Control vs. Burn
General forum
Posted on May 14, 2015, 11:43 a.m. by BadumPsh
I've been talking to players for awhile, and I'm starting to see that people are pushed into one of two schools of thought, for the most part: either "I hate burn" or "I hate control". Those who hate burn hate how un-interactive it is, and how quickly games go, without any sort of decisions or thought to play. Those who hate control get frustrated with counters and removal, and feel locked while the game drags out. Those are the pessimistic sides of things, in any case.
So what's the consensus on Tappedout? I can see both sides, and as somebody who has two room-mates arguing about it every day, it'd be interesting to hear some thoughts.
I dunno. Personally the matchup I hate seeing the most is a midrange mirror with just dumb creatures.
May 14, 2015 11:54 a.m.
I hate both. Neither make for an exciting game for BOTH players. I'm not part of the pro tour, so winning at Magic isn't my priority. Having a good time with people is, and ruining the other player's day by nullifying their ability to do anything isn't fun for me either.
May 14, 2015 11:55 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #5
I don't really hate any general archetype. I guess if I had to say one or the other I'd say I hate control with too few win conditions. If, 4 turns after you establish control, you don't have a significant threat on the board; then you are doing control wrong.
I'm going to kind of derail this though, or maybe offer a third "I hate X" option. I would like to hear thoughts on why so many people hate combo.
May 14, 2015 11:55 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #7
It's not * really * a derailment since it just throws the third major archetype in as well. Although if people feel it is too off topic just ignore.
May 14, 2015 12:01 p.m.
It's the same conversation either way, whether you hate burn or control or both. Players hate it when they feel like their decisions are meaningless. In the case of burn it's because they can cast stuff but will die anyway, and in the case of control it's because little they cast will survive. Regardless of the archetype the source of the hatred is the same; the inability to play the game in a way the player wants. In that sense its essentially just selfish.
May 14, 2015 12:08 p.m.
It's interesting that combo and midrange are mentioned. I understand comb - a lot of people get frustrated when they're far ahead, then their opponent goes off. But the midrange mirror? That seems like as fair as Magic gets. Maybe it gets a little boring, but overall I'd think that Midrange and Tempo lists are considered the most "fair" of the choices.
May 14, 2015 12:11 p.m.
I feel like if you want to play control and keep a good connotation and reputation, play combo - control. Make an overcomplicated combo (3+ pieces) so the game will continue to be enjoyable.
Burn? Eh. Not any options for burn.
May 14, 2015 12:14 p.m.
That being said, if two friends show up for some casual games, one brings a hardcore burn deck and the other brings a competitive level control/cruel control deck, I will be MORE angry at the control player than the burn player, because at least I can race burn with a good aggro deck. Oh, and if a third friend shows up with Dark Depths + Vampire Hexmage I hate him the most.
My point is, in a casual setting, all of those things are un-fun. In a competitive setting, however, who cares about hate when winning is all that matters?
May 14, 2015 12:14 p.m.
Agree, BadumPsh. I think two decks designed around a complex toolbox to handle a multitude of situations make the most fun because then the game becomes more about strategy. A burn deck's strategy is Burn. A control deck's strategy is Control. A midrange deck's strategy evolves from opponent to opponent and turn to turn. That's where the fun is, for me anyway.
May 14, 2015 12:17 p.m.
Yeah but OP didn't specify casual play only, and in competitive play anything goes.
May 14, 2015 12:19 p.m.
The second half of your sentence is why I brought up casual. On the competitive scene, who cares if you hate it? If it wins, it wins. It's your job as a deck builder to bring answers to those kinds of decks.
May 14, 2015 12:21 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #15
I personally have no issue with Burn or Control. They are viable archetypes, and with a good deck then you can force your way through and still win. That being said, the only real archetype that I dislike is playing exclusively combos in EDH. It kind of kills the fun of the game when people are trying to play fair decks and someone wins on turn 4 every game. However, in more competitive formats like Modern or Legacy, it is entirely fine and even encouraged to play Burn/Control since they are good and entertaining to play against. (assuming the control deck has a win condition, otherwise it just drags on forever)
May 14, 2015 12:23 p.m.
I dislike Control and love burn, but that's because I'm a red mage at heart. There are obviously two sides to every coin, whether you're playing casual or competitive, but don't turn into the guy of "you just won because you played X deck that beats my deck."
May 14, 2015 12:32 p.m.
I agree with most of this. To clarify, I'm not talking about tournament level Magic - just about a somewhat more competitive kitchen table flavor. Only a few friends compete - the rest of us are just playing brews or variants of various archetypes, without the decks being set for strict competition. So there's the drive to win, and there's some aggressive deck building, but it's still within the realm of "noncompetitive".
May 14, 2015 12:32 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #18
I enjoy playing against Control, because it's very much a Battle of Wits. I play RDW/Burn in Modern and Legacy, as well as Abzan in both formats, and 12 Post in Legacy.
That being said, it takes skill to beat a good control player with RDW, or other decks I've mentioned. All of them are fair decks. I'm not fond of hardcore combo decks in Legacy, but that's what a sideboard is for, dealing with 'unfair' strategies and bad matchups.
People do groan when I plop down Goblin Guide or Vexing Devil turn one though... Lol.
May 14, 2015 12:34 p.m.
I find that kitchen table magic actually brings up some of the most bitter disputes because the line between fun and competitive become blurred. In competitive magic you win or lose and that's it. In kitchen table people feel the need to arbitrarily decide if your deck is too unfair or too fast or not fun enough etc and these are subjective, personal things. It just adds another complication for people to argue about because a great deal of individuals are really poor at self regulation.
May 14, 2015 12:37 p.m.
Personally, I love control and don't care much about burn. I mean, I have no problems playing against burn, I just don't see myself getting any enjoyment out of it. But I'm not outraged by it or anything.
What I really hate with a passion is shit like Soul Sisters and Maze's End turbo fog. That is, decks that do their best to not lose the game, but never actually get to win, because their wincons are too fragile or easy to disrupt. So they either get completely wrecked (which is usually what happens), or they force both players to just stay there, staring at each other's face, until someone's library runs out. You see a lot of those on MTGO's casual room, and they're pathetic. With burn, at least the game is over quickly, so I can move on and find someone else to play with.
May 14, 2015 12:43 p.m.
EndStepTop says... #21
ChiefBell speaking the word of the Lord. Also control one of the most fun archetypes.
May 14, 2015 12:45 p.m.
Control mirrors are by far the most fun part of magic, I could do without the rest of the game if it meant nothing but control mirrors forever.
May 14, 2015 1:24 p.m.
I definitely sit much further on the control side than the burn side. I'd much rather be getting punished for bad decisions than getting punished for not being fast enough. One way or the other, I don't hate playing against either.
May 14, 2015 1:26 p.m.
Lots of bad players play burn but it's not an easy deck to play well. Very few burn players actually play the deck correctly.
May 14, 2015 1:29 p.m.
Personally, I prefer Control, both playing with it and playing against it, mainly because I feel like what I do has more of an impact against control. With RDW, a lot of the time I feel like it's going to be a blowout whichever way. Either they'll just burn me out while I durdle around, or I'll stabilise and winning will become trivially easy. When I'm playing against control (as a mainly midrange/control player), I just get more options. I can race, or try to go long, or go with heavy disruption, or combine 2 of them. It's more like a game of magic than playing Burn, where I've got one option on how to go about beating them.
May 14, 2015 1:52 p.m.
jandrobard says... #26
I'd rather play against control than against burn. Against control, I get to see more of my deck and I have to make lots of decisions. Against burn, you stabilize, race it, or lose fast. there's choices in each, and your deck has to be built right, but against burn the game is just too fast and too clearly "save or die".
May 14, 2015 1:54 p.m.
Hjaltrohir says... #27
I always go for control. It is more fun, in my opinion and there are more interesting lines of play than just playing stuff and attacking.
May 14, 2015 1:54 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #28
Burn and Control are a-okay to me. I find that when people dislike them it's because they don't understand them and how fragile linear strategies can be. They do what they do well but can't do much else and are easy to beat if you try.
Personally I dislike combo. Watching a dude move a couple cards around his side of the board until he wins has got to be the most boring thing that happens in MtG. Yeah I understand they have to weather disruption and disrupt their opponent but it can be minimal at times. It's like: "congrats you found a couple cards that interact in a way that lets you ignore fundamental magic, have a cookie bud."
May 14, 2015 1:55 p.m.
I personally hate control, I find it boring to play as and boring to play against, so disruptive, so dull, every time I play against control it makes me want to concede, even if I'm winning.
It's just too annoying when I only spend a few seconds in my turn and sometimes 2 minutes for my opponents turn watching as he does a hundred different things just to play a single spell, hell, he could even be cheating, I'm not even paying attention after the 4th turn.
CharlesMandore says... #2
While I like both, I do see the drawbacks to each of them, but I'm slightly more persuaded towards a combination of them both.
May 14, 2015 11:52 a.m.