Just a question do you still think burn has a place in the format? If not what good aggro decks are going strong in the format?
Printable View
Just a question do you still think burn has a place in the format? If not what good aggro decks are going strong in the format?
Pure (linear) aggro is rightfully dead in LegacyQuote:
Originally Posted by Tahumatu2010
Lemnear is right. Any aggro right now has to have a secondary plan to last, whether it's denial like DnT, control like deathblade or delver, or a combo/lock to finish the game like elves or imperial painter. Playing a creature and turning them sideways doesn't work like it used to.
Of those I'd classify only Elves as an aggro deck. That deck does little but turn creatures sideways and burn your face. All the others have controlling main gameplans and the beatdowns are incidental at best.
Elves is an aggro-combo archetype as you knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
I know. What they do is still turning creatures sideways and melting faces :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Whoever just won SCG Indy with Burn must have really not wanted this thread to stand for even a day.
Is it really proper to classify Burn as aggro? Aggro is about swarming with creatures with some spell backup, while Burn is spell-based and only plays creatures that are basically burn spells with power/toughness attached.
A "dead" deck won a SCG IQ yesterday.
Somtimes Burn is treated as a 7-cards combo.
Burn still has the raw power to win, but if you run into someone who can disrupt your game plan it can fall apart, and it has a hard time killing before turn 3 meaning it has trouble racing allot of combo decks.
It suffers from the stigma that many players think a budget deck can not be good, and dismiss them out of hand in favor for more expensive decks, Or to simple a deck. Plus the sheer # of people who believe you need to run Brainstorm + Fetch in order to do well. As well for many players is is not a fun deck to play, personally I always found is a good deck for a short period when I want something straight forward but not fun as a long term deck.
Edit :
Yes, no other term actually works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
No, that is a style/subset of aggro decks. Burn is a classic aggro deck, and the quintessential creature light aggro deck. This is a problem of bad naming conventions that is abundant in MtG (Like the idiocy of calling creature based decks "Fair decks" when the ONLY non-propoganda term that works as a descriptor is "conventional") Burn is a aggro deck under the Arrgo/Control/Combo pillars of the game. what most people call Aggro is a subset of actual aggro strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
Well Burn simply isn't aggro or combo, it has it's own "pillar": Burn...
Good job for the nr1 finish, haha.
Actually with Eidolon burn got a pretty plan vs combo!
Saying burn is "dead" is classical Source hyperbole.
Burn is much more a combo deck than an aggro deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmcc13
I agree with that. But now that current decklists operate with 11 to 15 creatures that stay in play, it really should be categorized as Red Deck Wins ( or sligh or MRA or whatever) and thus in aggro decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasim0ff
Burn was a combo deck but disappeared with the cheap creatures improving a lot.
DnT is not an aggro deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rishadan
I would describe the term Aggro as the following: a strategy focuses on dealing maximum amount of damage in the shortest number of turns.
That is not to be confused with combo: a strategy focuses on utilizing a combination of minimum of two or more cards to create a powerful interaction that would result in incredible advantages if resolves.
When discussing strategies, one word that is often overlooked is synergy. Affinity is an Aggro deck that obviously has incredible synergy by abusing the affinity mechanics. Often Aggro decks have one or more synergistic characters, but not to the point one would classify the deck as a combo deck.
Therefore, for the reasonings stated above, Burn would belong to Aggro imho.
I have no clue how this should be true. You play only creatures and spells which focus on dealing the maximum amount of damage possible in the shortest time. Cards in this deck have absolutely no interaction with each other either. Burn is 100% a linear aggro deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasim0ff
It's an "aggro-control" supertype of the "tempo" subtype classification just like RUG Delver, pairing a creature-based clock with disruptive elements which choke your opponent on mana and hinder him/her to develop a proper game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tylert
And now I'm waiting for the first narrow-minded comments to show up telling me that "aggro-control" and "tempo" have to be blue-only, "because Daze + FoW" and that the identical strategic approach is no base to describe a a strategic subtype classification lol
Prison feels more apt for D&T than tempo does. It's pretty much Shop.dec but less abysmally broken.
Pure Aggro is not played, because it's vulnerable, but the Delver decks usually just lose to it.
In certain metas I am sure Burn and Naya Blitz could still be very strong.
Actually, I am thinking about giving Naya Blitz a shot again. Relive some good old days. :cool: