What would burn need in order to become viable?

[Norm4eva]

I suspect that Kiln Fiend won't make the cut in Vintage because it has to swing a number of times similar to Iona/Inky, but without being inherently disruptive or resistant to removal. I think he'll find a good home in Legacy, considering that Zoo is entirely viable.

Well I suppose that depends on your definition of "a number of times".  If you have a Kiln Fiend in play and you cast two Lava Spikes at target opponent and swing with Kiln Fiend (who's now a 7/2), that's 13 points of damage.  That alone puts the opponent well within range of the Burn deck to finish them even if the Fiend gets chumped or otherwise answered.

Because the burn deck has the capacity to be so very redundant, it's not necessarily outside the range of possibility to see something foolish like this;

t1 - Mox Anything, Mountain, Kiln Fiend.
t2 - 3 1cmc burn spells (opponent at 11), swing with a 10/2 Kiln Fiend (opponent at 1).  Nice fetchland.

Now do I think that Kiln Fiend alone makes the deck worth playing?  It's hard to say; Wild Mongrel was generally the preferred enabler of Madness, but sometimes you went with Aquamoeba and had to shrug and deal.  Then again Madness represents more than just enabling damage; Madness had Circular Logic, a modicum of playable burn spells and other effects.  What makes a good deck good is its ability to either ignore or force interaction; in this regard Burn often falls short because it cannot proactively do both.

edit: math is tech

[TheShop]

So since its been overwhelmingly established that burn cannot be the beatdown in Vintage due to format speed:  How can burn play control?  If it cant play control then it is relegated to unplayable.  Those are the two remaining options.

[Norm4eva]

Outside of being pretty good at keeping creatures in check, Red's idea of control is more of a revenge tactic; you played shit I don't like, so burn you.  Price of Progress, Pyrostatic Pillar, Aura Barbs (sad face).  Smash to Smithereens.  Nice fattie, oh btw Threaten kthx.

Red has a natural disdain for control; its sideboards usually reflect this in enabling them to control the controller.  REB.  Pyroblast.  Vexing Shusher.  Flaring Pain.  Sometimes you just can't counter their shit.  Urza's Rage.  Banefire.

Someone brought up Tangle Wire a page or two ago; I thought that was a pretty smart idea.  If the plan is to burn the other guy out AND do it in a way which disrupts their plans, Tangle Wire seems like a natural way to do that.  Since Burn should probably play mostly Instants, there's not a real conflict there since Burn would just tap its lands in response to the Tangle Wire's ability.

[TopSecret]

So since its been overwhelmingly established that burn cannot be the beatdown in Vintage due to format speed:  How can burn play control?  If it cant play control then it is relegated to unplayable.  Those are the two remaining options.

It's not exactly red burn, but there are a couple counterspells that deal damage to the opponent, like Undermine and Countersquall. As you've mentioned, Smash to Smithereens can also disrupt at the same time as burning.

So if you loaded a deck up with these kinds spells, if enough of them exist, that would kind of be like a "burn" deck.

I think it's probably more of a fun, gimmicky idea than anything else. I don't know if it's viable. But there's nothing wrong with some fun.

There are also some cards that can help in the early game to draw cards and turn into burn in the late game. Like Sign in Blood and Cerebral Vortex.

This kind of deck would probably have to be aimed at beating specific decks while conceding bad matchups against the rest of the metagame to be viable at all since you would have to have some kind of ridiculous edge in a match to even have a chance at casting shit like Undermine and not be completely destroyed. But I think only being able to beat certain decks in a given meta would be totally worth it just to have a shot at killing someone with Undermine.

So, for example, if your metagame is mostly Oath, you just play maindeck Ray of Revelation and other ridiculous Oath hate that can two for one in the early game and be really difficult to win through. Give up on beating the other decks. Just assume you will get paired against Oath. Then, when you do get paired against Oath, you use your playset of Ray of Revelation and such cards that are unfairly specific to the matchup to make it really difficult for them to win. Because the opponent has to deal with all of this Ray of Revelation bullshit, the other normally terrible cards in the burn deck suddenly become castable and it is now an even match. Your opponent cannot believe this and goes on tilt. He starts playing terribly. Who maindecks Ray of Revelation? What is happening? Why is my opponent playing with Cerebral Vortex? As the game goes on the opponent makes more and more mistakes and his life is slowly chipped away by so many Smash to Smithereens. The number of turns has gone into the double digits. Your opponent actually attempts to hardcast Iona. At this point you cast Undermine for the game. You are a champion.

[doctrellor]

I used to play burn - back in the old Channel/Fireball ....

The thing I see nowadays, is that burn doesn't have steady consistent damage. And top-decking is a major concern.

so cards like Fork, Wheel of Fortune are needed parts in any burn deck still (even though Wheel helps the opponent, and so doesn't give one the card advantage needed to make a real impact). Sure the cards in a burn deck are a lot better than in years past ... Burn just seems to be a regular "splash" in other colors (Green, Blue, Black use burn quick well)

I just see Sligh (or a "burn deck" with critters) making use of steady damage and less of a top-decking concern to be better than Burn nowadays. I have seen plenty of Burn decks using just Fanatics or other 4-of just to bring in some sort of damage or chump blocker.

But to make it viable in T1 -- hmmm -- Card advantage, Buyback burn spells, Disruption -- something major that would make an immediate impact (especially in the early turns)

[Killane]

Brainburn 

Instant

3 dmg to target player
That player can't play spells or attack this turn.

Brainboil 

4 dmg to target player
That player can't play spells or attack this turn.

Brainblaze 

2 dmg to target player
That player can't play spells or attack this turn.
Look that player's hand a choose a card - that player discards that card.

Ouch! REALLY$^@#$! 

6 dmg to target player
That player can't play spells or attack this turn.
That player exiles their hand.

Basically make a deck of this, Orim's Chant, and Silence, and Isochron Sceptre. That woudl be viable. But since only the fist one of the series is printable - and likely too strong for standard, it ain't gonna happen.

I'm also not conveinced even this level of crap would be enough - but Chant effects attached to burn are likely the only way to make it work I woudl think.

[thecman]

That player can't play spells or attack this turn.

I think if you just take off the can't attack clause then these aren't too broken for Standard.  Even if they still are you could always rephrase it to "can't play non-creature spells" or "can't play instant or sorcery spells" etc. so it doesn't shut down their entire turn.  Both of those still seem worth it in Vintage where you're mostly worried about broken spells rather than creatures.

I also really like the idea of a card that is shock+duress+silence.

[Delha]

...[SAMPLE CARDS]...

...I'm also not conveinced even this level of crap would be enough - but Chant effects attached to burn are likely the only way to make it work I woudl think.

As I said before, let's try and keep the conversation theoretical, ok? Once people start cranking out sample cards, the thread tends to shift towards arguments about that specifics on said card.

It sounds to me like you think tying burn to disruptive effects is the way to go. My concern for this kind of approach is that it's a very dependent on consistency. Many decks will probably just wait a turn or two, then drop their jewelry and a couple broken spells to ruin you.

The strat also seems weak to counters. A Pierce/Drain/FoW into Tinker or Tezz can also steal games where you've had apparent control up until then.

[Norm4eva]

I think it's just a case of seeing that the kind of control Red would naturally play isn't really the right kind to play right now.  In a meta full of, like, Gay/R or something, a Burn deck with Volcanic Fallout would be scary as fuck.

Is it enough to just declare Burn a poor metagame choice right now?  I don't think the actual burn spells are the problem; seriously, they're so redundant that it's actually pretty easy to build a burn deck that goldfishes the turn 4.  It's a shame that that's too slow.  Likewise, it's not hard to build a controlling Red deck which can stomp on dumb things like Goblins or Merfolk.  If those are the decks you're trying to beat.

[Delha]

Isn't that just the same as saying that burn isn't efficient enough? More dmg per spell means your kill would obviously be quicker. The biggest issue is creating spells that accomplish that goal in Vintage, but not in Standard.

It's really starting to feel like people are just repeating that have arleady been covered. Maybe I should just start quoting myself instead of typing real replies.

[doctrellor]

Yeah -- well, I'll see -- since Dreamers has T1.5 tourneys every week , and it's sister store (Monster Den) has a T1 tourney on the 30th that giving out a peice of P9 ..

I might as well play my Sligh deck I updated and have been playtesting like crazy -- and see how I do .. (so I have 2 weeks basically to decide on mono-red or a splash .. lol). I'll most likely get my a$$ kicked, but hey -- I figure the experience will be fun.

[Smmenen]

I believe the idea that more efficient burn would make burn decks good is not based on a good understanding of what makes a deck good.  Take this card:

Must Counter
R
Instant
Must Counter deals 10 damage to target player.

If they printed this, burn would still not be the best way to abuse the card.  Blue based decks would be able to find the card when it needs it, defend it to make sure it resolves, and prevent getting blown out from an opponents draw. 

If you really want to extend the point, make the spell do 20 damage.  At that point, it becomes painfully obvious that good decks should be able to find the best cards when they need them, as well as ensure their plan works and their opponents does not. 

Obviously, a R spell that did 19 damage would probably be better in a non-burn deck.  But that's a silly counter example.  You've taken it too far.    Obviously if there was a single card or two card combo that wins the game for burn, then Burn decks aren't the optimal home for it.

I'm talking about making burn more efficient by maybe a 1.5x to 2X factor, high enough to allow burn to race with other decks by combining multiple burn spells, but not so efficient that the spells are so potent that they would be more effectively used by non-burn decks.   

[TheShop]

I believe the idea that more efficient burn would make burn decks good is not based on a good understanding of what makes a deck good.  Take this card:

Must Counter
R
Instant
Must Counter deals 10 damage to target player.

If they printed this, burn would still not be the best way to abuse the card.  Blue based decks would be able to find the card when it needs it, defend it to make sure it resolves, and prevent getting blown out from an opponents draw. 

If you really want to extend the point, make the spell do 20 damage.  At that point, it becomes painfully obvious that good decks should be able to find the best cards when they need them, as well as ensure their plan works and their opponents does not. 

Obviously, a R spell that did 19 damage would probably be better in a non-burn deck.  But that's a silly counter example.  You've taken it too far.    Obviously if there was a single card or two card combo that wins the game for burn, then Burn decks aren't the optimal home for it.

I'm talking about making burn more efficient by maybe a 1.5x to 2X factor, high enough to allow burn to race with other decks by combining multiple burn spells, but not so efficient that the spells are so potent that they would be more effectively used by non-burn decks.   

at 2x factor the random burn spells showing up in other decks would be able to remove most of the creatures in the format.  At 6 or more, they would probably need to be player only.

[doctrellor]

a burn spell doing 20? -- reminds me of Channel/Fireball --

lay down Forest, Mox, Lotus, Mana it up -- take away ones life for mana -- cast spells -- bam -- 1 opponent cursing you under thier breath for not having a counterspell in hand .. lol

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Chain Bolt  
Instant
Chain Bolt deals 3 damage to target creature or player plus 3 damage for each Chain Bolt in your graveyard.
A deck can have any number of cards named Chain Bolt.

This is the only way I can see it working. It solves the inherent card advantage problem of running burn while making each spell really effective and not being capable of being run in non-burn decks. Of course it breaks every other format but hey, so would anything else Vintage worthy.

[Norm4eva]

If burn spells deal 'too much damage', they're just Red StPs that can also dome the opponent for 5+.  All that does is give current control decks a means towards speeding the kill; even if their usual kill is, say, Tombstalker, a control deck with the usual counterspell suite supplemented with Stalkers and a 5 damage Bolt spell gets to apply pressure in ways that they weren't able to before, without sacrificing the ability to remove problematic creatures.

As long as we're imagining cards that'll never see print, here's my shot at one that would putatively only show up in a dedicated burn deck:

Magnified Bolt
R
Instant

-this- deal 2 damage to target creature or player.  If another red spell you control is on the stack, -this- deals 5 damage to that creature or player instead.

Red strategies go all in, so playing a bunch of spells without passing priority seems like a pretty Red thing to do; why not reward such thoughtless behavior by magnifying the damage?  The idea here is, if Red burn spells are "fire spells" at heart, then having two red spells on the stack should create a huge, gross, scary fireball of fear and terror and win.  Like sympathetic feedback, only, you know, made of fire.

[TopSecret]

Pow!   R

Sorcery

For each red instant or sorcery in your graveyard,
Pow! deals 2 damage to target player.

Pow can't be countered.



What did the five fingers say to the face?   RR

Sorcery

Chroma - Reveal any number of red instant or sorceries from your hand.
For each red mana symbol in their mana cost, deal 2 damage to target player.



Chandra As a Baby  R

Planeswalker - Chandra

+1: Deal 1 damage to target player.

-1: Search your library for a red instant or sorcery with manacost one or less.

-3: Until end of turn, red instants and sorcery spells you control deal twice as much damage.

1 Loyalty



Haven't checked if these are broken or not. I think it's possible to make some cards that could make burn good in Vintage without destroying other formats or making non-burn decks way better than burn. It's just kind of difficult to not make something that is not too complicated, really narrow, or over the top.

[zeus-online]

Burn would need to ban and restrict alot of cards to be viable.

[doctrellor]

So since its been overwhelmingly established that burn cannot be the beatdown in Vintage due to format speed:  How can burn play control?  If it cant play control then it is relegated to unplayable.  Those are the two remaining options.

The only things I can think about are "controlling" type cards that burn would use

1) Orb -- can only untap 1 land (works well with Stompy decks)
2) Mass creature kill -- various spells are out there
3) Land kill -- earthquake
4) Reset Cards -- like Jokulhaups or Jester Cap -- and some such
5) "Damage" style -- Ankh or Pyroclasm

So thereare ways to do field control -- I would say they would be seen in T1.5 instead of a T1 deck.

[Norm4eva]

Can I just say "Kiln Fiend" over and over until someone actually sleeves it up?

I know you guys are talking about Vintage, but omfg fucking seriously.  He makes every burn spell worth so much more, and it's not exactly a physical challenge to have 2 mana on your first turn in Type 1.  When he resolves, Dumb Things Happen.  Your burn spells are each worth 3 more damages.  I had reservations about him, thought he was just another Wee Dragonauts.  But he's sort of nuts in Sligh, as in "I actually don't need to run Green for Goyf anymore" nuts.

[TheShop]

Can I just say "Kiln Fiend" over and over until someone actually sleeves it up?

I know you guys are talking about Vintage, but omfg fucking seriously.  He makes every burn spell worth so much more, and it's not exactly a physical challenge to have 2 mana on your first turn in Type 1.  When he resolves, Dumb Things Happen.  Your burn spells are each worth 3 more damages.  I had reservations about him, thought he was just another Wee Dragonauts.  But he's sort of nuts in Sligh, as in "I actually don't need to run Green for Goyf anymore" nuts.

it is certainly notable that he makes all the burn spells deal nearly the dmg amounts people have calculated here

[Norm4eva]

Can I just say "Kiln Fiend" over and over until someone actually sleeves it up?

I know you guys are talking about Vintage, but omfg fucking seriously.  He makes every burn spell worth so much more, and it's not exactly a physical challenge to have 2 mana on your first turn in Type 1.  When he resolves, Dumb Things Happen.  Your burn spells are each worth 3 more damages.  I had reservations about him, thought he was just another Wee Dragonauts.  But he's sort of nuts in Sligh, as in "I actually don't need to run Green for Goyf anymore" nuts.

it is certainly notable that he makes all the burn spells deal nearly the dmg amounts people have calculated here

Not just burn spells necessarily; any Instant or Sorcery.  The Sligh list I'm testing runs a mixture of Land Grants and Manamorphose to pump the shit out of Kiln Fiend for free - plus, Manamorphose is pretty much a free cantrip, so yeah, go go gadget 56 card deck.  Wasteland is frown town though :(

[Delha]

Too all the people suggesting unprintable cards:

I'm hearing a lot of repetition that the answer is primarily "burn needs more efficient spells", like I suggested earlier. Specifically, it's sounding like what burn really wants is more damage per card.

That said, I'm thinking the next question should be how do be build a printable card that does that? In particular, we'd need to make something good enough to see Eternal play, but not break Standard in the process. Most of the ideas I've seen thus far tend to miss the second half of that.

Pushing anything strictly better than Lightning Bolt just breaks what's already been a huge power creep in creatures...

...If what you're looking for is a way to increase the damage/card ratio of burn spells, Kiln Fiend does that in a very direct way.

I think that making a "strictly better Lighting Bolt is the wrong approach, and why many people are suggesting unprintable cards. I would argue that the better way is to use a mechanic that Eternal can abuse, but Standard cannot.

If nobody gave a damn about Standard, yes it would be stupidly easy to design some card to make burn competitive. If the answer was that easy though, it wouldn't be a thought exercise, it would be common sense.


@ Norm4eva: I agree that Kiln Fiend is far and away the closest thing to an answer that I've seen printed. Some analogies I see:
Furnace of Rath - Like a cheaper, but slower and more vulnerable version of this.
Quirion Dryad - Like a faster, but more all-in version of this. I personally think a UBR, duress heavy, aggro-control deck is the best place to abuse Fiend.
Tendrils of Agony - Kind of like a Tendrils that you cast before all your other spells.

And some issues I forsee:

1. Card Efficiency: Resolving 3 Bolts (or equivalent) is 19 damage. That means 4 spells to reach lethal on your T2 swing. 5 spells (including Fiend, excluding Mox) instead of 7 Bolt effects is definitely an improvement, but still vulnerable to a bad opening 7. Replacing any of those five w/ non-burn effects cuts your efficiency in half, and exacerbates this.

2. Mana Efficiency: I agree that hitting on turn one isn't that hard. Hitting for T2 lethal is a bit harder. At least Manamorphose and red rits help while counting as half a Bolt. Sphere effects hurt almost as badly as storm combo.

3. Speed: You have to pass the turn. That means they know what you are planning, and have time to look for their answer. Reckless Charge can mitigate this while serving as a Bolt analogue, but you only get 4 copies. The fact that Fiend has to come down first also means lots of games where you T1 tutor, then T2 cast and T3 swing. Less all-in than committing then looking for Tendrils.

4. Vulnerability: Creatures are inherently removable. Chain of Vapor, or anything else instant speed is brutal, as you're probably trading at roughly 4-for-1. This is less true if you've been using true burn spells, but even then, the efficiency gain disappears. More all-in than Tendrils, if viewed as all instant removal turning into Stifle.

[KBH]

Would unrestricted Wheel of Fortune make Burn viable?

[Delha]

Would unrestricted Wheel of Fortune make Burn viable?

Combo would be stupid quick with 4x Wheel (emphasis on stupid). If you built a burn deck around red rits, Wheel, and burn, then yeah, it's probably doable. TBH, that's the direction I think burn has to take anyway. I was suggesting new ideas rather than unrestriction because I believe 4x Wheel is even less likely to happen than a playable red version of Tendrils.

[Troy_Costisick]

Would unrestricted Wheel of Fortune make Burn viable?

Combo would be stupid quick with 4x Wheel (emphasis on stupid). If you built a burn deck around red rits, Wheel, and burn, then yeah, it's probably doable. TBH, that's the direction I think burn has to take anyway. I was suggesting new ideas rather than unrestriction because I believe 4x Wheel is even less likely to happen than a playable red version of Tendrils.

Empty the Warrens is the red Tendrils.

[GrandpaBelcher]

Would unrestricted Wheel of Fortune make Burn viable?

Combo would be stupid quick with 4x Wheel (emphasis on stupid). If you built a burn deck around red rits, Wheel, and burn, then yeah, it's probably doable. TBH, that's the direction I think burn has to take anyway. I was suggesting new ideas rather than unrestriction because I believe 4x Wheel is even less likely to happen than a playable red version of Tendrils.

Empty the Warrens is the red Tendrils.

This has been done.  Belcher is the best burn deck in Vintage.

[KBH]

Would unrestricted Wheel of Fortune make Burn viable?

Combo would be stupid quick with 4x Wheel (emphasis on stupid). If you built a burn deck around red rits, Wheel, and burn, then yeah, it's probably doable. TBH, that's the direction I think burn has to take anyway. I was suggesting new ideas rather than unrestriction because I believe 4x Wheel is even less likely to happen than a playable red version of Tendrils.

I don't know what stupid quick means honestly.  There is no Vintage scene around me to judge, but ANT in Legacy has a high turn 2 win %.  How much can Wheel honestly improve on that? 

[Killane]

a high turn one kill percentage. Like original Long.dec.

[Delha]

Empty the Warrens is the red Tendrils.

I'd say Grapeshot is a closer analogue. If Tendrils waited a turn to hit, I don't think it would be playable. Also, T1 ETW at storm 5 is quite possibly lethal. Tendrils at storm 5 is probably suicide.

This has been done.  Belcher is the best burn deck in Vintage.

That's a good point. I was going to say I'd hope that an burn would be less all-in than Belcher, but I don't think it realistically can be.

I don't know what stupid quick means honestly.  There is no Vintage scene around me to judge, but ANT in Legacy has a high turn 2 win %.  How much can Wheel honestly improve on that?

What Killane said. Imagine TPS that can run 5 copies of Tinker/Jar instead of one, and that's the scale of how degenerate it would be.