[Deck] Burn

I agree that focusing on three or four turn kills to the exclusion of other considerations is harmful to Burn. However, I take issue with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamfrightenedtoo

Dredge can play a long game, Reanimator can, HighTide can, Tes can....Burn cannot, because FoD is a "bad" card.

---

I recognize and disagree with the sarcasm. Burn can't play a long game nearly as well as these other decks. The longer the game goes, the more time a typical opponent has to set up defenses such as life gain, countertop, etc. and the more time a typical opponent's "slow" attackers such as Goyf have to overcome Burn's initial speed with sheer size multiplied by time.

The difference between a faster combo deck and Burn is that a faster combo deck eventually creates a chain of events that multiply for a greater effect, and that chain of events can all take place in one turn. They can stall or sit for several turns to sculpt the perfect hand before going off, and they oftentimes do to ensure that they don't fizzle.

Burn can't do that because it doesn't have the mana to kill (or lock the game) in one turn, so it can't wait around; it has to start early, much like "fair" decks.

Again, I agree that Burn can win past the fifth turn. This doesn't change the fact that it's optimized to take advantage of the early game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kich867

No, how is that even remotely logical?

You're not replacing Lava Spike with Vexing Demon you're replacing Hellspark Demon. This is why these arguments aren't making sense. You're not replacing cards like Lava Spike with it, so when you draw it, it wouldn't have been a lava spike anyways--it would have been a hellspark elemental.

So instead of saying: "Let me compare this to a card it's not replacing and is being run concurrently with", we should be asking "What would I rather want to top deck, play a Hellspark Elemental, or play a Vexing Demon."

You aren't replacing a burn, you're replacing a creature, with another creature that doubles as either a strictly better than lava spike burn or is the highest power per mana ratio of any red creature pretty much ever printed.

So the argument isn't "This is bad because in the land of hypotheticals it will never be what you want it to be because it's not a burn or it's not a creature.". It's "Is this creature better than another creature that we run?"

And it is. Furthermore, almost strictly--no. Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauders come down on turn 2 at the earliest. This card is played turn 1, it's likely either going to die for 4 damage immediately, or get removed. If it gets removed, you can drop your Goblin Guide the next turn (maybe even two) and be in the clear knowing your opponent likely has no more removal in hand. And if they do, even that's fantastic, because they kept a removal heavy hand against burn. Excuse me while I contemplate a world where 1 mana for 4 damage or 1 mana for a 4/3 is ever a card that in any situation is "not good enough to compensate for when it's really bad".

If they sac it for 4 damage, you just made, fundamentally, the strongest turn 1 play one can make in burn. Turn 2 means they're at at least 10 if they haven't fetched. If it resolves and it's not dead, turn 2 is probably going to be between 7-10 damage. If it resolves and dies, you're likely at 24 life and your other creatures can now be played -way- safer.

It gives you information about the opponent's hand without them even having to show it and is one of the most threatening turn 1 plays any deck that isn't belcher or TES can make.

---

Ugh you just don't get it. First of all this is not at all the best turn 1 play, goblin guide is much better. Given both are not dying to removal guide will likely deal 4 or more damage AND force them to deal with it, vexing just deals 4 a huge difference.
If your opponent is any competent vexing devil will rarely if EVER do more then 4 damage, why would they have given you the creature if it will do more?? Thus AT BEST this is four damage for 1 mana, which is arguably a very good deal but not something to get super excited about. The problem is that fairly often this will also do 0 damage, ie. when they can simply deal with the creature form of this card..

The comparison with lava spike was simply to show this is much worse then lava spike. 100% doing 3 damage is much better then doing 4 damage 70% of the time. Dropping hellspark elemental from the deck is something you can make a point for if you don't like the card (i don't think its good either) but this is simply worse and not playable..
There are just so many decks that can easily deal with or ignore the creature form of this card that it will not often enough do the 4 damage.. Burn often has exactly enough cards to deal enough damage and one card doing zero often sucks tremendously, this card will lead to that way too often.

Just playtest it against competent opponents and you will find eventually that it sucks. It;s just so stupid and simplistic to say that 4 dmg for R or a 4/3 for R are both very good deals.. R for a 4/3 is terrible turn 4 and onwards, R for 4 damage is good early on. Vexing devil will be good often but also just plain terrible very often.
Your argument that RDW will be in a good spot anyway if they keep a lot of removal is even more laughable.. yes that's true IF you don't have guys like vexing devil.. If you do you are turning their bad cards into good ones, you never want to do that... Burn should avoid trading cards as much as possible because you have no card advantage at all since your trading cards for your opponents life.. Vexing devil makes opposing decks interact more with you then you want and is only a minor upgrade of other cards when it does work optimally, which once again is doing 4 damage unless your opponent is an idiot..

cards I would cut in order (given that Wizards prints something better)
Keldon Marauders
Flame Rift (I do not play it. I run two Sulfuric Vortex, and two Countryside Crusher) So they would be cut.
and then Figure of Destiny. But that is 3 more different cards being printed. well two after Vexing Devil.

And as for Miracle Burn, I am a gambler at heart. give me a chance to cast 5 damage for one mana? yeah, ill take it. I doubt I'll run it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamfrightenedtoo

And as for Miracle Burn, I am a gambler at heart. give me a chance to cast 5 damage for one mana? yeah, ill take it. I doubt I'll run it though.

---

I can't deny that running it is exciting. But I don't play Burn because it's exciting. In Burn, I want consistency. 0 or 5 with an average of under 3 is just not worth it to me. I'd play ANT or TES or something if I wanted dramatic events.

P.S. if you're a gambler at heart, check out Game of Chaos. =)

a 4/3 for R is never terrible, in fact, it would always be a good play. it stands over most common red board sweepers, as they normally do 2 damage.

also it has to be dealt with. Has to be, which is good. let them deal with it, and not the rest of your creatures, or let them deal with your other creatures and not have removal for it.

a 4/3 for R, or 4 damage for R is amazing. There is no argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirbysdl

P.S. if you're a gambler at heart, check out Game of Chaos. =)

---

trust me, two cards I always want to play are Game of Chaos for Burn and Kaervek's Spite for Pox.
But I cant.

There is most certainly an argument. If the opponent's at 2 life with a rapidly solidifying on-board defense, and you topdeck a Figure or Devil, it's effectively a dead card. If that were a burn spell instead, at least you have a chance to end it right there.

Imagine that same scenario, except you're at 5 and they have a flipped Delver and Clique ready to swing for the win next turn. Now the difference between a non-hasty creature and the burn spell is the win or loss within that turn.

This is why burn oldbies always talk about "guaranteed damage from creatures," and this is why they've always grumbled about Figure. At least Goblin Guide can swing through an open field off the topdeck and do something, whereas Figure is worse as the game continues. Devil is admittedly better than Figure, but someone who didn't run Figure to begin with might not want to run Devil either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marke

Ugh you just don't get it. First of all this is not at all the best turn 1 play, goblin guide is much better. Given both are not dying to removal guide will likely deal 4 or more damage AND force them to deal with it, vexing just deals 4 a huge difference.
If your opponent is any competent vexing devil will rarely if EVER do more then 4 damage, why would they have given you the creature if it will do more?? Thus AT BEST this is four damage for 1 mana, which is arguably a very good deal but not something to get super excited about. The problem is that fairly often this will also do 0 damage, ie. when they can simply deal with the creature form of this card..

The comparison with lava spike was simply to show this is much worse then lava spike. 100% doing 3 damage is much better then doing 4 damage 70% of the time. Dropping hellspark elemental from the deck is something you can make a point for if you don't like the card (i don't think its good either) but this is simply worse and not playable..
There are just so many decks that can easily deal with or ignore the creature form of this card that it will not often enough do the 4 damage.. Burn often has exactly enough cards to deal enough damage and one card doing zero often sucks tremendously, this card will lead to that way too often.

Just playtest it against competent opponents and you will find eventually that it sucks. It;s just so stupid and simplistic to say that 4 dmg for R or a 4/3 for R are both very good deals.. R for a 4/3 is terrible turn 4 and onwards, R for 4 damage is good early on. Vexing devil will be good often but also just plain terrible very often.
Your argument that RDW will be in a good spot anyway if they keep a lot of removal is even more laughable.. yes that's true IF you don't have guys like vexing devil.. If you do you are turning their bad cards into good ones, you never want to do that... Burn should avoid trading cards as much as possible because you have no card advantage at all since your trading cards for your opponents life.. Vexing devil makes opposing decks interact more with you then you want and is only a minor upgrade of other cards when it does work optimally, which once again is doing 4 damage unless your opponent is an idiot..

---

You dont understand the philosophy of burn , R for 4 damage is the dream of any burn player , is like BETTER than lighting boltl ( the god of red spells) , also this creature wont replace any other bolt , will replace awful creatures like keldon or figure of destiny , i see this creature better 90% of the time than keldon or figure , there is not a reason to not run this guy in a creature slot.... also maverick players dont use their removal on our creatures , they save swords for gaining some life with their own creatures , if they waste a swords on my devil im totally happy with it...since i dont lose tempo and is just a trade 1 for 1..thunderous wrath is anothe story , it will see play in u/r builds with brainstorm and ponder , mono r burn dont have any manipulation other than magma jet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marke

First of all this is not at all the best turn 1 play, goblin guide is much better.

---

Are you sure? Let's say I have two Mountains, Devil, and Guide in my opener. If I start with Guide, I've got 4 potential damage after my second turn. If I start with Devil, I've got 6 potential damage after my second turn. They also have one less opportunity to draw a land off the top if I start with Devil. Perhaps you meant something other than raw damage numbers though?

@Kirbysdl

Believe me I agree with you, but with that said, you might as well only run 10 Mountains so you can make sure you never draw them late in the game.
or any creature, and just exclusively burn.

We have all sat there across from our opponents, drawing lands and dumb creatures as the bad guy across from us keeps digging at us....

still is no reason not to run Vexing Devil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirbysdl

Narrow? The point of Burn is to kill the opponent, not mess with their creatures. You might need to kill one or two creatures during the course of a game, and we already have plenty of options for doing so. If your burn is heavily focused on opposing creatures, you're no longer playing Burn; you're playing a Sligh/Zoo model, where you want to open a path for your creatures to beat through.

---

Yes, Narrow, that is what I said. And if you looked at my build you would see there is no world in which it could be mistake for Zoo or Sligh. It is Burn, but it is Burn with answers. For nearly 20 years people have been building Burn decks with this insane blood frenzied look in their eyes has they mumble "kill kill kill kill" under their breath. As other decks get faster and more resistant the narrow minded Burn philosophy says the answer is "must kill faster". But you cant kill any faster (however it is now possible with a little self damage from the opponent we could in theory kill on turn 2). So, I long ago decided there is nothing gained by traditional "kill kill kill kill" approach. Given that Lava Spike is too narrow for my tastes. In my mind it is barely better then Shock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirbysdl

Pretty much everything you wrote in defense of T.Wrath has already been debunked. The math looks horrible on paper.

You say the only time it's bad is in the opener? How many cards do you see that aren't in the opener? We can even assume that you're on the play so you never draw a card without a land in play. You'll need to draw or Scry eleven cards off the deck before the average T.Wrath you see does more damage than a bolt. If Burn ever sees seven+ draw steps, it more than likely already lost. In what world does this math look good on paper?

"Sure, I'll simply mull when I see a T.Wrath." Nope, doesn't help. You go from 6 "live" cards in hand to 6 "live" cards minus however many Wraths you draw in the new hand. If the hand is playable besides T.Wrath, you just have to play it with the dead card in hand, reminding you that the bad math on paper translates to bad in-game performance.


"Sure, I'll simply run fewer in the deck." Nope, doesn't help. The link above shows why. You see fewer in your opener, but you also see fewer in your draw step. If you see one in roughly 21% of your first seven cards, you'll see one in roughly 21% of your next seven cards as well. And at that break even point, the average T.Wrath seen will have done (0+5)/2 or 2.5 damage, still less than the allegedly unusable Lava Spike.

Original quantitative analysis: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showt...53#post8218753

---

You are missing a big flaw in that logic. It deals 5 damage when it is not in the opening hand. If you can reduce the likelihood of it being in your opening hand to a number you are comfortable with then the odds that you draw it off the top of the deck don't matter, it is a better topdeck then any bolt spell.

Every card comes with a level of risk. GGuide can be killed before it deals damage while letting them draw a land. PoP, they might not have any non-basics. In traditional Burn 1/2 the deck is useless if they drop a CotV at 1, or a Leyline. Does TWrath have some risk? Sure, but risk is manageable.

It's interesting to see Wizards trying to print more "let your opponent decide" cards to see how far they can take things before players realize that they're just bad cards. Until then, it's a good litmus test for being able to figure out which players are easy to ignore. :wink:

Sort of reminds me of a local Pokémon player from several years ago that was trying to sell me on how that game took so much skill, and then he proceeded to do nothing but flip coins. Yeah, have fun with your "consistency."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogueBuild

You are missing a big flaw in that logic. It deals 5 damage when it is not in the opening hand. If you can reduce the likelihood of it being in your opening hand to a number you are comfortable with then the odds that you draw it off the top of the deck don't matter, it is a better topdeck then any bolt spell.

---

EDIT: What you don't seem to understand is that changing the number of them doesn't change the average damage done per copy. If you're fine with the average T.Wrath you see dealing less damage than a 3-damage bolt spell regardless of how many you run, then that's fine with me. If you don't believe me when I say that the average T.Wrath you ever see will deal less damage than a 3-damage bolt spell regardless of how many you run, that's also fine with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P.S.

It's interesting to see Wizards trying to print more "let your opponent decide" cards to see how far they can take things before players realize that they're just bad cards. Until then, it's a good litmus test for being able to figure out which players are easy to ignore. :wink:

Sort of reminds me of a local Pokémon player from several years ago that was trying to sell me on how that game took so much skill, and then he proceeded to do nothing but flip coins. Yeah, have fun with your "consistency."

---

I don't think that statement is fair at all, but you're entitled to you opinion. We shall see once testing is done with this new guy if he is worth his salt. I have been doing some testing with him (proxied) and have found him quite good. But hell what do I know I play browbeat... :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P.S.

It's interesting to see Wizards trying to print more "let your opponent decide" cards to see how far they can take things before players realize that they're just bad cards. Until then, it's a good litmus test for being able to figure out which players are easy to ignore. :wink:

Sort of reminds me of a local Pokémon player from several years ago that was trying to sell me on how that game took so much skill, and then he proceeded to do nothing but flip coins. Yeah, have fun with your "consistency."

---

Since when one sided flame rift for R is bad??? , or since when busted wild nacatl is bad???..

I genuinely don't think I can argue with the "4/3 for R isn't a good deal" crowd.

I deeply apologize that I, myself, can't come to terms with the idea that a 3/1 haste for 1R is -clearly- better than a 4/3 for R, or 4 damage for R.

I suppose it's something wrong with myself, where, through the very simple math I've done and made the conclusion that R for 4 damage or R for a 4/3 over some other card just isn't good enough for burn what with all those Keldon Marauders and Hellspark Elementals running around.

--- [/sarcasm]

Objectively speaking though, Vexing Devil is the strongest turn one play burn can make. The idea that it can be killed before it deals damage is fine, it just means that the goblin guide you play next turn actually will live long enough to deal it's own 4 damage.

Because that's all it needs to do, that's all any creature in the deck needs to do--about 4 damage, and it's really, really useful. That's why Hellspark Elemental and Keldon Marauder are so bad, and that's why dropping one of them for Vexing Devil is with certainty the correct decision.

It's replacing a creature. I don't know how much more clear I can be about that and how that so drastically changes what you people are trying to argue. The idea that removing it is somehow bad, as if they wouldn't remove a Hellspark Elemental, effectively countering an incinerate with a swords to plowshare and not having to deal with it later...

Burn runs creatures, if you want to argue that it shouldn't, that's fine, but that's not what you're doing. You're confusing a lot of different arguments that don't fit with each other.

Which is it: is Vexing Devil bad because he should have been a burn? Then you're talking about a burn deck that runs fewer creatures than the ~12-15 that are usually run (Guide, Keldon, Hellspark, maybe Grim Lavamancer) run and your argument against the card is referring to something more along the line of Rogue's build, which isn't what I'm talking about.

is Vexing Devil bad because it's "not what you ever want it to be"? Then you're saying you would rather top deck Keldon Marauder or Hellspark Elemental over this card and those are the only comparisons that can be logically drawn, I would -love- to hear this argument out. It would be fantastic to see the math behind Keldon Marauders being a better top deck than this card. I've played against a friend's Boros deck to know that there are some times where you just don't have an answer in your hand and that Marauder does 5 damage to you.

is Vexing Devil bad because it's not guaranteed to be a creature (if anyone tells me that a 1 mana 4/3 with no drawback isn't good enough for legacy you're out of your fucking mind) and it's not guaranteed to be a burn, so when you want one you will (always) get the other? Your opponent is always omniscient and never makes mistakes, and has the answer in hand every time? This is highly unlikely and is objectively untrue. At either side, 1 mana for 4 damage is the strongest play in burn. Maybe I need to clarify that: there is no stronger play in burn outside of that very silly and very bad (in burn) miracle, than having your opponent eat a Vexing Devil's sac trigger to the dome. None. (Bold and underlined text brought to you by Jares)

One of the things burn looks to jump on are cards that deal direct damage to the opponent. As of right now, the best ones are all "bolts" in that they cost 1 mana and deal 3 damage to the opponent. The deck will always be composed of every one of these bolt effects. Always. But you can't make a deck of ~38 lightning bolts and 4 fireblasts. So other things need to be added, correct?

Burn exhausted the "burn" options by peppering in Price of Progress (which the deck is immune to), Fireblast (which is an absurdly powerful finisher being essentially manaless), and Flame Rift (which is often used in conjunction with Fireblast as a 2 card 8 damage nuke).

But the one thing that burn, as you mentioned, doesn't want to run, are creatures. Goblin Guide is an exception because it's almost stupid how good the card is on turn 1. The rest are all flex spots, catered to personal liking. Keldon Marauders will typically only do 2 damage over the course of 3 turns. Hellspark Elemental will at most do 6 damage over the course of 2 turns and be incredibly mana intensive doing it.

So wizards prints a card that, at it's best will not be a creature. It will be a 1 mana 4 damage nuke. There is currently no other play in burn that hits that hard for that mana without any drawback whatsoever. There is no drawback. You spent one mana and hit them for 4.

At it's worst it will be a creature that is forced to be removed, it needs to be answered or your opponent will get demolished by it. This is fine, because Goblin Guide and Grim Lavamancer are also creatures that must be removed because over the course of turns their damage-to-mana ratio gets way too out of hand. In the same exact vein, if I were to play goblin guide, swing for 2. Then on my next turn, turn 2, swing with goblin guide, and they sword it, and I drop Vexing Devil second main phase, what do they do? Take 4? Let it resolve? What if they don't have another sword and they don't draw another one, is that a risk they can actually take before getting face smashed by this thing?

At it's most average, it will be a creature that resolves, hits for 4, your opponent digs for removal, and kills it. It's still 1 for 4.

At it's super best, it resolves because the opponent is greedy and expects to find removal with brainstorm, but doesn't, and it's 1 for 8-12.

This has gone on too long as it stands now, it just seems comical that this card is considered anything but one of the best cards in the deck. The pressure it puts on the opponent is astronomical, it's damage for mana ratio is the best there is, it's scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basara

Since when one sided flame rift for R is bad??? , or since when busted wild nacatl is bad???..

---

This, in a nut shell.

The card is either strictly better than Lava Spike or it's strictly better than Wild Nacatl.

No, you know what, you're right. It's terrible. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basara

Since when one sided flame rift for R is bad??? , or since when busted wild nacatl is bad???..

---

The first is great. It's so great I can't think of a reasonable hypothetical situation where the opponent would pay the 4 immediately. What kind of competitive Legacy deck can't handle creatures?

So, when is a busted Nacatl bad? Oh wait, we've done this already.

EDIT: I see what people are saying, that this merely replaces a creature and not a burn spell. However, every creature except Figure has the capacity to attack or otherwise deal damage on the turn it is cast. People who have resisted Figure have done so for the very same reason. So by all means, replace Figure with Devil if you want. Replacing any other creature option is a little more complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baghdadbob

But hell what do I know I play browbeat... :laugh

---

Sums that up. :wink:

This has been mentioned before but it is being glossed over. So to put it in layman's terms, this card is never what you want it to be.

If you want a R for a 4/3 creature, instead, they just cast a "free" Snuff Out (without having to use a card).

If you want a R for four damage, instead, they give you a vanilla 4/3 that can be blocked or destroyed.

They give you the 4/3 when they can deal with it. They take the damage when life is not an issue. This card will be 100% the opposite of what you want it to be every single time that you cast it. In a fast format like Legacy, that is not good. Hell, in Standard it's not good, in Limited it's not good and in Modern it's not good.

And this card is even worse when you're on the draw, which should be about 50% of the time for game one. A very real play in Legacy is a first turn Mother of Runes. Now you can't play this guy at all. You have to burn the Mom before she's on-line, otherwise you're going to try to race a deck that can give its guys all pro-red? You're not racing a Knight of the Reliquary or a Scavenging Ooze when you can't kill them.

I think best case scenario for this guy if you drop him on the first turn on the draw & your opponent Daze's him (for some reason).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kich867

I genuinely don't think I can argue with the "4/3 for R isn't a good deal" crowd.

---

If that's what this card was, the card would be insane. If it had no text and was just a R for a 4/3, it would be a 400% better card than what it is. Unfortunately, that is not what this guy is. This guy is trade fodder for your local FNM crowd before everyone realizes it's not worth anything.

I DO however think that in Legacy you have the best chance of it being a 4/3 for R. Because as soon as you cast it, I think everyone puts you on Burn & just gives you a guy that could hypothetically swing on the second turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirbysdl

The first is great. It's so great I can't think of a reasonable hypothetical situation where the opponent would pay the 4 immediately. What kind of competitive Legacy deck can't handle creatures?

So, when is a busted Nacatl bad? Oh wait, we've done this already.

---

That doesn't make the card bad. I mean, with that scenario you'd be arguing that Barbarian Ring
Shock
Lava Dart

Are all better than Vexing Devil, which isn't true.