burn deck help to refurbish
Modern Deck Help forum
Posted on Jan. 22, 2024, 8 p.m. by 9-lives
Igne Natura Renovatur Integra: the Inferno of Pan
I have most of what i need in this deck, but it's been years since I have looked at the newer cards that might be better than what i have. Please help me renovate my deck!
The point of going over 60 is that I can afford to have more space in my deck so long as I keep the number of burn spells a certain ratio. This is one of the few decks that actually benefit from having a large number of cards, so long as I keep the same ratios. For instance, I have 32 burn cards, and the deck you showed me had 28, where 32/70 is similar to 28/60, the former being 0.457 and the latter being 0.466. I've tried games with Monastery Swiftspear. It's really not that great of a card, and completely depends on drawing it in the first turn. Satyr Firedancer is really a great card, and helps me keep the opponent from casting any creatures too damaging throughout the game. I really don't know what you mean by 'too midrange and not enough aggro'; the most expensive spell mana-wise is Risk Factor which is 3 mana total, really being an outlier in my deck with regard to mana value. Like I said, I usually run out of cards in hand whenever the opponent is around 12-7 life.
January 23, 2024 11:53 a.m.
Also, you may be thinking that Rift Bolt, Skewer the Critics and Light Up the Stage are costly, but if you see the cards, they are allowed to be casted as . This might be why you're saying that my deck isn't aggro enough??
January 23, 2024 12:04 p.m.
wallisface says... #5
9-lives to counter your points:
-
going 9 cards over 60 is absolutely a detriment. While you may be able to maintain similar card ratios, you’re adding cards to your deck that are worse than the ones already there. As an example, most burn spells are just worse versions of Lightning Bolt. Playing any cards over 60 means adding cards to the deck that are worse than those 60 - it doesn’t matter if the overall ratios line-up.
-
Monastery Swiftspear is played in 3% of all modern decks, well-above the current creatures you’re running, and has a strong track-record of being a format staple. If it’s underperformed for you, you’re likely playing it wrong - and this only solidifies my opinion that the deck is too-slow.
-
Satyr Firedancer is a midrange card intended for grindier matchups, and has no place in burn. There’s a reason it’s never run competitively.
-
my statement of 'too midrange and not enough aggro' is because the deck is running much too slowly, when compared to the speed of competitive burn lists. Your deck has made a bunch of concessions to speed for no real advantage. The list provided on mtgGoldfish is MUCH faster (and more consistently so) than your brew.
-
on the comment of ”I usually run out of cards in hand whenever the opponent is around 12-7 life” - this is a BIG indicator that you’re doing something wrong. Competitive burn decks can often win the game before running out of cards - and if the do end up emptya-handed the opponent is down to 2-4 life. If you’ve invested all your resources and the opponent still has half their life-total, the deck isn’t working.
-
I am well-aware that Rift Bolt and friends have alternate casting costs. As already said two bullet-points above, your deck reads incredibly slow compared to the competitive established meta.
Burn is a very well-known and very-frequently played archetype. The mtgGoldfish list is incredibly well-tuned, and you’d need to have a very strong reason to differentiate from it even slightly.
January 23, 2024 3:29 p.m.
I started out with a deck almost exactly similar to the one you recommended. I had monastery swiftspear, all of those burn spells, and the manabase I have now. I don't care what other decks are doing; that is for them. I'm looking for new additions to my deck that would be pertinent to a burn deck. I'm keeping Satyr Firedancer, and might switch him out with Roiling Vortex if needed. I honestly think they don't run firedancer just because they feel they have no reason to kill creatures. And, no, you're using a specific example of lightning bolt, while the rest of the deck is still useful even if not perfect. Nothing in my deck is wasted, and all of it applies to its own synergies. Your notion that my deck is 'incredibly slow' isn't right at all. i am running exactly the same cards as that deck, yet it's slower somehow. Skullcrack is very useful even if slower. Deflecting palm has more than once won me games. My deck does take into account early and late game, yes, but regardless I know I'm not winning on turn 2 by the very constraints of the game in its damage possibilities and mana used to use burn cards. To make my deck any speedier would mean breaking the certain archetypal nature of the game, such as with a one mana 6-damage burn spell.
January 23, 2024 5:44 p.m.
wallisface says... #7
9-lives i see our conversation is going to go nowhere as you’ve decided to put your head in the sand. I’ll leave it with the following thoughts:
-
the established meta deck has been built, tuned, and played by thousands of people, and performed very strongly in many big tournaments. As far as a strong burn deck goes, the build has been ”solved”, and this is it.
-
it’s fine to go off-script and add your own flavour to decklists - but such deckbuilding decisions should be justifiable and have a distinct reason/edge for being there. Adding more cards than 60 is not justifiable. Running random junk spells/creatures that don’y offer you any practical advantage over the established list, is not justifiable.
-
I’m curious as to why you started this thread, asking for advice, if you had no intention of taking-in that advice. Anybody with any competitive know-how is going to direct you to the established deck and try steer you more inline with that working solution - so i’m not sure what you’re wanting to hear here?
January 23, 2024 7:17 p.m.
jethstriker says... #8
"The point of going over 60 is that I can afford to have more space in my deck so long as I keep the number of burn spells a certain ratio."
Do you mean you go above 60 so you can add more burn spells? Adding more burn spells doesn't really help because you are still confined in the rules of the game of 7 starting draw and one card per turn. If you're going to respond with "I have card draws in my deck", I would have to say draw spells normally aren't worth the inclusion in burn. Unless its as big as Wheel of Fortune (not legal in modern) or as efficient as Treasure Cruise (banned in modern), you're better of just top decking an actual burn spell itself than a card draw
Another thing I'd like to point out is if you're using Vexing Devil, you go max out the copies. I remember pro player and burn expert Patrick Sullivan once stated that the decision offered by the Devil only matters in the first couple of turns in the game. Past that it only becomes a liability.
Unrelated to the deck, I remember you two have this kind of conversation before. Walls got a point, why bother ask for advice when you dismiss others that offer actual help.
January 23, 2024 8:31 p.m.
The obstacle here is that this is tagged “Competitive”. As per the informative A Complete Hub Glossary for TappedOut, a competitive deck is one “…intended for sanctioned tournament use.” This deck in its current form would not approach even a ~50% win rate in a sanctioned tournament.
Removing the Competitive tag changes everything. A person can make any sort of deck they want to, providing it’s format legal, which this is. There are a lot of fun, viable suggestions for a Modern legal theme deck like this one, but alas none are remotely competitive.
The issue here is misrepresentation through a Competitive tag.
January 23, 2024 9:05 p.m.
sergiodelrio says... #10
I want to add an actual math perspective for clarification that your assumption in comment #3 is false - Maintaining a card ratio while increasing deck size does not otherwise keep your "deck math" intact!
Check out this tool
I find this tool handy whenever I want to calculate optimal land counts or other numbers for decks I make.
For the following experiment, we want to find out the odds of "bricking" in an opening hand by drawing exactly 7 lands:
Let's start by entering Burn's (or any deck's) numbers and see the results:
- Population Size (total nuber of cards in deck): 60
- Number of successes in population (lands): 20
- Sample size (opening hand): 7
- Number of successes in sample (lands in opening hand): 7
The tool tells us that the odds of bricking with this specific setup in this specific way (Hypergeometric probability: P(X=7)) are exactly 0.0002 or 0.02%
Now let's change the numbers. Let's say we're doing the math here for a commander deck to justify our input. If your assumption was correct, we could maintain the land/spell ratio without changing the result of our probabilistic calculation from before:
- Population Size: 99
- Number of successes in population: 33
- Sample size: 7
- Number of successes in sample: 7
Result: 0.00029 or 0.029%
Other probabilities change similarly that way (not in your favor)
There are many articles and posts out there explaining why you almost always want a deck with exactly the minimum size.
January 24, 2024 6:07 a.m.
Y'all are going over something that I have long been sure of. I know that sergiodelrio is right, yes, but regardless I'm keeping my deck the same, considering that it is only 0.009%, which is almost negligible. Balaam, my deck is certainly competitive, and just because people don't make the same deck exactly doesn't mean it isn't. Maybe they haven't tried my deck, or maybe they haven't tried specific cards in their playstyle. I haven't seen a single competitive deck have Satyr Firedancer in it, and I honestly believe its simply because the metas of decks usually are set in stone until something new rolls around with a competitive player making the deck work. I know for a fact that if you want to remove creatures in this playstyle, Satyr Firedancer is completely useful. Ya'll obviously didn't read my prompt in my original post of this thread. Read it again, and you'll see that I'm looking for renovations and new ideas, not anything already done.
January 24, 2024 11:09 a.m.
9-lives Out of curiosity, and so we can get a better idea of the needs of the deck, have you used this deck in any Qualifiers or Grand Prix? How about Pro Tours, Mythic Championships, or Player's Tours? What were the results?
What matchups does this specific deck have a hard time with? What are its easy matches? What, specifically, would you be looking for to improve the deck?
January 24, 2024 12:03 p.m.
legendofa I haven't played with this deck much, only against a few people. What I did find out is that lifegain decks are the hardest to win against. I'd love to have help with how to defeat that with a burn deck, considering they are diametric opposites. I have Ash Zealot and Harsh Mentor in my sideboard for graveyard usage or creature abilities. I'm sure I'll need something to prevent counterspells in my sideboard. Rip Apart is useful for those artifact and enchantment decks, but could do with more help for that as well. Keeping boros colors if possible...
January 24, 2024 9:37 p.m.
wallisface says... #14
Roiling Vortex is the answer to lifegain, which you’re already running, so your deck shouldn’t have any issue there unless it’s too slow. But in general dedicated lifegain isn’t a matchup i’d expect to see in any remotely-competitive scene, and this makes me think Balaam__s point is correct here, that this thread shouldn’t be tagged as “competitive”, because it simply isn’t, and the advice you’re going to get isn’t going to match your expectations.
Burn decks should also be easily-fast enough that graveyard shenanigans aren’t an issue (Dredge can probably outrace burn, but that deck doesn’t exist at the moment), Sane goes for control decks using counter-magic. If these matchups are a problem for you it’s just another indicator the deck is playing too slowly.
January 24, 2024 9:48 p.m.
9-lives Okay, that's a good starting point.
First thing I want to mention is that if you describe a deck as competitive, there's a very strong connotation that it is capable of succeeding in a tournament setting. Think of it as shorthand for tournament-competitive. That's why people have been questioning that point, and if you've only used it against a few people, that's not going to fit the community definition. Competitive-casual isn't binary; it's a wide spectrum, but the "competitive" end of that spectrum is well-defined. Just to get everyone on the same page.
For actual deck suggestions, Wear / Tear is a reasonable sideboard option in addition to, or in place of, Rip Apart. Lifegain is a pretty hard counter to burn if you let it get established. I see Skullcrack and Roiling Vortex, so the next response to lifegain is to address the sources. Are your opponents gaining life from creatures, enchantments, or spells? Are they gaining big chunks of life, or steady streams? Remove the Ajani's Welcomes and Soul's Attendants or whatever and stop the life gain at the source.
Since you're committing to 60+ cards, you need to get to your key cards ASAP. Card draw becomes highly important. Would you consider turning this into a more combo-centric deck instead of leaning on burn as much?
January 24, 2024 10 p.m.
Hmmm. wallisface there isn't a way I can make it any faster, haha! Even if I cut down to 60 and keep all of the fastest burn spells, it will still be the same speed as what I have now. Roiling Vortex isn only 1 life per turn. Most lifegain decks are gaining more than at least 1 life per turn. I have a problem because one of the decks I played against uses 10 life gain on a creature with flicker. Every time he flickers it, he gains 10 life. The only response was to kill the creature, which I might or might not be able to depending upon my card draw. My deck is very slightly different from the competitive, with the only thing missing is Monastery Swiftspear, or Goblin Guide, and possibly not having Eidolon of the Great Revel. The problem with the meta in tournaments is that everyone is expecting a certain deck to have certain cards in it. Then, they try to optimize their decks based on that. Nothing new happens until someone new comes along with a new deck type, and then that becomes competitive based on how well it performs. You can't just say 'this is competitive because it's been used a million times'.
January 24, 2024 10 p.m.
legendofa thanks for the advice and clearing up how competitive is used. I plan on keeping this deck burn heavy because it is the main way I can actually achieve having a large deck with the least problems. I could go with Soulfire Grand Master and a few angels, but that isn't my goal with this deck, and I could make a separate deck with that in it, but that would be a big difficulty making such a large deck depending upon cards that i might or might not draw. The Soulfire Deck | Burn & Life Gain might be an example of this, but I don't consider this deck good really.
January 24, 2024 10:10 p.m.
wallisface says... #18
-
Roiling Vortex has an activated ability that turns off lifegain - your opponent shouldn’t be gaining any life!
-
your deck would be a LOT faster if you optimised it. You seem to be refusing that notion, but it’s true. Playtest your own brew against the meta burn list - i’m willing to bet they out-race you at least 75% of the time.
-
you need to be aware that your deck is very “different from the competitive” - lots of small changes add up to a very different deck, and one that sounds quite underperforming.
-
i’m not saying 'this is competitive because it's been used a million times', the established list is competitive because it’s able to compete against most of the most commonly seen decks in the meta - that’s the entire purpose of being “competitive”. It is not competitive to lose to the most commonly played decks.
January 24, 2024 10:22 p.m.
9-lives Decks and cards aren't called competitive because they've been used a million times. They're called competitive because they've proven successful in the toughest settings a million times. For some cards, that million might not even be hyperbole. And (here I speak from experience) rogue and off-meta decks can get a few surprise wins once in a while, but they're very rarely able to keep a sustained victory streak going.
My suggestion at this point is to diversify this deck's opponents as much as possible. If you have a good local game store, take it to a Friday Night Magic tournament or whatever they offer. Get it some reps against different decks. This will help isolate the strengths and weaknesses and show what works and what needs to be reinforced.
January 24, 2024 10:30 p.m.
Wow. wallisface You are not familiar with the playstyle of burn decks, then. Usually it goes like this:
draw lands, draw burn spells, play burn spell #1 taking 3 damage to the opponent. Your opponent does something on his turn. Do the same thing again, playing 2 burn spells. Opponent has at least 9 life missing. Repeat. Play at most 3 burn spells. 18 life missing. Run out of cards. Wonder why you aren't drawing burn spells. Need burn spells! NEED BURN SPELLS!
This is why Risk Factor and Light Up the Stage are so useful. There's no doubt that, logically, you're going to run out of cards in hand faster than your ability to keep them at-hand. There's no way anyone is going faster than this, unless there is ramping or something.
January 24, 2024 10:34 p.m.
wallisface says... #21
9-lives modern is a format with fetchlands - your opponent will be effectively starting on 17-18 life even if they're trying to be conservative as possible with how they fetch lands.
I know very well how burn works, I've played it many times before, and played against it incredibly frequently. I've won a bunch of tournaments so have a pretty-good idea of what i'm talking about here.
There is a reason that no competitive burn deck is playing either Risk Factor or Light Up the Stage - and it's not because every-other burn player has been lobotomized. You're suggesting that your barely-played homebrew is more justified than the collective efforts of every-other competitive burn player on the planet - and that is an absurd call to make.
January 24, 2024 10:46 p.m. Edited.
Do y'all think Braid of Fire is useful? Seems slow, but gains momentum.
January 24, 2024 10:49 p.m.
wallisface says... #23
Braid of Fire seems pointless:
-
It's one-less burn spell in hand
-
Burn only needs 2 mana to do everything it needs to, and so by the time you can cast this you already don't want/need more mana
-
it can only help you cast instant speed stuff, so not even universally helpful at ramping you.
January 24, 2024 10:52 p.m.
wallisface ahh thanks. And yes I've almost won games with only 2 mana throughout. I want something new to add, though. I'm tired of the same meta going on for years. I made this deck like two years ago, and it has hardly changed.
January 24, 2024 10:54 p.m.
Braid of Fire doesn't really do much for burn decks. It does gain momentum, but you're left with a pile of mana and nothing special to use it on. It also takes away the option of reactivity, which can be a concern in certain matchups. It's much more of a combo card than an aggro card.
January 24, 2024 10:57 p.m.
wallisface says... #26
9-lives that might be true for your local meta - though there's been a lot of big changeups at the competitive level, from cards like The One Ring, Orcish Bowmasters, Agatha's Soul Cauldron, Fable of the Mirror-Breaker Flip, Sheoldred, the Apocalypse, Haywire Mite, Ledger Shredder, etc.
It might be helpful to know what your meta actually looks like - because it sounds very different from anything established.
January 24, 2024 11:01 p.m.
Can y'all recommend cards to me that are 'new' in the lack of having them in the current recommmendations for burn decks as they are shown in competitive form as usual? Kinda like how I have Satyr Firedancer, which is a card that is really useful but yet not in the common competitive decks? Plus, it's awesome that Satyr Firedancer is in my deck, lore-wise, as it shows on Eidolon of the Great Revel that it has satyrs dancing, haha.
January 25, 2024 11:05 a.m.
9-lives Off the top of my head, here are some more niche and unique cards that you might be interested in. Maybe you can push them to the next level.
Stigma Lasher is another anti-life gain option. Soul-Scar Mage sees some play in creature aggro decks and plays well with Satyr Firedancer. Searing Blood is roughly Shock + Lightning Bolt in a single card. Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker is more of a midrange topper at five mana, but has a decent burn deck package.
I'm not sure why they all start with S.
January 25, 2024 12:54 p.m.
wallisface says... #29
9-lives While having some variance to a deck from the established meta can be useful/powerful, your deck doesn’t need to go more off-script, it needs to be reigned-in closer to the meta-list. It would be unhelpful & actively-harmful suggesting more cards that deter you even further from what burn is supposed to look like, because it’s just going to worsen a list that already has a lot of issues.
Satyr Firedancer is not “really useful” in burn, it is actively a detriment to the deck. It’s going to cost you more games than help you:
-
it immediately dies to either Orcish Bowmasters, Wrenn and Six, and the various other cards that can prey on X/1s. Bowmasters in particular are in 35% of decks and’ll just immediately dunk on this card.
-
ever nonland card in burn needs to deal at least 3 damage to justify this card is never reliably doing that - and even if it can accrue 3 damage, the earliest it can do so it turn-5, which is already longer into the game than burn wants to be.
-
spending turn-2 casting this card and only this cards puts zero-pressure on your opponent and gives them a LOT of breathing room to establish their gameplan. This card being 2 mana makes it very slow in terms of burn.
-
burn has never really had an issue with creatures, as they already have Searing Blaze main and access to Searing Blood sideboard (note, there’s a reason they don’t bother running both main - it’s unnecessary).
This card is a prime example of something which will lead it to underperform, and a prime example of why the deck is top-slow.
January 25, 2024 1:04 p.m.
Ahh! Thanks, legendofa! You're catering to my tastes even though they may not be the most 'optimal' or 'meta'! Thank you for that! Funny you noticed that they all start with S, haha.
wallisface, that makes sense, but I consider that if Satyr Firedancer isn't killed in the beginning, and stays on the field, I can destroy 6 toughness creatures with just two burn spells. Plus, I can die very quickly to creatures if I don't have it, and it's a card I can deal damage to the player if need be. Monastery Swiftspear is only one mana less, and isn't as good as most people think, contrary to popular wisdom, and requires being drawn in the beginning of the game. I'd rather run 2x Vexing Devil for that purpose, which makes far more sense in her stead. If the player chooses the creature chocie of Vexing Devil because he/she can remove it, there isn't anything lost nor gained if Monastery Swiftspear is in its stead. I would like something good that isn't in my deck, or even new to the archetype. I know there's Searing Blaze and Searing Blood, but they aren't as useful as I'd like them to be. I also don't know which one to choose, either. Landfall isn't the greatest, and neither is dealing 2 damage, especially if I draw it later in the game. I'm trying to cover all of my bases in the early and semi-later game, and that isn't what I'm looking for.
January 25, 2024 3:19 p.m.
wallisface says... #31
9-lives I asked this question before and I believe it needs answering for any constructive progression here - It might be helpful to know what your meta actually looks like - because it sounds very different from anything established.
What does your meta look like?
January 25, 2024 3:26 p.m.
wallisface I've already said I haven't played this deck that much, and I have to take it to FNM so I can test it out with other players. I plan on losing a lot, as I did before at FNM, because burn just isn't the best deck ever. I'll get back to you on the meta then. I wish WoTC would make burn a more viable deck in different settings.
January 25, 2024 3:42 p.m.
wallisface says... #33
9-lives burn is currently the 10th mist-played deck, and has hovered between that placing-or-better since forever. It’s almost always maintained a respectable win-ratio and performance, and can certainly still compete.
It sounds like you’re having problems winning games - there’s some easy steps to remedy this:
-
If you’re not playing much competitively, at your FNM, you’re going to be making mistakes in play-patterns and sideboard choices. Playing more games will let you understand the game better and find more winning-lines.
-
Playing a suboptimal list when you don’t know the meta is never a good idea. Brewing is fine, but has to be done with respect to the matchups you’re going to be up against. Playing in an unfamiliar setting with few-deck-reps and a homebrew deck is going to create a very-high likelyhood of failure. Being able to play a most conventionally-powerful build (i.e. burn as its meant to be built) removes at least one of these 3 setbacks that’re making it harder for you to compete.
If you’re unfamiliar with the competitive meta, showing up with what I would consider “jank” for a deck isn’t going to lead to an enjoyable experience. Being able to successfully create strong and competitive decks divergent from the typical meta involves playing a LOT of games and having a very strong understanding if what you’re up against and how your matchups are going to play-out. Without both of these key points, you’re effectively all-but guaranteeing your night goes poorly.
I would extremely-strongly suggest playing the established build, and then only making small changes once you are super-familiar with your local meta and with all the decks play-patterns. Making changes when you don’t know what you’re up against, or understanding why the current meta-build is built the way it is, is a lesson in foolishness.
January 25, 2024 4:11 p.m.
wallisface I don't mind losing, haha. The fun is mainly what I'm in it for. I have another deck that is pure aikido, and sucks so bad, haha. But I like the fact that it is aikido. If you play to win, you're going to get frustrated, nervous, annoyed, and so on. If I can manage, I try to keep myself less worried and less attached to winning. I've haven't had more fun with a deck than with Yugioh in a cubic deck released in 2016 while everyone else was playing modern archetypes, last year.
January 25, 2024 4:24 p.m.
The classic debate between Timmy, Johnny, and Spike. What's more worthwhile, the experience of simply playing or the taste of victory? Is it better to be creative, or to use the tried and true? Do you express yourself through deckbuilding or through piloting a deck?
January 25, 2024 4:37 p.m.
legendofa it's obvious the fun is superior to winning. You can't have fun if you lose if you're focused on winning. I like simply playing. I'd rather be creative. I love deckbuilding the most, but piloting that deck is the icing on the cake.
January 26, 2024 10:30 a.m.
I changed from Boros to Gruul. Virtual Organism Manifesting Matrices Docetic Do Ya'll think this is better?!
January 26, 2024 10:02 p.m.
wallisface says... #38
If the goal is to just to be creative, then it doesn't really matter.
In terms of pure-power, it's hard to compare when you've replaced the previous deck with this one - making it hard to compare the lists - but there doesn't appear to be enough changes here to matter either way, if you're playing at a casual level... just play whichever option you enjoy more.
January 26, 2024 10:42 p.m.
I replaced Boros Charm, Lightning Helix, and Deflecting Palm. Switched them out with Atarka's Command, and Play with Fire. Removed Risk Factor and Light Up the Stage. Put into play Yavimaya Iconoclast and Black Market Tycoon. Got rid of Satyr Firedancer. I'm not asking if it looks fun, haha. I'm wondering if it's so-called competitive.
January 26, 2024 10:51 p.m.
wallisface says... #40
9-lives well, you know my opinion on the competitiveness of either option already based on my above comments ;)
This new version is at least closer to 60 cards, so that's one bonus going for it. However, none of the cards you've added in are particularly useful for the speed a burn deck is hoping to acquire - if you're going down this direction it might be better trying to turn this into something more midrange.
-
Play with Fire only deals 2 damage, making it unplayable at any level above the absolute most-casual of play. There's zero reason playing it when you're not even playing the full playset of Lightning Bolt
-
Atarka's Command is a decent card, but typically better as a sideboard option as a lot of the time it's not going to give you enough value to warrant its inclusion. It's effectively a slightly better Skullcrack, but considering that card already doesn't make it into current burn lists, i'm not sure how useful it is running 8 copies of this effect. This card is much stronger in builds tending-towards midrange (or straddling between aggro-and-midrange)
-
Yavimaya Iconoclast... I'm really not sure what you're hoping to achieve with this card... it's neither fast nor powerful? Just a vanilla creature??
-
I'm also not sure what the purpose of Black Market Tycoon is... you don't need mana, and this card is actively hurting you while also not helping to kill the opponent.
Personally I think you're previously rendition was better, in that the cards at least slightly-more resembled traditional burn. This version seems slower but for no apparent gain.
January 26, 2024 11:27 p.m.
wallisface how about Questing Druid in the place of Yavimaya Iconoclast???
January 27, 2024 1:23 p.m.
wallisface says... #42
9-lives it’s a stronger card, and actually does something. It’s still slow and midrange and not-at-all helpful for ”burn”.
January 27, 2024 3:29 p.m.
wallisface certainly one more mana isn't prohibitive that much is it? If it's 2 mana cost, it doesn't impact the game too much, does it? I can cast a lot of burn spells while Questing Druid is on the field. I thought I'd add Black Market Tycoon because it is giving me mana that I can use for burn very quickly, which speeds up my game quite well at the expense of life. I think Atarka's Command is the best burn card there is. All of the capabilities it offers are great. It's only one less damage than a Boros Charm, which is significant.
January 27, 2024 9:46 p.m.
wallisface says... #44
9-lives if you're asking which brew you built is more competitive for modern burn, then it's going to be whichever list more-closely resembles the established list, which was you're Boros list.
I'm aware of what these red-green cards can do, I still don't think they're anywhere-near remotely playable, particularly in burn, and I've already detailed on why these cards feel unideal. But I'll give some further detail below:
-
Questing Druid is just a much slower Monastery Swiftspear. Yes the stat-buffs are permanent, but its at the cost of double the mana, no haste, and an initial toughness of 1, making it far too vulnerable to the abundant number of cards that deal 1 damage (Orcish Bowmasters, Wrenn and Six, Lava Dart, etc). The card is much better suited for longer, grindier games where its adventure and stat-buffs become more relevant - it's not useful in an archetype that's hoping for the game to be over on turn-4.
-
As stated earlier, burn decks never need more than 2 mana. By the time you can cast Black Market Tycoon, you already have all the mana you need to play the game. This card wastes a turn not dealing damage to the opponent, but also takes 2 full turns to create enough treasure to regain the mana you lost casting it to begin with. Burn has never had an issue with needing more than 2 lands, and so gaining treasure is largely pointless. Added to this, making treasure means this card isn't dealing damage, which means it's putting you further behind for achieving a turn-4 win.
-
Atarka's Command is situationally useful in some decks, which is why it's occasionally in some sideboards - however it needs to be stressed that the card isn't particularly useful for aggressive strategies. 99% of the time if you're putting this in a burn deck, you're either doing modes 1&2 (so, just a Skullcrack), or modes 2&4 (which is probably just doing 4 damage, so a Boros Charm). Remember that competitive burn is already not running Skullcrack at the moment, so that option isn't particularly powerful. The card isn't bad, but its not particularly strong when it means splashing green instead of the much-more capable white.
At the end of the day, you've already said you're playing a deck for being creative and having fun, and so if winning isn't a factor, then play whatever you want and don't worry about it. But if you are trying to make the deck stronger, then the correct option will always be to make changes which get the list closer to the established competitive list. In that vein, changing the deck from BW to BG will have made the overall deck weaker - not having options like Lightning Helix means you'll lose any burn-vs-burn matchups, as well as a lot of other aggro-races, and not having Boros Charm means missing out on one of burns biggest damage-dealing spells.
January 27, 2024 10:32 p.m.
Alright, thanks wallisface! I've changed my deck back to its original form. And, yes, I want it to be competitive. There's no point in even talking about a deck if it isn't for optimization of it in winning. And I don't think 1 life matters too much, haha. Boros Charm should be something like 5 damage if anything, with how I can cast 2 lightning bolts for 2 mana.
January 27, 2024 11:09 p.m.
9-lives The best way to get competitive, seriously, is deck familiarity. Knowing the meta helps, but you'll likely go farther with a deck you know inside and out than with a meta deck you've never used before. (Of course, if you know a meta-specific deck inside and out, that's going to get you the furthest of all.)
I said it up above, and I stand by it: My advice is to introduce your deck to the world, get some reps in against as many opponents and as many different decks as you can, and learn how the deck truly functions. Find out directly what cards work all the time, which are situational, and which ones can be upgraded, and why all of those cards are where they are. Keep notes--was there a single play that won or lost you the game? Did it drag out, was it swinging back and forth, or did one person take a commanding lead at the start? Which cards stay active, and which cards sit in your hand doing nothing? More details is better, and it doesn't hurt to ask permission to record some matches for personal review.
Best of luck, and aim for the top!
January 27, 2024 11:23 p.m.
Thanks for the advice, legendofa. I don't think I'd like to record matches. I'll try to take notes on what happens in the game, but I fear that it would make the game slower. I don't have the greatest memory, so I don't know if I'll be able to wait until the end of the game to write it all down. But, if I do, that would help me the most! Like you said, knowing the deck and what works can only be known in testing it out!
January 27, 2024 11:32 p.m.
Just hit the highlights. You should start recognizing general play patterns and which cards are pulling their weight and which ones aren't after a few matches, even without writing anything down. If you're locking the game up by turn 4 regularly, that's a very good sign. If games are dragging on, look for ways to increase your speed and damage output.
January 27, 2024 11:41 p.m.
What's so bad about Yavimaya Iconoclast if I cast it at least on turn 3? Haste and 4/3. That's not bad, considering that vanillas would normally be 3/3, not considering the best vanillas like Leatherback Baloth and Kalonian Tusker.
January 28, 2024 12:16 p.m.
wallisface says... #50
9-lives vanilla creatures aren’t good - the best one, Tarmogoyf, is often swinging as a 5/6 or 6/7 on turn 3, and still sees almost no play. Heck, Souls of the Lost is easily cast as a 9/10 on turn 2, and isn’t featured in any of Moderns best decks.
Paying 2 mana for a 3/2 and no abilities is a bad rate in todays magic. Likewise 3 mana for a 4/3 isn’t great. Yes is has trample and may have haste, but it’s just not good enough. Two more points:
-
mono-green-stompy is a budget modern deck that many players have built and tuned over the years. It is very aggressive and aims to beat-down with fast, powerful creatures. This card never featured in any of those lists (it would’ve been trivially easy to splash red if needed). It’s just not good enough compared to greens creature suite.
-
in burn, you’re wanting the game to be over on turn 4 at the latest. That means you want every-one of your cards to reliably deal at least 3 damage. Casting this for 2 mana means doing no damage that turn, and giving your opponent ample time to play around it, making it a terrible option. And, burn does’t really want to have 3 mana, so in many games might not even have the lands to cast it for 3, making it a terrible option. And, 3 mana for 4 damage which the opponent can entirely mitigate through Bolt/Push/etc is incredibly risky and making it a terrible option. And taking an entire turn to cast this card means its going to be a lot harder to finish the game by turn-4 at-the-latest (it certainly makes it impossible to win on turn-3), making it a terrible option.
wallisface says... #2
This deck is a long way from competitive burn. Luckily, as this archetype is already very-established, it’s super easy to look up what you should be running.
I would suggest adjusting your list to fit that link as much as possible. Namely:
69 cards is 9 cards too many to be running a competitive deck - you’re making your draws weaker & less consistent.
your creature and spell package are underwhelming, and too-midrange and not-enough-aggro, which will lead to a lot of decks just outracing you (a terrible place to be as burn needs to be be fast to win, there’s often no feasible plan-B).
i’m not sure what your local meta looks like, but the sideboard looks like it needs a revamp.
January 22, 2024 9:44 p.m.