[Deck] Burn

[baghdadbob]

With such a small land count fetch lands just seem so greedy in this deck. Although I could be wrong I am probably one of the only people in this thread that think browbeat is good... Contributing to the thread, I think it is very important that people run an ample amount of creatures in burn so that they can avoid the super akward game 2 and 3 of being shut out completely by turn 0 leyline of sanctity. Keldon M + Goblin Guide + Hellspark seem imperative. I know that I usually play a deck with white and I always play 4x leyline in the side to mess with tes and burn. I could be wrong though, I have been before.

[Kich867]

Anyone else with test results for playing Fetch Lands?

Cheers,
jares

I could. I happen to own pretty much every card for burn inherently through UR Delver, but burn is a bit more interesting of a deck.

I think I'm only missing flame rift, but I'm not sure how I feel about that card in general.

I was wondering if anyone has put any thought into a point I brought up earlier; that for burn to maximize it's probability of a turn 3 win it requires 10 cards, given that being on the draw is something that can be done 100% of the time, it makes sense to me that being on the draw with burn is actually more optimal than being on the play. Your opponent has one less card, you have one more card, and your routes to a turn 3 win are substantially easier. Obviously certain matchups dictate whether this is optimal, but I think that for a large majority of them, having 10 cards by turn 3 instead of 9 (given that your opponent should frequently be within bolt range by turn 3) is ideal.

I would also put forth that any disruption your opponent would play (IE: discard, counterspells) aren't any more impacting while being on the draw, since it's usually a 1:1 trade, and those trades even out given that you have an extra card (so the turn 1 bolt that got through without contest is still going to happen even when you're on the draw).

[Kich867]

With such a small land count fetch lands just seem so greedy in this deck. Although I could be wrong I am probably one of the only people in this thread that think browbeat is good... Contributing to the thread, I think it is very important that people run an ample amount of creatures in burn so that they can avoid the super akward game 2 and 3 of being shut out completely by turn 0 leyline of sanctity. Keldon M + Goblin Guide + Hellspark seem imperative. I know that I usually play a deck with white and I always play 4x leyline in the side to mess with tes and burn. I could be wrong though, I have been before.

When you say ample amount, are you referring to >12? Red really doesn't have many good creatures available to it, leylines don't seem that common.

[baghdadbob]

It may not be that common, you maybe right. All i'm trying to say is that it gives you ANOTHER way of getting there, which can be very important. And when I say ample I do mean just those 12 creatures. Them plus a pop or 2 can end a game against a well prepared opponent. I bring this up because of the large amount of burn being played now that it is a dtb. I suggest these creatures as an early response to the leylines in which I predict will start to appear. It is sort of an early counter measure in order to keep the deck going strong. Although like I have already said I could be wrong, I have been before.

[Kich867]

It may not be that common, you maybe right. All i'm trying to say is that it gives you ANOTHER way of getting there, which can be very important. And when I say ample I do mean just those 12 creatures. Them plus a pop or 2 can end a game against a well prepared opponent. I bring this up because of the large amount of burn being played now that it is a dtb. I suggest these creatures as an early response to the leylines in which I predict will start to appear. It is sort of an early counter measure in order to keep the deck going strong. Although like I have already said I could be wrong, I have been before.

I feel that the amount of non-targeting burns (Flame Rift, PoP) and the creatures currently being run, even maindeck burn wouldn't have a terrible time against leylines.

Question, if Keldon Marauder's comes into play against an opponent with a Leyline up, theoretically you would have to target yourself with it right? The opponent has shroud and the ability still has a valid target.

[jares]

With such a small land count fetch lands just seem so greedy in this deck. Although I could be wrong I am probably one of the only people in this thread that think browbeat is good... Contributing to the thread, I think it is very important that people run an ample amount of creatures in burn so that they can avoid the super akward game 2 and 3 of being shut out completely by turn 0 leyline of sanctity. Keldon M + Goblin Guide + Hellspark seem imperative. I know that I usually play a deck with white and I always play 4x leyline in the side to mess with tes and burn. I could be wrong though, I have been before.

I wouldn't say that running Fetch Lands is greedy - I would say that it's efficient. By running Fetch Lands, you essentially still have 20 "placeholders" that would allow you to safely draw lands in your opening hand. The good thing about these placeholders is that, as soon as you've used them, they also lessen the probability that you'll be drawing more lands than necessary, not to mention that they also feed Grim Lavamancer very efficiently. Having said these points, I believe that Burn is able to maximize the use of Fetch Lands in its unique way, which would be somewhat counter-intuitive given that it's designed to be mono-colored.

For reference, I find that an example of being "greedy" would be running less than 19 lands (the numbers would speak for themselves).

Regards,
jares

[jares]

I was wondering if anyone has put any thought into a point I brought up earlier; that for burn to maximize it's probability of a turn 3 win it requires 10 cards, given that being on the draw is something that can be done 100% of the time, it makes sense to me that being on the draw with burn is actually more optimal than being on the play. Your opponent has one less card, you have one more card, and your routes to a turn 3 win are substantially easier. Obviously certain matchups dictate whether this is optimal, but I think that for a large majority of them, having 10 cards by turn 3 instead of 9 (given that your opponent should frequently be within bolt range by turn 3) is ideal.

I would also put forth that any disruption your opponent would play (IE: discard, counterspells) aren't any more impacting while being on the draw, since it's usually a 1:1 trade, and those trades even out given that you have an extra card (so the turn 1 bolt that got through without contest is still going to happen even when you're on the draw).

The first thing that came to mind regarding "choosing to go on the draw" is Goblin Guide. Being on the play surely improves the effectiveness of this card, and I believe that this also applies to Grim Lavamancer. Choosing to be on the draw could possibly make more sense to RogueBuild's configuration (which does not have creatures), given that you'd want your opponent to commit their creatures into play first, then you can respond to their play by casting sweepers. I'd be interested to hear about what he might add to your suggestion.

Generally, though, the aggressive nature of most, if not all, of our cards implies that being on the play would be much more beneficial - we get to deal first blood, which would usually mean that our opponent would likely have to be on the defensive, we'll have to deal with fewer of our opponent's resources, and we'll also have more resources at our disposal during our turn. Theoretically, there could be match-ups where choosing to be on the draw could be more beneficial, but my experience, and my understanding of our options, suggests otherwise. It is indeed something worth exploring though.

Regards,
jares

[jares]

It may not be that common, you maybe right. All i'm trying to say is that it gives you ANOTHER way of getting there, which can be very important. And when I say ample I do mean just those 12 creatures. Them plus a pop or 2 can end a game against a well prepared opponent. I bring this up because of the large amount of burn being played now that it is a dtb. I suggest these creatures as an early response to the leylines in which I predict will start to appear. It is sort of an early counter measure in order to keep the deck going strong. Although like I have already said I could be wrong, I have been before.

I also really like Sulfuric Vortex as an answer to Leyline of Sanctity, as it's more difficult to address as an Enchantment (with an unblockable, triggered ability) when compared to Creatures that would just be magnets to Swords to Plowshares and Path to Exile (given that the majority of decks that run this leyline will also be running White), not to mention that it also prevents life gain on the side.

Cheers,
jares

[Mindlash]

Seems like a nice addition to burn :-)

[Curby]

So first of all, it's kind of like Browbeat. Giving an opponent a choice is always bad. However, I can't imagine a situation where the opponent would prefer to take the damage, as it turns this card into a better bolt. So the real question is: how good is a 4/3 for R? It's efficient on mana, but doesn't affect the board. It's arguably a worse late-game topdeck than Goblin Guide because it can't provide surprise damage. About the only benefit is that it can survive a Volcanic Fallout and then swing.

[catmint]

It is like browbeat but a supreme 1 drop and not a clunky 3. Sure they have they choice of damage versus creaure but you plan to play it turn 1.. what choice do they really have?

Did you just seriously ask the question: How good is a 4/3 for R?
What do you mean with it does not affect the board? what can block it on turn2? Also in the later game they need to devote a blocker for it, which can help... so he does affect the board

[DragoFireheart]

Seems like a nice addition to burn :-)

It's like Browbeat but not bad.

He's either:

A) 4 damage bolt
B) 4/3 for 1.

I guess as a top deck he's bad late game but that 4/3 body is pretty impressive. He warrants testing. Between him and Thunderous Wrath burn is going to be having a good time.

[Tenebroleso]

28/04 ... NEW 61 CARDS BURN ...

\\ Legacy (20)
12x Mountain
4x Arid Mesa
4x Scalding Tarn

\\ Botti (26)
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lava Spike
4x Rift Bolt
4x Fireblast
3x Sulfuric Vortex
3x Thunderous Wrath

\\ Creature (15)
4x Goblin Guide
4x Hellspark Elemental
4x Grim Lavamancer
3x Vexing Devil

\\ Side (15)
4x Pyroblast / Red Elemental Blast
3x Pyrostatic Pillar
2x Chaos Warp
2x Smash to Smithereens
1x Relic of Progenitus
1x Tormod's Crypt
1x Farie Macabre
1x Surgical Extraction

[Kich867]

It's like Browbeat but not bad.

He's either:

A) 4 damage bolt
B) 4/3 for 1.

I guess as a top deck he's bad late game but that 4/3 body is pretty impressive. He warrants testing. Between him and Thunderous Wrath burn is going to be having a good time.

I think people don't realize how unbelievably broken a 4/3 for 1 mana is. Like, are we really at the point in magic where a 4/3 for 1 isn't good enough? Maybe power creep keeps happening because whenever batshit insanely broken cards are printed people are like "Meh..." .

The reality is, people will often just take the damage. I don't know why anyone wouldn't. If you drop this first turn unless they have removal in-hand they'll take the damage. Which gives you good insight to what kind of hand they're packing.

Mana efficient beater doesn't even begin to describe this card..

[MD.Ghost]

a deck, that plays goblin guide and hope that he does 4-x damage for one mana in terms of efficient must play a creatures that does 4 for 1 as a bolt most of the time. Later, you still have a better body compared to guide and marauders. I loved figure of destiny, but this devil is the real deal.
We can discuss the thunder-bolt, but the devil should be a 4 of in any burn deck.

[gatherer]

it was once said of this deck, and I don't want to surf through 100+ pages to find the quote, "Burn is a deck all about asking questions"

That said, asking "do you have removal right now?" is a fair and honest question to ask. If they don't they'll take the 4. If they do they might take the 4 to save removal for something else. Or they might not take the 4 damage and hit our dude with removal.

4 Damage is alot and I think I might try this in place of Flame Rift or Keldon Marauders. Not sure yet but those seem like the weakest cards in the deck. In the end the change from a 2CC to another 1CC will make the deck less likely to eat Spell snares, which seem to be all over the format.

just my thoughts.

regards,

Jason

[Reaver027]

I am currently thinking about getting back into Magic and Legacy was always the format i liked best. But since i am not really interested to invest too much money into it i was thinking about Burn.

The deck was always fun to play and always was rather cheap to build.

So currently i am looking at the basic 28 cards plus 19 lands and start from there.

4x Lightning Bolt
4x Chain Lightning
4x Lava Spike
4x Rift Bolt
4x Price of Progress
4x Fireblast
4x Goblin Guide

19x Lands

I really like cards like Magma Jet and Faithless Lotting so i would like to give those two a run. I think a 3/2 splits seems about right. Especially if i want to add cards like Vexing Devil and Thunderous Wrath as 3 offs.

3x Magma Jet
2x Faithless Looting
3x Thunderous Wrath
3x Vexing Devil

That leaves 2 card slots and currently i am thinking that Sulfuric Vortex should be in that slot.

2x Sulfuric Vortex

I could need some help on a sideboard tho. I am not really up to speed what will be run in my meta so i could use a basic rundown of cards that are good versus the current tier 1 decks.

I wont be running fetchlands because i dont really want to invest into them at this point. Beside that and perhaps Faithless Looting is there anything terrible wrong with my build?

[Curby]

@catmint, yeah, I really did ask that. And I'll ask again, since I didn't get an answer. Burn wants consistency in guaranteed damage. The only reason we run Goblin Guide is because he's both fast and efficient. A topdecked Guide can swing unopposed versus a tapped out opponent. If you've played burn, you know that every turn, every card, and every damage counts, especially as we go down to the late game. We've all won at 1-2 life, or lost with the opponent at 1-2 life. Topdecking a nonhasty creature with no guaranteed damage could be the difference between a win and a loss. This is why people have been reluctant to adopt FoD.

Yes, Vexing Devil is better than FoD, and anyone who used to run Figure should replace him with Devil. Does that mean that Vexing Devil is an autoinclude in every burn deck? I'm not yet convinced.

It's sad that people are still considering running T.Wrath. It's been roundly debunked on MTGS. Pasting my post from there:

We all understand that T.Wrath is a 0 or 5 card. So it's a high variance (low consistency) card in a deck that prides itself on consistency. Of course, some cards like Goblin Guide end up being so powerful that we run them despite them sometimes being dead draws.

The question is how often T.Wrath is 0 and how often it's 5. Sure it's inconsistent, but how does that pan out? Tirune works out the gory details, but here's a simple thought exercise: by turn 8 on the play, you have seen 14 cards and fully half of them are dead if they're T.Wrath. And Magma Jet helps you dig to T.Wrath, but it doesn't help enough in the grand scheme of things.

So lastly, the number you run. Some people are saying, "well, maybe it doesn't justify a 4-of, but how about 1-2?" The problem is that no matter how many you run, the 0-or-5 math still applies. If you run 1-2, you decrease the chances of seeing it in your opening hand, but you also decrease the chances of seeing it in the draw phase. In short, running a single T.Wrath doesn't let it deal 5 damage any more consistently than running four of them. It just compounds the damage inconsistency with the inconsistency of even drawing it to begin with.

it was once said of this deck, and I don't want to surf through 100+ pages to find the quote, "Burn is a deck all about asking questions"

Don't believe everything you hear. Asking questions is the worst thing you could do in Magic. Asking questions is giving your opponent more outs, and more lines of play. At the end of the day, asking questions is asking your opponent if he would like more ways to win. No, you don't ask questions. You don't give them an emergency exit. You control the game, and tell them exactly how it is that you are going to win. You want a quote? Here's one: "Burn's all about the efficient, consistent delivery of damage."

[zulander]

The card is so good. Play him turn one and then turn two Guide? Sure, sign me up. Although with the addition of timewalk now I see no reason to play straight up burn. Playing URDelver seems better at the moment.

[P.S.]

EDIT: Invalid remarks.