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:
Pure aggro didn't stop being played because it's "vulnerable". Aggro stopped being played because other decks that seek to invalidate strategies came around that killed faster, more efficiently, and more consistently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asthereal
Vulnerable to Batterskull and fast combo.Quote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
The new decks that came along actually all suck against Burn except for stuff with Batterskull.
More consistently? Don't make me laugh. Burn is one of the most consistent decks out there.
Killed faster? The fastest deck is TES, which has been around forever. The other fast combo is LED Dredge, which also has been around forever. The rest is slow combo (current ANT, OmniTell).
More efficiently? Yes, but ALL decks are more efficient than Burn.
The main problem with Burn is that only newbees play it. The pro's all want the Brainstorms and Ponders. They want the edge that such cantrip decks can give you. And they win because they play better, not because Burn is bad. You don't want to know how many reports from Joe Lossett I saw on Twitch where he should have lost a round against Burn, but didn't, because the opponent forgot a Vortex trigger or two.
Back when the good players still played Sligh/Red Deck Wins, there were always a couple of red decks at the top tables. But hey, I don't blame the good players. They don't like to lose to a Kitchen Finks, Rhox War Monk or Batterskull. Neither do I. Good thing Naya Blitz is now so fast it can actually race a Batterskull.
The only thing that's consistent about Burn is that you can always count on the deck to auto-lose one in three games to itself. Which is why pros choose to play Brainstorms and Ponders for actual consistency instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asthereal
Well, "prison" aims at the opponent not playing spells at all, while "tempo" attempts to slow you down far enough that it's own threats kill before the opponent has set up his/her gameplan. We can sure discuss where Wasteland+Thalia+Flickerwisp+Port end up on the scale between "tempo" and "prison", but I've seen people labeling D&T as "control" supertype which is totally off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
While I think your characterization of DnT as "Aggro-Control" is arguably correct, I think the "Control" characterization can be argued for as well. DnT is far less aggressive than RUG Delver and most of its creatures are chosen for their ability to disrupt the opponent's game plan, not their power and toughness. While I'm aware the control is not usually associated with creatures, DnT strikes me as being closer to Stoneblade or Shardless than Delver, simply because it relies on heavy disruption to make up for its slow clock (of course, this depends on whether you consider Stoneblade and Shardless to be "control").Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
It's just that the disruption solely targets the mana of your opponent which is "Prison" or "tempo" territory while "control" in this game usually indicates that you interact with the cards your opponent actually plays. Shardless and Blade are "aggro-control" supertypes as well, but the subtype is "midrange" based on the gameplan to trump opposing threats/plays with more expensive but powerful ones (like 3cmc ones; Agent->Visions, TNN, Jace, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
Ah, alright. I think our disagreement had more to do with the actual definition of "control" than anything else. "Prison" makes more sense as a descriptor I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
The only thing about Burn that is consistent is the fact that it consists of 18 land and 42 cards that do damage?Quote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
Dredge loses to itself less than 20% of the time, and Dredge is the most inconsistent deck I know.
You just troll this thread with nonsense. Some here would appreciate you quit doing that.
mmm! Tell me more about how linear aggro is superior to compact combos in blue shells!
To massively understate the situation, your contributions to this thread have been less than intelligent or relevant. It's obvious to anyone with any cognitive function that Asthereal was referring to the consistency of Burn and not making a value judgment regarding its superiority or lack thereof to blue shell decks. Regardless, apparently Burn can still win Opens which is worth something.Quote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
I understand how he meant "consistent", but it's also worth noting that a deck comprised entirely of sixty basic Forests would also be "consistent" by that metric. There is more to consistency than just seeing how many times you can jam copies of the same card into the deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
Consistency is not necessarily correlated with deck power level or the nebulous "goodness" of the deck. For example I would argue that High Tide is more "consistent" than Omnitell. Tide mulligans far less in my experience and goes off like clockwork on turn 4 (while being generally less 'clunky' in terms of card function), but Omnitell is more powerful to an extent that any disparity in consistency simply does not matter. Burn is consistent, and that's exactly the point. No direct reading of a deck's quality can be drawn from its consistency alone, although consistency certainly helps if other conditions - i.e. power level, matchups etc. are met.Quote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
It's more a denial and tempo style deck yes, but it does have aggro elements in that you win with batterskulls that connect with help from mom while Thalia makes spells harder to cast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tylert
Unless you are playing Final Fortune, Bolting yourself, or dying to your own Eidolon, you should never lose to yourself when playing Burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
If you mean that the deck will sometimes lose games that it would have won had it drawn better cards, that is true of every deck. A deck's win-rate is relevant. The nature of its losses is no relevant.
This! it's not only obvious things like triggers, but more subtle things too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asthereal
New players don't recognise the opposing decks and do not understand the MU. They don't know how to fight combo, they don't sideboard right and they don't mulligan right. They don't know when to divert damage to kill an important utility creature.
Most Legacy players find Burn very dull to play - even more so than S&T, which at least has appeal to Johnies and Timmys alike. For a good player to choose Burn, they would need some pretty hard evidence that it would be stronger than their other choices. With Burns results in the hands of newbs, that will never happen.