What would burn need in order to become viable?

[zeus-online]

Okay, so now we're discussing the definition of a burn deck?

....

The inclusion of burn spells does not make a deck "a burn deck". Your description of legacy Zoo sounds more like Dead Guy Red or the later incarnations of Sligh (The earlier where aggro/control)

Neither does the inclusion of counterspells make the deck into a "counterdeck" and i believe it's counterproductive to classify them as such since it completely misses how the deck operates. I'd much rather define control decks by engine (As such your counter deck becomes an Ophidian deck) since if i actually played against the deck, stopping ophidian is more key then getting around counterspells (Without the ophidian the counterspells are not really a problem since he can only do that a few times before running out of countermagic, and the time he buys by countering is wasted as he needs the ophidian to make that time count)

Thus something like sligh uses burn to clear a path, to finish the game (reach) Not merely to race the opponent.

I don't believe burn is a viable strategy in vintage and legacy due to the existance of combo decks that pretty much do the same thing as burn attempts to do, just faster. (And i do believe burn was "meant" to race the opponent, since those decks have no choice but to try and race)

[TheDeadMan]

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?

Vexing susher, pyrostatic pillar, ankh of mishra. While the deck most likely will never be teir 1 or 2, it is a strong deck that is allways underestimated and excels when built for the meta.

I don't believe burn is a viable strategy in vintage and legacy due to the existance of combo decks that pretty much do the same thing as burn attempts to do, just faster. (And i do believe burn was "meant" to race the opponent, since those decks have no choice but to try and race)

With the recent printing of kiln fiend the decks clock has increased to the point where it can race just about any deck out their.

[Cyberpunker]

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?

Vexing susher, pyrostatic pillar, ankh of mishra. While the deck most likely will never be teir 1 or 2, it is a strong deck that is allways underestimated and excels when built for the meta.

I don't believe burn is a viable strategy in vintage and legacy due to the existance of combo decks that pretty much do the same thing as burn attempts to do, just faster. (And i do believe burn was "meant" to race the opponent, since those decks have no choice but to try and race)

With the recent printing of kiln fiend the decks clock has increased to the point where it can race just about any deck out their.

So there you have it. More powerful burn.

[Norm4eva]

I will admit; I've not play tested a Kiln Fiend deck.  My intuition tells me that it's probably only good as a turn one play; I would feel like an ass tapping out to play that guy, especially if I were doing it later in the game when I could just be playing a relevant damages spell.  From the outside, without having tested Kiln Fiend, it feels like a bad combo deck with no draw engine.  It's High Tide without the 20+ draw spells to find High Tide.  I'll give it a look though.

And yeah, I did bring up Burn vs Sligh vs RDW because they are fundamentally different.  I know the definition of a 'burn deck' and I know what separates that from a Sligh list, and what I'm trying to get at here is that unless your metagame is bereft of things like Iona or Counterbalance or Chalice of the Void - things that just ruin classic mono-red Burn strategies - then I believe you'll find that tuning the deck to be successful takes it far away from being Burn.dec and morphs it into Yet Another Aggro Control Deck.  Which is fine.  It's just not Burn anymore.

FWIW, Kiln Fiend isn't color-specific - it just says "Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell...." So I'm guessing (again no testing, just guessing) that if you were really looking to abuse the card, it wouldn't be in a mono-red list.  Then again I'm reminded of the Wee Dragonauts phase everybody went through, and look how that card made us change our whole perspective on shit, eyeroll.  I'm not oblivious to the trade off flying and a point of toughness to the extra point of power per spell; just sayin', is all.  I'd love to see a Kiln Fiend deck wreck face, I would play the shit out of that deck.  If I didn't think it auto-lost to decks with draw spells and Counterbalance.

[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?  

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.

I don't think that's why.

Burn's fundamental problem is a simple mathematical one.   It takes a certain number of burn spells and turns to deal 20 damage.  Legacy and Vintage, on average, are too fast for even the most efficient burn spells to win the game before the opponent goldfishes you.   About the fastest burn can win is on turn four, and that's with a great hand.   Both Legacy and Vintage are too fast for that, both in terms of the fundamental turn and in terms of actual time it takes to win the game. 

Legacy is a fast format, where most decks can race burn with highly efficient creatures or combo kills.    Vintage is an even faster format.    Opponent's should have no trouble assembling the Time Vault combo (or any other combo or lock) before burn will have had enough time to win the game.  

[Cyberpunker]

So what happens when you make a powerful burn that can race?

[Delha]

I don't think that's why.

Burn's fundamental problem is a simple mathematical one.   It takes a certain number of burn spells and turns to deal 20 damage.  Legacy and Vintage, on average, are too fast for even the most efficient burn spells to win the game before the opponent goldfishes you.   About the fastest burn can win is on turn four, and that's with a great hand.   Both Legacy and Vintage are too fast for that, both in terms of the fundamental turn and in terms of actual time it takes to win the game. 

Legacy is a fast format, where most decks can race burn with highly efficient creatures or combo kills.    Vintage is an even faster format.    Opponent's should have no trouble assembling the Time Vault combo (or any other combo or lock) before burn will have had enough time to win the game.

Without acceleration, I agree that it takes four turns. On the other hand, opening with Ruby or Chrome Mox means you hit seven red by turn 3. That's comparable to TPS, isn't it? The problem then is that in converting your hand to mana, you don't have enough cards left to convert said mana to damage. That's why my hypothetical broken card was something reusable, but still as efficient as Bolt. To continue the TPS comparison, a variant w/ replicate might serve as a Tendrils analogue in a build running Seething Song or similar spells to help convert mana from off-color Moxen to red. That could also limit splashability, although it would still be too powerful in Standard to see print.

[CorwinB]

Just for what it's worth, there is currently a Standard mono-red deck featuring large amounts of burn that can kill on Turn 3, using Devastating Summons in combo with Goblin Bushwacker.

[pierce]

Just for what it's worth, there is currently a Standard mono-red deck featuring large amounts of burn that can kill on Turn 3, using Devastating Summons in combo with Goblin Bushwacker.

yeah, that deck is easily tier one, and this weekend of ptqs and similar events ought to prove that.

[Troy_Costisick]

With Kiln Fiend you can have a turn 2 kill, but the odds of it are really low. 

If we're doing pie-in-the-sky card creations, a burn card with a kicker that cost life or exiling cards from the top of our library would preferable than buyback IMO.  Burn has to get its damage to card ratio above three to really have a shot.

[Norm4eva]

That Devastating Summons deck is exactly what I mean, though - that's not Burn.  It plays way too many creatures to just be "Burn.dec", and the turn 3 kill is a godhand that involves you sacking all your land to Devastating Summons and having Bushwhacker just resolve.  You guys are wondering why I'm getting into nomenclature, this is why - I know what *I* mean when I think of Burn in Legacy, but wtf in the hell are *you* guys talking about?

[Smmenen]

I don't think that's why.

Burn's fundamental problem is a simple mathematical one.   It takes a certain number of burn spells and turns to deal 20 damage.  Legacy and Vintage, on average, are too fast for even the most efficient burn spells to win the game before the opponent goldfishes you.   About the fastest burn can win is on turn four, and that's with a great hand.   Both Legacy and Vintage are too fast for that, both in terms of the fundamental turn and in terms of actual time it takes to win the game. 

Legacy is a fast format, where most decks can race burn with highly efficient creatures or combo kills.    Vintage is an even faster format.    Opponent's should have no trouble assembling the Time Vault combo (or any other combo or lock) before burn will have had enough time to win the game.

Without acceleration, I agree that it takes four turns. On the other hand, opening with Ruby or Chrome Mox means you hit seven red by turn 3. That's comparable to TPS, isn't it?

No, it's not.  TPS wins on turn three through multiple counterspells.   A single counterspell can turn Burn's goldfish from turn four to turn five. 

Burn can only goldfish.  TPS wins through incredible resistance. 

The problem then is that in converting your hand to mana, you don't have enough cards left to convert said mana to damage. That's why my hypothetical broken card was something reusable, but still as efficient as Bolt. To continue the TPS comparison, a variant w/ replicate might serve as a Tendrils analogue in a build running Seething Song or similar spells to help convert mana from off-color Moxen to red. That could also limit splashability, although it would still be too powerful in Standard to see print.

No, the problem is that burn spells don't do enough damage for the speed of formats.   Again, I would set your sights on legacy first.   Ignore Counterbalance, since that's obviously very difficult to beat, but if Burn is going to be competitive in Eternal formats, it would necessarily be viable in legacy long before it could be competitive in Vintage.   Legacy might have counterbalance, but Vintage has far, far more end the game quick combos, like Time Vault. 

[Delha]

No, it's not.  TPS wins on turn three through multiple counterspells.   A single counterspell can turn Burn's goldfish from turn four to turn five. 

Burn can only goldfish.  TPS wins through incredible resistance.

Right. I was just thinking in terms of when the game ends, not how much you fought through to get there. My mistake.

No, the problem is that burn spells don't do enough damage for the speed of formats...

Isn't that just the same as saying they're not efficient enough? They don't do enough damage per card (Bolt), or don't do enough damage per mana (Fireball), which is the same point I was getting at.

[TheShop]

Since burn cannot reliably race most decks in the format, why not let that strategy go to the trash can and play on red's other abilities-

1). Every burn spell is a creature removal spell- you should be able to beat fish (shrap blast that goyf)
2). Good burn spells are instants, meaning things like tangle wire do not effect you
3). The best red spells disrupt in addition to dealing damage.

Burn can be more powerful if it is built to abuse a full set of moxen, a mana crypt...an play control.  I do not know exactly what this list would look like, but my list would start with:

4 Smash to Smithereens-  pwn an artifact and incenerate simultaneously....very good burn and maindeck removal(2nd part being more important)

4 Fireblast- best burn spell available because it cuts 1 turn off your goldfish and deals 4 DMG to 1 card(from hand) to 0 mana

4 shrap blast- this is a retardedly high dmg to CARD ratio, And the dmg to CARD ratio is more important than that mana ratio when you slow the game down.

4 Pyrostatic Pillar- slow down game(against combo while they frantically try to figure out what to do) + burn people

some combination of Tangle Wire and Chalice of the Void-  you don't care about wire, because you play instants, you don't care about Chalice because you don't really need moxes to win...even at 1 you can just shrap blast it on your turn to win

like I said, it is definitely a work in progress and I would play control.  The only way to wingames with burn in vintage is to have answers that slow them to your consistent turn 4ish clock.  If we are talking about printing new stuff, I want every burn spell to be like Shrap Blast(high dmg to card) or Smash to Smithereens(disruptive burn)...and preferably option 2

[KBH]

How about

RR

Whenever a red spell you control deals damage to an opponent, that opponent discards cards equal to the damage dealt

[Smmenen]

Realistically, to be competitive in Vintage, burn would need to be able to faster than Dredge.  

What does Dredge do?

Dredge goldfishes consistently by turn three, and can win on turn two a good deal of the time, and, in some variants, can even win on turn one.   Moreover, Dredge is able to disrupt the hell out of the opponent at the same time with Unmask, Cabal Therapy, and Chalice, etc.  

So, if Burn is going to be pure burn, it's going to have to be faster than Dredge.  

That means, I would say that burn has to be able to have at least a non-trivial turn two goldfish, and the rest on turn three -- probably somewhere between 33-60% of its goldifsh wins on turn two, and the rest on turn three.  

Keep in mind that just because burn can goldfish that fast means that when actually interacting, it will be significantly slower.  

Assuming that your opening hand has:

Mox, land, land, and 4 burn spells, and that you'll draw another burn spell on turn two, you'll need to be able to deal 20 damage on turn two with likely just three spells (or four, if one is free).   Mathmatically, that equates into 2X +Y= 20, where X = 2cc spell, and Y equals the 1cc spell.   That means you'll need a 1cc spell that deals 6 damage and a 2cc spell that deals 7.  Or, it means a 1cc spell that does 5-6 and a 2cc that does 9-10.   

So, in other words, Lightning Bolt needs to deal 5-6 damage and Incinerate needs to deal 7-10.    Or, if you account for some number of free spells, ala fireblast, then lighting bolt and incinerate need to deal less damage, but still substantially more than Bolt currently does.  

[Evenpence]

Chaos Bolt
R
Chaos Bolt does 4 damage to target creature or player, and 3 damage to you.

Super Chaos Bolt
1R
Super Chaos Bolt does 8 damage to target creature or player, and 7 damage to you.

Risky Chaos Bolt
1RR
Risky Chaos Bolt does 10 damage to target player.  If you successfully cast Risky Chaos Bolt and don't win the game, you lose the game.

Green Fire
1RR
Green Fire does 8 damage to target creature or player.  Discard a card.

~~~~   Smennen's suggestions?  ^

My idea:  What about a mind's desire-ish component?

Ballin Lightning
R
Ballin Lightning does 1 damage to target creature or player.
Chaos 3 (when you play Ballin Lightning, reveal the top three cards of your library.  You may play any Chaos spells without paying their mana cost.  Those spells do not trigger Chaos when you cast them.  Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.)

More Ballin Lightning
1R
More Ballin Lightning does 2 damage to target creature or player.
Chaos 5

Lightning Ballin
RRR
Lightning Ballin does 5 damage to target creature or player.
Chaos 10

[TheShop]

Dredge goldfishes consistently by turn three, and can win on turn two a good deal of the time, and, in some variants, can even win on turn one.   Moreover, Dredge is able to disrupt the hell out of the opponent at the same time with Unmask, Cabal Therapy, and Chalice, etc.  

So, if Burn is going to be pure burn, it's going to have to be faster than Dredge.     

Keep in mind that just because burn can goldfish that fast means that when actually interacting, it will be significantly slower.     

I think we can all agree that no amount of printable burn will ever race a vintage deck consistently.

Disruption is key.  For instance, R/G beatz and Fish do not goldfish to turn 2-3.  This is the whole point, your tin street hooligan is smash to smithereens, nothing stops you from running null rod, chalice, blasts, and spirit guides....you could play burn control just as you play creature control.

[Godder]

That means, I would say that burn has to be able to have at least a non-trivial turn two goldfish, and the rest on turn three -- probably somewhere between 33-60% of its goldifsh wins on turn two, and the rest on turn three.  

Keep in mind that just because burn can goldfish that fast means that when actually interacting, it will be significantly slower.  

Assuming that your opening hand has:

Mox, land, land, and 4 burn spells, and that you'll draw another burn spell on turn two, you'll need to be able to deal 20 damage on turn two with likely just three spells (or four, if one is free).   Mathmatically, that equates into 2X +Y= 20, where X = 2cc spell, and Y equals the 1cc spell.   That means you'll need a 1cc spell that deals 6 damage and a 2cc spell that deals 7.  

So, in other words, Lightning Bolt needs to deal 6 damage and Incinerate needs to deal 7.    Or, if you account for some number of free spells, ala fireblast, then lighting bolt and incinerate need to deal less damage, but still substantially more than Bolt currently does.  

I was thinking something similar, although I didn't get around to posting it. Basically burn needs lots of better Lava Axes - damage to creatures is less important in Vintage because if you're fast enough, only a few utility creatures will be a problem, and it's not difficult to kill them off.

Cheap Lava Axe
R
Deal 5 damage to target player.

Better Lava Axe
1R
Deal 8 damage to target player.

That sort of stuff.

[Norm4eva]

For what it's worth, Kiln Fiend does, on paper, facilitate Smem's calculations in regard to how much damage each spell needs to be worth.  With a hand of Mountain, Mox Anything, Kiln Fiend, and four other burn spells, each Bolt/Chain/Spike/etc... has the capacity to be worth 7 points of damage.

EDIT: I just spent about 2 hours goldfishing the Naya Sligh deck over at The Source.  While I'm not sold on Steppe Lynx, I guarantee that Kiln Fiend is a murderer.  In concert with a suite of burn, playing dumb things like Manamorphose and Land Grant not only don't entirely suck on their own but push Kiln Fiend into the 10/2 and 13/2 range.  And if all it does is soak up a removal spell, oops, you're still playing with Nacatls and Apes and other good Sligh guys.  If this is what you want from a burn deck, start here.

[Delha]

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.

[Norm4eva]

Pushing anything strictly better than Lightning Bolt just breaks what's already been a huge power creep in creatures.  Especially with a Standard that's seen Bolt in circulation for 2 years, we know that Bolt isn't necessarily unfair as it once would have been.

After messing around for the last couple days I really think the closest thing that's out there now is Kiln Fiend.  When that's in play, all your burn spells are functionally pulling double-duty; using them as removal is still okay because if burning guys out of the way to force through Kiln Fiend still represents about 7 damage to the dome.  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.

If your goal is to imagine a better-than-Bolt type burn spell, I think the only real viable solution would be to print some junk that was modal in nature; something that burns players harder than it does creatures.  Something like "Deal 4 damage to target player or 2(3?) damage to target creature".  That would probably get played over things like, say, Lava Spike.

[Delha]

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.

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.

[jcb193]

In the interest of preserving this thread, I think in order for a "true burn deck" to be vintage viable, and remembering that they probably aren't going to be printing 8pt lightning bolts, the only kind of printable card will either be like a Kiln Fiend where you use all your resources in a "compounding manner", or a card like Fireblast or Final Fortune where you gamble the game for a finisher.  Otherwise, as Smmenen said, there is no way to assemble the necessary mana and castable cards in your hand by turn 3.  And this is all assuming that your opponent doesn't do anything.  That's the problem with burn.  You only have to counter one card (fireblast, Kiln, Bolt), and you've bought yourself 1-2 more turns.   

[Delha]

In the interest of preserving this thread, I think in order for a "true burn deck" to be vintage viable, and remembering that they probably aren't going to be printing 8pt lightning bolts, the only kind of printable card will either be like a Kiln Fiend where you use all your resources in a "compounding manner"...

I was thinking along similar lines. My idea here.

[TheShop]

Why not a until end of turn Furnace of Wrath for 1?  Green got a 1 mana recycle until end of turn.  The temporary furnace literally makes bolt hit for 6, fireblast for 8.  If your opponent forces 1 spell and pops a sac...just bolt fireblast with the furnace eats them alive.

Bonus, if you draw 2: your fireblast smokes for 16(possible turn 2 play)

This type of play would allow burn to play the disruption game while sculpting a critical mass hand where the opponent gets burned up.

[Delha]

Why not a until end of turn Furnace of Wrath for 1?

...but not break Standard in the process. Most of the ideas I've seen thus far tend to miss the second half of that.

T2 Kiln Fiend, T3 Mini-Furnace + Bolt. That's 20 damage from three cards. Absolutely INSANE.

or Plated Geopede can replace Fiend (as copies 5-8) and still generate 18 dmg.
or Burst Lightning can replace Bolt (as copies 5-8) and still generate 18 dmg.
or Searing Blaze can replace Bolt (as copies 9-12) and still generate 20 dmg.

[TheShop]

Damn type 2 players and their shiny new template cards...

Seems like they would need a fairly solid draw for that...what if it only hit red spells and not the creatures??

[ELD]

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. 

[Delha]

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...

...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...

Agreed. Not sure if you read the earlier part of the thread, but there's a good page or so of me getting roasted for making a similar hypothetical card.

I should have reiterated it my more recent summary post, but forgot to include that detail. At any rate, part of the reason I favor using mechanics to create efficiency is that you can use the same tool to control the decks in which a new card is useful. Storm is obviously useful only in certain shells, and I think the influence on my suggested card is apparent.