Just a question do you still think burn has a place in the format? If not what good aggro decks are going strong in the format?
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Lemnear is right. Any aggro right now has to have a secondary plan to last, whether it's denial like DnT, control like deathblade or delver, or a combo/lock to finish the game like elves or imperial painter. Playing a creature and turning them sideways doesn't work like it used to.
Of those I'd classify only Elves as an aggro deck. That deck does little but turn creatures sideways and burn your face. All the others have controlling main gameplans and the beatdowns are incidental at best.
Originally Posted by Lemnear
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Whoever just won SCG Indy with Burn must have really not wanted this thread to stand for even a day.
Is it really proper to classify Burn as aggro? Aggro is about swarming with creatures with some spell backup, while Burn is spell-based and only plays creatures that are basically burn spells with power/toughness attached.
A "dead" deck won a SCG IQ yesterday.
Somtimes Burn is treated as a 7-cards combo.
I hear they got twisters miles wide in the Midwest.
Burn still has the raw power to win, but if you run into someone who can disrupt your game plan it can fall apart, and it has a hard time killing before turn 3 meaning it has trouble racing allot of combo decks.
It suffers from the stigma that many players think a budget deck can not be good, and dismiss them out of hand in favor for more expensive decks, Or to simple a deck. Plus the sheer # of people who believe you need to run Brainstorm + Fetch in order to do well. As well for many players is is not a fun deck to play, personally I always found is a good deck for a short period when I want something straight forward but not fun as a long term deck.
Edit :
Yes, no other term actually works.
No, that is a style/subset of aggro decks. Burn is a classic aggro deck, and the quintessential creature light aggro deck. This is a problem of bad naming conventions that is abundant in MtG (Like the idiocy of calling creature based decks "Fair decks" when the ONLY non-propoganda term that works as a descriptor is "conventional") Burn is a aggro deck under the Arrgo/Control/Combo pillars of the game. what most people call Aggro is a subset of actual aggro strategies.
Well Burn simply isn't aggro or combo, it has it's own "pillar": Burn...
Good job for the nr1 finish, haha.
Actually with Eidolon burn got a pretty plan vs combo!
“Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Saying burn is "dead" is classical Source hyperbole.
I agree with that. But now that current decklists operate with 11 to 15 creatures that stay in play, it really should be categorized as Red Deck Wins ( or sligh or MRA or whatever) and thus in aggro decks.
Burn was a combo deck but disappeared with the cheap creatures improving a lot.
Last edited by Lejay; 06-22-2015 at 05:03 AM.
CLICK HERE FOR THE RULES OF A VERY FUN MULTIPLAYER CASUAL FORMAT
You very likely can build it without spending any money, just out of what you already have.
An example with my (very large) list in a visual form
I would describe the term Aggro as the following: a strategy focuses on dealing maximum amount of damage in the shortest number of turns.
That is not to be confused with combo: a strategy focuses on utilizing a combination of minimum of two or more cards to create a powerful interaction that would result in incredible advantages if resolves.
When discussing strategies, one word that is often overlooked is synergy. Affinity is an Aggro deck that obviously has incredible synergy by abusing the affinity mechanics. Often Aggro decks have one or more synergistic characters, but not to the point one would classify the deck as a combo deck.
Therefore, for the reasonings stated above, Burn would belong to Aggro imho.
I have no clue how this should be true. You play only creatures and spells which focus on dealing the maximum amount of damage possible in the shortest time. Cards in this deck have absolutely no interaction with each other either. Burn is 100% a linear aggro deck.
It's an "aggro-control" supertype of the "tempo" subtype classification just like RUG Delver, pairing a creature-based clock with disruptive elements which choke your opponent on mana and hinder him/her to develop a proper game.
And now I'm waiting for the first narrow-minded comments to show up telling me that "aggro-control" and "tempo" have to be blue-only, "because Daze + FoW" and that the identical strategic approach is no base to describe a a strategic subtype classification lol
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Prison feels more apt for D&T than tempo does. It's pretty much Shop.dec but less abysmally broken.
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Pure Aggro is not played, because it's vulnerable, but the Delver decks usually just lose to it.
In certain metas I am sure Burn and Naya Blitz could still be very strong.
Actually, I am thinking about giving Naya Blitz a shot again. Relive some good old days.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)