[Deck] Burn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamfrightenedtoo

as for Grim Lavamancer, I do not love the Manancer, some do some dont. But if you were to run it, why not run Cursed scroll? your in top deck mode so quickly, it would help in flood situations the same with figure, the activation is on top of the mana curve, but in top deck mode, it is awesome to have in play. I may be championing this card because I desperately would like to hold onto my Pox days, and have played it in Pox forever, but I loved it in Pox, and would like to try it in Burn, but have yet to do it.

---

The main reason for why Grim Lavamancer is a better choice over Cursed Scroll is because it just costs 1 mana to activate. Also, the condition that will allow Grim Lavamancer to be efficient is much easier to attain (use Fetches!) when compared to Cursed Scroll. In summary, Grim Lavamancer can provide you with ammunition as early as turn 2 (which is a very good alternative to a turn 1 Goblin Guide, especially in certain match-ups), and can allow you to play additional cards in a turn because of its low activation cost.

For reference, I used to also dislike Grim Lavamancer because I thought that it was slow, there are better options, etc. At the end of the day, though, the creature got things done, and I'd say that, in building a Burn deck, you must have a very good reason for not running Grim Lavamancer (like not using Fetches). At the end of the day, this is just based on my experience, and yours might tell you otherwise.

Kind Regards,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by troopatroop

The reason Figure is good in Burn, is because the deck ALWAYS runs out of gas. If you haven't won, and you tried, you're going to be without cards, so Figure is the perfect mana sink for the deck. I also noted the lack of Grim Lavamancer, and while it's true that it's not a very "fast card", he's also playing Figure! Weird, I also don't like FoD. The reason I don't like it, is because Delver and Nacatl are much better one drops to be playing. Splashing in Legacy is so easy to do, that unless you really want Price to deal 0 to you, there's little reason not to be playing the best creatures. Hellspark, Keldon Marauders, and Figure just don't do it for me.

---

I believe that avoiding the "splash" also means that your mana base will be much more reliable (i.e. avoiding Wasteland, always having the correct color of mana for your spells, etc.).

I personally don't run Figure of Destiny too, but the card has definitely proven itself, and at the end of the day, we can't argue with the results (with Burn having won the last SCG tourney using FOD, HSE, and KM).

Kind Regards,
jares

Hi all! Austin Yost victory has encouraged me to try a Burn build without fetches.

Taking his list as reference (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/dec...2&iddeck=55009) I'm not sure about the following choices:

Figure of Destiny: I think that it's a great card for Burn, but FOD, Keldon and Hellspark in the same list don't seem to curve very well.

Flame Rift: IMO it's also a great Burn spell but I think that it's not the best time to play it with Canadian Threshold and UR Burn as Decks to Beat.

Barbarian Ring: I'm not sure if it is worth considering that Wasteland is one of the most important cards in Legacy. Anyway, I haven't tested it yet.


I think that one-drops are important so if I didn't run FOD, I'd like to replace it for another drop. The problem is that the rest of red one drops available are a little poor... I was thinking on Stromkirk Noble. Has anybody tested Noble in Legacy? Its evasion isn't too much meaningful in this format but it could still help against some common creatures: Delver of Secrets, Snapcaster Mage or Knight of the Reliquary. The main downside is that it's a horrible topdeck but I could palliate it if I also ran Magma Jet instead of Flame Rift.

What do you think about Magma Jet? Maybe too slow? I guess that it can work well in a build without fetches. It could help me to prevent flooded situations (I need some tool considering that I would have neither Barbarian Ring nor FOD to help) or even the contrary if I need to play some 3cost spell (Volcanic Fallout or Sulfuric Vortex). Also, it can kill some concerning creatures (Delver and Stoneforge).


In summary I was thinking about trying this list:

19 Mountain
4 Stromkirk Noble
4 Goblin Guide
3 Hellspark Elemental
3 Keldon Marauders
4 Lava Spike
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Magma Jet
4 Price of Progress
4 Rift Bolt
4 Fireblast
SB: 2 Volcanic Fallout
SB: 2 Sulfuric Vortex
SB: 3 Smash to Smithereens
SB: 4 Pyroblast
SB: 4 Faerie Macabre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dewin

I think that one-drops are important so if I didn't run FOD, I'd like to replace it for another drop. The problem is that the rest of red one drops available are a little poor... I was thinking on Stromkirk Noble. Has anybody tested Noble in Legacy? Its evasion isn't too much meaningful in this format but it could still help against some common creatures: Delver of Secrets, Snapcaster Mage or Knight of the Reliquary. The main downside is that it's a horrible topdeck but I could palliate it if I also ran Magma Jet instead of Flame Rift.

---

I believe that the main downside to Stromkirk Noble is not that it's a horrible top-deck (and that by itself is pretty bad already), but that it's best possible scenario, which is being cast on the first turn, is very underwhelming. It deals only 1 damage on turn two, and that is given that your opponent simply allowed you to get him through. It will be able to do a total of 3 damage by turn 3, given that you've had two uncontested attacks. Consider that, by comparison, Spark Elemental also costs 1-mana, but is able to deal 3 damage in only 1 turn, and also has Trample (which makes Stromkirk Noble's evasion pale in comparison) - and even then Spark Elemental has never been an auto-include in Burn decks! :laugh:

I hope that helps. I expect that, with further testing, you'll also reach this conclusion.

Kind Regards,
jares

@Jares
what you said about stromkirk noble is both true, and what I hate about Keldon Marauders. when Marauders came out in Planechase(I htink) I loved them for Standard. I thought for Standard they were perfect. Burn, or even Sligh, I cant stand it. It is nice having the five damage, but if it is five damage. Against Zoo it is alright, you can kill just about anything Zoo throws at you, then shock your opponent, but still I hate it, it is too slow for the pay off.

If you cast a Reckless Abandon on one, it would be okay. that would be 6 damage for 3 mana, and would be even more of a profit if you were able to successfully attack with it, for 9 damage with a cost of 3.

I was thinking of taking out Flamerift, for Reckless Abandon, I run enough creatures, and a few of them are dead draws when you draw into 2 of them anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamfrightenedtoo

@Jares
what you said about stromkirk noble is both true, and what I hate about Keldon Marauders. when Marauders came out in Planechase(I htink) I loved them for Standard. I thought for Standard they were perfect. Burn, or even Sligh, I cant stand it. It is nice having the five damage, but if it is five damage. Against Zoo it is alright, you can kill just about anything Zoo throws at you, then shock your opponent, but still I hate it, it is too slow for the pay off.

If you cast a Reckless Abandon on one, it would be okay. that would be 6 damage for 3 mana, and would be even more of a profit if you were able to successfully attack with it, for 9 damage with a cost of 3.

I was thinking of taking out Flamerift, for Reckless Abandon, I run enough creatures, and a few of them are dead draws when you draw into 2 of them anyway.

---

Hehe, I've also had the same idea when I was first looking into my options for Burn, and I've found that the inconsistencies presented by Reckless Abandon (at least for Burn) is just not worth it. I would like for you to test this and see for yourself - it's an experience that will help, not only in Burn, but in deck building in general.

Regarding Keldon Marauders, I would like to note that I do not regard this card in the same way as Stromkirk Noble. The weaknesses of Stromkirk Noble (bad top deck, underwhelming board presence) are made up for by Keldon Marauders (to some degree) because of the following reasons:

• Keldon Marauders deals damage immediately (however small at 1 damage).
• Keldon Marauders' best case is well worth the investment at 5 damage for 2 mana.
• In the worst case, Keldon Marauders will deal 2 damage and affect the board as a 3/3 body (as a blocker, taking out removal, etc.).

Also, Keldon Marauders has the following traits that Stromkirk Noble cannot compete with:

• Keldon Marauders is a formidable blocker (if only on the first turn) at 3/3.
• Keldon Marauders is a formidable attacker at 3/3.
• Because of its Fading ability, Keldon Marauders is a unpopular target for removal. It's also much more difficult to kill because of its bulk.
• Keldon Marauders doesn't have to attack to affect the playing field.

Now, I'm not saying that Keldon Marauders is an auto-include in Burn - I'm just saying that the comparison of Keldon Marauders and Stromkirk Noble is out of the question.

Kind Regards,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jares

I believe that the main downside to Stromkirk Noble is not that it's a horrible top-deck (and that by itself is pretty bad already), but that it's best possible scenario, which is being cast on the first turn, is very underwhelming. It deals only 1 damage on turn two, and that is given that your opponent simply allowed you to get him through. It will be able to do a total of 3 damage by turn 3, given that you've had two uncontested attacks. Consider that, by comparison, Spark Elemental also costs 1-mana, but is able to deal 3 damage in only 1 turn, and also has Trample (which makes Stromkirk Noble's evasion pale in comparison) - and even then Spark Elemental has never been an auto-include in Burn decks! :laugh:

---

I agree that Noble doesn't look great and it's in fact a lower quality creature than FOD. I just want to try it because a non mana intensive one drop fits better with the rest of my creatures. About Spark Elemental I'd say that it's more like a Burn spell.
The good point about creatures like FOD and Noble is that they are a constant threat. Also against decks like Merfolks or Elves they can let you take a “Sligh role” without being worried of losing gas. Anyway, neither do I have too much hope on the vampire. I'll try to give you my conclusion after testing.

About the rest of the creatures I'm only confident of Goblin Guide… It's difficult to evaluate Keldon and Hellspark because they are sometimes great in some situations and also pretty bad in others. At the moment I'm running them because they seem very good against UR Burn and Canadian and also there aren't better creatures of the same cost...xD About Keldon, at first I thought that it was very good against Zoo and Flame Rift was bad in that matchup, but now I'm not sure if it's more close to the contrary. What I'm trying to say is that the fastest way is probably the best for this deck, so neither am I sure about Magma Jet.

Going to the side I'm thinking about getting the 4 Sulfuric Vortex cutting Volcanic Fallout. Fallouts don't seem too useful without Goblins and Merfolks being on top, and on the contrary Vortex looks great against Blade and Maverick.

against Zoo, I cant think of any card I would want to use less than Flamerift. You are dealing yourself 4 damage, as well as your opponent. Which is normally fine, until your opponent casts Lightning Helix. At that point you successfully dealt your opponent 1 damage, and yourself 4.
Lightning Helix is already hard enough to deal with, without dealing yourself damage too.

I am almost fully on board with Keldon Marauders. The best case scenario is 5 damage, which is pretty beastly for only two mana. the absolute worst case scenario is it gets Bolted. Pathing it would be okay, you get a land, and they waste a path on a creature that will die in either the next turn, or in two turns. (No one would, but as I said, the absolute worst case scenario.) No. Maybe the worst case scenario is, you use it as a chump blocker to a 3/4 Tarmagoyf, and have no burn spell to finish-move the goyf. Still, unless this was a late game, and the goyf would have killed you, you normally wouldn't do such a thing.

The more and more I look at it, I think I would like to kill a creature with a Marauder, than not. I don't know, I have put very little thought into that; it doesn't sound like a bad idea to kill of would be attackers though.

As for Figure of Destiny. Even while I was playing Pox I have taken Burn to late game. So I imagine other decks can take it there. I do not know about any of you, but while playing Pox (and I mean Pox, I do not mean Smallpox decks) There were times when I could cast a Corrupt, a Nightmare, or an un Delved Tombstalker. ALl this while playing a deck that kills off my own lands. In Burn/Sligh you do not kill off your own lands, and I even ran the same amount of lands in Pox that are normally ran in Burn. I can only imagine there will be times when you draw more than 3 lands. In Burn this would be annoying. FoD makes flooding kind of okay. Nothing can replace Lightning Bolt or Chain Lighting. When you get flooded though, I would take an FoD being on the board, than not.

Another funny (funny to me) thing.
Goblin Guide: while I was playing Pox, and or Affinity, every time my opponent cast GG I was always happy. I took my 4-6 damage before killing it, and took the free lands, and then killed the card at my leisure. I was so willing to replace Burn/Sligh with my struggling pet deck Pox because Burn/Sligh was a deck I always thought I could pilot, and would enjoy doing so. While playing against the deck I always thought, "I would never run Goblin Guide in my build" It is ridiculous, that you would let your opponent get extra lands, and slightly mill there deck in their favor.

I thought this way, because even if I was playing Affinity, (my other pet deck) I am a Pox player at heart. I usually say I am a Burn player at heart, because I have always played Pox, the way Burn players play Burn. But, at heart I am a Poxer. So giving my opponent lands was always an incredulous idea.

In Burn/Sligh and Goblins. It doesn't matter, your opponent can have their lands. It is a hastey 2/2 that drops turn one. Most people should love to give up 4-6 life for it. But, I never understand why the card gets Path'd so often. I look down tables and always see it getting hated on. I never cared. I wouldn't care if my opponent cast it against me now while playing Burn. Most decks have creatures that can kill off a would be attacking GG, but people love to hate it out. Which if anyone could tell me why, I would love to know.
I have drawn 3 Guides and two lands in my opening hand a few times while play testing since Acquiring the deck, I only hope I can pull that off in a few games in my coming tourneys.

all for now,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamfrightenedtoo

against Zoo, I cant think of any card I would want to use less than Flamerift. You are dealing yourself 4 damage, as well as your opponent. Which is normally fine, until your opponent casts Lightning Helix.

---

I'd board out FOD or Stromkirk Noble against Zoo, but not Flame Rift. Against Zoo you need to be very fast because they are more stable than us. In this old Patrick Sullivan's report, he talks about Flame Rift against Zoo: http://www.thestarkingtonpost.com/articles/_/1488

I don't know if it has already been discussed, but what would be the use of Planeswalkers in burn? I'm thinking about Koth for his ability to animate mountains or Chandra the firebrand for the double damage thing. Obviously they would only be good mid to late-game. Since we lack the power (and stability) during late game, wouldn't they improve that? Or is the inclusion of Planeswalkers a sacrilege for burnplayers?

I think its because chandra is both slow and not really efficient: for 4 mana she deals 1 damage turn 1, and ususally 3 damage turn 2 (by forking a lightning bolt or some variant). That's 4 damage for 4 mana that can't be split up into 2 turns. It's not mana efficient and slow.

I'd rather try stormblood berserker (SB) than stromkirk noble (SN).
most of the time, SB will be at 3/3 and he needs two creatures to block it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somethingdotdotdot

I think its because chandra is both slow and not really efficient: for 4 mana she deals 1 damage turn 1, and ususally 3 damage turn 2 (by forking a lightning bolt or some variant). That's 4 damage for 4 mana that can't be split up into 2 turns. It's not mana efficient and slow.

---

Okay, thanks for that answer. Hadn"t thought it that way. But Koth gives you 4 damage immediatly, so that's pretty efficient to me. I'll try it out this week and if it's positive, I'll let you guys know.

Sorry if this has already been discussed but I didn't read the whole thread and search came up empty.

Anyways I was thinking about getting into Legacy again and Burn seems like a way to do that without spending obscene amounts of money.

So I remembered a deck called Ankh Sligh that some people played a few years ago and while it was never really popular or widely played I always thought it looked like it was fun to play.

It looked something like this:
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Shrapnel Blast
4 Flame Rift
3 Price of Progress
3 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Fireblast

4 Ankh of mishra
4 Tangle Wire
4 Chrome Mox
4 Isochron Scepter

15 Mountain
4 Mishra's Factory

Some played Great Furnace instead of Factories, a single Fork and/or Demonfire and without Isochron Scepter but all in all this is how I remember the deck.

My question is, is such a deck (with modifications of course, this is an old list) still viable in today's Legacy meta or is regular Burn just plain better?

Any answers would be greatly appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phyrexian_Negator

.

So I remembered a deck called Ankh Sligh that some people played a few years ago and while it was never really popular or widely played I always thought it looked like it was fun to play.

My question is, is such a deck (with modifications of course, this is an old list) still viable in today's Legacy meta or is regular Burn just plain better?

---

If your meta has a lot of mavs, zoo, RUG and other decks that love to abuse fetches, then i think Ankh Sligh can have a good chance, otherwise no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phyrexian_Negator

Sorry if this has already been discussed but I didn't read the whole thread and search came up empty.

Anyways I was thinking about getting into Legacy again and Burn seems like a way to do that without spending obscene amounts of money.

So I remembered a deck called Ankh Sligh that some people played a few years ago and while it was never really popular or widely played I always thought it looked like it was fun to play.

It looked something like this:
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Shrapnel Blast
4 Flame Rift
3 Price of Progress
3 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Fireblast

4 Ankh of mishra
4 Tangle Wire
4 Chrome Mox
4 Isochron Scepter

15 Mountain
4 Mishra's Factory

Some played Great Furnace instead of Factories, a single Fork and/or Demonfire and without Isochron Scepter but all in all this is how I remember the deck.

My question is, is such a deck (with modifications of course, this is an old list) still viable in today's Legacy meta or is regular Burn just plain better?

Any answers would be greatly appreciated.

---

I also had dreams of being able to build Ankh Burn, but as soon as I got my set of Ankhs, I found out for myself that the tried-and-tested Burn lists are more reliable. The Ankh builds look like they're more explosive, but the inconsistencies brought about by the inclusions of these cards offset the benefits of the explosiveness of Ankh of Mishra and Shrapnel Blast.

I'd love to see someone successfully break that build though, so I encourage you to do some testing and let us know what you think :tongue:

Cheers,
jares

Quote:

---

So I remembered a deck called Ankh Sligh that some people played a few years ago and while it was never really popular or widely played I always thought it looked like it was fun to play.

It looked something like this:
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Shrapnel Blast
4 Flame Rift
3 Price of Progress
3 Sulfuric Vortex
3 Fireblast

4 Ankh of mishra
4 Tangle Wire
4 Chrome Mox
4 Isochron Scepter

15 Mountain
4 Mishra's Factory

Some played Great Furnace instead of Factories, a single Fork and/or Demonfire and without Isochron Scepter but all in all this is how I remember the deck.

My question is, is such a deck (with modifications of course, this is an old list) still viable in today's Legacy meta or is regular Burn just plain better?

Any answers would be greatly appreciated.

---

i think the deck your referring to is here:http://www.deckcheck.de/deck.php?id=12619
do a search at that site.you should come up a few different versions.

and it is fun to play! the look on your opponents face when you imprint a bolt or magma jet or even a shrapnel blast to the scepter is just priceless!

having said that, i found it to be a little clunky.having to pitch cards to chrome mox sucks.especially with this deck.i thought about making some changes to it like replacing the moxes with ensaring bridge and then adding a permanent damage source like lavamancer or cursed scroll and then some filter with divining top.it just seemed like if i did not get an explosive start i would lose slowly but surely. perhaps the changes i mentioned might give it a better chance at winning?

Urray to burn !!!

Second consecutive StarCity tournament :cool:

People are still not taking burn seriously!

On this metagame is bananas :smile:

Congratulations!!!!

the deck that is placing is really Sligh.
People probably should not take the deck very seriously. You need to be a good player in order to win with it.

how can you say the deck is sligh?
Because it runs figure of destiny and only 28 burn spells?

you need to be a good player to win with any deck....