For a while now people have been bringing Goyf Sligh and straight Burn decks into my meta and its getting old. Burn isn't really like even playing magic, you just cast a burn spell at your opponent's head and repeat. The deck requires almost not interaction with the opponent you just burn them. Goyf Sligh is the same thing except it has 12ish creatures instead of 4 like Burn. What really annoys me is that its the SAME people every week playing straight burn decks. Why? Playing a straight burn isn't really like playing a real magic deck, its more like throwing rocks into a lake until you run out of rocks. I also feel really letdown if I end up losing to it because it doesn't feel like even playing magic. I think a game of magic should consist of actual thought rather than just which burn spell to cast. Am I the only one who thinks burn isn't like a real magic deck and cheated if lost too?
"I just shot Marvin in the face!"
"Why the fuck'd you do that??"
No.. It is a REAL Magic deck. It may be cheap, easy to build, and extremely noob friendly when it comes to piloting the deck... But it still remains a deck.
Sounds like you need a better deck or to just be a better player.
Who cares if she was dead, we did her anyway...
Side Boards: They're tech.
Team ICBE - We're so good at playing Threshold, we don't even play it.Originally Posted by Getsickanddie
Team Keg Stand - If only the kegs weren't empty...
Where's the interaction in MUC? Saying no to everything is non-interaction.
Where's the interaction in TES? Comboing out turn one is non-interaction.
Where's the interaction in Belcher? Comboing out turn one is non-interaction.
Where's the interaction in Solidarity? Comboing out in response to lethal damage/lethal combo/whatever is non-interaction.
I rarely lose to burn but I am just saying, it gets old. Anytime I bring Rock up there now I have COP Red in the SB. All of those combo deck mentioned have interactions aside from Belcher. TES interacts somewhat, but Belcher just goldfishes, thats it. But I never feel bad losing to Belcher because some thought went into it. Here is an example: does my hand have a kill source, yep, can I play it, ... yep. Typical Belcher hand. While playing a burn deck the most complicated thought is ... hmmm instant or sorcery or should I suspend Rift Bolt or cast Chain Lightning?
"I just shot Marvin in the face!"
"Why the fuck'd you do that??"
Have you actually ever played burn? Methinks not.
At one point in time Burn was an almost auto-pilot deck. Then CB/Top was printed and the players had to adapt. It is quite obvious you have never played Burn/Goyf Sligh against an active CB and Top. It requires A LOT of thinking and baiting at end of turns.
I'll echo JP's sentiment. Burn and Goyf Sligh may not be the most mentally demanding decks that you could put together and bring to a tournament, but they require a lot more thought than they used to. Properly timing burn spells, not over-extending, and baiting CB/Top players out to push through that game winning Price or Fireblast takes more effort than people give it credit for. It is also a fairly cheap and effective deck to bring to a tournament if you don't know what else to play and can at least take a solid stab at a sideboard.
Team Albany: What's Legacy?
You cannot know the sweetness of Victory, without first dwelling in the agony of Defeat.
Someone somewhere said, Burn is a Combo.dec where every spell you cast is part of the combo (obviously it's the slowest Combo.dec out there). I think that is pretty accurate, if you don't disrupt a Combo.dec it will goldfish you and that's never interessting for the victim (and most of the time not even for the combo player). If you DO disrupt it however the combo player has a hell of a hard time to pull off a win.
It's really all the same with Burn. So it seems pretty easy to play, but so is ANT/Belcher/Solidarity/... when nobody is trying to stop you.
Sneaky Pirates of Doom - Not really a Legacy Team anymore.
I dunno about the rest, but Belcher and Solidarity, for one, are definitely disruptable by denying certain of their cards/resources. Burn? Far less likely. They can kill you from the top of their deck.
Burn isn't a real deck... hmm... wow.
It has been said before, but CB/Top interactions are probably one of the most interactive and difficult parts of Magic when playing a burn deck. Much harder than "suspend Rift Bolt or cast Chain Lightning?"
Ever played burn against a deck called Goblins? Figuring out whether you should race them or control them is not an easy decision.
Gofy Sligh is even more tough to play because you actually have permanents in the deck. Overextending, pumping FoD, blocking or going for it, baiting removal, all of these things require thought.
When I won the Hadley tournament, and Rodney will speak to this, I played him round one and played around Counterbalance with a very interesting stack consisting of usually 2-3 different CMC spells per turn. I not only had to recognize what the correct play was from his position (in putting the right CMC on top), I then had to play around what he would do, without ever casting a 1 mana spell that I needed to resolve.
I actually caused him to break his own standstill at one point using a Rift Bolt and a Price of Progress, tell me that isn't difficult to do. (I cannot honestly remember what exactly happened, but it was very interesting and will probably never happen again).
I think it is very insulting to demean a deck just because you feel bad when you lose to it. Honestly, if I were the burn player, I would feel bad losing to The Rock. It should be an easy win in most cases.
Put some Kitchen Finks, Loxodon Hierarchs, Spike Feeders, Ravenous Baloths and recursion in your deck, backed up by the discard you should already run, and you should have a fighting chance against the deck. Don't be dumb and walk into a SB Sulfuric Vortex cuz you boarded out Grip/Deed/whatever.
This type of thread doesn't help our format or our community, and I believe it is an insult to every person on the board. Sure, a discussion about why you believe an under-powered deck has started performing well and has gotten popular is a great thread, saying that it isn't a REAL deck and complaining about it is childish and just plain dumb.
EPIC Syndicate
-My hero
-I don't think this one was a joke...
You also usually have 3-5 turns to either stop them or win yourself, against Belcher you have maybe 1-2 turns, and against Solidarity if you don't win on turn 1-3 you will likely lose unless you have lots of early disruption.
Man how I miss the burn/solidarity matches, those are epic.
Sorry about the dub, I hate editing in quotes.
EPIC Syndicate
-My hero
-I don't think this one was a joke...
The Burn player here in our meta took months to tune his deck, and mostly for the reason that he knew that throwing damage to just the opponent's dome wasn't going to win. In nearly all cases in this format, that's completely true.
Burn is hands down the most interactive deck you could be playing right now, because it has to choose whether to "waste" resources controlling the board, find outs to specific threats that can completely shut it down (CounterTop and Chalice, for example), and doing mental math with each and every spell they have in hand, draw, and cast.
Just because it's simple and straightforward on paper doesn't mean it's incapable of adaptation, and that is one of Burn's greatest (if only) strength when played and built right.
What the hell does "REAL deck" means? I know what a deck is. Burn is certainly a deck. I have no fucking idea what a REAL DECK is. From this thread, it seems that depending on the poster the definition can be "a deck that I like to play", "a deck that I like to play against", "an interactive deck", or "a deck that requires a large number of tactical choices to play".
It's fine to argue about whether Burn is any of these, but realise that there cannot be a moral judgement implied there (unless you follow a particularly retarded moral system). You don't have to like it - I personally loathe Belcher and moderately dislike Burn - but you don't get a pony either and you especially don't get to ride any fucking high horse. If after eating 22 points of instants and sorceries - because you were unprepared for a known, legal and not especially dominating 60-card list - you need someone to tell you that you're cute and special and those big meanies aren't REAL Magic players like you after all, grow the fuck up.
/rant
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
Quoted for truthery. Maybe the players in your meta aren't playing the deck carefully. Maybe they just auto-cast spells at you. Who knows? But to claim that Goyf-Sligh takes NO thought is ridiculous.
EVERY deck requires careful decisions. From Goyf Sligh to Ichorid to Landstill to Thresh. Hell, EVEN Flash required a certain amount of judgement (yes, I went there).
And when you comlain about the (supposed) non-interactive nature of GoyfSligh, I wonder if you have played against the latest AnT decks.
I can understand what Pulp wants to say... Burn is one of the most boring decks to play and to play against. (fast combo is even more boring to play against).
Nevertheless Burn is still a real deck, which wins. We have a T2 player at our local shop, who always plays Burn, too. He says, every other deck would be to complicated, he couldn't manage playing them.
But imo, Burn is still the easiest archetype to play. Every magic player will be able to play it to some success, without ever having seen the decklist.
There might be some decisions to be done against e.g. Counterbalance, but I think other decks which have problems with CB have the harder decisions to do.
This thread sucks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
