[Deck] Burn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CabalTherapy

Srsly, please read some of the pages of this thread.
Or is it just irony? ^^
These cards are like Countryside Crusher = not playable in a burn.dec because they are
simply too weak for Legacy or don't fit into the strategy of burn.

I don't want to offense anyone.

---

I did back read. You failed to give reasons as to WHY the cards are bad. Simply stating they are back != good reason. Honestly, your attitude promotes nothing but stifling discussions. Go to another forum if you want to do that.

Even if Countryside Crusher is "bad" according to theory craft, it's something new and at least one person made some decent arguments as to why it should be tested. Discussing which cards are good or bad is not enough: they need testing.

I goldfished a friends mono-red burn deck yesterday. Maybe 20 hands. I've found mono-red to be far too slow, and given that this is a Burn thread and not mono-red Burn, I figured I would rep Hanni's WUR Quickdraw list. Its in developmental right now but its at least a full turn and a half faster than mono-red, consistently. I find myself winning on turn 3 and 4 regularly while the mono-red lists can't produce better than a turn 4 or 5 clock. Also, the Quickdraw list can play Daze and Spell Pierce which significantly raises your percentages against decks that play Small Pox and especially against decks that can lock you out of your reach spells with Warmth, CoP Red, or lock pieces like Trinisphere and Chalice.

Also, regardless of the build.. I've found Magma Jet > Flame Rift. Fixing the top of your library with Scry is just to good when you don't want to be stuck drawing lands off the topdeck when you need another reach spell to close on your opponent's life total.



On the topic of Crusher.. whats the function of it in the deck? It dies to Bolt/Chain which gets played in Delver variants all over the place, and if you don't run fetchlands, its not going to be very big for the investment of 1RR. I agree though it shouldn't be dismissed, rather, discussed. Still, I don't think it fits in with the Burn strategy all that well. Its fantastic in Aggro Loam, but for good reason. I would think that Sulfuric Vortex would be better 9 times out of 10 because its harder to remove and is great against Punishing Fire variants (often played nowadays), Batterskull, Jitte, Warmth, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinoy Goblin

Kabayan we have different opinions on this one :smile:

---

Hi Kabayan,

I guess that we have different ways of looking at some of these things. Let me expound:

• sulfuric vortex only does 2 damage on his upkeep and two damage on our upkeep (OUCH!) without a guarantee that are next draw is a GAS
  
  • Vortex, by itself, is gas (that's almost guaranteed) - you don't even need to draw anything to get gas to finish-off your opponent. Also, I personally don't mind taking damage, as I like to treat my life total as a resource - this might really just be because of my personality though.
• drawing multiple vortex is bad because if you're on the downhill this is GG
  
  • I disagree. In a damage race, Burn is more likely to win. It will require a fair bit of maneuvering, but dealing damage to one's self if the least of Burn's worries.
• burn needs beaters to inflict consistent damage and finish them with our burn spells
  
  • I think that this is exactly what Sulfuric Vortex is - consistent damage. It doesn't get more consistent than having virtually uncounterable, unblockable damage that's triggered by the upkeep.
• Regarding Countryside Crusher as a blocker.
  
  • This is nice in emergency situations, but then again, paying 3 mana for a blocker isn't very appealing.
• crusher gives us midgame GAS
  
  • Actually, it doesn't - it's ability isn't a draw mechanic. As previously mentioned, Countryside Crusher is only able to guarantee that you'll draw a non-land card each turn. Also, as was noted before, other more efficient means of deck-thinning are available to us without causing a potential loss of tempo that Countryside Crusher induces.
• vortex is only good on stone blade match ups, mostly vs. control decks
  
  • I actually have Tier-1 decks in mind when thinking of the inclusion of Sulfuric Vortex. As previously stated, decks will try to respond to Burn by gaining life, which Sulfuric Vortex is able to handle very nicely.
• it gives gas to grim lavamancer
  
  • This is one point that I missed, and that I truly like. In this sense, Countryside Crusher is indeed able to give you gas if it's alongside Grim Lavamancer. Do consider, though, that if you have Grim Lavamancer still available in the mid-game, then you're likely to win the game anyway. Also, Grim Lavamancer is fairly easy to feed in this deck. This is still a point worth noting, though.

I'm glad that Countryside Crusher is working out well for you. At the end of the day, we'll all have our own considerations for how we would value cards differently. I've already stated my points for this discussion, and it'll be up to you to take these into consideration.

Good luck! :smile:

Cheers,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacrix

I goldfished a friends mono-red burn deck yesterday. Maybe 20 hands. I've found mono-red to be far too slow, and given that this is a Burn thread and not mono-red Burn, I figured I would rep Hanni's WUR Quickdraw list. Its in developmental right now but its at least a full turn and a half faster than mono-red, consistently. I find myself winning on turn 3 and 4 regularly while the mono-red lists can't produce better than a turn 4 or 5 clock. Also, the Quickdraw list can play Daze and Spell Pierce which significantly raises your percentages against decks that play Small Pox and especially against decks that can lock you out of your reach spells with Warmth, CoP Red, or lock pieces like Trinisphere and Chalice.

Also, regardless of the build.. I've found Magma Jet > Flame Rift. Fixing the top of your library with Scry is just to good when you don't want to be stuck drawing lands off the topdeck when you need another reach spell to close on your opponent's life total.

---

I'm not sure if you're largely familiar with Burn, but kindly note that the Fundamental Turn for Burn is indeed Turn-3.

If I understood correctly, what you're referring to as the "WUR Quickdraw list" is the list in the "Blue Sligh" thread (correct me if I'm wrong). Please note that Goldfishing is nice, and the exploration of the Blue Sligh deck is okay too, but there's a reason for why Burn is in the DTB section and Blue Sligh is errr... somewhere else. I've noticed that there have been a few people there that insist that Blue Sligh is a "Tier-1" deck - unfortunately, you're either a Tier-1 Deck or you're not, and Blue Sligh is clearly not in the Tier-1 category. I'm not saying that Blue Sligh is a bad deck (it might be the best deck ever for all we know) - I'm just saying that it's shallow to say that a deck is Tier-1 without providing the results for it. The solution for that is simple - win with the deck and prove its worth.

I understand that you're not really "stating" that Blue Sligh is Tier-1, but I find that, since you're suggesting that it's better than Burn (a Tier-1 Deck as of the moment), then you're implying that it should be in the same conversation.

I hope that helps clarify things.

Kind Regards,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jares

I understand that you're not really "stating" that Blue Sligh is Tier-1, but I find that, since you're suggesting that it's better than Burn (a Tier-1 Deck as of the moment), then you're implying that it should be in the same conversation.

I hope that helps clarify things.

Kind Regards,
jares

---

Burn has never been a Tier 1 deck. Tier 2? Sure. Tier 3? More likely.

DTB != Tier 1. It just means it is a deck that you are very likely to run into at a tournament and should be prepared to play against it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1.../tierdecks.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majikal

Burn has never been a Tier 1 deck. Tier 2? Sure. Tier 3? More likely.

DTB != Tier 1. It just means it is a deck that you are very likely to run into at a tournament and should be prepared to play against it.

---

Thanks for the correction, that was very helpful.

I have always worked with the assumption that Tier-1 decks are based on the meta, and therefore, not set in stone (which is why I mentioned that Burn is Tier-1 "as of the moment"). I also figured that, if a deck is "to be beaten" (i.e. in the DTB section), then it's in the Tier-1. A good example of this is Merfolk and Goblins, which were certainly both Tier-1 decks at some point, but are now unevenly placed in the meta. Another example would be Reanimator, which I consider to currently be in the Tier-1 status, but was also once "shelved" outside of the Tier-1 list because of the meta at that time.

In summary, I still do think that decks that are in the DTB section should be viewed as the Tier-1 decks of the current meta game. I'm not entirely sure of how the organizers of this forum do the numbers to determine the inclusion of a deck in the DTB section, but this is how I'd look at things. I'm also unsure of whether or not this is just a matter of opinion (whether a deck is in Tier X, Y, or Z), or if there is a quantifiable way to determine the absolute answer to this.

Cheers,
jares

The tiers are determined mathematically by the overall performance of the deck + number of players. When you graph the results, you can easily see them. In the image I posted (from TCDecks) you can clearly see the Tier 1 decks at the moment are Maverick and Stoneblade, with RUG Tempo and Dredge making up Tier 1.5-2 and everything else falling into Tier 3 or below.

To give you an idea, here are the top 10 decks for March (http://thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tierdec...nio=2012&mes=4):

1º Maverick - 446 points
2º Blade Control - 445 points
3º Threshold UGr - 264 points
4º Dredge - 154 points
5º Aggro Loam - 92 points
6º Sneak Attack - 84 points
7º Reanimator - 83 points
8º Burn - 76 points
9º Elves - 75 points
10º Ad Nauseam Storm - 73 points


For frame of reference, DTB cutoff for the last update was 114 points.

I'm sorry but Burn's being a fundamental turn 3 is a pipe dream. Turn 4 is far more accurate; you overestimate. I've found that your Turn 3 percentages go up if you are playing Shard Volley so you are play 20 R for 3 damage spells. Cards like Keldon Marauders, Grim Lavamancer, and Hellspark Elemental especially when drawn together or in multiples can often prevent you from reaching your turn 3 goal. To be fair, I've had days where I turn 3 for like 6 games in a row, but there are other days where I can't win before turn 5 to save my life. Especially lists with 19 or 20 lands (I still do not understand why some people play that number).

In regards to the 'Blue Sligh' list. It most certainly is not Tier 1 because nobody is playing it yet. I liken its situation to the Belcher vs. SI question though to a much lesser degree. SI's fundamental turn is turn 1.. while Belcher's fundamental turn is turn 2 (due to 7/11 win conditions being Empty the Warrens). To say playing Belcher is hard is like saying I don't know how to count to 7, while to say playing SI is easy is kind of like saying I enjoy castration.
To a lesser degree, this is the case with 'Blue Sligh'. Its harder to play namely because you are playing with cards like Daze and Brainstorm which require more forethought than your traditional Burn list. Also, the list plays a lot of duals making it a far more costly investment. However, it is a better deck. It only takes a few games to see why. You are much more resilient to hate (Daze and non-red spells go a long way), play and function with far fewer lands with multiple ways to avoid a mana flood, have a faster, more consistent clock (obviously you debate this), and have more sideboard options than your traditional Burn list because it can play post-board Force of Will, Spell Pierce, Flusterstorm, Path to Exile, Disenchant, as well as your traditional Burn tech such as Sulfuric Vortex.

Granted, I've probably only played Burn about 100 times in my life, I'm sure others in this thread have grinded far more games out. I've found best lists to have a turn 4 clock, and they fold to cards like CoP Red and Warmth (which are seeing more and more play in Enlightened Tutor wishboards). 'Blue Sligh' does not fold to these cards due to access to non-red sources of damage, while it also has access to light countermagic to avoid these cards completely, or retroactively remove them with cards like Disenchant. The only argument I've seen presented against the deck's viability is Wasteland and the deck can function excellently off just 1 land anyway so...

In all honesty, its unfortunate that Hanni's list will probably go largely unrecognized because its so much more expensive than the $80 mono-red lists everyone else is running. Regardless, I suggest that if you are a Burn enthusiast, play the WUR Quickdraw list on Cockatrice or MWS and you will see why I advocate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacrix

I'm sorry but Burn's being a fundamental turn 3 is a pipe dream. Turn 4 is far more accurate; you overestimate. I've found that your Turn 3 percentages go up if you are playing Shard Volley so you are play 20 R for 3 damage spells. Cards like Keldon Marauders, Grim Lavamancer, and Hellspark Elemental especially when drawn together or in multiples can often prevent you from reaching your turn 3 goal. To be fair, I've had days where I turn 3 for like 6 games in a row, but there are other days where I can't win before turn 5 to save my life. Especially lists with 19 or 20 lands (I still do not understand why some people play that number).

In regards to the 'Blue Sligh' list. It most certainly is not Tier 1 because nobody is playing it yet. I liken its situation to the Belcher vs. SI question though to a much lesser degree. SI's fundamental turn is turn 1.. while Belcher's fundamental turn is turn 2 (due to 7/11 win conditions being Empty the Warrens). To say playing Belcher is hard is like saying I don't know how to count to 7, while to say playing SI is easy is kind of like saying I enjoy castration.
To a lesser degree, this is the case with 'Blue Sligh'. Its harder to play namely because you are playing with cards like Daze and Brainstorm which require more forethought than your traditional Burn list. Also, the list plays a lot of duals making it a far more costly investment. However, it is a better deck. It only takes a few games to see why. You are much more resilient to hate (Daze and non-red spells go a long way), play and function with far fewer lands with multiple ways to avoid a mana flood, have a faster, more consistent clock (obviously you debate this), and have more sideboard options than your traditional Burn list because it can play post-board Force of Will, Spell Pierce, Flusterstorm, Path to Exile, Disenchant, as well as your traditional Burn tech such as Sulfuric Vortex.

Granted, I've probably only played Burn about 100 times in my life, I'm sure others in this thread have grinded far more games out. I've found best lists to have a turn 4 clock, and they fold to cards like CoP Red and Warmth (which are seeing more and more play in Enlightened Tutor wishboards). 'Blue Sligh' does not fold to these cards due to access to non-red sources of damage, while it also has access to light countermagic to avoid these cards completely, or retroactively remove them with cards like Disenchant. The only argument I've seen presented against the deck's viability is Wasteland and the deck can function excellently off just 1 land anyway so...

In all honesty, its unfortunate that Hanni's list will probably go largely unrecognized because its so much more expensive than the $80 mono-red lists everyone else is running. Regardless, I suggest that if you are a Burn enthusiast, play the WUR Quickdraw list on Cockatrice or MWS and you will see why I advocate it.

---

I'm sorry, but I think that you misunderstand; Turn-3 is not an overestimation, it's a fact. It's as simple as this:

• Turn 1: Some Bolt effect.
• Turn 2: Two Bolt effects.
• Turn 3: Three Bolt effects (plus Fireblast, whenever applicable).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fundamental Turn is the turn of when a deck is able to start winning. Whether or not Burn is able to end the game with the sequence of events that are listed above, it is expected to have the upper hand (and possibly win the game) after the third turn. In the same way, while TES/ANT/Belcher decks are not always able to win the game at Turn-1, their Fundamental Turns are at Turn-1 because these decks are expected to be able to put themselves in a winning position (e.g. Empty the Warrens) from Turn-1 onwards. For control decks, the Fundamental Turn is the turn of when these decks are able to... errr... control (for lack of a better word) the game, and not necessarily win it right there and then (because most control decks can just take their time). I hope that this helps with this discussion.

Regarding 'Blue Sligh', I think that you might barking up the wrong tree here. Burn is fundamentally different from Sligh (not to mention Blue Sligh), so I'm now unsure of what your point is for bringing this up in the Burn Thread. If you think that Blue Sligh is the better deck for you, then, by all means, enjoy exploring that archetype in the Blue Sligh Thread. I wish you the best of luck.

In all honesty, its unfortunate that people have the misconception that the only reason that mono-red Burn is being played is because the whole deck costs $80. Yes, a lot of people get to play Burn because it's cheap by being mono-colored, but this, by no means, should be viewed as an effort to save on cost, as going mono-red is a purposeful design strategy that has proven to be effective and consistent with the deck's principle of creating virtual card advantage. Regardless, I suggest that, if you are a Burn enthusiast, test all the possible combinations of colors so that you'd be able to see the difference for yourself.

Good Luck,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majikal

The tiers are determined mathematically by the overall performance of the deck + number of players. When you graph the results, you can easily see them. In the image I posted (from TCDecks) you can clearly see the Tier 1 decks at the moment are Maverick and Stoneblade, with RUG Tempo and Dredge making up Tier 1.5-2 and everything else falling into Tier 3 or below.

To give you an idea, here are the top 10 decks for March (http://thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tierdec...nio=2012&mes=4):

1º Maverick - 446 points
2º Blade Control - 445 points
3º Threshold UGr - 264 points
4º Dredge - 154 points
5º Aggro Loam - 92 points
6º Sneak Attack - 84 points
7º Reanimator - 83 points
8º Burn - 76 points
9º Elves - 75 points
10º Ad Nauseam Storm - 73 points


For frame of reference, DTB cutoff for the last update was 114 points.

---

Thanks for this information, that was certainly very helpful. I have a few quesstions though:

• Does the DTB cutoff value change depending on the movement in the meta?
• Can this information be found somewhere here in mtgthesource.com?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
jares

Hi jares,

Check out the 33rd and 34th posts of this thread DTB Selection and Philosophy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilb_o

Hi jares,

Check out the 33rd and 34th posts of this thread DTB Selection and Philosophy

---

Thanks bilb_o, that was very helpful. :smile:

Cheers,
jares

@jares

Just out of curiousity why do you think blue sligh is fundamentally different than burn? To me it seems that blue sligh operates almost identical to the burn lists that run creature counts on the high end (around 12-15) with exception that blue sligh can combat the bombs that completely shut out the mono red builds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmoron

@jares

Just out of curiousity why do you think blue sligh is fundamentally different than burn? To me it seems that blue sligh operates almost identical to the burn lists that run creature counts on the high end (around 12-15) with exception that blue sligh can combat the bombs that completely shut out the mono red builds.

---

It's simple: Sligh depends on its creatures to deal the majority of the damage in a game, while Burn does not. This is why the "Blue Sligh" build that's being discussed here is able to run just 12 "Bolt Effects" and less than four Fireblasts; these damage spells are meant to be "finishers" rather than being the main sources of damage, much like how Zoo plays its burn spells (in that sense, the composition and design of "Blue Sligh" is much closer to that of "Zoo" decks). Notice the comparison of these details to the core of Burn decks:

• [4x] Lightning Bolt
• [4x] Chain Lightning
• [4x] Lava Spike
• [4x] Rift Bolt
• [4x] Fireblast
• [4x] Price of Progress
• [4x] Goblin Guide

Note that the inclusion of Goblin Guide in the core is not because Burn intends to win via creatures (which is noticeable in the fact that no other creatures are in the core), but because this particular creature is able to deal fast, efficient damage that even Burn cannot ignore. Also, notice that Lava Spike is not included in Sligh builds because it's unable to aid creatures whenever necessary; in comparison, it's an auto-include in Burn. The same note can be said about Flame Rift, though this card isn't generally considered to be a "core card".

I addition to the points noted above, it's also worth mentioning that the other creatures that are considered in Burn are included, not because they're expected to be a source of damage turn after turn, but because of the fast damage that they're able to deal at a reasonable bargain - some might even argue that they're essentially Burn cards masquerading as creatures (something that also reminds me of Grim Lavamancer); kindly refer to the examples below:

• Keldon Marauders
• Hellspark Elemental

While it's true that the way with which these two decks operate are sometimes similar (largely because the cards that circulate in the Burn and Sligh decks are "shared"), the principles behind the design of these two decks are different (as explained above), and operating a deck is certainly different from designing it (noting that being mono-colored is part of the design of Burn as much as being three-colored is part of the design of Blue Sligh).

I hope that this helps clarify things.

Cheers,
jares

I leave for the weekend and the thread turns into a Blue Sligh discussion? Don't get me wrong, I am very impressed with the Blue Sligh decks that are starting to evolve, but shouldn't this thread be for the evolution of Burn, and not its comparison to a completely different deck?

We appreciate everybody's constructive criticism, but the simple reason that Burn is where it is today is because it is continuously posting positive results. I anticipate Blue Sligh to do the same one day, but right now each deck must continue to evolve in its own ways in order to adjust and perform in the ever-changing meta-game.

-Neo

Backseat modding, anyone? :rolleyes:

Evaluating Burn's gameplan and goals compared to Sligh's is extremely relevant, so that people can understand how Burn functions, and can choose whether they want to play this deck as opposed to another deck. People have always suggested adding Sligh-oriented creatures to Burn decks because they didn't understand the key philosophical differences.

And yeah, jares hit it right on the dot. The point of Sligh is to let the creatures do the killing; the spells play a supporting role and clear the path for the attackers until the very end. The point of Burn is to throw everything at the opponent; any creatures must stand on their own because they will not have the backup of spells.

@Jares, your objective point of view regarding burn is the reason I frequent this Burn Thread. Have considered sharing your views at Salvations Burn thread (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showt...php?t=241878)? I believe the discussion over there would benefit greatly from your line on thinking.

Now that burn is a dtb has the opinion on browbeat as a 2 of changed yet? Or are people still all like argghhh i hate drawing 3 cards or burning for a quarter of your life? I know its a cardinal sin when talking about burn but browbeat is just so good to me.

Just to be clear, whether a deck performs well in the context of a particular metagame is one thing, and how a card performs in the context of the deck and the meta is quite another.

Five guaranteed damage for three mana wouldn't be bad in Burn. It sidesteps Spell Snare, and the extra mana over Keldon Marauders to ensure three damage is probably worth it.

Three guaranteed cards for three mana wouldn't be bad in Burn, in case you run out of steam and need the cards. Compare to Concentrate or Harmonize, which cost an extra colored mana.

The problem with Browbeat is that it's none of the above. It lets the opponent choose which is the least detrimental effect for him. This "opponent's choice" has always been the reason that seasoned Burn players have discounted Browbeat. It's not the interaction with other cards, or the interaction with other decks. It's letting the opponent decide what to do with your spell that kills its viability.

In short, no it's not worth it. I'd rather run Magma Jet than Browbeat. I'd rather run other substandard burn like Flames of the Blood Hand or Incinerate than Browbeat. I'd rather run substandard creatures like Spark Elemental than Browbeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jares

I'm sorry, but I think that you misunderstand; Turn-3 is not an overestimation, it's a fact. It's as simple as this:

• Turn 1: Some Bolt effect.
• Turn 2: Two Bolt effects.
• Turn 3: Three Bolt effects (plus Fireblast, whenever applicable).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fundamental Turn is the turn of when a deck is able to start winning. Whether or not Burn is able to end the game with the sequence of events that are listed above, it is expected to have the upper hand (and possibly win the game) after the third turn. In the same way, while TES/ANT/Belcher decks are not always able to win the game at Turn-1, their Fundamental Turns are at Turn-1 because these decks are expected to be able to put themselves in a winning position (e.g. Empty the Warrens) from Turn-1 onwards. For control decks, the Fundamental Turn is the turn of when these decks are able to... errr... control (for lack of a better word) the game, and not necessarily win it right there and then (because most control decks can just take their time). I hope that this helps with this discussion.

Regarding 'Blue Sligh', I think that you might barking up the wrong tree here. Burn is fundamentally different from Sligh (not to mention Blue Sligh), so I'm now unsure of what your point is for bringing this up in the Burn Thread. If you think that Blue Sligh is the better deck for you, then, by all means, enjoy exploring that archetype in the Blue Sligh Thread. I wish you the best of luck.

In all honesty, its unfortunate that people have the misconception that the only reason that mono-red Burn is being played is because the whole deck costs $80. Yes, a lot of people get to play Burn because it's cheap by being mono-colored, but this, by no means, should be viewed as an effort to save on cost, as going mono-red is a purposeful design strategy that has proven to be effective and consistent with the deck's principle of creating virtual card advantage. Regardless, I suggest that, if you are a Burn enthusiast, test all the possible combinations of colors so that you'd be able to see the difference for yourself.

Good Luck,
jares

---

Excuse my ignorance. I was not aware of what you meant by fundamental turn. I cannot argue that point.

However, if Burn could do that consistently, its clock would consistently be turn 3. That is not the case though. I've found it to be consistent by turn 4 but more than 1/4 of the time its turn 5 or even turn 6 if you have to mulligan.

My point in bringing up a list like Blue Sligh is that fundamentally it fills the same niche in the metagame that Burn does. It has a similar number of reach spells to close on the opponent's life total after you've dealt some initial damage with other reach spells and/or creatures and has mostly similar matchups. The difference is that Blue Sligh is consistently faster and has congruent matchups save for a few that are unfavorable for traditional Burn while Blue Sligh turns them into slightly unfavorable or even. If thats true, and my experience tells me that it is, then there's good reason to play Blue Sligh over traditional Burn lists. The price difference, therefore, would be the only thing holding the deck back from being Tier 1. Thats all I was saying.

I'm just trying to give the deck the attention it deserves that way people can play better cards. Its no different than trying to sway Belcher players to pick up SI. If you want to play a glass house, play the better one. Same goes for Burn variations and I feel that Blue Sligh simply does mono-reds job but better.



In regards to Browbeat, I've played against quite a few Burn players and always let them draw 3. Sometimes you get unlucky with it and wind up chaining them together into more cards and don't hit enough reach to close the deal in time. Also, you have no guarentee that you will draw what you need. You might need reach spells but draw creatures when your opponent has enough blockers to make them useless, or you might draw lands you don't need or Fireblasts that you can't play. These situations happen too much for the card to be better than what you forgo.