[Deck] Burn [Archive]

Peter_Rotten

10-09-2005, 11:37 AM

by Grah
Burn.

Burn is and has been a mainstay of MTG for years in various forms. There are a lot of forms of it in Legacy, but there are certainly quite a few cards in the mainstream builds.

The first thing to know is that these slots are totally, utterly non-negotiable:

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Incinerate
4 Chain Lightning
4 Magma Jet
4 Fireblast
3 Flamebreak (or Earthquake) (Many people have 4. You need at least 3.)

You can toy around with the rest, but these 24 slots are REQUIRED to make a Legacy Burn deck good. These are the best red spells available.

GRAH-style Burn:

18 Mountain

4 Mogg Fanatic

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Incinerate
4 Chain Lightning
4 Magma Jet
4 Fireblast
4 Flamebreak
4 Chain of Plasma
4 Lava Spike
2 Browbeat
1 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Price of Progress

bigbear102-style Burn:

16 Mountain
4 Wasteland

4 Mogg Fanatic

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Incinerate
4 Chain Lightning
4 Magma Jet
4 Fireblast
4 Lava Spike
3 Price of Progress
3 Earthquake
3 Fork
2 Pithing Needle
1 Sulfuric Vortex

Burn, or at least our version, focuses on making your opponent's cards dead. Their creature, artifact, nonbasic, and enchantment hate is all pretty much wasted on this deck. You, however, should rarely be having any dead cards. Just keep pounding, while burning away any immediate creature threats.

A comment both Zilla and I have made is that this functions a lot like a combo deck; most like Solidarity, strangely. It's possible to "fizzle" in the sense that you simply run out of steam. This doesn't always happen, and Magma Jet really helps against this. One of the major causes of this is the lack of a reliable draw engine. Unfortunately, since this IS red, that's not available.

The differences between these two are less subtle than you'd think. Bigbear's version is a more metagamed version, with Pithing Needle, Wasteland and Fork, playing more lands and a finishing one-two punch, whereas I dropped Fork and lowered my land count for a little more speed, even at the small risk of "fizzling." Note that Bigbear only plays Earthquake because of Wasteland--Flamebreak is strictly superior to Earthquake.

Some of the card choices:

Mogg Fanatic - This card is incredible. Despite the "make creature hate dead" idea of this deck, Fanatic is an exception because they can really never kill it. It functions as a one-mana Fire versus most decks, and it's absolutely great versus Goblins since it takes Lackeys out so well.

Lava Spike - While most people see it as Lightning Bolt's retarded cousin, it's incredibly good since it's still a 1-for-3, which is good. It and Mogg Fantastic are the first cards you should be playing.

Chain of Plasma - It's rarely ever copied, and when it is, you'll usually be copying it back. It's most often just an Incinerate.

Price of Progress - I originally included this as a metagame card. It's turned out to be one of the mainstays in the deck. It improves your bad matchups against Gro and Fish because it does IMMENSE damage to them (6-8 on average), and averages out at 4 damage generally. With more Goblin decks playing duals AND Wasteland/Port, this is even better.

Browbeat - It's considered a bad card, but it's usually just a really undercosted Lava Axe, which is damn good. And, when your opponent is at low enough life, it draws you into the win next turn.

Fork - It's an army knife sort of card. It's mostly for copying Fireblasts, but it can function as an Incinerate or a counter-counterspell.

Sulfuric Vortex - The single copy of both is often a strange surprise. Vortex is good against so many decks that it's worth MDing one.

Sideboard options:

Pithing Needle - This card is a lot like Naturalize in green decks. It can do well against so many decks that it's worth including.

Flaring Pain - While it serves the same purpose as Needle versus COP: Red, it can also be good for stopping Sphere of Law and Worship, which Needle cannot.

Red Elemental Blast/Pyroblast - Blue is rather prevalent in the format, with Solidarity. You also can use these to take out Chills. Play no less than 6 of these, combined. I play 4 of each.

Sirocco - Solidarity says goodbye.

Anarchy - More tech against stuff like COP: Red and Sphere of Law. It's particularly good against Angel Stompy. However, its cc is so high that it can be a liability.

Splashes:

For both of these splashes, what I'd recommend most is replacing 8 Mountains with 6 fetchlands and 2 of the appropriate duals, a la Goblins.

-White Splash: One of the splashes that has been proposed is a white splash for Lightning Helix in the MD (a negligible choice), and Disenchant in the sideboard. Disenchant is real anti-hate. It takes out all of the major red hate cards.

-Blue Splash: A recent suggestion is a blue splash, for Alter Reality and perhaps Blue Elemental Blast. Alter Reality is even better than Disenchant against hate. Change Chill into "Blue spells cost (2) more to play" and watch your opponent die.

Tips on playing Burn:

While Burn can be seen as an autopilot deck, it's hardly that. A lot of skill is required in deciding whether to aim at the head, or the field. The first things you should play are Lava Spike and Mogg Fanatic, unless there is an immediate threat. This allows you to play your creature-killing things later, for conservation. Magma Jet should target creatures more than other spot-burn, since it deals the least damage. Flamebreak is a reset against creature-based decks--it's alright to take a little bit of damage so you can throw a burn spell at the head rather than waste it. Go as fast as possible. The longer you wait, the easier it'll be for your opponent to overcome you.

What you need to remember most is this: EVEN AGAINST GOBLINS, YOU ARE ALMOST ALWAYS THE AGGRO ROLE. This deck wants its turn-4 wins.

Matchups:

-Goblins: A great matchup. Flamebreak shines here as you completely wipe their forces out. You really shouldn't burn their creatures other than Warchief, Piledriver, and SOMETIMES Lackey. Sever the head and Flamebreak the body.

-Landstill: Almost a bye, even with all their hate. Game 1 is pathetically easy. Just keep aiming at the head and don't look back. For game 2, you can board in Sulfuric Vortexes and Pithing Needle or Flaring Pain to hate THEIR hate.

-Solidarity: This plays out like a Solidarity mirror match. Just keep the steady flow of burn. You'll probably lose game 1, but in game 2 you can board in 8 REBs and just shoot away at their combo pieces. I suggest REBing the High Tide.

-Gro: Possibly the worst matchup, just like Solidarity. They have a steady supply of counterspells combined with a good clock. Other than Dryad (which is easy to kill), once they hit Threshold, their stuff is outside of Flamebreak range. That is an issue. They also board in Chills. I recommend SBing in REBs for this matchup.

-Angel Stompy/WW: Though you would think this would be a bad matchup, it really isn't. Just because you can't handle a couple creatures doesn't mean you have a problem, because they have a really poor-quality clock and no way to prevent your burn. Then, Flaring Pain or Anarchy can come in, and it'll go the same way, even through Worship or Pariah.

Issues at hand:

-As I said before, this deck can have a problem with "fizzling." Zilla proposed we add a slower but longer-term win condition to stop this. So far, though, no one has decided on how to implement this.

Peter_Rotten

10-09-2005, 11:38 AM

by BigBear
Burn. I need to stress that this thread is about BURN. Not goblins, not sligh, but straight up, smash it over your head BURN.

The archetype has grown immensely in the past few months, and seems to be growing by leaps and bounds lately. There have been many new innovations to the deck, and many have not been tested thouroughly, which is why a new thread is needed seeing the old has been locked.

I will post what I believe is one of the most widely agreed upon builds, and then I will go through other possible additions and sideboard options.

Burn:

4x Lightning Bolt
4x Incinerate
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lava Spike
4x Magma Jet
4x Fireblast
3x Price of Progress
2x Browbeat
3x Volcanic Hammer
4x Mogg Fanatic
4x Flamebreak
1x Sulfuric Vortex

19x Mountain

SB:
4x REB
3x Anarchy
2x Sulfuric Vortex
3x Sirocco/Pyrostatic Pillar
3x Pithing Needle

Many other cards have been considered and are still being played by many.

These cards consist of:

Fork
Flame Rift
Chain of Plasma
Earthquake
Lightning Helix

Sideboard cards being considered are:

Disenchant
Alter Reality
Pyrostatic Pillar
Anarchy
Pithing Needle
REB/Pyroblast
Crash
Pyroclasm

These lists are by no means comprehensive.

There are also several different manabases that burn can use. The most stable mana base is obviously all mountains (ranging between 18 and 21 in most builds). There are also the possibilities of Wasteland. Wasteland will make your control matchup much better, but it is already solid. Fetches can help, but have been determined not useful unless there is a splash in the deck.

Two viable splashes that have been discussed thoroughly are the white splash and the blue splash.

The white splash is primarily for Disenchant out of the board, but can also support Lightning Helix

The blue splash is for Alter Reality, which hoses almost every card that shuts down burn.

The following cards are what this deck has the most problems with:

Chill- by far the biggest fear for this deck.

CoP: Red- harmful but can be played around

Arcane Laboratory/Rule of Law- cards that are not seen a lot, but do see play because of solidarity. These are not mentioned a lot but can be devastating as it essentially turns our clock off.

Any Life gaining cards- Essentially counterspells, and anything that is recurring is horrible- JITTE.

Absolute Law (anything pro-red)- if we cannot stop weenie hordes from certain decks then we will lose too quickly

Those are the most commonly played hate cards that I can think of. You can see why the white splash/blue splash is very popular, most of the cards can be disenchanted/ alter reality'ed.

I believe that with the correct attitudes (NO FLAMING) and insightful posts we can continue to build the deck into something very competitive. Hopefully the old burn thread can be saved, as there are hundreds of invaluable posts on there, that many people decided not to read, which is the main reason for it being locked. Please use discretion when posting, and try to find out information before asking questions

Peter_Rotten

10-09-2005, 11:39 AM

by StupidBurnKid
As a proud new member to the source, I would like to make my first post about a deck I have cradled in my arms like a sick puppy since the day of its inception; way back in the day when I first picked up a Magic card around fourth edition.

At one point I was playing cards like Hammer of Bogarden, Viashino Sandstalker, and Volcanic Dragon, recognizing red's strength of hitting fast and hard, using what little semblence of card advantage red has to its advantage. Since the days of Vision's Bogarden Phoenix and Suq'ata Lancer, which I loved as novelty cards more so than the power they brought to the deck, my red deck (you may note I refrained from making a claim to the type of deck it is, whether it be burn, sligh, or what have you, it has seen it all) has evolved into something that most would consider burn, and some would consider sligh. It has taken many forms over the years, but it has always been red, as I have always loved the philosophy of fire.

I recently T8'd with it in a legacy GPT as my third major constructed tournament appearance ever. One such appearance was a Champions block PTQ about a month ago and the second one being the Legacy Dual for Duals in Richmond only a matter of weeks ago, so as you can see, my knowledge of what you all deem the "metagame" is a pretty knew subject as my advanced knowledge of the game is slim. To go along with my competitive tournament appearances, I've entered a number of 1.5 tournaments here locally in Northern VA at The Lucky Frog over the past few months to dip my feet into the tournament scene, and get a taste for some of the inherrent strengths and weaknesses of the deck I've put to the test and through the ringer over the years.

I have come to the source in the hopes that you can put the spot light on some of these weaknesses so that I can further refine the deck into something that can stand up to the field. Yes, that's right, I am giving you a free pass to flame the hell out of me for playing Ball Lightning, to which I say... There's a reason I made it as far as I did in the GPT, but then again, a reason I might not have made the top spot. But this is why I'm here, to figure out exactly what needs to be done to make it go further, and also put out some ideas here for future builds.

With no further ado, I give you, my deck-

3ox Burn-
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lava Spike
4x Magma Jet
4x Incinerate
4x Flamebreak
4x Fireblast
2x Cursed Scroll

12x Creatures-
4x Grim Lavamancer
4x Mogg Fanatic
4x Ball Lightning

18x Lands-
8x Mountains
4x Bloodstained Mire
4x Wooded Foothills
2x Barbarian Ring

SB-
4x Pyroblast (I just like the Ice Age BeB)
3x Flaring Pain
3x Pyrostatic Pillar
3x Flashfires
2x Pyrokinesis

The Philosophy-

Lightning Bolt- Um, moving right along.

Chain Lightning- I'd play 4o bolts if I could.

Lava Spike- For a total of 12, they're all going to the dome anyway.

Magma Jet- Less damage per mana, but when you see your opening hand and it includes two lands and a magma jet, it's good to be able to choose whether you want the uncastable Ball Lightning or the land that will allow you to cast the Flamebreak on turn three.

Incinerate- Instant three points of burn. I've had many requests for putting in volcanic hammer as well, but it just seems so sub par due to it's sorcery speed. Granted, the Lavamancer or the Ball which probably take it's place are no better in regards to being able to use mana during your oppponents turn, but, at least the mancer has its activated ability and the Ball has a better mana to damage ratio. (even if it hits only half the time, it still is tied)

Flamebreak- Main deck hate against gobbos or any other aggro deck that just begs for the board to be cleared. And it does more than just clear the board, it nails your opponent. Pyroclasm seems like such a dead card against Solidarity... Did you just cycle DoJ for 8?

Fireblast- Nothing like an instant, free, four points of damage in response to their kill card, or hell, just for the win.

Cursed Scroll- Pile Drivers, Goblin Kings, Meddling Kids, Silver Knights, Rune Red, you name it.

Mogg Fanatic- An extra answer to those pesky Lackeys, Piledrivers, Warchiefs and anything else with an ass of two in addition to being an extra point a turn against Solidarity, or that final point after they've pinged themselves with fetchlands and taken a few spells to the dome.

Grim Lavamancer- Reusable burn. Turns Chaliced bolts or incinerates into damage (if he's on the board turn one), and makes him a must kill against any controll deck. Can also chump in a pinch before flinging another two to the dome. (Also acts as fanatic bait for the MVP which is....)

Ball Lightning- One card, six damage. BAM! 2 points per mana, not optimal, but then again, it definately draws a response from the good ole solidarity player, whether it be a scowl or a high tide... Boo on humility, boo on silver knight! (but I have a plan for you too) And double boo on Ivory Mask! Does anybody really play that card?!?!

Fetch Lands- Thins the deck when necessary for that extra burn, fuels the Lavamancer for a turn two ping or the Barbarian Rings after the Mancer bites the dust.

Barbarian Ring- Silver knight? Soltari Emissary? Rune Red? Not to mention, (in the words of one such Elgin) its more damage than that mountain would ever do. Well said.

On to the Board-

Pyroblast- Seems pretty good when your average solidarity player will be able to wish for at least one ReB if they didnt side in 4 against you to go with their forces. Not to mention, being able to at least threaten a Blast when you send a Fireblast his way or when he goes for that final draw spell is worth every slot.

Flaring Pain- CoP Red? Solitary Confinement? I eat you for breakfast.

Pyrostatic Pillar- I hate solidarity. Last I heard, they don't like me either.

Flashfires- Well, white has the abiliity to lay waste to anything red, so, all's fair in love and war. Really shines against Wombat, less so against Landstill... but... those pesky plains...

Pyrokinesis- A little extra gobbo and DoJ hate. Can be sided in with the Flashfires and Flaring Pains against Wombat for the Flamebreaks and Balls.

I've been debating about this long and hard, and despite my desire to keep the Balls in, I really think a pariah lock or anything white game one is an auto loss without Flames of the Blood hand to smash some face. Sure, I have the Barb Rings and the Scrolls, but, they dont's show up enough and they can be slow. I also think it would make a white player think twice about riding pulse games two and three to victory. Not to mention, it would be one less creature for Humility and Swords to screw with.

One last thing... Does anybody play that awfull card Ivory Mask? Doesnt it stop solidarity dead in its tracks if it hasnt won by turn four? It makes me want to keep the balls in the side... or at very least, an anarchy or two. I'm not sure exactly if I need to have so much hate against the matchups my board is for, or if I should have some cards like Anarchy or Sulfuric Vortex....

So as you can see, I'm trying to keep in mind that a board is supposed to beat your bad matchups, but also not leave room for the possibility that something like Honden Enchantress may show up at a largely unknown meta (which for me, is nearly the entire field, which is why I am putting my deck into your all's' hands). I'm really not sure what my board needs to take into account, or if the cards that are included in it right now have the breadth to even deal with the matchups I AM aware of.

Peter_Rotten

10-09-2005, 11:41 AM

taken from a post by Doodlebird

Here's a run down of some generalities that I've been discussing elsewhere about burn decks (mostly obvious, but need to be stated).
a) keep mana curve very low - only a few 3 cast allowed, all else should be 1 and 2 , and heavy on the 1.
b) permanents are weakness and should be avoided if possible (things like mogg fanatic, seal of fire, etc. don't count as they can sac).
c) 98% (or more) of non land cards need to deal damage.
d) the more cards that deal damage to both player or creature the better.
e) almost all defense should be relegated to the SB.
f) there are core of cards that auto include - lighning bolt, fireblast, chain lightning, incinerate.
g) white and blue have the most common troublesome hosers.
h) combo can be very rough to beat first game, it will usually be a race.
i) also currently in the meta be prepared to face goblins and weenie MD.
j) the more instants the better.
k)repeat damage is hard to come by as permanents are a weakness here, especailly creatures.
l)card advantage is not happening here, magma jet helps fix draws a little, but topdecking is factor that generally happens in the is deck style.
m)there is the idea to pslash another color (usually white) from time to time, but once again it can create weakness by using no basic lands, and any that aren't also mountains weaken the fireblast potential, which is staple card.

GRAH

10-09-2005, 12:10 PM

Just a couple other things:

-To note, StupidBurnKid's build deviates a LOT from the "accepted" build (which is done nicely in bigbear's section where he gives my decklist from a week or two ago. :)), because it includes fetchlands, Barbarian Ring, Lavamancer, and Cursed Scroll. That's not to say that it's a bad deck, but it's not the way we've been going.

-Chill and Sphere of Law are the two worst cards for this deck to face. The former can be stopped by boarding enough REBs (I board 8), but the latter is really hard to stop. That's why I go in favor of Flaring Pain over Pithing Needle. That said, luckily, many people are not smart enough to play Sphere of Law.

-Pyrokinesis is not a good card. I've seen it mentioned a lot of times, but it's simply not good. You're never going to target 4 creatures (or even 3, usually), so, since it can't target players, it's always worse than 2 burn spells.

-Solidarity is a 45/55 matchup pre-board, and somewhere around 55/45 post-board. It's difficult, but if you play the deck right, you can win. I didn't exactly cover this in my post. The problem in g1 is that you have a bunch of pseudo-dead cards, like Flamebreak. After you board in, target your REBs directly at High Tide.

-This deck is INCREDIBLY vulnerable to noob-style deck changes, because of its simplicity. As much as I really hate to say it, there are certain requirements that you have to follow. It's a lot more rigid than it looks.

Vimes

10-09-2005, 12:40 PM

First of all, I would like to thank the mods for their hard work and the new thread. Now, to business.

@Lava Dart: This card can be good, but I don't like it in this deck. You will almost never be targeting creatures with this, so this is 2 cards for 2 damage. Shock would be better in this deck, as it's 1 card for 2 damage, and we aren't playing that either.

@Creatures: One of the only forms of card advantage this deck can generate is making your opponent's creature removal dead. Therefore, you want to provide as few targets as possible, which means no Grim Lavamancer or Ball Lightning. However, Mogg Fanatic is an exception, as it can sac to deal damage and is great vs. gobbos.

@Splashing: I support the white splash as not only does it give us access to Disenchant, it gives us Lightning Helix for the slot that in mono-red burn is constantly alternating between Flame Rift, Chain of Plasma, and Volcanic Hammer. I use 4x Plateau and 4x red fetchlands to support it. Should I use more fetchlands?

@Cursed Scroll: It seems to me like this would be the best choice for the slower, long-term win condition GRAH mentioned. Has anyone tested it?

@Absolute Law: I don't know why this scares bigbear, but it doesn't scare me. If goblins is taking the time to play this, than they're giving me time to go to the head.

@Rolling Earthquake: This has been proposed as a replacement for Flamebreak. My vote: No. There are almost no fliers that scare us that this can really hit, (If you have 6 mana to cast this for 5 to kill an Exalted Angel you've probably already lost anyways) and to deal more damage than Flamebreak, you have to spend 5 mana. The only time when this might be good is when you play Wastelands, which brings me to my next point.

@Wasteland: How has this been working for you, bigbear? It seems like it would weaken your mana base in most matchups for a gain in the Gro matchup to me, but I really don't know.

I can post my list if anyone wants, but I didn't think it was necessary here.

kabal

10-09-2005, 06:14 PM

My build that I have been using is more of a RDW, than pure Burn. Anyhow I got together with some friends this weekend and played a few games. All were using no sideboard. Against each build, there were approximately 5 games played.

- All numbers are my win percentage.

WW (8 red creatures) + Angels: 60%
Fling Affinity: 80%
Goblins: 60%
Sui Black: 100%
High Tide: 20%

Overall, it performed around 64% which was all pre-board. Below was the build I used.

// Lands
14 Mountain
2 Bloodstained Mire
2 Wooded Foothills

// Creatures
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Slith Firewalker
4 Ball Lightning
4 Mogg Fanatic

// Spells
4 Fireblast
4 Incinerate
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Magma Jet
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike

// Artifacts
3 Cursed Scroll

I don't like Wasteland in Burn or Sligh or RDW. I feel it weakens the mana base too much.

GRAH

10-09-2005, 07:04 PM

kabal, you're going into Sligh/RDW range on that one, and this thread is for Burn, not Sligh. (by the way, Angel Stompy, Fling Affinity, and especially Sui Black are not good gauntlet decks)

Slith Firewalker is poor for this deck. It deals damage at an incredibly slow rate. This deck can support so many better choices on turn 2 that I don't know why you don't. Same goes for Ball Lightning.

As for Cursed Scroll...I really want to play it, but it's so poor in the early game. I think the MD Sulfuric Vortex and a Chain of Plasma could be dropped for 2, but to be honest, I happen to hate the card.

kabal

10-09-2005, 10:06 PM

@GRAH
Thanks for the feedback.

I know that it the build I provided is a variant of RDW like I stated above, just some (or maybe one) of the above post from another poster was a Sligh/RDW build as well.

I also aware that some of the decks I played against some aren't considered to be in the upper-most tier, but you play against what you can. No one had any optimal LandStill, Sensei, or even Keeper. I still thought might be interesting to show the results anyhow.

As for Cursed Scroll, yeah I don't really want to use 3, but 2 just doesn't cut in. I don't believe that there is a better card to replace it. On to Sith firewalker, he does come out a turn later and for additional mana than Pup, but he has performed so very much better for me. Not to mention, I just can't stand the synergy (Gempalm Incinerator my Pup for 5) I give me opponent by playing Jackal Pup. :p Ball Lightning as won me many games.

Zilla

10-09-2005, 10:33 PM

This was said at the beginning of the last Burn thread and will be reiterated in this one because it is important. This thread is for discussing Burn. It is not for the discussion of its cousins, RDW and Sligh. While similar, these two decks are idealogically different from Burn, in that one of Burn's core tenets is to avoid the use of any nonland permanents as a way of making many of the opponent's cards dead, hence providing virtual card advantage. This strategy is not inherent in Sligh or RDW, whcih tend to have a roughly equal balance of nonland permanents and burn spells. Therefore, in order to keep this discussion on track, do not post RDW or Sligh threads here. If you wish to discuss those archetypes, please start seperate threads for them. - Zilla

TheStupidBurnKid

10-10-2005, 12:42 AM

3ox Burn-
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lava Spike
4x Magma Jet
4x Incinerate
4x Flamebreak
4x Fireblast
2x Cursed Scroll

12x Creatures-
4x Grim Lavamancer
4x Mogg Fanatic
4x Ball Lightning

18x Lands-
8x Mountains
4x Bloodstained Mire
4x Wooded Foothills
2x Barbarian Ring

SB-
4x Pyroblast (I just like the Ice Age BeB)
3x Flaring Pain
3x Pyrostatic Pillar
3x Flashfires
2x Pyrokinesis

::Edit:: I recently switched Anarchy for Flashfires

As I have recently started seeing cards as how well they do against the various matchups the deck has the most trouble against, I'd like to discuss a few choices that I had made in my deck, and a few changes I would like to make for a tournament this coming weekend:

First and foremost, the most controversial talking point in the deck- the creature count. While it is true, the creature count is rather high (12 instead of the standard 4), contradicting one of the main advantages burn has against any deck with creature hate, I want to say (tentatively) my choices make up for the apparent drawbacks. The creature hate from Landstill (with swords and wrath), and R/G survival (with FTK), which we wreck, is not the end of the world. Oh no, diabolic edict takes out the Ball... oops, we win anyway.

I think the biggest threat I open up with the use of these select few creatures is StP. Even so, it makes the opposing player choose, take untold points of damage from the Mancer, or turn back the clock a turn or two and essentially give me a time walk by Swordsing the Ball.

Against any control deck, the mancer is a must kill when he can be up and running with the use of fetches on turn two. Against goblins, he's an incinerate with the ability to take out a lacky and do two points to your opponent (an extra turn one lackey answer), and has the abillity to kill anything on their side of the board. Anybody with spot removal, game one, will see the Mancer and sight him as an obvious target, drawing out the swords/fanatic so the Ball can connect on turn three. Mainly though, he turns an empty hand into a good thing (like the Scrolls), thus giving more longterm potential to the burn player.

While the Ball is more of a "liability", it does requires an added level of scrutiny when deciding to play it. It allows you to do a whopping six points with one card, that's unheard of, while nearly acting like a burn spell. Unlike browbeat, your opponent has no choice of taking the damage. The worst thing with Browbeat is that the opposing player is allowed to choose, allowing him to make the best worst choice given the situation. The Solidarity player will almost always give you the cards, making you waste a turn as they go off in your face turn four (if you're lucky enough to be in range) or five (which is more likely after you "waste" turn three) when you try to use those cards. If a vial is on one, or there is a fanatic in play, you don't drop it, obiously. You push the flamebreak button before you drop the ball. If a vial is on two, and there is a warchief in play (which there shouldnt be), you watch out for the sharpshooter. There's always next turn. The biggest thing it allows you to do is make better use of the slots available to you, giving you a much better chance to race any combo or aggro deck.

Added points
-Humility sucks, big time
-It could be argued 4 of each is overkill
-(mancer) Helps to smooth the mana curve, giving you something else to do turn two and beyond for one mana.
-(mancer) When he goes unchecked, he is card advantage, card advantage, card advantage.
-When your opponent can't be targeted (i.e. Ivory Mask, Solitary Confinement) a ball is your best friend

@ Flamebreak Main

I like it over Earthquake because it doesnt allow regeneration of Trolls, plus (a mute point) you get that extra point of damage without actually having to spend the extra mana. And having four of them is a must when you want to be nearly sure of drawing one game one against gobbos.

@ Sulfuric Vortex (I have Pyrostatic Pillar in my board)

I can't figure out what matchups its good against when you compare it to the pillar. Against Solidarity, it's slow to nearly useless. Against Goblins, it's still slow. Against rune red, you lose to your own vortex. It sure helps against control or R/G survival (Baeloff), but is it really necessary? I like the Pillar, but it only really seems to come in against Solidarity (never played against stax) Someone needs to help me out here with the pros/cons of each.

@ Pyrokinesis

It's instant speed four points of damage (for free). I like it alot, as it will allow you to ditch some sorcery speed burn to take out a warchief and a piledriver (definately a surprise you don't want to be left vulnerable to) or a cycled DoJ. What would replace it? Pithing needle? PoP? This is assuming we're not splashing for Alter Reality or Disenchant, which we don't really need to do because of the Anarchy (is Chill that big of a problem? Technically, it doesnt actually prevent you from casting anything).

@ Price main

Wow, what a dead card in the main. I can see it instead of Pyrokenisis in the Sideboard, but what matchups is it used against that we would need help with? Don't just tell me, any deck with non-basics.

@ Chain of Plasma

I like it, in theory. You can prepare for it by saving a land or two, turning them into burn, a two point spell into three, or by ditching that second Fireblast when you only have three lands. Plus, its more instant speed burn (why is Volcanic Hammer even considered when this is available?). I've never actually had any at my disposal, so, I've never actually tried it.

@ Scroll and Barbarian Rings

I think three of each is too many, as you don't actually want to see them early in the game. Neither of them actually do anything other than clog up your board early, so two seems ideal. The reason they're in there in the first place is that they can take out random pro red dorks with a jitte or a pariah strapped to their backs, or punch through a main-decked Rune-red. Otherwise, without some sort of answer in the main, you auto scoop. The single vortex is a nice idea, but I think the Scrolls have more versatillity/consistency while not actually damaging you. Besides, it's more damage than that mountain would ever do. The only problem with this is making you vulnerable to wastelands. But that's a mute point if you can hold it in your hand untill it's go time to fling your uncounterable burn.

@ Fork

I liked it too at one point. 3 seems too much, where they are terrible as a top deck, useless as the only card in your hand, but work nicely when you can threaten them as a counterspell. 2 seems optimal when you can have an actual burn spell in your hand instead... if you're going to play them at all. I like the scrolls in place of the Forks despite the "no permanents" rule.

What do you guys think about Flames of the Blood Hand if you don't like Ball Lightning? It beats through RuneRed, cancels out anything like renewed faith, jitte counters, or a baeloff, to give you some extra time to burn them out, and is an extra answer to a pariah lock or someone running pulse of the fields (which is definately a concern I've been grappling with). It does take away some of the pop you could have from the ball, but, it takes out a creature or two while giving more consistency (because the flames is much more likely to hit than the ball, against all matchups, to be honest) Oh, and its an instant.

So, chew on that and let me know what you think.

GRAH

10-10-2005, 02:11 AM

@ Flamebreak Main

I like it over Earthquake because it doesnt allow regeneration of Trolls, plus (a mute point) you get that extra point of damage without actually having to spend the extra mana. And having four of them is a must when you want to be nearly sure of drawing one game one against gobbos.
Um, yeah, the only reason people (see: bigbear) play Earthquake instead is because they play Wasteland. That's not a debated point.

@ Sulfuric Vortex (I have Pyrostatic Pillar in my board)

I can't figure out what matchups its good against when you compare it to the pillar. Against Solidarity, it's slow to nearly useless. Against Goblins, it's still slow. Against rune red, you lose to your own vortex. It sure helps against control or R/G survival (Baeloff), but is it really necessary? I like the Pillar, but it only really seems to come in against Solidarity (never played against stax) Someone needs to help me out here with the pros/cons of each.
It's good against Goblins with Jitte, which can spell trouble in g1. I am considering putting in Cursed Scroll instead, though.

@ Pyrokinesis

It's instant speed four points of damage (for free). I like it alot, as it will allow you to ditch some sorcery speed burn to take out a warchief and a piledriver (definately a surprise you don't want to be left vulnerable to) or a cycled DoJ. What would replace it? Pithing needle? PoP? This is assuming we're not splashing for Alter Reality or Disenchant, which we don't really need to do because of the Anarchy (is Chill that big of a problem? Technically, it doesnt actually prevent you from casting anything).
Instant 4...to creatures only...at the cost of two cards. I'd much rather have the option to aim at the head. Plus, why would we need cards vs. Goblins?

@ Price main

Wow, what a dead card in the main. I can see it instead of Pyrokenisis in the Sideboard, but what matchups is it used against that we would need help with? Don't just tell me, any deck with non-basics.
Have you been playing competent people? The only top deck other than Solidarity that doesn't play 8 or more permanent nonbasics is--gasp--this one. Goblins now plays 4x Port and 4x Wasteland along with their duals, and Fish and Gro, the two worst matchups, play so many duals that an average PoP deals 6-8 damage.

@ Chain of Plasma

I like it, in theory. You can prepare for it by saving a land or two, turning them into burn, a two point spell into three, or by ditching that second Fireblast when you only have three lands. Plus, its more instant speed burn (why is Volcanic Hammer even considered when this is available?). I've never actually had any at my disposal, so, I've never actually tried it.
It's always an Incinerate. Few competent players will copy it back, because then they'll be taking six. That's not good for them.

@ Scroll and Barbarian Rings

I think three of each is too many, as you don't actually want to see them early in the game. Neither of them actually do anything other than clog up your board early, so two seems ideal. The reason they're in there in the first place is that they can take out random pro red dorks with a jitte or a pariah strapped to their backs, or punch through a main-decked Rune-red. Otherwise, without some sort of answer in the main, you auto scoop. The single vortex is a nice idea, but I think the Scrolls have more versatillity/consistency while not actually damaging you. Besides, it's more damage than that mountain would ever do. The only problem with this is making you vulnerable to wastelands. But that's a mute point if you can hold it in your hand untill it's go time to fling your uncounterable burn.
Why do you need Ring vs. pro-red guys? There are no decks playing creatures with pro-red to fear, and it's not like it helps versus Jitte. It's RR for 2 damage that can't be done until you're about to kill your opponent.

And please learn how to spell "moot."

@ Fork

I liked it too at one point. 3 seems too much, where they are terrible as a top deck, useless as the only card in your hand, but work nicely when you can threaten them as a counterspell. 2 seems optimal when you can have an actual burn spell in your hand instead... if you're going to play them at all. I like the scrolls in place of the Forks despite the "no permanents" rule.
Fork is fading out of most people's decks.

What do you guys think about Flames of the Blood Hand if you don't like Ball Lightning? It beats through RuneRed, cancels out anything like renewed faith, jitte counters, or a baeloff, to give you some extra time to burn them out, and is an extra answer to a pariah lock or someone running pulse of the fields (which is definately a concern I've been grappling with). It does take away some of the pop you could have from the ball, but, it takes out a creature or two while giving more consistency (because the flames is much more likely to hit than the ball, against all matchups, to be honest) Oh, and its an instant.
It's been discussed, and it's not good. Browbeat is a good three-mana tradeoff because it can be efficient burn OR, in the mid/lategame, much needed card advantage. Flames is not a very efficient burn spell. Neither is Ball Lightning.

WiLdFiRe

10-10-2005, 05:27 AM

Whit3 Ghost

10-10-2005, 11:08 AM

A card that I think should be discussed in Burn is Ankh of Mishra.
Here's the breakdown-

Pros:
Is a colorless source of damage
Owns fetchlands, which are played by most of the field
Hurts decks like Wombat and Landstill, which want land on the field and lots of it

Cons- Is a bad topdeck after turn two (but thats why we run 4x Magma Jet)
Hurts you too
May not deal any damage

KillerWhiteRabbit

10-10-2005, 11:31 AM

I've been playing fetches in my R/W build, so Ankh is out for me.
I suppose it's really a metagame choice, if you expect to see a lot of wombat/landstill go for it, but if you expect to see mostly aggro, there will be better choices.

I noticed in your build that you dropped a Mountain for another Chain
Yeah, I tried dropping another mountain too, but was sorely disappointed. It's odd how much difference one land makes...

GRAH

10-10-2005, 11:45 AM

Just a quick point GRAH, I noticed in your build that you dropped a Mountain for another Chain. I tried this out in a tourney on Saturday (I'm a shameless netdecker) and it seemed that I got mana screwed out of more games than I've previously been seeing. How has this been working for you, as I quickly changed back to 19 lands and I've been happy ever since.
Really? I keep getting mana flooded. I'm not going to go down to 17 lands, but I keep drawing so many damn lands it gets tiring.

Whit3 Ghost:
Ankh doesn't really help any bad matchups, so I really don't see the point in playing it.

DOODLEBIRD

10-10-2005, 12:02 PM

I want to start by adding the decklists that were on my original entry, just first to list mine, then 3 others that are varied but burn that are possibilities.
Mine :

4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 lava spike
4 fireblast
4 incinerate
4 magma jet
3 volcanic hammer
3 mogg fanatic
3 flamebreak
2 earthquake (as of 10/20 rolling earthquake)
2 cursed scroll
2 fork
19 mountains
2 barbarian ring
SB:
4 anarchy
4 red elemental blast
3 pyroblast
4 pyrostatic pillar

The Others:

4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 shrapnel blast
4 fireblast
4 lava spike
4 pyrostatic pillar
4 cursed scroll
4 ankh of mishra
4 pithing needle
19 mountains
3 lotus petal
side:
3 anarchy
2 sulfuric vortex
3 price of progress
4 REB
3 shattering pulse

next:
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 fireblast
4 incinerate
4 mogg fanatic
4 magma jet
4 grim lavamancer
4 volcanic hammer
4 lava spike
4 chain of plasma
20 mountains
side:
3 anarchy
3 sulfuric vortex
3 pithing needle
2 shatterstorm
4 pyrostatic pillar

next:
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 lava spike
4 magma jet
4 fireblast
4 incinerate
4 fire/ice
4 flame rift
3 price of progress
3 fork
2 earthquake
19 mountains
side:
2 earthquake
3 anarchy
2 sulfuric vortex
3 pithing needle
2 pillage
3 pyroblast

I have more content input as soon as I get little more time later.
it's all good
thanks and enjoy

Please don't make a post and then elaborate on it later. If you don't have the time, then please wait until you do before you just throw up decklists. Also, who the heck is "nad"? - Jander
nad-typo=and

To elaborate, my deck - the first list, is following most of the rules outlined (some which are from my post earlier), though I find that running the 2 scroll helps in the meta more than hinders the win. I also have found that the 2 (more would be a potential problem) rings can give that extra oomph to get the win and does once again help in the meta. The sweepers are very mcuh needed for the meta, though the number may lower by one, I'll see. The 21 land count affords all this fine and the jets (though reducing to 3 is something I will try) help fix it as well.
I will post more about the other decks that I listed that aren't mine in my future reply, though I also hope questions are initiated, as they aren't to elaborate to understand.

GRAH

10-10-2005, 01:33 PM

DOODLEBIRD

10-10-2005, 03:08 PM

Doodlebird, your versions are considered strictly inferior to the mainstream. There's really no need to post them. You play either outdated or subpar stuff in all of them, and we've discussed a lot of this already. This thread was made so we wouldn't have to make so many redundant statements.

(At least you've stopped playing Mages' Contest)
Well, I must say that a blanket statement like that is just pushing for an argumentative response, which from you I'm so shocked.
Yeah, haven't used any contest for a while.
Anyway only the first deck labeled "mine" is mine, the other three are list of others, hence coming under the title "other".
the fisrt one is one clutterd with permanents so as to not give minimal targets, but many, and all dealing damage (or being sac food). It's still a race and stops many deck types MD, the Sb is less important here.
The second is much the standard with inclution of lavamancer (though this is, me included, largely considered alibility more than help; along with ball lightning and scroll that also often show up in this thinking).
The third is almost all direct and uses some situational card that prove highly efficient damage when the meta works out right.
Both of the last two are more dependent on the SB for some matches in the meta (though the third mostly assumes to outpace it all).
it's all good
thanks and enjoy

Finn

10-11-2005, 09:58 AM

We all know that Lightning Helix is good. Let me tell you how good it is. I sponsor/judge weekly Legacy tournaments in my area. One of the players has been bringing a version of Burn for about 5 or 6 weeks. The recent inclusion of Lighning Helix has been nothing short of huge for him. Two Helix resolving in the same game is essentially an extra turn of life created from nothing against most opponents. Since he just replaced Incinerate with Helix (the Plataues and Wooded Foothills were already in the deck) his deck is strictly better, unless anyone starts haviing success with Sedge Troll. Against Goblins in particular, this card is enormous.

I played against the deck myself for fun. Personally, I play a version of Welder Survival, a combo/control matchup for him. Against me it came in quite handy. My calculations for how many turns it would take to kill him were off by one and I got burned. I would not have lost otherwise.

I understand the white splash is relatively common. After seeing first hand the effectiveness of this card, I would seriuosly consider testing it yourselves. Myself, I figured it would really only help out against an oncoming aggro build, but that has turned out to not be the case.

GRAH

10-11-2005, 04:15 PM

PTBNL

10-11-2005, 08:07 PM

If I decide to splash white, I still don't know how much I like Helix. In my first three turns, I want to be dropping basic mountains so as not to expose myself to Wasteland. Especially against fast aggro decks like Goblins, getting a third land for Flamebreak is key. Of course, the third land is also needed to provide mana to unload your burn fast enough, to fuel Browbeat and cards drawn from it, and to sac to multiple Fireblasts.

Here's a pretty common senario, it's your second turn (you went first), you have a mountain and fetchland in play, you hold four Burn spells plus Lightning Helix. Your opponent is playing Goblins and has a Vial and mountain in play. So do you fetch a mountain or plateau? If you fetch a plateau and Goblins is holding wasteland, you will likely get mana screwed or become too slow to race Goblins. If you fetch a mountain, you run the risk of not seeing another white source. Let's say you maindeck 2 plateau 8 fetchlands. Now your chances of seeing one of the remaining 9 white sources by turn 6 (next four draws) is roughly 55%, which means about half the time, Helix is a dead card. My point is that Helix exposes us to more inconsistency, which is something Burn has problems with already, and it is questionable to me whether Helix is better than something like Volcanic Hammer.

Zilla

10-12-2005, 05:42 AM

Lightning Helix is not worth the splash. Disenchant is the ~only~ thing that makes the white splash worthwhile. Lightning Helix is just an Incinerate when you're running that many fetches, and the Goblins matchup is already so good for this deck that it's irrelevant. Obviously, if you're playing the white splash, there's no reason not to play it, but it's not "OMG TEH BROKEN!!!1111"
I'm getting kind of tired of seeing you say this when it's clear you haven't tested it yourself. You're adamantly against the white splash because you don't want to shell out the cash for Plateaus, which is fine, but call it what it is. Finn is citing observations of actual tournament play and saying that based upon those observations, Helix is nothing short of amazing. You're free to disagree with him, but it would be totally awesome if you actually tested it before doing so, which it is quite clear you have not.

Not trying to be mean here, Grah... just pointing out that rhetorical arguments are terrible for innovation. Theoretically Fetchlands cancel out Helix's lifegain, but in my experience from actual testing this is simply not the case. On average, you break 2 Fetches in a given game, and on average you resolve 1-2 Helixes in a given game. This is a positive net gain, and it absolutely makes a difference against aggro decks, particularly in the mirror.

Further, as you pointed out, the Disenchant on its own very likely makes the white splash worthwhile in a prepared metagame; Helix is just icing on the cake.

@Ankh of Mishra:

This was discussed in the old Burn thread. Every old Burn thread, actually. Here's the upshot: in most cases, Ankh is good in your good matchups and bad in your tough ones. For example, Ankh is strong in the Landstill matchup, but you already pummel the hell out of it. In the Goblins matchup, on the other hand, Ankh is awful. It's slow, easy for them to play around, and is symmetrical at best. The exceptions to this rule are, in my experience: MBC, MWC, and Turboland. If you see a lot of any of these archetypes in your meta, then Ankh absolutely deserves SB slots. It rarely, if ever, belongs in the main.

SenilePack

10-12-2005, 07:28 PM

Theoretically Fetchlands cancel out Helix's lifegain, but in my experience from actual testing this is simply not the case. On average, you break 2 Fetches in a given game, and on average you resolve 1-2 Helixes in a given game. This is a positive net gain, and it absolutely makes a difference against aggro decks, particularly in the mirror.
Also, even if the 3 life gain is used to recover 3 life from fetches, you are STILL 3 life ahead of where you were 2 mana ago. The ONLY downside to playing white would be the nonbasics, but I agree with zilla here; if disenchant is worth splashing for on its own, why not just add a 6 life shift for 2 mana while you're at it?

Icemyn

10-12-2005, 07:34 PM

As the official spokesman of Lightning Helix I wuold like to say that this card is nothing but good and gives you a reason to splash white instead of green.

The only argument Ive heard against it is that the lifegain isnt that important and even if it isnt, its the same cost as incinerate does the same 3 damage (allows regen) and still nets you life it may not be that important but its a factor what regen creatures did you want to kill anyway.

Lightining helix for card of the year!!!!

midnightAce

10-12-2005, 07:48 PM

Here's a pretty common senario, it's your second turn (you went first), you have a mountain and fetchland in play, you hold four Burn spells plus Lightning Helix. Your opponent is playing Goblins and has a Vial and mountain in play. So do you fetch a mountain or plateau? If you fetch a plateau and Goblins is holding wasteland, you will likely get mana screwed or become too slow to race Goblins. If you fetch a mountain, you run the risk of not seeing another white source. Let's say you maindeck 2 plateau 8 fetchlands. Now your chances of seeing one of the remaining 9 white sources by turn 6 (next four draws) is roughly 55%, which means about half the time, Helix is a dead card. My point is that Helix exposes us to more inconsistency, which is something Burn has problems with already, and it is questionable to me whether Helix is better than something like Volcanic Hammer.

I think the whole Wasteland issue is making people view everything in one dimension.

Something to consider before screaming Wasteland pwn all splash in Goblins.

a) Wasteland is symetrical to a degree, that means that both players lose a land, let's not worry about coloured mana for now, but in terms of mana development, -1 for both players.

b) Goblin decks needs to race against Burn to win the game, that means more threats per turn, that means they need the mana to stick around, especially turn 1 thru 3.

c) If the Burn deck does indeed splash an upward of 6-8 fetchlands, there is no reason not to include a single Plain. (I fully understand that there is NO enermy coloured fetches, but a single Plain is still do-able.

d) Helix should NOT be considered a dead card until
i) ALL your white sources are gone.
ii) It is the ONLY card left in your hand and you have no access to white mana.

When considering the impact from Wasteland, there is no hypotheraical situation that covers all bases. In the situation you described above, what if the Gob player only had Mountain, Wasteland, or Mountain Moutain, Wasteland, or even Moutain, Port, Wasteland? In all cases, unless he start top decking lands, he should not be recklessly throwing Wastelands early, hitting the 3 mana mark is important for a Gob player, unless of course he got a Vial in play... of course, he could also cheat the cost via Lackey, etc etc...

You see where I'm going? The assumption just keeps on going. Wasteland is not a one dimensional card that spells "Die, Splash!!", but rather a more conditional form of disruption that can be played around if the Burn player can make the right choice based on particular instances of the game.

Obfuscate Freely

10-12-2005, 10:23 PM

Actually, PTBNL's example was terrible, because he only has 2 lands. Missing your 3rd land drop against Goblins shuts off Flamebreak, and is generally bad whether they have Wasteland or not.

On the other hand, if you do have a 3rd land, there should be no reason for you to have that dilemma on turn 2. You can play/fetch for Mountains on turns 1 and 2, and then play/fetch for a Plateau on turn 3, before you Flamebreak. In this scenario an opposing Wasteland will only prevent Helix, instead of Flamebreak, and it slows down Goblins' recovery.

If you don't need to play Flamebreak on turn 3, you probably shouldn't fetch at all (or even play the land, if it's a Plateau), assuming you don't have extra lands in hand.

The fact that you are only splashing for 4 cards, none of which are unique in effect, means that you can play around Wasteland very effectively. Just use your head.

syssc9

10-13-2005, 03:27 PM

Stepping back from the L-Helix/white-splash issue for just a moment…

I have seen Volcanic Hammer mentioned several times in this thread and I wonder why. In one of the previous Burn threads Thunderbolt was mentioned and summarily dismissed, and I wonder about that also. They cost the same and do the same 3 damage. V-Hammer can go to the dome, or hit any creatures and is a Sorcery. Thunderbolt can be cast at the opponent also, but has the drawback of being restricted to flying critters. Thunderbolt is, however, an instant vs. V-Hammer's Sorcery speed. This fact (instant) would seem to outweigh the drawback of not being able to hit ground-pounders. Perhaps I’m way off here, but I would like to see more discussion of Thunderbolt.

GRAH

10-13-2005, 03:39 PM

syss: It's been changed to Chain of Plasma, which is essentially just Incinerate 5-8. Thunderbolt has the annoying thing of not being able to target Goblins.

Thunderbolt isn't necessarily a bad card, per se...but it really just ends up being an instant Lava Spike for 1 more. There are just so few fliers left that are playable.

TheStupidBurnKid

10-13-2005, 05:07 PM

Just a thought... sacred foudry is fetchable, and wouldnt expose us to wastelands... granted, the whole two damage part is annoying, but it's optional of course... having one Foundry and one Plateau to fetch for doesn't seem like a crazy idea.

scrumdogg

10-13-2005, 05:15 PM

Foundry most definitely opens you up to Wasteland, just because it is a Plains Mountain does NOT make it a basic land. It has the same wording as Plateau (were Plateau to be reprinted...it would be a Plains Mountain non basic land that be searched by effects that find basic land TYPES but not basic lands). In the new T2, for example, Farseek can find a Sacred Foundry but Sakura Tribe Elder cannot.

bigbear102

10-13-2005, 06:47 PM

Personally, I don't believe that Lightning Helix is going to be worth the trouble it will cause. You say that Goblins needs the mana development just as much as we do, but they have a clock and we don't, so if they stop both decks in their tracks, and have a creature on the table, then we are screwed. Also searching for a non-basic on turn 2 is not a good idea. Whatever anyone says, if the Goblins player is decent, they will waste your 2nd red source, even if they only have one land.

In the scenario given, if you only hit two land, goblins is not an auto-loss, because every other card in the deck works besides flamebreak. Goblins is still a 50-50 race even without flamebreak. On the otherhand, if you have one land, that limits you to 12 spells, which will not be able to race.
Personally I don't like having 3 land in my opening hand. I believe an optimal hand has 2 land in it, as you will probably draw another by turn 3, especially if you draw first, which normally happens game 2 :)

GRAH

10-13-2005, 09:28 PM

Personally I don't like having 3 land in my opening hand. I believe an optimal hand has 2 land in it, as you will probably draw another by turn 3, especially if you draw first, which normally happens game 2 :)
Definitely. That's why I keep dropping lands. I hate to draw them. I throw away any hands with 4 or more lands...and sometimes ones with 3. Hell, I might go down to 17.

strathe

10-14-2005, 10:53 PM

I need to chime in further on Lightning Helix's behalf. The card is simply amazing. 3 life simply negates the first turn in which an aggro deck attacks. Couple this to the 4 to 5 turn timeframe that Burn playes the game within and Lightning Helix buys you a turn.

To call the card Incinerate is a gross mistrepresentation. The only games where it will have the same impact as Incinerate is aginst
1) Decks that do not kill you through damage.
2) Decks that have some way of fundamentally negating your strategy. These are primarily white enchantments like Ivory Mask, Worship-and-an-unkillable-guy type locks, etc.

There are not a great deal of decks other than Solidarity in the first catergory. Even Tendrils of Agony based combo will need to play an extra two spells if you helix them. The majority of decks with access to cards in catergory two will only have them after sideboard, which means Helix will still be far and away better than Incinerate game one.

The only thing holding Helix back is the mana base. Using a standard R/w mana with 8 fetches makes that not really a problem at all. As discussed above by MidnightAce and others, wasteland will be a problem that can be solved with smart play the vast majority of the time. Given that white also overs a very good SB card in Disenchant, I would push white very hard.

To go a little further off base with white, I would like to put Suppresion Feild up for discusion. Using a mana base of 4 Plateau, 4 Sacred Foundry and 4 Battlefeild Forge plus X mountains would allow you to support your white commitments as easily as fetchlands would. The Feild itself should play in the same way it can in stax, as a Sphere of resistance that only affects your opponenet.

The major plus is that nearly all decks play fetches. Other random abilities abound. So Suppresion Field could buy you a whole lot of time.

The minuses are the key though.

Do enough decks play fetches, and play enough fetches?
Does the fact that it really wont do anything when played after turn 3 matter?
Will not being able to play around Wasteland with smart fetch usage be an issue?
Is losing Price of Progress devestating?

Finally, the last card I would like to bring forward is Genju of the Spires. Obviously not in conjunction with Suppresion Feild. Basically it givs the deck a powerful repeating damage source and has no drawback. It can also take advantage of surplus lands in a similar fashion to Chain of Plasma, which is a major plus for that card. Oh, and it simply kills non manland control decks dead, and really socks it to landstill. But thats a good match anyway.

So, is it good enough in a format where most decks pack creatures of some kind?

Zilla

10-14-2005, 11:29 PM

Genju might help solve the deck's lack of reach in the late game... however, I'm wary of opening myself up to my opponent's instant-speed creature hate, particularly when said creature hate also incidentally becomes land destruction as well. This isn't even to mention problems with tempo in the early the game, as well as opposing blockers.

It might be a decent SB card, but what does it beat that the deck already doesn't? Landstill has recurring Manlands and StP to answer it, it's probably not a very good against Solidarity since it so negatively impacts early game tempo, Goblins will be able to block it all day long or remove it with Incinerators, Fanatics, and Sharpshooter, and it's a real liability in the mirror match. The only place I could see it being a boon is in the Turboland and perhaps the MBC matchups. Then again, Ankh of Mishra is almost certainly the superior SB hate for these archetypes.

strathe

10-15-2005, 12:02 AM

Unlike actual burn in this deck though, Genju's would not be a 4 of card that need to pull the same amount of weight in evey matchup. 2 is probably the best number, and I guess you could have more in the board. Most of your arguments are pertinent, however tempo loss is not valid.

2 reasons. Firstly, burn is not a tempo deck. Burn is a fairly unique strategy that basically reads "you lose if I resolve somewhere between 6 and 7 spells." Unlike a tempo based deck, those spells work equally well whenever they are played. The only speed restraint is what your opponent is doing. If they are killing the Genju with a spell, or better yet a creature, its likely they are not furthering their own plan to win.

The second reason is Genju is 3 mana for 6 damage. The fits fairly well into this deck. To say that is a tempo loss is the same as saying playing Lightning Bot and Chain of Plasma on your opponent is tempo loss.

Sure, its not good against goblins. Its not even good in every other match. But do you think it can be worthwhile in enough of them?

Zilla

10-15-2005, 12:13 AM

Sure, its not good against goblins. Its not even good in every other match. But do you think it can be worthwhile in enough of them?
Probably not. I went through a lot of the major contenders in the format in my last post and explained why I didn't feel they were that useful in those matchups.

As for the tempo issue, I see where you're coming from, and from a goldfish standpoint it could very well be true... but from an actual match where your opponent is likely to have either blockers or creature removal or both, you're losing tempo not only in casting and activating Genju, but also in losing lands and recasting Genju.

As I'm sure you're aware, a well-built Burn deck is all about the curve; you should be using all or nearly all of your available mana every turn right up until you hit topdeck mode. I admit Genju gets decent in topdeck mode, but mightn't it be wiser to concentrate on more instant-speed burn spells in those slots to prevent yourself from ever getting to topdeck mode in the first place? And, barring that, is it a better finisher as a 2-of than, say, Fledgeling Dragon under the same circumstances? Admittedly, it's slightly more expensive and it doesn't recur, but it's got evasion, it's more resilient on its own, and it doesn't jeopardize your manabase. Just food for thought.

strathe

10-15-2005, 12:48 AM

Just food for thought.

Before you read on @ you need to know that I have read and appreaciate this part of you post.

To go on.

As for the tempo issue, I see where you're coming from, and from a goldfish standpoint it could very well be true... but from an actual match where your opponent is likely to have either blockers or creature removal or both, you're losing tempo not only in casting and activating Genju, but also in losing lands and recasting Genju.

This is not true. As I said before, mainly because Burn is not a deck that relies on tempo or even acknowledges the concept.

I believe it was you who drew the paralel between this deck and Solidarity.

If you want to move away from the goldfish situation to the real game, think about why this deck beats most forms of control. All spells do the same thing. Every one is hyper efficent. And therefore it does not matter if a number of them are countered.

If you play and activate Genju only to have it removed, is has simply been countered. Having a fireblast countered would be equally devestaing, save for the fact that you choose when to activate genju, allowing you to negate some of that disadvantage. To claim that its a tempo loss in the real world and to go onto say that it needs to be recast is also misleading.

As I'm sure you're aware @ a well-built Burn deck is all about the curve; you should be using all or nearly all of your available mana every turn right up until you hit topdeck mode. I admit Genju gets decent in topdeck mode, but mightn't it be wiser to concentrate on more instant-speed burn spells in those slots to prevent yourself from ever getting to topdeck mode in the first place?

I'm sorry, I was not aware of that. I had believed that a well built burn deck would use the most efficient spells, allowing you to convert all of your mana into the most amount of damage every turn. This being the case you would not actually curve out on your spells in the traditional sense, but simply cast more and more of them each turn untill you ran out of cards or you won. The basis of the deck being that more expensive cards, and a curve, are not neccesary.

Also you will need to explain your point about getting into or avoiding topdeck mode a little better. Genju recurs, so if it is played and killed as a creature, you can keep going. A burn spell is one shot. Surely you are not sugesting that Genju will actually kill slower in those situations where it can get through?

And, barring that, is it a better finisher as a 2-of than, say, Fledgeling Dragon?

I would say yes, as it is not relegated to the position of a finisher in most matches. But thats really a personal call. As I have said, this is not a 4 of for the deck. A burn spell will always do damage, while genju might not be able to. However it does some things that a burn spell can't, so I believe it is worth looking at.

To move on though, I would appreciate your opinion on Suppresion Feild. I have no test data in that area, so I'm going totally by theory and I can't decide if it would be worth a try.

bigbear102

10-15-2005, 04:35 AM

First of all, I am going to back 'Zilla in the Genju debate, I really think it is sub-par in this style deck. It can turn your lands into targets, which is never good. This deck doesn't seem to have enough excess land to warrant a spell such as this, it seems like more of a sligh/RDW card to me.

On to Suppression Field: This is a very interesting card. It slows down A LOT of things. One positive is that it lets you get away with a subpar manabase because it also hoses wasteland. The only problem is that it is a reactive card, and takes a slot of something that will smash face. This deck does not want reactive cards most of the time (hypocritical considering I play 2 Pithing Needle maindeck... i know). Other than that it seems like a very playable card, as it does slow most playable life gain (baloth, jitte, feeder) and CoP:Red. It does not however stop Chill, which is the biggest threat this deck can face. Suppression Field seems like it might make a decent fit into the whitesplash cardpool, as it helps protect your land and also hoses some hate.

GRAH

10-15-2005, 02:00 PM

I'm going to say nay on Genju, also. It uses up 3 mana and opens your lands up to dying.

For a long-term win condition, I think I said it earlier, but I've done -1 Chain -1 Vortex (:() +2 Cursed Scroll. It's a nice and effective lategame card. Genju is not so much.

midnightAce

10-15-2005, 03:49 PM

Time to pitch in on the Genju arguement, seems like an interesting one.

This is not true. As I said before, mainly because Burn is not a deck that relies on tempo or even acknowledges the concept

I find this very hard to believe.

Looking at the aggro catagory, we got Goblins, WW/AS, and other assorted aggros ranging from Zoo, Fish, NQG, GreenStompy and SuiBlack. Every single one of these decks will have blockers for the Genju, if you are using the burn spells to clear a path for the Genju, then you are leaning towards the Sligh's primary strategy. If you argue that Flamebreak will clear the board for the Genju, then Genju is a highly situational card. Also, note Goblins have Ports that will have a field day with the Genju.

Looking at the control catagory, by playing with Genju, Landstill suddently gained 6 or so useful cards, 4 StP and 2 Disenchants, from a card advantage piont of view, that is terrible.

Back to the issue on tempo, what is tempo? Casting a Genju on the mountain on the first turn only to have opponent playing a Mogg Fanatic? That is indeed tempo loss, essentially you have done NOTHING for your first turn. That's the kind of tempo loss you should be considering.

If you want to move away from the goldfish situation to the real game, think about why this deck beats most forms of control. All spells do the same thing. Every one is hyper efficent. And therefore it does not matter if a number of them are countered.

In this case, we could draw parrallel between Browbeat and Genju. Browbeat cost 3, Genju, should it be a top decked card, requires 3 to to play and activate it as well. Browbeat provides damage for sure, either by dealing it directly or by drawing into it, (even if Lady Luck hates your guts and gave you 3 Mountains, at least you now have a better top deck chance.) Where as Genju, again, situational as hell, it can ONLY deal 6 damage provided that your opponent has no blockers, AND no instant creature removals.

If you play and activate Genju only to have it removed, is has simply been countered. Having a fireblast countered would be equally devestaing, save for the fact that you choose when to activate genju, allowing you to negate some of that disadvantage. To claim that its a tempo loss in the real world and to go onto say that it needs to be recast is also misleading.

That's not right either. When would you want to activate Genju? When you have nothing else in hand? When you have lots of mana? On the second turn right after a first turn Genju? Any early Genju activation risks land destruction. Against decks such as Goblins, the 3 mana mark for Flamebreak is very important. Again, Port will have a field day with the Genju-ed Mountain, so Genju will often turn into lead weight.

If you play and activate Genju late game as a finisher, compare that with Fireblast. How many things can stop Fireblast? Counters. How many things can stop Genju? Counters, instant creature removal, instant enchantment removal. In that sense, Genju is strictly inferior as a finisher compare to Fireblast.

I'm sorry, I was not aware of that. I had believed that a well built burn deck would use the most efficient spells, allowing you to convert all of your mana into the most amount of damage every turn.

Again, Genju is not an efficient spell due to its conditional nature. Unlike Browbeat, which some of burn deck uses, short of a counter, Browbeat will ALWAYS provide damage in some sense despite it being a conditional spell. Genju will not do that. If you are wasting burn spells just to let Genju through, then that alone, clearly demostrates that Genju belongs in a Sligh varient decks.

Also you will need to explain your point about getting into or avoiding topdeck mode a little better. Genju recurs, so if it is played and killed as a creature, you can keep going. A burn spell is one shot. Surely you are not sugesting that Genju will actually kill slower in those situations where it can get through?

In most situations, burn deck will be doing the top decking because it exhausts its hand fairely quickly. Against 90% of the aggro decks, Genju will not push through. Against Landstill varients, (I assume your burn deck does not pack Wasteland.) the Genju will not pull through as well.

As a finisher, Fledgeling Dragon is far more superior than Genju.
a) It can block some threats and live.
b) It converts excess mana ALL into points of damage. (Assuming you are running straight up all red sources.)
c) It has evasion. Even pre-threshold, it flies.
d) It does NOT require continous investment of resources to get damage through. Pre-threshold, it's 2 damage for sure, post-threshold, it's 5 for sure, the mana investment adds MORE damage, but it does not require any mana investment to provide the base damage other than the initial casting cost.

To be honest, I don't like creatures to be the finisher of the deck at all. I try to stick with Zilla's philosophy as closely as possible, and that is, the more dead cards your opponent has, the more card advantage for this deck. In that respect, I try to play 0 creatures in the deck. The only reason Mogg Fanatic is in there, because it essentially ignores creature removal and gaves me a solid turn 1 answer to Lackey.

Zilla

10-15-2005, 07:32 PM

Midnight covered most of what I'd say in response to the Genju debate. I'd like to address the following, however:

Burn is not a deck that relies on tempo or even acknowledges the concept
is in direct contradiction with:

a well built burn deck would use the most efficient spells, allowing you to convert all of your mana into the most amount of damage every turn.

Using efficient spells and maximizing the mana to effect ratio every single turn is the very definition of tempo. Burn doesn't ignore tempo; its ability to succeed is defined by it.

The reason that I suggest Genju is potentially bad for tempo is twofold:

1. It can cause you to lose a land, which means you have less mana to dedicate to casting your spells. In essence, you're missing a land drop, which is clearly bad for tempo.

2. If your opponent has creature removal, land removal, enchantment removal, or a blocker, you've invested 1-3 mana to deal 0 damage. That's about as bad for tempo as you can get.

The comparison to Fireblast isn't particularly apt. Fireblast is good because it costs 0 mana. From a tempo standpoint, 0 mana for 4 damage is ridiculously strong. Yes, it can be countered, but so can nearly every card in the game, so that argument doesn't have any real weight. Fireblast is unaffected by creature hate, enchantment hate, land hate, and blockers, where Genju is. AND Genju requires 3 mana, where Fireblast requires 0. From a tempo standpoint, Genju isn't in remotely the same league as Fireblast.

KillerWhiteRabbit

10-15-2005, 08:19 PM

I hate to open old wounds with the Lightning Helix debate, but I've been testing this for about 3 weeks now, and I've noticed some subtleties with this deck's mana base that I thought I should share. For the most part, if you're playing against a deck running wastes, the average plateau has untill the opposing player's next main phase to live. This is very much enough time, as most of the time, they will be retrived through fetches at the end of your opponent's turn. I've also started saccing them to fireblasts in response to wastes, if I have land to back it up in my hand, or know I've scryed into it. In addition, I've started holding back a sac-land both for the sake of making my opponent think I'm holding burn (I'm sure that's not a new concept), but also to fetch my 2nd (or 1st) plateau if I need it. If you play the mana base right, wasteland should not (and has not) be a problem. I also run only 2 plateau (not for budget reasons), as it helps me make what land drops I want to make basic, basic. And, no, I don't have trouble drawing white mana :).

Disenchant=worth it
Lightning helix= almost worth it
Both= Burn is good again

DOODLEBIRD

10-16-2005, 03:32 AM

Genju issue, I agree with the majority here, as I myself have tried it before (and mentioned it here when moods weren't as accepting) and have found to be far more struggle than benefit in a Burn deck (but try it in the right RDW or sligh and you may enjoy it).
I'm somewhat shocked to hear that GRAH is using a couple of scrolls again, I had been informed in these parts that those were a weak choice.
And I wish I could feel comfortable spalshing white, but I first off don't see where it's where it's rewards outweigh its risk. And yet I'm still intrigued to see if it can done effectively.

it's all good
thanks and enjoy

KillerWhiteRabbit

10-16-2005, 11:23 AM

I was sorting through my collection of commons, and came across this little gem:
Monk realist
1W 1/1
When monk realist comes into play, destroy target enchantment.

That lead me to think, what artifacts do we really want to kill with disenchant? Not many (effectively). So isn't this essentially a sorcery speed disenchant that could be good for a couple damage in the right matchup? I'm not entirely sold on it either, but just thought it was worth consideration.

C.

Slay

10-16-2005, 11:32 AM

Chalice of the Void.

Trinisphere.

Both savagely bigjob you, and it's not worth the loss of a game to get a silly 1/1.
-Slay

syssc9

10-16-2005, 12:43 PM

Just catching up on my reading and loved what GRAH had to say at the top of the page. My youngest son (now 27) and I have made this archetype our pet project since Ice Age. When Cursed Scroll became availabe with Tempest he immediately acquired 4 and found it gave the deck reach beyond turn 5 into the mid and late-mid game. 4 was to many, and today I agree that 2 is probably optimum. I kept quiet when Scroll was declaimed earlier, but I'm with GRAH on this one: if you want mid game reach, Cursed Scroll is extremely effective.

GRAH

10-16-2005, 07:54 PM

I have now used Cursed Scroll to its greatest extent: winning against a Landstill deck with 3 Sphere of Laws on the board.

...after it gained 10 life from Zuran Orb.

Flaring Pain is rather good, too.

KillerWhiteRabbit

10-16-2005, 08:02 PM

Chalice of the Void.

Trinisphere.

Both savagely bigjob you, and it's not worth the loss of a game to get a silly 1/1.
-Slay

Ahhh, thanks for pointing those little gems out...okay, back to disenchant!

TheStupidBurnKid

10-16-2005, 10:07 PM

GRAH

10-17-2005, 05:20 PM

Oh, and Grah, thanks for reiterating a point I made two pages back, however brief, about cursed scroll. It does open you up to main deck disenchant, but it seems worth it, doesn't it? By the way, how many did you find were optimal in your build? More or less?
2. The maindeck Disenchant argument I had made is irrelevant now, because people have stopped maindecking Disenchant (which they did when ATS was considered better).

TheStupidBurnKid

10-17-2005, 10:54 PM

Except the occassional Landstill and the Wombat deck I played the other day at my local Legacy tourney. I wouldn't necessarily rule that out though... not that we can do much about it anyway. That aside, I found 3 two many and didn't even bother trying one.

Zilla

10-17-2005, 11:17 PM

Chalice of the Void.

Trinisphere.

Both savagely bigjob you, and it's not worth the loss of a game to get a silly 1/1.
-Slay
You forgot Sphere of Resistance, Zuran Orb, and Umezawa's Jitte.

I have now used Cursed Scroll to its greatest extent: winning against a Landstill deck with 3 Sphere of Laws on the board.

...after it gained 10 life from Zuran Orb.
One good game does not a solid card choice make. Particularly when Anarchy, Sulfuric Vortex, Pithing Needle, and Disenchant answer those problems already.

DOODLEBIRD

10-18-2005, 01:38 AM

With risk of just getting slammed for posting a decklist (or even a warning -it's how I got the first yellow square), I'm posting my decklist.
We basically know (as have most of us done so as well), I've jumped here then there, read, this, played that, tweaked, tweaked, and re-tweaked, and I have my latest list that I'm breaking couple of some popular conventions of Burn (that I generally accept as well, and have touted them occasionally) with it. Please voice your support or disdain, for I still need feedback (as do we all since we seem to keep comming here), but until I can get some serious playtesting done with it I will probably not be changing for now (but when or if I do I'd like to be able to read what was thought of the build). I will break up bit to easilly see the few changes (not that they probably don't glaringly stand out anyway, but more importantly to set the core cards seperate so they can easily be passed through). There are 2 of one card nobody will like I figure, 2 of one that should be SB board material if anything, and 2 of 1 non-basic that is not well respected. But overall the deterioration of how it complments the core weighs less than the benefits it can yeild, especailly in the first game. and it just addes more to the SB action in game 2, and can reduce the occurence of game 3. Well that's long winded enough for now :
core
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 fireblast
4 incinerate
4 magma jet
4 lava spike
semi-core
4 volcanic hammer
2 flamebreak
3 rolling earthquake - as of 10/20
2 fork
the oddities
2 pithing needle
2 glacial chasm
2 barbarian ring

19 mountains

SB:
4 anarchy
1 beacon of destruction
3 red elemental blast
3 pyroblast
4 pyrostatic pillar

it's all good
thanks and enjoy

We warned you once for just posting a list with no discussion or card explanation. Such posts are essentially spam. Please edit in some commentary on your card choices. Why are some of these cards in there? Why are there so many two ofs and three ofs?---Frogboy
Okay. It not a stretch, but here goes. (I'm of course just going to elaborate on the oddities section, as I did a little in the my intial chatter above. Oh, and there is only on '3 of' MD, and it actully is just complimenting it's kin that is use's '2 of' to really have '5 of'. And man did I call it for posting a decklist without much extra explanations).
2 pithing needle - shut of many thing, so something will be there 4 out 5 times that is worth shutting down to allow the burn to get in for the win. Yes running 2 may not be enough, but running 3 could end up a glut, so test with 2 and hope magma jet helps smooth it all out. And yes the can easily destroyed as I give them no other artifacts to whack, and there is decent amount of arti-hate MD. Though they will spend mana to destroy, so that there turn is not getting them much ahead either and I spent little man as well so I may still be able to do something else.
2 chasm - shuts of most everthing except those using alternate win conditions (like solidarity), this can buy a turn or two needed for burn to win. Yes any wasteland or LD and it rains on my parade and I'm down a land (and another card)for nothing. I find though that wastes aren't that prevelant, nor is LD. Though I run 21 lands so I usually have enough, and once again jet can help fix draws a little. Once again maybe 2 is not enough and yet 3 can be too much, so try 2 (err to the side of caution).
2 barbarian ring - has same weakness as chasm and I must reach 7 cards in the grave (which is about all I get in a game), so it may never be more than hurtful mountain that i can't sac to fireblast, but once again I run 21 land so this is not really much of an inconvenience. The best up side is can't be countered and is colorless, and hey, it's normally just land that can't do damage.
These 6 cards could be considered a detriment, but it just give more consisten turn 5 wins, and I'm not talking about goldfishing. I can still pull a 4 turn win but it's less likely, but it makes the turn 5 and 6 wins more solid. And these cards very much compliment the SB cards (as I mentioned intially) to give a solid game 2 and hoefully less game threes to have to deal with.
Out of the semi-core I am considering dropping 2 forks and one hammer and adding in 3 chain of plasma, for it may actually flush out some arti-hate they think they don't need, and I may have a chasm in play at which point they can't hurt me with it. The catch is I do like the fork in when palying against blue (which often my biggest threat), but they are such a bummer as top deck mode draw.
That should be enough explanation, or enough of being long winded if you already understood the card inclusion and just think I'm still wasting my time trying them.

GRAH

10-18-2005, 12:18 PM

I have now used Cursed Scroll to its greatest extent: winning against a Landstill deck with 3 Sphere of Laws on the board.

...after it gained 10 life from Zuran Orb.
One good game does not a solid card choice make. Particularly when Anarchy, Sulfuric Vortex, Pithing Needle, and Disenchant answer those problems already.
I said that as a "look at this, wow" thing, not a "Dangers of Cool Things" thing. Seriously, get the stick out of your ass.

Anarchy isn't playable because of its cost, and Pithing Needle and Sulfuric Vortex happen to not shut down or bypass Sphere of Law.

That's a questionable attitude for a guy with two warnings. This would be your third, if such a thing were possible. Goodbye and good luck. - Zilla

DOODLEBIRD

10-19-2005, 02:14 AM

Anarchy isn't playable because of its cost, and Pithing Needle and Sulfuric Vortex happen to not shut down or bypass Sphere of Law.
Aanrchy is quite playable even at the 4 cost as most of the time it in it's against slow (at least slower) white decks so it can easily be cast; though I guess if you run18 land or less it can be much more difficult, these are the choices we have to make. I find anarchy very effective as it keeps with the no permanents ideal (which is not always going to happen, but it's way to think about it)., and when it goes off it takes out all sorts of things and can't be stopped except by counter (which of course goes for any spell). It it less vulnerable than some permanent that they should have an answer for.
As for the cursed scroll debate - it's slow (1 to cast but three to activate for only damage and only certain to work if you have one card) and is vulnerable to arti-hate, which is a fairly popular hate to pack. But yet I find it to be the one damage dealing permanent that goes in out of my decklist quite regularly; currently I have passed on it, but that may change again as the meta yeilds (or my design changes).
it's all good
thanks and enjoy

syssc9

10-19-2005, 12:13 PM

DOODLEBIRD

10-19-2005, 04:54 PM

Aanrchy is quite playable even at the 4 cost as most of the time it in it's against slow (at least slower) white decks so it can easily be cast; though I guess if you run18 land or less it can be much more difficult, these are the choices we have to make.
<snip>
As for the cursed scroll debate - it's slow (1 to cast but three to activate for only damage and only certain to work if you have one card) and is vulnerable to arti-hate, which is a fairly popular hate to pack. But yet I find it to be the one damage dealing permanent that goes in out of my decklist quite regularly; currently I have passed on it, but that may change again as the meta yeilds (or my design changes).
it's all good
thanks and enjoy
While I agree with you about Anarchy (It's still in my SB), I find it curious that you call Cursed Scroll "slow." As a 2-of I use it to give the deck some reach into the mid and later game. Slow doesn't really apply in such a situation. I don't expect to see it till turn 5 or later where it is most useful. My hand will be empty by then and ready to make the best use of it. And, yes arti-hate is prevelant, but I have yet to come up with anything better to extend this deck's reach. It is a good replacement for Fork in this deck.

@DOODLEBIRD
You might want to consider dropping the V-Hammers all together in favour of Chain of Plasma. Worked for me. Then you could replace the the Forks with Cursed Scrolls... :;):
True and my last build (page one of this thread) I was still using scroll, but hopefully by turn five my last damage is burning through for the kill. So i have that odd build working again where I play some very general defense in one block (4 cards), and this often buys a turn (or more) to finish them off. I think either approach is fine, I just seem to be losing first game to too much combo and scroll will not help me there at all. As for the chain of plasma going in - good chance I'll test it, but in lastest build by taking out 2 forks and 1 hammer. How is you encounter with combo ?
it's all good
thanks and enjoy

Deep Inside

10-20-2005, 08:28 AM

I really have some problems beating solidarity, because you have to kill turn 4, and that never happens when they counter only one of your spells(but I have problems beating solidarity with every deck, so its probably just me) and winning against belcher is nearly impossible preboard, if they play smart.
I didn't do too much testing after Sbing against Solidarity, but I think it doesn't change too much. I have 4 REB and 3 Pillar to board in, they have BEB.

cartman34

10-20-2005, 08:42 AM

Its possible to hate out Solidarity as far as I can say but you will have to spend a lot of slots.Pyrostatic Pillar is the best anti Solidarity Card when it resolves they can´t go off and they need to remove it they will receive a lot of damage and then you can take him out with Sirocco or/and Fireblast you should also run a high number of Blasts which should be used to resolve Pyrostatic Pillar and to counter High Tide.

I don´t know if it is worth using all these cards but it is possible to hate out Solidarity.

Maybe we should test Pillar in the main because it does a lot of damage to almost every deck in the format and it helps you to battle combo decks(which are your worst machtup) and when you run it MD you can cut out subpar cards like PoP or Volcanic Hammer..and you will have some space in your sideboard(for even more hate!)

I would also drop Mogg Fanatic to make the Deck faster and run some Burn(which can kill kreatures as well) instead(like Plasma) and with all these Burn Cards you should run fork(which is 3 damage for RR at least) and it also helps in your solidarity machtup.And when they Brainfreeze you then you still have an upkeep where you can Burn them to death.

Vimes

10-20-2005, 02:46 PM

First of all, there aren't enough slots for pillar and sirocco. It's one or the other.

Combo is not our worst matchup. Aggro-control like fish and gro (Hey, that kind of rhymes) is. Price of Progress is not subpar either.

Mogg Fanatic really helps vs. gobbos, as if they're bad, they see it and disrupt their playstyle, slowing themselves down, or if they're good, it can still block and then sac to kill another creature.

Fork requires you to play another spell and Fork, which makes it a bad choice in the burn decks that are cutting as many lands as they can.

You drastically overrate Solidarity and how hard it is to beat it.

Rastadon

10-20-2005, 07:11 PM

How much does pillar hurt? In conjunction with Vortex and Flame Rift (I run them and don't see too much aggro), I'd imagine that ithe damage adds up.

bigbear102

10-21-2005, 01:09 AM

Beating Solidarity is not that hard. Their clock is about the same as yours is, game one it comes down to who goes first, and if they have a God hand, then you're screwed.
If you see a lot of Solidarity, Sirocco is definately your best bet. Cast Sirocco ASAP. Turn 2 Sirocco gives you the match if they don't have force, and they only play 4. If you wait too long though, they will have probably drawn one at least.

Pillar and Blasts are your best bet in a rounded meta, because Sirocco is a very narrow card. Even with the 3x Pillar 4-5x Blast boad, you still have an edge on Solidarity games 2-3. Making them HAVE to deal with Pillar gives you enough time to kill them.

@cartman: Dropping Fanatic is a BAD idea. That is one of the key cards in the Goblin matchup, which is favorable, but because of Fanatic. It is your most effecient way to deal with Lackey, either dealing 1 damage to the opponent or going 2for1 against a bad goblins player. PoP is also not a bad card. If you go to Philly I can guarantee that PoP will be a very good choice. It is a very meta-dependent card, but I know that it will be good in Philly.

I'm not sure about Pillar in the main, it seems kind of useless. The only matchup that Pillar is actually good in is Solidarity. I bring it in against control because pyroclasm is useless. It is a decent card, but having it main seems bad to me. I would much rather have Vortex main, which also frees up SB slots.

DOODLEBIRD

10-21-2005, 09:21 AM

Just putting pillar in MD is not very solid as it doesn't hurt enough decks anymore than it hurts you. I tried this before and even changed up the deck abit to work with it better, but it's not solid enough to pursue. I also would not run both rift and vortex MD; and personally I avoid running either MD, especially vortex as it's a 3 cast.
Depending on how many sweeper you run MD as to whether fanatic is a must (I run 3 rolling thunder and 2 flamebreak and have dropped the fanatic for now).
yes solidarity is a rough match, but so are other combo when played well and with solid decklist. Even game 2 or 3 don't get much easier as there SB is often comparable to how much we put in as well. You just have to out play them, and hope you get decent hands. I'm currently running a couple cards MD that are defensive against this problem, it helps even more game 2.
it's all good
thanks and enjoy

blacklotus3636

10-21-2005, 10:12 AM

So is pillar better than sirocco at distrupting combo? In general it seems as though it would but all tide has to do is wish it away but by turn 4 we should have enough damage dealt to them so pillar would be effective what do you guys think?

bigbear102

10-21-2005, 03:58 PM

Against Solidarity Sirocco is definately the best hate card. Cast Sirocco turn 2, and if they don't counter it, you win the game. It's that simple. Pyrostatic Pillar is a better all-around card that is still very effective against solidarity, bringing their life total very low, even if they can bounce it, which gives you the chance to kill them.

Personally I believe that Sirocco will be my board for Philly, as of right now. I am testing a board that looks like this:

4x Sirocco
4x Red Elemental Blast
3x Pyroblast
3x Anarchy
1x Pithing Needle/Vortex/sweeper

I play 3 Vortex main, or 3 Needle main, it hasn't been decided yet.

KillerWhiteRabbit

10-21-2005, 04:08 PM

Are we expecting enough solidarity to show up to devote 4 SB slots (unitaskers at that) to beating the piss out of it? Pillar seems like a more solid bet, helping in many more matchups. The SB I'm thinking of taking is geared a little more towards universal hosers, as let's face it, the metagame isn't developed enough to have 4 slots against one deck.

4 disenchant
3 Pithing needle
3 REB
3 Pillar
2 Pyroclasm

I'm working on fitting in vortex side or main, as it may be essential with all sorst of rouge control running around.

Zilla

10-21-2005, 04:16 PM

KillerWhiteRabbit said exactly what I was going to... in a metagame like Philly, you really want the most general, comprehensive SB options available due to the large numbers of varying archetypes you'll be seeing. Pillar is almost certainly the better choice than Sirocco for this reason.

On the Vortex issue, I run 2 main and 1-2 SB these days, and it treats me fairly well. It's never dead and it allows you to win some Game One's that you shouldn't be winning. I don't like the notion of Needle in the main because it doesn't deal damage, and that's highly significant. You want to race most decks game one and then hate their hate with Needle games 2 and 3, in my experience.

umbowta

10-21-2005, 05:29 PM

Can someone explain to me how Pillar is a good sideboard option for a deck whose entire spell base is 3 or less. Pillar is tech against the burn strategy, yet there is a disscussion on its use in the Burn deck's sideboard. How does this make any sense at all? I've done some testing against a Vial Goblins build that sided in 4 Pillar against me, playing burn. I was able to work around one Pillar, sometimes, but it wasn't easy. Why would I want this card, which is dissynergious with the rest of the deck, in the sideboard?

Zilla

10-21-2005, 06:18 PM

Pillar is tech against storm-based combo. Because their strategy relies upon killing you in a single blow by casting a great number of low cc spells in a single turn, Pillar's effect is inherently asymmetrical; every one of your spells is dealing damage to both of you. Every one of theirs is dealing damage only to them. You are guaranteed to win a damage race under those circumstances.

umbowta

10-21-2005, 08:27 PM

Thanks Zilla, I see your point. But, the only viable storm based combo I know of right now is Solidarity. In Vial Goblins, Pillar would be my choice, hands down; it would be good against Solidarity and Burn variants. In Burn , however, I only see Pillar being effective against Solidarity. At that point I would choose Sirocco or additional reb's/pyroblasts for the side. Are there other decks, that I'm missing, where possible benefits of Pillar outweigh its obvious negatives?

bigbear102

10-21-2005, 11:54 PM

The plus side to pillar is that it can come in against almost any deck that doesn't deal a lot of damage. I have been known to take out dead cards (although there anen't many in my current build) against control and throw in pillars, where Sirocco isn't quite that broad. Pillar is also decent against other combo decks too, as long as belcher doesn't go off before turn 2, they normally play 2-4 spells under 3 in the turn they go off, so it's a decent card against them also.

The reason I want to play 4 Sirocco is because it can make Chill deal the opponent damage. It will come in against any deck playing blue, and give my opponent the option of screwing themselves by discarding it. I know it won't happen much, but the amount of scrubs at Philly will be great, and stupid mistakes are always good. It also can make a control deck drop the Counterspell which would have stopped your PoP. It is a decent card against any deck playing blue, it normally replaces Pyroclasm. I will probably end up not playing them, but I like them now.

Right now I play 3 Vortex main, and I kind of want to play 3 needle main too, but i know that's going too far. I also need to get Needles in order to play them, that's important too.

KillerWhiteRabbit

10-22-2005, 08:28 PM

I took this deck to a tournament (3 Guys Games and paintball) today, and piloted it to a first place finish. For reference purpuses, my list:
2 Plateau
4 Wooded foothills
4 bloodstained mire
9 mountain

4 bolt
4 spike
4 chain
4 incinerate
4 helix
4 magma jet
4 flamebreak
4 fireblast
2 flame rift
3 mogg fanatic
3 chain of plasma
1 sulfuric vortex

SB can be found about 5 posts back, -1 pillar, +1 vortex. This report is very brief and vague, but I thought there was one matchup I really wanted to point out.

Round 1
Game 1

Scrub match. He had some life gain, but as this deck does usually, it crushed randomness.
Game 2, same, I won't waste space

Round 2
Rouge mono-black drain life based deck

Game 1
This deck was odd. I drew into plenty of burn, but he just accelorated into mana, and gained it back, while killing me. He won, although it was at 2 life.

Game 2
I outrace and win. Resolving an early vortex is key.

Game 3

I topdeck 5 lands in a row and am killed by my own vortex. I'll chalk this one up to sampling error.

Round 3
I have to win this round 2-0 or 2-1 or be eliminated.
Apple Jacks. Red Green with efficent burn, and beaters. Much like zilla stompy with a higher curve.

Game 1
He resolves an early baloth, but I draw enough burn to go lethal with life gain on the stack.

Game 2
He gets a turn 3 blood oath (look it up), which I manage to take only 3 damage from. He is at 10 at this point, and I am in topdeck mode. He drops an ascetic, I draw a jet. I scry into a flame rift and a fireblast. GG.

Round 1:Finals
I'm playing solidarity. The solidarity deck I loaned to my friend Kyle. Shit.

Game 1: I draw into a perfect amount of land to begin, and start beating with an early fanatic. He attempts to go off at 3 life on turn 4. I get a burn spell through in response to an attempted meditate. Pwned.

Game 2: SB: -1 vortex, -4 flamebreak, +3 pyroblast, +2 pillar

I attempt to resolve a pillar on turn 2, which is met with a hydroblast. The fanatic I played turn 1 beats for a total of 5 damage :D . I draw into a pyroblast turn 3, and continue shooting face at end of turn to not help his storm. In response to my 5th turn attack phase (he is at 4 by this point), he attenpts to go off. I pyroblast his high tide, he forces my blast. I then magma jet him on the stack, he cunning wishes, I sac a fanatic on the stack. He runs out of answeres. The stack is your friend in this matchup.

Round 2: Finals
That same god damned black deck.

Game 1: Loss. He out drains me, and I topdeck land.

Game 2: Win: I draw massive amounts of burn and flamebreak his beaters.

Game 3: Win: I drop an early vortex, and he doesn't gain, like 8 life because of it. I win through it and burn, obvoiusly.

Prize: 5 packs. I pull jack shit. A chain of vapor was the best pick.

So...

1st: Burn (KillerWhiteRabbit, Chris)
2nd: Drain life thingy (Casey)
3d: Solidarity (Kyle)
4th Apple Jacks (Camdon)

After the tournament, I decided to test out a card that has been seeing a lot of play on the starcitygames forums: Scent of Cinder. I had previously dismissed this choice, as it is a dead late game topdeck, and I didn't think it'd (on average) be better than chain of plasma. To be perfectly honest, I'd picked up a playst of the alternate art ones at sci-fi shop off WhiteGhost that morning, so that's why I wanted to try 'em. I decided a nice easy way to do it was through goldfishing and keeping a tally of how much damage they did. I played 20 goldfishes with -3 chain of plasma, +3 scent...

Damage
1:
2: II
3: IIII
4: II
5: II

Didn't draw: IIIII IIIII I (I drew 2 one game)

Conclusion: I didn't draw them much, but when I did, they did (on average) 3.4 damage! That's like... .4 more than incinerate! Yeah, I don't think these results are conclusive either, but they will make me try out the scent build a little more. Tell me what you all think of the idea!

Cheers!
Chris

Zilla

10-22-2005, 08:39 PM

I notice the top 4 is comprised entirely of the only 4 people you played in the tournament... is that coincidence or were there only 4 people there? :p

With regards to Scent of Cinder, as you already noted, goldfish is clearly not the best way to test it. Assuming it consistently does .4 more damage than Incinerate in the first 5 turns, it will always do less in the late game than a topdecked Incinerate. Considering that one of the deck's biggest weaknesses is its lack of reach in the late game, I can only assume that Scent's addition would exacerbate the problem. I strongly doubt it's a worthwhile trade.

KillerWhiteRabbit

10-23-2005, 09:26 AM

The showing was of around 20 people (something I probably should have said in there). Kind of an odd coincidence, but that's how the dice roll. Oh yeah, I did get that scrub 1st round, so not quite everybody :D.

With regards to Scent of Cinder
Yeah, after a little testing (against landstill and such things with counters where late game reach mattered more), I'd tend to agree. In the race against gobbs, the .4 damage rarely mattered. Back to chain of plasma (it was a fun experiment...)

Do we have a verdict on cursed scroll, speaking of late game reach? It seems like it'd be nice to incorperate them in here somewhere, but what would one take out? In the SB?

PTBNL

10-23-2005, 04:30 PM

I thought about using Cursed Scroll but I'm not sure if it's better than Browbeat. Browbeat seems faster and mana curves better when dealing its damage. In my testing, it takes a long time before I could deal 6 damage with Scroll.

Plus, there's the question, why do we need late game reach? Vs aggro, we already have Flamebreak. Vs combo, Scroll is way too slow. Vs control, preboard Burn should roll em. I've never had a bad matchup vs a deck that tried to match me counter for burn. It's a losing battle for them. Postboard, Cursed Scroll has the advantage of being colorless damage versus COP or Sphere of Law. But then it's really slow and it's removable. Also, wouldn't Pithing Needle, Disenchant, etc be better solutions?

Zilla

10-23-2005, 04:44 PM

@Cursed Scroll:

I've tested it in Red Deck Wins and I love it. I've tested it in straight Burn and I hate it. Literally every game I've ever used it in with straight Burn, I cast it early, and never use it even a single time before either a) my opponent is dead, b) my opponent removes the scroll, c) I am dead. In most cases, if the Scroll has been direct damage like Incinerate or Chain of Plasma, I'd have won a full turn earlier. In the cases where that wasn't so, I was losing for wholly different reasons (such as massive lifegain on the other side of the table, etc.)

In short, I'm against it. I've actually been testing 2 maindeck Sulfuric Vortex in this slot, simply because there's quite a bit of lifegain in the format (between Jitte, Exalted Angel, Baloths, and Wombat's Renewed Faiths) that it's nice to have an answer to it. It's also recurring damage, so in a sense it helps the lategame reach issue as well. Since Cursed Scroll costs 3 to activate, the casting costs between the two cards are basically identical. Between the two, I much prefer the Vortices.

ExpectLess

10-23-2005, 08:22 PM

It seems to me that maindeck Sulfuric Vortex goes against the whole premise of having no permanents in the deck (Mogg Fanatic doesn't count). One reason that burn is a viable deck is because of functional card advantage in the fact that opponents often have so many dead cards. I don't see the advantage of running Vortex over more burn.

The list im running right now is Grah's list on page 1 (-1 Vortex, +1 Browbeat, which, incidently, I find is great for late game reach). The only non-direct damage burn spells I run are Browbeat and Mogg Fanatic, and the only reason I even run Fanatic is because Lackey is so popular and requires answers. Browbeat is the only other card I'll make an exception for because it's essentially 2R: Draw 3 cards, which is practically Astral Recall quality (not quite, but for a red card, it's insane).

Frankly, I don't see what you would cut to make room for Vortex in the first place. Chain of Plasma? Just as good as incinerate. Flamebreak? Supreme board control, even in a deck that doesn't depend on it. PoP? The ultimate meta-game burn. Usually averages above 3 damage, and especially helps some harder matchups. The only card I can even see as an option to replace is Browbeat, but I find that Browbeat speeds me up by 2 turns more often than it slows me down by 1. Vortex slows me down by 1 turn every time. Besides, is lifegain really that much of an issue in this format? The only two played cards that have recurring lifegain threats are Jitte and Exalted Angel, and those aren't even played much, certainly not enough to devote maindeck slots.

TheStupidBurnKid

10-23-2005, 10:26 PM

I've never seen one, much less seen one MD, but Pulse of the Fields seems like the type of card we would/should be afraid of. Ever seen a recurring Baloth? Rabid Wombat and Renewed Faith? Talk about card advantage on their part, a hardcast RF is easily worth two of our burn spells. I think you're right in the sense that these threats won't be major players in the meta at GP Philly, but I think that Jitte and Exalted are only a few problematic lifegain cards you might face. Overall, I definately think our sideboard should at least take into consideration the possiblity of some of these cards if our MD doesnt address the problem. Otherwise, if you don't have an answer to random jank without a third round by like most of the people I know, you'll be knocked out and kicking yourself in the fourth round.

Zilla

10-24-2005, 03:12 AM

Frankly, I don't see what you would cut to make room for Vortex in the first place. Chain of Plasma? Just as good as incinerate. Flamebreak? Supreme board control, even in a deck that doesn't depend on it. PoP? The ultimate meta-game burn. Usually averages above 3 damage, and especially helps some harder matchups.
Chain of Plasma is not just as good as Incinerate. It's decent, but its drawback is most certainly not irrellevant in such an aggro-heavy format.

PoP, as you said, is the ultimate metagame card. Meaning that it's not good in some metagames. Frankly, there are very few decks in this format that can't play around PoP to a fairly consistent degree. Landstill can't, but it's already a fantastic matchup. Honestly? It's good for two things above all else: stealing game one against unsuspecting opponents, and good against Gro/NQG because they have too few basics to play around it. In nearly every other instance, PoP is either win-more or dead against an informed, skillful opponent.

In any case, I'm not saying that Sulfuric Vortex is unquestionably part of the core of the deck. I said that I was testing it and producing decent results. Much like Price of Progress, it's a metagame choice. In a metagame without lifegain? Vortex is awful and I wouldn't run it. In a metagame with a fair amount of it? It works well.

Incidentally, I still run two Forks as well. Those that say it's bad are welcome to their opinion, but I strongly disagree. As a two-of, the combo with Fireblast simply wins games, and is an unlikely draw when you're in topdeck mode. I'm not going to go into it further here because it's a dead horse. My thoughts on it have been posted in this thread and the old one already.

The config I'm currently running is as follows:

(The standard 4-of's and 19 Mountains)

2 Fork
3 Chain of Plasma
3 Browbeat
2 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Flamebreak

Brief explanations:

I run 2 Fork because they simply win games in conjunction with Fireblast. Contrary to popular belief, they aren't dead in the control matchup. You simply don't overextend with them. Fork an FoF. Fork a FoW. Hell, Fork a Brainstorm if you can use the dig/draw. It's perfectly functional against them game 1, and you can side it out game 2 if need be.

I run 3 Chain of Plasma because they can be a liability in the aggro matchup. I don't really want to try to use them as a finisher in the late game in these matchups.

I run 3 Browbeats because, while they're strong in the early game, they're relatively weak in the lategame, and they're dangerously slow in the combo matchups. Basically I want to see maybe one in a game but not multiples.

I run 2 Sulfuric Vortex because I'm testing them. Again, this isn't the end-all be-all. They're good in some metas, bad in others. I trust you to make your own judgements in this matter. If it's the right metagame call, you can run PoP in this slot.

I run 3 Flamebreak for 2 reasons. Outside of the Goblins matchup and a few select other weenie aggro matchups, Flamebreak is the worst card in the deck. It's slow, expensive, and symmetrical. Against most decks, I don't want to see more than 1, or really any of these. Furthermore, with only 3 Flamebreaks I'm still favored in the Goblins matchup game 1. I keep a 4th Flamebreak in the board for Goblins and other weenie aggro.

bigbear102

10-24-2005, 06:55 PM

Does anyone actually look at the current decks being played before they actually open their mouths???

Landstill is being discussed as dead, and the 2 next best control decks both play A LOT of life gain. Angel Control plays 4 angel (obviously) and 2 Pulse of the Fields MD. Rabid Wombat is being hyped as the new control to beat. It plays 3-4 Renewed Faith MD, with Angel and possibly Pulse in the board. There is also Jitte, which is played by, oh, i dunno, EVERY CREATURE DECK. Goblins plays it, WW plays it, Fish plays it. There is also the little incident of RGSA playing Ravenous Baloth, and possibly recurring it every turn.

This format is full of Aggro, which means it is full of life gain, which means that Vortex will always be a decent card to have MD.

@ExpectLess: If Browbeat is speeding you up by 2 turns, then you are playing the wrong way, or a different deck. I kill consistently on turn 5, without browbeat. I can kill turn 4, and even turn 3 if they like to play nonbasics and I draw a decent hand. I also play MD Vortex, and it doesn't slow you down a turn, it is a finisher in my book. You play it on turn 3-4, then during their upkeep after they take the 2nd turns damage, you Fireblast/Fork. I have done it several times. I consider Vortex a very good card to have MD, as it also shuts down the lifegain that, for some reason, you never see.

As for the room in the deck, it replaces Browbeat in mine. PoP gets a slot main in whatever conglomeration of red cards I play at Philly, cuz everybody and their mother who owns duals is gonna be drooling over the fact that they can play them competitively. I saw it at GenCon, every deck I faced (except Solidarity) played at least 4 nonbasics, 5 out of my 7 opponents played 8 or more.

DOODLEBIRD

10-25-2005, 11:23 AM

Does anyone actually look at the current decks being played before they actually open their mouths???

This format is full of Aggro, which means it is full of life gain, which means that Vortex will always be a decent card to have MD.
I have to agree that life gain is becoming a nasty problem, and though vortex is a vulnerable enchantment it seems to be the best choice to help against MD (flames of the blood hand does maybe if anyone was considering it).
I will also agree that 2 forks is nice compliment in this deck (no more no less). I don't run any other card that could be situational, like chain os plasma that could have there dead cards pitched at me when I have none to pitch back, or like PoP and they have no non-basic in play.
I have my most recent list for examination and yes i know that chasm will not be accepted, but it has stopped so much massive damage (combo or creature flood or big creature resurrected, etc.) for the last turn or two that I need to win. I rarely encounter the untimely wasteland or LD. It saves a game that would be a loss. Anyway I doubt I will convince anyone about it, so picture the deck with three other cards (like another vortex and 2 chain of plasma) and try it.
Here's the list, it's actually closer to deck I used to play, but with the tweaks and anticipating the latest meta. Works quite well and gets more even more first game wins. Topdeck situation has also come through even easier now.

4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 fireblast
4 incinerate
4 magma jet
4 lava spike
3 volcanic hammer
2 flamebreak
2 rolling earthquake
2 fork
2 flames of the blood hand
1 pulse of the forge
3 glacial chasm
19 mountains
2 barbarian ring

SB:
4 anarchy
3 pithing needle
3 red elemental blast
2 pyroblast
3 pyrostatic pillar

it's all good
thanks and enjoy

*edit* I put in flames instead of vortex MD for now

KillerWhiteRabbit

10-30-2005, 05:33 PM

DOODLEBIRD

10-30-2005, 06:33 PM

So it looks like DOODLEBIRD's list just stopped this thread in it's tracks... In any case,

2 flames of the blood hand
1 pulse of the forge
3 glacial chasm
Why in the world Pulse of the Forge? It seems like flames is strictly better, and a different card (sulfuric vortex, etc.) might be better all together. I still hate glacial chasm.
Yeah, when I step out of the box too much I actually have ended threads, we'll see.
Forge is if they already have regained some life, they do if no flames was in hand. And yes voretex is better in some aspects like it keeps life away turn after turn in theory, but in actuallity it gets nuked. So I've gone the flames/forge route for now as only counters can impede them. and the few permanent in the SB are more versatile and cheaper for dealing with this and are less prepared for after seeing no permanents first game. Chasm - nobody has except maybe 2 others ahve ever even entertained using them, and no one that I'm aware of has actually tested them in deck like this. So I don't expect any positive support here, but so far thay have helped more than hurt. As usual more testing is needed.
it's all good
thanks and enjoy

Rastadon

10-30-2005, 08:27 PM

This is gonna sound really crazy, but are 18 too small an amount? I consistenly get 1 mana hands each game, and while often mulligan to 6, starting the game 1 card behind isn't the best available option. Am I just shuffling bad?

TGhost

10-30-2005, 11:08 PM

A lot of one mana hands are quite playable, even more so when you aren't going first. One land is all you need to use half of your burn. If you have one land, a magma jet, and a couple 1 mana spells, you've actually got a pretty decent hand. I'm not saying its optimal, but when you play this deck you should think of more than just "How many lands do I have?" when you consider mulliganing.

Zilla

10-31-2005, 05:32 AM

This is gonna sound really crazy, but are 18 too small an amount?
I've been saying this repeatedly. My thoughts on the matter are detailed more thoroughly in my conversation with GRAH here (http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=24315.60), but the upshot is that if you don't want Goblins to keep you off RRR for Flamebreak with Ports, and you don't want to flat-out lose to Chill, Sphere of Resistance, etc., you absolutely want 19 lands at the bare minimum. 20 would probably be a good idea, but I think anything less than 19 is a massive mistake.

Deep Inside

10-31-2005, 12:04 PM

I'm playing Burn for some time now, and I found myself losing more games to goblins than winning against them.
If they get one, or even two vials out, my flamebreaks are near to useless. I Flamebreak, they use Vial in my Endstep, in their turn again, play some dudes and then there is a fresh army beating me for 20 damage.
How do play against them? I usually just Burn the Piledrivers, and sometimes the Warchiefs to keep them from attacking with their freshly summoned army.
For reference, here my decklist:

9 Mountain
4 Wooded Foosthills
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Plateau

4 Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Incinerate
4 Lightning Helix
4 Magma Jet
4 Flamebreak
4 Fireblast
3 Chain of Plasma
2 Cursed Scroll(I play against a lot of slower decks, where this is very useful), sometime 2 Forks in that slot

SB
4 Disenchant
4 REB
2 Pyroblast
2 Pyroclasm
3 PoP

Note: There is no Solidarity in my Meta, so I have nothing in the SB against it

umbowta

10-31-2005, 02:22 PM

How do play against them? I usually just Burn the Piledrivers, and sometimes the Warchiefs to keep them from attacking with their freshly summoned army.
For starters, don't burn the Pile Drivers unless you have to. Pile driver is a pussy unless he brings along a couple of his buddies. Gobin Warchief is the one you have to take out as soon as it hits. The logic behind this should be obvious, but, in case you didn't know, ringleader is the only Goblin, in the Vial gobbos build, with inherent haste, besides Warchief. If you take down Warchief, everyone else, now summoning sick, has to stay home. Taking down the Warchief is easily a whole turn tempo boost for you. The other goblin with a target on its forehead is Lackey. Other than that, use the stack to your advantage(specifically with Kiki) and kill them before they kill you. Your life total is only there to keep you around for the X turns you need to kill.

On a side note, your list looks a little heavy at 2cc. Are you able to cast enough lightning to keep the pressure on while still taking out opposing threats? I run Lava Dart over Chain of Plasma which allows me another 1cc spell to kill first turn Birds, elves, Lackey etc. There is nothing I hate more than spending my turn 2 burning a lackey with a 2cc, 3 damage spell. Lava Dart fills a critical role in removal and can be quite humiliating to an opponent who takes the last 1 damage from a flashbacked Lava Dart.

Also, I'm still on the fence with regard to the white splash. How do you like it so far?

Deep Inside

10-31-2005, 02:41 PM

I've not yet decided if I keep the splash. Sometimes its great, sometimes I hate getting my Plateaus wasted or taking more damage from fetches than I can get back from Helix.

The 2cc spells are ok, I think, I always have 2-3 1cc Spells in my hand, normally its not a problem to kill the Lackey with a Fanatic or a Bolt.

I'm not really convinced about Lava Dart, I'd rather play Shock if I had to. but I'm on the border of getting enough damage to kill turn 4-5, so I don't want to put more cards with only 1 or 2 damage in. Also, I rather sacrifice my mountains to Fireblast, than to Lava Dart.

Zilla

10-31-2005, 03:35 PM

From the first post in this thread:

In this new thread, please make posts that are well-developed and free of flames. Keep in mind that most issues about burn have been discussed to death. It will be very difficult to come to a consensus about the following issues and these issues will be heavily modded:

Browbeat
Lava Dart
# of Mountains needed to support Fireblast
Fork

We're going to avoid the Lava Dart discussion. It always turns into a flame war. - Zilla

umbowta

11-01-2005, 11:38 AM

normally its not a problem to kill the Lackey with a Fanatic or a Bolt.
Killing lackey with a fanatic is fine, but, shooting 3 damage at a lackey makes me cringe. I would much rather send that 3 at my opponents head and find another way to deal with lackey. Unfortunately, the situation sometimes demands the play.

I hate getting my Plateaus wasted or taking more damage from fetches than I can get back from Helix.
That's why I'm still on the fence. Fetches can seriously alter how many turns you have to kill your opponent and I want my Plats around when I'm ready to sac them to Fireblast. I also see a huge problem with Plats showing up in the gobbo matchup. They are running, in most cases, 4 Wastelands and 3-4 Rishadan Ports. When I need to get Flamebreak mana asap, a Plateau is the last thing I want to see in that matchup.

Lukas Preuss

11-01-2005, 12:50 PM

I just thought about this deck and wondered if Sensei's Divining Top might be good.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't do damage, etc., but this deck lacks library manipulation. You're highly dependant on the top of your deck and you have no way to improve your hand quality. Sensei's Divining Top fits in the mana curve... have you thought about it?

Well, maybe this is a stupid idea, but it just came to my mind and I thought I might let you know. ;)

bigbear102

11-01-2005, 01:55 PM

scrumdogg

11-01-2005, 02:15 PM

Top has been mentioned before, and I tested it thoroughly, and it sucks ballz. If and only if you make it to the long game (which you DO NOT want to) is it any good. Playing it turn 1 and using it turn 2 is a Time Walk for your opponent. It slows you down by at least a turn, and if you don't play it turn 1, then you are playing it turn 3, which should be used for 2 burnspells so you can kill turn 4. It just doesn't fit at all.

(and this is why I don't think the old thread should have been locked, cuz it was already discussed...)
Amen on all points, unless you are running an artifact heavy version with Ankhs and Cursed Scrolls and Shrapnel Blasts (which has pretty well been dismissed as sub-par to the non-disruptable version because A) it is disruptable B) many of the elements either do not do damage or require another element present to do damage or become useless if played late). Magma Jet is the Sensei's Top for this deck, with Browbeat as an option that many people play to optimize the draw/damage ratio.

Machinus

11-06-2005, 03:30 PM

Amen on all points, unless you are running an artifact heavy version with Ankhs and Cursed Scrolls and Shrapnel Blasts (which has pretty well been dismissed as sub-par to the non-disruptable version because A) it is disruptable B) many of the elements either do not do damage or require another element present to do damage or become useless if played late). Magma Jet is the Sensei's Top for this deck, with Browbeat as an option that many people play to optimize the draw/damage ratio.
I am curious about how widely accepted this is. Shrapnel Blast does five damage, and Cursed Scroll and Ankh of Mishra have the potential to do four, six, or even more damage over the course of the game.

These cards slow down the deck, because they require running more artifacts, and can be dead in multiples or if drawn late. Is the artifact version of the deck so inconsistent that it is strictly inferior?

Shrapnel Blast needs artifacts to work, but they have to be good on their own. The relevant artifacts would likely be Chrome Mox, Great Furnace, Cursed Scroll, and Ankh of Mishra.

Cursed Scroll is cheap and provides a reusable, colorless source of damage. With enough mana, Cursed Scroll can do two extra damage every turn. This is basically a "draw engine" for burn, but it is mana intensive. Is maindeck artifact hate a significant concern when considering Cursed Scroll?

Chrome Mox speeds up Flamebreak by a turn, and empties your hand faster, helping with Cursed Scroll. Are Cursed Scroll and the speed boost enough to outweight the card disadvantage of this mana accelerator?

Ankh of Mishra is really good against Control (~24 lands), Stax (Crucible of Worlds), and Aggro-Control decks that run two or three colors, especially decks like UGW Threshold with a lot of fetchlands. However, it isn't so good against other fast decks like Solidarity and Goblins, and can be a dead draw after turn three. Is the Goblin matchup secure enough to consider running Ankh of Mishra?

Great Furnace can be hit by Wasteland. Additionally, it decreases the chance that you can go off with Fireblast (while also enabling another four finishers). Is fourteen mountains enough, and is mana-screw by Wasteland a problem (with and without Chrome Moxes) ?

Rastadon

11-06-2005, 03:50 PM

I haven't done testing with an artifact burn deck but I've heard it's very inconsistent. While Shrapnel Blast looks amazing on paper, it's only a tiny step faster because of the other pieces needed.

Even if the artifacts are easy to get out, their 'hated-outability' (Great Furnace) and their detrimental costs (Chrome Mox) overweigh them. Non-basic hate is everywhere, and burn cards are never sacrifice fodder.

And as for Cursed Scroll and Ankh, I'd be hesitant to sac them to a Shrapnel Blast because I'd want to see how much they could deal, and if I were to sac them in response to Arti-hate, then I'm keeping 2 mana open that I could be using to pound away with Lava Spike and Chain Lightning.

Midknight

11-07-2005, 07:20 PM

I read though most of the thread and no one brought up Scent of Cinder its two mana sorcery and you reveal any number of red cards in your hand and for each one you reveal it deal x damage to target creature or player. Plenty of times playtesting it i have hit my opt for around five damage. Does anyone think it deserves a spot in the deck??

Obfuscate Freely

11-07-2005, 07:37 PM

I decided to test out a card that has been seeing a lot of play on the starcitygames forums: Scent of Cinder. I had previously dismissed this choice, as it is a dead late game topdeck, and I didn't think it'd (on average) be better than chain of plasma. I decided a nice easy way to do it was through goldfishing and keeping a tally of how much damage they did. I played 20 goldfishes with -3 chain of plasma, +3 scent...

Damage
1:
2: II
3: IIII
4: II
5: II

Didn't draw: IIIII IIIII I (I drew 2 one game)

Conclusion: I didn't draw them much, but when I did, they did (on average) 3.4 damage! That's like... .4 more than incinerate! Yeah, I don't think these results are conclusive either, but they will make me try out the scent build a little more.

With regards to Scent of Cinder, as you already noted, goldfish is clearly not the best way to test it. Assuming it consistently does .4 more damage than Incinerate in the first 5 turns, it will always do less in the late game than a topdecked Incinerate. Considering that one of the deck's biggest weaknesses is its lack of reach in the late game, I can only assume that Scent's addition would exacerbate the problem. I strongly doubt it's a worthwhile trade.

Yeah, after a little testing (against landstill and such things with counters where late game reach mattered more), I'd tend to agree. In the race against gobbs, the .4 damage rarely mattered. Back to chain of plasma (it was a fun experiment...)
You didn't check the thread very well. Rabbit and Zilla concluded that Scent doesn't make the cut, and for good reasons. The card is really only (marginally) better than Volcanic Hammer if you play it on turn 2. Topdeck it on turn 3, and it might be on par with Hammer, but after that it will quickly become much worse.

Lukas Preuss

11-08-2005, 09:17 AM

Maybe this was brought up already, and I just missed it, but whatever...

Isn't Chalice of the Void going to be a problem for this deck? You have a very high number of 1cc spells, as well as 2cc spells. A Chalice for one (followed by a Chalice for two) might be a problem.

And you don't seem to have a way to deal with this... shouldn't you be adressing this in the sideboard (like, with Shatter or something)? Stax might be played at the GP, because of all the publicity it got from the SCG articles...

Or am I just wrong and this deck doesn't have a problem with Chalice?

Deep Inside

11-08-2005, 09:37 AM

It does have a problem with it. You can win with a chalic for 1 out, though its hard, but a chalice for 2 after that is game over.
I'm not sure how effective spending SB space for it is, but if it becomes a problem, maybe I'll try some Overload
But so far I've only once encoutered a chalice (and I won)

Lukas Preuss

11-08-2005, 02:27 PM

Wouldn't Overload be countered by Chalice?

In my opinion, people should think about the Chalice problem when taking this deck to the Grand Prix, because there will be some Stax variants running around (mostly from Vintage players, who try to convert their Type 1 decks to Legacy, I think.)...

Kenderleech

11-08-2005, 06:34 PM

Meltdown is the answer to chalice. Just make x= the number of counters, and your golden... also, it Wrecks ravager, provided you remove the little black guy first.

Deep Inside

11-08-2005, 06:47 PM

Damn, I'm so stupid... Of course, Overload gets countered by Cahlice... [glare]

But doesn't Meltdown also get countered by a chalice for one?

Slay

11-08-2005, 08:58 PM

Not if you cast it for 2.
-Slay

dre4m

11-08-2005, 09:59 PM

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't Chalice have a converted casting cost of zero everywhere but on the stack? A Meltdown for any amount will blow up all the Chalices, if this is the case, because Meltdown's converted casting cost will always be X+1, which is impossible to set a Chalice on.

Slay

11-08-2005, 10:38 PM

If they get a Chalice for 1 and 2, you have to have 3 mountains for it to work.

That's the problem. Sure you _could_ cast it with X = 0, but that would be countered by the Chalice. You have to use X not as a way of getting the Chalices with more charge counters but rather a way of getting around the Chalices with more charge counters.

Hopefully that made sense. Let's not have any more discussion on how you use Meltdown.

What do people think about Meltdown vs. Crash? Both are good spot removal but Crash costs less tempo and can hit Jittes without needing a lot of mana. On the other hand, Crash requires a Mountain to be sacrificed, which sucks for Fireblast and all around casting of spells.
-Slay

Kenderleech

11-08-2005, 11:11 PM

Meltdown is also the better part of Wrath+Geddon vs Ravager.

Rastadon

11-08-2005, 11:58 PM

Chalice isn't a problem because we have the amazing tech that is known as Crash. Or if you're more spanishly inclined, El Boom.

You know what is a problem artifact that el boomo doesn't fix? Trinisphere. Anyway around it, it's not pretty.

ElvenTitz

11-09-2005, 02:20 AM

Crash or Pulverize works perfectly well against chalice, i dont know anything about trinisphere, since nobody runs it in my area, but they run chalice, and crash will come for their souls !
Crash also works great against jitties (along with pitching needles), i think its really great card, it can be casted for free, it has sexy mana cost. On affinity : affinity is not so great matchup as many thinks. You actually in losing position if you not goldfish and they get a decent draw. I think, you will have to side some artifact hate and maybe pitching needle (depending on version, crash only against RAFinity, and crash + needle against atog relaying affinitys (wich imho very bad ones, but they will kill you much faster if luck)). I think theres also need in some tech against Pulse of the Fields, i usually win against this card because of bad draws of landstill player, but anyways - if he will get chance to cast it at least twice, ill almost ceretanly lose. I cant damage myself because i wont get enought manaburn since i dont have much mana avialable (and he will able to kill me with manlands then) and i wont throw my burn spells into myself coz its complite idiocy. We can win vs pulse only if we luck.

dre4m

11-09-2005, 09:11 AM

We can win vs pulse only if we luck.
Luck... or a Sulfuric Vortex.
But landstill is so rediculously easy post-sb anyways because of everything from Vortex to Price of Progress.

Trinisphere has proved to be quite a problem whenever my opponant has played it so far, but I pack Pulverize in my board due to the omnipresence of Stax and Affinity in my meta, and it works exceedingly well, and so, in my opinion, would Meltdown, but I'd rather lose a card than build up my mana for a massive meltdown. My worst nightmare occurred when my opponant laid down a Chalice for one and two on consecutive turns, and would have produced scoopage were he not in kill range of a Seal of Fire I had cast previously and a duet of Fireblasts.

ElvenTitz

11-09-2005, 11:36 AM

I run Vortexes in my build, but they getting countered or disenchanted very often, and i usually dont need to even set them. Its not really complite, fully powered answer.

bigbear102

11-10-2005, 01:30 AM

Ok, Elventitz, if you turn this into something like you turned the Rabid Wombat thread into, I hope you get banned. Landstill is an INCREDIBLY easy matchup. By the time they cast Pulse, you should have them around 5 life. Even if they counter/disenchant Vortex, you have PoP, fireblast, and (if you haven't cut it) Fork to protect them. The only match I lost to landstill was when some jackass ( he shall remain nameless, so hopefully he doesn't getsickanddie) put 4 chill in the board cuz he saw i was playing that day. Landstill is an easy matchup, even when they board Pulse.

I also advocate the usage of Crash over Meltdown, purely because of its tempo.

ElvenTitz

11-10-2005, 01:55 AM

@bigbear102
Im not saying its hard matchup, i beat standstill like 8-2 all times, and after sb about same results, unless he sets 2 chill, cop:red, and has two pulses in his hand, and i still managed to win somehow around chill on the table. But 5 life on turn 3 is really lucky for burn, its called "LUCK". So im right. You can beat pulse only if you luck. And mind, that landstill sb in my meta is something like :
3 Pulse of the Fields
4 Chill
4 Circle of Protection : RED
and i still win almost evry game, unless he gets pulse, wich he rarly gets :)

Zilla

11-10-2005, 02:23 AM

You can beat pulse only if you luck.
Bullshit. Run Sulfuric Vortex in your sideboard. Furthermore, manaburn yourself with all of your open mana at the end of your opponent's turn. It's not hard to keep them from getting their Pulse back. You just need to hurt yourself too.

ElvenTitz

11-10-2005, 02:35 AM

Well, i wrote about hurting yourself option in my pervious post. I actually run 3x Sulfuric Vortex main, mainly because theres also RGSA that likes to sac balothes and feeders. Im not argue with anyone that pulse is beatable, but if landstill gets all pieces it needs, it will more likly win.

Slay

11-11-2005, 12:23 PM

So? When has that been an argument for justifying anything? Of course if it gets turn 2 Chill, turn 3 Chill, turn 4 Pulse you'll lose. Who cares? Shit, Solidarity can turn 2 you on the play, better add in those Red Elemental Blasts(that's a horrible idea, if you didn't already know). Bad beats on already ridiculously easy matchups are no reason to include anything, ever. Worry yourself with dealing with the average amount of hate Landstill will throw at you, which right now is not an issue.
-Slay

KillerWhiteRabbit

11-13-2005, 08:10 PM

So, I just got back from Philly, and have a few things I'd like to share. I played a R/W style of burn with lightning helix MB, as well as honorable passage and disenchant in SB. (Sorry about the vagueness of this report, I was too stupid to take notes.)

Round 1:
Kid who thought legacy meant the latest 3 editions. Or...bye.

Round 2:
U/W/G Gro

Game 1: Ended in a draw. His 3 dryads beat me quickly, and he countered my sweepers. I used a flamebreak to kill us both.

SB in 4 disenchant, sb out 2 flame rift, 1 flamebreak, 1 chain of plasma

Game 2: He resolves a 2 spheres of law(killed the 1st one), as well as a Meddling Mage set of Fireblast.

Game 3: Similar, ended up in topdeck mode, and he just plain out countered me and outdrew me.

Round 3:
U/G/R Gro

Game 1: I outrace his non-existant threats, and dodge counters.

SB: in 4 disenchant, out 4 flamebreak (after learning a bit from last match)

Game 2: He draws counter and werebears like a champ, no hate enchantments.

Side: -4 disenchant, +4 REB

Game 3: Similar to game one. I back up my winning fireblast with a REB I'd been holding the whole game.

Round 4:
Gobbos

Game one: He overextends like mad into a flamebreak (took out 6-7), and I win from there.

SB: +3 passage, -2 Flame rift, -1 chain of plasma

Game 2:
I don't draw a passage/flamebreak untill I am at too low life for it to matter. I manage to tie it up with blast+break, though.

Game 3:
He hets an explosive start, and I topdeck 5 land in a row. Woot.

Game 4:
I get a slow start, buy manage to passage a piledriver swinging for lethal back at him. Killing him:D

Round 5:
Bad gobbos (there was a pairing error)

Rolled all games. Flamebreak saves the day, and he didn't have lackies.

Round 6:
Salvagers combo "The Game"

Game 1:
I play a first turn fanatic, and he wastes a therapy on warchief. Then he procedes, with 3 life left, to keeper into a salvagers for the win.

SB: -4 flamebreak, +4 pithing

Game 2:
I take him down to 6 before he combos out, I never draw a needle.

Round 7:
Alluren

I'd rather not discribe this one. I need to be more of a dick, and call the judge on swearing, as well as not comboing correctly. I lost. Oh well, I was out anyway, right?

Anyone else have better results?

Whit3 Ghost

11-13-2005, 09:08 PM

Dude, was he in a green shirt?
If so I played him round 1. I should have won too.

KillerWhiteRabbit

11-14-2005, 03:38 PM

Dude, was he in a green shirt?
Errr, I think his friend (who was taping the match) was, but he was (I think) in a blue shirt that said something like "How to know if you're a geek", and then some other stuff...

bigbear102

11-15-2005, 10:05 PM

I played against the Aluren player in a green shirt, and he knew what he was doing. Burn has a bad matchup against something like aluren anyway, you would have to just completely race them, with no way to disrupt. I have to ask though, how was the white splash? Other than the obviously insane Passage, how did your manabase do?

Zilla

11-16-2005, 01:35 AM

I haven't played a lot of Aluren, but assuming they were playing the Extended version of the combo, doesn't REB kill Cavern Harpy mid-combo (assuming they only have one)? And doesn't Pyrostatic Pillar just rape them in half? They're still casting spells through Aluren, and they're all >3cc.

KillerWhiteRabbit

11-17-2005, 07:42 PM

@Zilla: I'm retarted, so I didn't test against alluren, nor did I SB in blasts, nor did I call him on things he should have lost for, and I made play errors. I almost felt emo enough to slit my wrist with a lightning bolt after that match (kidding).

I played against the Aluren player in a green shirt, and he knew what he was doing. Burn has a bad matchup against something like aluren anyway, you would have to just completely race them, with no way to disrupt. I have to ask though, how was the white splash? Other than the obviously insane Passage, how did your manabase do?

Great, actually. I was only once screwed for mana (that mumble mumble alluren), and I had one land wasted all day. That one land didn't even hurt that much, as I saw the waste in play, and managed to get 2 helixes off brfore my plateau bit the dust. If there was one thing about the optional parts of the deck I would keep, it would be the manabase. The pings from sac-lands did not hurt me, except for one match that I tied indtead of won (1st gro match). I recommend trying that manabase to those who are skeptical. If you play it right, it will work well.

Errr, I've never listed my manabase [oh]
4 wooded foothills
4 bloodstained mire
9 mountain
2 plateau

That should be enough to be dangerous!

EDIT:Quote
Dude, was he in a green shirt?

Errr, I think his friend (who was taping the match) was, but he was (I think) in a blue shirt that said something like "How to know if you're a geek", and then some other stuff...

Whoops, yes, he was in a green shirt. I read the message as something about the guy I played round 1
:cool:

Fryed

11-20-2005, 01:28 AM

Hi, I'm relatively new to the forum, and I'm playing in my first Legacy tournament next week. I will be playing a R/W Burn deck, and I have all the standard cards except Chain Lightning. Should I: a) replace them with Shock; b) replace them with Chain of Plasma; or c) replace them with something else?

Zilla

11-20-2005, 01:57 AM

Welcome to The Source. I suppose d) shell out the cash for some Chain Lightnings isn't an alternative? They're really kind of a mainstay. They're super important.

My inclination would be to say you should run Chain of Plasma, but you really need to keep the curve correct, and for that you need at least 16 1cc cards, so Shock may be the better choice. What's your list look like so we have something for reference?

Fryed

11-20-2005, 02:07 AM

Thanks, Godzilla!
Actually, I guess I could probably buy some online, but the express shipping prices caused me to try an alternative. My deck looks like this:
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 (Chain Lightning-slot)
4 Incinerate
4 Magma Jet
4 Lightning Helix
3 Price of Progress
2 Browbeat
3 Flamebreak
4 Fireblast
10 Mountain
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
2 Plateau
SB:
4 Disenchant
4 Red Elemental Blast
3 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Pyrostatic Pillar
1 Flamebreak

Machinus

11-20-2005, 03:38 AM

It has been noted that Lava Spike is practically an auto-include in this deck, because most of the burn spells will be directed at the opponent. Those that are not should either do less damage or have a special abilty (magma jet, flamebreak, etc.)

Why isn't Thunderbolt an auto-include here? It does 3 damage at instant speed for two mana, and can hit flyers. The same arguments can be applied as used for Lava Spike, yet not many people are running this card. Why?

Obfuscate Freely

11-20-2005, 03:46 AM

In place of what? There are a whole host of 2-mana burn spells that can deal 3 damage to your opponent, and not nearly enough room to fit them all in. Chain of Plasma, Volcanic Hammer, Flame Jet, Fire Ambush - they all compete with Thunderbolt. Some builds don't even have room for any of them.

Zilla

11-20-2005, 04:06 AM

Yeah, what ObFreely said. The bottom line is that Lava Spike costs 1 mana and does 3 damage. If Thunderbolt cost 1 less, it would be an auto-include too. Since it doesn't, it's not. In theory, it can go in place of Chain of Plasma in any builds that run them, but I personally prefer to keep my non-creature targeting burn spells to a minimum, and Chain of Plasma's "drawback" is very rarely an issue at all.

umbowta

11-20-2005, 10:29 AM

@ Fryed

I'm going to agree with Godzilla on this one
...but you really need to keep the curve correct, and for that you need at least 16 1cc cards, so Shock may be the better choice.

Until you get the Chain Lightnings anyway

BullBar

11-20-2005, 05:33 PM

2 suggestions 4 Fryed.
Seal of Fire is an OK spell for the 1cc slot; although nowhere near as good as Chain Lightning, it's usually better than Shock. Firebolt could often be better too.
Urza's Bauble could be used to circumvent the issue alltogether perhaps?

Rastadon

11-20-2005, 09:43 PM

Urza's Bauble doesn't go with this deck's strategy. The plan is to throw down a mountain each turn, and cast some cheap and highly explosive damage at the head. Urza's Bauble doesn't help that because, well, it doesn't do damage. And while what this deck could really use is card draw, Bauble doesn't generate card advantage.

DarkAkuma

11-21-2005, 05:12 AM

Bauble is an old trick used to padd your deck. In some decks it can be like getting to play 56 cards, and still be tourney legal, instead of haveing to play 60 minimum, of corse slightly increaseing draw efficancy. But yea, still dont play it when you can play Shock instead. You lose 1 damage over chain, but on the bright side you get 4 more instant speed burn spells in your deck.

Now if your meta is realy scruby, and you think you can get away with it, you can play Spark Elementals till you get chains without loseing any damage per mana from that slot. Their weakness's are creature removal, fanatics, blockers and other burn of corse, so they should always be played in the first couple turns (over other 1cc dmg spells in your hand) when their more likely to get through.

Fryed

11-21-2005, 09:50 AM

Thanks for the ideas!
I will first try to get the Chains. If I can't, I'll just go with Shock and hope for the best.

Vimes

12-07-2005, 12:29 PM

GRAH's latest list from www.magic-league.com:

0cc:
4 Fireblast

1cc:
4 Lava Spike
4 Seal of Fire
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Mogg Fanatic
2 Grim Lavamancer

2cc:
4 Pyroclasm
4 Chain of Plasma
2 Price of Progress
4 Magma Jet
4 Incinerate

4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
1 Plateau
7 Mountain

Sideboard:
2 Crash
3 Pithing Needle
2 Price of Progress
1 Plateau
4 Red Elemental Blast
3 Disenchant

That's right: No 3 drops! And a mere 16 land! However, I'm not sure I like the new changes, mainly because of Pyroclasm. The 4x Pyroclasm create more dead draws versus non-goblins decks than running a few more land would. However, never needing a third land may make it more stable. Thoughts?

Sims

12-07-2005, 01:00 PM

Needs more Grims...... Pyroclasm should probably still be Flamebreak for the simple fact that Flamebreak deals damage to your opponent.....More than 16 lands would be nice.... Where is Fireblast? Why Seal of Fire? Why is he adding a white splash and not going serious with it and running a few more plats and Lightning Helix over Price of Progress or Chain of Plasma? Why are we talking about a decklist built by GRAH?

Edit: Oh, I see FB now that I'm awake. I typically don't look for FB as a "0 cc" spell even if you never pay the casting cost on it.

Edited By CorruptedAngel on 1134008564

umbowta

12-07-2005, 01:08 PM

At 16 land, there are too many 2cc spells...especially when running a full 8 fetches. I would flush Chain of Plasma down the shitter, throw in 4 Shock, and hope my opponent cracks two fetchlands or casts a Dark Confidant. At least I'd be able to cast the damn Shock. I want to be able to drop a land turn one, Lava Spike; drop a land T2 Seal, Chain; drop a land T3 and play two more spells. Running only 16 w/8 fetches,I'm gonna be the fuck out of land by turn one or two.
never needing a third land may make it more stable. Thoughts? I think I'd rather have a third land so I can play more than one spell per turn after casting out my my 1cc stuff on turn one and two.

Zilla

12-07-2005, 08:21 PM

Grah's out of his fucking mind. 16 land is far too light for that many 2cc spells, particularly with 8 fetches. It also makes for an unreliability in casting a second Fireblast, which he's running 4 of, and which flat-out win games. Also, the lower curve is forcing him to run trash like Seal of Fire, which is terrible.

Further, I see he finally saw the light and started splashing white, except that Lightning Helix is actually a better reason to run white than is Disenchant, so he dropped the ball there. Also, a Plateau in the SB and one in the main? Come on. Drop a Mountain for the second maindecked Plateau, and drop the crappy Chain of Plasmas for Helixes.

Also, no Flamebreak = unfavorable game with Goblins. At the very least you need Pyroclasm to reset the board, or they're going to monkeystomp you, particularly when you're hurting yourself with fetches.

In short, Grah's new build is terribly ill-conceived.

An optimized mono-red list looks something like:

//NAME: Burn
// Land
19 Mountain
// Creatures
4 Mogg Fanatic
// Burn
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Magma Jet
4 Incinerate
4 Thunderbolt/Chain of Plasma
3 Price of Progress
3 Browbeat
3 Flamebreak
4 Fireblast
// Sideboard
SB: 3 Pithing Needle
SB: 4 Red Elemental Blast
SB: 4 Pyrostatic Pillar
SB: 3 Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 1 Flamebreak

For the white splash, you drop 10 Mountains and 4 Thunderbolts for 8 Fetches, 2 Plateaus, and 4 Lightning Helixes, making room for some Disenchants in the board.

This really isn't that complex. Dropping the landcount below 19 is a recipe for failure. It hurts consistency, forces unnecessary mulls, requires the inclusion of shitty 1cc drops, makes you run subpar mass removal, and hurts the consistency of your Fireblasts, which flat-out win you games.

Zelyon

12-07-2005, 11:09 PM

I think Flame Rift/Lightning Helix should be autoincludes. Yes that one extra damage really does matter. That's 5% more of your opponent's life and Flame Rift/Fireblast/Price of Progress can often win games as early as turn 3 against fetchland decks! And in that situation, Chain of Plasma should be cut for Thunderbolts. (Eventhough it's rare, you may find yourself in situations where you have close to the same amount of life left as your opponents and/or have fewer cards that you can discard. Plus the cards you're discarding often can end up being stuff like Fireblast that you want to keep. It sucks when your opponent has multiple lands and you're holding a fistful of burn spells that you want to keep.)

In fact, I'm quite convinced that the optimal build would be pretty close to the below decklist.

Here's what I would run...

4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Lava Spike
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt

4 Magma Jet
4 Incinerate
4 Lightning Helix
4 Flame Rift

2 Price of Progress/Flamebreak/Chain of Plasma/Thunderbolt (Also tested and rejected: Fork/Browbeat/Grim Lavamancer/Genju of Spires)
2 Price of Progress
2 Flamebreak
4 Fireblast

2 Plateau
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
8 Mountain

Sideboard:

7 Open Slots
4 Sarraco/Red Elemental Blast
4 Disenchant

There are tons of options for the open slots based on your meta, Pyrostatic Pillar, Pithing Needle, Pyroclasm, Flaring Pain, Price of Progress, Flamebreak, or just about anything else.

Please tell me if you disagree with this build at all.

KillerWhiteRabbit

12-09-2005, 09:53 AM

A post from me to Centrolies here, regarding a similar (if not identical) topic. Origionally on the 3d/4th current SCG burn thread.

Regarding the manabase vulnerability, Killer White Rabbit had some great insights that I found to be 100% true...[/QOUTE]

I'm blushing... Embarassed

[quote]
also, if you're running flame rift, which you should be, you should definately be running thunderbolt or volcanic hammer or flamebreak over chain of plasma, esp. if you're not running any Helix's to compensate for the flame rifts.

MMMkay.

if not, you should consider running thunderbolt or volcanic hammer over chain of plasma as chain of plasma can indeed sometimes backfire against good players running fast agressive decks (that can keep your life total close to theirs). but more often, it can suck if your opponent has a hand with many lands and you're holding a fistful of burn spells that you don't want to discard. but this is really up to you. you can leave them in fo now once you have more experience with your deck, you'll figure what you want to run.

(This is me, now...)

thunderbolt doesn't kit any creatures you care about or kill exhalted angel.

Volcanic hammer is a sorcery, and therfore inferior in an aggro heavy meta.

If someone forks a chain at you, they're stupid, because it turns every card in your hand into a free lightning bolt.

'nuff said.

In the current metagame, I've found flamebreak a must. It's an auto 4-of in my opinion, as it is a totally agressive board sweeper. It is dead in no matchups. (above is why chain of plasma is good)

Flame rift is in my build fore the sole purpous of replacing fork. In my best case scenareo, fork was a 4 damage for 2 mana finisher when coupled with fireblast. I saw flame rift as a non-conditional version of that. Due to the massive amount of aggro in the current metagame, I have found that flame rift is not that good. In the GP, I tied 3 games solely because of flame rift (I would have won them, if they were say... any other burn card.) Flame rift is a necissary evil, but should NOT be run as a 4-of.

But I do like a 2 REB/2 Pyroblast split to get around Meddling Mage though.

Mage is annoying but not worth screwing around with your SB for. Besides, if your opponent names BEB with a mage, you're going to win that game anyway Wink

The SB I ran for the GP (and still like a lot) is:

3 honorable passage
4 disenchant
4 pithing needle
4 BEB

(by the way, you beat solidarity like 65 35, unless it's manned by an EXCELLENT player. Don't worry too much about it.)

Zelyon

12-11-2005, 04:12 PM

The Chain of Plasma vs. Thunderbolt vs. Volcanic Hammer discussion is irrelevent to me as my deck doesn't have room for any of the cards. So I'll just leave it at the end of the post.

Pyroblast is identical to ReB. You lose absolutely nothing by running 2 Pyroblast/2 ReB in the sideboard over 4 of either. But you do gain an advantage of Meddling Mage or Cabal Ritual or similar cards in those rare instances where that matters. It's the same reason why most people opt to run 2 Flooded Strand/2 Polluted Delta over 4 of either card (for Pithing Needle which is basically the Meddling Mage of lands). Yes, it almost never matters. But it still doesn't change the fact that you lose nothing by doing so.

Flame Rift can occasionally be bad, but the Helix's compensate for that.

Flame Rift takes out an extra 5% of your opponents life. That one extra damage Flame Rift deals wins games a full turn faster about a third of the time!!

You can easily run 4 Flamebreak, just run the extra two in those two slots that I left open for just about anything. In fact, I recommend doing precisely that. Here's what I would run.... This is the ideal build IMO

4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Lava Spike
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt

4 Magma Jet
4 Incinerate
4 Lightning Helix
4 Flame Rift

4 Flamebreak
4 Fireblast

1-2 Price of Progress (Can be Thunderbolt/Chain of Plasma/Volcanic Hammer. Also tested and rejected: Browbeat/Grim Lavamancer/Fork/Genju of Spires.)

2 Plateau
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wooded Foothills
8-9 Mountain

Sideboard:

7 Open Slots
4 Sarraco/2 Red Elemental Blast & 2 Pyroblast
4 Disenchant

There are tons of options for the open slots based on your meta, Pyrostatic Pillar, Pithing Needle, Pyroclasm, Flaring Pain, Price of Progress, Flamebreak, or just about anything else.

---------------------------------------------------------

The irrelevent (to me) discussion (as the above list doesn't have room for any of the cards) on Chain of Plasma vs. Thunderbolt vs. Volcanic Hammer.

Look, the major advantage of playing pure burn is that you run 0 artifacts, enchantments and creatures. As a result, you make all of your opponents artifact, enchantment and creature destruction dead.

Your deck can't draw cards, most of your opponent's decks can. The only way you can keep up with them on the card advantage race is to make sure that they have a lot more dead cards than you do. Chain of Plasma lets them turn all of their extra dead cards into lightning bolts where as normally, they would be worthless. Your cards are essentially never worthless. You're even running too few lands to have to worry about mana flooding. Your opponent maybe holding a fistful of lands (in addition to the dead cards against sligh) and you're holding a fireblast that you would prefer not to discard. and in those situations, it's bad to give your opponent the choice as to how this plays out.

Flame Rift is awesome because that one extra damage it deals wins games a turn faster about a third of the time!!

If running Flame Rift means running Thunderbolt over Chain of Plasma, it's well worth the trade off. Esp. if Helix is their to compensate for Flame Rift anyways.

First of all, 90% of your burn spells can target creatures as well. It's not a big deal if four of them can only target flying creatures

You should almost never be using burn spells for your opponent's creatures. Most of them should be aimed at the dome, or you're just running yourself out of steam and will lose the game. You use Flamebreak to deal with their creatures. But if you want to have the option, use up your Thunderbolts early and save an incinerate for later instead.

Or if you insist, just run Volcanic Hammer over either card. Sorcery isn't a big deal in the least. It's not like your deck has any surprises. It's just a straight forward burn deck.

"Your burn spells do 3 points of damage mostly (lightning bolt, lightning helix, incinerate, etc.) so discarding them to chain of plasma eventually isn't doing anything but letting you cast them for free (since either way, 3 damage is happening). "

Yes, that's actually precisely the problem. Those cards would have dealt 3 damage to your opponent anyways even without discarding them. But now, you're taking 3 damage as well. Had you cast those cards regularly instead of letting your opponent discard useless cards, you would have a 3 life advantage over them for each of them.

"chain of plasma's downside only really comes into play when you have 3 or less life, and your opponent doesn't"

No, it's downside comes ANYTIME you are at less life than your opponent after the Chains. Because you'll always be forced to end the chain prematurely in that case. But Chains will never damage more to your opponent than Thunderbolt or Volcanic Hammer when it is advantagous for you for that to happen. That's why giving your opponent a choice as to how it plays out is a bad thing.

Still, do what you want to. It's a touch call either way.

Slay

12-11-2005, 07:26 PM

The only way you can keep up with them on the card advantage race is to make sure that they have a lot more dead cards than you do.

This is wrong. You could care less than a rat's sphincter about whether or not your opponent has more card in hand than you. The only thing you actually care about is your opponent's life total. For every card they discard, a 3 damage spell that would normally costs 2(or more!) now costs zero. You get 3 damage? Okay, you're at 17. They're at 14. Do it again, you're at 14, they're at 11. Do it again, you're at 11, they're at 8 and have dropped all dead cards in their hand. Who cares? You untap, Fork your Fireblast, and win.

Burn never, ever cares about card advantage. Casting a Lightning Bolt at their head is strictly card disadvantage. Who cares?
-Slay

Zilla

12-11-2005, 07:32 PM

Burn never, ever cares about card advantage.
This is mostly true, but becomes less so as soon as you hit topdeck mode. This is the reason most builds run Browbeat - it either prevents you from having to go to topdeck mode, or provides card advantage when you do. Also, card advantage win games, even if it's virtual card advantage. Having more relevant cards than your opponent is what wins you games. That your cards are going to the dome doesn't make it any less important for you to have more relevant cards than they do.

Zelyon

12-11-2005, 08:31 PM

Burn's biggest problem is running out of steam. It does care about card advantage. Just like everyother half way decent deck in Legacy. The more dead cards your opponent has, the better.

It would be stupid not to want that. Them having a card advantage means they have more countermagic, more creatures that you have to deal with, and are more likely to draw into annoying stuff like Renewed Faith, Worship, and Circle of Protection etc.

Slay

12-11-2005, 09:29 PM

Okay, let me rephrase that, since you guys are savagely taking me out of context:

Your opponent having dead cards and turning them into 3 damage at you would still makes them dead cards, as your life total will be greater than zero when the smoke has cleared. The only exception is against something like Goblins, in which case you get to Wrath their board for 6-9 damage. Meanwhile, you get massive tempo advantage because you get to play your spells for free.

All of this applies strictly to casting and resolving Chain of Plasma, as I agree with everyone that losing burn spells and going fast into topdeck mode is in fact the sucky sucky.
-Slay

Zilla

12-11-2005, 10:24 PM

Rastadon

12-12-2005, 09:36 PM

Slay: The decks that would throw it back are the ones with dead cards, like Landstill. We already pwn Landstill from here to...um...somewhere far away. No one else will throw it back because they don't have dead cards. It only improves the matchups we're already dominating. In all other situations, Thunderbolt is better.

I know it's been suggested in the past, but I think that Skullscorch could be a decent SB card vs Thresh and other aggro control decks. Once they got the beats out, the only thing they're holding in hand is counters. If they FoW it, it's card disadvantage and lifeloss. If they take 4 that's a sweet damage per mana ratio, and if they discard 2 they go to topdeck mode. At the right time, a Skullscorch could make or break a game.

Zelyon

12-13-2005, 12:39 AM

Realistically, the lifeloss from Chain of Plasma can matter elsewhere. Decks like Zoo and Angel Stompy can win damage races against you as well. Furthermore, Chain of Plasma can be a genuinely awful topdeck when you have no cards in hand. There's not a particularly good reason not to run Thunderbolt in this slot, since the majority of your other burn can hit creatures.

quoted for truthery.

"No one else will throw it back because they don't have dead cards."

That's not true. Lots of decks run artifact destruction, enchantment destruction, creature destruction and other cards that are effectively dead against burn.

Sirraco, Price of Progress and ReB to some extent are all much much better sideboard choice that Skullscorch.

It's not worthwhile to waste sideboard slots on Skullscorch as it's always bad to give your opponent a choice, and the 4 damage is much more consistently dealt by Flame Rift.

Rastadon

12-13-2005, 05:32 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't Burn be more focused on stuffing damage down the throat instead of worrying about dead cards? The main questions that that need to be addressed are "Is Plasma dangerous for its caster? Are there times where it's worse than an Incinerate? And which match-ups does it make winnable?"

IMO, to say that it's ineffective is a bleh arguement, because it's not like there's that great of an alternative outside of Flame Rift, which has problems of its own.

Zilla

12-13-2005, 06:11 PM

Is Plasma dangerous for its caster?
Yes, in any matchup where the opponnent's deck deals damage roughly as quickly as you do. This includes but is not by any means limited to: the mirror, Goblins, Zoo, and Angel Stompy.

Are there times where it's worse than an Incinerate?
See above. Any matchup where the opponent can use your cards to win the game. No intelligent player is ever going to send Chain of Plasma back at you when you're going to get more benefit from it than they do. Remember that.

And which match-ups does it make winnable?
Technically all of them. The more important question is, what matchups does it make losable? Again, see above.

And finally, the most important question of all: in what matchups is Thunderbolt worse than Chain of Plasma? Goblins maybe, except that Chain of Plasma has very significant disadvantages there also, as previously noted.

dryadfanatic724

12-21-2005, 11:44 AM

I have played this deck many times before switching over to gro. There are several objectives you need to accomplich to make it competitive.
1. You NEED Fireblast/Fork to outrace combo, Half or more of your games end with this 8 damage.
2. Ball Lightning and Lavamancer can't go in the deck in order to make your opponent's STP and other removal dead (the deck needs the virtual CA).
3. Cave-In is strictly better than Pyrokinesis as it also hits players and does all critters anyway (even hardcasting it costs less 5 to 6). Instant Rolling Earthquake for X=2 at the cost of a red card isn't bad. Also the combination of "free" cards like this and Fireblast lead to quicker kills (in the nuttier draws)
4. Since you can't have Lavamancer, you need Scroll; I know this is not a RDW forum, but the deck needs a plan B if you can't get the early win.
5. Lifegain kills your strategy, so unless you always get a super-nuts draw, MD 1-2 Vortex.
6. Don't bother using Wasteland or Port or Ring, Stick with mountains and fetches. This allows you to cast Fireblast more consistently and doesn't weaken Price.
7. If you're afraid of Aluren (I think someone mentioned it) then use 4 Pillars and have them fuck themselves. (It's a must counter vs Solidarity too)
Having said all that, here's my list:

4x Bolt, Chain Bolt, Spike = 12
3x Cursed Scroll = 15
3x Flamebreak = 18
3x Cave-In = 21
4x Fireblast, Fork, 3x Incinerate, 1x Price of Progress = 33
2x Sulfuric Vortex = 35
4x Mogg Fanatic = 39
3x Bloodstained Mire = 43
3x Wooded Foothills = 46
14x Mountain = 60 (end of maindeck)

Board:
3x Tormod's Crypt (vs. Gro and random shit that abuses yard)
3x Pyroblast
2x REB
1x Sirocco
1x Sulfuric Vortex
2x Pithing Needle
3x Flaring Pain

Card Explainations:
a. 12 bolts (that's a no-brainer)
b. Scroll - many people don't like this and say it's slow. 1st of all, once it sticks, they must needle it. Otherwise, its good for killing pro-red guys and guys in general. (If they play pro-red guys, you're gonna be in for a longer game anyways, especially if they MD Worship)
c. Flamebreak is an auto-include, but sometimes, you just don't see the 3rd mana, so Cave-In will be played at those times. The fact that its an instant-rolling earthquake for X=2 is nuts when played for "free".
d. Incinerate (the anti-regen isn't that useful, but until they make another lava-spike, you have to settle for this.) - Price of Progress > Incinerate = Magma Jet > Chain of Plasma
e. 4x Fireblast/Fork combo. This is your finisher - depending on what you have, you can get anywhere from 4,8,12,16 damage.
f. Vortex. You can't afford to let your opponent gain life if it stops you from taking game 1, plus it is continuous damage. However, watch out for Sphere of Law as it makes your Vortex 1-sided (in their favor)
g. Fanatic. If they have no guys, it can add up to a bolt+. Otherwise, it is similar to lavadart and it chumps and sacs, sorta like STElder in Type 2. (The chumping is actually relevant sometimes)

h. Crypt - If you guys don't know, Gro is very good vs your deck, so hate accordingly.
i. Price - Also hates on grow, as well as many other decks in the format. So good that I mained 1, If it sucks, toss it to Cave-In, although it is usually pretty good.
j. 3x Pyro, 2x REB. I think 5 blasts and Sirocco is usually enough. If they Mage REB (they tend to name this over Pyro), you still have Pyro and Sirocco.
k. Needle explains itself. Good vs. Baloth, Vial, COP, and countless other cards as well as fetches
l. Flaring Pain - stops the other hate cards like pro-red guys. Very relevant if they plan to Worship/Pro-red guy you, this allows you to take out said Pro-red guy with a Cave-in.

I hope this declklist helps you guys develop a better red deck. In the end I switched over to gro because I enjoy burying my opponent in an avalanche of card advantage (something red can't do).

bigbear102

12-21-2005, 08:10 PM

In my testing Gro is actually a reasonably decent matchup, with it in your favor by a bit. I do of course still run Fork (crazy good against Gro, considering the draws they play, (ak sounds good in burn...)), and PoP, which is AmAzIng against them. I'm not saying that Crypt is a bad sb choice, because the more gro there is the more you should be prepared for it, but i just don't know if Crypt is completely necessary right now. You already beat everything else that uses the yard (unless tog adds chill). Blasts should be enough to swing it in your favor for game 2.

Cards like Chain of Plasma and Flame Rift will always be hot topics, I personally run Flame Rift because it is me who gets to make the decision about what happens. That is also the slot that I drop if I want to run stupid stuff like Sulfuric Vortex and Pithing Needle MD.

Personally I don't think there is any optimal build for burn, I beleive that there are core cards, which have been discussed, and several additional choices to use when needed. I don't think i have ever played the same combination of MD and SB in any tournament. In the cuse Wasteland is a must, along with price, other places they suk. In my opinion there are about 12 open slots that can change in and out according to need. A good player will scout the tourney before-hand and determine what filler cards will do the best, and where (sb or md).

Ideas are what are needed now, bickering about chain of plasma is getting nowhere. We have had some great ideas come about on this thread, and some crap, but that's what it takes, a lot of ideas and testing.

dryadfanatic724

12-22-2005, 04:14 PM

This might be off topic, but I think vs. gro, Price is way more important (especially in tandem with Fork). Personally, I started SBing Null Rod in Gro. It stops Crypt, Furnace, and other artifact type hate. Also did I mention that it also hits Vial, Scepter, Vault, Disc, Ravager, Equipment, and artifact lands/ mana producers. Since gro rose in popularity, I had to use Null Rod just for the hate. No one has an opinion on Cave-In? I thought the card was a much better Pyrokinesis, although it only kills stuff X/2 or smaller (hell, its a pitch spell) but it also burns players.

Vimes

12-22-2005, 04:32 PM

Even if it is a much better Pyrokinesis, it's not worth the card disadvantage. You're going for the HEAD, dang it. 2 cards for 2 damage is not efficient. Flamebreak, at worst, deals 3 damage for 1 card and 3 mana. That's why we play it over Pyroclasm, say. Every card in the deck reflects the focus on going for the head as efficiently as possible, and Cave-in is not efficient. It may be quicker in the nuttier draws, but would you play a deck that won turn 1 1% of the time but lost every other time?

Slay

12-22-2005, 05:23 PM

Cave-In is at its best when you're building a more controlling burn/RDW deck with Burning Wishes. It's an amazing Wish target.
-Slay

dryadfanatic724

12-27-2005, 10:07 AM

Well, the idea is to buy time with the Cave-ins. For example, if your oppornent plays Werebear & mongoose, you can burn him some. Then when he counters your shit, respond with a free cave-in and kill his guys (pre-threshold, I mean). It does cause card disadvantage to you, but it slows them down as well so that they need to find more threats. Vs. Goblins, it serves the same purpose. You're never going to hardcast it, so just do your thing until you feel like cleaning the board. The two damage to each player is more of a bonus, as it isn't the card's original role anyway. Also, since you're emptying your hand, cursed scroll gets to be used earlier. I agree that this build seems a bit controllish, but it doesn't lose as much tempo as you'd think, except with Flame Rift you do get earlier kills, but I prefer the consistency of my kills.

bigbear102

12-27-2005, 09:25 PM

Ok, it seems to me after reading the Cave-In discussions there may be a misconception, it's a sorcery. You cannot respond to anything with it. Also, where did Pyrokinesis come into the picture??? That card doesn't fit at all. For my purposes I believe that pitching a card is bad, especially in a deck that has absolutely NO draw. It would be too devastating, as most of the time you would want to play it turn 3-4, and by that time you only have 2-3 cards in hand.

I also want to point something out that has been mentioned before, but I believe needs to be re-stated. In my opinion Burn is a combo deck. This is because it relies on "going off" before the opponent. It is a reliable combo because any 7 spells should kill the opponent. The point of the deck is to cast those 7 spells as quickly and efficiently as possible, without losing card advantage, as that would limit the number of spells able to be cast. You can see the obvious redundancy in the cards that are played, everything deals damage to the opponent. This deck, in my opinion, does not need a "late game" plan, like Scroll. If the deck doesn't do what it is designed to do then you will lose, but the point is to make the deck as efficient and effective as possible, so as to never worry about the late game. Adding cards like Cursed Scroll only hinders the deck's ability to win quickly. This is also why I am against Barbarian Ring, as it is a disruptable element in the deck, and weakens the reliability of the finisher (fireblast). It also should not matter if your game is going well, as when you have 7 cards in your graveyard, your opponent should be dead. Browbeat is not an optimal choice in my opinion because it is just not necessary. You will most of the time draw the 7 required spells within the first 4 turns of the game, therefore giving you the right amount to win. This is also why I choose to include the riskier cards such as Flame Rift over Chain of Plasma. It just gets the game over that much quicker.

lillelassie

12-31-2005, 10:02 AM

Hi.. why wouldn't you be playing spark elemental over mogg fanatic? this way you have 16 3-damage spells for 1 mana.. In the lategame mogg fanatic is often just good for 1 damage.. whereas sparkie often can attack for free, because your opponent is attacking anyway.. Besides he can trample over small guys..

I run 4 flame rift! its a really nice burn spell. Burndesks philosofy should be to make the most damage/card..

Also my manabase is simply 20 mountains.. sometimes i cast 2 fireblast turn 4-5 which is gameover.. i wouldn't even considering running non-basic lands in a burn-deck..

scrumdogg

12-31-2005, 11:30 AM

Because the later the game goes, the more likely your opponent is to have relevant blockers (critters without haste, Wall of Blossoms/Roots, critters with abilities) or removal. These all apply equally to Mogg Crack Addict except that you are guaranteed 1 point of damage from the Mogg. Mogg also doubles as removal for many pesky critters that you do not want to waste true burn on.

lillelassie

12-31-2005, 12:26 PM

still i think turn 1 spark elemental is better than turn 1 mogg... guess its a matter of metagames and taste..

besides.. who play wall of blossoms? gobbo? thres? landstill? only the rock and aluren i guess

troopatroop

12-31-2005, 05:21 PM

What do you want more against turn 1 lackey?

Mogg Fanatic or Spark Elemental.

Thats it.

juventus

12-31-2005, 07:44 PM

What do you want more against turn 1 lackey?

Mogg Fanatic or Spark Elemental.

Thats it.
So I guess we should play lava dart over lightning bolt because you would want it more against first turn lacky.

But luckily we don't design our whole deck around dealing with one card.

This deck (http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=284776) played Spark Elemental over Mogg Fanatic, and it placed decently. Fourteenth out of over 1000 decks; not too shabby.

I admit I have zero experience with this archetype. My gutt feeling is to play fanatic, but the results of the deck I linked say otherwise.

The pilot's explanation:

Spark Elemental vs. Mogg Fanatic. I used to play the Mogg in a Trial before (which I ended top8) and wasn´t convinced at all. Far too often the Mogg only was good for one single point of damage by sacrificing him. By testing the Elemental he mostly dealt 3 damages. That means with 16 spells costing 1 and dealing 3, you often win turn 4 to 5. By the way, playing Spark Elemental means fun cause every second opponent looked at the card, grabbed it, read it, grined and grunted something like "wtf..."

bigbear102

12-31-2005, 08:08 PM

Mogg Fanatic is better than Spark Elemental in my opinion. Against decks like Solidarity, Nausea, FlameVault, essentially any combo deck that doesn't win turn 1-2 he does more damage. Against control he does more damage, and doesn't get swordsed as a waste of a man. Against Gro he kills Werebear before he gets big. Against survival he kills rofellos, birds, elves, and trades 2-1. The most important matchup he is in for is goblins, where he goes 2-1 every game if you keep him back, and if not he deals a few points and then takes out lackey. It is not only against goblins that Fanatic shines in this deck, I believe he is a better all around choice than Sparky. It also goes back to the original concept of where burn gets its card advantage from. Not only does Sparky make their creature kill better, he makes every creature in their deck better. Having the more flexible Fanatic takes a lot of versatility away from an opponents deck, and adds a lot to yours.

@Juventus: Lava Dart v Lightning Bolt is nothing like Fanatic v Sparky, they are two so totally different theories that bringing them up together is just plain stupid.

@lillelassie: Blossoms is also played in RGSA, a current DTB and very strong contender in the format. And considering that Fanatic can 2-1 or kill just about every creature in that deck (other than baloth, walls, and possibly wurm) I believe it is a solid choice.

Fanatic is also insanely good against a lot of random aggro, and now that people are trying to give control a comeback w/o using manlands, the little green man is much better against them ( although we smash them anyway).

juventus

01-01-2006, 11:45 AM

@Juventus: Lava Dart v Lightning Bolt is nothing like Fanatic v Sparky, they are two so totally different theories that bringing them up together is just plain stupid.
Clearly you couldn't comprehend the point I was trying to make. I was using the Lava Dart vs. Lightning Bolt example to show how when a card is chosen for a deck, it is not fully dependant on one aspect of the card (in this case stopping lackey). I said this in response to troopatroop, who basically said Mogg Fanatic is better than Spark Elemental solely because it is better vs. Lackey.

If playing Lavadart over Lightning Bolt because of Lackey and playing Mogg Fanatic over Spark Elemental because of Lackey are "so totally different theories that bringing them up together is just plain stupid" then I can win a GP with belcher.

I was just trying to say that playing one card over another shouldn't be decided over one aspect. Maybe I should make things painfully obvious next time.

Against survival he kills rofellos, birds, elves, and trades 2-1.

Having some experience with the survival archetype I don't believe he will do many 2-1 trades. The only way he could be doing a 2-1 trade is by:

A) Fanatic blocks a creature with toughness of 1. Against burn the survival deck will 90% of the time be playing the role of control, and especially won't attack with anyone with toughness of 1.

B) Fanatic is blocked by a creature with toughness 1. This also seems unlikely to me because the survival player basically has the option to either take 1 damage or lose a manacreature. In most cases the survival deck would rather take 1 damage. This is shown when the deck fetches for a land, it is taking one damage to get a mana.

Keep in mind that, in my opinion, Fanatic is still much better than Spark Elemental for the deck.

Slay

01-01-2006, 11:54 AM

But your analogy is silly, because both Dart and Bolt can deal with Lackey, and a second turn Lackey is literally dealt with by half your deck.

On the other hand, not having an answer to a first turn Lackey could turn out to be a problem, if they go and Ringleader into mad gas.

A better analogy would be something like Dart over Browbeat, which is a interesting question because Browbeat's good vs. Control and Dart's good vs. aggro.
-Slay

juventus

01-01-2006, 12:01 PM

I was thinking along the lines of, lava dart kills the Lackey and can now flashback. Lightning bolt kills the Lackey and can do nothing more. But clearly no one would take out Lightning Bolt for Lavadart because it does more damage to your opponent, can kill bigger creatures, etc. So it is important to weigh everything when making a decision. I didn't like the logic of: it's better vs. Lackey, That's it.

Obfuscate Freely

01-01-2006, 01:58 PM

Spark Elemental actually seems better than Fanatic against creature removal. You can drop him turn 1 on the play, or wait until your opponent taps out (Legacy decks do that a lot in the first few turns), and then Sparky does his job just fine. Fanatic, on the other hand, is much more susceptible to removal and is never guaranteed to do more than a single point of damage.

I think Sparky over Fanatic makes your opponent's removal worse, not better.

Zilla

01-01-2006, 04:10 PM

I think Sparky over Fanatic makes your opponent's removal worse, not better.
Disagreed.

Fanatic is a guaranteed 1 point of damage, no matter what. It can often do more. Furthermore, it can trade 2 for 1, which Spark Elemental will never do. Most importantly, Fanatic can chump block, which really is the sole reason for the inclusion of any creature in the deck. Slay's point about his strength against Lackey really is the reason he's in the deck at all, and it's a valid one. I've tested quite a bit against Goblins using builds both with and without Fanatic; the ability to answer a first turn Lackey, while still doing 1 to the dome or removing a second creature is exceedingly important in this matchup.

Also, because of the nature of Fanatic, it's rare that anyone ever actually uses their creature removal to remove him. He can be thought of as burn with a body. The same is not true of Spark Elemental. If your opponent invests a card to remove him (which isn't particularly unlikely, given that there are no other creatures in the deck to target), you've dealt 0 damage.

Fanatic may be a slightly lower impact card in terms of damage for cost, but it's guaranteed damage, and it can buy you a full turn by chump blocking real threats.

Obfuscate Freely

01-01-2006, 07:17 PM

My statement that Sparky is better against removal was just a counterarguement to the folks who said the opposite is true. I won't argue that Fanatic doesn't own Lackey, or that Spark Elemental is or isn't a playable card.

I will stand by my statement, though. Spark Elemental beats Fanatic in terms of virtual card advantage because you can play it around removal. Fanatic, on the other hand, will always get hit by that same removal. And no, it isn't rare for people to kill Fanatic, especially if doing so would prevent him from doing damage. Have you been testing against the wrong Elgin or something?

I don't want to get involved in the debate over Spark Elemental's inclusion in Burn. I just wanted to interject with my specific point. Creature removal is worse against Sparky than Fanatic.

Edited By Obfuscate Freely on 1136161061

Zilla

01-01-2006, 08:49 PM

I will stand by my statement, though. Spark Elemental beats Fanatic in terms of virtual card advantage because you can play it around removal. Fanatic, on the other hand, will always get hit by that same removal. And no, it isn't rare for people to kill Fanatic, especially if doing so would prevent him from doing damage. Have you been testing against the wrong Elgin or something?
Shows what you know. There's no such thing as a right Elgin.

But that aside, the point is that Fanatic is a guaranteed 1 damage, even in the face of creature removal, where Spark Elemental can do 0 damage when removed. In theory you can wait for your opponent to tap out, but even then, you have to contend with opposing Fanatics and the like. Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of conditional damage in Burn, with the exception of Browbeat.

SpatulaOfTheAges

01-05-2006, 08:35 PM

Fuck both your couches.

Kazadoom

01-11-2006, 05:03 PM

Has anyone thought about changing mogg fanatics into lava darts?
basicly they deal the same amount of damage (i even think that mogg deals only 1 most of the time), but Dart can be used when it is in the yard.
and especialy in lategame Vs controldecks that stabilaze at low life it can be useful to steal one or two life with darts as they have to counter twice.

Kazadoom

Zilla

01-11-2006, 06:15 PM

The main thing about Fanatic is that it can trade 2 for 1 against Goblins and other aggro decks. Lava Dart can't do the same.

Slay

01-11-2006, 08:22 PM

Lava Dart would be in this deck in a second if Survival was still big in the metagame. It's not, so it's out.
-Slay

Zelyon

01-18-2006, 08:28 AM

I typed up a mini primer explaining when to splash white and run certain cards, and when not to.

The splash ie. Lighning Helix/Plateau - There are two types of metagames, those where nonbasics and Wastelands run rampant, and those where nonbasics are few and far between. In the former, while the life gain and the ability to sideboard Disenchant are great reasons to splash white, the added versatility of Disenchant is offset by the added vulnerability to Wasteland. And the life gained by running Lightning Helix is offset by the life lost from Plateau since running a playset of Price of Progress is a must in such metagames. Thus, Lightning Helix is best thought off as an alternative to Price of Progress in those precisely those metagames where nonbasic lands and Wastelands are few and far between. In such metagames, Lightning Helix compensates for the life loss associated with the incredibly effective Flame Rift and Flamebreak.

Price of Progress - This card can be an absolute bomb against those decks that run multiple nonbasic lands. While many of the current decks fit this mold, a few decks run no such nonbasic lands and thus it is debatable if this card should be maindecked or sideboarded. If you choose not to run it, splash white and run Lightning Helix.

Barbarian Ring - This land has the slight disadvantage of not being saccable to Fireblast. It's a tough call. On one hand, it is very effective against Blue based control strategies and thus warrants consideration in decks running Lightning Helix. But on the same token, in mono Red builds running Price of Progress, the added vulnerability to both Wastelands and your own Price of Progress is just not worthwhile.

Mogg Fanatic - This is an excellent one drop creature that finds its way into most burn decks. Though it violates the no nonland permanant rule that burn decks live by, the fact that it can be sacrificed to deal damage compensates for this. The only reason not to run this would be in an almost entirely creature dominated environment where it will never get through to deal even as much damage as a Shock. But even then, it still warrants consideration.

Thunderbolt - This is an excellent alternative burn spells that replaces Mogg Fanatic in high toughness creature dominated metagames. It can also be used in burn decks that can't afford the Plateaus for the white splash though they play in areas where running Price of Progress is not worthwhile. It can even replace Flame Rift in environments where such life loss unacceptable.

Flame Rift - The main reason that Flame Rift is used is because that one extra damage lets you win the game a full turn faster a third of the matches you play. But it can replaced in metagames where you often find yourself being outraced.

Chain of Plasma - This serves the same purpose as Thunderbolt, as an alternative burn spell. But Thunderbolt is almost certainly the superior option. Chain of Plasma has the small but still relevent liability of being bounced back in situations where you don't have any cards to discard or simply don't want to discard (when you are holding a Fireblast for example). A good opponent would never bounce back Chain of Plasma unless it is advantagous to them. Thunderbolt on the other hand has no real drawback since there are so many other burn spells in the deck that can deal with creatures when neccesary. In addition, the ability of Thunderbolt to destory four toughness flying creatures when neccesary is actually a positive.

Flamebreak - Burn wants to aim everything for the dome. This deck lets it do that.

The best burn decks runs a base with only the fastest most efficent burn spells available and very few if any nonland permanents. Thus these decks make up for their inability to draw cards by making all of the removal and bounce in your opponents hand worthless. Magma Jet also serves a similar goal in making sure that the cards you draw are indeed cards that help you win.

Thus, the rest of the slots become fairly obvious.

Spells:
4 Lava Spike
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Mogg Fanatic or Thunderbolt
4 Lightning Helix or Price of Progress
4 Magma Jet
4 Incinerate
4 Flame Rift
4 Flamebreak
4 Fireblast

Lands:
4 Mountain
4 Snow Covered Mountain
4 Plateau or Mountain
4 Bloodstained Mire or Barbarian Ring
4 Wooded Foothills

Popular Cards That Shouldn't Be Run:

Volcanic Hammer - This is yet another alternative to Thunderbolt and Chain of Plasma. It shouldn't be run, simply because the sorcery speed is a bigger drawback than the drawbacks of either of the other cards. Playing your cards at the end of your opponents turn is a critical component of playing burn decks, and this interferes with that plan.

Grim Lavamancer - While a few people feel that this card is ultimately too efficent not to run, it clearly violates the no nonland permanant rule and also is a bit too slow. These are the same reason that a number of other nonland permanants such as Ankh of Mishra, Sulfuric Vortex and Cursed Scroll are not utilized in this deck.

Ball Lightning - While the main reason this card fell into disuse, Mana Drain, no longer exists in Legacy, it's high casting cost makes it only usable as a finisher. And the fact that this a creature that can be targeted by removal or blocked makes it an unreliable finisher at that.

Browbeat - Like Ball Lightning, Browbeat is restricted to the role of finisher by it's high casting cost. But the fact that it gives your opponent the choice of living another turn makes it too unreliable as a finisher. That one extra turn is often the difference between victory and defeat.

bigbear102

01-18-2006, 12:00 PM

Ok, the deck you posted seems pretty solid to me, except for the Mogg Fanatic/Thunderbolt slot. Thunderbolt should not be run in that spot. Fanatic is the best card for that slot right now, with Spark Elemental being the next, as it is a 3for1. The other problem is your manabase. The snow-covered mountains are kind of odd, but whatever. If the deck is not splashing white there should be no fetchlands in it whatsoever. They do not thin the deck enough and hurt in the goblins matchup. With the white splash they are needed, but only with the splash. Secondly the Barbarian Rings are out of place. They are wastelandable, hurt you, and just don't do enough to make up for their shortcomings. They are especially bad in the white splash, giving your opponent way too many ways to mess with your manabase. I understand the white splash is for wasteland lite metas, but you still shouldn't play stupid, having 8 nonbasics and 8 fetches is taking it a bit too far to be safe. Perhaps you should edit your manabase for the straight red version and the white splash separately, as they are completely different.

@Godzilla: If a fanatic can trade 2for1 then so can lava dart, I'm not saying it should be played, but it is obvious that Lava Dart can go 2for1 with anything that a fanatic could. I don't see how your statement can be relevant at all. It is actually in the control/combo/creatureless matches where Fanatic is better than Dart.

Sims

01-18-2006, 12:33 PM

@Godzilla: If a fanatic can trade 2for1 then so can lava dart, I'm not saying it should be played, but it is obvious that Lava Dart can go 2for1 with anything that a fanatic could. I don't see how your statement can be relevant at all. It is actually in the control/combo/creatureless matches where Fanatic is better than Dart.

Wrong, Lava Dart trades 2 for 2.

Lava Dart is only strong in certain, more controlling red decks... and this is not one of them.

Lego

01-18-2006, 04:21 PM

I've run Lava Dart before, and I absolutely loved it, but I ran it in the same deck as Grim Lavamancer, Kird Ape, and Slith Firewalker, so take that with a grain of salt.

BullBar

01-25-2006, 07:08 AM

I'd like to rant a little on some non-obvious points us burn.deckers should consider when building our take on it.

We are all pretty much sure of the best burn spells available. There is almost a heirachy coming down from Lightning Bolt's 5-star rating. What we all should be aware of is the subtle synergies between some of these spells, especially ones which when considered alone appear almost sub-par.
OK, an example. You're playing in a meta saturated with Landstill, Solidarity, Alluren and Salvagergame. A good burner will see we might as well run Flame Rift, as damage races are not as common as races to the critical turn. What does this mean for Fork?
Example 2. Metagame is so varied it's making you dizzy. Sideboard ends up being a bunch of 2 and 3 - ofs. What does this do for the star rating of Browbeat? How about Urza's Bauble? (feel free to post responses to these questions)
Watchout for little things like this. So many burn spells are playable, it is the little things which can make a great burn deck into an amazing one.

I too would like to repeat what so many before me have said - maindecked targetable creatures, enchantments, artifacts and non-basics should be avoided. Even in metas where you'd really like a couple of Cursed Scrolls for the long game, keep it to the sideboard. Wait for the disenchants to be sided out before you bring down the tech.
That said, keep a close eye on the suite of maindeck metagame removal. If non-basic hate becomes rare where you are, obviously the star rating of Barbarian Ring improves. This can create domino effects - your land count may be a little higher to preserve Fireblast integrity, so 4cc sideboard cards like Anarchy and Nev's Disk become a bit better.

I believe the deck has been developed to the point where decklists posted are unintelligable without metagame descriptions, and the prime point of this thread should swich to developing tech for specific matchups.

Bane of the Living

01-25-2006, 04:43 PM

Aether (Flash?)
2RR Enchantment
Whenever a creature comes into play Aether Flash deals 2 damage to it.

This looks like a bomb against Gobs if you can cast it. Super sideboard awsomeness? I don't know if you can afford a 4cc spell but its a cool one if you can. It makes it so all your burn can go for the face instead of creatures.

Rastadon

01-25-2006, 05:01 PM

I've done some testing with Aether Flash and I can tell you it's no good. By the time you hit 4 mana, Goblins have already assembled a sizeable army capable of killing you. At that point in the game, I wouldn't want a card that prevents Goblins from hitting play, I want a card that can get that Red Army off the fields. Y'know, Flamebreak or Steamblast.

Communists...

BullBar

01-25-2006, 06:10 PM

The easiest way I can think of to possibly get it turn 3 involves 3 X Sandstone Needle, not so good an option really. For creature hate it is narrow as it won't solve Theshold creatures for example. If you want to keep aiming at their head, Repercussion is cheaper. Flamebreak et al is already nuts in the matchup vs gobbos, and Breath of Darigaaz get better with every Werebear sleaved in your meta. (wow, was that a rhyming couplet? Wow!)

Zilla

01-26-2006, 12:52 AM

Can you guys remind me why you're looking for tech for a positive matchup? Flamebreak alone makes Goblins a positive matchup. Why would you need something like Aether Flash on top of that?

thenick2000

01-26-2006, 07:54 PM

I was wondering if burn is still a good viable deck in the current Legacy megagame with the number of Grow decks increasing. I would imagine thats a poor matchup for burn. I would probably also recommend splashing another color in burn such a white for sideboard use. I really haven't played the deck, but those are my quick points. Thanks.

Zilla

01-26-2006, 09:08 PM

If the results of the 2 GP's are any indication, Burn wasn't particularly viable even before the rise of Gro. It's inherently powerful and simple to play, but it can also just lose to poor draws. It has essentially no permanent threats to carry it into the long game, so if it doesn't win early, it doesn't tend to win at all. This isn't a particularly desireable trait in a non-combo deck without any draw, accelleration, or search to speak of, particularly when so many anti-Goblins cards also double as Burn hate.

This problem is only exacerbated by the increase in Gro's popularity. 3c Aggro with efficently costed beaters and Lightning Helix are also quite bad for it. Rabid Wombat, Rifter and CAL are pretty bad for it as well. The lack of blue-based control, which can be one of Burn's best matchups is also a score against it. I'd say that now more than ever, Burn is a poor metagame choice.

Bane of the Living

01-30-2006, 05:24 PM

Well can anything outstanding be done to solve this problem? What about adding burning wish or another color. I know going off mono r is heresy here but izzet offer a few good cards, including the guildmage. White has Lightining Helix and Disenchant effects. Also geddon. Just throwing things out there. What does burn need again to make it viable?

calosso

01-30-2006, 05:34 PM

Have you tested flames of the blood hand. It can help many match-ups like CAl/Cil, landstill, and Rabid wombat which are pretty bad match-ups.
I would think the blue splash would be kinda intresting since you can run psyonic blast, electolize, and fire and ice.
The mono red version of burn has been having a lot of problems with running out of burn. Why not just add isochron scepter?

Zilla

01-30-2006, 05:48 PM

The color splasah isn't a new idea. In fact, the white splash for Disenchant and Helix has been discussed extensively a few pages back. As for the Guildmages, the argument goes that adding creatures vulnerable to removal inherently weakens the strategy, in that it gives your opponent targets for their removal spells, where they would otherwise be dead.

As for Scepter, it's been tested quite a bit too, although it's been well over a year since anyone's used it seriously. The main thing is that it's 2 for 1 card disadvantage if it's removed (or Needled), which a deck without draw can't afford to have. In theory you could make CounterBurn with Iso Scepter, but as far as I'm aware, every attempt at such a thing has failed. It could work, I guess.

DOODLEBIRD

03-07-2006, 03:41 PM

And if we wanted to check it out, here's a artifact using type (it of course has it's inherent weakeness of having permanents, but only arti and plenty of them) :

4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 shrapnel blast
4 fireblast
4 chain of plasma
3 fire/ice
2 fork
2 isochron scepter
4 cursed scroll
4 ankh of mishra
3 pithing needle
18 mountains
3 lotus petal
1 darksteel citadel
side:
3 anarchy
3 sulfuric vortex
3 pyrostatic pillar
2 rolling earthquake
4 red elemental blast

I also have my latest list, some card choice explanation after :
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 fireblast
4 incinerate
4 lava spike
4 chain of plasma
4 magma jet
4 volcanic hammer
3 rolling earthquake
2 urza's rage
2 darksteel brute
1 mogg fanatic
2 barbarian ring
18 mountains
SB:
3 anarchy
3 pithing needle
3 pyrostatic pillar
3 shattering spree
1 gaea's blessing
1 beacon of destruction
1 glacial chasm

I added the brutes for some hard get rid of repeat damage blocker (though not cheap to activate) and two rings to help the blue match and my conversion problem. I also added back in the 4th jet as I will not want to some stuf late in the game, especially game 2 or 3. I found again the rift hurt to much be worth the extra point, so hopefully this new synergy will smooth it out better. The rage is mainly to scoot around the pesky blue mage for the last damage needed for the win. I think with the SB most of the genaral meta gets covered.
it's all good
thanks and enjoy

bigbear102

03-08-2006, 05:35 PM

Ok, if Gro is a big matchup in your area, burn can be tuned to beat it. Playing 3-4 Prices main will make that matchup insanely better. Also, running Pyrostatic Pillar in the board is very good. Dropping a Pillar turn 2 essentially shuts down their draw engine, which slows their threshold building, which gives you the game. Red Blasts are important also, pack a few more in the board. Another great way to get game against Gro is to play the ever-hated Wasteland. I know many people don't like it, but it served me well for many a tournament, especially against gro.

Burning Wish can be an amazing out against the control that has become popular now. Against Rifter/Wombat you have time to play wishes, and just happen to be playing the color of Flashfires.... Anarchy can be helpful also.

Mordenkain

03-12-2006, 03:17 PM

I have a question for you guys out there that know a lot about burn.
I play in a kinda weird meagame. One half is seriusly scrubby, and is no big concern. The other half on the other hand, is a whole other story. That half is good players, which have duals, fows, berserks, you name it.
Anyways, even though that, they are stuck in time. Like, 40-50% of the competive decks are Landstill, and the other half is fish and threshold. (Ppl here are about to be married with their duels (So Price of Progress and wastelands should be nice!)
Also, nobody plays Goblins, Rifter and Survival... I know, weird meta.

In shortmy question is: Does burn have a good matchup against this meta?

- Mordenkain

MasterBlaster

03-12-2006, 03:45 PM

So Price of Progress and wastelands should be nice

I hope you aren't suggesting using PoP and Wastelands in the same deck. Wastelands work against Price of Progress, and is just bad for burn.

EDIT: Burn is good against Fish. I don't know about Threshold and Landstill.

Sims

03-12-2006, 04:21 PM

To the contrary.

Xenoq and I, as well as a few other players who dabbled in the art of burninating in the old Albany meta (you know, Burnhaven USA), had found that they aren't as anti-synergistic as you would think. While Wastelands are debateable in the deck, they serve a solid function in shutting off splash colors when you draw them or slowing multi-colored decks down.... If you happen to be playing Gro, they can blow up a green producer or white/red producer to stall slightly while you throw burn at their head, then when they're counter depleted you Price their nuts off FTW.

Try it before you automatically conclude that they're a no go. You'd be suprised.

Zilla

03-12-2006, 06:52 PM

I agree. Wasteland and PoP aren't always the wrong call in the same deck. It's true that they have poor synergy, but often the effectiveness of each individual card outweighs this lack of synergy.

Mordenkain

03-13-2006, 03:40 AM

When i posted about PoP and Wasteland, I dind't neccesarily together, just as strong anti-nonbasic hate.

Anyways, what I am looking for an answer for is how Burns Landstill matchup is?

Sims

03-13-2006, 06:33 AM

Traditionally it's very good, although I can't say I've tested the matchup lately... I stopped playing Burn about the time I was fiddling with Vial Goblins way back when, and Landstill has had a fairly steadly declining presence since.

Typically, however, against Landstill our (Xenoq, Braves, Afro, and my) list for Burn had a really positive matchup. They had tons of dead cards (all of the creature destruction, for which at that point I think the only critters we had were Grim and Mogg) and not enough counters for all of your burn. Wastes kept them off white to keep them from STPing manlands for life or casting Pulse of the Fields post-board and PoP just cleaned them up. It was always fun when they're at 6-10 life, having them respond to a bolt with FoF, and PoPing on the stack for lethal... But that is neither here nor there.

I would have to see where people are sitting as far as an updated Burn list, however, since the deck looks a lot different with Goblins and Werebears running everywhere.... But I wouldn't think the match would be much different now... and you'd even have Needle for CoP:Red!

Mordenkain

03-13-2006, 10:03 AM

Typically, however, against Landstill our (Xenoq, Braves, Afro, and my) list for Burn had a really positive matchup.

I am really happy about that statement. In my meta, beating Landstill means beating the field. I just think I will join the army of burn players.

But, I have been thinking about adding Burning Wish to the deck, to get cards like, flashfires, boiling seas, ruination, rolling earthquake and the like from the board. How does that sound?

parallax

03-13-2006, 11:30 AM

But, I have been thinking about adding Burning Wish to the deck, to get cards like, flashfires, boiling seas, ruination, rolling earthquake and the like from the board. How does that sound?
Sounds pretty bad, frankly. Your goal is to do twenty damage to the head; destroying lands doesn't do that. Also, you expect to be winning around turn four anyway, so four-mana spells (that cost you six mana) are not optimal. You shouldn't need rolling earthquake either if you play flamebreak. Burning Wish is much too slow for this deck. It is usually a very control-ish card. It fetches answers. You want threats.

Zilla

03-13-2006, 03:59 PM

Agreed. Burning Wish is a slow, highly controlling card, in an other wise very fast, aggressive deck. The only merit I could see for it would be as a means to fetch Hull Breach as an answer to problematic enchantments like Absolute Law and CoP:Red, but then agains you have to wonder why you wouldn't just run a few Naturalize in the SB for such an occasion, which you probably should.

In any case, you definitely don't need Burning Wish to beat Landstill. The only way they'll stand a chance against you is if they're running Chill or something crazy like Exalted Angel or Pulse of the Fields in their SB, which can be answered by REB and Sulfuric Vortx respectively.

If you really want to smash Landstill, run maindeck Ankh of Mishra. :wink:

Mordenkain

03-14-2006, 03:40 AM

Eldariel

03-14-2006, 03:43 AM

Doesn't hurt to have an answer to it. Besides, between counters and pulse, you'll run out of gas before they will. Ankh isn't guaranteed to resolve, and in fact, you can be pretty sure that if they have FoW, they WILL use it. So, insurance doesn't hurt. Not to mention, Vortex is a decent damage dealer on its own, and a continuous source at that.

Mordenkain

03-14-2006, 05:46 AM

Okay. So, preparing for a Landstill heavy meta, this is what I am looking for?

4x Lightning Bolt
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lava Spike
4x Magma Jet
4x Incinerate
4x Fireblast
4x Fire/Ice (I don't have to play blue to cast Fire - and I love Fire)
4x Mogg Fanatic
3x Ankh of Mishra
3x Flamebreak
3x Browbeat

15x Mountain
4x Wasteland

SB:
1x Flamebreak
1x Ankh of Mishra
4x Price of Progress
4x Red Elemental Blast
2x Pyroblast
3x Sulfuric Vortex

DOODLEBIRD

03-22-2006, 01:53 PM

I've gone solid burn and healthy on the sweepers. Magma jet is the only card I feel iffy about since it is a 2 for 2 which in this tight line burn is not ideal; sure it's scry is sweet, but only sometimes. I wonder if many other choices may not serve as well.

4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
4 fireblast
4 incinerate
4 lava spike
4 chain of plasma
4 magma jet
4 volcanic hammer
3 fire ambush
3 rolling earthquake
2 flamebreak
2 barbarian ring
18 mountains
SB:
3 anarchy
3 pithing needle
3 pyrostatic pillar
2 shattering spree
2 crash
2 glacial chasm

it's all good
thanks and enjoy

bigredmeanie

03-22-2006, 02:06 PM

Flame Rift anyone?

It seems like a burn deck has to have the most effecient burn spells available. In that reguard, Flame Rift is strictly better than Volcanic Hammer, or Fire Ambush.

Though I would keep Fire Ambush, because it's cooler than Hammer.

Lego

03-23-2006, 03:09 AM

Kazadoom

03-28-2006, 03:52 PM

Try to play that deck without Magma jet and u will miss it :)
especially if u get a bad topdeck which cost u a turn.

But i dont understand why nobody mentions Thunderbolt, imho it better than Chain of Plasma and Vulcanic hammer and helps Vs high toughnes flyers and.

Most of the time the spell goes to the dome anyway so why give the opponent the chance to copy it.

And is it really good to run Babarian Rings? In which situitions was it useful?

for comparison here's my current list

16 - 1cc
4 lightning bolt
3 chain lightning (one is still missing :( )
4 lava spike
1 Lava Dart
4 Mogg Fanatic

16 - 2cc
4 magma jet
4 incinerate
2 Flamerift
2 Price of Progress
4 Thunderbolt

6 - 3cc

4 Flamebreak
2 Sulfuric Vortex

4 - 6cc

4 Fireblast

18 mountains

Sb:

always: 4REB, 4Pillars rest is changing nearly every day

so far i did well with it.

KazaDooM

bigredmeanie

03-28-2006, 04:41 PM

@bigredmeanie: Just pointing out that when I tested the Burn matchup with my 4 color aggro deck, it was pretty positive. If they were playing Flame Rift, it was overwhelmingly positive. Whenever a Flame Rift would resolve, I would laugh and win. Sure, it's a nice card in certain matchups and therefor certain metas, but I think overall it's going to give you much worse matchups against decks that can race you. Not fun to lose to your own stuff (or to have dead cards.)

as I see it the only way you would be able to race is if you had some form of life gain, or they were not playing 4 Flame Break.

Flame Rift gives you more consistant turn 4 wins overall, and with flame break it is much harder for even the fastest aggro decks to race.

And besided, a good burn player could just use the Rift to draw the game if they had to in order to not get a loss because they didn't draw a Flame Break.

Kazadoom

03-28-2006, 05:07 PM

But most of the time 3 damage are better than 4 to both. furthermore its on sorcery speed which makes it more difficult to draw a game.
This damn 4 damage cost u a turn against most decks, against Combo it rocks but against aggro it's not the best choice.

bigredmeanie

03-28-2006, 06:23 PM

@ Kazaa please explain your reasoning behind Thunderbolt again? Exactly howmany creatures with flying are a concern have a toughness of 4? I count none, in fact the only creature with flying is Hippy, and any other spell can easily deal with that. I think I'd rather just run Hammer because at least it deals damage to any creature.

Eldariel

03-28-2006, 07:58 PM

Has anyone considered Fork as a 1-of? I think it's obvious that a 4-of doesn't function, but a singleton Fork is a 5th card (or 6-9th if you run maindeck Prices) 4-damage for 2-mana spell, which is the threshold required for a turn 3 kill (bolt, bolt, bolt, bolt, 4-damage, blast=20 and doable with a mountain each turn).

Kazadoom

03-29-2006, 01:57 AM

The main reason is that it's an instant, that why i chose it over Vulcanic Hammer. And the instant speed really helps against Rifter&Gobbos.
Furthermore it can't be copied like chain of Plasma.

And of the time i don't hit creatures with it so i don't care that i can't hit nonflying creatures.
It's in my opinion one of the best 2cc burn spells.
Just try it in place of Hammer and u will see :) .

Kazadoom

powergamer1003

03-30-2006, 09:00 AM

I have played burn for sometime, I and I have found that Chain of Plasma is a worthwhile addition to the deck. It is rarely copied, and can you can usually shoot in back again. Also Flame Rift is also a valuable addition to the deck, for it adds alot damage for a little mana.

Kazadoom

03-30-2006, 03:21 PM

What do u think of replacing Sulfuric Vortex with "flames of the blood hand"? it hast the same cc and is an instant.
I think it could be superior, especially against circles and stuff cause it can't be prevented.
what do u think?

BullBar

04-21-2006, 12:05 PM

Thunderbolt is a fine spell, but Chain of Plasma is better IMO. Getting it copied is really good for you, as you get to basically play a spell in your hand without paying manacosts, or use excess land.

It would take a few Platinum Angels in Welderstax to make Thunderbolt more playable. I can't see this being a common matchup.

Flames otBH is OK, but the Vortex is set and forget. Disenchant effects are commonly sided out for a burn matchup too. Build a life gaining deck for some tests and find your own favourite if you like, I'm confident Vortex will win through.

Eldariel

04-21-2006, 12:31 PM

Vortex also prevents them from gaining life even if you can't kill them that turn (Pulse of the Fields>Flames generally) and usually can deal up to 8 damage if the game is delayed, starting from them and they're likely to have less life anyways, so it's simply more effective than Flames most of the time.

Lego

04-21-2006, 01:46 PM

Flame Rift gives you more consistant turn 4 wins overall, and with flame break it is much harder for even the fastest aggro decks to race.

I'm assuming my playtest partners were running Flame Break, but I think I only saw it in two sideboard games, both of which I won. Burn won't see it until turn 3 at the earliest, and the deck I was playing can have a 5/5 Kudzu by then. The game was usually won by Tribal Flames for 5. You probably shuoldn't worry about that matchup though, no one is ever going to play that deck.

bigbear102

07-25-2006, 09:15 AM

I need some help, I wanna get this deck back to the way it was about a year ago, a decent contender. Basically I want to know what you guys think is a solid plan against GRO/Thresh.

Also, is Price of Progress able to be cut from the MD, or should it be there?

And is there enough life gain in the format to warrant any hosers? (Vortex/Flames)

I don't have much time now, just wanted to get this out there.... I'll be back later with more.

Zilla

07-25-2006, 09:19 PM

Also, is Price of Progress able to be cut from the MD, or should it be there?

Basically I want to know what you guys think is a solid plan against GRO/Thresh.
You answered your own question.

Aside from PoP, consider Scald as an SB option against Thresh and other blue-based control. But if you want to beat Thresh with any kind of consistency, PoP is going to be vital.

The main problem with Burn continues to be its relative inconsistency, its inability to race combo, and its inability to survive the long game if its initial onslaught fails. Looking at the more popular archetypes in the format:

Rifter: Gilded Light is a bitch, just like every other lifegain spell out there. Vortex is an option, but they do have ways to remove it. Some builds run Angel or Pulse in the board, which is also a pain in the ass. My experience against this archetype has been pretty poor.

Deadguy: Hit or miss. You're probably advantaged, but not heavily so. Hand destruction's a bitch, and Gerard's Verdict is a massive pain in the ass for you, because it forces you to ditch business spells or give them life, which in effect equals the same thing. They also have StP for their own creatures in a pinch. This isn't a particularly strong matchup.

Solidarity: is favored against you. You can stack your SB for them, but those slots are really important for other matchups, and even if you dedicate 8 slots of your board to it, they've still got a roughly 50/50 game against you in games 2 and 3.

IGG, Salvager Game, etc.: Favored. They can race you easily and you have very few options against them.

Angel Stompy: Favored against you. Jitte is a bitch, as are the 8 Pro: Red creatures, as is Exalted Angel, as is SoFI. You have Vortex and/or Needle for them, but they maindeck Disenchant. Anarchy isn't nearly as effective as you'd expect thanks to Parallax Wave. Some builds run Pariah or Worship in the board, which makes it even harder for you.

Thresh: Patently negative. In fact, one of your worst matchups. PoP helps some, and you can dedicate a bunch of your board to beating them, but this is a zero sum game, because it weakens other matchups. Furthermore, the more SB cards you bring in, the more you hurt your overall threat density, which essentially does their job for them. The white builds have Worship against you, which is a massive pain in the ass, since you've only got Anarchy as an answer, and the earliest you'll want to try to resolve that is turn 5, thanks to Daze.

Goblins: Positive, but not overwhelmingly so. Flamebreak is your ace in the hole for this matchup. The problem, of course, is that Flamebreak sucks in most other matchups, aside from Zoo.

Zoo: Hit or miss: It should be positive, but cards like Jitte, StP, Loxodon Hierarch, and Lightning Helix can swing it in their favor.

Faerie Stompy: Chalice set at one and two, backed by counters? GG.

What you're looking at is a field that is genuinely hostile to Burn. Out of the 10 or so most common deck types, you have positive game against two of them, and even those matchups aren't that good. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that you lose for a wide variety of reasons: being too slow, running out of gas, having problems with lifegain, a weakness to Chalice, etc. All of these problems require different answers, and there's simply not enough room in your board to do it.

In theory, if you know every single deck in your meta and are keenly aware of what you'll be facing, you can tune the maindeck and sideboard enough to get by, but at a large tournament, I would hesitate to take Burn over other available options.

For Burn to really improve to the point of viability, it needs to get a full turn faster in order to race combo and Goblins, or it needs to take a more controlling route like RDW. In its current form, it just doesn't have the tools it needs to survive in the modern metagame.

bigbear102

07-26-2006, 07:52 AM

Ok, while I have since found a new deck that I believe I will be playing in the coming months, I do still have to clarify a few issues that you spoke of.

I agree with your analyses of Rifter and Deadguy, though disagree with Solidarity. All you have to do is have 4x Pillar and 3-4 Red blasts in your board, which are usually staples anyway, and you take the advantage in games 2-3. The die roll can determine who wins game one if you have a good enough hand also. I know it's not a great matchup, but it's no worse than 40-60 and gets better with the board.

I have been testing IGG, and with Crypts and Pillars you can slow them down enough to win the game. It's by no means in your favor, but definately not as bad as you seem to think it is. I haven't tested salvagers game in a LONG time, but last I checked they were about the same speed as you, not sure though.

Angel Stompy is favored for burn, I'm not sure where you got your info from.... Yes they have Angel, and about the only way she is relevent is if they drop her and flip her by turn 4. That does happen occasionally, but usually not more than once in 3 games, which means you win the other 2 unless they get extremely lucky. SoFI is irrelevent, Jitte is about the only thing that is a pain in the ass early game, other than that you just goldfish them.

I tested Thresh the other day with Kaddy, and it definately was not pantently negative. I also tested it later that night and got the same results. Preboard it was at least 50/50. Post board you get Crypts which is the best card you could ask for, as without Threshold, they are a bad bluebased control deck, which you roll.

Zoo??? WE BEAT RANDOM AGGRO. Yes, Jitte can be a problem, but that's one card out of their whole deck I am afraid of.

So basically from this we have discovered that the things that hurt us are:Worship, Jitte, Pithing Needle naming Crypt. I think we need to splash W/G. The SB would look like this:

4x Pyrostatic Pillar ( Solidarity + all storm combo+ belcher)
3x Red Elemental Blast
4x Tormod's Crypt
4x Naturalize/Disenchant

SuckerPunch

07-26-2006, 11:27 AM

With the white splash not only do you get Disenchant to take out Worship, Jitte, and Pithing Needle naming Crypt, you get Lightning Helix, which neuteralises the additional life loss from Price of Progress.

If you don't run POP, it neutralizes the extra lifeloss of Flame Rift and Flamebreak, both absolutely phenomenal cards.

Zilla

07-26-2006, 03:35 PM

I agree with your analyses of Rifter and Deadguy, though disagree with Solidarity. All you have to do is have 4x Pillar and 3-4 Red blasts in your board, which are usually staples anyway, and you take the advantage in games 2-3. The die roll can determine who wins game one if you have a good enough hand also. I know it's not a great matchup, but it's no worse than 40-60 and gets better with the board.

Solidarity: is favored against you. You can stack your SB for them, but those slots are really important for other matchups, and even if you dedicate 8 slots of your board to it, they've still got a roughly 50/50 game against you in games 2 and 3.
How are we not saying the exact same thing here? Solidarity is favored game 1, and if you dedicate a full 7-8 sideboard slots to beating it, it gets roughly even, or perhaps very slightly favorable, which leads to a roughly even match overall. The problem is that REB sucks in almost every other matchup besides Solidarity, and you need your SB to beat your negative matchups, which there are a lot of.

I have been testing IGG, and with Crypts and Pillars you can slow them down enough to win the game. It's by no means in your favor, but definately not as bad as you seem to think it is.
I didn't say you couldn't beat them. I just said it's unfavorable, which it is.

Angel Stompy is favored for burn, I'm not sure where you got your info from....
I got my info from having invented Angel Stompy and tested it against Burn more times in the last 3 years than I can count. I also got my info from real tournament info (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3791). I'm not saying Angel Stompy is heavily favored by any means, but it has been favorable in mine and others' experience.

I tested Thresh the other day with Kaddy, and it definately was not pantently negative. I also tested it later that night and got the same results. Preboard it was at least 50/50. Post board you get Crypts which is the best card you could ask for, as without Threshold, they are a bad bluebased control deck, which you roll.
I admit it's been awhile since I've tested this matchup. However, if you read back through this thread, you'll find that most people agree that Thresh is (surprisingly) one of Burn's worst matchups. What's changed?

Zoo??? WE BEAT RANDOM AGGRO. Yes, Jitte can be a problem, but that's one card out of their whole deck I am afraid of.
Depends on the list. If they're running any lifegain beyond Jitte (Baloth, Hierarch, Helix, etc.), they actually stand to do pretty well against you. Even if it's positive for Burn, it's not overwhelmingly so, which is really my point: Burn is bad against a lot of things and is only marginally good against the things it's good against. There are exceptions of course, but by and large, this holds true. I just don't think it's justifiable (outside of budget reasons) to play a deck that loses to a large portion of the field and has only a decent game against the rest of it.

BiscuitVader

08-04-2006, 03:40 AM

Anyone have suggestions for my deck?
It runs pretty nicely.

// Lands
13 [UNH] Mountain
3 [ON] Wooded Foothills
2 [ON] Bloodstained Mire

// Creatures
4 [TE] Mogg Fanatic

// Spells
4 [A] Lightning Bolt
4 [OV] Incinerate
4 [LG] Chain Lightning
4 [FD] Magma Jet
4 [VI] Fireblast
4 [DS] Flamebreak
4 [ON] Chain of Plasma
4 [CHK] Lava Spike
3 [JU] Browbeat
3 [NE] Flame Rift

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [MR] Culling Scales
SB: 4 [EX] Price of Progress
SB: 4 [SC] Pyrostatic Pillar
SB: 3 [SOK] Pithing Needle

EDIT: I also have a question. Why has this deck been seen less and less? Did something happen to the format to make it bad? Or am I thinking of something else, and Burn was just never really good?

SuckerPunch

08-04-2006, 10:09 AM

bigbear102

08-04-2006, 11:48 AM

Mogg Fanatic is better than Spark Elemental. He is one of the key reasons you can beat Goblins. Without him you lose to turn 1 lackey, as you then have to send burn to kill it, and then don't normally ever catch up. Mogg Fanatic will normally deal at least 3 damage to your opponent in the combo matchup also, depending on when he is played. He also makes all of those dead cards you were talking about even more dead, as he does damage when he's swordsed.

20 Land is normally too much when you have no splash and no non-basics. 18-19 is plenty, but I agree with the cutting of Browbeat. Another Flame Rift, and 2 PoP or Flames of the Bloodhand, I go with PoP, and also cut 2 chain for 2 PoP, it will do more damage in all but the solidarity matchup.

dre4m

08-04-2006, 11:53 AM

The last thing is, I've always like Thunderbolt over Chain of Plasma. Its also an instant, and while it can't target creatures, just about everything else you run can, so that's never been relevent too me. Where as Chain of Plasma can indeed occasionally back fire (ie. anytime your opponent has more dead cards in hand than you and has a similar life total). The fact is, burn never has dead cards, where as other decks run stuff like Disenchant and Swords that are dead against burn. So when you top deck Chain and your opponent is holding a fistful of dead cards, you'll be kicking yourself.
SuckerPunch, if your opponent is holding a handful of dead cards, that means that they haven't been able to do anything about killing you, so your life totals shouldn't be anywhere near even thanks to the laws of card advantage. Chain of plasma also damages your opponent first, so it is a good card and I play it in my version of Burn, which I admittedly do not play often, but made some time ago and worked hard on.

As for BiscutVader, 18 lands is PLENTY and the fetches are unnecessary, as is Browbeat, so you can replace it with a number of cards, most notably Price of Progress.

BiscuitVader

08-04-2006, 12:48 PM

It looks very solid.

But I dont think 18 lands is enough. You should run atleast 20.

Also Browbeat sucks against combo, and delays your kill a turn. If this deck is to be viable in an environment with Solidarity, it needs a faster goldfish.

I would cut Browbeat for 2 more lands and one more Flame Rift for the all too critical combo matchup.

Mogg Fanatic is worse than Spark Elemental in the critical combo matchup too.

The last thing is, I've always like Thunderbolt over Chain of Plasma. Its also an instant, and while it can't target creatures, just about everything else you run can, so that's never been relevent too me. Where as Chain of Plasma can indeed occasionally back fire (ie. anytime your opponent has more dead cards in hand than you and has a similar life total). The fact is, burn never has dead cards, where as other decks run stuff like Disenchant and Swords that are dead against burn. So when you top deck Chain and your opponent is holding a fistful of dead cards, you'll be kicking yourself.
Not to sound rude or anything, but do you even play this deck?
It really sounds like you have no idea what your talking about.

Spark Elemental doesn't really do anything unless you play early. He is the worst top deck ever once you hit turn 3-4 and enter the midgame. Mogg is amazing. Against Combo, he swings for 2-3+ damage. Against aggro, he forces them to hold guys back, therefore giving me an extra turn to kill them. He pings the first turn Lacky.

Also, this is just my opinion, and I'm sure you and others could argue with me. ..I like Chain. If my oponent discards a card, I just hit them for 6 with only 2 mana.

18 lands is very good. I think someone said it on the first page... Its better to be stuck on two lands, than stuck on four lands.

I'll take out Browbeat. PoP seems good on paper, but its a dead card against Solitary, which is a hard matchup. I wouldn't run more than 2 or 3 in a deck.

lillelassie

08-04-2006, 01:34 PM

Hi I want to share my decklist and thoughts with you on burn:

19 mountain
4 bolts
4 chains
4 lava spike
4 moggs
4 spark elementals
4 flame rift
4 flamebreak
4 magma jet
4 fireblast
3 incenerate
2 price of progress

BOARD:
2 price of progress
3 crypt
3 needle
3 shattering spree
4 sirocco

This is my burn list. I play both spark elementals and mogg because they have different but equal uses. mogg is great early, but often dead lategame. spark elemental is almost always great, he is lavaspike 5-8. I think he is a better draw lategame, than mogg is, cause he is likely to do more damage. The only thing he doesn't like is burn or removal. no creatures wants to block this guy, except for werebear, but he is often turned sideways, so it doesn't matter. You can just play him when your opponent is tapped out, and if your opponent has tons of removal, then side him out g2 and side him in again in g3.

I will go over a few matchups:

GRO:
This is a favourable matchup. ALWAYS play around daze. and always shoot at the dome unless they have mage naming: flamebreak, which is your key-card in this matchup.

SB: -3 incenerate, -2 spark elementals, +2 price of progress, +3 crypts.

After board it gets even better. same tactic as preboard, play around daze and finish off with prize for 6-8 :) the good thing in this matchup is that the GRO-player will have to make a decision: aggresive or denfensive. If he commits creatures to the board, he cannot counter stuff or search with cantrips. If he doesn't commit to the board, he will lose the attrition war. I just love when a GRO-player FoW's a lava spike :)

GOBLINS:
this is NOT a favourable matchup. Mogg, magma jet, and flamebreak are your friends in this matchup, if you don't have at least 1 of them in your startinghand you should take a mulligan. I find this matchup is all the about the diceroll. You will have to do a lot of math in these games, but always have burn up for a hasty little piledriver!

SB: -3 flame rifts, +3 needle/+3 shattering spree

board needle if he only runs vials, borad spree if he runs vials AND chalize. The matchup have not changed much preboard, since they probraly don't have anything in their board for you, except for chalize or armageddon.

SOLIDARITY:
Not much to say about this matchup. Goldfish. unfavourable. they are quicker than you. they get turn 4 ´kills more consistanly than you. key to this matchup: diceroll and them fucking up there mana, with 4 fetchlands:)

SB: -4 flamebreaks, -2 price of progress, +4 sirocco, +2 needle.

Sirocco is sooo good vs. solidarity. But i began to think if pyrostatic pillar is better?! it is also good against gro, but I have not tested yet. if sirocco resolves, you have a fair chance otherwise you are doomed.
A lot of players seems to be playing solidarity these days, if they are new to the deck, you could maybe fit in some Gaes's blessings in the board. these will probrably make problems for inexperienced players.

DEATHGUY:
this is about even. If they get crazy discard and ld draw you are behind. If they get creature draw :) you are glad. for god sake, let dark confidant live. he often costs them 3-5 life. magma jet is the only spells in our main that should target creatures in this matchup.

SB: none I think. he is problaly only playing 8 nonbasic lands, and if he is a talented player he will only fetch 1 dual at a time, so I think 2 price of progress is just fine.

These are my experinces and thought of the deck. I don't feel my sb is optimal. has anyone tried pyrostatic pillar? maybe needle should be cut. shattering spree seems more versatile. give me some respond.

BiscuitVader

08-04-2006, 01:40 PM

I really dont like Spark Elemental.

The great thing about this deck is that it makes alot of your opponent's cards dead. Any slots they had devoted to creature kill are usless.

If you add Sparky, then, your making it so they have less dead cards.
And therefore defeat the purpose of running no creatures.

But if it works, keep running it.....

lillelassie

08-04-2006, 02:00 PM

I agree that spark elemental is 1 of the weakest cards in the deck, but what are the alternatives?

also mogg fanatic is also a creature and he is even more vulnerable to swords than spark elemental.

syssc9

08-04-2006, 04:56 PM

I don't run either Moggs or Sparky. Alternatives for your straight red build might include Thunderbolt and even possibly Browbeat. The latter has generaated considerable disucssion (controversy!), but I still find it very palyable. I would add the forth Incinerate, 4 Thunderbolts and 3 Browbeat in place of the creatures.. It's worth a try. You might want to consider some anarchy for your board.

SuckerPunch

08-04-2006, 05:13 PM

lillelassie, I got to say that I love your build. You run 20 1cc spells and 19 lands. Thats got to be a huge boon against combo though like you said, it still doesn't make the match favorable, but atleast you have a shot at winning. Did you test Pyrostatic Pillar in the side at all.

What's with the trend for people to mana starve their decks. Why run 18 lands when you're running only 16 1cc spells? You want three lands atleast over the course of a game, possibly four. On average, you draw 2 1cc spells. If you're stuck at 2 lands, that means you can only use one burn spell per turn (as you used up your 1st 1cc spell turn one). That's far too slow against combo.

Did you guys even read my post. I said Spark Elemental is good 'in the critical combo matchup.'

How often do you rely on the topdeck to kill a combo player before they go off, only to topdeck a Mogg Fanatic instead of a Spark Elemental.

I'll admit that I too wasn't too fond of Spark Elemental before trying it some more, or before solidarity became more prominence.

Perhaps looking at is a replacement for Fanatic was the wrong approach. Mogg is pretty good in the starting hand.

I think it's actually a fairly strong card over all and people should consider running it in place of a 2cc 3 damage burn spell, like lille, to lower the curve so this deck has a decent chance at beating solidarity.

And here's what people forget about Chain of Plasma. It gives your opponent the choice. Unless you're playing a really bad player, they won't bounce back the Chain unless it's good for them to do so.

So Chain's ability is NEVER EVER an advantage if you're playing anyone halfway competent.

The times when Chain's gets bounced back to you, is precisely when you DON'T want it to get bounced back. For example, when you have no burn spells left or when you're at lower life (which is very plausible considering you're running both Flame Rift and Flamebreak like any good burn deck should) or when the only spell you have left is a Fireblast.

Yes, those situations don't happen often, but when they do, you'll regret that Chains isn't Volcanic Hammer or Thunderbolt.

The reason Thunderbolt's inability to take out creatures isn't as big a deal in my opinion is because 90% of the other spells in your deck do have that ability. Besides, the two commonly run creatures that you would actually want to take out asap rather than waiting on a Flamebreak are Hypnotic Specter and Exalted Angel, both of which fly. If you decide to run Mogg Fanatic, against Exalted Angel, this decks biggest problem creature, the fact that Thunderbolt does an extra point of damage putting it in range of Fanatic, is actually an advantage.

Giving your opponent a choice is always a bad thing.

That's why Skullscorch is bad.

That's why Browbeat is bad.

And that's why Chains while by no means bad, is slightly worse than Thunderbolt IMHO.

But it is a close call, so you are free to disagree. Note that all I ever said was that I personally think Thunderbolt is the better choice.

There's no need to flame me and call me a bad player because I disagree on card choices for very good reasons.

If you want to run Chains over Thunderbolt, that's your choice.

Eldariel

08-04-2006, 06:30 PM

That's why Browbeat is bad.

Just one point. I think this is wrong. If a card gives you enough extra for the choice opponent gets, it works. Browbeat either gives you 5 damage for 3 mana (quite decent) or 3 cards (2/3rd of your deck is burn which deals average of 3 damage/card, so you'll get about 6 points worth of burn on average). Either way, you've dealt enough damage to all but ensure a turn 4 kill.

SuckerPunch

08-04-2006, 07:03 PM

Except that it's almost never played on turn 3, esp if you're only running 18 land. Even with 3 lands on turn 3, you are always better off playing a 1cc and a 2cc spell turn 3.

Turn 1, 1cc spell, turn 2, 2cc spell or two 1cc spells (thats why I like the running 20 1cc spells option), turn 3 1cc and 2cc spell, turn 4 2cc spell and 1cc spell or 2cc spell. That's only six spells and three or four lands. It happens quite often. It's also why I believe that the deck should be running 20 lands, to enable that.

More often than not, Browbeat is a turn 4 or turn 5 play. When you do play browbeat, it's late enough that most any other burn spell could have killed them off right then and there. Browbeat basically says, live for one more turn. This isn't great in general, and especially bad in the combo matchup.

I wouldn't run Ball Lightning in general, but if I had to pick I would almost always run Ball Ligtning over Browbeat. Yes it sucks with removal, but atleast it ends the game anytime it's not removed, as opposed to giving your opponent another turn to play a Worship or combo out or something.

In spite of all that, I'm not saying Browbeat is bad, just worse than running more lower cc nonconditional burn spells.

Zilla

08-04-2006, 07:34 PM

In spite of all that, I'm not saying Browbeat is bad, just worse than running more lower cc nonconditional burn spells.
This isn't really true. First of all, the correct number of lands to be running in Burn is 19, as it will consistently produce 3 lands by turn 3, which is vital if for no other reason than you need Flamebreak against Goblins by this turn or you'll lose. If you're running 19 land, Browbeat is most commonly a turn 3 play, which is perfect because your opponent will more often choose the 5 life option than the draw option on this turn, which is what you want.

As for the assertion that a 3cc spell on turn 3 is always worse than a 1cc and 2cc, I disagree with that also. One of Burn's biggest problems is that it runs out of gas and has no lategame. The mentality of playing 2 cards that are going to do roughly the same amount as a single card is one of the biggest culprits for this shortfall. In short, Browbeat has very nearly the same effect as two cards for the same cost, only it it costs you one less card, meaning you have more gas for the lategame, if it goes that long. And if your opponent chooses to let you draw instead, you get 3 new cards, which inherently solves the same problem. With 4 Fireblasts in the mix, it greatly raises the likelihood that you're going to win the following turn in this scenario.

Furthermore, it makes you more resilient to Chalice set at 1 and 2, which will otherwise fuck you right in the ass.

BiscuitVader

08-04-2006, 08:23 PM

also mogg fanatic is also a creature and he is even more vulnerable to swords than spark elemental.
You ping them in response, and get atleast 1 damage from it.

Mog is amazing in this deck, you really cannot disagree. Against combo, he is going to swing for 2-3, then ping them. Either way, thats 3-4 damage (The same, or 1 more than Sparky).

Not only that, he allows you to stop turn 1 Goblin Lacky. He lets your Flamebreak kill both Mongoose and Werebear (Which can sometimes decide the game) and he also keeps Jitte from getting counters on it (Damage on, sac). He does other things, but I'm really lazy and don't feel like pointing out everything he can do...

As for the Browbeat disscussion. I like it. If you do not run it, you have little to no late game. Browbeat gives you one or has your opponent take 5, which will make you not need to go to the late game.

18 Lands has worked for me. It was said on the first page that it is much better to be stuck on 2 lands than it is to be stuck on 4.

SuckerPunch

08-04-2006, 09:23 PM

If you're running 19 land, Browbeat is most commonly a turn 3 play, which is perfect because your opponent will more often choose the 5 life option than the draw option on this turn, which is what you want.

As for the assertion that a 3cc spell on turn 3 is always worse than a 1cc and 2cc, I disagree with that also. One of Burn's biggest problems is that it runs out of gas and has no lategame.

Correction, burn's biggest problem used to be running out of gas. Now, with the two most commonly played decks being goblins and solidarity, both of which goldfish faster, Burn's biggest problem is being too slow.

19 is certainly better than 18, which is why I complimented lille's build. It runs 19 lands and a much lower curve with 20 1cc cards. Builds running Browbeat do not.

I don't buy your assertion that with 19 lands, you can reliably hope to have 3 lands in the first three turns. If that was the case, the majority of the decks in the format would be running 19 lands, as practically every noncontrol deck in the format is designed not to need more than 3 lands. Even mathamatically you can't say that even the majority of the time, you'll have 3 lands by turn 3. But you are right about one thing, getting 3 lands for flamebreak to play by turn 3 is essential to this deck's goblin matchup.

Like I said...

Turn 1, 1cc spell, turn 2, 2cc spell or two 1cc spells (thats why I like the running 20 1cc spells option), turn 3 1cc and 2cc spell, turn 4 2cc spell and 1cc spell or 2cc spell. That's only six spells and three or four lands. Neither combo nor goblins has anyway to stop your burn spells from resolving.

If even one of those cards is a Flame Rift thats 19-22 points of damage. If instead one of them is a Fireblast, thats 22-25 points of damage. With the predominance of fetchlands, that is indeed a four turn clock against combo and goblins.

Now watch happens when you throw a Browbeat in to the mix, even on turn 3-4. By then, you'll still be holding multiple cards in hand (as you've only played one or at most two spells a turn). Any competent player already into single digits of life will know not to take 5 more points of damage from a burn deck and thus be reduced 4 life of so instead of staying at 9 when you already have cards in hand. Thus your clock gets slowed down by one full turn. One more turn for the solidarity player to combo out, one more turn for the goblins player to kill you off, one more turn for the threshold player to find that worship (of which he is likely running 4 between the MD and sideboard).

Also which hurts more, when you play Bolt, Incinerate and the Incinerate gets dazed, or when Browbeat gets dazed. Zilla, when you say running out of steam, you're mainly talking about versus decks running countermagic. But the fact is, decks running countermagic know to save a counterspell for a critical burn spell, like Browbeat. And you take a huge tempo loss as a result when it gets countered. This was the same reason Ball Lightning was cut, because of the tempo loss from using up an entire turns mana on one spell only to have it countered is much worse than having one of the two burn spells played that turn be countered. And lastly, with 19 lands, it's close to impossible to play around daze with Browbeat, while it's not nearly that difficult with lower cc spells. And playing around daze is vital to the Thres matchup in many situations.

Zilla

08-04-2006, 09:32 PM

Correction, burn's biggest problem used to be running out of gas. Now, with the two most commonly played decks being goblins and solidarity, both of which goldfish faster, Burn's biggest problem is being too slow.
Correction: Burn's biggest problem right now is that it has even or bad game against every prevalent deck in the field. It's always been too slow to beat Solidarity. It's fast enough to beat Goblins if it has Flamebreak and Fanatic as speedbumps.

I don't buy your assertion that with 19 lands, you can reliably hope to have 3 lands in the first three turns. If that was the case, the majority of the decks in the format would be running 19 lands, as practically every noncontrol deck in the format is designed not to need more than 3 lands.
Most decks don't run 4 Magma Jet.

Even mathamatically you can't say that even the majority of the time, you'll have 3 lands by turn 3.
Yes, I can.

If even one of those cards is a Flame Rift thats 19-22 points of damage.
Here's the problem with Flame Rift: it sucks against aggro decks that can race. Namely, Goblins. That's why you think you're not fast enough to beat them; you're helping them win the race.

Zilla, when you say running out of steam, you're mainly talking about versus decks running countermagic. But the fact is, decks running countermagic know to save a counterspell for a critical burn spell, like Browbeat.
Actually, I'm talking about any deck which lives past the 4th turn, which is all of them if you get a mediocre draw. Even on a good draw, any deck with Jitte or Baloth or any other kind of lifegain, even minimal lifegain, can force you into the long game.

And you take a huge tempo loss as a result when it gets countered. This was the same reason Ball Lightning was cut, because of the tempo loss from using up an entire turns mana on one spell only to have it countered.
So side them out for Price of Progress game 2. What's the problem? The only prominent deck in the field with countermagic is Thresh, and they beat you game 1 regardless.

Let me clarify my position, however: I'm not saying Browbeat unconditionally belongs in Burn. There are certain metagames which favor a build with a lower curve. My objection is to your assertion that Browbeat is strictly inferior to the other options, because that's simply not the case.

Michael Keller

08-04-2006, 09:52 PM

BOARD:
2 price of progress
3 crypt
3 needle
3 shattering spree
4 sirocco

Play Fork. I mean, that card is so good in burn it's insane. It copies practically every card in your entire deck, not to mention opposing:
- Hymn to Tourachs
- Land Destruction
- Etc.

Flamebreak is awful because of its casting cost with damage ratio. 99.9% of creatures don't matter against you when you're playing true burn, so this is no good.

Zilla

08-04-2006, 09:55 PM

Do not play Shattering Spree in the board - the only reason in Legacy you would board it in is against Chalice or Jitte...and more often than not Chalice hits usually for one. So, you essentially only stop Jitte...
Incorrect:

Q: I have Chalice of the Void in play with one counter on it. Would Replicated copies of Shattering Spree get through? A friend and I got into an argument over it. I think that if the Shattering Spree gets countered, you can't pay the Replicate cost. He says you can Replicate as much as you want, and it would all go through, similar to Storm.

A: Your friend is correct, Replicate is very similar to the Storm keyword ability. You pay the Replicate cost when you play the Replicate spell, before any other spell or ability can counter your spell. Even if the original spell is countered, the Replicate triggered ability will go on the stack, this ability will create the appropriate number of copies, and the copies will resolve as normal.

Michael Keller

08-04-2006, 10:01 PM

Edited for a truly surprising truth...

I've seen alot of rulings in my days...but that one seems very odd. Why don't they just print Storm instead of Replicate on these cards? Yeah you pay mana to do it, but still...

Zilla

08-04-2006, 10:45 PM

I've seen alot of rulings in my days...but that one seems very odd. Why don't they just print Storm instead of Replicate on these cards? Yeah you pay mana to do it, but still...
Because Storm is a set-based mechanic and that set is done. :tongue:

Flamebreak is awful because of its casting cost with damage ratio. 99.9% of creatures don't matter against you when you're playing true burn, so this is no good.
Coincidentally, 99.9% is the same percentage as Goblin's likelihood of beating you if you're not running them. (I exaggerate, of course, but that card is absolutely vital to beating them consistently.) With the relative decline in Goblins, I could see Flamebreak being moved to the board in favor of maindecked Price of Progress, however.

BiscuitVader

08-04-2006, 10:45 PM

Play Fork. I mean, that card is so good in burn it's insane. It copies practically every card in your entire deck, not to mention opposing:
- Hymn to Tourachs
- Land Destruction
- Etc.

Flamebreak is awful because of its casting cost with damage ratio. 99.9% of creatures don't matter against you when you're playing true burn, so this is no good.
Can you post a list of this "True Burn" deck?
In my testing, Flamebreak is needed to stop Goblins, which can beat you, due to their faster gold fish.

This deck, while very fast, is very slow when you compare it to the format.
I think it needs something to speed it up.

Fork seems interesting. I think I'm going to do some testing with it.

SuckerPunch

08-04-2006, 11:28 PM

Zilla, no offense but you ignored the brunt of my arguement against Browbeat in your response.

For reference, my main points were...

Like I said...

Turn 1, 1cc spell, turn 2, 2cc spell or two 1cc spells (thats why I like the running 20 1cc spells option), turn 3 1cc and 2cc spell, turn 4 2cc spell and 1cc spell or 2cc spell. That's only six spells and three or four lands. Neither combo nor goblins has anyway to stop your burn spells from resolving.

If even one of those cards is a Flame Rift thats 19-22 points of damage. If instead one of them is a Fireblast, thats 22-25 points of damage. With the predominance of fetchlands, that is indeed a four turn clock against combo and goblins.

Now watch happens when you throw a Browbeat in to the mix, even on turn 3-4. By then, you'll still be holding multiple cards in hand (as you've only played one or at most two spells a turn). Any competent player already into single digits of life will know not to take 5 more points of damage from a burn deck and thus be reduced 4 life of so instead of staying at 9 when you already have cards in hand. Thus your clock gets slowed down by one full turn. One more turn for the solidarity player to combo out, one more turn for the goblins player to kill you off, one more turn for the threshold player to find that worship (of which he is likely running 4 between the MD and sideboard).

Also which hurts more, when you play Bolt, Incinerate and the Incinerate gets dazed, or when Browbeat gets dazed. Zilla, when you say running out of steam, you're mainly talking about versus decks running countermagic. But the fact is, decks running countermagic know to save a counterspell for a critical burn spell, like Browbeat. And you take a huge tempo loss as a result when it gets countered. This was the same reason Ball Lightning was cut, because of the tempo loss from using up an entire turns mana on one spell only to have it countered is much worse than having one of the two burn spells played that turn be countered. And lastly, with 19 lands, it's close to impossible to play around daze with Browbeat, while it's not nearly that difficult with lower cc spells. And playing around daze is vital to the Thres matchup in many situations.

Zilla

08-05-2006, 02:01 AM

Much of your argument is predicated upon racing Goblins and combo, which isn't going to happen consistently, even if you goldfish on turn 4 every single game, which you don't. I didn't address the hypotheticals you presented because I'm more comfortable with my knowledge of the way each style of build works from having playtested hundreds of games with them. If you want, I can write a few paragraphs illustrating hypothetical situations where Browbeat is better, but how are you going to rebut them, short of producing even more hypotheticals of your own? At what point would the hyperbole end?

Look, your argument seems to focus on a few points:

1) Browbeat is worse than Flame Rift against combo:

Granted. You're going to side them out for Pillars in games 2 and 3 anyway.

2) Browbeat is worse than Flame Rift against Goblins:

False. Flame Rift is a zero sum game against Goblins. It speeds their clock up as well as yours, and in fact weakens your Flamebreak strategy by raising the likelihood that they will be able to kill you before you can cast it.

3) Browbeat is worse than Flame Rift against Thresh:

Arguable. You can play around Daze with Browbeat. You just have to wait to the late game to do it, which is fine because you're going to go to the lategame against Thresh whether you like it or not, regardless of what build you're running.

Let me reiterate that I don't dispute that there are situations where Browbeat is worse than a lower costed build. My dispute is with your assertion that Browbeat is a strictly inferior choice, which you have thus far failed to qualify in any meaningful way.

SuckerPunch

08-05-2006, 02:51 AM

I'll grant you that. "strictly inferior" was a poor choice of wording.

There are situations where any card is superior to another card. I merely meant to say that I dislike that Browbeat has such a high cc and that it gives your opponent the choice to live for one turn longer to try and win.

So I will recant that statement. You are welcome to continue running Browbeat, and I will continue to instead run 20 1cc 3 damage spells (including Mogg Fanatic and Spark Elemental) to get a faster goldfish against combo and other matchups.

Zilla

08-05-2006, 07:59 AM

So I will recant that statement. You are welcome to continue running Browbeat, and I will continue to instead run 20 1cc 3 damage spells (including Mogg Fanatic and Spark Elemental) to get a faster goldfish against combo and other matchups.
No matter how fast your goldfish is, it will never ever consistently race combo game 1. You absolutely need the board to beat them. Those would be the games you'd be siding out Browbeat anyway. I find it ironic that you complain that I failed to address a small portion of your argument when you have ignored mine completely. Incidentally, Spark Elemental is trash in this format.

SuckerPunch

08-05-2006, 05:15 PM

The only arguement you've ever made is that Browbeat isn't strictly inferior. I gave you that point and recanted that statement. So I don't know what we're still debating about.

And the reason I pointed that out is because you did ignore the bulk of my arguement, that Browbeat has too high a cc and also gives your opponents, regardless of the deck you're playing against a full extra turn to live, and either kill you or resolve a spell like Worship that stops your entire gameplan, at which point, getting more burn spells is pointless.

Yes, you in fact can race Solidarity when you're running 20 1cc spell 3 damage spells, 12 2cc spells, and Flamebreak and Fireblast. Several games do come down to the coin flip. You just can't do it consistently and it's still in their favor, but the matchup isn't anywhere close to unwinnable.

If you play Browbeat however, the game is infact much harder to win, as the card gives them a full extra turn to find that fourth land and/or combo out, while also eating up 2-3 burn spells worth of mana. And then of games 2 and 3, you have to win both, which is very hard to do, regardless of how much hate you're running. Solidarity is designed to play around hate, that is assuming you even draw into the hate and manage to resolve it.

But I can see that we're just going to keep going in circles.

You say Browbeat isn't bad against certain matchups, which I contend is true. I simply think that it's bad matchups make it not worth running, a point which you are welcome to disagree on. So I really don't think we need to keep this particular discussion going.