[Deck] Burn

[baghdadbob]

so everyone will play a 3/3 for 1R which often only deals 2 damage. You will also play a 1/1 for R, which lets you pump it. You will also play a 3/1 for 1R that dies at the end of the turn because you can play it again from the yard...... and also almost exclusively gets Path'd..... but you wont play a 4/3 for R?

got it.... its clear now.....

Your arguing a creature that is a 4/3 for R mana is a bad card, but you play Marauders? If two damage was so crucial, just play Shock, and end this discussion.

This thread is out of control, its flooded with people who clearly do not play Burn... I say the same thing in the Pox forum, play-testing and tournament play are two very different things.

Sorry, but its true. If the 4/3 for R will just get killed off before it attacks, then all creatures in Legacy will get killed before they can attack.

And whoever made the comment about Vexing Devil being killed before the opponent combos, is flat out dumb [sorry the comment is dumb, not the poster. poor choice of words]. Because EVERY creature deck can lose to Combo.... A donkey could have made that argument.

He actually said before he wouldn't play marauders. Also could we see your deck as well? I would like to compare your and his list's, and see what you two are really debating. I think it will bring clarity to this thread.

[P.S.]

Would you play Goblin Guide if it said "at any time, any player may pay 3 life to make you sacrifice Goblin Guide?"

Once again, this circular argument continues. It is not a 4/3 creature for a R mana. It could be but it isn't always. That's what makes it bad.

These cards are called "skill testers" for a reason. All anyone has to do is watch a SCG Legacy Open on a Sunday afternoon to see how far the quality has dropped in play skill. Mostly because, much like these forums, there's an influx of people that are more fairly new & haven't been around long enough to know the history of the game or to have seen a lot of the older cards back in the day. I actually have had people pick up and read cards that were staples for YEARS because they just weren't around back in 1994, 1995 or 1996. I have been playing competitive Magic for longer than a lot of newer players have even been alive. How scary is that? But they all still have the right to go onto message forums & make an argument from their perspective, right or wrong, just as much as anyone else. So to that, I'll just say that we're never going to be in agreement with each other, so instead of continuing to discuss this card for twenty pages, if you like it, test it. If you don't like it, don't test it.

Remember when Time Reversal was spoiled? It was a terrible card. People said it was a terrible card. Others tried to defend it & say that it was good, it was a combo card, it was going to have decks based around it in Standard. It was on pre-sale for $20 and SCG sold a GRIP of them. A month later, it was $1 and they couldn't give them away. This card, in my estimation, will be the same. It's just a Timmy card that Timmy's think is a Spike card but they just simply don't have the experience to be able to understand why it is bad in a competitive situation. That's my opinion.

And if you want the truth of the matter, if you're playing to win a tournament, you shouldn't be playing Burn in the first place.

[baghdadbob]

Would you play Goblin Guide if it said "at any time, any player may pay 3 life to make you sacrifice Goblin Guide?"

Once again, this circular argument continues. It is not a 4/3 creature for a R mana. It could be but it isn't always. That's what makes it bad.

These cards are called "skill testers" for a reason. All anyone has to do is watch a SCG Legacy Open on a Sunday afternoon to see how far the quality has dropped in play skill. Mostly because, much like these forums, there's an influx of people that are more fairly new & haven't been around long enough to know the history of the game or to have seen a lot of the older cards back in the day. I actually have had people pick up and read cards that were staples for YEARS because they just weren't around back in 1994, 1995 or 1996. I have been playing competitive Magic for longer than a lot of newer players have even been alive. How scary is that? But they all still have the right to go onto message forums & make an argument from their perspective, right or wrong, just as much as anyone else. So to that, I'll just say that we're never going to be in agreement with each other, so instead of continuing to discuss this card for twenty pages, if you like it, test it. If you don't like it, don't test it.

Remember when Time Reversal was spoiled? It was a terrible card. People said it was a terrible card. Others tried to defend it & say that it was good, it was a combo card, it was going to have decks based around it in Standard. It was on pre-sale for $20 and SCG sold a GRIP of them. A month later, it was $1 and they couldn't give them away. This card, in my estimation, will be the same. It's just a Timmy card that Timmy's think is a Spike card but they just simply don't have the experience to be able to understand why it is bad in a competitive situation. That's my opinion.

And if you want the truth of the matter, if you're playing to win a tournament, you shouldn't be playing Burn in the first place.

P.S. will you please post your decklist? Thanks.

[P.S.]

P.S. will you please post your decklist? Thanks.

No, sorry. In our group, we playtest against stock lists of all the metagame decks (well, a lot of them, I guess not all of them because there's so many in Legacy) and any decklists we come up with stay in-house. I'm sure you understand. Sorry, man.

EDIT: I will say we do have a Burn list & after quite a bit of testing for a few weeks now, none of our nine guys are on it.

VV Check your PMs. Don't wanna clutter the thread with off-topic discussion.

[baghdadbob]

I think I understand. Are you a pro? Have you T8ed recently?

[Basara]

No, sorry. In our group, we playtest against stock lists of all the metagame decks (well, a lot of them, I guess not all of them because there's so many in Legacy) and any decklists we come up with stay in-house. I'm sure you understand. Sorry, man.

EDIT: I will say we do have a Burn list & after quite a bit of testing for a few weeks now, none of our nine guys are on it.

so stop posting in this thread if you dont care about the deck , you are just irritating people with bad arguments , it looks like you dont understand the power of vixen as a 1cmc sorcery for 4 or busted wild nacatl , go and test more maverick and uw/blade matchups , because it looks like you dont understand a shit about the deck.

[Hanni]

The problem with the arguments against Devil is that, in the worst case scenario, it's still incredibly overpowered for its cost.

R for 4 damage is stronger than any other burn spell in the deck aside from Fireblast, whose drawback limits it to being a finisher.

R for a 4/3 is the most effecient p/t in the format, next to Steppe Lynx w/ a fetchland as a 4/5 for W (but that's only a temporary pump).

Whether the opponent can deal with the creature or not is irrelevant. When is the opponent favorably blocking this? Goyf doesn't typically grow to 4/5 until turns 3-4. Knight doesn't typically grow to 5/5 until turns 4-5. If they hit him with removal, that's no different than hitting any other creature you'd cast with removal, and he only costs 1 mana.

[Basara]

The problem with the arguments against Devil is that, in the worst case scenario, it's still incredibly overpowered for its cost.

R for 4 damage is stronger than any other burn spell in the deck aside from Fireblast, whose drawback limits it to being a finisher.

R for a 4/3 is the most effecient p/t in the format, next to Steppe Lynx w/ a fetchland as a 4/5 for W (but that's only a temporary pump).

Whether the opponent can deal with the creature or not is irrelevant. When is the opponent favorably blocking this? Goyf doesn't typically grow to 4/5 until turns 3-4. Knight doesn't typically grow to 5/5 until turns 4-5. If they hit him with removal, that's no different than hitting any other creature you'd cast with removal, and he only costs 1 mana.

finally some one who understands

[Tammit67]

The problem with the arguments against Devil is that, in the worst case scenario, it's still incredibly overpowered for its cost.

R for 4 damage is stronger than any other burn spell in the deck aside from Fireblast, whose drawback limits it to being a finisher.

R for a 4/3 is the most effecient p/t in the format, next to Steppe Lynx w/ a fetchland as a 4/5 for W (but that's only a temporary pump).

Whether the opponent can deal with the creature or not is irrelevant. When is the opponent favorably blocking this? Goyf doesn't typically grow to 4/5 until turns 3-4. Knight doesn't typically grow to 5/5 until turns 4-5. If they hit him with removal, that's no different than hitting any other creature you'd cast with removal, and he only costs 1 mana.

Your other creatures are easier to trade with, and most pilots will absolutely trade with a burn deck. When nearly everything is a one shot effect, letting them get more than that on any creature is ultimately fatal.

The card doesn't even change the way other decks interact with burn. Stoneblade still goes for batterskull while protecting it, maverick clogs up the board or plays jitte/ooze, and thresh hopes to spot removal/pierce long enough to land a threat and ride it.

You want a creature turn one, to maximize your damage. Unfortunately you do not get to make this be a creature turn one, and it instead domes them for 4. Half of you see R- deal 4 damage and that's it. But if you pass the turn to someone at 15-16 without a creature on the board, you really haven't done all that much and they don't feel pressured. You have not advanced your board presence.

Pressure is the reason why haste is insane, why goblin guide is insane. If you cannot keep them on the back foot, you will not win often with an aggressive deck. And letting your opponent decide what happens to devil ensures they are not pressured

[RogueBuild]

Given I always seem to buck the common trends for Burn, or any other deck I am playing with, I predict 6 months to a year from now I will be the only person with Vexing Devils in the Deck list or SB (I expect in my SB). I see me playing G1 against people and me dropping 0 creatures. Opponent decides to side in Leyline and take out the dead spot removal to get them in. I take out something and put in Vexing Devils. Then they start bitching about my crap deck as I play a turn 1 Devil they can't answer (because they sided out the removal) and then keep the way cleared with burn since I can't target them... This is the only situation where I see Vexing Devils being good in Burn.

I see it so clearly now...

[Basara]

Your other creatures are easier to trade with, and most pilots will absolutely trade with a burn deck. When nearly everything is a one shot effect, letting them get more than that on any creature is ultimately fatal.

The card doesn't even change the way other decks interact with burn. Stoneblade still goes for batterskull while protecting it, maverick clogs up the board or plays jitte/ooze, and thresh hopes to spot removal/pierce long enough to land a threat and ride it.

You want a creature turn one, to maximize your damage. Unfortunately you do not get to make this be a creature turn one, and it instead domes them for 4. Half of you see R- deal 4 damage and that's it. But if you pass the turn to someone at 15-16 without a creature on the board, you really haven't done all that much and they don't feel pressured. You have not advanced your board presence.

Pressure is the reason why haste is insane, why goblin guide is insane. If you cannot keep them on the back foot, you will not win often with an aggressive deck. And letting your opponent decide what happens to devil ensures they are not pressured

This kind of post , proves that too much people here havent played the deck before , if you think you are getting early pressure always youre wrong, dude most of the time the deck starts with lava spike or rift bolt , and still can win , with a good density of bolts , the deck is just about resolving 6 to 7 spells in time... is not about putting pressure with 2/2 or 1R 3/3 , is more than that.. burn isnt an aggressive deck , burn is a pseudo-combo deck , with no key card to counter and ultra strong vs fow,daze and spell pierce.. with a T4 OR T5 win is about resolving 7 spells..

[Vacrix]

Your other creatures are easier to trade with, and most pilots will absolutely trade with a burn deck. When nearly everything is a one shot effect, letting them get more than that on any creature is ultimately fatal.

The card doesn't even change the way other decks interact with burn. Stoneblade still goes for batterskull while protecting it, maverick clogs up the board or plays jitte/ooze, and thresh hopes to spot removal/pierce long enough to land a threat and ride it.

You want a creature turn one, to maximize your damage. Unfortunately you do not get to make this be a creature turn one, and it instead domes them for 4. Half of you see R- deal 4 damage and that's it. But if you pass the turn to someone at 15-16 without a creature on the board, you really haven't done all that much and they don't feel pressured. You have not advanced your board presence.

Pressure is the reason why haste is insane, why goblin guide is insane. If you cannot keep them on the back foot, you will not win often with an aggressive deck. And letting your opponent decide what happens to devil ensures they are not pressured

When has Burn ever been about board presence? Goblin Guide has done its job if it does 4-6 Damage. After that its going to be Dwarfed by most other creatures, or just get blocked by a Thalia with First Strike. Rarely will you ever play this guy as a creature unless the opponent is sitting on a removal spell, in which case its just a 1 for 1 trade. I like to think of it as a reach spell when you want a creature, and a creature when you want a reach spell.

[Mindlash]

I think I understand. Are you a pro? Have you T8ed recently?

Obviously not, cuz his decklists stay in-house. T8 would demand them to be postet :-P

Nevertheless I can see where he is coming from on those two "first glance" shiny cards though.
You will never deal the last 4 Dmg with the devil when you need it. And every hand with T.Wrath demands a mulligan in a deck that wants all the gas it can get to finish the Opp off before entering Topdeckmode.

[jares]

Having a ~30% chance of being born with one less finger I find that to be highly inconsistent .

Wrath should be no more than a 1-of, if that. The deck doesn't need it and can't utilize it to it's fullest potential.

At just [1x] in the deck, you'll have an 11.67% chance to get a Thunderous Wrath in your opening hand. While that might not sound like a lot, I'd have to agree that, unfortunately, mono-red Burn won't be able to maximize the potential of this card.

Having 3 Thunderous Wrath gives you a 28% chance of having 1 in the opening hand. Having 2 drops that to 21%. I can certainly live with 21%.

Actually, having [3x] Thunderous Wrath gives you a 31.54% chance of getting at least one in your opening hand. The inconsistency that this card induces in the deck is worrisome without the proper support (Brainstorm).

Regards,
jares

[Gheizen64]

so stop posting in this thread if you dont care about the deck , you are just irritating people with bad arguments , it looks like you dont understand the power of vixen as a 1cmc sorcery for 4 or busted wild nacatl , go and test more maverick and uw/blade matchups , because it looks like you dont understand a shit about the deck.

Bad arguments? Oh the irony.

[jares]

I don't think that we need to over-think this any further.

I believe that it should be this simple:

• Is 4 damage for a good bargain? Very much so.
• Is a 4/3 Creature for a good bargain? Are you kidding me?
• In summary, whatever our opponents choose, we're going to get a heck of a bargain for the that we spent, regardless of whether or not our opponents chose as we would like them to. In fact, giving our opponents the option to choose was the very reason that we had this bargain in the first place, and it's certainly a bargain that we can't say no to.

Hahaha.

After reading the last three pages, my thoughts bring me back to what I've already stated above - "I don't think that we need to over-think this any further".

Unfortunately, I fully expect someone to continue arguing in circles about this card.

And I certainly agree with those that have mentioned this - the "mechanic" of this card is indeed "a good skill tester" and "a good litmus test for being able to figure out which players are easy to ignore".

Cheers,
jares

[Asthereal]

People forget to argue correctly here, because they forget to set boundries.

Question you need to ask yourself and the people whose arguments you burn:
Will you play traditional Burn with NO creatures, and NO fetch, so your opponents have dead spot removal and dead Wasteland/Stifle-plan? Or do you play more Sligh-ish, with slightly more creatures (Guides, Hellsparks, Marauders, maybe even Lavamen) because they deal more damage and reduce the ammount of reach-spells you need?

In pure Burn with no creatures, you typically do not want to play the new delvil guy, because he makes the removal your opponents play very useful all of a sudden.
In Sligh-ish lists, this new devil guy looks brilliant though.

My new list (pure traditional Sligh by the way):

Creatures:
4 Goblin Guide
4 Vexing Devil
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Figure of Destiny
4 Kiln Fiend /19

Spells:
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
3 Forked Bolt
4 Magma Jet
3 Price of Progress
4 Fireblast /22

Lands:
9 Red Fetch
9 Mountain
1 Barbarian Ring /19

Sideboard is still unsure.

[jares]

Question you need to ask yourself and the people whose arguments you burn:
Will you play traditional Burn with NO creatures, and NO fetch, so your opponents have dead spot removal and dead Wasteland/Stifle-plan? Or do you play more Sligh-ish, with slightly more creatures (Guides, Hellsparks, Marauders, maybe even Lavamen) because they deal more damage and reduce the ammount of reach-spells you need?

You might also want to note that playing a mixture of both configurations is also possible, and it's apparent that it is in the context of this "mixture" that everyone is arguing around, which makes their points somewhat different from yours. It's good to see that things are much clearer from your perspective, though.

Unfortunately, you also posted your list in the wrong thread (not sure where the Sligh Thread is; probably somewhere in the Established Decks section).

Cheers,
jares

[Marke]

Hahaha.

After reading the last three pages, my thoughts bring me back to what I've already stated above - "I don't think that we need to over-think this any further".

Unfortunately, I fully expect someone to continue arguing in circles about this card.

And I certainly agree with those that have mentioned this - the "mechanic" of this card is indeed "a good skill tester" and "a good litmus test for being able to figure out which players are easy to ignore".

Cheers,
jares

jeez you keep making this stupid mistake.. It's not as simple as saying that since both halfs of the card are good on it's own that thus this card is good as well...
A card where the opponent can choose is not as good as some average in between the two halfs which you are sort of assuming. It's worse then the worst part of the card as a competent opponent will always choose the option that is worst for you..

Yes R for 4 to the dome is ALWAYS good (but not spectactular) in this type of deck. R for a 4/3 is however NOT, there are tons of situations for a burn deck where affecting the board is completely irrelevant and not being able to affect their life total is terrible. Those situations WILL come up often and make it much worse then it looks at first hand.

This card will VERY rarely do more then 4 damage, afterall if it would why would your opponent let it be a creature? The cases this does more then 4 damage are those where doing so will be irrelevant, ie your opponent was at really low life and let this resolve as a creature where it might do more then 4 but you would have won either way... The cases where this does 0 will happen quite frequently though because either you topdeck it too late (they let it be a creature and ignore it) or they simply have removal for it.

Simply put most times this will be 4 damage for R, let's say 70% of the time. Some times it will do more then 4 (maybe 2% of the time) but that will be irrelevant. The other times it will simply do 0 though because you're opponent can interact with it.. On average this will likely just be worse then lavaspike which might still be playable but barely so. The worst thing also is that this has more variance which is usually bad for a card. Doing 3 dmg all the time is better then 4 most times and occasionally 0 because, with the first card you always win when resolving 7 damage spells. With the latter you still win with 7 damage spells (rarely 6) but often you need 8 because you're devil didn't do it's damage, 1 extra card for burn is terrible because it the finishing spell is often the last spell in hand. Needing 1 extra card can easily equal to giving your opponent 2 extra turns..

[Asthereal]

Okay, since some here seem not to be able to think for themselves, let's simplify:

The new devil is either a really good Lava Spike, or a really good Goblin Guide.
Lava Spike is always good in Burn. Goblin Guide, however, is not, because it is an extremely bad topdeck. So:

If you play Guide and love it, you should also play this Devil. Period.
If you hate Goblin Guide, don't play this devil.

Stick to this and all will be lovely.