What about Manamorphose?

CharlesMandore

Manamorphose is too slow for Burn. Most Burn decks would rather spend the two on Searing Blaze, Eidolon of the Great Revel, or just double burn.

How is it slow when it nets you the two mana spent and an additional card? What are the drawbacks there?

Wrong reasoning ness64, it isn't too slow for burn. Burn can cast it easily. The reason why Manamorphose isn't used in burn is because A) there is no worry about the mana base in burn, and B), that slot would be better filled up with a burn spell. Imagine using Manamorphose to draw into a land. That Manamorphose would have been a burn spell, and could have potentially won you the game right there. Basically, putting in spells that don't burn defeats the consistency of burn. Every single spell should be hitting them for at least 2, or removing something on their field and potentially hitting them in the face at the same time.

Lol, I was being stupid. Sorry about that. What I meant to say was that it could have been a burn spell.

Femme_Fatale ness64: nobody is running less than 19 lands. It's either 19 or 20 and I have good reasons to run 20. First off, I actually have one of the higher average card cost than a lot of decks because I have a few more 2 drops than most. Second, I run 4 Searing Blazes where others run 2 or 3 ofs. I need to hit those lands if i want that card to be useful. And third, I've tried 19 lands before and didn't like it. I prefer 20 lands by far. All of my mulligans I mentioned was because I didn't have enough lands on the draw. Me saying too much land was a instance of one. The I've never had that much problem with the land base so I would prefer not to change it. Thanks for the suggestions though.

But Taylor Swift is blond.

benwah3000: It's just the nickname she's been given.

CharlesMandore: I actually have had that thought before since it does slim the deck down a bit and burn does like doing that, but it doesn't do damage and can draw into something that isn't damage. I don't know f you've played much burn, but if you have, then I'm sure you know that a lot of the times it comes down to just needing that one more burn spell that could have been there instead of Metamorphose or the land that Metamorphose drew into.

Thanks snotice!!!

Now that dragons of tarkir is coming out, you should replace skull crack with Atarka's command.

Just a thought :)

emopinata: I have already preordered 4. I'm waiting to see how it playtest and what other players do with it before I put it in anything. I have a few concerns about it. The biggest being 3 color mainboard can be pretty taxing for a burn deck...especially against other burn which is the exact reason I don't run Bump in the Night. I would never take Skullcrack out for it. Skullcrack has a very nice part of the card in that it makes it so players can't prevent damage and it also only cost 1 color..which makes it better than Atarka's Command in some ways. My guess at what happens...2 Atarka's Commands will become a popular run alongside Skullcrack.

Skullcrack allows you to kill Kor Firewalker. what advantage does Atarka's Command's other abilities really give you?

Skullcrack doesn't kill Kor Firewalker, mafokoko. Not only does Skullcrack only hit a player as a legal target, but protection from red means no red spell can target the creature. Atarka's Command not only acts as an "almost" Skullcrack but has better versatality and better synergy with Monastery Swiftspear. That said, it won't replace Skullcrack. If anything, Atarka's Command will only be ran along with Skullcrack.

Why the 1 of Steam Vents? why not just a mountain

It's probably for Spellskite ability.

Yeah it's for the Spellskite, Vandegriffe and CharlesMandore. I've been debating it lately...sometimes it's just what I need all night and sometimes it isn't.