Page 3 of 140 FirstFirst 12345671353103 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 2789

Thread: [Deck] Burn

  1. #41
    Member

    Join Date

    Nov 2005
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    358

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Incinerate sucks. Unless the deckbuilder has a very good reason, so do Baubles and Wraiths: their inclusion is usually a consequence of faulty reasoning. They need to be a design choice in their own right, rather than an attempt to approach something like 36 Lightning Bolts and 6 Fireblasts.

    Even if we could, we shouldn't play 36 Bolts and 6 Blasts. There isn't a shortage of good burn spells, only a shortage of good generic burn spells.
    The 'inefficient' stuff like Mogg Fanatic or Seal of Fire can have gamebreaking soft benefits in certain match-ups. The situational stuff like Price of Progress can outclass 2 regular spells. Sweepers or recurring spells like Pulse of the Forge can give us tactical superiority in matches that would not be favourable otherwise.

    Burn is neither powerful nor particularly resilent, hence only a viable choice when we hope to abuse a specific metagame. Pretty much any relevant tech will outclass an Incinerate or a cycler with a drawback. If we don't know of enough relevant tech to fill our 60 slots, we should play a deck that's actually good in its own right.

  2. #42

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    I agree, the thing about burn is as you said it can catch people off their game. Right now its even better with goblins being at a low there arent a lot of people playing red so that means less red hate in sideboards. I personally feel that the deck isnt resilient enough to keep putting numbers up because as a few people have pointed out there are about 20-28 burn spells that are solid and after that we're reaching to fill the deck. Personally, I think that going with an addition of white, green or black is what the deck needs to be resilient beyond just a metagame crush.

    That said, I think I disagree with the earthquake vs flamebreak argument. How often do you have more than 4 land in play? I wouldn't think very often since with this deck we're a big non-fan of lands hitting the table. If often there are not more than 4 lands in play you are not seeing any advantage with earthquake over flamebreak because we're getting 3 damage for 3 with flamebreak, and earthquake is gonna cost us a minimum of 4 to do that same damage.

  3. #43
    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
    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.


    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).
    Actually looks like I run 16 creatures in my Sligh list:

    4 Tarmogoyf
    4 Grim Lavamancer
    4 Keldon Marauders
    4 Kird Ape

    What i'm trying to explain here is, Burn decks don't play creature, Mogg Fanatic is a burn spell, Lavamancer is a burn spell, burn has no real need fo creatures. As soon as you start adding creatures to a burn deck, it's no longer a burn deck, it's Sligh. Thats it thats all I'm trying to say here.
    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?

  4. #44

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by Iranon View Post
    Incinerate sucks. Unless the deckbuilder has a very good reason, so do Baubles and Wraiths: their inclusion is usually a consequence of faulty reasoning. They need to be a design choice in their own right, rather than an attempt to approach something like 36 Lightning Bolts and 6 Fireblasts.

    Even if we could, we shouldn't play 36 Bolts and 6 Blasts. There isn't a shortage of good burn spells, only a shortage of good generic burn spells.
    The 'inefficient' stuff like Mogg Fanatic or Seal of Fire can have gamebreaking soft benefits in certain match-ups. The situational stuff like Price of Progress can outclass 2 regular spells. Sweepers or recurring spells like Pulse of the Forge can give us tactical superiority in matches that would not be favourable otherwise.

    Burn is neither powerful nor particularly resilent, hence only a viable choice when we hope to abuse a specific metagame. Pretty much any relevant tech will outclass an Incinerate or a cycler with a drawback. If we don't know of enough relevant tech to fill our 60 slots, we should play a deck that's actually good in its own right.
    Wow, I dont know I for some reason would have no problem playing with 36 bolts. Ok, you got me. I would play with 32 bolts, 4 pop, and 5 (6 would require more mountains prolly) fireblasts any day of the week Chalice of the void @ 1 and all.

    Not sure when Seal of Fire would be game breaking except for my opponents tarmies getting some enchantment feed. Even with some overly convoluted attempt at making Pulse of the Forge good would still leave it as crap and inefficient. I respect your knowledge of Burn and it probably surpasses mine easily. Still, these statements confuse me.

    I am coming around to the marauders and feel they are a strong addition to the deck. Imo they are by no means weak filler.

  5. #45
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2007
    Location

    Worcester, MA
    Posts

    339

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    I'm gonna build myself a burn deck because I recently decided that i need a second "good" deck so that i can play with people who dont have a deck to play against me (a few relatives/friends like magic but dont have the cards to make even semi decent decks or have no cards at all). and also i'd like to have a second deck to take with me to tournys so that i can play casual games between rounds without giving my future opponents info on my main deck.

    I've been reading the burn threads (this one and the other one) and have compiled a theoretical list, but i have a few cards that i'm not sure on and would love to know why they get excluded from most lists:

    Creatures: because they're like burn spells, but can block some big attackers from agro decks that go too fast, or get in for more damage then a burn spell could against non creature decks.
    4 Mogg Fanatic
    4 Keldon Marauders

    1 for 3 burn:
    4 Lightning Bolt
    4 Chain Lightning
    4 Rift Bolt
    4 Lava Spike

    Free burn:
    4 Fireblast (i would like to run 4 barb rings, would less then 16 mountains in addition to that be a bad idea?)

    That is 28 cards, which leaves me needed 3 more 4ofs (if i'm gonna do 20 lands total)
    What i didnt include:
    Incinerate is a bad deal at all compared to the other burn spells, I'm not gonna do the bauble thing, but if i was gonna run incinerate i would rather replace it with baubles.
    Magma Jet seems like a bit of a waste too. is the scry realy that good to make the sorcery speed 2 damage for 2 mana worth it?


    The cards i am currently leaving towards are:
    4 Flame Rift - 1r sorc. 4 to each P. is the 4 self inflicted damage realy that important? Seems like 4 damage for 1R is a good deal.

    4 Flames of the Blood Hand - I've had this thing used against my sliver deck and it realy hurts what i would think is the biggest problem for burn decks, life gain. My aproach to fighting Burn with my sliver deck was always let him burn me and grow my sliver base then just start gaining life before he can finish me off. Plus its another 4 damage spell, making that final push be able to reach further.

    4 Needle Drop (R Inst - cantriping burn) i dont understand at all why this card is ignored by the Burn threads. It seems like exactly what this deck needs. I tried finding a discussion on this card somewhere to find a reason why its dismissed, but all i found in the old thread on it was one person complaining about how lowryn hadnt added anything good to Burn. I had even thought about the other cantriping burn (Flare, Zap and Orcish Cannonade) but decided that 3 mana for 1 damage was just too much. The restriction on Needle drop (target has to have been dealt damage) just doesnt seem like it would be a problem, considering all the deck does is damage the opponent.

    The ofcourse there's Price of Progress and Browbeat, both of which i like, but have my doubts about. I think i'll have to actualy play the deck for a while without these two and then decide if i want either in the deck depending on what i think its lacking.

    Also, some lists include Fork.... why? I mean wouldnt wouldnt another burn spell be better? or are they included for same reason baubles are?

    Thanks for any advice you can offer me... I'm off to go buy my 4x Chain Lightnings. I LOVE how the most expensive card in the deck is a common.

  6. #46
    Banned

    Join Date

    Oct 2006
    Location

    NoVA
    Posts

    918

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Price of Progress is pretty much accepted as a 4-of as well (maybe 3 MD 1 SB), so really theres only 2 more 4-of slots. Needle Drop doesnt seem bad actually, your opponent will hopefully be taking damage every turn so it shouldnt ever be dead except as a topdeck. Also all those other options proposed above just seem worse than Magma Jet and Incinerate to me...

  7. #47
    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 RoddyVR View Post
    Magma Jet seems like a bit of a waste too. is the scry realy that good to make the sorcery speed 2 damage for 2 mana worth it?
    First, it's an instant. Second, the Scry IS worth it. Burn is a deck that WILL hit topdeck mode and Scry pwns topdeck mode. Personally, I classify Jet as a NECESSARY burn spell. Goodbye extra lands; hello burn!
    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.

  8. #48
    Flamenco Apprentice
    Lemuria's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Brasil
    Posts

    202

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    You should definetively run PoP. This card is freak.


    Flame rift is personal. I like it a lot and run 4 of those in my deck.

    Magma Jet is amazing too. It can fix your mana problems, prevents you from draw too many lands and also helps you to set up your finishing plan. Just run 4 of it and you won't regret.

    Edit: About Incinerate....You should run it over Marauders. Creatures (besides mogg) don't belong in here.
    “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

  9. #49
    Member
    suprafan386's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2007
    Location

    charlottesville, va
    Posts

    48

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    my version of burn

    17x mountains
    2x barbarian ring

    4x mogg fanatic
    4x price of progress
    4x fireblast
    4x magma jet
    4x rift bolt
    4x lava spike
    4x chain lightning
    4x lightning bolt
    4x flame rift
    4x incinerate
    1x cave-in(this last spot is iffy for me and when i do draw this card i never really play it)

    sb
    3x dragon's claw(for the mirror which is pretty popular in my meta)
    4x pyroblast
    4x shattering spree
    4x tormod's crypt


    please tell me what you think and what changes i should make
    -thomas rowe

  10. #50
    Flamenco Apprentice
    Lemuria's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Brasil
    Posts

    202

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    I would cut one land, Cave in, something else for 3-4 Flamebreak. That depends if your meta is aggro, aggro/control based.

    The rest is what a Burn deck should be....
    “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

  11. #51
    Member
    suprafan386's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2007
    Location

    charlottesville, va
    Posts

    48

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    i really didn't like playing flamebreak in the deck becuase its to mana intensive for this deck with a casting cost of 3, which stops me from playing multiple burn spells a turn

    my meta is thresh variants, ichorid, angel stompy, and then burn(not too many legacy players where i am)
    -thomas rowe

  12. #52
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2007
    Location

    Worcester, MA
    Posts

    339

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    thanks for the advice guys, since flame jet is getting such unanimous endorsement, i guess i'll start the deck with it and decide later for myself if i like it (instead of doing it the other way as i'd planned).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemuria View Post
    Edit: About Incinerate....You should run it over Marauders. Creatures (besides mogg) don't belong in here.
    Disclaimer: My posts always tend to sound like I think I know what i'm talking about, but this is ofcourse not the case here, as i've never actualy played a Burn deck. This is my own (purely theoretical) opinion, and if i'm wrong i'd love to know where my error is so i dont play a subpar card.

    I dont understand why you think Mogg Fanatic belongs in the deck, but Marauders dont:

    Against a deck that cant block your attackers:
    Mogg will do an amount of damage = to number of turns he's around to opponent (cant attack first turn, but will ping for one at the end).
    Marauders will do 5 damage in 3 turns. Unless you plan on attacking with Mogg more then 4 times, Marauders are better.

    Against an opponent who can block (but isnt overwhelming you with huge creatures):
    Mogg will do 1 damage for 1 mana and 1 card (and be blocked if you try to attack)
    Marauders will do 2 damage for 2 mana and 1 card (and have a better chance at killing a blocker then the Mogg did)

    Against an opponent who is attacking you (and has a chance to beat you via attacks before your burn kills him):
    Mogg will do 1 damage for 1 mana and 1 card and block one attacker once.
    Marauders will do 2 damage for 2 mana and 1 card and block atleast one attacker, but could block a small one first turn and the huge one second turn if it would make a difference.

    Against an opponent who is attacking you with many small creatures:
    Mogg will do only 1 damage but can "scare" off quite a few x/2 creatures if your opponent cares about them too much to attack into death (by block/ping). His creature kill ability can dull his burn though if you have to use the ping damage on a x/2 creature to finish it.
    Marauders will do 2 damage no matter what, but will only hold the attacks of for 2 turns. In some situations marauders will do more good here too, as they will either give you a turn you arent attacked in by the weeny horde or take 2 weenies with them as opposed to the Mogg's one.

    So realy the only time Mogg is actualy better then Marauders is when you're going for a long game because the Mogg can stick around and keep being a threat for more then 2 turns. And ofcourse Mogg can hit creatures like BoP or Dark Confidants or something, but if you care about hitting creatures that aren't attacking run a shock instead, no?
    In most other situations the Marauders are like 2 mogs on one card.
    There is ofcourse the first turn drop difference (ie you could drop Mogg turn 1) but with the number of 1CC burn the deck has, is this realy a concern?

  13. #53
    Member
    suprafan386's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2007
    Location

    charlottesville, va
    Posts

    48

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    i like fanatic's because i can sac him and remove bridges from the yard when i play ichorid

    and having a 1 drop creature for chump blocking isn't bad imo
    -thomas rowe

  14. #54
    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

    @ RoddyVR

    I am one of the few people that don't run Magma Jet, for 2 damage just doesn't cut it. Price of Progress need to be in this deck, I run it as a 3 of in the MB and 1 in the SB. Sulfuric Vortes is really good in the MB, I run 2-3, its a steady source of damage and it prevents life gain. Flames of the Bloodhand is ok but I really don't like running 3cc burn spells. I really suggest running 18-19 land, Barb. Ring is really good but you don't want to run 4. I have found that a good mana base is, 2 Barb Ring, 8 Fetch lands and 8 mountains. Hope this helps.
    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. #55
    Taobotmox

    Join Date

    Sep 2005
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    781

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacearuse View Post
    @ RoddyVR

    I am one of the few people that don't run Magma Jet, for 2 damage just doesn't cut it.
    Big mistake. Jet will do more than 2 damage by scrying lands on bottom or the third land on top.

  16. #56
    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 Tao View Post
    Big mistake. Jet will do more than 2 damage by scrying lands on bottom or the third land on top.
    Like I said, I don't like the card, people try and justify running it all the time and I always have the same answer, I don't like it. I understand that it scys land away from the top of your deck, but I look at burn diffrently than everyone else. I look at it as if my opponents is on a very short clock, the more damage I can do, in a short period of time, the better. Jet does 2 damage for 3 mana, I don't even like incinerate and that does a point more. I like the burn spells I run to do at least 3 damage, I run the 16 bolts, Fireblast, POP, and then add in the filler. Vortex, Cursed Scroll, Ankh, Keldon Marauders, Mogg Fanatic, and Incinerate all fill in the left over burn slots. I really like running the Mishra's Bauble and Street Wraith, bauble combo's nice with the 6-8 fetch lands I run. After all that is added I throw in the land, 6-8 Fetch lands, 2-3 Barb. Ring's and the rest are basic snow-covered mountains (I'm from Syracuse, everything is Snow-covered!).
    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. #57

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    [deck=”Light My Fire” (Burn)]
    Lands (21)
    17 * Mountain
    4 * Barbarian Ring

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

    Instant (16)
    4 * Magma Jet
    4 * Lightning Bolt
    4 * Incinerate
    4 * Fireblast

    Enchantment (4)
    4 * Seal of Fire

    Sideboard (15)
    4 * Price of Progress
    2 * Red Elemental Blast
    2 * Pyroblast
    4 * Tormod's Crypt
    3 * Shattering Spree
    [/deck]

    (REB/Pyroblast split is for Meddling Mage/Extirpate/Cabal Therapy type reasons)

    Think 21 is too many lands? I don't think so, especially with the prospect of saccing Barbarian Ring and feeding Fireblasts.

    Think Fork is worth running?

  18. #58

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacearuse View Post
    Like I said, I don't like the card, people try and justify running it all the time and I always have the same answer, I don't like it. I understand that it scys land away from the top of your deck, but I look at burn diffrently than everyone else. I look at it as if my opponents is on a very short clock, the more damage I can do, in a short period of time, the better. Jet does 2 damage for 3 mana, I don't even like incinerate and that does a point more. I like the burn spells I run to do at least 3 damage, I run the 16 bolts, Fireblast, POP, and then add in the filler. Vortex, Cursed Scroll, Ankh, Keldon Marauders, Mogg Fanatic, and Incinerate all fill in the left over burn slots. I really like running the Mishra's Bauble and Street Wraith, bauble combo's nice with the 6-8 fetch lands I run. After all that is added I throw in the land, 6-8 Fetch lands, 2-3 Barb. Ring's and the rest are basic snow-covered mountains (I'm from Syracuse, everything is Snow-covered!).
    I chose to use Baubles and Wraiths to lessen the need of Magma Jets as well. I found that my turn 4 kills, and even turn three kills were more consistent. Still, there were games in which a Magma Jet would have been nice. The reason I was thinking of switching back to more conservative burn was the Boseiju in the SB. I thought that the self-inflicted damage was getting too much. Against Thresh, do I really want to crack fetches, cycle wraiths, AND use Boseiju? Plus, Keldon Marauders are not really hot with Bauble builds. Did it all work out in practice? So far I feel more comfortable with Bauble builds myself and hope it still works out.

  19. #59

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    So is anyone going to try Pyromancer's swath in the deck?. I hear with Lava Dart it can be pretty amazing.

  20. #60

    Re: [DTW] Burn

    Quote Originally Posted by k u j a View Post
    So is anyone going to try Pyromancer's swath in the deck?. I hear with Lava Dart it can be pretty amazing.
    I am definitely game to try to make the swath work in this deck. It would definitely no longer be normal burn anymore. You would have to really change a lot of things around. It works great with Baubles, which incidentally can also up your storm count for free helping out grape shot. I don't know how competitive it will be, but it should be fun.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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