[Deck] Burn

Did anyone consider splashing black for Bump in the Night ? it is basically another lava spike,since you surely won't pay its flashback cost. I think it would be good in a very fast list with no (or very few) creatures.

And,if splashing black, could it be a good idea to run some discard spell main deck ?
I thought 4 Inquisition of Kozilek main deck and 4 Thoughtseize in the sideboard; this way you would have a chance against combo also in the first game, then in the second game 8 discard spell should be enough to prevent your opponent from comboing off. Obviously when playing against other decktypes you would probably side out the discard stuff.
I understand that running discard main deck make more difficult for us to kill our opponent,but it also slows him down,let us know what he has in hand...it can be useful also against decks other from combo. What do you think ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aachie

I was thinking about running four Pyroblasts in the SB, but that card does not seem to be really worth it. You only want board it against blue-heavy decks, but if a deck is blue-heavy it also has a shitload of counterspells in it and will always have a backup that your hydroblast can't break through, I guess.

---

My reasoning about Pyroblast/REB is exactly the same, that's why I don't run them anymore in my SB: the only decks where you wanna bring them in are also the decks which can easily counter them.


Both your lists seems pretty good to me:
- your "Classic" burn is almost exactly my own build: the only differences are Hellsparks (I prefer Marauders), Tormod's (I use Faerie macabre in those anti-GY slots) and Pillars (I prefer Mindbreak for anti-Storm)
- your Lavamancer build has only one fault imho: I would swap Flame rifts and Searing blazes, playing Rifts MB and Blazes SB. That's simply because Blazes could be completely dead cards against many decks (remember that there MUST BE a creature to target, otherwise you can't cast them), while Rifts could be risky but are never dead. And you could also up the fetchlands count to 12, like many lists do: more food for Lavamancer is always good.


And I'm curious about one of your choices: why do you play Hellsparks in one build and Marauders in the other?

I think I'll try the classic build for a bit. I have owned the Chain lightnings since the 90's so that's not an expensive add.

Something like:

4 Goblin Guide
4 Hellspark Elemental
4 Keldon Marauders

4 Lighting Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
3 Flame Rift
3 Sulfuric Vortex

2 Barbarian Ring
16 Mountain

I would drop hellspark for vexing devil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voley

I would drop hellspark for vexing devil.

---

Personally, I think Devil is absolute trash. I hate giving my opponent options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voley

I would drop hellspark for vexing devil.

---

Same opinion here.


I know many people don't want to give opponent choices, but both choices are pretty good for us here...
It's not like Browbeat which is surely trash cause it's 3-cc, Devil is just 1.

Most times your opponent will make you sacrifice it: that means you just threw an empowered Lava spike on their faces, which is very good for our plan.

Do they have StP or Path? Ok, your Hellspark would have died in the same way, only you have spent just 1-cc instead of 2-cc.

The only advice I'd like to give here is: if you also have a Guide in your hand, play the Guide before Devil. Not only you deal damage faster cause of haste, but you'll draw removal to it so maybe they won't have removal for Devil.


I suggest you to try them before rejecting the idea.
Right now I would consider them pretty staple in any "classic" build.

I maindeck Cave-in, I do not know if I would outside local meta, but it always seems to be a blowout.
It misses Tarmagoyf, and Threshhold Goose, but it tags just about anything else that is annoying.

I do not like Removing the red spell, but have honestly never had an issue with it.
Goblins, Elves, Thalia, Mother of Runes, Delver, Giest,

I know people like Volcanic Fallout or whatever its called, but I like the free cost, that is what I go for.

I do not like Vexing Devil, could care less about the choice, actually I think that is the best part of the card, because it also tells us what our opponents have. I just think there are better cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamfrightenedtoo

I just think there are better cards.

---

Not arguing about better red cards in general, but are there better red 1-cc creatures apart from Goblin guide and Lavamancer (which we don't use if we're playing classic Burn)?

Because here the question is: "how many 1-cc creatures I wanna play?"
If the answer is "just 4" (which I doubt), then goodbye Devil.
If it is "more then 4", Devil seems to me the best option out there (unless you build the Lavamancer list, of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anakyn

Not arguing about better red cards in general, but are there better red 1-cc creatures apart from Goblin guide and Lavamancer (which we don't use if we're playing classic Burn)?

Because here the question is: "how many 1-cc creatures I wanna play?"
If the answer is "just 4" (which I doubt), then goodbye Devil.
If it is "more then 4", Devil seems to me the best option out there (unless you build the Lavamancer list, of course).

---

Testing the Devil i have to admit his power! He make pressure on my opponent and if Plowed let other traditional Burn creature safe to attack!

I also think that the Devils are the best choice for your second 1cc.
I playtested a lot since I posted my last decklists and I'm really pleased by using them.
These are the lists I am currently collecting the cards for.
I'll start building the first version (classic) and I'm going to play it in some tournaments.

http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/330983

http://www.mtgdeckbuilder.net/Decks/ViewDeck/356222

Aachie

I have not played competitively for a long time but,
I just wonder why you do not play 4xPrice of Progress.

Are there certain matchups where they inefficient draws?
Can it be played around?

Atm my build looks like this:
(Lacking some cards like Guides, Devils, Hellspark)

Lands (18)
8 Fetches
10 Mountains

Creatures (4)
4 Keldon Marauders

Bolts (16)
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

2cc (16)
4 Flame Rift
4 Price of Progress
4 Incinerate (-->Hellspark)
4 Magma Jet (--> could be Guides)

4 Fireblast
2 Sulfuric Vortex

Would the inclusion of Guides and Hellspark strengthen the deck a lot?
Schould I go up to 19 Lands? Splash white for Helix and SB?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazadoom

I have not played competitively for a long time but,
I just wonder why you do not play 4xPrice of Progress.

Are there certain matchups where they inefficient draws?
Can it be played around?

---

Price is incredibly strong vs certain matchups and almost dead vs others, that's why he can be played 3x instead of 4x.

It can be played around in many ways also vs decks playing duals, for example fetching for basic lands instead of duals, or wastelanding their own non-basic lands.
If they don't play any duals Price is a house of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazadoom

Would the inclusion of Guides and Hellspark strengthen the deck a lot?
Schould I go up to 19 Lands? Splash white for Helix and SB?

---

In my opinion, you simply can't play Burn at competitive level without 4x Guides. They're as important as bolts.

Since you already play Marauders as 2-cc creature, I'd skip Hellsparks and go for another 1-cc creature: it can be Devil or Lavamancer, but I'd choose Lavamancers just because you play several fetchlands.


I wouldn't splash white. If you splash white you are playing another kind of deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anakyn

Not arguing about better red cards in general, but are there better red 1-cc creatures apart from Goblin guide and Lavamancer (which we don't use if we're playing classic Burn)?

Because here the question is: "how many 1-cc creatures I wanna play?"
If the answer is "just 4" (which I doubt), then goodbye Devil.
If it is "more then 4", Devil seems to me the best option out there (unless you build the Lavamancer list,of course).

---

Vexing Devil should not be viewed as a creature. It's a stronger Lava Spike that sometimes becomes a creature if your opponent thinks they can handle it.

I don't think Vexing Devil should ever be approached from the viewpoint of it being a 1-drop creature.

Patrick Sullivan has tried a few different splashes and continues to come back to mono-red burn. He has tried splashing green and white for a zoo-hybrid with nacatl, kird ape, tarmogoyf, steppe lynx and wasteland. He did not like the lynx. Two blue splashes were tested, the traditional Snapcaster/Fow build (not truly a burn deck) and earlier a creatureless build with Thunderous Wrath. He abandoned both slower decks due to losing one out of eight games because of being wastelanded. I have not seen a serious black splash, which likely only yields Bump in the Night and possibly Dark Confidant and Thoughtseize for the board.

I dislike the Snapcaster build, as you end up playing a very different deck.

I've been running a burn deck that trims down the curve by removing flame rift and moving vortex to the board for delver and brainstorm, allowing you to drop to 19 lands. I favor it against spell pierce/daze decks. Being able to Brainstorm away land and creatures later in the game is very helpful. I have not found any blue cards I want to sideboard. Submerge is weak when it only clears the way for guide. I've found how often you have delver/brainstorm over vortex/flame rift beats how often you get your volcanic wastelanded.

I always wondered why this type of deck doesn't run at least one Ankh of Mishra

Seems like it would usually be good for at least 4 damage and with all the fetch lands in this format you could force your oppenent to take danage just to cast anything.

Earlier - someone posted about a black splash.
I realise black has some strengths for this type of strategy - and even Tombstalker could work - but black has the same weakness to enchantments as red. Cards that would work could be Bloodchief Ascension, but I don't know how playable that could even be....
Other colours are stronger for a splash to deal with the weaknesses of red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBear

I always wondered why this type of deck doesn't run at least one Ankh of Mishra

---

I'm with you, Burn is a cheap deck - yes - but doesn't have to considered a budget deck only.
Stuff it - I'm gonna pop one in my deck for the hell of it.

Another thing that surprises me;
Considering this deck can easily function off few lands and we're mono-coloured (in the vast majority of build anyway), why do so few lists run mana-denial, like Wasteland and Rishadan Port?
I understand Burn doesn't wanna mulligan EVER - but considerng this deck struggles in the late game and really struggles against fast decks, I assumed that slowing our opponent would've been pretty useful?!?

In classic-burn ( no Lavamancer ) you play between 18 and 19 Lands. If u want to add Wastelands or Ports you would want to add 4, to make it functional.
If you do so, you cut the number of lands that are ablte to produce red mana by 4, to 14 or 15.
Plus you completely forgott about Price of Progress.
Price benefits from your opponent playing nonbasic lands. What's the point in playing Price, if you plan to destroy your opponents nonbasics?
Also Wastelands are ( quite similar to Price though ) easy to play around.

Aachie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slave

Another thing that surprises me;
Considering this deck can easily function off few lands and we're mono-coloured (in the vast majority of build anyway), why do so few lists run mana-denial, like Wasteland and Rishadan Port?

---

Why on Earth would this surprise you? Price of Progress is one of the best cards in the deck, playing Wasteland seems awful. [Ninja edit: Aachie beat me to it, I guess.] You're not really gaining tempo if you're reducing your clock, right? And sinking two mana into Port activations seems much worse than just casting your burn spells. Or perhaps you mean that Port is intended for the long game--when Burn has already won or is going to lose because the opponent stabalized? Rishadan Port is firmly a control card, Burn is one of the most aggressive decks around. The two just don't fit.

Destroying Lands is simply not the thing to focus on in burn.
Imagine this: Your opponent wins the dice roll, drops a Underground Sea (e.g.), your turn.
You drop a Wasteland, trigger it to destroy your opponents Underground Sea.
Now you and your opponent both have no lands in play. Literally nothing happened. You did not even cast a burn spell and will not be able to cast a 2cc spell or two 1cc spells next turn.

It also could be the case that your opponent drops the Land and drops a creature with it. Destroying the land after that feels kinda pointless.

The second round will look like this:
Your Opponent: "Hey, now I know that hes playing Wastelands in his burn deck, Im gonna play around 'em by dropping basic lands"
You: "Fuck..."

Aachie

Black splash has the same weakness of monored against enchantments... but you can play thoughtseize , duress, inquisition of kozilek to prevent your opponent from casting enchantments.
I think i would play 4 discard spells main deck with a black splash. This make burn competitive also against combo decks faster than us. Moreover, bump in the night is really strong,just another lava spike.