[Primer/Deck] Burn

[wooboy11]

What are you considering a board presence? I think your statement is just incorrect, and I tried to address this in my last post already. In fact, I would say that this statement applies to Goblin Guide as well, a card that many consider core to burn at this point. (If you advocate for not running guide, well I can understand, but that's a separate argument entirely.) As I said before, if Devil was just a 4/3 without any drawbacks, I would still play it, because that's just insane efficiency.

But, let's consider some of the bad scenarios. First, you're trying to outrace the enemy. If they leave a blocker for devil, this is still fine for you. Devil will trade with almost every creature in the format (except a strong tarmogoyf) right now, so it's still at least a 1-for-1. But in leaving a blocker up you've bought yourself at least another turn, which is another turn to draw that burn spell to close out the game. Yes, you won't draw that spell every time, but this is probably the worst case scenario, which I think is actually rather rare. Second, they have removal. This is a fair argument, since removal sucks. However, since you're liking running at least 8 other creatures (lavamancer, goblin guide, hellspark elemental maybe), chances are they'll have another target for their removal anyway, so I wouldn't be so concerned about this. Otherwise Devil is a 4/3 they can't handle, so it turns into a 4 damage spell for . This seems very strong to me, and in particular will help increase your clock against decks that don't want to win with the combat step.

Have you played vexing devil against a good opponent? Most of the times it won't affect the game, since the opponent will just choose whatever he can deal with more easily: 4 damage or a 4/3. If in both cases it is bad for him, well then, his deck is probably no match for Burn anyways.

[Dice_Box]

What are you considering a board presence?

One turn 2 Goyf.

I think your statement is just incorrect, and I tried to address this in my last post already. In fact, I would say that this statement applies to Goblin Guide as well, a card that many consider core to burn at this point. (If you advocate for not running guide, well I can understand, but that's a separate argument entirely.) As I said before, if Devil was just a 4/3 without any drawbacks, I would still play it, because that's just insane efficiency.

Funny thing is Guide has this wonderful thing called Haste. So you can drop, hit with him and move on. Even if you only connect once he is gold. Fact is he is the best opening play we have unless we are on the draw. A 4/3 with no drawbacks is a lie in this deck. Because the "No drawbacks" is a drawback. You can not do a dam thing with him turn 3 or 4. Guide you can use, he will hit the table on the turn Combo is hitting Critical mass and they will just shrug.

But, let's consider some of the bad scenarios. First, you're trying to outrace the enemy. If they leave a blocker for devil, this is still fine for you. Devil will trade with almost every creature in the format (except a strong tarmogoyf) right now, so it's still at least a 1-for-1. But in leaving a blocker up you've bought yourself at least another turn, which is another turn to draw that burn spell to close out the game. Yes, you won't draw that spell every time, but this is probably the worst case scenario, which I think is actually rather rare.

Cool, you have a blocker, how does this help you? Delay a turn? Cool. Hope you draw something next turn? Ok too I guess. The alternative, you just drew the spell you needed and finished the game that turn. If you needed to stop something you could have thrown that spell AT a creature and KILLED it. Know what saves you more that a 4/3 blocker? A dead opponent or a removed creature.

Second, they have removal. This is a fair argument, since removal sucks. However, since you're liking running at least 8 other creatures (lavamancer, goblin guide, hellspark elemental maybe), chances are they'll have another target for their removal anyway, so I wouldn't be so concerned about this. Otherwise Devil is a 4/3 they can't handle, so it turns into a 4 damage spell for . This seems very strong to me, and in particular will help increase your clock against decks that don't want to win with the combat step.

Removal is not a reason in my mind to run or not run something. Everything dies to removal. But in this case you are actually missing something. Our main advantage is in "Virtual card advantage". That means we do not present the normal targets that someone would expect and remove a level of interaction that they would normally have. Thus they are drawing dead cards. Offer them a target, they will take it, do not offer them that target, they draw dead and we gain a card advantage.

A possible 4/3 or four damage for R or a burn spell I can direct at a target of my choosing for the same cost? I am going to go with the option that limits his choices and maximises mine.

[DragoFireheart]

I've tested Devil and he's terrible. When you want a 4/3, you get 4 damage. When you want 4 damage, you get a 4/3 that's useless.

[Valtrix]

Have you played vexing devil against a good opponent? Most of the times it won't affect the game, since the opponent will just choose whatever he can deal with more easily: 4 damage or a 4/3. If in both cases it is bad for him, well then, his deck is probably no match for Burn anyways.

I've tested Devil and he's terrible. When you want a 4/3, you get 4 damage. When you want 4 damage, you get a 4/3 that's useless.

When is 4 damage for one mana ever bad in burn? By this logic many of the cards in burn shouldn't even be played.

So it seems to me the really only bad scenario is when Vexing Devil becomes a 4/3.

Scenario 1:They take 4 damage.
This is always good in a burn(/sligh) deck.

Scenario 2: They can't actually deal with a 4/3.
This scenario will never actually happen, since an unanswered devil will represent more than 4 damage.

Scenario 3: They have removal
Sure, they answer your devil. This generally sucks, but since you're running other creatures they will probably have another target for removal anyway. Most people aren't using this argument to not run other creatures.

Scenario 4: They have a blocker
Devil trades with almost everything in the format. First, if the creature is small (basically, if the creature is not goyf, or a hexproof mongoose) you can burn it and get devil in for 4 damage. If you're up against goyf, there is a good chance that you can still trade with it since the game will be very short. Otherwise if they have to leave a blocker to just trade with devil, then chances are they won't be able to win any race with you anyway.

Scenario 5: You topdeck devil when your opponent will kill you next turn, and you really needed a burn spell.
This seems like one of the worst scenarios, you're up against a fast deck (probably combo) and need to get in damage ASAP. Guide is nice because of haste, but really the haste only matters if your opponent kills you next turn in this scenario. That means you need to topdeck a devil on the exact turn your opponent is going to end the game, since otherwise you could have played it during a previous turn. This seems like a really edge case to me though, since the odds of this are fairly low. More often than not you will have your devil in hand before they can go off next turn. So in fact in this situation devil is 4 damage for , effectively making you even faster against the fast decks you face.

Certainly scenarios 3-5 are not optimal, but honestly none of the scenarios really seem all that detrimental to me, but perhaps that's not true. Considering the efficiency of devil, both in damage per card and damage per mana, I think the "risk" of running him seems very small.

[Dice_Box]

When is 4 damage for one mana ever bad in burn? By this logic many of the cards in burn shouldn't even be played.

4 Damage for one red is bad when you offer the CHOICE and they take it. Because it says "Hey, here is an option, make what choice favors you." You drop that card in front of my Elf deck and I promise you it will do NOTHING. Not a thing. I will combo off in your face while you are wishing you had something to stop me.

Also I like how you are running through your own list of Scenarios. Each really points out how bad the card is, just your angle of looking at it is different from the rest of us. But be my guest, run the damn thing, then come back and tell us all about how wrong we are after it saves you once or twice. Because it will save you, and you will remember those moments. But its going to hurt you far more than it will save you but you will block out those moments because you WANT it to be good. In the end though, everything that card does, another card does better. You want Creatures that need to be dealt with on mass? Pyro. You want damage dealt on target? Burn spells. You want to keep your Virtual card advantage? Don't run needless targets for their spells to hit. Want to win games? Don't give choices to the other player and don't run cards that are a dead draw turn 3/4.

[HammafistRoob]

Vexing Devil is the shit. It's hilarious that the only argument against him is that he gives your opponent the choice. BOTH CHOICES ARE BAD FOR THEM. I can tell half the people posting against him don't play burn in any format. Elves against Burn? How the F do you plan on comboing with no elves in play sir?

The virtual CA argument makes no sense if you plan on running Guide and Lavaman, giving your opposition ample targets for their removal anyway. We gain virtual CA by playing less lands.

Vexing Devil is a bad topdeck? So are lands, should we be cutting all of our mountains too? Seriously if you don't even play burn why bother trying to make senseless arguments?

[Dice_Box]

Vexing Devil is the shit. It's hilarious that the only argument against him is that he gives your opponent the choice. BOTH CHOICES ARE BAD FOR THEM. I can tell half the people posting against him don't play burn in any format. Elves against Burn? How the F do you plan on comboing with no elves in play sir?

I can play more elves than you can burn. I have a draw engine. Anyway, if you think the card is so good, go run it. Be my guest. There is a reason why its not run in the decks you see popping up at GP's and what not. Goyf can handle it, Lighting bolt can handle it, Discard will rip your hand apart. You need good top decks when versing BUG and RUG as both can deal with it with ease. Does not bode strongly for the card. Combo's don't care about it so who does it really help you against? As far as I can tell it only helps you win games that you are set to win anyway without an issue. Why run a WIN MORE card? Because its seems to only help you in matchups that you are set to win anyway.

The virtual CA argument makes no sense if you plan on running Guide and Lavaman, giving your opposition ample targets for their removal anyway. We gain virtual CA by playing less lands.

8 targets is a lot less than 12. Also both of other cards offer something that Devil does not, be that speed or repeatable directed damage.

Vexing Devil is a bad topdeck? So are lands, should we be cutting all of our mountains too?

This is an argument of despration if ever I have seen one. Yea lands are a painful topdeck. Do me a favor and test a landless burn deck and tell me how you go.

Seriously if you don't even play burn why bother trying to make senseless arguments?

Where have I said I do not play burn? I think if you look back at the last few pages you will see this is the deck I built second after Goblins. I own this deck, I play this deck, I like this deck. I am not making senseless arguments, afterall I am not the one suggesting running the deck without land. I am just suggesting running the deck without one card that offers no true advantage to the deck.

But do whatever you like. Got a mate that plays burn with Fork and Thunderous Wrath. You can tell him till the cows come home that its not the smartest idea but he will respond that 10 damage for 3 land is the bomb. I agree, its a great payout, but really it's not practical. Like a 1 drop 4/3 thats easy to handle and slows down your game plan.

Now if you where to go the full RDW's route where the idea is to play powerful creatures and burn a path though for damage, then I would say run him. In that style deck he is everything you are saying he is. But if you're playing burn, where the idea is to be as uninteractive as you can be while killing off the other guy with a mass of redundant spells, this guy offers nothing but a decrease in both control and speed.

[LeoCop 90]

This discussion about Vexing Devil is starting to get boring. Some people say it's bad because it gives your opponent a choice, other say it's good because anyway you have 4 damage for 1 mana or a 4/3 for one mana.

I am not a fan of the card, but while it's true that giving your opponent choices is bad, this card is not like browbeat. You are only investing one mana in devil and if he is in your opening hand he will a lot of times result in 4 damages for one and can lead to very explosive starts. I agree with who says that the "can be removed" argument is pointless because anyway we are running other targets for removal.

That said, it's impossible to ignore the downsides of devil. He is worse than goblin guide because he doesn't have haste so sometimes he will be killed or chumpblocked without dealing any damage (also guide sometimes will do no damage, but less frequently). Someone said that if chumpblocked he will at least trade with almost every creature, but this is bad because burn doesn't want to trade cards: we need to get damages from our cards, and the longer the game goes the worse it is for us since we have neither card advantage nor a strong board presence.
He is also worse than Grim Lavamancer, although the comparison is close here. In fact they both suffer from summoning sickness and can be killed before they do anything.... but grim lavamancer can skip combat phase so he can't be chumpblocked.

Goblin Guide,Grim Lavamancer and Vexing Devil are all bad topdecks, just guide is a bit better because of haste (although every clever opponent will leave a creature on defense).

In the end, to me the decision is between running devil or lavamancer. Do you want more explosive starts? run devil. Do you want a bit more consistency? run lavamancer.
I will always vote for consistency but this is burn and i won't blame who wants to run the devil.

[Justin]

To me, the card that Vexing Devil compares most to is not a creature at all. I see Vexing Devil as sort of the inverse of Thunderous Wrath. Wrath will usually deal zero damage if it starts in your opening hand, but it's five damage for one mana if you draw it later. By contrast, Devil will usually do four damage for one mana if you draw it early, but it's almost always a useless topdeck that will deal no damage if you cast it late. How often have you actually done damage to an opponent with a Vexing Devil by turning it sideways as a creature? I don't think this ever happened with me when I tested it. If my opponent chose not to have me sacrifice it, he always had an answer for it. I think there are too many better red options that I don't like playing Vexing Devil.

[JPettie]

This discussion about Vexing Devil is starting to get boring. Some people say it's bad because it gives your opponent a choice, other say it's good because anyway you have 4 damage for 1 mana or a 4/3 for one mana.

I am not a fan of the card, but while it's true that giving your opponent choices is bad, this card is not like browbeat. You are only investing one mana in devil and if he is in your opening hand he will a lot of times result in 4 damages for one and can lead to very explosive starts. I agree with who says that the "can be removed" argument is pointless because anyway we are running other targets for removal.

That said, it's impossible to ignore the downsides of devil. He is worse than goblin guide because he doesn't have haste so sometimes he will be killed or chumpblocked without dealing any damage (also guide sometimes will do no damage, but less frequently). Someone said that if chumpblocked he will at least trade with almost every creature, but this is bad because burn doesn't want to trade cards: we need to get damages from our cards, and the longer the game goes the worse it is for us since we have neither card advantage nor a strong board presence.
He is also worse than Grim Lavamancer, although the comparison is close here. In fact they both suffer from summoning sickness and can be killed before they do anything.... but grim lavamancer can skip combat phase so he can't be chumpblocked.

Goblin Guide,Grim Lavamancer and Vexing Devil are all bad topdecks, just guide is a bit better because of haste (although every clever opponent will leave a creature on defense).

In the end, to me the decision is between running devil or lavamancer. Do you want more explosive starts? run devil. Do you want a bit more consistency? run lavamancer.
I will always vote for consistency but this is burn and i won't blame who wants to run the devil.

I agree with Leo about the argument about vexing getting out of hand and being extremely boring. It is very simple to me why I don't run Vexing Devil, and the only deck I play is Burn, which I have been playing for the past year. Here are my three simple reasons not to run him:

1. What am I replacing to run him?
4 Sulfuric Vortex? - Anti-Life Gain
4 Grim Lavamancer - Consistent damage/board control (beats elves)
4 Goblin Guide - Haste 2/2 for 1, shows us their next draw (sometimes gives land - more Price of Progress?) Usually does 4 Damage (literally beats whole strategies that don't have creature hate when it does 6)
4 Flame Rift - My favorite card in the deck, the card that makes our curve work, a "virtual" guaranteed 4 Damage.
4 Lava Spike - Lava Spike is a better Vexing.
? - Nothing seems worse than Devil, and Devil doesn't seem better than any of our other options..

2. Life-Gain
When your devil is another target for Ooze, and Deathrite (which is everywhere now - and the reason I only run 8 creatures), also boosts a tarmogofy. Going from 8 - 12 creatures creates advantages for the life-gain hate bear creatures that a 2 life difference could mean we lose the game.

3. Horrible top-deck (I shouldn't even have to explain this)

As a little bonus, if we are blocking a creature, we are losing. We can't profitably block most of the threats we are worried about, try having vexing on a board where you are facing down a Batterskull, go ahead and block it, when you'd rather have something like a grim to kill itself and prevent life gain, or even a desperate Fireblast in your hand. We should be killing the opponent before they kill us, I don't see where blocking is going to be profitable, if we are at that stage in the game where we are worried about our life total, we usually are dead in the water.

As for the comment about top-decking a land being bad, that is a horrible joke, I don't know what possessed you to even consider that in comparison to anything viable at all. Although, that being said, I do run fetches and the alternate help of clearing 2 lands out of your deck over one by running fetches making our top-decks even more consistent has been a life safer in terms of math.

I want to suggest that the thread talk about current meta and what sideboard choices should be the best, or how to sideboard with burn, over all the time I've been playing the deck, the hardest part for me has been a consistent sideboard plan and what to worry about and not worry about when it comes to that. Maybe we should highlight the most problematic matches and what our best options are. I think all of these would be a much better suited way of using our time as a group that all love to play burn. Why should we endlessly fight over main deck choices, in the end, you make your own choice based on experience, so go get the experience and show us facts, not just opinions about Vexing Devil.

[LeoCop 90]

An issue for me is the number of main deck lands. I am running the version with fetches and lavamancer. I keep repeating myself that 21 is the right/most consistent number to hit three lands each game (i also run sulfuric vortex main and ensnaring bridge in sideboard), but i seem to flood more often than i should. my 21st land is barbarian ring.

What are your opinions about this ?

[JPettie]

An issue for me is the number of main deck lands. I am running the version with fetches and lavamancer. I keep repeating myself that 21 is the right/most consistent number to hit three lands each game (i also run sulfuric vortex main and ensnaring bridge in sideboard), but i seem to flood more often than i should. my 21st land is barbarian ring.

What are your opinions about this ?

I actually run 20 lands (no Barbarian Ring).
12 Fetches
8 Mountains
I just went to 20 one day because I felt like I was flooding sometimes and haven't had a problem since, I did do the math and found that the difference between 21 and 20 really is an infinitesimal number.

I run 4 main board Sulfuric Vortex and have some number of Ensnaring in the side most times and never really have a problem casting them, usually Ensnaring comes off their Show and Tell though. I would just suggest testing 20 and seeing how you feel about it. I am really against Barbarian Ring for a bunch of reasons that I don't really need to talk about because it is my personal opinion mostly, although I have had an experience of Barbarian Ring being Waste'd and losing a game because of it in my earlier days of playing the deck. I can't stress enough how much choices should be of experience base, and not just opinion, the thought or idea of it should be the start, and then experience, and then presentation. It is scientific method, no matter how corny that is.

What does everyone think the best way to deal with Show and Tell decks should be, sideboard-wise;

I am in between Ensnaring Bridge, and Blasts
something like
3 Ensnaring Bridge (or) 4 Red Elemental Blast (to just counter it, maybe some number of Pithing Needle for the Sneak variants)

Sometimes I find Ensnaring just doesn't work, I think the problem is just not enough hate, but I could be wrong.

[Justin]

I just wanted to say one last thing about Vexing Devil. I apologize in advance to those who find this discussion boring :) You need to ask yourself what the expected utility of the spell is if it resolves. For a bolt spell, your expected utility is 3, because it will always do three damage. What about Vexing Devil? It will do four damage sometimes and zero others (I suppose it could also do 8, 12, etc. if it becomes an ongoing attacker, but I've found that this very rarely ever happens). Vexing Devil will need to do damage for you at least three times out of four in order for it to have the expected utility to be worth playing. If it does exactly 4 damage 75% of the time, that gives you an expected utility of 4*3/4 = 3 (same as a bolt spell). Of course, as JPettie notes, your opponent can turn a dead Devil into life gain for themselves if he is running DRS or Scavenging Ooze, so it will be a little lower. If you draw two Devils during a game and one does four damage to the opponent, but the second does nothing, you've done four damage with two cards, whereas you do six damage with a bolt spell. So the only way to really know if Vexing Devil is worth playing is to test it a lot and record the percentage of times that it successfully deals damage for you. If this percentage is less than 75%, it is a bad card and not worth running.

[Valtrix]

This discussion about Vexing Devil is starting to get boring. Some people say it's bad because it gives your opponent a choice, other say it's good because anyway you have 4 damage for 1 mana or a 4/3 for one mana.

I agree with Leo about the argument about vexing getting out of hand and being extremely boring. It is very simple to me why I don't run Vexing Devil, and the only deck I play is Burn, which I have been playing for the past year. Here are my three simple reasons not to run him:

Why should we endlessly fight over main deck choices, in the end, you make your own choice based on experience, so go get the experience and show us facts, not just opinions about Vexing Devil.

I must caution you guys to not take this attitude when discussing cards and decks; you act like a conversation lasting less than a page is already too long. The point of the thread is to discuss things, and so when people have things to discuss they should do so. I agree that some of the arguments presented were somewhat lackluster, but by no means was the discussion "getting out of hand" or "boring" (and by boring I'm assuming you mean pointless because it's an issue that doesn't need to be talked about). When I brought up the subject of vexing devil I considered the points to which I thought he would be useful, and so I appreciate the (thoughtful) responses about the card. I think now that he's better suited for a Sligh deck, but for now I'm happy with the discussion had here.

I want to suggest that the thread talk about current meta and what sideboard choices should be the best, or how to sideboard with burn, over all the time I've been playing the deck, the hardest part for me has been a consistent sideboard plan and what to worry about and not worry about when it comes to that. Maybe we should highlight the most problematic matches and what our best options are. I think all of these would be a much better suited way of using our time as a group that all love to play burn.

I agree that this is something that would be really beneficial. In particular, the primer talks about each matchup, but fails to really state what the main issues facing the deck are. Without such a framework it can be difficult to come up with an optimal strategy. To me, considering what seems to be played the most right now, I think some of the most serious problems (from other decks, losing to your own deck is another story) are the following:

• Show and Tell decks
• Storm Combo decks
• Fair decks that can race us (aka RUG)
• Counterbalance
• Life gain (but really just Batterskull, Deathrite Shaman can be answered easily)

Let me do this slightly out of order. To handle decks that can race us, I believe that Searing Blaze is the best option. It should give us just that little bit of tempo we need in order to close out the game first. I think it's worthwhile to run 4 of these between the main and sideboard; I don't know how much, if any, should be in the main, but I think running 4 across your 75 really will help.

Now, I know a lot of people dislike the idea of splashing colors. For the main deck, I think I am of this opinion as well. Many cards can seem nice, but really they aren't powerful enough to justify a splash in my opinion. That said, most lists are running (or probably should consider) running fetchlands already, so I think there is little risk in adding 1 dual land (possibly more, though probably not needed) in order to splash a color for the sideboard. Note that against any of the decks you'll really want the dual for won't have wasteland, so it should be fine to run a low number of them. In my opinion, I think white is the best option for this.

White gives you access to two very important things: Oblivion Ring and Enlightened Tutor. The obvious is that Oblivion Ring is very solid against Show and Tell strategies, since it doesn't need to be cast to actually be useful. Additionally, compared to ensnaring bridge, Oblivion Ring can deal with Omniscience as well. Unless they can go off twice within the first three turns (or have their 1 or 2 of bounce spells), chances are they will be unable to win the game, so for this reason I think ring is the best card against them. Furthermore, oblivion ring is also one of the top ways to handle counterbalance if you can cast it, which is why that one dual land is very important. You can also use ring against a batterskull. While your opponent will be able to gain 4 life off the batterskull once, if you can deal with the skull you will probably still just win that matchup since your opponent will almost certainly be too slow.

It's worth noting that sulfuric vortex also deals with counterbalance (because of inevitability) and Batterskull quite nicely. Vortex is a pretty nice card in the main deck already, so combining rings with vortex gives you a ton of outs to cards that you probably just lose to otherwise.

Enlightened Tutor improves your consistency of getting oblivion ring for sure, so it gives you a ton of outs for decks that you really, really need to see a specific card to win that game. Furthermore, you can run a small number of tutorable bullets for a few other situation. For combo you can use Pyrostatic Pillar (I think this is probably the best tutorable option). Compared to Mindbreak Trap, your opponent will have much more trouble duressing this out of your hand (really, only if you start with pillar or they have first turn discard and you open with tutor/pillar). This seems very desirable. For graveyard decks you can run a single piece of hate (there are plenty of options) as well. Tutor really helps your consistency post board for getting those key cards. I'm not sure if there is something else that really needs a bullet, but you have the potential to add it to your sideboard easily.

In the end I would consider a sideboard base somewhat like the following:

4 Oblivion Ring
3 Enlightened Tutor
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
1 Grafdigger's Cage/Rest in Peace/Tormod's Crypt
2-4 Searing Blaze
2-4 Free slots

I'm not sure who will like this idea, but I have used Enlightened Tutor sideboards in the past for a huge variety of decks and always found them to be immensely powerful by virtually increasing the size of my sideboard to increase the consistency of drawing specific cards to win games I have no business winning otherwise.

[Lyle Hopkins]

What does everyone think the best way to deal with Show and Tell decks should be, sideboard-wise;

I am in between Ensnaring Bridge, and Blasts
something like
3 Ensnaring Bridge (or) 4 Red Elemental Blast (to just counter it, maybe some number of Pithing Needle for the Sneak variants)

Sometimes I find Ensnaring just doesn't work, I think the problem is just not enough hate, but I could be wrong.

I really like the three Angel of Despair that Doug Honeycutt was running at SCG Atlanta. Omni-tell seems quite popular and this may be the best option against that deck.

[tesla]

An issue for me is the number of main deck lands. I am running the version with fetches and lavamancer. I keep repeating myself that 21 is the right/most consistent number to hit three lands each game (i also run sulfuric vortex main and ensnaring bridge in sideboard), but i seem to flood more often than i should. my 21st land is barbarian ring.

What are your opinions about this ?

I play 21 lands (12 fetches, 9 mountains) more than year and i am very satisfied with it. 3 vortexes and 4 lavamancers maindeck.


About Vexing Devil: It´s not good, although it looks excelent on paper. Far, far behind our best creatures (grim and guide), even worse than Keldon Marauders or Hellspark. Opponent just choose wich part fits his draw better. For those who defend it: are you really play burn in legacy environment? Because some of your arguments made me laugh. Especially that one wich says: lands are bad topdeck too :DDDD

[LeoCop 90]

Anyone who consider playing Angel of Despair in his sideboard against show and tell should now run Ashen Rider.
It exiles the target instead of destroying it (emrakul won't be reshuffled in the deck) and it works also when he dies. A very slight upgrade, but an upgrade anyway.

I like the idea of the enlightened tutor sideboard, i already used in other decks and adds consistency. The only problem is that enlightened tutor slows your gameplan down a bit, i don't know if burn can waste his first turn casting enlightened tutor and his second turn casting the tutored card. i guess it is ok only if you search for an absolute bomb against your opponent.

[DragoFireheart]

When is 4 damage for one mana ever bad in burn? By this logic many of the cards in burn shouldn't even be played.

So it seems to me the really only bad scenario is when Vexing Devil becomes a 4/3.

Which is pretty much every turn past 3. top decking it is the worse feeling in the world.

Burn does NOT want bad top decks.

[JPettie]

I must caution you guys to not take this attitude when discussing cards and decks; you act like a conversation lasting less than a page is already too long. The point of the thread is to discuss things, and so when people have things to discuss they should do so. I agree that some of the arguments presented were somewhat lackluster, but by no means was the discussion "getting out of hand" or "boring" (and by boring I'm assuming you mean pointless because it's an issue that doesn't need to be talked about). When I brought up the subject of vexing devil I considered the points to which I thought he would be useful, and so I appreciate the (thoughtful) responses about the card. I think now that he's better suited for a Sligh deck, but for now I'm happy with the discussion had here.



I agree that this is something that would be really beneficial. In particular, the primer talks about each matchup, but fails to really state what the main issues facing the deck are. Without such a framework it can be difficult to come up with an optimal strategy. To me, considering what seems to be played the most right now, I think some of the most serious problems (from other decks, losing to your own deck is another story) are the following:

• Show and Tell decks
• Storm Combo decks
• Fair decks that can race us (aka RUG)
• Counterbalance
• Life gain (but really just Batterskull, Deathrite Shaman can be answered easily)

Let me do this slightly out of order. To handle decks that can race us, I believe that Searing Blaze is the best option. It should give us just that little bit of tempo we need in order to close out the game first. I think it's worthwhile to run 4 of these between the main and sideboard; I don't know how much, if any, should be in the main, but I think running 4 across your 75 really will help.

Now, I know a lot of people dislike the idea of splashing colors. For the main deck, I think I am of this opinion as well. Many cards can seem nice, but really they aren't powerful enough to justify a splash in my opinion. That said, most lists are running (or probably should consider) running fetchlands already, so I think there is little risk in adding 1 dual land (possibly more, though probably not needed) in order to splash a color for the sideboard. Note that against any of the decks you'll really want the dual for won't have wasteland, so it should be fine to run a low number of them. In my opinion, I think white is the best option for this.

White gives you access to two very important things: Oblivion Ring and Enlightened Tutor. The obvious is that Oblivion Ring is very solid against Show and Tell strategies, since it doesn't need to be cast to actually be useful. Additionally, compared to ensnaring bridge, Oblivion Ring can deal with Omniscience as well. Unless they can go off twice within the first three turns (or have their 1 or 2 of bounce spells), chances are they will be unable to win the game, so for this reason I think ring is the best card against them. Furthermore, oblivion ring is also one of the top ways to handle counterbalance if you can cast it, which is why that one dual land is very important. You can also use ring against a batterskull. While your opponent will be able to gain 4 life off the batterskull once, if you can deal with the skull you will probably still just win that matchup since your opponent will almost certainly be too slow.

It's worth noting that sulfuric vortex also deals with counterbalance (because of inevitability) and Batterskull quite nicely. Vortex is a pretty nice card in the main deck already, so combining rings with vortex gives you a ton of outs to cards that you probably just lose to otherwise.

Enlightened Tutor improves your consistency of getting oblivion ring for sure, so it gives you a ton of outs for decks that you really, really need to see a specific card to win that game. Furthermore, you can run a small number of tutorable bullets for a few other situation. For combo you can use Pyrostatic Pillar (I think this is probably the best tutorable option). Compared to Mindbreak Trap, your opponent will have much more trouble duressing this out of your hand (really, only if you start with pillar or they have first turn discard and you open with tutor/pillar). This seems very desirable. For graveyard decks you can run a single piece of hate (there are plenty of options) as well. Tutor really helps your consistency post board for getting those key cards. I'm not sure if there is something else that really needs a bullet, but you have the potential to add it to your sideboard easily.

In the end I would consider a sideboard base somewhat like the following:

4 Oblivion Ring
3 Enlightened Tutor
2 Pyrostatic Pillar
1 Grafdigger's Cage/Rest in Peace/Tormod's Crypt
2-4 Searing Blaze
2-4 Free slots

I'm not sure who will like this idea, but I have used Enlightened Tutor sideboards in the past for a huge variety of decks and always found them to be immensely powerful by virtually increasing the size of my sideboard to increase the consistency of drawing specific cards to win games I have no business winning otherwise.

I am really not a huge fan of the Enlightened Tutor package, but I can definitely see its worth and it would be interesting to test. The fundamental problem for me is putting it on the top of my deck and not getting it until next turn, and then they know my hate is on top and to go off is safe. Maybe that is just a small issue though in a bigger pool. I really do believe we have a lot of options to us in red already, along with things that get cheated into play. Has anyone tried Confusion in the Ranks?

In terms of what I think our worst match ups are, summed up of course, as a top 3 worst. I would love to hear opinions on what the best sideboard plan against these decks would be, with experience.

1. Storm (Combo)

Mindbreak Trap
Pyrostatic Pillar
Pithing Needle
Surgical Extraction

2. Sneak and Show (Show and Tell Variants)

Ensnaring Bridge
Red Elemental Blast
Pyroblast
Confusion in the Ranks
Ashen Rider
Pithing Needle


3. Counterbalance

Vexing Shusher
Ensnaring Bridge
Red Elemental Blast
Pyroblast
Pithing Needle


Please add to my list if you see something missing and if you have some decks you want to talk about side-boarding against.
Additionally, maybe we can look at a "Blind Meta Sideboard Choice" as a challenge, what if we didn't know the meta of the field we were going to play at, what would each of you bring to the field as a sideboard?

[kasparovski]

Haven't been playing much myself but sometimes still follow this thread as the only legacy deck i still have is burn and after reading the discussions about how some creatures (most of them) can be bad after turn 2-3 was wondering how would a creatureless burn deck look like. How about this:


4 Shock
4 Burst Lightning

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt

4 Flame Rift
4 Price of Progress

4 Fireblast
2 Shard Volley

3 Sulfuric Vortex

1 Barbarian ring
18 Mountain


I understand there's a big difference between dealing two damage and three but wouldn't reducing the other problems creatures have (topdeck, removal) counterfeit that disadvantage?
or maybe use 4 Goblin Guide instead of Shock... or some Thunderous Wrath (personally not a big fan of the card) Magma Jet, Pillar of Flame, Searing Blaze, Skullcrack...

meh, just leaving it here for discussion i guess.