get through, 5 damage for 2 mana isn't too shabby by any means especially considering it is only one card (burn use to run incinerates maindeck). If not, chances are it does 2 damage, blocks/attacks and kills an opposing creature or draws some type of removal. The advantage he provides (think when running next to Figures or Lavamancers) lets the deck gel better since it is USUALLY never a dead card. Of course there are always exceptions, but I feel the pros outweigh the cons here.
For Hellspark Elemental, the unearth ability really shines. It can attack with the other critters for trampling damage or appear out of nowhere when your opponent forgets about it. This card has literally won me a game (opponent forgot about my graveyard). Again it is done with only 1 card, which like the marauders, is what makes it fit in with the deck and makes it so playable.

Then again neither one will help you against reanimator or combo...
What I am wondering, can creatureless burn (or just guides and hellspark or whatever) truly survive in a diverse meta without some luck? I know about overextending, but against many decks it almost seems like the correct play.

[Erdvermampfa]

Never thought that a deck which folds to single random cards like CoP:R or Leyline of Sanctity can advance to a so-called DtB.

Winning a SCG twice doesn't necessarily warrant this status...

[iamfrightenedtoo]

e@rdvermampfa
Reanimator folds to an assortment of cards, it is a DtB
also, it has nothing to do with how many tournemants a deck wins. Decks do not win matches people do. And Burn posts solid standings wherever it plays.

also I do not punt to Sanctity or CoP: Red, ever. Decks that run them really cannot stop me from casting Anarchy, so I could care less about either of them.

I punt to Reanimator, and Dredge. I need them to have bad opening hands coupled with drawing into my sideboard.

Burn is a DtB, but if people want to advert back to thinking it is garbage, that is fine to, easier for me and the rest of us who pilot it to win.

[jares]

Never thought that a deck which folds to single random cards like CoP:R or Leyline of Sanctity can advance to a so-called DtB.

Winning a SCG twice doesn't necessarily warrant this status...
Kindly note that the inclusion of a deck in the DTB section isn't based on one person's whim, as it is based on a formula that quantifies the standards of being included in this section. Anyone may correct me if I am mistaken.

In a manner of speaking, you're correct in saying that winning SCG twice doesn't necessarily warrant the DTB status, because it technically takes more than that.

Also note that Burn does not "fold" to the aforementioned cards. I encourage you to explore this archetype further so that you may have an understanding of your statement.

Having said that, I also never thought that Burn would be in the DTB section, as I always felt that it was Tier 1.5, but not resilient enough to be Tier 1. Good to see that the hard work has paid-off for those that have been trying to develop this archetype.

Cheers,
jares

[Pinoy Goblin]

Never thought that a deck which folds to single random cards like CoP:R or Leyline of Sanctity can advance to a so-called DtB.

Winning a SCG twice doesn't necessarily warrant this status...

pithing needle, phyrexian revoker, chaos warp and anarchy would like a word with you:tongue:

[CabalTherapy]

Burn is a DtB, but if people want to advert back to thinking it is garbage, that is fine to, easier for me and the rest of us who pilot it to win.

True words my friend.

Summarizing what we have written in the last pages, I think we can agree on the core of this deck but not on the "filling slots" due to personal preferences and meta choices. So would be a neverending discussion here.

Just main deck:
We all agree on (I hope that I don't make a mistake.):
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Goblin Guide
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast

So these are 28 cards that has to be played in every burn.dec.
Lets focus on the mana base:
17-20 lands are fine
Lands that can be played are:
Mountain, Barbarian Ring, red fetchlands

Now, here come the "fillers" or cards of not so high quality like Lightning Bolt and co.
So 28 + 17 is 45 and 28 + 20 is 48. So we have still 12 to 15 slots left.
Cards that can be played in this slots are:
Keldon Marauders, Hellspark Elemental, Grim Lavamancer, Shard Volley, Flame Rift,
Sulfuric Vortex, Figure of Destiny, Volcanic Fallout

If I have forgotten a card, I'm sorry :tongue:.
We cannot argue about the "perfect list" but about which cards are playable and which experiences we have made.

[jares]

True words my friend.

Summarizing what we have written in the last pages, I think we can agree on the core of this deck but not on the "filling slots" due to personal preferences and meta choices. So would be a neverending discussion here.

Just main deck:
We all agree on (I hope that I don't make a mistake.):
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Goblin Guide
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast

So these are 28 cards that has to be played in every burn.dec.
Lets focus on the mana base:
17-20 lands are fine
Lands that can be played are:
Mountain, Barbarian Ring, red fetchlands

Now, here come the "fillers" or cards of not so high quality like Lightning Bolt and co.
So 28 + 17 is 45 and 28 + 20 is 48. So we have still 12 to 15 slots left.
Cards that can be played in this slots are:
Keldon Marauders, Hellspark Elemental, Grim Lavamancer, Shard Volley, Flame Rift,
Sulfuric Vortex, Figure of Destiny, Volcanic Fallout

If I have forgotten a card, I'm sorry :tongue:.
We cannot argue about the "perfect list" but about which cards are playable and which experiences we have made.
This is a fairly good generalization. The only detail that I would be concerned about is regarding the number of lands in the main deck, as I feel that running 19-20 lands would be the most reliable number.

Cheers,
jares

[gatherer]

I agree with the generalization. Seeing it that way lets me think more about the options I have to fill those slots. I do agree that 19 to 20 lands seems like the better option. I'm even leery of running 19, but I feel that is more my personal preference.

I think I have to try out a few Grim Lavamancers I know that changes the manabase I'd like to run, but it might be the card I'm looking for.

[jares]

I agree with the generalization. Seeing it that way lets me think more about the options I have to fill those slots. I do agree that 19 to 20 lands seems like the better option. I'm even leery of running 19, but I feel that is more my personal preference.

I think I have to try out a few Grim Lavamancers I know that changes the manabase I'd like to run, but it might be the card I'm looking for.
I'm also personally on the side of maximizing the probability of opening with 2 lands, which is why I like running 20 lands. I've been revisiting the configuration running fetch lands, and so far I've been pleased with how it has played out. I'll be posting some results as soon as I have the time. Meanwhile, you might want to try running from 6-8 fetch lands in your testing of Grim Lavamancer (I'm currently testing 7). Take note, though, that you will have to take out Hellspark Elemental if you with to try Grim Lavamancer, as the lack of synergy of these two cards is obvious.

Cheers,
jares

[Choux]

What do you guys thinks of bump in the night ?

A deck list like 28 key spells + 19 lands ( with 11 fetchs + 4 badland + 4 mountain ) + 4 bump +4 needle drop + 2 sulfuric vortex +1 top ( good with fetches and allow not to draw lands, and if we got lots of land we can "draw with top" after tutorising the card we wanted )

[NeoTech]

What do you guys thinks of bump in the night ?

A deck list like 28 key spells + 19 lands ( with 11 fetchs + 4 badland + 4 mountain ) + 4 bump +4 needle drop + 2 sulfuric vortex +1 top ( good with fetches and allow not to draw lands, and if we got lots of land we can "draw with top" after tutorising the card we wanted )

I think Bump in the Night builds have been tested already, not to say it is a terrible card but it just caused too many issues with the manabase, making it more fragile to wasteland and making Price of Progress less friendly. Also it should be illegal to be able to flashback a Bump in the Night with a deck with such a fast clock, we should never plan on reaching 6 mana to do so.

I think the idea of a color splash has been on the rise, the only problem is lowering the consistency of Burn to improve a match-up against 1 or 2 decks. Right now mono-red is the way to go, it is very strong and very consistent. Know how to face the key hate-cards in the format and a burn player will do just fine.

[jares]

I think Bump in the Night builds have been tested already, not to say it is a terrible card but it just caused too many issues with the manabase, making it more fragile to wasteland and making Price of Progress less friendly. Also it should be illegal to be able to flashback a Bump in the Night with a deck with such a fast clock, we should never plan on reaching 6 mana to do so.

I think the idea of a color splash has been on the rise, the only problem is lowering the consistency of Burn to improve a match-up against 1 or 2 decks. Right now mono-red is the way to go, it is very strong and very consistent. Know how to face the key hate-cards in the format and a burn player will do just fine.
Agreed. I also explored the possibility of having another Lightning Bolt by splashing for Bump in the Night, but I found that the benefits were too negligible compared to the risks involved in weakening your mana base and exposing yourself to your own Price of Progress. I would encourage those that are curious to try it out yourselves so that you would have a feel of how it differs from going mono-red.

Cheers,
jares

[iamfrightenedtoo]

If I were to splash another color, I would splash Green again, not so much for Grip or Ancient Grudge, I think Shattering Spree is superior to any artifact kill. I would splash it for Tarmogoyf.
Take out Keldon Marauders, which I cant stand.

I noticed this too while playing in Indy, when I took RG Burn.

PLayers do not really waste their waste lands on you. On Barbarian Ring it is a different, B-Ring is a finisher. A Taiga is not, killing our mana lands does nothing, because we do not need a terrible amount of damage. My Taigas never got wasted, and almost every player I played against ran them.

They save their Waste's for the inevitable Price they know they will see, and they save it for the mana use of it. but really if you only ran 2 Taiga's or even 4 if you are more comfortable with it, and one Forest. save a fetch for when you need to cast Goyf, youd be safe from Wasteland.

Im sure there are other green things we could add in the place of Figure too.

just a thought. I cant play test, I do not own Tarmogoyfs.

[jares]

If I were to splash another color, I would splash Green again, not so much for Grip or Ancient Grudge, I think Shattering Spree is superior to any artifact kill. I would splash it for Tarmogoyf.
Take out Keldon Marauders, which I cant stand.

I noticed this too while playing in Indy, when I took RG Burn.

PLayers do not really waste their waste lands on you. On Barbarian Ring it is a different, B-Ring is a finisher. A Taiga is not, killing our mana lands does nothing, because we do not need a terrible amount of damage. My Taigas never got wasted, and almost every player I played against ran them.

They save their Waste's for the inevitable Price they know they will see, and they save it for the mana use of it. but really if you only ran 2 Taiga's or even 4 if you are more comfortable with it, and one Forest. save a fetch for when you need to cast Goyf, youd be safe from Wasteland.

Im sure there are other green things we could add in the place of Figure too.

just a thought. I cant play test, I do not own Tarmogoyfs.
Based on what you're trying to achieve by splashing for green, it sounds to me like you'd be better-off taking that further and play Zoo. :tongue:

Projecting how an opponent will address the inherent weaknesses of running non-basic lands is ok, but at the end of the day, these vulnerabilities will still exist, and wise players will be able to exploit them correctly. All kinds of splashes have been suggested over the years, including a splash for green using Tarmogoyf (heck, even a splash for BROWN using artifacts! :tongue:), and none of these explorations have resulted in anything convincing so far. I encourage you to test these splashes for yourself - in fact, I expect people to appreciate going mono-red more after testing a splash for themselves.

It's worth noting that, of all the splashes that have been suggested, the most successful one has been the splash for blue, which actually resulted in the creation of an entirely new archetype in U/R Delver.

Cheers,
jares

[NeoTech]

If I were to splash another color, I would splash Green again, not so much for Grip or Ancient Grudge, I think Shattering Spree is superior to any artifact kill. I would splash it for Tarmogoyf.
Take out Keldon Marauders, which I cant stand.

I noticed this too while playing in Indy, when I took RG Burn.

PLayers do not really waste their waste lands on you. On Barbarian Ring it is a different, B-Ring is a finisher. A Taiga is not, killing our mana lands does nothing, because we do not need a terrible amount of damage. My Taigas never got wasted, and almost every player I played against ran them.

They save their Waste's for the inevitable Price they know they will see, and they save it for the mana use of it. but really if you only ran 2 Taiga's or even 4 if you are more comfortable with it, and one Forest. save a fetch for when you need to cast Goyf, youd be safe from Wasteland.

Im sure there are other green things we could add in the place of Figure too.

just a thought. I cant play test, I do not own Tarmogoyfs.

Try testing on Magic Workstation. The idea is plausible, though I think Goyf may slow us down. Keldon at least pushes damage through, generally not targeted as a great threat people usually let him run his 2-5 damage. But Goyf would be a kill on sight ending in no a damage disadvantage.

My only argument for you on Shattering Spree is Chalice of the Void. Making Smash to Smithereens or Ancient Grudge the better choice. I prefer Smash to Smithereens due to the fact I don't have to get rid of damage for artifact destruction, I get both in one package, and it doesn't target player so it also helps against Leyline of Sanctity.

In my opinion though, we only require a splash for one reason, Reanimator. It is our worst match up by far. Green for Goyf will not help us with that match up, maybe Scavenging Ooze or Beast Within will... But seems like a bit unrealistic option when we don't want tempo loss and the splash would certainly do so.

If I had a choice on a splash I think white would be the one, Path to Exile being the best option against a reanimated Iona or Emperial Archangel... This would also open us up to enchantment removal, which is the number one hate option against burn...

Just my 2 cents.

[iamfrightenedtoo]

your right no splash is worth it.
Ive been trying to fit Burn in with Pox for ten years. It just does not work.

Mono-Red is what makes the deck unique and devastating.

I think what makes it weak is we have slots in this deck that are there simply because there is nothing better to add.
like Keldon Marauders. The card is in there because there is simply no other good cards to add.

Reanimator, Maverick, Dredge, Stoneforge, are all filled with great cards, and there is more the players could add, but 60 cards is optimal.

Burn there are only really 45-50 cards that are perfect in Burn counting lands, the other 10-15 slots are just B list cards. Filled with an assortment of Figure of Destiny/Keldon Marauders/Hellspark Elemental/Flame Rift.

on another note, the biggest joke in MTG history is a $25.00 foiled Lava Spike. people should be ashamed of themselves.

[FEELtheBURN]

your right no splash is worth it.
Ive been trying to fit Burn in with Pox for ten years. It just does not work.

Mono-Red is what makes the deck unique and devastating.

I think what makes it weak is we have slots in this deck that are there simply because there is nothing better to add.
like Keldon Marauders. The card is in there because there is simply no other good cards to add.

Reanimator, Maverick, Dredge, Stoneforge, are all filled with great cards, and there is more the players could add, but 60 cards is optimal.

Burn there are only really 45-50 cards that are perfect in Burn counting lands, the other 10-15 slots are just B list cards. Filled with an assortment of Figure of Destiny/Keldon Marauders/Hellspark Elemental/Flame Rift.

on another note, the biggest joke in MTG history is a $25.00 foiled Lava Spike. people should be ashamed of themselves.

It isn't necessarily that another splash isn't worth it, it's just that another splash will make this an entirely different deck. (Taking out burn for more creatures reflects Zoo, blue turns it into UR Delver as previously mentioned, etc.) I'm not against trying it as I encourage experimentation to evolve a deck (I love RG as much as the next guy but it definitely slows things down, also gofy doesn't get along with lavamancer), but in a red burn deck the issue seems pretty black and white.
I completely agree with everything else (I just laughed when I saw that last statement ...people are crazy). When using cards like Keldon Marauders, it's making the most out of a bad situation. On the brightside, if cards need to be sideboarded in then it's easy to choose which ones to take out.
Other than that I'm still waiting on some cards to round out my deck. Once I get them I'll do some extensive testing and let everyone know how it goes by posting game reports.

[RogueBuild]

Been gone a few days so just a few comments...

Reanimator is bad and we would all love to improve our chances, but unless you want to run Blue for counters or Black for a sac spell, grave hate is your only real option. Sure you can run Phyrexian Metamorph too, but costing 3 while normally running <20 lands in the deck and needing it and the 3 lands by turn 4 or 5 if you lucky is anything but a given. I run my 4 Faerie Macabre and pray. You could add more then 4 cards to the SB for grave hate but how many damage cards do you really want to take out?

No matter how bad Reanimator is it is not an auto-loss in G2/3. Show-n-Tell/Sneak Attack is an absolute loss. I think I have won 3 games out of 50+ against it in testing. Thats games, not matchs. The combo of counters, speed, and 2 different ways to cheat creatures into play, thereby avoiding single card hate, makes it my scoop-and-go-to-lunch-matchup.

For all the talk about various 2-drops, I will stand by my Hellsparks and Magma Jets forever... (Forever in MTG tends to be 4-6 block cycles but some times longer, we are after all still using Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning). Remember, I'm the guy that doesn't play GG in my deck, but I use Hellsparks because I count them as 6 damage. Also they can get 3 damage avoiding counters and counter balance or even a CotV at 2. The get past Leylines and help deal with Bridge from Below. Would they be better if they cost 1 mana or did 4 damage or something sure! But you work with what you got and I certainly wouldn't call them sub-par by any standard. As for Magma Jets? I just get too many games where I was able to get rid of unwanted lands or dig for that 3rd land. Sure, a lot of the time you just see two more spells that you would keep there anyway, but its the times you changed the coming draws that matter.

NeoTech:
Shattering Spree is great for getting past CotV even at 1 because you can activate the replicate ability. That does mean you need 2 lands just to kill 1 art, but it will kill it. But I still prefer Smashed to Smithereens just because I want to deal damage. Maybe a mix in the SB since you can also use it to crush that random Stax, Affinity, MUD deck. Either way, Spree will kill CotV at 1... if you have the extra land.

[jares]

For all the talk about various 2-drops, I will stand by my Hellsparks and Magma Jets forever...
I've had some slight interest in Magma Jet, but I'm sure that I don't want a full set in the main deck. How many do you run?

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

4 Magma Jets. A lot of people just see it as 2 damage for 2 mana but I would not undervalue the scrying. Sure, a lot of the time you see 2 spells and you just keep them both and it feels like it was meaningless, but those are just times you didn't need to changing anything. They have smoothed out land draws or allowed me to ensure a burn spell was coming plenty of times.

The lack of card draw and deck manipulation in red has caused me to even consider using Street Wraiths or Manamorphose to "freely" thin the deck but I have never done any real testing with it. I'm fairly sure I recall people testing Street Wraiths back when they were released but that might have been another deck.

[Curby]

It's not worth it. Quoting myself (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=7493713#post7493713) from MTG Salvation:


You know what doesn't work? Bauble-cards (anything that doesn't cost mana and replaces itself with another card, a'la Urza's Bauble) played with cards that Scry. It's kind of like why baubles suck in general: they make mulligans difficult because you don't know what card they represent (i.e. what cards they turn into when you kick off their bauble ability).

Here's the hypothetical I give for mulligans: let's say you open with a land, two bolts, a 2-drop, and three Baubles. Do you keep that hand? You have no way of knowing if you'll be stuck on one land the entire game, or if that's actually playable, e.g. the three cards will be a land and two burn. The hand's probably playable, but the point is that it makes mulling more difficult.

Re: Scry, what if you play Magma Jet and see two Baubles? You've effectively seen nothing, because the Baubles are just hiding the "real" top cards of the deck. Playing Baubles weakens Magma Jet for the same reason that playing Baubles weakens mulliganning: you don't actually know what you're looking at.

[jares]

4 Magma Jets. A lot of people just see it as 2 damage for 2 mana but I would not undervalue the scrying. Sure, a lot of the time you see 2 spells and you just keep them both and it feels like it was meaningless, but those are just times you didn't need to changing anything. They have smoothed out land draws or allowed me to ensure a burn spell was coming plenty of times.

The lack of card draw and deck manipulation in red has caused me to even consider using Street Wraiths or Manamorphose to "freely" thin the deck but I have never done any real testing with it. I'm fairly sure I recall people testing Street Wraiths back when they were released but that might have been another deck.
I've also tested the "thinning" route some time ago, and I wasn't pleased with the results I got. I'd like to try it out again using Gitaxian Probe alongside the older Street Wraith and Manamorphose, but I don't expect the benefits of this "package" to outweigh the drawbacks of life loss, especially in a mirror match.

Being a fan of "numerical consistency", I personally like the Scry ability too. I found, though, that I don't really want to run a full set of Magma Jet because of the following reasons:

You don't want to play Magma Jet early, because you become concerned with your top deck when you approach the mid game, and because you want to apply pressure rather than manipulate your deck in the first few turns.
You don't want to get Magma Jet in multiples, as casting several Magma Jets causes tempo loss because of the obvious mana-damage ratio. Also, the probability of benefiting from casting consecutive Magma Jets to "weed-out" lands is very low (i.e. having three mountains as your top deck), and thus, casting this card in multiples is more likely to impede your damage output rather than increase it (again, given the card's sub-par mana-damage ratio).

I find that running [2x] Magma Jets is a fair balance for making room for some deck manipulation while not diluting the tempo of the deck.

Having said all that, I currently feel that there are better options out there, though, and that there are other more reliable means of increasing the likelihood that you won't run out of gas. The following are some examples:

Using Fetch Lands to thin the deck and feed Grim Lavamancer
Using Barbarian Ring to provide virtual card advantage.
Using cards like Figure of Destiny and Hellspark Elemental that are able to utilize extra lands.
Using cards like Sulfuric Vortex and Grim Lavamancer that are able to provide a constant source of damage

Most of the examples above have proven to be effective in the current meta, which is why Burn is now in the DTB section.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

Of the 5 cards you list I already run 2 of them. HellSpark and Vortex but 1 can always wish for a 2 drop, 3 damage and draw a card red spell, can't we? I'll even settle for a 3 drop, 3 damage, draw a card spell. I can make that fit the curve.

[heroicraptor]

I had tried a list with 4x Street Wraith, and it made mulligan decisions much harder. Also, the damage burn deals itself plus a 2 life cycler add up very quickly.

[jares]

Of the 5 cards you list I already run 2 of them. HellSpark and Vortex but 1 can always wish for a 2 drop, 3 damage and draw a card red spell, can't we? I'll even settle for a 3 drop, 3 damage, draw a card spell. I can make that fit the curve.
Yeah, it's always free to have some wishful thinking. Unfortunately, it's very very unlikely for something like that to be printed. If it does happen, though, I'll be very very happy. :laugh:

As of now, the closest thing we got to a damage+draw spell is Needle Drop (unless there's something else that I'm not aware of). :tongue: I haven't honestly tested the card, but I don't expect to get favorable results from it.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

I had tried a list with 4x Street Wraith, and it made mulligan decisions much harder. Also, the damage burn deals itself plus a 2 life cycler add up very quickly.
I came up with the same conclusion when I first tested that build. Just as a point of comparison, Fetch Lands cost just 1 life to activate, and is actually able to bring a permanent into play while specifically thinning the deck of lands (that's three points where Street Wraith would fall short).

At the top of my head, I don't remember ever trying a configuration with Needle Drop and Manamorphose. That might be an interesting line of testing, though I don't expect it to be very effective. You might want to try that too.

Cheers,
jares

[Clark Kant]

In my testing, Street Wraith isn't worth it. But Gitaxian Probe absolutely is and Manamorphose probably is.

The intel Probe provides about your opponent's game plan is absolutely invaluable.

[RogueBuild]

the only places I have found Manamorphose to be truly useful are R/G decks with a lot of RR or GG in the cc, combo, and I use them in my Sligh build with Kiln Fiends. But I never tested them in Burn, largely because I didn't expect a big difference.

[jares]

In my testing, Street Wraith isn't worth it. But Gitaxian Probe absolutely is and Manamorphose probably is.

The intel Probe provides about your opponent's game plan is absolutely invaluable.
I would agree that the information that could be gained by using Gitaxian Probe would be very useful, but the loss of life does have its immediate repercussions (especially in the mirror), not to mention that mulligans become much more difficult to evaluate because of these "thinners" (as previously stated).

If we're talking about the inclusion of these cards in a Tier 1 Burn list, then the wisdom behind this consideration remains to be seen. I would give it a go just for fun though. :tongue:

Cheers,
jares

[Pinoy Goblin]

Guys Ive been testing countryside crusher on my list, since we need topdeck spells mid game, if ever he's online it guarantees us gas. Here's my modified list, Ill be testing my list this coming sat on our weekly legacy tournament and give you guys a report:tongue:

Creatures [13]
3 Countryside Crusher
3 Grim Lavamancer
3 Keldon Marauders
4 Goblin Guide

Instants [13]
3 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
2 Magma Jet

Sorceries [15]
4 Chain Lightning
3 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

Lands [19]
19 Snow-Covered Mountains

[jares]

Guys Ive been testing countryside crusher on my list, since we need topdeck spells mid game, if ever he's online it guarantees us gas. Here's my modified list, Ill be testing my list this coming sat on our weekly legacy tournament and give you guys a report:tongue:

Creatures [13]
3 Countryside Crusher
3 Grim Lavamancer
3 Keldon Marauders
4 Goblin Guide

Instants [13]
3 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
2 Magma Jet

Sorceries [15]
4 Chain Lightning
3 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

Lands [19]
19 Snow-Covered Mountains
A few comments on your list:

I think that Countryside Crusher is good value for three mana, but if it means that you have to cut business spells for it (e.g. Fireblast and Flame Rift), then it seems to defeat its purpose.
At three mana, I feel that Sulfuric Vortex is able to do more.

It guarantees that damage would be dealt to your opponent regularly (except maybe if it's Stifled). In comparison, Countryside Crusher will only be able to guarantee that you'll get a non-land card, and can always be chump-blocked even if he grows to be 3++/3++. Drawing another Countryside Crusher in the mid-game won't be that pleasing, which brings me to my second point.
Drawing multiples of Sulfuric Vortex is okay, while multiple Countryside Crushers isn't too good.
Sulfuric Vortex prevents life-gain, one of the best ways to beat Burn.
Sulfuric Vortex is much more difficult to deal with as an Enchantment when compared to Countryside Crusher, which will have to dodge much more common Creature removal. As a side note, one of the design principles of Burn is to create virtual card advantage by exclusively playing non-permanent spells as often as possible - Countryside Crusher and Sulfuric Vortex do not adhere to this principle, but Sulfuric Vortex is able to activate less cards from your opponent when compared to Countryside Crusher.


I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares

[CabalTherapy]

We should stop thinking about sub-optimal and unplayable cards.

Burn is simply red and every splash leads to an other
deck as people mentioned already (G = Goyfsligh, B = Red Death, W = Boros, U = Delver.stuff, just examples).
Burn is/was my first Legacy.dec and I have been playing cards like Magma Jet, Mogg Fanatics and so on... but these cards are too slow. Even control.decs have nowadays the access to strong creatures. Magma Jet is in my opinion too slow for burn.
There are plenty other cards that are better.

Countryside Crusher is an unplayable card in this deck because he is slow and deals no damage by himself (just by attacking...). So even if he has the chance to grow a bit = this isn't Sligh.
Burn doesn't give a shit about its creatures and so the Burn player shall think.
The Crusher has to survive to "do something" in your favour. If he is removed instantly by a path or sword or whatever, he was a useless cc3 drop.
If you care about your Crusher then you should be going the Sligh-route and burn your way through the enemy's defense.

[jares]

We should stop thinking about sub-optimal and unplayable cards.

I think that the problem with this is that it isn't that easy for everyone to see that a card is suboptimal or unplayable. :tongue: This is why we should make an effort to clearly state why a certain card is okay or otherwise.

As for everyone else that might be interested in just experimenting and exploring, always be wary of the pros and cons of each card that you're looking into. That way, you'll see for yourself if a card warrants consideration or otherwise. There are so many options available, and hopefully, we'll be able to narrow-down those options down to a few that have defensible arguments going for it.

Cheers,
jares

[iamfrightenedtoo]

G-Guide gets exiled always. Hellspark a lot of the time also gets exiled.
this happens in the first few turns. It is hard for a deck to get rid of a 3/3, especially one that has the potential to grow.

If I can rid my deck of just two useless lands, with a Crusher it would be worth it, because any land after 3, just raises my blood pressure.

I am going to give it a try, I have two free slots in the deck that I just toss new things in and out of, this weekend it will be Countryside Crusher.

[Curby]

Hard to get rid of? Yours must be an unusual meta. Just about every black removal works on it. RUG Delver and company have 6 bolts for it. Everything else from Stoneblade to Maverick has StP. The only decks that generally can't deal with it are combo decks that are faster than you to begin with. Let us know if it works out though. I'm always glad someone's thinking outside the box, even if I don't think it'll work out in the end. =)

[jares]

G-Guide gets exiled always. Hellspark a lot of the time also gets exiled.
this happens in the first few turns. It is hard for a deck to get rid of a 3/3, especially one that has the potential to grow.

If I can rid my deck of just two useless lands, with a Crusher it would be worth it, because any land after 3, just raises my blood pressure.

I am going to give it a try, I have two free slots in the deck that I just toss new things in and out of, this weekend it will be Countryside Crusher.
I agree with kirbysdl here, because it's a given that creatures receive the most removal. iamfrightenedtoo might have meant something else by his statement though...

I agree that even just one successful activation of Countryside Crusher's ability would be a good thing, but I still find that there are other options that give us more value for our mana. I also personally find it okay to draw the fourth land in a game, because that would mean that I would be able to cast that second Fireblast - it's the fifth land that worries me.

Cheers,
jares

[DragoFireheart]

WotC just needs to print more Bolt cards.

Seriously, that is what this deck needs. I wait for the day when WotC makes a 1CMC red spell that deals 4 damage with no catches or other weird conditions.

I can not think of a single thing to do with burn. It's about as optimized as I can see it being optimized short of experimenting with old and obscure cards or waiting for new cards to be printed.

[Curby]

It's about as optimized as I can see it being optimized

I'd say that Burn and its standard card choices are pretty well understood, but people still like to do things differently. People still play Lavamancer, argue about Figure, choose to run Magma Jet or not. RUG Delver tempo lists on the other hand seem quite consistent, which means that people seem to have agreed on a single optimized list with very minor tweaks (+/-1 Mongoose, single Island as 19th land, etc.).

[Pinoy Goblin]

Hard to get rid of? Yours must be an unusual meta. Just about every black removal works on it. RUG Delver and company have 6 bolts for it. Everything else from Stoneblade to Maverick has StP. The only decks that generally can't deal with it are combo decks that are faster than you to begin with. Let us know if it works out though. I'm always glad someone's thinking outside the box, even if I don't think it'll work out in the end. =)

Let us be positive that players like us are testing out different cards for you people here, the problem with you guys that with the testing out of NEW cards that are not in your CORE lists the "BURN GODS GOES CRAZY":tongue:I rather have a 3/3 body creature that attacks,grows and helps mill out my lands for gas than an enchantment that deals both damage to us, PLS do take note all decks have creature removals, enchantments and artifact removals and counterspells . . . and a good player knows when to timely cast his important spells. We are thinking out of the box here people if you are not open to suggestions then let us close this thread and put the decklist of its final core list without any discussions anymore, this deck needs to grow and improve of its midgame lack of ability to win, the issue here is gas gas gas, everybody here wants to win at an early game but im thinking of midgame recovery and winning, dont tell me guys that you are not fed up watching your teamates on a tournament because your match finished 10mins total:tongue:

[iamfrightenedtoo]

I just placed terribly in my local store, a 54 man turnout.
No good matches, and bad hands all day, you win some you lose some.
I replaced two Flame Rifts with two Countryside Crusher, and they were legit.
Worked extremely well. All of my matches had heavy creature removal, so they were exiled quickly, but well worth it.

I might shelve Burn for a while. My local meta is just terrible for it.
But Crusher is worth at least a test in a small tourney,

[Curby]

Just two points:

1) I'm never against people testing out unusual ideas, even if they're universally unpopular. But I think it's worth pointing out when an idea is in fact counterintuitive. Crusher falls squarely into that latter category.

2) Burn effectively has no mid-game recovery. If you're rocked back on your heels from your opponent's early moves, either they're playing combo or you're playing burn wrong (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3692_Whos_The_Beatdown.html). In the vast majority of matchups, Burn is the beatdown. Any mid-game recovery will be made by the opponent, and if any such recovery is successful, it means Burn will lose.

[DragoFireheart]

Just two points:

1) I'm never against people testing out unusual ideas, even if they're universally unpopular. But I think it's worth pointing out when an idea is in fact counterintuitive. Crusher falls squarely into that latter category.

- Crusher is a beater in a deck with beaters already. Not a huge issue if he gets plowed.

- Crusher gives us mid-game punch. People run things like Figure and he's more of a mana dump than Crushers 3cmc investment. We need to find ways to improve our mid game without killing our early game since we lack the raw speed of combo decks. Our reach and moderate speed is what makes us good in the meta.

- Crushers ability ensures that for as long as he is out, you will ALWAYS draw into burn spells. If they blew their plows/removal on your smaller creatures and they don't get rid of the crusher, you're going to kill them in the mid game.

I've never tested Crusher in burn before since I usually try to make creatureless burn. Thing is, burn doesn't have enough good spells to stay creatureless. We will therefore want creatures to supplement burn well. Hellspark Elemental, Goblin Guide, Grim Lavamancer are all good creatures for burn. A couple of Crushers could do well for burn.





2) Burn effectively has no mid-game recovery. If you're rocked back on your heels from your opponent's early moves, either they're playing combo or you're playing burn wrong (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3692_Whos_The_Beatdown.html). In the vast majority of matchups, Burn is the beatdown. Any mid-game recovery will be made by the opponent, and if any such recovery is successful, it means Burn will lose.

- Burn NEEDS to evolve to gain more mid-game recovery. We're not fast enough to pretend we are a combo deck. Things like Sulfuric Vortex and Countryside Crusher help give us a more solid mid-game (and curve well into our mana curve).

I think trying obscure and "bad" cards to find a way to improve burn is a worthwhile effort.

[jares]

A few comments on your list:

I think that Countryside Crusher is good value for three mana, but if it means that you have to cut business spells for it (e.g. Fireblast and Flame Rift), then it seems to defeat its purpose.
At three mana, I feel that Sulfuric Vortex is able to do more.

It guarantees that damage would be dealt to your opponent regularly (except maybe if it's Stifled). In comparison, Countryside Crusher will only be able to guarantee that you'll get a non-land card, and can always be chump-blocked even if he grows to be 3++/3++. Drawing another Countryside Crusher in the mid-game won't be that pleasing, which brings me to my second point.
Drawing multiples of Sulfuric Vortex is okay, while multiple Countryside Crushers isn't too good.
Sulfuric Vortex prevents life-gain, one of the best ways to beat Burn.
Sulfuric Vortex is much more difficult to deal with as an Enchantment when compared to Countryside Crusher, which will have to dodge much more common Creature removal. As a side note, one of the design principles of Burn is to create virtual card advantage by exclusively playing non-permanent spells as often as possible - Countryside Crusher and Sulfuric Vortex do not adhere to this principle, but Sulfuric Vortex is able to activate less cards from your opponent when compared to Countryside Crusher.


I hope that helps.

Cheers,
jares
It confuses me that it isn't clear that Countryside Crusher is sub-optimal when compared to the other choices we have. Kindly refer to the comment above for some notes regarding the reasons for why Countryside Crusher is rarely used. The example above expounds on the comparison of Countryside Crusher to another card that can fill the 3-cmc slot (Sulfuric Vortex), but there can surely be other comparisons that can be made to illustrate that, while Countryside Crusher is okay, it just doesn't make the cut.

In addition to the notes provided above, some of these points might also be worth mentioning:

Sulfuric Vortex deals damage as soon as you let your opponent go through his upkeep. In comparison, Countryside Crusher will need to go through the upkeep of your next turn to lose summoning sickness, and the attack phase to be able to possibly deal damage by itself.
As much as Countryside Crusher solves the "top-decking" issues, it itself is also a horrible top-deck in close games.
Note that Countryside Crusher is NOT able to guarantee that you'll be drawing a direct-damage spell, as it is only able to guarantee that you'll be drawing a non-land spell.
Note that there are other more efficient ways to address the probability of "running out of gas" without causing a loss of tempo, as noted here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?7811-DTB-Burn&p=628904&viewfull=1#post628904).
Sulfuric Vortex has the much better illustration! :laugh:

Cheers,
jares

[DragoFireheart]

jares, how do you feel about hasty creatures like Ball Lightning and Lightning Serpent? Are there any worthwhile ones that haven't been tested?

[JDK]

I just placed terribly in my local store, a 54 man turnout.
No good matches, and bad hands all day, you win some you lose some.
I replaced two Flame Rifts with two Countryside Crusher, and they were legit.
Worked extremely well. All of my matches had heavy creature removal, so they were exiled quickly, but well worth it.

I don't understand how they were well worth it, if they ate all the removal and didn't win you games.

[CabalTherapy]

jares, how do you feel about hasty creatures like Ball Lightning and Lightning Serpent? Are there any worthwhile ones that haven't been tested?

Srsly, please read some of the pages of this thread.
Or is it just irony? ^^
These cards are like Countryside Crusher = not playable in a burn.dec because they are
simply too weak for Legacy or don't fit into the strategy of burn.

I don't want to offense anyone.

[jares]

jares, how do you feel about hasty creatures like Ball Lightning and Lightning Serpent? Are there any worthwhile ones that haven't been tested?
I feel for these cards in the same way that I feel for Spark Elemental - I personally like these cards, but I would always be able to find a reason for why they won't make the cut during testing. Lightning Serpent simply is not able to do enough for the mana that you ideally intend to have in a game, while Ball Lightning is just not a "reliable play" as a creature that comes in at turn 3 or later (amidst the removal and blockers floating around). Spark Elemental is the best of the three, as it is good value for what you're paying for it, but it's not a very good top-deck.

At the end of the day, these cards are okay, but there are other options that are able to contribute more to the deck's game plan without introducing drawbacks.

Kind Regards,
jares

[jares]

Srsly, please read some of the pages of this thread.
Or is it just irony? ^^
These cards are like Countryside Crusher = not playable in a burn.dec because they are
simply too weak for Legacy or don't fit into the strategy of burn.

I don't want to offense anyone.
I certainly agree with you CabalTherapy, but I guess that people do rarely do any back-reading, and it would be best for us to provide the sound reasoning for why these cards have been determined to be sub-par. We might have to do it repeatedly, but we'll always have new players around that haven't had the benefit of finding these things out for themselves - though I encourage you to do so.

Cheers,
jares

[CabalTherapy]

I certainly agree with you CabalTherapy, but I guess that people do rarely do any back-reading, and it would be best for us to provide the sound reasoning for why these cards have been determined to be sub-par. We might have to do it repeatedly, but we'll always have new players around that haven't had the benefit of finding these things out for themselves - though I encourage you to do so.

Cheers,
jares

I really don't want to offense new players or people who are testing out some new ideas but burn is a straightforeward dec. where one cannot play "crazy" cards in it or simply pick by "picture"/style...
I think that my post written some pages ago shows the core and the possibilities of a burn.dec. Of course there are many other cards that are playable in a burn.dec but it would take some time to mention them all:


...

Summarizing what we have written in the last pages, I think we can agree on the core of this deck but not on the "filling slots" due to personal preferences and meta choices. So would be a neverending discussion here.

Just main deck:
We all agree on (I hope that I don't make a mistake.):
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Goblin Guide
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast

So these are 28 cards that has to be played in every burn.dec.
Lets focus on the mana base:
17-20 lands are fine
Lands that can be played are:
Mountain, Barbarian Ring, red fetchlands

Now, here come the "fillers" or cards of not so high quality like Lightning Bolt and co.
So 28 + 17 is 45 and 28 + 20 is 48. So we have still 12 to 15 slots left.
Cards that can be played in this slots are:
Keldon Marauders, Hellspark Elemental, Grim Lavamancer, Shard Volley, Flame Rift,
Sulfuric Vortex, Figure of Destiny, Volcanic Fallout

...

[Pinoy Goblin]

It confuses me that it isn't clear that Countryside Crusher is sub-optimal when compared to the other choices we have. Kindly refer to the comment above for some notes regarding the reasons for why Countryside Crusher is rarely used. The example above expounds on the comparison of Countryside Crusher to another card that can fill the 3-cmc slot (Sulfuric Vortex), but there can surely be other comparisons that can be made to illustrate that, while Countryside Crusher is okay, it just doesn't make the cut.

In addition to the notes provided above, some of these points might also be worth mentioning:

Sulfuric Vortex deals damage as soon as you let your opponent go through his upkeep. In comparison, Countryside Crusher will need to go through the upkeep of your next turn to lose summoning sickness, and the attack phase to be able to possibly deal damage by itself.
As much as Countryside Crusher solves the "top-decking" issues, it itself is also a horrible top-deck in close games.
Note that Countryside Crusher is NOT able to guarantee that you'll be drawing a direct-damage spell, as it is only able to guarantee that you'll be drawing a non-land spell.
Note that there are other more efficient ways to address the probability of "running out of gas" without causing a loss of tempo, as noted here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?7811-DTB-Burn&p=628904&viewfull=1#post628904).
Sulfuric Vortex has the much better illustration! :laugh:

Cheers,
jares

Kabayan we have different opinions on this one :smile:

- sulfuric vortex only does 2 damage on his upkeep and two damage on our upkeep (OUCH!) without a guarantee that are next draw is a GAS
- with the inclusion of flame rift in our decks it is hard for me to mainboard vortex really
- a resolved crusher guarantees us a blocker plus GAS plus 3++ point damage if he is unblocked
- with only few creature spells 13 (creatures) and 28 (instants and sorceries) it guarantees us a higher percentage of GAS with a resolved crusher
- drawing multiple vortex is bad because if you're on the downhill this is GG:tongue:
- in an aggro infested meta crusher is better than vortex
- vortex is only good on stone blade match ups, mostly vs. control decks
- vortex is a sb not mainboard worthy for me
- burn needs beaters to inflict consistent damage and finish them with our burn spells
- vs. zoo,rug,u/r delver which would you rather choose top deck?:smile:
- with an active and pumped crusher 3++/3++ it guarantees us a wall of defense while blasting them
- it gives gas to grim lavamancer
- yes its true that there are many creature removal spells but they have to deal first with my guides, lavamancers and marauders:tongue:
- crusher gives us midgame GAS

PS: People who believes Burn effectively has no mid-game recovery :mad: that's why we are testing NEW cards on our list to solve this. We are not playing this deck wrong we are thinking of a solution on this matter rather accepting defeat early:tongue:


Heres my updated list: Guys I dont need to explain crusher anymore just play test him and all I can say he is nuts :smile:

Creatures [13]
3 Countryside Crusher
3 Grim Lavamancer
3 Keldon Marauders
4 Goblin Guide

Instants [12]
4 Fireblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress

Sorceries [16]
4 Chain Lightning
4 Flame Rift
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

Lands [19]
19 Snow-Covered Mountains

[DragoFireheart]

Srsly, please read some of the pages of this thread.
Or is it just irony? ^^
These cards are like Countryside Crusher = not playable in a burn.dec because they are
simply too weak for Legacy or don't fit into the strategy of burn.

I don't want to offense anyone.

I did back read. You failed to give reasons as to WHY the cards are bad. Simply stating they are back != good reason. Honestly, your attitude promotes nothing but stifling discussions. Go to another forum if you want to do that.

Even if Countryside Crusher is "bad" according to theory craft, it's something new and at least one person made some decent arguments as to why it should be tested. Discussing which cards are good or bad is not enough: they need testing.

[Vacrix]

I goldfished a friends mono-red burn deck yesterday. Maybe 20 hands. I've found mono-red to be far too slow, and given that this is a Burn thread and not mono-red Burn, I figured I would rep Hanni's WUR Quickdraw list. Its in developmental right now but its at least a full turn and a half faster than mono-red, consistently. I find myself winning on turn 3 and 4 regularly while the mono-red lists can't produce better than a turn 4 or 5 clock. Also, the Quickdraw list can play Daze and Spell Pierce which significantly raises your percentages against decks that play Small Pox and especially against decks that can lock you out of your reach spells with Warmth, CoP Red, or lock pieces like Trinisphere and Chalice.

Also, regardless of the build.. I've found Magma Jet > Flame Rift. Fixing the top of your library with Scry is just to good when you don't want to be stuck drawing lands off the topdeck when you need another reach spell to close on your opponent's life total.



On the topic of Crusher.. whats the function of it in the deck? It dies to Bolt/Chain which gets played in Delver variants all over the place, and if you don't run fetchlands, its not going to be very big for the investment of 1RR. I agree though it shouldn't be dismissed, rather, discussed. Still, I don't think it fits in with the Burn strategy all that well. Its fantastic in Aggro Loam, but for good reason. I would think that Sulfuric Vortex would be better 9 times out of 10 because its harder to remove and is great against Punishing Fire variants (often played nowadays), Batterskull, Jitte, Warmth, etc.

[jares]

Kabayan we have different opinions on this one :smile:

Hi Kabayan,

I guess that we have different ways of looking at some of these things. Let me expound:

sulfuric vortex only does 2 damage on his upkeep and two damage on our upkeep (OUCH!) without a guarantee that are next draw is a GAS

Vortex, by itself, is gas (that's almost guaranteed) - you don't even need to draw anything to get gas to finish-off your opponent. Also, I personally don't mind taking damage, as I like to treat my life total as a resource - this might really just be because of my personality though.

drawing multiple vortex is bad because if you're on the downhill this is GG

I disagree. In a damage race, Burn is more likely to win. It will require a fair bit of maneuvering, but dealing damage to one's self if the least of Burn's worries.

burn needs beaters to inflict consistent damage and finish them with our burn spells

I think that this is exactly what Sulfuric Vortex is - consistent damage. It doesn't get more consistent than having virtually uncounterable, unblockable damage that's triggered by the upkeep.

Regarding Countryside Crusher as a blocker.

This is nice in emergency situations, but then again, paying 3 mana for a blocker isn't very appealing.

crusher gives us midgame GAS

Actually, it doesn't - it's ability isn't a draw mechanic. As previously mentioned, Countryside Crusher is only able to guarantee that you'll draw a non-land card each turn. Also, as was noted before, other more efficient means of deck-thinning are available to us without causing a potential loss of tempo that Countryside Crusher induces.

vortex is only good on stone blade match ups, mostly vs. control decks

I actually have Tier-1 decks in mind when thinking of the inclusion of Sulfuric Vortex. As previously stated, decks will try to respond to Burn by gaining life, which Sulfuric Vortex is able to handle very nicely.

it gives gas to grim lavamancer

This is one point that I missed, and that I truly like. In this sense, Countryside Crusher is indeed able to give you gas if it's alongside Grim Lavamancer. Do consider, though, that if you have Grim Lavamancer still available in the mid-game, then you're likely to win the game anyway. Also, Grim Lavamancer is fairly easy to feed in this deck. This is still a point worth noting, though.


I'm glad that Countryside Crusher is working out well for you. At the end of the day, we'll all have our own considerations for how we would value cards differently. I've already stated my points for this discussion, and it'll be up to you to take these into consideration.

Good luck! :smile:

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

I goldfished a friends mono-red burn deck yesterday. Maybe 20 hands. I've found mono-red to be far too slow, and given that this is a Burn thread and not mono-red Burn, I figured I would rep Hanni's WUR Quickdraw list. Its in developmental right now but its at least a full turn and a half faster than mono-red, consistently. I find myself winning on turn 3 and 4 regularly while the mono-red lists can't produce better than a turn 4 or 5 clock. Also, the Quickdraw list can play Daze and Spell Pierce which significantly raises your percentages against decks that play Small Pox and especially against decks that can lock you out of your reach spells with Warmth, CoP Red, or lock pieces like Trinisphere and Chalice.

Also, regardless of the build.. I've found Magma Jet > Flame Rift. Fixing the top of your library with Scry is just to good when you don't want to be stuck drawing lands off the topdeck when you need another reach spell to close on your opponent's life total.

I'm not sure if you're largely familiar with Burn, but kindly note that the Fundamental Turn for Burn is indeed Turn-3.

If I understood correctly, what you're referring to as the "WUR Quickdraw list" is the list in the "Blue Sligh" thread (correct me if I'm wrong). Please note that Goldfishing is nice, and the exploration of the Blue Sligh deck is okay too, but there's a reason for why Burn is in the DTB section and Blue Sligh is errr... somewhere else. I've noticed that there have been a few people there that insist that Blue Sligh is a "Tier-1" deck - unfortunately, you're either a Tier-1 Deck or you're not, and Blue Sligh is clearly not in the Tier-1 category. I'm not saying that Blue Sligh is a bad deck (it might be the best deck ever for all we know) - I'm just saying that it's shallow to say that a deck is Tier-1 without providing the results for it. The solution for that is simple - win with the deck and prove its worth.

I understand that you're not really "stating" that Blue Sligh is Tier-1, but I find that, since you're suggesting that it's better than Burn (a Tier-1 Deck as of the moment), then you're implying that it should be in the same conversation.

I hope that helps clarify things.

Kind Regards,
jares

[majikal]

I understand that you're not really "stating" that Blue Sligh is Tier-1, but I find that, since you're suggesting that it's better than Burn (a Tier-1 Deck as of the moment), then you're implying that it should be in the same conversation.

I hope that helps clarify things.

Kind Regards,
jares
Burn has never been a Tier 1 deck. Tier 2? Sure. Tier 3? More likely.

DTB != Tier 1. It just means it is a deck that you are very likely to run into at a tournament and should be prepared to play against it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/antgoten/tierdecks.jpg

[jares]

Burn has never been a Tier 1 deck. Tier 2? Sure. Tier 3? More likely.

DTB != Tier 1. It just means it is a deck that you are very likely to run into at a tournament and should be prepared to play against it.

Thanks for the correction, that was very helpful.

I have always worked with the assumption that Tier-1 decks are based on the meta, and therefore, not set in stone (which is why I mentioned that Burn is Tier-1 "as of the moment"). I also figured that, if a deck is "to be beaten" (i.e. in the DTB section), then it's in the Tier-1. A good example of this is Merfolk and Goblins, which were certainly both Tier-1 decks at some point, but are now unevenly placed in the meta. Another example would be Reanimator, which I consider to currently be in the Tier-1 status, but was also once "shelved" outside of the Tier-1 list because of the meta at that time.

In summary, I still do think that decks that are in the DTB section should be viewed as the Tier-1 decks of the current meta game. I'm not entirely sure of how the organizers of this forum do the numbers to determine the inclusion of a deck in the DTB section, but this is how I'd look at things. I'm also unsure of whether or not this is just a matter of opinion (whether a deck is in Tier X, Y, or Z), or if there is a quantifiable way to determine the absolute answer to this.

Cheers,
jares

[majikal]

The tiers are determined mathematically by the overall performance of the deck + number of players. When you graph the results, you can easily see them. In the image I posted (from TCDecks) you can clearly see the Tier 1 decks at the moment are Maverick and Stoneblade, with RUG Tempo and Dredge making up Tier 1.5-2 and everything else falling into Tier 3 or below.

To give you an idea, here are the top 10 decks for March (http://thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tierdecks.php?anio=2012&mes=4):

1º Maverick - 446 points
2º Blade Control - 445 points
3º Threshold UGr - 264 points
4º Dredge - 154 points
5º Aggro Loam - 92 points
6º Sneak Attack - 84 points
7º Reanimator - 83 points
8º Burn - 76 points
9º Elves - 75 points
10º Ad Nauseam Storm - 73 points


For frame of reference, DTB cutoff for the last update was 114 points.

[Vacrix]

I'm sorry but Burn's being a fundamental turn 3 is a pipe dream. Turn 4 is far more accurate; you overestimate. I've found that your Turn 3 percentages go up if you are playing Shard Volley so you are play 20 R for 3 damage spells. Cards like Keldon Marauders, Grim Lavamancer, and Hellspark Elemental especially when drawn together or in multiples can often prevent you from reaching your turn 3 goal. To be fair, I've had days where I turn 3 for like 6 games in a row, but there are other days where I can't win before turn 5 to save my life. Especially lists with 19 or 20 lands (I still do not understand why some people play that number).

In regards to the 'Blue Sligh' list. It most certainly is not Tier 1 because nobody is playing it yet. I liken its situation to the Belcher vs. SI question though to a much lesser degree. SI's fundamental turn is turn 1.. while Belcher's fundamental turn is turn 2 (due to 7/11 win conditions being Empty the Warrens). To say playing Belcher is hard is like saying I don't know how to count to 7, while to say playing SI is easy is kind of like saying I enjoy castration.
To a lesser degree, this is the case with 'Blue Sligh'. Its harder to play namely because you are playing with cards like Daze and Brainstorm which require more forethought than your traditional Burn list. Also, the list plays a lot of duals making it a far more costly investment. However, it is a better deck. It only takes a few games to see why. You are much more resilient to hate (Daze and non-red spells go a long way), play and function with far fewer lands with multiple ways to avoid a mana flood, have a faster, more consistent clock (obviously you debate this), and have more sideboard options than your traditional Burn list because it can play post-board Force of Will, Spell Pierce, Flusterstorm, Path to Exile, Disenchant, as well as your traditional Burn tech such as Sulfuric Vortex.

Granted, I've probably only played Burn about 100 times in my life, I'm sure others in this thread have grinded far more games out. I've found best lists to have a turn 4 clock, and they fold to cards like CoP Red and Warmth (which are seeing more and more play in Enlightened Tutor wishboards). 'Blue Sligh' does not fold to these cards due to access to non-red sources of damage, while it also has access to light countermagic to avoid these cards completely, or retroactively remove them with cards like Disenchant. The only argument I've seen presented against the deck's viability is Wasteland and the deck can function excellently off just 1 land anyway so...

In all honesty, its unfortunate that Hanni's list will probably go largely unrecognized because its so much more expensive than the $80 mono-red lists everyone else is running. Regardless, I suggest that if you are a Burn enthusiast, play the WUR Quickdraw list on Cockatrice or MWS and you will see why I advocate it.

[jares]

I'm sorry but Burn's being a fundamental turn 3 is a pipe dream. Turn 4 is far more accurate; you overestimate. I've found that your Turn 3 percentages go up if you are playing Shard Volley so you are play 20 R for 3 damage spells. Cards like Keldon Marauders, Grim Lavamancer, and Hellspark Elemental especially when drawn together or in multiples can often prevent you from reaching your turn 3 goal. To be fair, I've had days where I turn 3 for like 6 games in a row, but there are other days where I can't win before turn 5 to save my life. Especially lists with 19 or 20 lands (I still do not understand why some people play that number).

In regards to the 'Blue Sligh' list. It most certainly is not Tier 1 because nobody is playing it yet. I liken its situation to the Belcher vs. SI question though to a much lesser degree. SI's fundamental turn is turn 1.. while Belcher's fundamental turn is turn 2 (due to 7/11 win conditions being Empty the Warrens). To say playing Belcher is hard is like saying I don't know how to count to 7, while to say playing SI is easy is kind of like saying I enjoy castration.
To a lesser degree, this is the case with 'Blue Sligh'. Its harder to play namely because you are playing with cards like Daze and Brainstorm which require more forethought than your traditional Burn list. Also, the list plays a lot of duals making it a far more costly investment. However, it is a better deck. It only takes a few games to see why. You are much more resilient to hate (Daze and non-red spells go a long way), play and function with far fewer lands with multiple ways to avoid a mana flood, have a faster, more consistent clock (obviously you debate this), and have more sideboard options than your traditional Burn list because it can play post-board Force of Will, Spell Pierce, Flusterstorm, Path to Exile, Disenchant, as well as your traditional Burn tech such as Sulfuric Vortex.

Granted, I've probably only played Burn about 100 times in my life, I'm sure others in this thread have grinded far more games out. I've found best lists to have a turn 4 clock, and they fold to cards like CoP Red and Warmth (which are seeing more and more play in Enlightened Tutor wishboards). 'Blue Sligh' does not fold to these cards due to access to non-red sources of damage, while it also has access to light countermagic to avoid these cards completely, or retroactively remove them with cards like Disenchant. The only argument I've seen presented against the deck's viability is Wasteland and the deck can function excellently off just 1 land anyway so...

In all honesty, its unfortunate that Hanni's list will probably go largely unrecognized because its so much more expensive than the $80 mono-red lists everyone else is running. Regardless, I suggest that if you are a Burn enthusiast, play the WUR Quickdraw list on Cockatrice or MWS and you will see why I advocate it.
I'm sorry, but I think that you misunderstand; Turn-3 is not an overestimation, it's a fact. It's as simple as this:

Turn 1: Some Bolt effect.
Turn 2: Two Bolt effects.
Turn 3: Three Bolt effects (plus Fireblast, whenever applicable).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fundamental Turn is the turn of when a deck is able to start winning. Whether or not Burn is able to end the game with the sequence of events that are listed above, it is expected to have the upper hand (and possibly win the game) after the third turn. In the same way, while TES/ANT/Belcher decks are not always able to win the game at Turn-1, their Fundamental Turns are at Turn-1 because these decks are expected to be able to put themselves in a winning position (e.g. Empty the Warrens) from Turn-1 onwards. For control decks, the Fundamental Turn is the turn of when these decks are able to... errr... control (for lack of a better word) the game, and not necessarily win it right there and then (because most control decks can just take their time). I hope that this helps with this discussion.

Regarding 'Blue Sligh', I think that you might barking up the wrong tree here. Burn is fundamentally different from Sligh (not to mention Blue Sligh), so I'm now unsure of what your point is for bringing this up in the Burn Thread. If you think that Blue Sligh is the better deck for you, then, by all means, enjoy exploring that archetype in the Blue Sligh Thread. I wish you the best of luck.

In all honesty, its unfortunate that people have the misconception that the only reason that mono-red Burn is being played is because the whole deck costs $80. Yes, a lot of people get to play Burn because it's cheap by being mono-colored, but this, by no means, should be viewed as an effort to save on cost, as going mono-red is a purposeful design strategy that has proven to be effective and consistent with the deck's principle of creating virtual card advantage. Regardless, I suggest that, if you are a Burn enthusiast, test all the possible combinations of colors so that you'd be able to see the difference for yourself.

Good Luck,
jares

[jares]

The tiers are determined mathematically by the overall performance of the deck + number of players. When you graph the results, you can easily see them. In the image I posted (from TCDecks) you can clearly see the Tier 1 decks at the moment are Maverick and Stoneblade, with RUG Tempo and Dredge making up Tier 1.5-2 and everything else falling into Tier 3 or below.

To give you an idea, here are the top 10 decks for March (http://thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tierdecks.php?anio=2012&mes=4):

1º Maverick - 446 points
2º Blade Control - 445 points
3º Threshold UGr - 264 points
4º Dredge - 154 points
5º Aggro Loam - 92 points
6º Sneak Attack - 84 points
7º Reanimator - 83 points
8º Burn - 76 points
9º Elves - 75 points
10º Ad Nauseam Storm - 73 points


For frame of reference, DTB cutoff for the last update was 114 points.
Thanks for this information, that was certainly very helpful. I have a few quesstions though:

Does the DTB cutoff value change depending on the movement in the meta?
Can this information be found somewhere here in mtgthesource.com?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
jares

[xfxf]

Hi jares,

Check out the 33rd and 34th posts of this thread DTB Selection and Philosophy (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?5460-DTBF-Philosophy-amp-Deck-Selection)

[jares]

Hi jares,

Check out the 33rd and 34th posts of this thread DTB Selection and Philosophy (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?5460-DTBF-Philosophy-amp-Deck-Selection)
Thanks bilb_o, that was very helpful. :smile:

Cheers,
jares

[magicmoron]

@jares

Just out of curiousity why do you think blue sligh is fundamentally different than burn? To me it seems that blue sligh operates almost identical to the burn lists that run creature counts on the high end (around 12-15) with exception that blue sligh can combat the bombs that completely shut out the mono red builds.

[jares]

@jares

Just out of curiousity why do you think blue sligh is fundamentally different than burn? To me it seems that blue sligh operates almost identical to the burn lists that run creature counts on the high end (around 12-15) with exception that blue sligh can combat the bombs that completely shut out the mono red builds.
It's simple: Sligh depends on its creatures to deal the majority of the damage in a game, while Burn does not. This is why the "Blue Sligh" build that's being discussed here is able to run just 12 "Bolt Effects" and less than four Fireblasts; these damage spells are meant to be "finishers" rather than being the main sources of damage, much like how Zoo plays its burn spells (in that sense, the composition and design of "Blue Sligh" is much closer to that of "Zoo" decks). Notice the comparison of these details to the core of Burn decks:

[4x] Lightning Bolt
[4x] Chain Lightning
[4x] Lava Spike
[4x] Rift Bolt
[4x] Fireblast
[4x] Price of Progress
[4x] Goblin Guide

Note that the inclusion of Goblin Guide in the core is not because Burn intends to win via creatures (which is noticeable in the fact that no other creatures are in the core), but because this particular creature is able to deal fast, efficient damage that even Burn cannot ignore. Also, notice that Lava Spike is not included in Sligh builds because it's unable to aid creatures whenever necessary; in comparison, it's an auto-include in Burn. The same note can be said about Flame Rift, though this card isn't generally considered to be a "core card".

I addition to the points noted above, it's also worth mentioning that the other creatures that are considered in Burn are included, not because they're expected to be a source of damage turn after turn, but because of the fast damage that they're able to deal at a reasonable bargain - some might even argue that they're essentially Burn cards masquerading as creatures (something that also reminds me of Grim Lavamancer); kindly refer to the examples below:

Keldon Marauders
Hellspark Elemental

While it's true that the way with which these two decks operate are sometimes similar (largely because the cards that circulate in the Burn and Sligh decks are "shared"), the principles behind the design of these two decks are different (as explained above), and operating a deck is certainly different from designing it (noting that being mono-colored is part of the design of Burn as much as being three-colored is part of the design of Blue Sligh).

I hope that this helps clarify things.

Cheers,
jares

[NeoTech]

I leave for the weekend and the thread turns into a Blue Sligh discussion? Don't get me wrong, I am very impressed with the Blue Sligh decks that are starting to evolve, but shouldn't this thread be for the evolution of Burn, and not its comparison to a completely different deck?

We appreciate everybody's constructive criticism, but the simple reason that Burn is where it is today is because it is continuously posting positive results. I anticipate Blue Sligh to do the same one day, but right now each deck must continue to evolve in its own ways in order to adjust and perform in the ever-changing meta-game.

-Neo

[Curby]

Backseat modding, anyone? :rolleyes:

Evaluating Burn's gameplan and goals compared to Sligh's is extremely relevant, so that people can understand how Burn functions, and can choose whether they want to play this deck as opposed to another deck. People have always suggested adding Sligh-oriented creatures to Burn decks because they didn't understand the key philosophical differences.

And yeah, jares hit it right on the dot. The point of Sligh is to let the creatures do the killing; the spells play a supporting role and clear the path for the attackers until the very end. The point of Burn is to throw everything at the opponent; any creatures must stand on their own because they will not have the backup of spells.

[Forgottenforce]

@Jares, your objective point of view regarding burn is the reason I frequent this Burn Thread. Have considered sharing your views at Salvations Burn thread (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=241878)? I believe the discussion over there would benefit greatly from your line on thinking.

[baghdadbob]

Now that burn is a dtb has the opinion on browbeat as a 2 of changed yet? Or are people still all like argghhh i hate drawing 3 cards or burning for a quarter of your life? I know its a cardinal sin when talking about burn but browbeat is just so good to me.

[Curby]

Just to be clear, whether a deck performs well in the context of a particular metagame is one thing, and how a card performs in the context of the deck and the meta is quite another.

Five guaranteed damage for three mana wouldn't be bad in Burn. It sidesteps Spell Snare, and the extra mana over Keldon Marauders to ensure three damage is probably worth it.

Three guaranteed cards for three mana wouldn't be bad in Burn, in case you run out of steam and need the cards. Compare to Concentrate or Harmonize, which cost an extra colored mana.

The problem with Browbeat is that it's none of the above. It lets the opponent choose which is the least detrimental effect for him. This "opponent's choice" has always been the reason that seasoned Burn players have discounted Browbeat. It's not the interaction with other cards, or the interaction with other decks. It's letting the opponent decide what to do with your spell that kills its viability.

In short, no it's not worth it. I'd rather run Magma Jet than Browbeat. I'd rather run other substandard burn like Flames of the Blood Hand or Incinerate than Browbeat. I'd rather run substandard creatures like Spark Elemental than Browbeat.

[Vacrix]

I'm sorry, but I think that you misunderstand; Turn-3 is not an overestimation, it's a fact. It's as simple as this:

Turn 1: Some Bolt effect.
Turn 2: Two Bolt effects.
Turn 3: Three Bolt effects (plus Fireblast, whenever applicable).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fundamental Turn is the turn of when a deck is able to start winning. Whether or not Burn is able to end the game with the sequence of events that are listed above, it is expected to have the upper hand (and possibly win the game) after the third turn. In the same way, while TES/ANT/Belcher decks are not always able to win the game at Turn-1, their Fundamental Turns are at Turn-1 because these decks are expected to be able to put themselves in a winning position (e.g. Empty the Warrens) from Turn-1 onwards. For control decks, the Fundamental Turn is the turn of when these decks are able to... errr... control (for lack of a better word) the game, and not necessarily win it right there and then (because most control decks can just take their time). I hope that this helps with this discussion.

Regarding 'Blue Sligh', I think that you might barking up the wrong tree here. Burn is fundamentally different from Sligh (not to mention Blue Sligh), so I'm now unsure of what your point is for bringing this up in the Burn Thread. If you think that Blue Sligh is the better deck for you, then, by all means, enjoy exploring that archetype in the Blue Sligh Thread. I wish you the best of luck.

In all honesty, its unfortunate that people have the misconception that the only reason that mono-red Burn is being played is because the whole deck costs $80. Yes, a lot of people get to play Burn because it's cheap by being mono-colored, but this, by no means, should be viewed as an effort to save on cost, as going mono-red is a purposeful design strategy that has proven to be effective and consistent with the deck's principle of creating virtual card advantage. Regardless, I suggest that, if you are a Burn enthusiast, test all the possible combinations of colors so that you'd be able to see the difference for yourself.

Good Luck,
jares
Excuse my ignorance. I was not aware of what you meant by fundamental turn. I cannot argue that point.

However, if Burn could do that consistently, its clock would consistently be turn 3. That is not the case though. I've found it to be consistent by turn 4 but more than 1/4 of the time its turn 5 or even turn 6 if you have to mulligan.

My point in bringing up a list like Blue Sligh is that fundamentally it fills the same niche in the metagame that Burn does. It has a similar number of reach spells to close on the opponent's life total after you've dealt some initial damage with other reach spells and/or creatures and has mostly similar matchups. The difference is that Blue Sligh is consistently faster and has congruent matchups save for a few that are unfavorable for traditional Burn while Blue Sligh turns them into slightly unfavorable or even. If thats true, and my experience tells me that it is, then there's good reason to play Blue Sligh over traditional Burn lists. The price difference, therefore, would be the only thing holding the deck back from being Tier 1. Thats all I was saying.

I'm just trying to give the deck the attention it deserves that way people can play better cards. Its no different than trying to sway Belcher players to pick up SI. If you want to play a glass house, play the better one. Same goes for Burn variations and I feel that Blue Sligh simply does mono-reds job but better.



In regards to Browbeat, I've played against quite a few Burn players and always let them draw 3. Sometimes you get unlucky with it and wind up chaining them together into more cards and don't hit enough reach to close the deal in time. Also, you have no guarentee that you will draw what you need. You might need reach spells but draw creatures when your opponent has enough blockers to make them useless, or you might draw lands you don't need or Fireblasts that you can't play. These situations happen too much for the card to be better than what you forgo.

[DragoFireheart]

While it's true that the way with which these two decks operate are sometimes similar (largely because the cards that circulate in the Burn and Sligh decks are "shared"), the principles behind the design of these two decks are different (as explained above), and operating a deck is certainly different from designing it (noting that being mono-colored is part of the design of Burn as much as being three-colored is part of the design of Blue Sligh).

I hope that this helps clarify things.

Cheers,
jares

Which is why I basically sad that WotC needs to print more good burn spells. There isn't much to be added to the deck beyond what has already been tested. I feel that until more sets come out, little can be done with the main deck.

Improving the sideboard is a different story. How viable would it be to splash a color to improve Burns sideboard so it doesn't utterly die to random crap like Chill?

[Kich867]

It's simple: Sligh depends on its creatures to deal the majority of the damage in a game, while Burn does not.

This is actually quite untrue, at least for Hanni's list. Hanni's list requires most creatures to do anywhere from 4-6 damage. From there, the burn will win. Any more damage after that is just gravy.

Brainstorm sculpts your hand, and when you run 16 burn spells it's likely that you'll run into a few when you cast it.

[Vacrix]

And you have fetchlands to interact with Brainstorm.. often 16-17 lands versus Burn's 18-19, and Magma Jet to color fix. The curve is also a bit lighter so you can play off 1 land pretty easily.

You're right about the creatures. Until recently, Sligh hasn't had the option to play 1 drops that swing for 3 with evasion so you don't really need to clear the way for Delver all that often. Steppe Lynx also pulls its weight for its mana cost, often dealing 4 damage for W, and it will often eat the opponent's removal spells first, even though there's no guarentee it will be the biggest threat. Its just scary to know your opponent is backing up their first turn 4/5 with reach spells. Often you play 1 or 2 one drops that bleed the opponent just enough so that you can get there with reach spells. Sometimes you drop a whole shit ton of creatures. Other times you just burn them out because you drew a bunch of R for 3 damage and Fireblasts. There are multiple variations but it in no way plays like your traditional Sligh lists. We are past the days of Jackal Pups where you really do need to Burn blockers out of the way.

[jares]

This is actually quite untrue, at least for Hanni's list. Hanni's list requires most creatures to do anywhere from 4-6 damage. From there, the burn will win. Any more damage after that is just gravy.

Brainstorm sculpts your hand, and when you run 16 burn spells it's likely that you'll run into a few when you cast it.

And you have fetchlands to interact with Brainstorm.. often 16-17 lands versus Burn's 18-19, and Magma Jet to color fix. The curve is also a bit lighter so you can play off 1 land pretty easily.

You're right about the creatures. Until recently, Sligh hasn't had the option to play 1 drops that swing for 3 with evasion so you don't really need to clear the way for Delver all that often. Steppe Lynx also pulls its weight for its mana cost, often dealing 4 damage for W, and it will often eat the opponent's removal spells first, even though there's no guarentee it will be the biggest threat. Its just scary to know your opponent is backing up their first turn 4/5 with reach spells. Often you play 1 or 2 one drops that bleed the opponent just enough so that you can get there with reach spells. Sometimes you drop a whole shit ton of creatures. Other times you just burn them out because you drew a bunch of R for 3 damage and Fireblasts. There are multiple variations but it in no way plays like your traditional Sligh lists. We are past the days of Jackal Pups where you really do need to Burn blockers out of the way.
Again, may I ask about what your points are for discussing Blue Sligh in a Burn Thread?

Regards,
jares

[jares]

Backseat modding, anyone? :rolleyes:

Evaluating Burn's gameplan and goals compared to Sligh's is extremely relevant, so that people can understand how Burn functions, and can choose whether they want to play this deck as opposed to another deck. People have always suggested adding Sligh-oriented creatures to Burn decks because they didn't understand the key philosophical differences.

And yeah, jares hit it right on the dot. The point of Sligh is to let the creatures do the killing; the spells play a supporting role and clear the path for the attackers until the very end. The point of Burn is to throw everything at the opponent; any creatures must stand on their own because they will not have the backup of spells.
Thanks for affirming the statements that I made; it's good to know that I'm not just throwing erroneous information around.

I'm not sure if this information is stated clearly in the primer for this thread, but it seems to me like there's a growing need to restate the philosophies behind the design of Burn, especially because people have started confusing this archetype with other similar decks. A clear understanding of these "essentials" would certainly help answer many of the questions we have for how we should build/play Burn.

I would certainly appreciate it if those that have a firm grasp of these philosophies would take the time to expound on this further, as I would also be interested in refreshing my understanding of these concepts.

Kind Regards,
jares

[jares]

@Jares, your objective point of view regarding burn is the reason I frequent this Burn Thread. Have considered sharing your views at Salvations Burn thread (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=241878)? I believe the discussion over there would benefit greatly from your line on thinking.
Thanks for suggesting this alternative forum. I wasn't aware that the mtgsalvation forum existed (as I'm also fairly new to mtgthesource), but I would certainly be interested in contributing to another forum when I have the time. Having looked at the latest discussions on the Burn thread of that forum, it does look like the substance of what's being discussed there could use some help in terms of the "maturation" of the content. I'm glad that those that have come before me in mtgthesource have already matured this thread towards the state that it is in now (though we're currently being sidetracked for some reason :laugh:).

Cheers,
jares

[Kich867]

Again, may I ask about what your points are for discussing Blue Sligh in a Burn Thread?

Regards,
jares

Just erroneous statements on your end is all. The two decks are incredibly similar in design and play, it's only natural that comparisons and discussion between the two would occur. To say that that discussion is unwanted on your turf(?) seems odd. Perhaps in your utopian forum no cross-pollination of any decks would ever occur whatsoever, and we would have an entire section devoted to the discussion and comparison of decks, but we don't. Your description of what burn is is what "Blue Sligh" actually is, the entire purpose of the deck is to point everything at your opponent. Why do you think they run steppe lynx and delver? So that you don't have to burn the creatures. Would you be more ok if the deck was called "Blue Burn"? By your definition of burn, the strategy blue sligh employs is identical to that of burn, except it has better creatures and better card selection and at the least a little defense.

If you want maturation of burn, you should be open to ideas--the deck isn't actually called "mono red burn", other people have already realized that other colors optimizes the strategy and strictly adds to it while only taking away very little. The benefits of going into other colors greatly outweighs the costs of doing so given the deck operates ideally between 1-3 mana anyways.

If you don't want to splash other colors then I'm of the opinion that all currently discussed strategies for burn fall short of ideal. There were posts awhile ago discussing a better strategy that had a far more consistent power to it and operated incredibly well, which I guess most people would refer to as Burning Bridge. It's use of Sensei's Divining Top and Ensnaring Bridge ensured that it never had cards in hand and it's chance of drawing into business was much higher. It was less explosive but from the reports incredibly consistent and resilient to most decks. And that's really all splashing did as well, make it more resilient and more consistent against more decks.

[jares]

Just erroneous statements on your end is all. The two decks are incredibly similar in design and play, it's only natural that comparisons and discussion between the two would occur. To say that that discussion is unwanted on your turf(?) seems odd. Perhaps in your utopian forum no cross-referencing of any decks would ever occur whatsoever, and we would have an entire section devoted to the discussion and comparison of decks, but we don't, so fucking deal with it.
Kindly note that none of your comments have proven anything erroneous in my statements. In fact, your comments have not provided much substance, and thus, I have refrained from addressing it (even if I would certainly be able to expose the error in your judgements), and have instead taken a step back to try and bring it into a meaningful context.

Note that my comments are not directed at anyone with the purpose of offending an individual, but rather, to streamline the discussion into one that I believe is meaningful (this particular comment is the exception, as I will purposely respond to you in kind). Also note that ALL my previous comments have been phrased politely, though it seems that you have taken offense because of your inability to prove any of your points. In fact, my latest comment for you was an inquiry that would help clarify the points that you want to state!

By no means have I stated that this is anyone's turf - if anything, this is the TURF of the BURN THREAD, and you might want to try and understand what that means.

If you are unable to provide substance through your words and actions, THEN FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.

-jares

[jares]

Just erroneous statements on your end is all. The two decks are incredibly similar in design and play, it's only natural that comparisons and discussion between the two would occur. To say that that discussion is unwanted on your turf(?) seems odd. Perhaps in your utopian forum no cross-pollination of any decks would ever occur whatsoever, and we would have an entire section devoted to the discussion and comparison of decks, but we don't. Your description of what burn is is what "Blue Sligh" actually is, the entire purpose of the deck is to point everything at your opponent. Why do you think they run steppe lynx and delver? So that you don't have to burn the creatures. Would you be more ok if the deck was called "Blue Burn"? By your definition of burn, the strategy blue sligh employs is identical to that of burn, except it has better creatures and better card selection and at the least a little defense.

If you want maturation of burn, you should be open to ideas--the deck isn't actually called "mono red burn", other people have already realized that other colors optimizes the strategy and strictly adds to it while only taking away very little. The benefits of going into other colors greatly outweighs the costs of doing so given the deck operates ideally between 1-3 mana anyways.

If you don't want to splash other colors then I'm of the opinion that all currently discussed strategies for burn fall short of ideal. There were posts awhile ago discussing a better strategy that had a far more consistent power to it and operated incredibly well, which I guess most people would refer to as Burning Bridge. It's use of Sensei's Divining Top and Ensnaring Bridge ensured that it never had cards in hand and it's chance of drawing into business was much higher. It was less explosive but from the reports incredibly consistent and resilient to most decks. And that's really all splashing did as well, make it more resilient and more consistent against more decks.
I am certainly open to ALL ideas, and would surely encourage the exploration of new avenues in the development of this archetype. I suggest that you also apply the same open-mindedness, as you are currently being closed-minded by dwelling on the premise that your statements are correct without providing sound and undeniable reasoning that would support your claims.

As far as I'm concerned, everything that you have stated so far is simply your opinion - saying that "this is better", "that outweighs this", saying that "this is more consistent" without stating the level of consistency, etc. - and I will respect anyone's opinion. The problem though, is exactly what I have already stated - you're working with the premise that your statements are correct even if you have not provided sound reasoning for it.

I have made several statements in the past few pages, and these statements were backed-up by as much reasoning as I can muster - but note that I always leave room for someone else to correct me if I'm wrong, and a few have already done so, as they have also provided sound reasoning (and even proof!) for their corrections. You might want to do the same - though if you prefer simply voicing-out your opinion, then feel free to do so.

-jares

[NeoTech]

I am certainly open to ALL ideas, and would surely encourage the exploration of new avenues in the development of this archetype. I suggest that you also apply the same open-mindedness, as you are currently being closed-minded by dwelling on the premise that your statements are correct without providing sound and undeniable reasoning that would support your claims.

As far as I'm concerned, everything that you have stated so far is simply your opinion - saying that "this is better", "that outweighs this", saying that "this is more consistent" without stating the level of consistency, etc. - and I will respect anyone's opinion. The problem though, is exactly what I have already stated - you're working with the premise that your statements are correct even if you have not provided sound reasoning for it.

I have made several statements in the past few pages, and these statements were backed-up by as much reasoning as I can muster - but note that I always leave room for someone else to correct me if I'm wrong, and a few have already done so, as they have also provided sound reasoning (and even proof!) for their corrections. You might want to do the same - though if you prefer simply voicing-out your opinion, then feel free to do so.

-jares

What he said. ^

This is why I spoke up earlier about getting off-topic. Not to void the idea's of others, but to try and keep things in line of discussion. The first time I joined The Source was October 2004 and let me tall yall... This is not the first burn thread, and trust me, if there was ever a "disaster of a thread" Burn has always been it, with more controversial discussions, and no end arguments to count.

As far as Burning Bridge is concerned, yes it did post positive results for a little while but it didn't last as people came to know how to deal with it. It is a perfect example as to why we must continue to evolve the deck with the meta-game. Maybe Burning Bridge will come back around after it has been forgotten, or maybe the old RDW list will re-launch with Cursed Scroll, Tangle Wire's, Wasteland's and the like. We don't know, and at the moment the Burn list is running well, I am not sure about others but I am consistent in a turn 3-5 kill. Normally going additional turns to play things safe and play things in response to my opponent tapping out. Of course thats just my play style, never wanting to over-extend myself too early unless I am positive I have the game.

Burn is consistent, more so than people may think. It takes more than gold-fishing to realize the speed and consistency of any deck. Every deck has their "can win on turn X", but in actual game play, that is not always the case because their are too many variables to consider.

[DragoFireheart]

Burn is more of an aggro deck than a combat deck.

- Stomps on slower mid-range/control decks.

- Loses to combo.

This is consistent with how many aggro decks operate. I think for improving the deck we should consider this little detail. Combo match-ups are going to be this decks bad game. If a lot of people are playing things like Enchantress, Show-and-Tell, and Storm, you may be better off using another deck.



Burn is consistent, more so than people may think. It takes more than gold-fishing to realize the speed and consistency of any deck. Every deck has their "can win on turn X", but in actual game play, that is not always the case because their are too many variables to consider.

Burn is one of the most consistent decks.
- You draw either dudes, burn spells, or lands. It's the Zoo of Legacy before Zoo ever appeared.
- It has THE most stable mana base out of the majority of the format. Most lists only run a couple of barbarian rings...and that's it. All of it's spells can be cast using basic mountains.
- The reach it has is insane. Very few decks have such reach with most of it's spells. Decks either need to connect with combat damage or cast chain a series of spells.

@jares: I saw a deck list you posted in an older post and decided to try and modify it:

4 Goblin Guide
3 Hellspark Elemental
3 Keldon Marauders
4 Spark Elemental
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt
1 Shard Volley
2 Sulfuric Vortex
2 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain

Sideboard
4 Faerie Macabre
3 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
3 Smash to Smithereens
3 Pyrostatic Pillar


I wonder how having both Spark and Hellspark Elementals would work out? In my list, you have only 12(!) cards that need more than 1 mana to cast. Spark Elemental may be bad, but I think I'd rather run it over Flame Rift. Flame Rift has some bad synergy with Sulfuric Vortex since killing yourself is never a good thing (especially in matchups like Storm). Considering that life gain is a big threat to this deck, I'd rather try Spark + Vortex over Rift and see how that works out.

jares, I liked your idea of having a single Shard Volley in the deck. Increasing the count of 1CMC spells helps us be more consistent in how fast we can kill our opponent. Considering that this deck is mana-cost light, we can afford running 19 lands and running 4 FB AND running a Shard Volley.

[RogueBuild]

The upside to being off for a few days means I can make 1 post (I hope) and be done for another week. So 1st off...

The problem with Browbeat isn't that it COULD do 5 damage or draw 3 cards, its not that it gives THEM a choice of 5 damage or 3 cards. If there was a 3cc burn spell with no drawback that did 5 damage I am not convinced people would play it. Why? because no one but me seems to play the 4damage 3cc burn spell because "it costs too much and breaks the curve". If there was a 3cc draw 3 red spell... well we have a better chance of a 6th color being introduced than that happening. The problem is that in BURN, and I cap BURN because this is not a problem for other decks, 3 mana for a spell where they let you draw 3 cards is virtual Meditate.

Now someone ask "how it is a Meditate?"

Glad you asked. By the time Burn is looking to end the game it might have 3 lands in play and I stress the might. If you are casting Browbeat you are in all likelihood in topdeck-mode and now tapped out. If they can safely take the 5 damage and still be over 4 life they likely will. If not what do you do with the 3 cards you just drew? Unless you drew Bolt/mountain/FireBlast or mountain/2x Fireblast the likelihood you can do anything with those 3 cards this turn is slim to none. The end result is you drew 4 cards (your draw being 1) and passed turn. For a deck with no real answers to anything the last thing you really want to do is just give them a turn.

On to other things...

I have stated this in the Pox thread before, where people start tweaking decks so much and manipulating the deck's basic theory you risk ending up with something completely different. Not different in the build, but in the way you play it and people play against it. This is why I don't run GGuide in Burn. If I want to run GGuide Ill just play Sligh. The difference between the decks may only be 4-10 cards but the way you are committed to playing varies greatly. There is nothing wrong with Sligh, or Blue Sligh, or Dead Guy Red, or Zoo, or RB aggro, RU tempo-aggro-goyf-storm-blade-combo-win-on-1-turn-and-piss-me-off-dredge-whatever you want to play. BUT! they all have their own threads with various theories on how they play. So keep them there.

Going back a page or 2, CS Crusher... Just a bad idea in Burn. By the time you get 3 lands in play anything you cast that has a 3cc needs to be a game changer or hit for more then 3 damage and do it right now such as Flame Jav. It needs to have an instant effect on the board. Vortex is a game changer as is a well placed Volcanic Fallout or Flamebreak (I use all 3 of these spells). CS Crusher MIGHT payoff sometimes but most of the time it will be Time Walk for your opp. therefore not even as good as a Browbeat (see above for more information).

[Pinoy Goblin]

Kindly note that none of your comments have proven anything erroneous in my statements. In fact, your comments have not provided much substance, and thus, I have refrained from addressing it (even if I would certainly be able to expose the error in your judgements), and have instead taken a step back to try and bring it into a meaningful context.

Note that my comments are not directed at anyone with the purpose of offending an individual, but rather, to streamline the discussion into one that I believe is meaningful (this particular comment is the exception, as I will purposely respond to you in kind). Also note that ALL my previous comments have been phrased politely, though it seems that you have taken offense because of your inability to prove any of your points. In fact, my latest comment for you was an inquiry that would help clarify the points that you want to state!

By no means have I stated that this is anyone's turf - if anything, this is the TURF of the BURN THREAD, and you might want to try and understand what that means.

If you are unable to provide substance through your words and actions, THEN FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.

-jares

kabayan ang puso mo hehe ngayon lang kita nakita na ganyan haha, kitakits sa 22 sa cyrebrus legacy tourney sa bci greenhills:tongue:

If only BLACKVISE is legal in legacy this deck would be a sicko haha:smile:

[Kich867]

Kindly note that none of your comments have proven anything erroneous in my statements. In fact, your comments have not provided much substance, and thus, I have refrained from addressing it (even if I would certainly be able to expose the error in your judgements), and have instead taken a step back to try and bring it into a meaningful context.

Note that my comments are not directed at anyone with the purpose of offending an individual, but rather, to streamline the discussion into one that I believe is meaningful (this particular comment is the exception, as I will purposely respond to you in kind). Also note that ALL my previous comments have been phrased politely, though it seems that you have taken offense because of your inability to prove any of your points. In fact, my latest comment for you was an inquiry that would help clarify the points that you want to state!

By no means have I stated that this is anyone's turf - if anything, this is the TURF of the BURN THREAD, and you might want to try and understand what that means.

If you are unable to provide substance through your words and actions, THEN FUCKING DEAL WITH IT.

-jares

No offense taken, sorry to infuriate you, I recognized the harsh tone of my post and corrected it, my general speech often throws a lot of swears in there.

Regardless, everything I said was backed up by presumably things that should be self-evident. They need little explanation. The erroneous statements that you did, in fact, make, were also clearly addressed.

But I guess I'll lay things out? I shouldn't have to.. (and yes, quite clearly things that I said are my opinion given the nature of the fact that I said it, I was under the impression that this is default and true under all circumstances?)

The deck can run better creatures and people willingly choose not to: Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets are objectively better creatures than Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders. They're both cheaper and either do more damage or have evasion. A single swing from Steppe Lynx puts an opponent at 16, most people play fetches, 15, and now they're in a reasonable burn range.

The deck is more consistent due to brainstorm and daze in that you can refuel at instant speed and push wins through via daze. Burn hits a top-deck period where poor draws can and will lose you the game, Brainstorm can fix this (and often does). Either that or you have terrible cards in hand that aren't useful: Price of Progress for example is rapidly becoming a terrible card. Decks are playing many more basics than they used to, PoP should, at best, be a sideboard card. Multiple Fireblasts are also something that you're likely to never actually use given the turn you should be winning on (3-ish), burn has no way to handle extraneous bad cards like this, while Blue Burn (that should make it easier to talk about right?) can. You can brainstorm away things like an extra Fireblast and replace it with a Lightning Bolt, a far more useful card to have over the second Fireblast.

And to the erroneous statements: Blue burn doesn't kill creatures. It's fine to daze to keep a creature alive because it's essentially free and produces virtual damage that you wouldn't otherwise have, but everything is pointed at the dome. I'm just correcting an incorrect line of thinking.

[DragoFireheart]

stuff

1- Burn is a mono-red deck. Blue Burn should be discussed in Hannis thread.

2- By being mono red, we don't give a shit about wasteland and mana-denial strats.

3- Our creatures are a bit inferior, but that's the price we pay for having an absolutely stable mana base.

[Kich867]

2- By being mono red, we don't give a shit about wasteland and mana-denial strats.


Your points can be summarized into this one, which is a valid one, which is something I already discussed. The only positive to burn is that it's largely impervious to mana denial strategies, although I have heard concerns of those who run Barbarian Rings when running into unfortunate hands.

Which brings up another issue, something I'm not completely informed on, but I would assume Burn has a terrible time mulliganing. Having one less card could be the difference between getting there and not and can absolutely push your win back another turn by having to wait for that card.

This is an issue that things like Brainstorm heavily fix. And the proposition here isn't "you should be playing Blue Sligh/Burn whatever", it's that burn should probably be moving into other colors to help it. And while that would likely look a lot like Hanni's list, it may not be. Hell, black even opens up another one mana 3 damage spell with no drawback.

[DragoFireheart]

And the proposition here isn't "you should be playing Blue Sligh/Burn whatever", it's that burn should probably be moving into other colors to help it. And while that would likely look a lot like Hanni's list, it may not be. Hell, black even opens up another one mana 3 damage spell with no drawback.

Part of being Burn is being mono-red. It's simple, cheap, stable, and consistent. Sure, it lacks Brainstorms for filtering, but that's why the deck is highly redundant.

If Burn is going into other colors, it's no longer Burn. Let's cross that bridge if we need be, but for now lets focus on the mono-red version.

[jares]

Let me try and expound on the points that you've noted:


The deck can run better creatures and people willingly choose not to: Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets are objectively better creatures than Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders. They're both cheaper and either do more damage or have evasion. A single swing from Steppe Lynx puts an opponent at 16, most people play fetches, 15, and now they're in a reasonable burn range.
Stating that Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets is objectively better is relatively untrue for the following reasons:

While Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets are both very explosive creatures, they are also both heavily conditional ones (I don't want to go into the math for this, but I would love to present the Hypergeometric Probabilities that would support this point if you would find it useful). In comparison, Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders are both more reliable sources of damage (because of Trample, Unearth, and Keldon Marauders' ability), and are both excellent bargains for their built-in power/toughness that do not come with extra conditions.
Hellspark Elemental's Unearth ability provides card advantage, something that Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets do not have.
Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders are both able to deal damage immediately, making them reasonably better top-decks when compared to Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets in the context of the game plan of Burn.
Because Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders are both red creatures, they do not have inherent dependencies on mana-filtering given than Burn is generally played as mono-red (this, in fact, adds to the conditionality of Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets).
Keldon Marauders is a much better (and much more willing) blocker when compared to Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets. This also suggests that Keldon Marauders has more value in situations where things aren't going as planned.
Keldon Marauders is much less susceptible to creature removal when compared to Steppe Lynx and Delver of Secrets because of it's toughness, and the fact that your opponent will have to think twice about wasting a card to kill a creature that will be dying anyway.
Trading blockers for Keldon Marauders and Hellspark Elemental is much less rewarding to your opponent (because of their transient nature) when compared to blocking either Steppe Lynx or Delver of Secrets.

Note that these points have not been stated to show that one creature is better than the other - these points are there to show why certain card selections provide more value in the context of a Burn deck. I'm sure that others would also be able to add to the list above, but I believe that the current list should be sufficient.

The deck is more consistent due to brainstorm and daze in that you can refuel at instant speed and push wins through via daze.
This, again, is untrue for the following reasons:

While Brainstorm is able to provide a significant amount of filtering (being the best draw spell in the format), it also causes you to spend one more blue mana to be able to play the spell of your choice. This causes tempo loss, one of the most important areas of playing Burn.
While Daze is able to provide a conditional answer to your opponent's plays, it also causes significant tempo loss via it's alternate cost. This essentially means that, in the context of what Burn is trying to achieve, your available resources will be one turn behind. As a side note, the line of play that Daze induces is effective in Tempo Threshold decks because these decks rely on creatures (more specifically, permanents) that are able to provide fast, constant damage. In comparison, Burn wants to play as few permanents as possible to create virtual card advantage, something that keeps getting ignored in this discussion.
Because both Brainstorm and Daze require Islands to be played, this again becomes a point of dependency that induces inconsistencies to the deck, or more specifically, to the deck's mana base. It almost goes without saying that Wasteland and Stifle are cards that greatly affect the format because of the rampant use of non-basic lands.
Playing both Brainstorm and Daze greatly reduces the redundancy of Burn, which is, in fact, one of the major strengths of the deck (as we always await the printing of the next "Bolt Effect").
Playing Daze is a choice that is sorely contrasting to the game plan of Burn. Kindly note that Burn is a deck of "Questions" and not a deck of "Answers"; in other words, Burn concerns itself with providing "Threats" rather than searching for "Solutions" (which is also why Brainstorm does not fit); Burn will only be concerned with looking for solutions if its game plan is impeded (thus, the use of Pyroblast; I personally use Vexing Shusher). Having said that, you can think of Daze as "one less burn spell" in the deck.
Daze is a terrible top-deck.

Understand that Burn is one of the most hyper-linear decks that have ever been created, and inserting choices that deviate from this linearity make the deck that much less consistent. It's nice to have draw capability and access to counterspells - unfortunately, this simply isn't what Burn wants to do.

Having said that Zoo might be the deck that is more closely "related" to Blue Sligh, I'm now thinking that Tempo Threshold might even be a closer cousin.

Price of Progress for example is rapidly becoming a terrible card. Decks are playing many more basics than they used to, PoP should, at best, be a sideboard card.
Last I checked, Dual Lands are still the best source of mana in multi-color decks in Legacy. People will, of course, play around Price of Progress because THEY HAVE TO. Think about it - the mere presence of Price of Progress causes people to adjust. If a card that forces people to adjust and forgo playing Dual Lands (arguably the defining cards of Eternal Formats) is something that can be called a "terrible card", then I can't imagine what people should call Phantasmal Bear and Magma Jet (both being inclusions in Blue Sligh), which are both respectable cards, but are rarely played in the Legacy format.

I don't think that I have to expound on the value of Price of Progress further, unless you insist. Others might be able to comment on this more.

Multiple Fireblasts are also something that you're likely to never actually use given the turn you should be winning on (3-ish), burn has no way to handle extraneous bad cards like this
I don't know about you, but the collective experience of everyone else in this forum will tell you otherwise. Again, I would be able to provide the mathematical basis for why two Fireblasts in hand isn't a problem (and why three is indeed a disaster), but I've already put too much text in this comment. :tongue:


And to the erroneous statements: Blue burn doesn't kill creatures. It's fine to daze to keep a creature alive because it's essentially free and produces virtual damage that you wouldn't otherwise have, but everything is pointed at the dome. I'm just correcting an incorrect line of thinking.
I'm not saying that Blue Sligh has to exclusively throw burn spells towards creatures - those are your words, not mine.

The point there is that, because Sligh relies on its creatures to deal the majority of the damage, part of its game plan is to clear the board of creatures whenever the expected net damage is greater and more beneficial. In comparison, Burn rarely has to deal with this scenario (though it may also come up from time to time). This is why Lava Spike is part of the core of Burn, but is an afterthought in Blue Sligh. I hope that you would no longer misunderstand this point, as it is somewhat essential to what we're discussing here. Do let us know if any additional clarifications would be necessary.

In addition to your point saying that "everything is pointed at the dome", I'd also like to note that the burn density of Blue Sligh (12 Bolt Effects, 3 Fireblasts, sometimes 2-3 Magma Jets, which is a sub-par burn spell) is significantly lower than that of Burn - in fact, it has as much creatures as burn spells. Because of this composition, while it's entirely possible for Blue Sligh to win the game by playing only burn spells, this is not how the deck would want the game to progress (as it would want creatures to deal the damage first) - Burn, in comparison, would be more than happy to go "Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, Fireblast".

In summary, if your point is that Blue Sligh is a better deck than Burn, I would say that you're entitled to your opinion. If your point is that Burn will benefit more by incorporating more colors into the deck, then I would say that others that were much wiser than ourselves have already looked into that for us with the conclusion that "it's not worth it", and that none of points that are presented now provide unquestionable reasoning for why a splash of colors would be "better" than simply going mono-red.

Regards,
jares

[Kich867]

Regards,
jares

To reiterate, 4-6 damage from creatures does not consistute "most" of the damage, any more than that is just helpful.

Furthermore, I don't see how the 1 blue mana to cast a brainstorm is more of a tempo loss (which is untrue anyways as it accelerates you through 3 draw steps and is about the most clear definition of a tempo swing one could illustrate) than casting a creature like Keldon Marauders, who at worst deals 2 damage over the course of ~3 turns and at best deals 5 damage over the course of ~3 turns or Hellspark Elemental who deals maybe 6 damage for 4 mana over the course of at least 2 turns.

When I look at cards like that they look more like Burn trying to have some creature removal without actually using a burn to do it, or cards that function like Ball Lightning that aren't Ball Lightning because of a weird aversion to the card, the only thing I can guess is that people don't feel confident in hitting their third land drop in order to actually cast him, as realistically Hellspark Elemental is almost worse than it given it requires 2 turns and more mana invested.

In regards to Steppe Lynx, a single connected hit puts them into burn range. A 4/5 for 1 mana is outrageously powerful. In regards to delver, when you run that many instants and sorceries it's highly unlikely that they will not flip--if it's such an issue you can brainstorm in response to the trigger and force the flip.

-- If you could more clearly outline how Hellspark Elemental actually produces card advantage that would be wonderful. I understand that you can play it, and then play it again, and you're getting 2 cards out of the same card, but given that it's actually a creature and not a burn spell and can be dealt with, I don't see this as much of a positive considering it needs to be able to do that in order to not be completely terrible.

It's sort of like saying Delver of Secrets has card advantage because it stays in play for more than one turn, and can often deal 6-9 damage before dying with virtually no assistance since it flies and people need to play around daze.

-- People don't play shock anymore, Keldon Marauder is just as easily hit by bolt, swords, pte, dismember, if they -really- need to kill it. And it again has the issue of not being alive for more than a turn..so they're actually both kind of terrible top-decks since "things not going as planned" I'm interpreting as a Batterskull/jitte has resolved or there's a knight that's at least a 4/4 sitting there and not one creature in red can toe to toe with it, which is fine, since you have burns, and that's kind of the point.

-- I don't believe you understand the concept of brainstorm and daze in the deck. Daze produces tempo advantage in that your opponent must play around it. If they want to sword your goblin guide they'll need to wait until next turn, if they want to resolve their stoneforge mystic they'll have to wait another turn, and when they tap out to spell pierce that last bolt it won't work. The bouncing of a land is rarely if ever an issue, given that the deck is almost exclusively one-drops this shouldn't cause issue, as winning with two lands is rather easy to accomplish.

Brainstorm doesn't search for answers, it refuels your hand, it turns dead land draws into burns, and often results in 3-10 damage depending on how 'into the stone-cold nuts' you draw off of it. I can say from experience that brainstorming EOT into bolt bolt fireblast is something that actually happens.

In regards to Price of Progress, the threat of it is far more powerful than the actual effect. People will recognize that it needs to be played around and I would advise against running 4 of it in any list, mono colored or not. Too many decks can play around it without actually hurting their gameplan much at all. This is why it's losing it's power--the adjustments required to play around it don't hurt people enough, ever since UR Delver blew up basics came back into lists.

-- I agree, daze is a terrible top-deck when you're top-decking, but this shouldn't get to that point that often and while it's certainly one less burn spell, pushing a burn spell through or keeping a delver alive effectively makes it another burn spell.

The fundamental turn is the same or earlier for these decks and it operates under the exact same premise, testing shows that wasteland is largely irrelevant (though stifle/wasteland can cause issues which is specifically relevant to only the RUG Tempo matchup).

[jares]

It's a bit tiresome to keep replying lengthily, so this will most likely be my last lengthy reply, as I'll instead let everyone's else's wisdom respond to you:

To reiterate, 4-6 damage from creatures does not consistute "most" of the damage, any more than that is just helpful.
I seriously doubt that you'll only need 4-6 damage from your creatures to be able to deal 20 damage in a game, given that the density of your burn spells in the deck is significantly low. I find this to be highly understated. You're essentially saying that the 16 creature cards in your deck are there to deal only 4-6 damage. You might be right, but I sincerely don't see how such a slim burn density would be able to deal 14-16 damage in a game. You're suggesting that, apart from the creatures that you draw in your opening hand that would deal 4-6 damage quickly in the first few turns, all the other creatures that you'll draw are just expected to be dead draws and still be able to win you the game. I highly doubt that this expectation would frquently result into winning.

Furthermore, I don't see how the 1 blue mana to cast a brainstorm is more of a tempo loss (which is untrue anyways as it accelerates you through 3 draw steps and is about the most clear definition of a tempo swing one could illustrate)
It's simple. Playing Brainstorm does not net you another card, because playing it essentially just replaces the Brainstorm that was played. From the point that you resolve Brainstorm, you would have dealt Zero damage and used up 1 blue mana. To be able to deal damage, you would have to play the card that you "chose" via Brainstorm (or maybe some other card in your hand), and play the cost of the card on top of the blue mana that you have already spent. In comparison, if Brainstorm was, say, a Lava Spike, then spending one mana would already have netted you 3 damage. It's worth noting that, in this process, Brainstorm is still able to thin the deck and reorganize the next 2 draws, and this is certainly a good thing. Unfortunately, though, Burn expects every mana spent to deal 3 damage, and the extra blue mana spent was essentially spent somewhere else - this is the same reason why Magma Jet is seldom used, even if it's able to deal damage and organize the next 2 draws. In summary, Burn does not want to be concerned with anything else other than dealing damage directly (as explained in my previous comment regarding Burn being a hyper-linear deck).

In regards to Steppe Lynx, a single connected hit puts them into burn range. A 4/5 for 1 mana is outrageously powerful. In regards to delver, when you run that many instants and sorceries it's highly unlikely that they will not flip--if it's such an issue you can brainstorm in response to the trigger and force the flip.
Again, you're simply stating what I have previously mentioned - these creatures are conditional. If you're willing to play with the probabilities, that's up to you. Burn, though, is much more happy with simply going with "red mana, play card, three damage, done". If only more Lightning Bolts would be printed... :tongue:

-- If you could more clearly outline how Hellspark Elemental actually produces card advantage that would be wonderful. I understand that you can play it, and then play it again, and you're getting 2 cards out of the same card, but given that it's actually a creature and not a burn spell and can be dealt with, I don't see this as much of a positive considering it needs to be able to do that in order to not be completely terrible.
That's very good - you have already explained it yourself. I'm personally not a fan of Hellspark Elemental myself, so I share your sentiment to a certain degree. You might want to look at it this way though: you have a card in your deck that can deal three damage for two mana, and you can cast it twice on different turns (almost reminds me of Snapcaster Mage :tongue:). For everything else, your complaints are also mine - though the current meta seems to favor it, so might want to interview those that currently run it and have had success.

It's sort of like saying Delver of Secrets has card advantage because it stays in play for more than one turn, and can often deal 6-9 damage before dying with virtually no assistance since it flies and people need to play around daze.
You could also think of it that way, if you were to look at Delver of Secrets as a conditional burn spell that can be blocked.

-- People don't play shock anymore, Keldon Marauder is just as easily hit by bolt, swords, pte, dismember, if they -really- need to kill it.
Yes, this is also a correct observation! This is why Burn prefers NOT to play creatures (or permanents, in general), because doing so creates virtual card advantage by rendering your opponent's removal spells useless. Unfortunately, Burn has yet to be given the full arsenal of efficient burn spells, so it resorts to using the fastest, most economically-sound creatures available. Again, this is where your Blue Sligh differs greatly from Burn - Sligh WANTS to cast creatures.

And it again has the issue of not being alive for more than a turn..so they're actually both kind of terrible top-decks since "things not going as planned" I'm interpreting as a Batterskull/jitte has resolved or there's a knight that's at least a 4/4 sitting there and not one creature in red can toe to toe with it, which is fine, since you have burns, and that's kind of the point.
Unfortunately, from the point of view of Burn, all creatures are sub-par top-decks, so you are correct in your observation. I guess my point in saying that Keldon Marauders helps with bad situations is that having a 3/3 blocker is better than a 0/1 or 1/1 blocker.

-- I don't believe you understand the concept of brainstorm and daze in the deck. Daze produces tempo advantage in that your opponent must play around it. If they want to sword your goblin guide they'll need to wait until next turn, if they want to resolve their stoneforge mystic they'll have to wait another turn, and when they tap out to spell pierce that last bolt it won't work.
I don't believe that you understand how the Burn archetype works, and I have stated it repeatedly, but I'll do it again for emphasis (hopefully, more clearly this time):

Burn is a hyper-linear deck that is designed to win the game via direct-damage spells. Anything that does not contribute to this linear philosophy dilutes the inherent design of the archetype.

Again, as I've repeatedly mentioned, you're barking up the wrong tree. You might want to try posting on the Tempo Threshold thread, as the people there would certainly appreciate your insistence on Brainstorm and Daze.

The bouncing of a land is rarely if ever an issue, given that the deck is almost exclusively one-drops this shouldn't cause issue, as winning with two lands is rather easy to accomplish.
Unfortunately, Burn is DIFFERENT from Blue Sligh, because it ideally does not want to lose a land drop in the first three turns (where Daze is most useful) so that it would be able to "launch" its burn spells as quickly as possible. This is also related to how Daze interacts with permanents that can be relied on for fast, constant damage, such as Delver of Secrets, Steppe Lynx, and Nimble Mongoose (again, refer to the Tempo Threshold thread).

Brainstorm doesn't search for answers, it refuels your hand, it turns dead land draws into burns, and often results in 3-10 damage depending on how 'into the stone-cold nuts' you draw off of it. I can say from experience that brainstorming EOT into bolt bolt fireblast is something that actually happens.
I believe that I have already addressed this point in one of the points above.

In regards to Price of Progress, the threat of it is far more powerful than the actual effect. People will recognize that it needs to be played around and I would advise against running 4 of it in any list, mono colored or not. Too many decks can play around it without actually hurting their gameplan much at all. This is why it's losing it's power--the adjustments required to play around it don't hurt people enough, ever since UR Delver blew up basics came back into lists.
Your observation is valid, but does not seem convincing enough to warrant the exclusion of Price of Progress. This still sounds like something subjective to your opinion (which may be influenced by your meta), so I will respect that. Price of Progress is indeed one of the cards that I look to board out from time to time, but it has been very reliable in the main deck so far, and I personally will continue running the full set until my meta game changes significantly.

-- I agree, daze is a terrible top-deck when you're top-decking, but this shouldn't get to that point that often and while it's certainly one less burn spell, pushing a burn spell through or keeping a delver alive effectively makes it another burn spell.
The points about Daze have already been noted above. Kindly review those previous comments for reference.

The fundamental turn is the same or earlier for these decks and it operates under the exact same premise, testing shows that wasteland is largely irrelevant (though stifle/wasteland can cause issues which is specifically relevant to only the RUG Tempo matchup).
Let's make it simple: If a deck runs a land that will allow Wasteland's ability to resolve, then it becomes relevant, simply because it is able to serve its purpose. Otherwise, Wasteland becomes a land that produces colorless mana.

I hope that most, if not all, of these concerns have already been addressed.

@To everyone else
I also encourage everyone else to share their ideas regarding this discussion, and to affirm or correct my statements whenever applicable.

Kind Regards,
jares

[gatherer]

I'd rather talk about the mono red version. my next legacy event is thursday. I plan on playing Burn (again). my Sideboard needs tweaking and I'm still looking for the ultimate card to replace Keldon Marauders. I am starting to get the idea that the ultimate card to replace Keldon Marauders hasn't been printed yet.

So on to the SB tweaking. This is what I currently have: (I think someone drugged the Kool-Aid I drank when I came up with this)

4x Smash to Smithereens (I'm actually thinking of maindecking these)
4x Faerie Macabre
3x Pyrostatic Pillar
4x Red Elemental blast (What was I thinking?????????????????)

So Now I should be looking at a SB like this:

4 Smash to Smithereens
4 Faerie Macabre
3 pyrostatic Pillar
2 sulfuric Vortex
2 Tormod's Crypts (Trying to really hate out reanimator)

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate Reanimator?

Anyways I'm looking for suggestions on my board.

For reference Here is the main deck that I'm sticking with at the moment:

4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark elemental
4 Keldon Marauders

4 Rift Bolt
4 fireblast
4 price in progress
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Flame rift

2 Barbarian Ring
18 Mountain

So why no Red Elemental blast. Well For one I feel the counter target blue spell part is useless since I'll never win a counter war. destorying a Blue permenant is nice, but I don't encounter many chills in my metagame and other blue permenants which are troublesome.

Sol I'm looking for suggestions. There is ussually a lot of B/W Stoneblade decks (2). Some Zoo shows up (0-1) a Reanimator list (1) Affinity (2) Dredge (1-2) and myself (Burn) I expect once exams are done at the university the store is close to that the metagame will grow

regards,

Jason

[DragoFireheart]

Sol I'm looking for suggestions...

regards,

Jason

I don't like Flame Rift. It doesn't play well with Vortex, what with killing yourself. The opponent is going to get a few hits in. Would you be willing to try Spark Elementals?

[jares]

@jares: I saw a deck list you posted in an older post and decided to try and modify it:

4 Goblin Guide
3 Hellspark Elemental
3 Keldon Marauders
4 Spark Elemental
4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt
1 Shard Volley
2 Sulfuric Vortex
2 Barbarian Ring
17 Mountain

Sideboard
4 Faerie Macabre
3 Pyroblast
2 Red Elemental Blast
3 Smash to Smithereens
3 Pyrostatic Pillar


I wonder how having both Spark and Hellspark Elementals would work out? In my list, you have only 12(!) cards that need more than 1 mana to cast. Spark Elemental may be bad, but I think I'd rather run it over Flame Rift. Flame Rift has some bad synergy with Sulfuric Vortex since killing yourself is never a good thing (especially in matchups like Storm). Considering that life gain is a big threat to this deck, I'd rather try Spark + Vortex over Rift and see how that works out.

jares, I liked your idea of having a single Shard Volley in the deck. Increasing the count of 1CMC spells helps us be more consistent in how fast we can kill our opponent. Considering that this deck is mana-cost light, we can afford running 19 lands and running 4 FB AND running a Shard Volley.
Why didn't I think of that? :tongue:

I like the idea of running both Hellspark Elemental and Spark Elemental, as I never really got to test both of them together. I expect these two cards to be able to support each other well in overloading the combat phase alongside Keldon Marauders, though I still expect some inconsistencies to pop up based on previous testing of these creatures. It should at least be fun though, especially since you'll be running the fifth Fireblast ([1x]Shard Volley). :tongue:

Looking at your list, I would personally do the following:

[-2] Sulfuric Vortex, because I personally don't like playing 3cc cards with just 19 lands (I prefer going up to 20 lands while using 8 Fetch Lands), not to mention that you also added Shard Volley.
[-1] Keldon Marauders, to maintain a sense of balance in the number of creatures that we want to run (though this suggestion is more intuitive than logical at this point).
[+3] Flame Rift, as a replacement to Sulfuric Vortex (and Keldon Marauders). This change also supports your efforts to hasten your aggression.

I hope that helps. Let us know how it goes.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

I'd rather talk about the mono red version.

regards,
Jason

We share the same sentiments. :tongue:

Among the decks from your meta game that you mentioned, Stoneblade would be one that you could address in the main deck by using Sulfuric Vortex (since you're running a healthy 20 lands anyway). I've been testing [2x] Sulfuric Vortex in the main deck, and the results have been very promising (though it's worth noting that I've revisited Fetch Lands and Grim Lavamancer in this build) - having the 3rd one in the sideboard would likely be useful too. To make room for that, I would try [-1] from both Keldon Marauders and Hellspark Elemental.

DragoFireheart has already noted that running Flame Rift alongside Sulfuric Vortex might be risky, but in my experience, it rarely becomes a liability - except when in a mirror match.

Good luck :smile:

Cheers,
jares

[TarmoX]

It's a bit tiresome to keep replying lengthily, so this will most likely be my last lengthy reply, as I'll instead let everyone's else's wisdom respond to you:

I seriously doubt that you'll only need 4-6 damage from your creatures to be able to deal 20 damage in a game, given that the density of your burn spells in the deck is significantly low. I find this to be highly understated. You're essentially saying that the 16 creature cards in your deck are there to deal only 4-6 damage. You might be right, but I sincerely don't see how such a slim burn density would be able to deal 14-16 damage in a game. You're suggesting that, apart from the creatures that you draw in your opening hand that would deal 4-6 damage quickly in the first few turns, all the other creatures that you'll draw are just expected to be dead draws and still be able to win you the game. I highly doubt that this expectation would frquently result into winning.

It's simple. Playing Brainstorm does not net you another card, because playing it essentially just replaces the Brainstorm that was played. From the point that you resolve Brainstorm, you would have dealt Zero damage and used up 1 blue mana. To be able to deal damage, you would have to play the card that you "chose" via Brainstorm (or maybe some other card in your hand), and play the cost of the card on top of the blue mana that you have already spent. In comparison, if Brainstorm was, say, a Lava Spike, then spending one mana would already have netted you 3 damage. It's worth noting that, in this process, Brainstorm is still able to thin the deck and reorganize the next 2 draws, and this is certainly a good thing. Unfortunately, though, Burn expects every mana spent to deal 3 damage, and the extra blue mana spent was essentially spent somewhere else - this is the same reason why Magma Jet is seldom used, even if it's able to deal damage and organize the next 2 draws. In summary, Burn does not want to be concerned with anything else other than dealing damage directly (as explained in my previous comment regarding Burn being a hyper-linear deck).

Again, you're simply stating what I have previously mentioned - these creatures are conditional. If you're willing to play with the probabilities, that's up to you. Burn, though, is much more happy with simply going with "red mana, play card, three damage, done". If only more Lightning Bolts would be printed... :tongue:

That's very good - you have already explained it yourself. I'm personally not a fan of Hellspark Elemental myself, so I share your sentiment to a certain degree. You might want to look at it this way though: you have a card in your deck that can deal three damage for two mana, and you can cast it twice on different turns (almost reminds me of Snapcaster Mage :tongue:). For everything else, your complaints are also mine - though the current meta seems to favor it, so might want to interview those that currently run it and have had success.

You could also think of it that way, if you were to look at Delver of Secrets as a conditional burn spell that can be blocked.

Yes, this is also a correct observation! This is why Burn prefers NOT to play creatures (or permanents, in general), because doing so creates virtual card advantage by rendering your opponent's removal spells useless. Unfortunately, Burn has yet to be given the full arsenal of efficient burn spells, so it resorts to using the fastest, most economically-sound creatures available. Again, this is where your Blue Sligh differs greatly from Burn - Sligh WANTS to cast creatures.

Unfortunately, from the point of view of Burn, all creatures are sub-par top-decks, so you are correct in your observation. I guess my point in saying that Keldon Marauders helps with bad situations is that having a 3/3 blocker is better than a 0/1 or 1/1 blocker.

I don't believe that you understand how the Burn archetype works, and I have stated it repeatedly, but I'll do it again for emphasis (hopefully, more clearly this time):

Burn is a hyper-linear deck that is designed to win the game via direct-damage spells. Anything that does not contribute to this linear philosophy dilutes the inherent design of the archetype.

Again, as I've repeatedly mentioned, you're barking up the wrong tree. You might want to try posting on the Tempo Threshold thread, as the people there would certainly appreciate your insistence on Brainstorm and Daze.

Unfortunately, Burn is DIFFERENT from Blue Sligh, because it ideally does not want to lose a land drop in the first three turns (where Daze is most useful) so that it would be able to "launch" its burn spells as quickly as possible. This is also related to how Daze interacts with permanents that can be relied on for fast, constant damage, such as Delver of Secrets, Steppe Lynx, and Nimble Mongoose (again, refer to the Tempo Threshold thread).

I believe that I have already addressed this point in one of the points above.

Your observation is valid, but does not seem convincing enough to warrant the exclusion of Price of Progress. This still sounds like something subjective to your opinion (which may be influenced by your meta), so I will respect that. Price of Progress is indeed one of the cards that I look to board out from time to time, but it has been very reliable in the main deck so far, and I personally will continue running the full set until my meta game changes significantly.

The points about Daze have already been noted above. Kindly review those previous comments for reference.

Let's make it simple: If a deck runs a land that will allow Wasteland's ability to resolve, then it becomes relevant, simply because it is able to serve its purpose. Otherwise, Wasteland becomes a land that produces colorless mana.

I hope that most, if not all, of these concerns have already been addressed.

@To everyone else
I also encourage everyone else to share their ideas regarding this discussion, and to affirm or correct my statements whenever applicable.

Kind Regards,
jares


I vote Jares for president!!!! :smile:

[RogueBuild]

As someone who values his Hellspark Elemental greatly I will add a few points to what Jares said.

1) Card advantage it nets you also works in examples where they used a counter on the cast to prevent 3 damage, a stifle on the unearth, creatures to block or a combo of them to prevent 6 damage. Yes, it cost you 4 mana over 2 turns to gain that advantage but if you cast Hellspark and they counter it it can still deal 3 damage when you unearth. If you cast a bolt and they counter it you get nothing at all. Burn can not be just about "damage per-mana cost" but also "damage per-card" Hellspark gives a potential 6 damage with 1 card. The highest FIXED damage of any card in burn.

2) same turn auto-dead is a built in tool against Bridge From Below.

3) Damage that is not targeted and so it can sneak in under a Leyline. This is also why I run 4 sweepers 2 Vortex maindeck and 2 more sweepers and 1 more Vortex in the SB.

4) Unearth bypasses other annoying things suck as Trinsphere, Lodestone Golem, and CotV set at 2.

5) when there is a CotV set at 1 negating 1/2 of your burn spells a spell that cost 2 and can deal 3 damage and up to 6 damage over 2 turns suddenly looks not just good but like a life saver.

These are just a few of the things Hellspark does for me that no other 3-damage/1-mana bolt spell could do.

[DragoFireheart]

Why didn't I think of that? :tongue:

I like the idea of running both Hellspark Elemental and Spark Elemental, as I never really got to test both of them together. I expect these two cards to be able to support each other well in overloading the combat phase alongside Keldon Marauders, though I still expect some inconsistencies to pop up based on previous testing of these creatures. It should at least be fun though, especially since you'll be running the fifth Fireblast ([1x]Shard Volley). :tongue:

Looking at your list, I would personally do the following:

[-2] Sulfuric Vortex, because I personally don't like playing 3cc cards with just 19 lands (I prefer going up to 20 lands while using 8 Fetch Lands), not to mention that you also added Shard Volley.
[-1] Keldon Marauders, to maintain a sense of balance in the number of creatures that we want to run (though this suggestion is more intuitive than logical at this point).
[+3] Flame Rift, as a replacement to Sulfuric Vortex (and Keldon Marauders). This change also supports your efforts to hasten your aggression.

I hope that helps. Let us know how it goes.

Cheers,
jares

I really dislike Flame Rift. Yes, it deals four damage, but you:

A- Damage yourself. Don't like it as it makes other aggro and combo-matchups harder.

B- Can't target creatures. Big disadvantage since the 4 damage can hit quite a few more things than a bolt for those times we want to hit something. Honestly, I'd rather run 3 Marauders and 2 Rifts instead of 2 Marauders and 3 Rifts.

I'll try your suggestions. I cut the anti-blue blasts down by one and upped the sideboard Vortexes to 2.

[NeoTech]

I really dislike Flame Rift. Yes, it deals four damage, but you:

A- Damage yourself. Don't like it as it makes other aggro and combo-matchups harder.

B- Can't target creatures. Big disadvantage since the 4 damage can hit quite a few more things than a bolt for those times we want to hit something. Honestly, I'd rather run 3 Marauders and 2 Rifts instead of 2 Marauders and 3 Rifts.

I'll try your suggestions. I cut the anti-blue blasts down by one and upped the sideboard Vortexes to 2.

Don't forget Flame Rift has a large advantage of "doesn't target", so it swings around a Leyline of Sanctity like a boss.

4 Flame Rifts all the way for me :cool:

[jares]

Don't forget Flame Rift has a large advantage of "doesn't target", so it swings around a Leyline of Sanctity like a boss.

4 Flame Rifts all the way for me :cool:
I guess that 4 damage is indeed a lot (that's 20% of our life), but the way I look at it, I don't mind taking that much damage knowing that I'm able to deal damage at a faster rate. I also try to look at it like I'm using my life total as a resource (something like "you may pay 4 life to add :1: to your mana pool"; refer to Flames of the Blood Hand).

If we had better options, I would surely reconsider forgoing Flame Rift. Unfortunately, a card that's able to deal 4 damage for a bargain is difficult to come by (Sonic Burst anyone? :tongue:).

Cheers,
jares

[Pinoy Goblin]

Finished 3rd out of 14 players in our local tournament, decided to still play Austin Yost's version of BURN, finished 3-1 with my only loss to hightide (didn't push through with my crusher and grim lavamancer build:tongue:) And this is my conclusion . . .

W 2-0 - berserk stompy
L 0-2 - high tide
W 2-1 - infect berserk
W 2-1 - dredge

- FOD is the weakest in the deck, with all of my matches it never went as a 4/4, only a 2/2 max . . . using one mana to pump it sometimes screws my plan cause most of the time i only have 2 lands in play max, I will try jares spark elemental as a 2 off replacing FOD, I figured out that this will be our early L BOLT with feet . . . making our clock faster though its a bad topdeck:smile:
- Maybe I'll try shard volley as a one off replacing one FOD
- Pyrostatic Pillar is slow as hell on combo matchups maybe thinking of mindbreak traps
- Hellspark elemental helped me on my dredge matchup destroying bridge
- flame rift is NUTS people, together with fireblast this is the BOMB this is a must to achieve early victory:smile:
- Faerie macabre only slows down dredge, my game with dredge is close but we can raise them, I prefer tormod's crypt as 2 off and 2 faerie macabre for diversity.

next tournament I will try this build:

4 Goblin Guide
3 Hellspark Elemental
3 Keldon Marauders
2 Spark Elemental

1 Shard Volley
4 Rift Bolt
4 fireblast
4 price in progress
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Flame rift

2 Barbarian Ring
17 Snow-Covered Mountain

SB:
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Faerie Macabre
3 Mindbreak Trap
2 Shattering Spree
1 Smash to Smithereens
2 Pithing Needle
3 Pyroblast

[DragoFireheart]

I guess for now we should try to fit in 4 Flame Rifts. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

(Dreams of a Super Lightning Bolt: 4 damage for CMC 1)

In the list you suggested jares, -1 Spark, +1 Flame Rift to have 4 Flame Rifts?

So, 2 Marauders, 3 HellSpark, 3 Spark, 4 Goblins for our creature base, 19 lands, and then the rest burn. Pinoy Goblin

Edit: Basically, Pinoy Goblin list. Pinoy Goblin, which do you think is better: 2 marauder 3 spark or 3 marauder 2 spark?

[jares]

-I will try jares spark elemental as a 2 off replacing FOD, I figured out that this will be our early L BOLT with feet . . . making our clock faster though its a bad topdeck:smile:
- Maybe I'll try shard volley as a one off replacing one FOD

Kindly note that my testing of the following cards did not result in anything convincing:

Spark Elemental
Shard Volley

I certainly enjoyed playing around with these cards, and they did have their moments, but after limited testing, I was not able to solidify their inclusion in the deck. I'll be interested to find out if anyone else might have results for these alternatives.

Kind Regards,
jares

[Pinoy Goblin]

I guess for now we should try to fit in 4 Flame Rifts. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

(Dreams of a Super Lightning Bolt: 4 damage for CMC 1)

In the list you suggested jares, -1 Spark, +1 Flame Rift to have 4 Flame Rifts?

So, 2 Marauders, 3 HellSpark, 3 Spark, 4 Goblins for our creature base, 19 lands, and then the rest burn. Pinoy Goblin

Edit: Basically, Pinoy Goblin list. Pinoy Goblin, which do you think is better: 2 marauder 3 spark or 3 marauder 2 spark?

For me bro its 3 marauders and 2 spark elemental - (Ill try this one next tourney with 1 shard volley replacing my 3 FOD's)

because . . .
- marauders max damage is 5
- marauders guarantees us as a blocker and 2 damage minimum
- its a better top deck than spark
- im considering only 2 sparks as my 5th and 6th bolt with feet
- so all in all I'll chose 3 marauders and 2 sparks, but ill give you guys my feedback next week

[gatherer]

I haven't considered Spark Elemental to be honest.

I do like it. I'm not sure how to add it in but I really like Hellspark elemental, so I'm keeping those as a 4 of. I might try it in the place of Keldon Marauders, which is a card I dislike.

As for Flame Rift. I love that card. If you think about symmetrical cards like Armageddon, Wrath of God, Flame Rift, etc. There is a way to build the deck so that the symmetrical nature of the card is more damaging to your opponent then yourself.

Armageddon has had whole decks built around it, and wrath of god when you have no creatures out is not very symmetrical.

Burn as a deck the goal is to drop the opponent's life total as quickly as possible. If you are doing this with all the burn in the deck then Flame Rift becomes asymmetrical. You taking 4 damage while at 20 isn't that bad, it's 20% of your life total. If your opponent at the same time is at 8 and takes 4, they are now at 4, and took a 50% hit to their life total.

For flame Rift to be effective you have to look at it in the situation where you can play it, sure if it is the start of the game and you are both at 20 it's a symmetrical drop in life and you both loose 20% of your life totals. But it is most likely being cast mid to late game and by doing so the life totals when the Flame Rift goes on the stack should be asymmetrical in your favour and they should loose a larger percentage of their current life total.

I like Flame Rift, I might make it a 3 of in the future. I also side it out in the mirror, but it is a nice hit. I love getting my opponent to 8 then flame rift followed by fireblast.

just my 2 cents on how I like to look at flame rift.

Regards,

Jason

[kicks_422]

Figure of Destiny is a polarizing card that defines whether you're Burn or Sligh. It's a pretty big tempo loss with a potential for a massive (well, in Sligh terms) beater, but it fits more into a Sligh mentality. A deck with a Burn mentality wouldn't run it, and go with the Hellspark Elementals of the world.

Note that I said Sligh/Burn mentality, not a Sligh/Burn deck. I've been playing Sligh since it's earliest forms (even wrote this primer (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?5166-Deck-Dryad-Sligh)), and the player's mentality goes a long way into defining the deck that you're playing as Burn or Sligh - even when you're running the same cards as another dude with the same 75 cards.

[Pinoy Goblin]

Figure of Destiny is a polarizing card that defines whether you're Burn or Sligh. It's a pretty big tempo loss with a potential for a massive (well, in Sligh terms) beater, but it fits more into a Sligh mentality. A deck with a Burn mentality wouldn't run it, and go with the Hellspark Elementals of the world.

Note that I said Sligh/Burn mentality, not a Sligh/Burn deck. I've been playing Sligh since it's earliest forms (even wrote this primer (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?5166-Deck-Dryad-Sligh)), and the player's mentality goes a long way into defining the deck that you're playing as Burn or Sligh - even when you're running the same cards as another dude with the same 75 cards.

This is TRUE playing FOD generates me tempo loss, most of my matches if I had him in play - it screws my game plan because of its ability that needs mana activation . . . On an early game on which a BURN player needs open mana for his spells to be cast FOD wrecks your decision making most of the time giving him priority making him a 2/2 creature. FOD sucks when you're stuck with two lands max on an entire game and I rather have spark elemental in replace of him (I will test this one next week and give you guys my tourney report):tongue:

[jares]

As for Flame Rift. I love that card. If you think about symmetrical cards like Armageddon, Wrath of God, Flame Rift, etc. There is a way to build the deck so that the symmetrical nature of the card is more damaging to your opponent then yourself.

This is a very good way of looking at things, and I personally like the term that you used to describe these cards - "symmetrical". This also reminds me of the following symmetrical cards, which, in fact, had their own archetypes built around them to abuse the so-called "symmetry".

Smallpox
Pox
Innocent Blood
Time Spiral
Liliana of the Veil
Veteran Explorer
Exhume

gatherer seems to have said it best - "There is a way to build the deck so that the symmetrical nature of the card is more damaging to your opponent than yourself". For Flame Rift, Burn is that way to make the symmetrical nature of the card more damaging to your opponent.

Amidst all of the points that have been noted so far regarding Flame Rift, this is the best point that has been raised, and this is what people should understand regarding the inclusion (and role) of this card in Burn. In fact, I feel that this information is important enough to be tackled in the primer, so that people would question this card less often.

Cheers,
jares

[gatherer]

I wasn't the first to say that about symmetrical cards. I read it somewhere and it stuck. I just hadn't seen it stated about flame rift. The stuff I read said that wizards didn't understand how the symmetry could be broken when they first printed cards like wrath of god and Armeggedon.

as for Sulfuric Vortex it's like a metronome, constantly ticking away. and if you look at the life loss,2 life when you are at 20 isn't as big a deal as 2 life when you are at 5. So Sulfuric vortex is a metronome that starts going faster and faster. If we look at the deck we are playing (Burn) there is a way to make it tick faster for your opponent then yourself, and thats all the other burn in our hands. Ever play with a metronome? trust me as a kid I played with one all the time they are hours of fun trying to control the speed of the thing.

[Curby]

Two points; Flame Rift just speeds things up. If you're playing against an inherently faster deck, it's bad. E.g. Storm needs 2 fewer Goblin tokens or 2 less Storm count for a lethal Tendrils. If you're playing against an inherently slower deck, it's good. Flame Rift deals damage to them that speeds up your clock, and deals damage to you that's irrelevant because it doesn't matter whether you're at 1 or 20 when you win, as long as you win. Speeding up the clock and giving them less time to stabilize and control the game is what matters. In short, whether Flame Rift (and Burn in general, really) is well positioned in a metagame depends on the speed of other decks.

Second point: Sulfuric Vortex is even less symmetrical, because it damages them FIRST. Shutting off life gain can be very significant, but that's the sort of asymmetry brought about by deck building. The fact that tick happens before tock is a difference inherent to the card.

[jares]

I wasn't the first to say that about symmetrical cards. I read it somewhere and it stuck. I just hadn't seen it stated about flame rift. The stuff I read said that wizards didn't understand how the symmetry could be broken when they first printed cards like wrath of god and Armeggedon.

as for Sulfuric Vortex it's like a metronome, constantly ticking away. and if you look at the life loss,2 life when you are at 20 isn't as big a deal as 2 life when you are at 5. So Sulfuric vortex is a metronome that starts going faster and faster. If we look at the deck we are playing (Burn) there is a way to make it tick faster for your opponent then yourself, and thats all the other burn in our hands. Ever play with a metronome? trust me as a kid I played with one all the time they are hours of fun trying to control the speed of the thing.
I just realized something that I feel that every Burn player should consider when playing in the current meta game - most of the Tier decks have a means of gaining life via their main deck:

Batterskull (Stoneblade)
Umezawa's Jitte (Stoneblade, etc.)
Scavenging Ooze (Maverick, Bant, Nic Fit)
Rhox War Monk (Bant)
Kitchen Finks (Nic Fit)

All the other Tier Decks (Sneak Show, Reanimator) are already difficult match-ups to begin with (except maybe for RUG Tempo), which means that, given these premises, the majority (if not the entirety) of the field is well-prepared to combat Burn.

Having said that, I believe that Sulfuric Vortex has become an excellent meta choice, and I've realized that I wouldn't compete in the current meta without it - I'll surely use at least [2x] in the main deck.

Cheers,
jares

[jares]

Two points; Flame Rift just speeds things up. If you're playing against an inherently faster deck, it's bad. E.g. Storm needs 2 fewer Goblin tokens or 2 less Storm count for a lethal Tendrils. If you're playing against an inherently slower deck, it's good.
I find this to be a half-truth, as I would say that, in the cases where you're playing against combo decks, Flame Rift wouldn't necessarily be bad, but won't surely be as easy to play, as it will then require the proper timing. Whatever happens, Flame Rift is still 4 damage for two mana, and addressing the recoil it has is just a matter of management - though it might not always be manageable.

Kind Regards,
jares

[jares]

Figure of Destiny is a polarizing card that defines whether you're Burn or Sligh. It's a pretty big tempo loss with a potential for a massive (well, in Sligh terms) beater, but it fits more into a Sligh mentality. A deck with a Burn mentality wouldn't run it, and go with the Hellspark Elementals of the world.

Note that I said Sligh/Burn mentality, not a Sligh/Burn deck. I've been playing Sligh since it's earliest forms (even wrote this primer (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?5166-Deck-Dryad-Sligh)), and the player's mentality goes a long way into defining the deck that you're playing as Burn or Sligh - even when you're running the same cards as another dude with the same 75 cards.
I find that running Figure of Destiny doesn't necessarily define whether the deck is Burn or Sligh (given that the deck that it's being considered for in this discussion has already been predefined as "Burn"), but it does open up an avenue/option/alternative for Burn to adapt to a Sligh-oriented line of play whenever the situation calls for it.

I liked that you pointed out that "Sligh" is a mentality more than anything - though, I would prefer to call it a "philosophy". One card, or one line of play doesn't make a deck "Sligh" - it's the philosophy that makes the deck (whether Burn or Sligh) the way it is. From time to time, Burn decks will be presented with the situation where a Sligh-oriented line of play would be best, and Sligh decks would also encounter situations where the Burn philosophy would be more beneficial. Either way, Burn will still be Burn, and Sligh will still be Sligh, and having the option to "borrow" lines of play from each other will certainly be a good thing.

Cheers,
jares

[DragoFireheart]

I just realized something that I feel that every Burn player should consider when playing in the current meta game - most of the Tier decks have a means of gaining life via their main deck:

Batterskull (Stoneblade)
Umezawa's Jitte (Stoneblade, etc.)
Scavenging Ooze (Maverick, Bant, Nic Fit)
Rhox War Monk (Bant)
Kitchen Finks (Nic Fit)

All the other Tier Decks (Sneak Show, Reanimator) are already difficult match-ups to begin with (except maybe for RUG Tempo), which means that, given these premises, the majority (if not the entirety) of the field is well-prepared to combat Burn.

Having said that, I believe that Sulfuric Vortex has become an excellent meta choice, and I've realized that I wouldn't compete in the current meta without it - I'll surely use at least [2x] in the main deck.

Cheers,
jares

I agree. Out of all of the things that cripple burn, lifegain is one of them. I have yet to see anything better than Sulfuric Vortex. 2 in the main, 1 in the side, drop the random shard volley, go up to 20 lands?

[jares]

I agree. Out of all of the things that cripple burn, lifegain is one of them. I have yet to see anything better than Sulfuric Vortex. 2 in the main, 1 in the side, drop the random shard volley, go up to 20 lands?
That sounds okay, but note that having 20 lands also concerns me, and I have been looking into going back to using Fetch Lands again (8x as of the moment) to address the deck-thinning issues, and also to fuel Grim Lavamancer.

Running Fetch Lands has recently been abandoned because of the emergence of RUG Tempo decks running Stifle, and also because losing additional life could also affect the mirror match. While these are indeed valid concerns, I've found that the following points suggest that it's much less of an issue than it really is:

The probability that the deck you'll be going against runs Stifle: Unknown/Variable
The probability that a deck running a full set of Stifle will have it in the opening hand: 39.95%
The probability that your opponent will be on the play: 50%
The probability that you'll draw a Fetch Land in your opening hand, given that you're running 8x in the deck: 65.36%
The probability that you won't draw a Mountain in your opening hand (alongside the possibility that a Fetch Land is also drawn): 19.06%
Considering all the above points, this is the probability that you'll have issues with Stifle: less than 2.49% (given that we still have unknowns/variables, which can only be expected to lessen the probabilities)

My calculations and considerations about Stifle might not be absolute, but the exploration of these details suggest that there is very little to be worried about when running Fetch Lands. As for the life loss, I expect to lose 1-2 life every game by running 8x Fetch Lands in the deck, and I find this to be a good bargain for being able to thin my deck of excess lands and fuel Grim Lavamancer in the process. The life loss will likely cause concerns in the mirror match, and this seems to me like it's the most weighted risk, one that I'm more than willing to take, as the mirror match is usually decided by whoever goes first anyway.

I'd be very interested to hear everyone's thoughts regarding these considerations.

Kind Regards,
jares

[RogueBuild]

You don't need to jump to 20 lands to include Vortex, even 3 of them, in the MD. I run a LOT more 3 drops than anyone else and I get mana flooded just as often as screwed at 1 or 2 which is normally a sign that the number of lands is good. Carefull use of Magma Jets normally keeps things running smoothly.

I've long been a pro-Vortex voice for the very reasons that so many top decks gain life. I also use the popularity of Jitt and Batterskulls, which gain life, supporting factors for including 2 Smashed to Smithereens MD. While I don't see the overall community coming around to that idea I guess I am not completely outside the norm now if everyone starts running 2-3 Vortexes MD.


I still don't exactly see when Flame Rift is going to be good?
Combo decks are faster and you tend to make it easier on them if you hit yourself for 4 damage.
Fast aggro decks tend to kill just as fast as Burn so unless you kill them that turn with it, and not yourself, you are just as likely to put yourself in range to be killed on their turn.
Slower playing control decks, do any of them not play life gain and/or heavy counters? The 1 spell they are likely to not counter is the 1 that also hits you.

The reason behind most people including Flame Rift is speed up the clock. It doesn't do that. The fastest we can win is turn 3 and that not only doesn't include using Flame Rift, just by the numbers, it CAN'T. That means the only rational reason to include it is for the purpose of throwing a big bomb once you run out of other spells in your hand. By that point in the game (turn 4+) you have an idea if the 4 damage you take is likely result in you losing the game or not. To cast it on turn 2, unless you just have NOTHING else to play has to be the worst possible time to play it. Burn is just not that fast where you can assume you can race people while also giving up 4 damage. And hate to say it, but Legacy is only getting faster and faster, but unless they print a spell like "R: 6 damage to target player or creature, (and I assume a drawback like) 4 damage to you" we will never get faster then turn 3 kill.

[Curby]

Hell, I never get a turn 3 kill anyway with all the opposing disruption, mulliganning, etc. When I run Flame Rift, it is indeed to speed up the clock. But the theoretical maximum isn't what matters to me. If I can go from a 4.5 turn average to a 4.3 turn average with Flame Rift, and if the card won't be a liability in a lot of my matchups, then I'll run it.

[jares]

You don't need to jump to 20 lands to include Vortex, even 3 of them, in the MD. I run a LOT more 3 drops than anyone else and I get mana flooded just as often as screwed at 1 or 2 which is normally a sign that the number of lands is good. Carefull use of Magma Jets normally keeps things running smoothly.
Going up to 20 lands is definitely not a requirement by any means, but it's a personal preference for me to increase the probability of opening with 2 lands in-hand, and to decrease the probability that I'll have a 3cc card but with only two lands in play. Magma Jet is indeed very helpful in these situations, but then again, it isn't a card that I would run either, for the reasons that have already been beaten to death. :tongue:


I still don't exactly see when Flame Rift is going to be good?

I believe that the discussion of this has already been beaten to death too. :confused:

Combo decks are faster and you tend to make it easier on them if you hit yourself for 4 damage.
Fast aggro decks tend to kill just as fast as Burn so unless you kill them that turn with it, and not yourself, you are just as likely to put yourself in range to be killed on their turn.
That is correct - dealing 4 damage to yourself will certainly make it easier for combo and aggro decks to finish you off, which is why, in these situations, Flame Rift needs to be played with caution and timing. For these cases, you will have to play Flame Rift on your fundamental turn, or if possible, on the turn where playing it would ensure a win.

The drawback of Flame Rift is as obvious as it can be, and we need not beat the dead horse about it.

What needs to be understood about Flame Rift is the simple fact that it progresses Burn's game plan very well as a direct-damage card that's cheap and powerful at the same time - Burn will never be able to get enough of the cards that fit this description.

For all other considerations about its drawback, it will boil down to a matter of preference (for people that prefer to be "safer"), play style (for those that choose to use these slots to play more of the "transient creatures" at our disposal), and/or a meta choice (for obvious reasons). Forgoing the use of Flame Rift isn't necessarily a wrong choice, because I could think of scenarios where it would be a good move. It should be noted, though, that using it has proven to be effective (both theoretically and practically), as evidenced by the recent success of Burn decks that have all been running it.

Slower playing control decks, do any of them not play life gain and/or heavy counters? The 1 spell they are likely to not counter is the 1 that also hits you.
This sounds like a good thing to me. :tongue:

Of all match-ups, the control match-up is the one where I would gladly trade my life total for dealing damage.

The reason behind most people including Flame Rift is speed up the clock.
I hope that that's not the only reason for doing so, because that would be a very shallow reason by itself. :frown:

Kind Regards,
jares

[RogueBuild]

you will have to play Flame Rift on your fundamental turn, or if possible, on the turn where playing it would ensure a win.

which is exactly why I don't like the card. The window where you can use it effectively/safely is too narrow and it has no other secondary use. As I see it there is no instance where playing it on turn 2 would be a good idea so that makes it a turn 3+ spell. In that case, if I'm going to hit me and you and have a decent chance of having 3 lands I would rather get something else out of it. This is why I run Flamebreak and Volcanic.

It really comes down to a different philosophy of Burn. We all agree that Burn can not race and win against combo. It is simply a fact. Unless they just get a crap draw or screw up all on their own they are just faster. Hell, some guy beat me 4 games in a row with him winning on T1. I never even drew in 2 of those games because I went 2nd. Re-Animator, unless you get you grave hate in your opening hand or drawn by turn 2 it will likely be too late. So when it comes to speed Burn is not a world class sprinter. Aggro decks tend to be 1 turn slower then us but a lot more consistent and many come pre-loaded with cheap counters or lifegain. They don't even have to counter anything or gain a single life, all that has to happen is we draw 1 too many lands and they overrun us. Speed wise they are even with us. These factors is why I don't play "brainless straight to the head" Burn. I accept the truth that I can't now, nor will I ever be, the fastest and play with that in mind. Play to the strengths of the deck concept. I feel as time goes on people will abandon the current philosophy or the deck as a whole because other decks are getting faster and faster and Burn has been stuck a best case god-draw of turn 3 kill for a very very long time and I don't see a 6 damage for 1 red spell coming any time soon.

[jares]

As I see it there is no instance where playing it on turn 2 would be a good idea so that makes it a turn 3+ spell. In that case, if I'm going to hit me and you and have a decent chance of having 3 lands I would rather get something else out of it. This is why I run Flamebreak and Volcanic.
This is an interesting take on things, which does makes sense, and will be one of those things that make each of our builds different. I remember that you're also not running Goblin Guide, which fits nicely with running Flamebreak (I personally would like to be able to play Flamebreak too, as I think that it's a really good card). I wish you luck with your build.

It really comes down to a different philosophy of Burn. We all agree that Burn can not race and win against combo. It is simply a fact. So when it comes to speed Burn is not a world class sprinter. These factors is why I don't play "brainless straight to the head" Burn. I accept the truth that I can't now, nor will I ever be, the fastest and play with that in mind. Play to the strengths of the deck concept. I feel as time goes on people will abandon the current philosophy or the deck as a whole because other decks are getting faster and faster and Burn has been stuck a best case god-draw of turn 3 kill for a very very long time and I don't see a 6 damage for 1 red spell coming any time soon.
I agree that people should indeed abandon playing "brainless, straight to the head Burn", and should gain more experience on the intricacies of when to pay attention to the board - this might actually be more difficult than one might expect, especially since the nature of Rift Bolt, Chain Lightning, and Fireblast make this a bit more difficult. This is also why I've always liked playing Grim Lavamancer, as this creature improves our options in addressing the board whenever necessary (amidst all the other things that this creature brings to the table).

I also agree that we should play to the "strengths of the deck concept" instead of diluting the deck with unnecessary preferences - unfortunately, being able to do this first requires an understanding of these concepts, something that doesn't seem to be too common anymore.

This is probably why Burn has always had the reputation of being a "noob deck", and the reality is that many of us are indeed under-prepared in building and piloting this deck because we might not be taking enough time to study it inside-out. Although the range of decisions that have to be made in the game isn't too wide for Burn, I find that this archetype permits one of the smallest margins of error when played in a competitive environment, and this is why we need to study the archetype - to be able to manage that small margin more efficiently.

As for what will happen to this archetype in the future, I prefer to always worry about the current meta, as that will always be the meta that we'll need to compete against.

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

As for what will happen to this archetype in the future, I prefer to always worry about the current meta, as that will always be the meta that we'll need to compete against.

Cheers,
jares

That is the KEY statement. You see my thoughts as referencing the future. I am saying I think we are at that point now. We know its coming. Aggro is already as fast as us and more consistent. Do we need them to be faster and winning on turn 3 before we adjust the philosophies? And I am not saying abandon the hopes for a turn 3 god hand kill or a turn 4 likely. I'ld say 85% of my wins still come on turn 4 or 5. The difference is I don't die on turn 5 or 6 from the army of creatures that got ignored as I hoped to kill you on turn 4 and drew a 4th land or got countered

[jares]

That is the KEY statement. You see my thoughts as referencing the future. I am saying I think we are at that point now.
I'm sorry, but I reviewed your latest posts, and I was unable to find the KEY statement that you're referring to. May I request for you to clearly state what you're trying to suggest here?

I'ld say 85% of my wins still come on turn 4 or 5. The difference is I don't die on turn 5 or 6 from the army of creatures that got ignored as I hoped to kill you on turn 4 and drew a 4th land or got countered
Same here. I don't see the difference that you're referring to.

Regards,
jares

[RogueBuild]

I said people would either abandon the current all to the head philosophy (which is to basicly aim for the head and ignore everything else and hope you hit 20 damage before they kill you with creatures or gain life) or abandon the deck as a whole.

You responded with "what will happen to this archetype in the future..." as to say the need to reconsider the philosophy of the deck might come about sometime later. And I think we are clearly at a point where due to the speed of non-combo decks we should adjust the game plan now and build with a turns 5, 6 and 7+ in mind. That's why my deck is the way it is.

[JDK]

Before cutting Flame Rifts, you should keep in mind, that people still play Leyline of Sanctity.

[RogueBuild]

If you where to go back to my build, which was posted about 9 or 10 pages ago I think, you would see I run plenty of things to get me around a Leyline as well as a CotV set to 1, and if I take my time I can get around Counterbalance. And my SB makes it even easier.

[gatherer]

Tournament Report. Stop reading if you hate Flame Rift.

Anyways last night I played the Burn list in my last deck post. Of course with it being exam season at the university we were lucky to have 8 people out.

First matchup: 9 land stompy.

Game 1: I take it down with his Ghazban Ogre. I was on the play and I went turn 1 goblin guide. He went turn 1 Ghazban Ogre, Rogue elephant. I then on turn 2 attacked and he decided to take it. I kill the rogue elephant and on his turn the ogre is mine. no looking back from this I win.

In 3 Pyrostatic Pillars Out: 3 Price of Progress

Game 2: I have burn. no creatures in hand. in the game I had to start directing burn at creatures to stay alive. I did get him down to 6 however when the critical turn occurs and he knocks me down to 6. I rip a flame rift off the top I now have a hand of 3 flame rift and 1 fireblast. I have 3 lands in play and at 2 life I win the game.

flame rift is great, being able to end a game with a fireblast/flame rift combination of cards when the opponent thinks they are stable at 5 to 8 life.

For the record I onl,y really like to play omne flame rift in a game.

Also the guy playing 9 land stompy is new to legacy. I like 9 land stompy it was the first legacy deck I put together.

Anyways moving on: Round 2: Nic Fit

Game 1: I do 20 damage not much to write home about here.

In: 2 Sulfuric Vortex Out: 1 Flame rift and 1 Lava spike ( I still don't know how to sideboard this deck) I was trying things out at this point and I didn't see much of his deck other then kitchen Finks game 1 I wasn't sure if he was Rock or Nic fit.

Game 2: Sulfuric Vortex starts the metronome and I get it swinging faster with extra burn. I win. Seemed easy. This player is always very good and can be difficult to win against.

Round 3: my Friend playing ANT. or TES. anyways it is Storm. We split. then we play.

Game 1: He gets me while he was at 2. and me without an instant (with a land untapped

In 2 Sulfuric Vortex 3 Pyrostatic Pillar Out: 4 Keldon Marauders 1 Lava Spike (this was a mistake Keldon Marauders would have been better to have since he has no creatures unless he plays a empty the warrens

Game 2: He gets 12 goblins and while I delay things with my goblin guide I come up short. Ohh well at least I split.

Anyways I will post my deck list again later and I think I want to build a sideboarding play so it is robotic.

[jares]

I said people would either abandon the current all to the head philosophy (which is to basicly aim for the head and ignore everything else and hope you hit 20 damage before they kill you with creatures or gain life) or abandon the deck as a whole.
I have already responded to your comment above using the following notes which you might have overlooked:

I agree that people should indeed abandon playing "brainless, straight to the head Burn", and should gain more experience on the intricacies of when to pay attention to the board - this might actually be more difficult than one might expect, especially since the nature of Rift Bolt, Chain Lightning, and Fireblast make this a bit more difficult. This is also why I've always liked playing Grim Lavamancer, as this creature improves our options in addressing the board whenever necessary (amidst all the other things that this creature brings to the table).
I also agree that we should play to the "strengths of the deck concept" instead of diluting the deck with unnecessary preferences - unfortunately, being able to do this first requires an understanding of these concepts, something that doesn't seem to be too common anymore.

If you would notice, we both agree that people should abandon the "all to the head philosophy", because it's simply foolish to pretend that the board does not exist.

To add to that, I would suggest that the individuals who believe that Burn is strictly about "all to the head" should gain more experience with winning (or losing) with the deck to be able to understand its subtle intricacies. I've previously noted that this deck is one that "permits one of the smallest margins of error", and unfortunately, some things are best learned through experience. For additional information, kindly refer to the following comment:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?7811-DTB-Burn&p=631219&viewfull=1#post631219


You responded with "what will happen to this archetype in the future..." as to say the need to reconsider the philosophy of the deck might come about sometime later. And I think we are clearly at a point where due to the speed of non-combo decks we should adjust the game plan now and build with a turns 5, 6 and 7+ in mind. That's why my deck is the way it is.
From what I gather, you are trying to state the following:

"due to the speed of non-combo decks we should adjust the game plan now and build with a turns 5, 6 and 7+ in mind"

Based on the comments that you've provided so far, a concrete basis for your statements have not been presented, and thus, I am unable to determine whether or not I would agree with you. At the end of the day, though, you are entitled to your opinion, and I will respect that opinion if it works for you.

I would like to point out the following, though, because these might have become too obvious that we've become unable to appreciate these points:

Burn is in the DTB section because of its success against the current meta.
Most, if not all, the Burn configurations that been successful in the current meta use the Burn Core, as shown below:

Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Lava Spike
Rift Bolt
Fireblast
Price of Progress
Goblin Guide
Flame Rift (note that, for now, I personally consider this card to be part of the Core, as evidenced by its frequent use in successful Burn builds)

NONE of the Burn lists that have had notable success were built similarly to your suggested build. This is not to say that your build isn't okay; this is to simply state this observable fact.
Personally, this is the first time that I've seen Burn in the DTB section (given that I've only been browsing through this forum for about 2 years now), and it looks to me like the meta is more ripe than ever for Burn's success (which has already happened).

I simply wish to present the facts, and it will still be up to you to interpret these details as you see fit, as we are all entitled to our opinion.

Regards,
jares

[jares]

If you where to go back to my build, which was posted about 9 or 10 pages ago I think, you would see I run plenty of things to get me around a Leyline as well as a CotV set to 1, and if I take my time I can get around Counterbalance. And my SB makes it even easier.
Good for you. Your build surely won't benefit from Flame Rift as well as the Burn Core does from it, so it's really a no-brainer for you to forgo playing it. Your build is indeed better-off playing Flamebreak, by far.

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

From what I gather, you are trying to state the following:

"due to the speed of non-combo decks we should adjust the game plan now and build with a turns 5, 6 and 7+ in mind"

Based on the comments that you've provided so far, a concrete basis for your statements have not been presented, and thus, I am unable to determine whether or not I would agree with you. At the end of the day, though, you are entitled to your opinion, and I will respect that opinion if it works for you.

Ok, some facts to show how the rest of the MTG world has sped up and we have been at the same point since. Fireblast, which is the card that made a turn 3 kill 1st possible has been around since Visions in 1997. A turn 3 win at this point in time was HUGE. Keep in mind, there was no combo yet. No Storm, no Urza's Saga printing Memory Jar or Time Spiral. Yes, Visions did give birth to the 1st true combo deck, Pros/Bloom but that deck had to be build 1st and by small groups of people all over because we didn't have the internet in every home to get everyone around the world to help out. Fireblast was a quick replacement for a deck that had always been around. Since Visions no card has been printed that allows us a faster possible clock, only cards that make that turn 3-4 kill more likely. Tempest, later in 1997, gives us Mogg Fanatic (a mainstay for the deck until the rule change a few years ago). Stronghold and Exodus, both in 1998, give us Shock (only now deemed unworthy since we have Lava Spike and Rift Bolt) and PoP. Flame Rift is printed in 2000, Lava Spike in 2004, and Rift Bolt not until 2006 with Time Spiral. Rift Bolt and Lava Spike being the 2 most important spells in that since since Fireblast as they are the only 2 that make a turn 3 win more likely (note: all of these spells speed up the clock make a turn 4 win more likely). So what you see over the last 15 years is a core deck that, while the card names have changed Shock-> Lava Spike, Incinerate -> Rift Bolt, Mogg Fanatic->
Hellspark, Keldon or GGuide, a turn 3 win is still the fastest and the average win of turn 4/5 is still much more likely.

Meanwhile in the world of Aggro decks that used to hope to win by turns 6-9 can now win on turns 4-6 thanks to cards like Goyf, Delver, TombStalker, Dredge/Bridge from Below, Steppe Lynx, and an entire deck worth of goblins, just to name a few. And most of them have only been printed or made useful by other cards being printed in the last 5-6 years. Until the last few years only Combo, Affinity and Goblins had had the kind of kind of explosive kills that Burn has been capable of since 1997.

And Control? Aside from Stax and the extremely rare and equally annoying Stasis deck played once every few months by the guy no body like at your local tourney, control today has the kind of clock Aggro had 5 or 6 years ago. They plan to win before turn 10. If you haven't been playing for at lest 8 years you don't likely know that even in Legacy things used to be a lot slower.

Even when Burn still played Shock, Incinerate, and an X-Spell or 2 the likelihood you could race someone was much more in the Burn player's favor then it is now. Sure, our spells have made our damage more consistent, but our overall target of turn 4 is still the same as it has been for 15 years. Meanwhile Combo is faster (which didn't exist 15 years ago), Aggro has cut its expected kill turn almost in half to be neck and neck with us and Control of today is more like Aggro of 8 years ago.

We are no longer college level sprinters racing 4th graders. They all grew up and got faster and are continuing to do so. Magic is not a game about running a fair race, its a game about taking advantage of over powered/broken cards, cheating massive creatures into play, or playing a game by yourself for 5 mins and then letting the other play know when they died (my basic view of combo). There is NOTHING in burn that is even close to being broken or even overpowered. Many of the cards are even viewed as under powered. The only option for Burn is to trip them.

[jares]

We are no longer college level sprinters racing 4th graders. They all grew up and got faster and are continuing to do so. Magic is not a game about running a fair race, its a game about taking advantage of over powered/broken cards, cheating massive creatures into play, or playing a game by yourself for 5 mins and then letting the other play know when they died (my basic view of combo). There is NOTHING in burn that is even close to being broken or even overpowered. Many of the cards are even viewed as under powered. The only option for Burn is to trip them.
That was a very useful history lesson, and assuming that all the details that you've provided is accurate, that also seems to be a very good observation. Having noted all this information, I'm now wondering about how you would you relate all that to the details that I've noted previously; shown below are the said details:

Burn is in the DTB section because of its success against the current meta.
Most, if not all, the Burn configurations that been successful in the current meta use the Burn Core, as shown below:

Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Lava Spike
Rift Bolt
Fireblast
Price of Progress
Goblin Guide
Flame Rift (note that, for now, I personally consider this card to be part of the Core, as evidenced by its frequent use in successful Burn builds)

NONE of the Burn lists that have had notable success were built similarly to your suggested build. This is not to say that your build isn't okay; this is to simply state this observable fact.
Personally, this is the first time that I've seen Burn in the DTB section (given that I've only been browsing through this forum for about 2 years now), and it looks to me like the meta is more ripe than ever for Burn's success (which has already happened).

I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of these facts in relation to the information that you've discussed just now.

Regards,
jares

[JDK]

If you where to go back to my build, which was posted about 9 or 10 pages ago I think, you would see I run plenty of things to get me around a Leyline as well as a CotV set to 1, and if I take my time I can get around Counterbalance. And my SB makes it even easier.

I don't see as much Chalices as I see Leylines but even if it would be a significant meta factor, there are plenty of options why you don't have to scoop with an ordinary Burn built:

Flame Rift
Keldon Marauders
Hellspark Elemental
Rift Bolt
Price of Progress
Fireblast
Barbarian Ring


I'd rather have a faster clock in most matchups than to built a slower deck just to have an advantage in a few. Of course, if your metagame is really that special, your way might be the better choice.

[RogueBuild]

Burn is in the DTB section because of its success against the current meta.
Most, if not all, the Burn configurations that been successful in the current meta use the Burn Core, as shown below:
[LIST]
Lightning Bolt
Chain Lightning
Lava Spike
Rift Bolt
Fireblast
Price of Progress
Goblin Guide
Flame Rift (note that, for now, I personally consider this card to be part of the Core, as evidenced by its frequent use in successful Burn builds)


The Core of the deck, other then Flame Rift is not the problem as I see it. My only issue with GG is that I suggest running sweepers MD and SB and as a result would kill it myself. If you wanted to run it for a turn 1 play know your might kill it yourself on turn 3 or 4 I wouldn't argue against it. Even Lava Spike, which I dislike as it is too narrow for my taste, I have started running as a 3 of and then side out against almost everything except combo.



NONE of the Burn lists that have had notable success were built similarly to your suggested build. This is not to say that your build isn't okay; this is to simply state this observable fact.

A few notes on that:
1) There are variations and we see them in the listings but since we don't see the matches themselves we are left to guess at how a card worked out. A few pages back I was asking why FOD and not Kargan Dragonlord. Based on the discussion of a page or 2 ago it sounds like not only is FoD really not worth playing but if anything my theory on Kargan Dragonlord might have been true. Not that I like either in Burn but if I was going to play 1 it would have been Kargan Dragonlord. So the question is was FoD really important to how that deck placed well? or was it a Deck that placed well that just happen to have FoD in 2 slots that could just as well been Shock? Flamebreak? Smashed to Smithereens? or Grizzle Bears? I promise you, you take a deck, any deck, to a big tourney event, place top 8 with it and it will be copied card for card without question for your card choice and even if you no longer agree with all of the card choices.

2) Once a specific deck build places well the number of people running that exact deck increases. No one had ever seen or heard of Fruity Pebbles until it won a big tourney. That next week it was in local store all over country. Increase the number of people playing a deck and you increase the likelihood of one of them do well with it and continuing the avalanche effect. A lot of bad players doesn't help, you need good players playing it, but there are a lot of good players out there that couldn't build a deck of their own to save their lives. Lots of good players copy decks too.

3) The vast majority of players in today's magic decide on what deck to play based on what they see online (what they have the cards to build) or what they say do well at the last store tourney (again, based on what they have the cards to build). Long gone are the days of walking into a tourney of 20 people and seeing 20 completely different decks. And this is a format with the 2nd largest selection of cards. We see people talking all the time about "I played that person's list that came in top 8 at that event". It is 1 thing to test cards and build but the amount of number of players that truly independently do deck design are few and far between. So it should be no shock that so many decks that win look the same, +/- 4-6 cards.

All that being said there is only one way to get an accurate test of how 1 version plays out verse another version and that would be to have a group of people play both extensively and compare. You can't have just 1 person do it because a personal style of play would impact how you choose to play. Can't have 2 people, 1 playing each, for the same reason. And the test would need to be extensive, long enough to let the players get a solid feel for both versions strengths and weaknesses. Oh, and you cant have the designers do the testing. It would need to be a blind test.

1 Last important note. There really is no such thing as an "optimal" build for any deck other then combo decks because aside from combo we are not playing a game by ourselves. We are forced to interact with the other player. CabalTherapy said a while back to "stop thinking about sub-optimal and unplayable cards" but players have a tendency to define what is playable and not very narrowly, often without solid testing and almost never are they willing to reconsider later. Burn has had the same philosophy since the creation of Magic and only now is that really being tested. A mindset that old is not easy to break.

[RogueBuild]

Oh Gatherer,
the 1 match in that report that you won with a Flame Rift + Fireblast you could have won with a Shock and a Fireblast. Killing someone with something doesn't make it good. I won with a Mesa Pegasus (the card, not a token) once. Does that make it good?

Not to mention he was playing what sounds like a very old school green stompy based on Ghazban Ogre and Rogue elephant. You should have an advantage if for no other reason then it sounds like his newest cards were 15+ years old.

[jares]

The Core of the deck, other then Flame Rift is not the problem as I see it. My only issue with GG is that I suggest running sweepers MD and SB and as a result would kill it myself. If you wanted to run it for a turn 1 play know your might kill it yourself on turn 3 or 4 I wouldn't argue against it. Even Lava Spike, which I dislike as it is too narrow for my taste, I have started running as a 3 of and then side out against almost everything except combo.



A few notes on that:
1) There are variations and we see them in the listings but since we don't see the matches themselves we are left to guess at how a card worked out. A few pages back I was asking why FOD and not Kargan Dragonlord. Based on the discussion of a page or 2 ago it sounds like not only is FoD really not worth playing but if anything my theory on Kargan Dragonlord might have been true. Not that I like either in Burn but if I was going to play 1 it would have been Kargan Dragonlord. So the question is was FoD really important to how that deck placed well? or was it a Deck that placed well that just happen to have FoD in 2 slots that could just as well been Shock? Flamebreak? Smashed to Smithereens? or Grizzle Bears? I promise you, you take a deck, any deck, to a big tourney event, place top 8 with it and it will be copied card for card without question for your card choice and even if you no longer agree with all of the card choices.

2) Once a specific deck build places well the number of people running that exact deck increases. No one had ever seen or heard of Fruity Pebbles until it won a big tourney. That next week it was in local store all over country. Increase the number of people playing a deck and you increase the likelihood of one of them do well with it and continuing the avalanche effect. A lot of bad players doesn't help, you need good players playing it, but there are a lot of good players out there that couldn't build a deck of their own to save their lives. Lots of good players copy decks too.

3) The vast majority of players in today's magic decide on what deck to play based on what they see online (what they have the cards to build) or what they say do well at the last store tourney (again, based on what they have the cards to build). Long gone are the days of walking into a tourney of 20 people and seeing 20 completely different decks. And this is a format with the 2nd largest selection of cards. We see people talking all the time about "I played that person's list that came in top 8 at that event". It is 1 thing to test cards and build but the amount of number of players that truly independently do deck design are few and far between. So it should be no shock that so many decks that win look the same, +/- 4-6 cards.

All that being said there is only one way to get an accurate test of how 1 version plays out verse another version and that would be to have a group of people play both extensively and compare. You can't have just 1 person do it because a personal style of play would impact how you choose to play. Can't have 2 people, 1 playing each, for the same reason. And the test would need to be extensive, long enough to let the players get a solid feel for both versions strengths and weaknesses. Oh, and you cant have the designers do the testing. It would need to be a blind test.

1 Last important note. There really is no such thing as an "optimal" build for any deck other then combo decks because aside from combo we are not playing a game by ourselves. We are forced to interact with the other player. CabalTherapy said a while back to "stop thinking about sub-optimal and unplayable cards" but players have a tendency to define what is playable and not very narrowly, often without solid testing and almost never are they willing to reconsider later. Burn has had the same philosophy since the creation of Magic and only now is that really being tested. A mindset that old is not easy to break.
That's a lot of text. :eek:

As much as a lot of valuable points are noted here, I don't see my questions being answered by the notes above, and I find that all the peripheral information only blurs this discussion further. Maybe we can try to make it simple by briefly addressing the following requests:

May we request you to state your entire point in one complete sentence?
Given the recent success of Burn and its inclusion in the DTB section, would you say that the deck is able to address the current meta such that it's able to perform well (answerable only by a Yes or a No)?

I hope that helps. So many points have already been thrown around that the value of this discussion is no longer helpful. I'll be looking forward to the simplification of this dialogue.

Regards,
jares

[RogueBuild]

Given the recent success of Burn and its inclusion in the DTB section, would you say that the deck is able to address the current meta such that it's able to perform well (answerable only by a Yes or a No)?
[/LIST]


1 word? ummmm.... YO (yes and no)

**note: I had written a much longer explanation as to why but asked for a 1 word answer so I gave you that and a short "few" sentences I can elaborate on later if needed**

Biggest factors to allowing Burn to break into being a DTB where it hasn't been before?

1) no other mono Red or primarily R/x/x decks out there. No Goblins means no Chill in SBs for example.

2) Lack of discard in top decks

3) other then FoW there are no commonly played hard counters that don't have a restriction on targeting.

that being said of the other DTB 2 are combo"ish" and there is little we can do to stop them. The others all have various combinations of fast clocks, life gain, and counters. Any combo of which is trouble. Yes Burn has reached new heights but given the lack of any real meaningful changes in the deck in years, as someone who studied statistics I can tell you, you will see flier points, a brief "blip" n the screen. My point since we made it into the DTB has been "if we want to stay here we need to be prepared to change our thinking."


Now if you look at the DTB you have 2 combo"ish" that there is little we can do about, a mirror which how you approach depends on how you build Burn, but the other 5 are all weak to sweepers and most have targets for Smashed to Smithereens. This is really where my deck diverts from mainstream Burn.

[jares]

1 word? ummmm.... YO (yes and no)
Unfortunately, your answer doesn't help us at all. Also, in this case, Yes and No are mutually exclusive - you're either performing well against the meta (winning), or you're not (losing) - competitively speaking, you can't win and lose at the same time, because someone has to win (thus, someone also has to lose).

Much has already been stated regarding the facts about how Burn is currently faring, and I no longer wish to go in circles regarding this inquiry, as the answer to this is already obvious. Let's just let the facts speak for themselves.

Biggest factors to allowing Burn to break into being a DTB where it hasn't been before?

1) no other mono Red or primarily R/x/x decks out there. No Goblins means no Chill in SBs for example.

2) Lack of discard in top decks

3) other then FoW there are no commonly played hard counters that don't have a restriction on targeting.
Good to know. We can add these to the list of facts that support the obvious conclusion.

My point since we made it into the DTB has been "if we want to stay here we need to be prepared to change our thinking."
I agree - we should, in fact, be prepared to change our thinking whenever necessary. To add to that, we should also know when to resist change. In summary, we'll have to go back to square one - we'll always have to address the meta for what it really is.

Now if you look at the DTB you have 2 combo"ish" that there is little we can do about, a mirror which how you approach depends on how you build Burn, but the other 5 are all weak to sweepers and most have targets for Smashed to Smithereens. This is really where my deck diverts from mainstream Burn.
I can see that we've already agreed on what the general Burn Core is, and I'm glad that this idea is already nearing a consensus. As for the rest of the "open" slots, I believe that it has already been noted that this is the space where each our configurations would differ.

It's good to know that there still are some that actually go through the troubles of testing the way that I try to do, and while our configurations are somewhat different (my preferred build has also gone against popular wisdom by running Fetch Lands again, among other differences), I agree that there is not one configuration that should be "crowned" as the only configuration that will work - otherwise, it should all be so obvious that we won't even need to discuss anything.

At the end of the day, our differences will likely persist, and we each have to ensure that the reasons for why we stay different are chosen wisely. I wish you luck with your build.

Cheers,
jares

[RogueBuild]

Its really not that simple a question. The way most people currently play Burn, trying to race I think is a 55/45 at best and becoming a more and more losing plan every day. Burn does however have access to cards that most people do not play that would greatly improve their chance against a large number of the DTB. So yes, Burn has the ability to IMPROVE it's overall ranking taking a bigger piece of the top 8 pie, but in my view it can only do that IF people stop trying to race to 20 damage because that is a losing fight. Otherwise we are just here in the DTB until Zoo, Goblins, ANT or whatever kicks us out.

[JDK]

Yep, you better start putting some combo pieces into your deck, because "20 to the head, asap" is "a losing fight".

Seriously, you want to address the weakness of the deck by significantly slowing it down and therefor exposing the deck to other threats? Why not play UR?

[RogueBuild]

It is a losing fight, much like trying to explain to you why it is.

You don't even have to read 112 pages of this thread to know that Burn has been shooting for a turn 3 or 4 kill for 15 years while every generation of decks we face get faster and are now on our heels AND they don't suffer from running out of gas they way we do. Never mind that there are combo deck that can go off on turns 1 and 2. And nothing about the differences between my build or the more conventional Burn build slows it down.

Like I said above the game plan for Burn has been set in stone since the 1st Burn decks, longer then the 15 years since Fireblast was printed. I really don't expect any of the more close-minded among us to see things differently until someone wins with a deck running something different.

[JDK]

If being closed-minded means I don't want to switch Burn with a different strategy and still call it Burn, I am indeed closed-minded.

If you don't like the game plan, Burn is the wrong deck for you then. As I said, why don't you play URx Delver/Sligh?

Plus, Burn currently works. It wouldn't be listed as a DtB if it didn't.

[RogueBuild]

H3llsp4wn,

Clearly you haven't looked at my build so please don't comment until you at lest do that. Once you do you will find strategy is the same. My card selection differs in that it provides me more options in the event my opponent gains more then 2 life, counters a spell, plays a CotV at 1 on turn 1, or I draw a 4th land. All common things that could lead to a loss against another deck. We have had a rather well thought out conversation among people who at lest look at the decks they are talking about and often even tested them before posting. So please do your homework before opening your mouth and making anymore of a fool of yourself.

[Snap_Keep]

Hello all

Burn was my first legacy deck and I still sleeve it from time to time for cheap laughs. I believe Goblin Guide and Hellsparks are excellent in burn, but Grim Lavamancers and Figures of Destiny are too slow and don't focus on ending the game quickly enough. Flame Rift is an auto include for me as our deck smashes the supposed equality of the card. Here is my list... it is very standard.

4 bolt
4 chain
4 rift bolt
4 lava spike
4 flame rift
4 price of progress
4 fireblast
3 flames of the bloodhand

4 goblin guide
4 hellspark elemental
3 keldon marauders

2 barbarian ring
16 mountain

sb

3 sulfiric vortex
2 reb
3 pyroblast
3 chaos warp
4 smash to smithereens

-

I really like Marauders, even if they get in for 2 and force a trade then I'm happy because it clears the path for Hellsparks and Guides. Every time marauders does 5 you're coming out ahead. The second unconventional choice is the 3 md FotBH. This card has been excellent for me, remember it's an instant. Being able to shut off BS for a turn in g1 is the difference between winning and losing, we all know this. I like FotBH also because knowing you can turn off BS means not having to waste bolts on SFM like you would have to do otherwise.

Good discussion so far guys! Some cool lists and innovation, just don't innovate so much that you detract from the core strategy, which is blowing up the other guy s quickly as possible :cool:

[RogueBuild]

I would advise using Flame Javelin over Flames of the Bloodhand. FJ hits either player or creature and is impossible to counter balance. And your going to use Vortex to prevent life gain anyway.

[Snap_Keep]

CB is not a concern for me as it is only seeing play in some RUG sbs. And if I expect CB I have several blasts to counter it (probably won't be able to blow up CB with a blast though once it's online...) And I would also bring in Chaos Warps in that MU if I expected CB/Top.

Being able to target creatures is moot. FotBH denies BS it's most important function in this MU, and since lifegain is our biggest enemy g1 I feel like FotBH is a stronger choice.

What deck were you thinking of that could CB/Top a 3 drop? Traditional CB or Thopter/CB might be able to, but those decks are not seeing play.

[RogueBuild]

I've seen people CB 3-drops with Vendilion Clique a few times and a Crus of World once or twice. I'm sure I've seen some other 3 drops topped but those were the most common.

But the more important thing is to be prepared for the unexpected. You lose nothing by play Flame Javelin over Flames of the Bloodhand and gain flexibility. If you are that worried about life gain, which you should be, Vortex is far and above the better answer.

[Kich867]

Yep, you better start putting some combo pieces into your deck, because "20 to the head, asap" is "a losing fight".

Seriously, you want to address the weakness of the deck by significantly slowing it down and therefor exposing the deck to other threats? Why not play UR?

It's a losing fight because in the realm of combo, burn is extraordinarily slow. Pyrostatic Pillar isn't a terrible idea as honestly, if you drop that on turn 2 and they hesitate for a turn, an untap should guarantee you the win.

Coupled with the fact that burn almost fundamentally can't win on turn 3 like most other sligh decks can (why are you referencing UR delver here? The deck is a turn faster than Burn, Burn is the slower version of UR..), I agree that accepting that fact and slowing the deck down against decks that it obviously can't race is a good thing. However, often times TES and ANT require life in order to go off, so domeing them for 9 on turn 2 -can- win you the game after an ANT, especially given they can't get anywhere near 4 life because they need to play around fireblast.

Against High-tide, pyrostatic pillar will win you games. If they want to get rid of it, they'll likely have to cunning wish for a bounce, except they probably need to either spend 2 turns doing it or high-tide, dig for wish, wish, then play the bounce--it's entirely possible for them to die before getting there or spend so many resources removing it they can't combo off again.

You have some maindeck answers to dredge in hellspark elemental (spark elemental's inclusion would help this out a little bit).

I think, realistically, the hardest deck to race will be UW stoneforge, if they keep a counter-heavy hand, Spell Pierce, Spell Snare, Force, and Mana Leak/Counterspell are going to stop 2-3 burns and that's 2-3 turns you'll have to wait.

I'm not ecstatic about Rogue's build, some of the card choices feel suboptimal (for instance, if you're using Flame Javelin as a burn that's unlikely to be countered, you might as well run Urza's Rage to just make it uncounterable, same mana cost, 1 less damage, but won't be stopped). Dead and gone doesn't look very exciting, it's flexible but you shouldn't be needing it.

I feel like Burn just needs card selection, you should be dumping your hand and then going into top-deck mode, but going into top-deck mode you have no idea whether you're drawing business or not. Sensei's Divining Top would go a long way to remedy this. It wouldn't* likely slow you down by more than a turn if that, you're filtering your draws very hard with it--Jares already runs fetches, which interact in an insanely positive way with Top, being able to peek three, ditch it, then peek 3 again if you're out of gas.

I mean, Burn needs to land 7 bolt effects in order to win right, the likelihood that you have 5 bolts + 2 lands and draw into 2 more bolt effects and a land over the next 3 turns is not very likely. You run too many creatures and too many 2+ mana cards like Flame Rift for that to be a realistic sequence of opening hands + draws.

A good control deck will counter 1-2 of those burns and set you back that many turns, people need to consider the fact that the number of burns required to kill the opponent after your opening hand (mulling can set you back at least one turn per mull) is the number of turns it will take past turn 4 to kill the opponent. Burning everything you have turns 2 and 3, then winning on turn 4 with a single top decked burn, is no different than dropping top turn 1, bolting and spinning turn 2, then spending turns 3 and 4 dumping everything you have after you've rearranged your next 3 turns with optimal draws / fetched away poor draws and still winning turn 4 anyways.

Most burn lists look like they're aiming to do something that they can't do, which is win on turn 3, the only way I see this realistically happening is if Goblin Guide is dropped turn 1 and gets 3 swings in, otherwise, you'll have them close to being dead but not really. And now you're spent on turn 4 with mana open, when something like Top would allow you to spend that mana earlier to ensure that you're actually drawing into useful cards as you run out of gas.

[RogueBuild]

I should post the current version of my deck but that will have to wait, but Dead//Gone has been Gone a long time now. I decided as much as I like being able to bounce that Goyf, it only came back next turn and in at lest a few games if Dead/Gone had been a Burn spell I would have won then. An early Goyf can still be a big problem. It means you cant afford to draw 1 too many lands. But that 1 extra damage from Flame Javelin is worth it over Urza's Rage. Other then FoW Flame Javelin is almost uncounterable because of its converted casting cost. CB won't hit it, Daze and Snare can be played around, it is not a 2-drop spell so no Pierce, and no one seems to play Counter Spell anymore. Also, Flame Javelin will often kill a Goyf if you really need it to.

As far as the Top goes, I just have never had any luck with it. Always seemed a waste to spin it. Maybe to make it work you need more then 4 fetchlands, which I am not a fan of in Burn, but that was the feeling I got from it.

[Kich867]

I should post the current version of my deck but that will have to wait, but Dead//Gone has been Gone a long time now. I decided as much as I like being able to bounce that Goyf, it only came back next turn and in at lest a few games if Dead/Gone had been a Burn spell I would have won then. An early Goyf can still be a big problem. It means you cant afford to draw 1 too many lands. But that 1 extra damage from Flame Javelin is worth it over Urza's Rage. Other then FoW Flame Javelin is almost uncounterable because of its converted casting cost. CB won't hit it, Daze and Snare can be played around, it is not a 2-drop spell so no Pierce, and no one seems to play Counter Spell anymore. Also, Flame Javelin will often kill a Goyf if you really need it to.

As far as the Top goes, I just have never had any luck with it. Always seemed a waste to spin it. Maybe to make it work you need more then 4 fetchlands, which I am not a fan of in Burn, but that was the feeling I got from it.

Where do you play where being CMC 3 makes it nearly uncounterable outside of FOW?

Spell pierce, mana leak, counterspell, force, daze..they all easily counter that spell.

At what point, while playing burn, are you at 5-6 land in a deck that should be running 17-18? I also just proved to you that sensei's divining top doesn't actually slow you down.

Let's just say that hypothetically, since it's somewhat ideal, you hit your first 3 land drops and miss the fourth because you're playing burn and you don't want 4 lands (unless you have double fireblast, which is awful, jares said something about this being not that bad which I'll address after I guess).

So you have a total of 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 = 9 mana available to you. Given that you require some combination of 6-7 burns, be it 6 bolts and a fireblast (I'm ignoring price of progress since it's damage is so variable) or 4 bolts and a flame rift and a fireblast (probably one of the more likely events).

Turn 1: Top, 1 mana. 1 Total
Turn 2: Bolt + top, 2 mana. 3 Total
Turn 3: Bolt + Bolt + Top, 3 mana // Flame Rift + Top, 3 mana 6 Total
Turn 4: Bolt + Bolt + Bolt + Fireblast, 3 mana // Bolt + Bolt + Bolt + Fireblast, 3 mana // Flame Rift + Bolt + Fireblast, 3 mana. 9 Total

All of those scenarios allow you to both play and spin top to it's most effectiveness and still win on turn 4--the turn you're winning on most (should be almost all) of the times anyways.

--

In regards to double fireblast, I don't see how this is ever ideal. In order for the second fireblast to even deal damage, you also require a fourth land, which means you occupy 2 cards to deal 4 damage--this sounds terrible. Almost every other combination of 2 cards in the deck deal at least 6 damage. If, on your turn 4, that fireblast and land were a flame rift and a bolt, or a bolt and a bolt, or a marauder and a bolt, etc... you'd be dealing more damage, dispersed over the same number of cards, so clutch counterspells will be less likely to stop the overall damage. I would rather someone counter my bolt and be forced to let the flame rift / bolt resolve than sacrifice two lands and eat a counter to the face and lose the game.

[RogueBuild]

Oh, and StoneForge is by far not the hardest match for me, in fact I would say its no harder then Mav or Nic Fit.

The hardest match-up for me has always been Sneak Attack/Show n Tell. Doesn't matter how many games I play nothing short of an 8 card SB seems to make it winable and even then its not very likely. Best to just keep a solid SB for other things and hope you don't see this deck.

[Kich867]

Oh, and StoneForge is by far not the hardest match for me, in fact I would say its no harder then Mav or Nic Fit.

The hardest match-up for me has always been Sneak Attack/Show n Tell. Doesn't matter how many games I play nothing short of an 8 card SB seems to make it winable and even then its not very likely. Best to just keep a solid SB for other things and hope you don't see this deck.

I genuinely don't see how stoneforge could possibly be on par with Maverick or Nic Fit, as those two decks don't have the greatest burn matchups (though a lot of nic fit players are now boarding duress for the combo matchup, which happens to be pretty damn good against burn when you open something like cabal therapy, flash it back, duress). Maverick doesn't win quickly, it nearly can't in fact. A nic fit player who doesn't keep a discard heavy hand should get blown out before they can deal with it, unless they draw into some serious nuts and have veteren explorer / tower / GSZ in hand for the finks.

Inarguably, they run a lot of very cheap / free countermagic. Every counterspell that hits your burns sets you back another turn as burn has no persistent threats that aren't easily dealt with.

Even with a decent Stoneblade hand, you're going to run into something that looks like: Spell pierce > stoneforge for batterskull > snapcaster for Spell Pierce / batterskull cheated in eot. This should eat up 2-3 burns, pushing your win back to at least turn 5, but probably turn 6 or 7 as they begin to stabilize (at which point, Top will help you find your maindeck vortexes to stifle their inevitable health gain and serves as a means to burst them out once you find the setup, perhaps a Price > flip top into fireblast or Rift into fireblast, something like that).

Show And Tell does look fairly unwinnable for the deck, but in my experience they hurt themselves rather badly while going off unless they have the combo in-hand in which case you're SOL. Pyroblasts would be useful in maybe slowing them down, but red really has no answer to this situation.

A useful trick is to sand-bag a mountain. They do get pretty low when going off, if they Show and Tell for Emrakul (it pretty much has to be emrakul or you can race them), remember that you're not actually dead yet. Do what you can on the next turn, eat the 15 points, sac your lands, and hopefully he's at 3 or less and you can drop a land + bolt.

[RogueBuild]

The reason I have less of a problem then most with Stoneforge and put it on par with Mav or Nic Fit is I do run 4-6 sweepers MD including Volcanics and 2 Smashed to Smithereens MD with 2 more in the side. I know Batterskulls and Jitts are coming I think its stupid not to have 2 MD waiting for them. I also know 1/2 of the DTB are based on 1/1, 2/1 2/2 creatures and cheap counters there is 0 reason not to have Volcanic handy for them. If you try to race they counter a few spells putting you behind and they win. Conceed that they are faster and play around counters and bring sweepers they cant counter.

[Vacrix]

Is Flame Rift really that good that it deserves a spot in the core? I'd think not. Magma Jet is a decent alternative that kills quite a lot in the format right now. Also, it Flame Rift isn't too good in the Mirror.

[jares]

Its really not that simple a question. The way most people currently play Burn, trying to race I think is a 55/45 at best and becoming a more and more losing plan every day. Burn does however have access to cards that most people do not play that would greatly improve their chance against a large number of the DTB. So yes, Burn has the ability to IMPROVE it's overall ranking taking a bigger piece of the top 8 pie, but in my view it can only do that IF people stop trying to race to 20 damage because that is a losing fight. Otherwise we are just here in the DTB until Zoo, Goblins, ANT or whatever kicks us out.
Adjusting accordingly to improve on our decks should always be a given, and I agree - we won't be able to stay as a DTB if we don't adjust to the meta regularly. This idea shouldn't be anything new to those of us that wish to be competitive using any deck.

If you're saying that Burn should "stop trying to race to 20 damage", then may I ask you to briefly state what you think the focus of the deck should now be?

I believe that I've been asking you to clearly state your point for some time now, but up until now it hasn't been stated clearly in one sentence, and thus, we've been going around in circles.

Regards,
jares

[jares]

Is Flame Rift really that good that it deserves a spot in the core? I'd think not. Magma Jet is a decent alternative that kills quite a lot in the format right now. Also, it Flame Rift isn't too good in the Mirror.
I surely wouldn't place Flame Rift in the Universal (for lack of a better word) Burn Core either. If you're referring to my mention of this card as part of the core that's been used by the decks that have had success recently, then I'd like to state that that's what it is - part of the core of the decks that have had success recently.

Hopefully, something else would get printed that would have us end these conversations about Flame Rift, Magma Jet, Flames of the Blood Hand, Flame Javelin, and all the other cards that have had us go in circles about which is better.

For everyone's reference, it's worth noting that much has already been discussed about why these cards are better or worse, and one card came up on top: Flame Rift (as also evidenced by its frequent use in the decks that have had success recently). If this card isn't to one's taste, then i would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

-jares

[JDK]

It's a losing fight because in the realm of combo, burn is extraordinarily slow. Pyrostatic Pillar isn't a terrible idea as honestly, if you drop that on turn 2 and they hesitate for a turn, an untap should guarantee you the win.
I agree and would call Pyrostatic Pillar an essential part in Burn's SB. It's just insane against Storm based combodecks, which should be reason enough to play it.


H3llsp4wn,

Clearly you haven't looked at my build so please don't comment until you at lest do that. Once you do you will find strategy is the same. My card selection differs in that it provides me more options in the event my opponent gains more then 2 life, counters a spell, plays a CotV at 1 on turn 1, or I draw a 4th land. All common things that could lead to a loss against another deck. We have had a rather well thought out conversation among people who at lest look at the decks they are talking about and often even tested them before posting. So please do your homework before opening your mouth and making anymore of a fool of yourself.

Oh, I looked at your build, but it seemed mediocre to me. In an ordinary Burn deck, there are no dead cards (unless you get blocked by other cards). We can easily race most decks without sweepers, that are just dead draws against non-creature based decks. You mention the need to adjust to combo decks and yet put dead cards into your maindeck and call it an improvement.

Anti-Anti-Burn isn't necessarily an improvement.


I should post the current version of my deck but that will have to wait, but Dead//Gone has been Gone a long time now.
Please do so. I am glad you dropped Dead//Gone. I hope you also thought about playing that 11 CMC3 spells (not counting Rift Bolt).


The hardest match-up for me has always been Sneak Attack/Show n Tell. Doesn't matter how many games I play nothing short of an 8 card SB seems to make it winable and even then its not very likely. Best to just keep a solid SB for other things and hope you don't see this deck.
Having a faster deck helps in this matchup. You cannot just hope to not face it. It's a pretty popular deckchoice. Racing is the only option unless you splash.

[Kich867]

Adjusting accordingly to improve on our decks should always be a given, and I agree - we won't be able to stay as a DTB if we don't adjust to the meta regularly. This idea shouldn't be anything new to those of us that wish to be competitive using any deck.

If you're saying that Burn should "stop trying to race to 20 damage", then may I ask you to briefly state what you think the focus of the deck should now be?

I believe that I've been asking you to clearly state your point for some time now, but up until now it hasn't been stated clearly in one sentence, and thus, we've been going around in circles.

Regards,
jares

If that's not an accurate enough answer for you I don't really know what else you want from him. He's stating his intention very clearly, his decklist is about as blisteringly obvious as one could get.

He's using flexible burn and sweepers to control the board and simultaneously hit the opponent, since the opponent's threats are being dealt with (which he accurately mentions are generally 1/1, 2/1, or 2/2's that require equipment) he doesn't have to worry about racing them, he's aiming for the turn 5, 6, or 7 win (which he's already stated) instead of the turn 3, 4 win.

You've answered your own question a few times here man T_T;;.. "stop trying to race to 20 damage" is exactly what he's doing and is a single sentence..

Might I ask why you emphasize the word 'opinion', by the way? Besides the fact that it's redundant (anything anyone says is their opinion by virtue of the fact that they said it), it really rubs off as being a condescending and rude statement. You're using it as a passive-aggressive means to dismiss people's ideas or their deck choices that deviate from the norm.

[JDK]

anything anyone says is their opinion by virtue of the fact that they said it
Just because you've said something, doesn't mean you've stated your opinion.

[Kich867]

Just because you've said something, doesn't mean you've stated your opinion.

By definition that's what it is, but, ok. Qualifying everything you say with "In my opinion" isn't necessary, of course it's your opinion, you said it. If you're discussing some matter, and you provide input, you're providing your opinion regardless of whether you qualify your input with that phrase.

Why would you even try and argue this, it's entirely irrelevant to what I was asking.

The fact of the matter is it's rude to dismiss someone's opinion strictly on the basis that it is their opinion, when someone has said: "Look, this is what I'm trying, I have a X% win rate now, I used to have a Y% win rate, it has shown improvement in my win rates (such that X > Y), maybe people should be looking at this." and the response is "Well that's just your opinion.", that seems both rude and ignorant to ignore that simply based on the fact that it goes against the grain.

[JDK]

I can say something by just mentioning facts or rephrasing someone other's judgment without stating my opinion. That's all I'm saying.

[Kich867]

I can say something by just mentioning facts or rephrasing someone other's judgment without stating my opinion. That's all I'm saying.

A fact is an opinion that is true. Can we please stay on topic here?

[jares]

A fact is an opinion that is true. Can we please stay on topic here?
Hahaha :laugh:

Kindly think about these things for me while you're at it:

A Fact is a piece of information that has been proven to be TRUE.

A Fact doesn't need to be anyone's opinion to be true.

An Opinion can either be true or false, because it is a subjective piece of information.

If an Opinion can be indisputably proven to be true, then it ceases to be an opinion and will, in fact, be considered to now be a Fact.

For additional information, kindly refer to the following definitions from the dictionary:

Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation.
Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.


In conclusion, to say that "a fact is an opinion that is true" is erroneous, simply because "Truth" (from the definition of the word "fact") cannot be something that "rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" (from the definition of the word "opinion"). I hope that you had fun with today's vocabulary lesson. :tongue:

And yes, let's all stay on topic please. This is not the place to start vocabulary lessons! :laugh:

-jares