What would burn need in order to become viable?

[Norm4eva]

You mean blightning?

+1

FWIW there's a couple of decklists on deckcheck.org that could be called BR Burn - which would be the burn deck with disruption you guys are trying to invent red cards for   If I had to run a burn deck it'd probably be one of those.

[honestabe]

How about

 
(Card) Deals 3 Damage to each player

Draw a card



Not that it would make burn remotely playable, but I've always had that idea in the back of my mind

[TheShop]

I doubt they will print a card that is 100% preferrable to bolt.

Also, it occured to me that Steve is right and that a single 4 of will not have enough statistical significance in the deck to make a difference...whenever you didn't draw it you would still be playing a subpar deck.

[honestabe]

I doubt they will print a card that is 100% preferrable to bolt.

Also, it occured to me that Steve is right and that a single 4 of will not have enough statistical significance in the deck to make a difference...whenever you didn't draw it you would still be playing a subpar deck.

I agree 100 percent.  Burn sucks.  But I always just had that card in my mind

[bluemage55]

You mean blightning?

Blightning is 3 mana and requires black splash to get an additional discard.  That makes it unplayable.

A one mana burn spell that costs no CA on the other hand...

[zeus-online]

It has to be pecificly "burn only" in order to make burn good, otherwise the other decks would just start playing it...

Ridic Red enchantment -  
Enchantment
If a noncreature spell or ability you control would deal damage to a player, it deals twice that amount instead.
When ridic red enchantment enters the battlefield, draw a card.

Something like that....Now we just need some ways for the burn spells to actually disrupt the opponent aswell as a couple of more good cards that only works for burn.

My suggested enchantment is probably about 3 mana undercosted...but hey, who's counting?

[Troy_Costisick]

What burn needs to become viable is more life attrition in decks.  More cards like Imperial Seal, Mana Crypt, Dark Confidant, Ad Nauseam, Fetchlands, etc.  If people started dealing 10 damage to themselves a game, burn would have a shot.

[TheDeadMan]

Theirs obviously only one thing, and one thing only that would make a sligh deck work: me playing vintage again 

[BWM]

Or this:



Some sort of enchantment, 1R
Enchantment
Whenever a player is dealt three or more damage in a single turn, that player sacrifices a permanent.



Would make Chain Lightning unplayable though

[pierce]

what if the burn player started with 8 (or 9) cards every game? would that make burn viable?

[honestabe]

what if the burn player started with 8 (or 9) cards every game? would that make burn viable?

No

[Norm4eva]

What if the Burn player quit trying to imagine freakishly strong red cards that will probably never exist and threw a bunch of good cards in their deck that were relevant to the metagame?  Would that make Burn viable?

[bluemage55]

What if the Burn player quit trying to imagine freakishly strong red cards that will probably never exist and threw a bunch of good cards in their deck that were relevant to the metagame?  Would that make Burn viable?

No.  Those relevant spells would prevent red from achieving the critical mass of necessary burn spells and fundamentally change the deck to just an aggro deck.

[TheShop]

The deck needs more straight up upgrades like switching random burn like incenerate for smash to smithereens.  Every burn spell needs to also be a utility spell.

Essentially they need the equivalent of dropping kird ape and skyshroud elite for cards that actually keep the opponet from winning...but still kill em

[policehq]

How about an enchantment or artifact that says you cannot lose the game during any turn where your opponent was dealt damage? How would that be worded best?

[TheShop]

If they drop u to 0 you willdie to state based effects before you can get a burn spell off in the next turn

[policehq]

If they drop u to 0 you willdie to state based effects before you can get a burn spell off in the next turn

It could be worded like Worship but with a different condition than having a creature. Still, it doesn't beat Iona and Elephants, Stax, or, worded as Worship is, Tendrils.

[The Atog Lord]

Theirs obviously only one thing, and one thing only that would make a sligh deck work: me playing vintage again

This basically ends the discussion. Master Tap is how Burn would become viable in Vintage again.

[Delha]

Theirs obviously only one thing, and one thing only that would make a sligh deck work: me playing vintage again

This basically ends the discussion. Master Tap is how Burn would become viable in Vintage again.

Guess I got my answer then. I gotta say, I wasn't expecting to get one at all.

[TheDeadMan]

At least someone remembers who I am, and the fact that I make burn work. Speaking of which guess this is as good a time as any to put myriad games on noticed you will get trogdored.

[Smmenen]

Burn is not good enough in Legacy, so why would we expect it could ever be viable in Vintage?  So the first question is: what would it take for Burn to be good in Legacy? 

[T00L]

Master Tap playing Legacy?

[CJster]

Burn is not good enough in Legacy, so why would we expect it could ever be viable in Vintage?  So the first question is: what would it take for Burn to be good in Legacy? 

I suppose burn does not work in legacy due to the critical mass of trinispheres, chalice, counterbalance, life linkers, white, etc etc.

I imagine burn in vintage will take on a whole new build than it would in legacy. While I do not believe it will become a another tier 1 or 2 deck...if someone had the correct knowledge of a metagame it can be done.

[ELD]

I don't understand this conversation.  Does adding creatures make it not a burn deck?  Zoo is a good strategy in Legacy.  It runs lots of direct damage spells.  Canadian Thresh can do lethal damage with just the 8 burn cards in it.  

For straight burn to be a viable deck building plan, it would need a reason to not "splash" other strategies.  Zoo and Thresh complement burn with efficient creatures.  Scepter Chant used Lightning Helix + Isochron and a solid control shell.  To go for straight burn is similar to going with just squirrels.  It might be fun to see if you can win, but you're deliberately ignoring better choices to stay within a "theme."

Even if they print something crazy, it's unlikely that other decks wouldn't use it as well, making multiple decks better, but leaving burn as a bad plan.

[Shock Wave]

I don't understand this conversation.  Does adding creatures make it not a burn deck?  Zoo is a good strategy in Legacy.  It runs lots of direct damage spells.  Canadian Thresh can do lethal damage with just the 8 burn cards in it.  

For straight burn to be a viable deck building plan, it would need a reason to not "splash" other strategies.  Zoo and Thresh complement burn with efficient creatures.  Scepter Chant used Lightning Helix + Isochron and a solid control shell.  To go for straight burn is similar to going with just squirrels.  It might be fun to see if you can win, but you're deliberately ignoring better choices to stay within a "theme."

Even if they print something crazy, it's unlikely that other decks wouldn't use it as well, making multiple decks better, but leaving burn as a bad plan.

This actually made me laugh because it is so true. This thread might as well have 20 posts in it that say "ME BURN! ME FIREBALL!! GIVE ME BURN SPELL THAT SMASH OPPONENT! ROAR!!"

Burn is not viable because there is no reason why it should be viable. It is an inherently weak, linear strategy. The best decks all have a degree of flexibility and resilience to them. Burn.dec does not. Why would we try to create cards that make this a viable deck choice?

[zeus-online]

I don't understand this conversation.  Does adding creatures make it not a burn deck?  Zoo is a good strategy in Legacy.  It runs lots of direct damage spells.  Canadian Thresh can do lethal damage with just the 8 burn cards in it.  

For straight burn to be a viable deck building plan, it would need a reason to not "splash" other strategies.  Zoo and Thresh complement burn with efficient creatures.  Scepter Chant used Lightning Helix + Isochron and a solid control shell.  To go for straight burn is similar to going with just squirrels.  It might be fun to see if you can win, but you're deliberately ignoring better choices to stay within a "theme."

Even if they print something crazy, it's unlikely that other decks wouldn't use it as well, making multiple decks better, but leaving burn as a bad plan.

This actually made me laugh because it is so true. This thread might as well have 20 posts in it that say "ME BURN! ME FIREBALL!! GIVE ME BURN SPELL THAT SMASH OPPONENT! ROAR!!"

Burn is not viable because there is no reason why it should be viable. It is an inherently weak, linear strategy. The best decks all have a degree of flexibility and resilience to them. Burn.dec does not. Why would we try to create cards that make this a viable deck choice?

Although i agree 100%, this was a thought experiment. And thus people tried to be creative, but i think most of us definetly got to the conclusion that there is no way to make burn viable.

[Meddling Mike]

Can you honestly say that you're certain that burn isn't viable? When was the last time you tested it or tested against a well honed burn deck? I assumed that burn wasn't a viable strategy in vintage back in the day, and then master tap t8'd a Waterbury with Pyrostatic Pillars, Ankh of Mishras, Goblin Vandals and the like. Nobody ever really picked it up again and tried to innovate or develop the deck. I guess The Mountain Wins Again and the various R/W incarnations that followed could be viewed as "burn" decks, but it's not as though people are actively tossing this thing up against the metagame to see if it's a viable strategy.

I guess what I'm saying is that under the right conditions it might be able to surprise people and win. It's not like people are packing chills in the board for them or anything.

[The Atog Lord]

I don't see how Legacy Zoo isn't a burn deck. Even Master Tap uses some creatures while lighting up his opponents. Legacy Zoo plays some combination of Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning, Lightning Helix, Fire Blast, and Price of Progress. No, not all cards in it are actual burn, but the strategy of the deck relies very heavily on burn spells, both as removal and as reach. And it plays around 12 of them. That makes it a burn deck. It is like how Ophidian is a counter deck, even though not every single card in the deck is an Island or a Counter. Counters are plentiful in the deck and fundamental to its plan. Zoo is a burn deck.

[pierce]

Zeus and I have a similar solution to this. Mine is only slightly different, and solves the cost issue while trying to make it fair in casual formats such as multiplayer.

How about:

Bring the Pain
Wooded R (Wooded R can only be with a basic mountain that entered the battlefield this turn from a Wooded Foothills) [to make it not broken in t2 and 1x)]
Enchantment

When Bring the Pain enters the battlefield, draw a card.

When Bring the Pain enters the battlefield, choose target opponent.

At end of turn, if Bring the Pain entered the battlefield this turn, choose one: Bring the Pain deals damage to the chosen opponent equal to the number of cards in your hand OR the amount of damage that player has taken this turn

R,Sacrifice Bring the Pain: Deal 2 damage to the chosen opponent.

Eh? Seems pretty busted. It would be at least a start to making the deck good enough for eternal. On turn one it deals five on the play and six on the draw, with it's first option, then two the next turn. That's a ton of damage for RR. The second option makes it not suck past turns one and two.

[Norm4eva]

If you are dead set on trying it in a field full of dumb shit like 43land, Counter-Top and Iona Reanimator, be my guest.  I think you would find that to make the deck more successful you're more likely to throw in things that detract from the whole concept of Sligh, Burn or whatever you want to call it and it starts gravitating towards Red Deck Wins or Zoo.  That's the biggest reason I don't think Burn as a conceptual deck is viable, because it's sort of implied that the deck is predominantly or entirely burn spells.

Aggro control has pretty much been the meat-and-potatoes of Legacy ever since the format was created.  Threshold has virtually never sucked; Goblins was always best when it could play control oriented shit like Sharpshooter, Incinerator, etc... the simplest form of Aggro control is pretty much guys and burn spells.  If that's what you mean by "Burn.dec" then yeah, you should start looking at Zoo lists and shit.  Then make sure that you have some way of dealing with the big cards like Counterbalance or Chalice of the Void.  I hear Vexing Shusher is okay.