Vulnerable to Batterskull and fast combo.
The new decks that came along actually all suck against Burn except for stuff with Batterskull.
More consistently? Don't make me laugh. Burn is one of the most consistent decks out there.
Killed faster? The fastest deck is TES, which has been around forever. The other fast combo is LED Dredge, which also has been around forever. The rest is slow combo (current ANT, OmniTell).
More efficiently? Yes, but ALL decks are more efficient than Burn.
The main problem with Burn is that only newbees play it. The pro's all want the Brainstorms and Ponders. They want the edge that such cantrip decks can give you. And they win because they play better, not because Burn is bad. You don't want to know how many reports from Joe Lossett I saw on Twitch where he should have lost a round against Burn, but didn't, because the opponent forgot a Vortex trigger or two.
Back when the good players still played Sligh/Red Deck Wins, there were always a couple of red decks at the top tables. But hey, I don't blame the good players. They don't like to lose to a Kitchen Finks, Rhox War Monk or Batterskull. Neither do I. Good thing Naya Blitz is now so fast it can actually race a Batterskull.
Well, "prison" aims at the opponent not playing spells at all, while "tempo" attempts to slow you down far enough that it's own threats kill before the opponent has set up his/her gameplan. We can sure discuss where Wasteland+Thalia+Flickerwisp+Port end up on the scale between "tempo" and "prison", but I've seen people labeling D&T as "control" supertype which is totally off.
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
While I think your characterization of DnT as "Aggro-Control" is arguably correct, I think the "Control" characterization can be argued for as well. DnT is far less aggressive than RUG Delver and most of its creatures are chosen for their ability to disrupt the opponent's game plan, not their power and toughness. While I'm aware the control is not usually associated with creatures, DnT strikes me as being closer to Stoneblade or Shardless than Delver, simply because it relies on heavy disruption to make up for its slow clock (of course, this depends on whether you consider Stoneblade and Shardless to be "control").
It's just that the disruption solely targets the mana of your opponent which is "Prison" or "tempo" territory while "control" in this game usually indicates that you interact with the cards your opponent actually plays. Shardless and Blade are "aggro-control" supertypes as well, but the subtype is "midrange" based on the gameplan to trump opposing threats/plays with more expensive but powerful ones (like 3cmc ones; Agent->Visions, TNN, Jace, etc.).
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
The only thing about Burn that is consistent is the fact that it consists of 18 land and 42 cards that do damage?
Dredge loses to itself less than 20% of the time, and Dredge is the most inconsistent deck I know.
You just troll this thread with nonsense. Some here would appreciate you quit doing that.
mmm! Tell me more about how linear aggro is superior to compact combos in blue shells!
To massively understate the situation, your contributions to this thread have been less than intelligent or relevant. It's obvious to anyone with any cognitive function that Asthereal was referring to the consistency of Burn and not making a value judgment regarding its superiority or lack thereof to blue shell decks. Regardless, apparently Burn can still win Opens which is worth something.
I understand how he meant "consistent", but it's also worth noting that a deck comprised entirely of sixty basic Forests would also be "consistent" by that metric. There is more to consistency than just seeing how many times you can jam copies of the same card into the deck.
Consistency is not necessarily correlated with deck power level or the nebulous "goodness" of the deck. For example I would argue that High Tide is more "consistent" than Omnitell. Tide mulligans far less in my experience and goes off like clockwork on turn 4 (while being generally less 'clunky' in terms of card function), but Omnitell is more powerful to an extent that any disparity in consistency simply does not matter. Burn is consistent, and that's exactly the point. No direct reading of a deck's quality can be drawn from its consistency alone, although consistency certainly helps if other conditions - i.e. power level, matchups etc. are met.
Unless you are playing Final Fortune, Bolting yourself, or dying to your own Eidolon, you should never lose to yourself when playing Burn.
If you mean that the deck will sometimes lose games that it would have won had it drawn better cards, that is true of every deck. A deck's win-rate is relevant. The nature of its losses is no relevant.
This! it's not only obvious things like triggers, but more subtle things too.
New players don't recognise the opposing decks and do not understand the MU. They don't know how to fight combo, they don't sideboard right and they don't mulligan right. They don't know when to divert damage to kill an important utility creature.
Most Legacy players find Burn very dull to play - even more so than S&T, which at least has appeal to Johnies and Timmys alike. For a good player to choose Burn, they would need some pretty hard evidence that it would be stronger than their other choices. With Burns results in the hands of newbs, that will never happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)