What would burn need in order to become viable?

[Delha]

One of the other threads led to this exchange:

This also doesn't address the fact that a Lightning Bolt with buyback still might not be good enough to see play in Tier 1 Vintage decks.

I apologize beforehand, if you were joking. It sounded serious, but what you're claiming is too ridiculous for me to not suspect humor.

... so I'm starting a new one here. There's obviously a reason we haven't seen Burn.dec around for quite a while. In responding, I wondered how stong burn need to be in order for said deck to reach competitive levels.

Let's say WOTC prints InfiBolt below (which I think we can agree is insane).

InfiBolt

Deal 3 damage to target creature or player.
Buyback

What's your decklist look like from there? Can it fight through Duress/Thoughtsieze/FoW/Pierce/Drain/Chalice? I don't see it killing before turn 3 barring draws with Lotus AND Ruby, which doesn't seem out of line with what most top end decks are already capable of.

How about splash? My thoughts below. Criticism welcome, of course.
Oath: Probably not.
Tezz: Maybe splash to fight Fish with? You certainly don't need it when Key/Vault is out.
Dredge: Nope.
Shops: Not in MUD. Other Stax builds, I couldn't say.
TPS/ANT: Why?

[honestabe]

that cards way too good.  control decks would play the shit out of it.  so would red fish decks/any aggro decks.  plus it breaks every other format

[Norm4eva]

How is arguing for a decklist surrounding an insane putative card going to make Burn good, exactly?  O_o

How about this - Burn is not competitive because it is a deck that is screaming for an engine when you can't actually put one in.  If you put in creatures you're playing Zoo.  If you put in control you're playing CounterBurn, fucking whee.  The least amount of mana this deck spends is like, RRRRR (assuming an enemy fetchland and you draw Fireblast), which means at least 5 cards are a 3 : 1 damage/mana ratio and sadly the most you'll ever start with is 8 cards in hand and there aren't that many good Bolt variants.  And even if there were, oops, Counterbalance makes you pee your butt.

If Burn could actually "go off" like an actual combo deck there'd be something there.  But then it's the same as every other combo deck where you start wondering why your win condition is X and not -insert established combo win-.

[TheBrassMan]

Fish and other aggro decks wouldn't be able to play with it because they'd be dead.  It would be literally the best removal spell ever printed, and it would be almost impossible for any creature based deck to succeed in any capacity.  Even non-aggressive strategies that rely on a creature would be obsolete, like Confidants in Tez and anything like Control Slaver if that wasn't dead anyway.  It makes Planeswalkers useless.  It doesn't obsolete Tinker completely, but it makes it worse as the fish matchup is so much less important, and basically serves as the ultimate secondary win condition.  You don't usually want to see more than one, but people will have counters and sack outlets to stop it from being bought back, so you probably give yourself access to 4 post board.  It's possible that aggro becomes so useless that people stop running creatures, which reduces the value of BuybackBolt, which could lead to people cutting it which could lead to aggro coming back... but it's just too easy to just run one and completely dominate the matchup.  Storm definitely *would* have access to this card, as the best answer to disruption creatures ever, which doubles as a huge storm producer.  Each cast generates 2.5 storm for the purposes of Tendrils.  Lotus + Buyback Bolt + Tendrils on its own is 19 damage with no other spells cast.  Like honestabe said - too good to think about

[TopSecret]

I would just play whatever red burn deck was the best relative to the metagame and replace the worst bolt (Chain Lightning?) with that one.

But I think the question is not directed towards the most relevant and easily observable issue. Burn is viable in the right metagame, but it has sucked in most contemporary metagames.

The problem with Burn is that it can't stop non-creature spells easily, and more often than not, it isn't faster than the "best" deck which plays little or no creatures. This causes the phenomenon of Burn being awful.

However, there have been metagames where burn was viable. When the "best" decks were slow enough to get raced by Burn in 2009, Burn became viable because it had a decent matchup against creature decks and the "best" decks.

At TMD Open 13, two different Burn decks finished in the top 16:

http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=TMD+OPEN+13+-+Day+1


So, to answer your original question, burn would need to be able to race the best deck.
If you printed a burn spell or two that dealt enough damage to make Burn faster than the best deck, it could become viable again.
Or you could just wait until the metagame changes to decks slower than burn and/or decks that rely on creatures that can be burned.

[BruiZar]

Red has a lot of rituals available, so I think Burndrils would be the way to go with 0-buybackbolt.

[Juggernaut GO]

haha, that website has my war mammoth stax deck.  I can't believe there were people that actually lost to that piece of shit.

[Bill Copes]

haha, that website has my war mammoth stax deck.  I can't believe there were people that actually lost to that piece of shit.

Did anyone actually die via War Mammoth combat damage?

[Juggernaut GO]

yeah an oath player.  Irony, lol.

[M.Solymossy]

that cards way too good.  control decks would play the shit out of it.  so would red fish decks/any aggro decks.  plus it breaks every other format

I'd run 4 in all blue control decks.  It would be my win condition.

[TopSecret]

This card from the new set is pretty good for burn if it's real:

Kiln Fiend   

Creature - Elemental Beast   
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, Kiln Fiend gets +3/+0 until end of turn.
1/2


I don't know if it makes Burn actually viable, but cards like this are definitely helpful.

[DubDub]

This card from the new set is pretty good for burn if it's real:

Kiln Fiend

Creature - Elemental Beast   
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, Kiln Fiend gets +3/+0 until end of turn.
1/2


I don't know if it makes Burn actually viable, but cards like this are definitely helpful.

casting cost right?

[TopSecret]

Yes.   Thanks for catching that. I keep forgetting to put in mana costs.

[Delha]

Since people seem to taking the card seriously, I should mention that this was only intended as a thought exercise. I dreamed it up with the understanding that it's completely unprintable.

Reading the replies, I realize that I was thinking way too much in terms of what new deck could be built around it and only gave a passing thought to how it fits in current shells. I also realized I was thinking about what it did for decks instead of against them.

Oath: Nukes spirit tokens. Bad news.
Tezz: Hits Tezz, Confidants. Maybe races DSC/Inkwell?
Dregde: Keeps them off Dread Return? Therapy might keep it to a speed bump.
Shops: Hits Welders, Golems, Juggy, Trike. Ouch.
TPS: Necro/Bargain get way worse.
ANT: Ouch.
Fish: Ouch.

Looking at it from that perspective, it's definitely a lot more format warping than I'd thought. You'd run not so much because it helps your plan, but because it disrupts 80-90% of the field. I suppose it would have been more in line with what I was thinking if it said something like "Buyback: Reveal 3 red cards in your hand", or "Replicate: " to cut down on splashability.

[evouga]

Burn is *already* frequently a viable archetype... cards like Price of Progress and Magus of the Moon shred through an unprepared metagame.

What's preventing the deck from being truly top-tier is not a lack of good burn spells, but of a good gas-replenishing engine. I would prefer Wheel of Fortune II to InfiBolt any day of the week.

[Delha]

Burn is *already* frequently a viable archetype... cards like Price of Progress and Magus of the Moon shred through an unprepared metagame.

What's preventing the deck from being truly top-tier is not a lack of good burn spells, but of a good gas-replenishing engine. I would prefer Wheel of Fortune II to InfiBolt any day of the week.

Are you using a different definition of viable than I am? In my book, if nobody considers it worth accounting for during their deck construction, it's not viable. That said, how many times have you seen Warmth or COP Red in the last five years? Are you perhaps talking about Legacy? I'd heard Burn isn't as scarce over there, but I was referring to Vintage.

I don't consider running PoP/Magus to make a deck Burn, just as running FoW does not automatically indicate a control deck. TopSecret's link had two Sligh decks, one with 4x Bolt + 4x PoP and the other running 4x Bolt + 4x Sudden Shock. In comparison, both ran over 20 creatures. I think it's clear that beatdown was more the plan than "to the dome".

Regarding "Wheel of Fortune II": Why would you possibly say that? Reloading your hand is made necessary because burn is all about mana + cards -> damage. The biggest reason this hypothetical card is broken is because it removes the card cost from that equation. You never need to replenish your gas because it simply doesn't run out in the first place.

All that said, thanks to everyone who focused on the thread subject rather than the card I threw out. The design was something off the cuff and I didn't consider it outside the framework described earlier, which was obviously a big mistake.

[Norm4eva]

Burn is *already* frequently a viable archetype... cards like Price of Progress and Magus of the Moon shred through an unprepared metagame.

You've played Legacy before, right?  Cuz I know you're not talking about Vintage.

And if you've played Legacy, then I say again - Counterbalance sort of kills this deck.  Show me a Burn decklist that doesn't just concede to deck with 52 cards, 4 Counterbalance and 4 Sensei's Diving Tops.  Seriously.

[TheBrassMan]

The hypothetical card you threw out illustrates an important point though.  A deck can only be improved relative to other decks.  Buybackbolt *would* make burn much much better... it just helps other decks even more.  This is the same reason why Tarmogoyf, the most efficient green creature ever, made green-creature-based strategies *worse* and blue control decks *better.*  For burn to be viable, you need cards that a burn deck wants more than other decks do.  Far more likely and more useful, you need cards that hurt other decks but don't hurt burn, and those cards need to be good enough that other decks (not just burn) are running them, cutting the relative power of non burn strategies.  Alternatively, cards that already work that way could become more popular (for instance, a deck that casts Infernal Contract but doesn't win right away.)  All pretty unlikely that it would happen to the extent necessary to make Burn a powerhouse... but that's those are the kind of things it would take

[A_Outcast]

kiln demon is pretty nuts in burn.  it makes each inst/sorc you cast into a bolt+whatever else it does if your opponent doesnt have a blocker.  cast him t1/t2 depending on luck, then follow up with something like bolt+lava spike and swing for 7.  thats 13 damage t3 which is kinda nuts.

[Norm4eva]

If you're lucky enough to play in a meta that doesn't have CounterTop or Iona Reanimator or decks that play Chalice of the Void then sure go for it I guess, but if this describes your metagame then it's a little bit worse than 'unprepared'.

[Gambit]

Something like....obv not worded correctly, but you get the point

InfiBolt

Deal 3 damage to target creature or player.
Buyback {reveal the top 10 cards of your deck; if 5 are red buyback is 0}

[Evenpence]

Something like....obv not worded correctly, but you get the point

InfiBolt

Deal 3 damage to target creature or player.
Buyback {reveal the top 10 cards of your deck; if 5 are red buyback is 0}

^  Well played.  This is a great solution, and allows the bolt to actually die, which would make it still unbelievably exceptionally strong, but not ridiculously overpowered.  A cost of 2R with that buyback would be balanced, I think.

Also, maybe they should only reveal 5 and it should be at least two.  They could put the cards on the bottom of their library in any order then.

[Norm4eva]

This is starting to feel more like a CCF thread

I will say it again, based on my experience with a meta playing things like Iona Reanimator and CounterTop.dec.  If any of these decks exist in your area, you will probably lose horribly playing Burn, or probably any mono-colored deck.  If you metagame is more aggro then maybe it's worth the gamble, but you still have to win exceptionally fast.  You have to build this deck to lose to Chalice and Counterbalance for it to be good, and those cards are sort of > the format.

[Cyberpunker]

You need to make a mega burn for Burn to be powerful in Vintage. Because I think Vintage is the last format where life doesn't matter until the last 1-2 points.

 

7 Damage something like that.

[TheShop]

In vintage I think they need

Shazaam!

R
Instant
Double all damage red spells would deal this turn.

That would lead to hands where you-

mountai, go, REB

turn 2 mountain, mox, Shazaam!, Shrap Blast, Fireblast for 18 on turn 2 while playing protection turn 1.  18 is normally enough to get there.

[silvernail]

Burn needs some kind of disruption to be viable in most metagames, preferably something that also deals damage in some way. I'd try something like this perhaps :

Artifact hate enchantment 

enchantment

AHE cannot be countered.
At the beginning of your upkeep, reveal the top card of your library. If that card is a land or artifact, sacrifice AHE.
Whenever a player taps an artifact AHE deals 2 damage to him or her.
When AHE leaves the battlefield you may have AHE deal 5 damage to target player if that player controls an artifact.

It's just an example of something that could be disruptive.

[Smmenen]

Burn is played alot in Legacy, but it never makes top 8.   If Burn isn't good enough in Legacy, why would we expect that it could ever be good enough in Vintage?   

[median]

Burn was good at one point because it functioned on the basis that you could use your damage spells as creature control and your opponents creature control cards would be dead. We would need that meta for burn to be good again. If cards were printed that allowed for that meta, (standard in vintage) then burn would be amazing.

[bluemage55]

IMO one of the major problems with burn is a lack of effective disruption and the tendency to fall behind in CA.  If I were to print a spell to improve burn, it'd look like this:

Disrupt Bolt

Sorcery
Deal 3 damage to target player.  That player discards a card.

[TheShop]

You mean blightning?