Page 2 of 140 FirstFirst 1234561252102 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 2789

Thread: [Deck] Burn

  1. #21
    The King of Lockjobs
    Peter_Rotten's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2003
    Location

    Middle of Nowhere, NY
    Posts

    1,214

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by TeenieBopper View Post
    Why in the world would you run Street Wrath and/or Baubles over, oh, I don't know, more burn spells?
    Well, there are about 8 slots that must be filled with subpar burn. Maybe it would be better to run the Wraiths in those slots so that you can draw into those Bolts or Blasts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavius The Great View Post
    Germany seems to find me influential. Have you ever Googled "Nourishing Lich"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihil Credo View Post
    No, Peter_Rotten, you are the problems.

  2. #22

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten View Post
    Well, there are about 8 slots that must be filled with subpar burn. Maybe it would be better to run the Wraiths in those slots so that you can draw into those Bolts or Blasts.
    Just off the top of my head

    17 mountain
    3 Barbarian Ring

    4 Bolt
    4 Spark Elemental
    4 Chain Lightning
    4 Lava Spike
    4 Grim Lavamancer
    4 Magma Jet
    4 Incinerate
    4 Rift Bolt

    That's 52. So, those 8 slots could be Wriath+Bauble. But aren't Fireblast, Mogg Fanatic, PoP, Flamebreak, Scepter, Scroll all just better than those? You know, actually doing something instead of simply being placeholders?

    Holy fuck... I can't believe I"m actually discussing Burn. What is this world coming to?
    SOURCE ASSHOLE
    Now Epic-ly Sexy
    My blog

    Buy the ticket, take the ride.

  3. #23
    Taobotmox

    Join Date

    Sep 2005
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    781

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by TeenieBopper View Post
    But aren't Fireblast, Mogg Fanatic, PoP, Flamebreak, Scepter, Scroll all just better than those? You know, actually doing something instead of simply being placeholders?

    Holy fuck... I can't believe I"m actually discussing Burn. What is this world coming to?
    It is even worse. You are discussing it pretty bad, too ;)
    Fireblast is not open for discussion. It is in the deck like Mountain or Lightning Bolt. PoP is in the current Meta at least a 3-of but most players agree that 4 should be played in the main.

    Mancer and Sparky are the subpar cards that would be replaced in Bauble Burn. And 4 lands, too, because of the cycling.

    However, IMO Baubles make the deck less consistent because they are slow and you don't know if a hand is a keeper or not. And on the other hand the other burn spells, like Browbeat (Hi Taco), Keldon Marauders or Mogg Fanatic are not so bad that they have to be replaced by any means.

    ________

    To Marauders:
    Aren't they just great? Magma Jet is 2 Damage with a potential upgrade of gaining card quality. Marauders are 2 Damage with the potential upgrade of a free Lightning Bolt. If not, you will gain at least some life by chumpblocking a Goyf, getting the marauders sworded or not getting the Lightning Bolt in your face.

  4. #24
    Do I look like a guy with a plan?
    Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    East Syracuse, NY
    Posts

    1,234

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by TeenieBopper View Post
    Holy fuck... I can't believe I"m actually discussing Burn. What is this world coming to?
    Who are you and what have you done with Mike?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tao View Post
    It is even worse. You are discussing it pretty bad, too ;)
    Fireblast is not open for discussion. It is in the deck like Mountain or Lightning Bolt. PoP is in the current Meta at least a 3-of but most players agree that 4 should be played in the main.

    To Marauders:
    Aren't they just great? Magma Jet is 2 Damage with a potential upgrade of gaining card quality. Marauders are 2 Damage with the potential upgrade of a free Lightning Bolt. If not, you will gain at least some life by chumpblocking a Goyf, getting the marauders sworded or not getting the Lightning Bolt in your face.
    Totally agree on both points, Fireblast is an auto 4 of and Marauders is pretty sweet. I am testing list with 4 Marauders 4 Mogg Fanatic as the ony creatures, seems to work.
    Team Fat Man & Little Boy

    Quote Originally Posted by pingveno View Post
    On to stone rain, Clark Kant; is a 'timewalk' as good as a threat?

  5. #25

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    I was doing some testing last night to see what I could get to speed up the game. I tried the bauble/wraith theory just to see how it'd pan out, and I don't think I care for it. I tried 8 and even 12 of them, didnt speed up the clock or change the hands I could keep and/or win with. So I put in 8 fetches and grim lavamancer and mogg fanatic, that was a little bit better honestly. I was able to get a few turn 4 wins with that build, it was still slower than I'd like though honestly, especially since i was figuring mogg fanatic to get in for damage and again an opponent that may not always be the case.

    I have seen in my metagame a boros-style deck that is very similar, except in that 8-12 questionable slots they run efficient white cards (Isamaru, Goblin Legionaire, Jotun Grunt) alogn with fanatic and lavamancer. Also, that allows for lightning helix, which is amazing. Also gives sideboard options of things like seal of cleansing which is huge. I think this might be a tad more consistant personally, of course the fact that goyf sligh dropped maybe thats not true, but I want to say that this boros deck is running a lot more burn than 'ole goofy.

  6. #26
    Boats n Hoes
    arsenalpow's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2007
    Location

    CC , TX
    Posts

    92

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    the best part of running white is getting access to chant and abeyance, the chants can act almost as a time walk against combo

  7. #27

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Concerning countertop, why not have some Sb'ed Boseiju, Who Shelters All? Perhaps not the best of solutions, but its an answer at least.

    Concerning Wraith/Bauble, I felt they made my turn 4 kills more consistent than normal burn builds. A major problem in my experience though, is Wraith and Baubles making the opponent's gofy big in a hurry.

  8. #28
    Do I look like a guy with a plan?
    Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    East Syracuse, NY
    Posts

    1,234

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by LordEvilTeaCup View Post
    Concerning countertop, why not have some Sb'ed Boseiju, Who Shelters All? Perhaps not the best of solutions, but its an answer at least.

    Concerning Wraith/Bauble, I felt they made my turn 4 kills more consistent than normal burn builds. A major problem in my experience though, is Wraith and Baubles making the opponent's gofy big in a hurry.
    Already there, I run 2-3 in my board, make your POP's, magma Jet. Incinerate and Fireblast (hardcast) uncounterable. Very nice and a suprie to many people.
    Team Fat Man & Little Boy

    Quote Originally Posted by pingveno View Post
    On to stone rain, Clark Kant; is a 'timewalk' as good as a threat?

  9. #29

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Why in the world would you run Street Wrath and/or Baubles over, oh, I don't know, more burn spells?
    12 cyclers allow you to play a 48 card deck. This basically turns all the 4ofs in your deck into 5ofs. The primary drawback of cyclers is the delayed draw (Baubles) and life loss (Wraith).

    My friend has been testing a list that runs the full 12 cyclers...
    Here's my current test list
    4 Wooded Foothills
    4 Bloodstained Mire
    4 Taiga
    3 Mountain
    2 Barbarian Ring

    4 Tarmogoyf
    4 Keldon Marauders

    4 Lightning Bolt
    4 Chain Lightning
    4 Lava Spike
    4 Rift Bolt
    4 Incinerate
    3 Fireblast

    4 Mishra's Bauble
    4 Urza's Bauble
    4 Street Wraith

    I'm not completely sold on Goyf yet. It can win games on its own, but it also opens up the deck to removal. Against the top tier decks, it doesn't feel like it impacts the matchup percentages very much. It might be a better idea to have Goyf in the SB so we can side it in G2 when our opponents are siding out their removal.

  10. #30
    Do I look like a guy with a plan?
    Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    East Syracuse, NY
    Posts

    1,234

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by jamest View Post
    12 cyclers allow you to play a 48 card deck. This basically turns all the 4ofs in your deck into 5ofs. The primary drawback of cyclers is the delayed draw (Baubles) and life loss (Wraith).


    I'm not completely sold on Goyf yet. It can win games on its own, but it also opens up the deck to removal. Against the top tier decks, it doesn't feel like it impacts the matchup percentages very much. It might be a better idea to have Goyf in the SB so we can side it in G2 when our opponents are siding out their removal.
    If you're gonna play Goyf then just play Goyf Sligh and maximize the decks potencial. Burn should really only be playing 4 creatures, Mogg Fanatic or Grim Lavamancer.
    Team Fat Man & Little Boy

    Quote Originally Posted by pingveno View Post
    On to stone rain, Clark Kant; is a 'timewalk' as good as a threat?

  11. #31

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacearuse View Post
    Already there, I run 2-3 in my board, make your POP's, magma Jet. Incinerate and Fireblast (hardcast) uncounterable. Very nice and a suprie to many people.
    Ahh yes, I do believe you were the first one to drop that sage advice. Did you come to any concrete opinions as to the amount one should have in the SB? Without testing, I like the idea of keeping it at 2. One they are legendary (duh), two this deck is very red hungry, three it comes into play tapped, and finally it can create problems with fire blast. I suppose you merely swap them for the rings game 2. I think that is the only answer we have to counter top really. As an answer, its not too shabby if you ask me.

  12. #32
    Do I look like a guy with a plan?
    Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    East Syracuse, NY
    Posts

    1,234

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by LordEvilTeaCup View Post
    Ahh yes, I do believe you were the first one to drop that sage advice. Did you come to any concrete opinions as to the amount one should have in the SB? Without testing, I like the idea of keeping it at 2. One they are legendary (duh), two this deck is very red hungry, three it comes into play tapped, and finally it can create problems with fire blast. I suppose you merely swap them for the rings game 2. I think that is the only answer we have to counter top really. As an answer, its not too shabby if you ask me.
    I lkie it as a two of in the board, running three use's (duh) three spots in the SB and like you said 1) It's Legendary and 2) this deck likes mana.
    Team Fat Man & Little Boy

    Quote Originally Posted by pingveno View Post
    On to stone rain, Clark Kant; is a 'timewalk' as good as a threat?

  13. #33
    Not a Member
    Shugyosha's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2006
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    275

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Seriously I cannot understand why nobody is discussion Blood Moon and Magus of the Moon. Non-basics are still non-basics under a Blood Moon, so it doesn't affect the brokeness of PoP.

    Both are insane in this deck and sometimes even GG when you cast it. They also pass Spell Snare (which PoP sadly doesn't) and usually get around a Counterbalance, too.

    I suggest to play 4 Magus main, as they are never dead and 4 Blood Moon sideboard unless you are in a random junkpile meta.

    Another thing I want to point out is the sweeper slot. I think Flamebreak is too slow and not flexible enough nowadays. I run Earthquake (if you have it: Rolling Earthquake) for two reasons:

    1. It can handle EtW tokens a turn faster. As you usually have no guaranteed thrid land drop early in the game you can sometimes even die with only two mountains and Flamebreak in hand.

    2. During the late game you can get much more bang out of an Earthquake and thats what this deck is about: Squeezing every last drop of damage out of your spells.

    I also never liked Barbarian Ring and had good results with Mishra's Factory so far. Three of them will do as it is more imporant to have red mana then the boost ability. They help you to live through that ocasional bad topdeck turns and also force the opponent to leave blockers at home or be wary of Factory + burn tricks that might kill their attackers.
    The psychological effect of burn is something most people underestimate. Its quite difficult to play against a deck that might be able to kill you out of nowhere but is not combo, where you have to throw a twig between spokes at the right time to prevent the kill.
    TS Crew

  14. #34
    Do I look like a guy with a plan?
    Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    East Syracuse, NY
    Posts

    1,234

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by Shugyosha View Post
    Seriously I cannot understand why nobody is discussion Blood Moon and Magus of the Moon. Non-basics are still non-basics under a Blood Moon, so it doesn't affect the brokeness of PoP.

    Both are insane in this deck and sometimes even GG when you cast it. They also pass Spell Snare (which PoP sadly doesn't) and usually get around a Counterbalance, too.

    I suggest to play 4 Magus main, as they are never dead and 4 Blood Moon sideboard unless you are in a random junkpile meta.

    Another thing I want to point out is the sweeper slot. I think Flamebreak is too slow and not flexible enough nowadays. I run Earthquake (if you have it: Rolling Earthquake) for two reasons:

    1. It can handle EtW tokens a turn faster. As you usually have no guaranteed thrid land drop early in the game you can sometimes even die with only two mountains and Flamebreak in hand.

    2. During the late game you can get much more bang out of an Earthquake and thats what this deck is about: Squeezing every last drop of damage out of your spells.

    I also never liked Barbarian Ring and had good results with Mishra's Factory so far. Three of them will do as it is more imporant to have red mana then the boost ability. They help you to live through that ocasional bad topdeck turns and also force the opponent to leave blockers at home or be wary of Factory + burn tricks that might kill their attackers.
    The psychological effect of burn is something most people underestimate. Its quite difficult to play against a deck that might be able to kill you out of nowhere but is not combo, where you have to throw a twig between spokes at the right time to prevent the kill.
    First off, I do run Blood moon and Rolling Earthquake. Mishra's factory is terrible and Barb ring is sweet in burn. I used to run it as a 4 of but have since cut the land coungt in my burn list, I now run 2 rings. Factory doesn't make mana and is to mana intensive for a burn deck. The deck needs to be droping a burn spell or two every turn to win. If you play Factory that means you will have to up your land count and that means running less burn spells. Drawing land is this decks biggest problem, nothing worse than hitting more than 4 land in a game, I lose more game to mana flood with burn than I do to anything else.
    Team Fat Man & Little Boy

    Quote Originally Posted by pingveno View Post
    On to stone rain, Clark Kant; is a 'timewalk' as good as a threat?

  15. #35

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    If you're gonna play Goyf then just play Goyf Sligh and maximize the decks potencial. Burn should really only be playing 4 creatures, Mogg Fanatic or Grim Lavamancer.
    I disagree. I think two best creatures for Burn are Keldon Marauders and Tarmogoyf (if you're willing to splash green).

    Keldon Marauders is basically a burn spell in disguise. 2 burn damage plus the potential to attack for 3 more. Otherwise, the 3/3 body can trade with an opposing creature or at least buy us an extra turn by chump blocking.

    I use to play Fanatic in Burn, but once Keldon Marauders was printed, I replaced Fanatic with it. KM is faster and deals more guaranteed damage.

    I tested Grim Lavamancer extensively in the past. Its major weakness is that it's so easy to remove. Burn wants resilient damage sources. The reason Fanatic and Marauders are two creatures commonly suggested for Burn is because they can deal "guaranteed" damage. On the other hand, Lavamancer often just eats removal and deals no damage. For example, against Goblins, I think Volcanic Hammer is better than Lavamancer.

    Tarmogoyf shares the same weakness to removal as Lavamancer. But, if we are going to explore removable creatures as options for Burn, Tarmogoyf is my first choice. There's fewer removal spells that can kill Tarmogoyf than Lavamancer. Lavamancer can bypass the combat phase with direct damage, but Tarmogoyf is usually the biggest creature on board and can therefore deal damage anyway.

    If I were playing Goyf Sligh, I would probably add Lavamancer. I think the other creature options seem pretty subpar. So, there really isn't too much difference between Burn and Goyf Sligh to me. The main question is, what complements those staple burn spells better? Creatures or more burn?

  16. #36
    Do I look like a guy with a plan?
    Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    East Syracuse, NY
    Posts

    1,234

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by jamest View Post
    .....If I were playing Goyf Sligh, I would probably add Lavamancer. I think the other creature options seem pretty subpar. So, there really isn't too much difference between Burn and Goyf Sligh to me. The main question is, what complements those staple burn spells better? Creatures or more burn?
    I totally dissagree with that statment, I played Burn for a long time and then switched to Goyf Sligh. I toped 8'ed TMLO III day two and top 8'ed a big tourny in Syracuse with Goyf Sligh, I never cracked the top ten with Burn in 6 events. I think the thing Burn is missing is Goyf but the problem is that if you ony run 4-8 creatures you let your opponent use all that "dead" removal in there hand to kill you 4-8 dudes. Keldon Marauders are amazing, no question there, I too run them over Mogg Fanatic in burn. Most of the time they do the same amount of damage as a fanatic and a lot of the time they will do more. Burn just runs out of gas to fast for it to be really effective by it's self, that is why I think Goyf Slight would be a better choice.
    Team Fat Man & Little Boy

    Quote Originally Posted by pingveno View Post
    On to stone rain, Clark Kant; is a 'timewalk' as good as a threat?

  17. #37
    Flamenco Apprentice
    Lemuria's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Brasil
    Posts

    202

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Burn shouldn't play creatures for some reasons (apart from mogg):

    If you play creatures, you're giving your opponents things to do with that plowshares in their hands(and this will will broke the deck's concept, wich is make dead the cards on your opponents hand).

    If they kill your creature, you're loosing burn points, and that means you're loosing time. You just can't afford to lose time and make your opponent to stabilize. You don't want that to happen. Every one point of life is huge when you play burn.


    Seriously, if you really really really want to play creatures, just listen to Sacearuse. Give up Burn and play Goyf Sligh.
    “THROUGH me you pass into the city of woe, through me you pass into eternal pain, Through me among the people lost for aye.
    Justice the founder of my fabric moved, to rear me was the task of Power divine, Supremest Wisdom, and primeval Love.
    Before me things create were none, save things Eternal, and eternal I endure.
    All hope abandon, ye who enter here.” - Inferno

  18. #38
    Sweet Sixteenth
    Happy Gilmore's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2004
    Location

    Fairfax City, VA
    Posts

    1,497

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    I have always liked ankh Sligh myself. Especially with so many deck playing fetchlands. Its practically a must counter in the early game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Krieger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Getsickanddie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Parcher View Post
    Looks like Team Unicorn has about sixteen coming to this.

    What's the term for a plural group of Unicorns? Y'know, like a murder of crows. Well that's what's on it's way.
    ******s?
    While this is close it's still wrong. Every one knows it's an orgy of unicorns.
    Team Unicorn is too hetero for me.
    TeaM NOVA for life.

  19. #39

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Sacrease, let me explain why I said "So, there really isn't too much difference between Burn and Goyf Sligh to me". Basically, Sligh adds creatures to burn. The creatures I would add are Goyf and Lavamancer. That means the only difference between my Burn list and Sligh list is +4 Lavamancer -4 some burn spell. Not a big difference.

    ... if you ony run 4-8 creatures you let your opponent use all that "dead" removal in there hand to kill you 4-8 dudes.
    So, this looks like your most recent suggested Goyf Sligh list. The difference between your Sligh creature base and mine is 4 Kird Apes. Since I run 12 cyclers, the difference in the number of creatures you and I play is 12 (you) to 10 (me).

  20. #40
    Not a Member
    Shugyosha's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2006
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    275

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Gilmore View Post
    I have always liked ankh Sligh myself. Especially with so many deck playing fetchlands. Its practically a must counter in the early game.
    This has been discussed to some extend, too. Ankh is good when you play it turn 2 but whenever you can't play Ankh during the first few turns (don't have it, counter) and still have 3-4 in the deck it is a horrible card that does nothing. Even Landstill doesn't need to recur its Factories against burn too often. It also has no synergy with PoP as people try to avoid landdrops unless they need them. A third reason against it is the low mana curve of the most played deck at the moment: Threshold. Its absolutely no problem to operate the deck with 2 or 3 mana only. Especially in lists without finishers (Dragon/ Enforcer) you won't need more than 3 mana and the finishers will be boarded out in game 2&3 anyways.

    The only feasible list I could imagine as of now would be a build with mana acceleration (Mox or Petal), 4 Ankh + 4 Pillars so your chance to play either Ankh or Pillar in turn one is not that bad. This list could also support Shrapnel Blast. Still I don't think it will work because the extra copies of Ankh and Pillar are mostly worthless and take necessary burn spell space.
    TS Crew

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)