Let's have that talk: Burn
Modern forum
Posted on June 22, 2017, 11:07 a.m. by InnerFlame
Burn, a deck I've seen best described as "the counter-less Control deck, the creature-less Agro deck, the combo-less Combo deck. The thing that makes this deck tick is the simple fact that it has no classification outside itself." it's one of the oldest decks and competes almost every format, a feat not all decks can bost; however, there seems to be a stigma or prejudice agand net the deck. And that, is what I want to talk about.
When my deck, deck:my-burning-crush-on-taylor-swiftspear broke grounds on the site, it was met with a larger amount of support and admiration than I thought it would, or at least more than new user me would have expected. and when I would play it, deck performed decently well. Even better, when other people piloted the deck, they would comment back to me how well they did. It is important to note, I'm not saying burn was my idea or that my deck was something special, simply that it was a generic burn deck with some minor tweaks. Mine just had a name of interest. What's important to note is that those who piloted it, liked the deck and it performed well. Though, when I would play with the deck in an FNM, I would catch some negative vibes from my pears. I'd get the sighs when my opponent found out they were playing against a burn deck. I catch the murmurs of opponents dreadfully explaining how they lost to burn. I once even had a player rage quit and yell "it's not even a real deck" as he protested against my deck after his Jund deck sizzled out. The latter really kind of offended me. Even outside of FNM, around the LGS and online, is hear players bash burn saying the same thing, "it's not a real deck." Some even said it wasn't competitive, and of course, there is the ever so popular saying "it takes no skill to play." It even got to a point where one of my favorite players when I started playing magic, Lee Shi Tian, wrote about how one of his fellow players became so "desperate" he turned to burn for a pro tour. Needless to say, I disagree. This all left me in a mind rut I couldn't get out of, though. I loved burn. I didn't only perform decently well with burn, but burn represented me as a player (overly aggressive). But, every time I played with it or defended the stance of it, I'd be magic shamed.
Why? Why the magic shaming? Why the resentment and shaming? Burn is a deck, it's not like it's been crafted out of non magic cards. Anybody that's played magic for a long time will tell you burn does take skill to play. In fact, a lot of games it takes a skilled player to play burn because one misplayed spell can cost you the game. It isn't a mindless deck, for the previous reason on top of having to learn how to play control with a burn deck. Burn players are forced to make decisions on nearly every cast. It's not always straight to the face of every opponent and tap out every turn, especially when playing against a control deck. It takes knowledge of every deck and planning of what might happen if you cast this spell or if you need to get rid of that creature. At the same time, you can't get too off track of your combo to 20 life. It's a fragile deck that performs well in every role if it has a well-practiced pilot.
Versatility is a key to a deck, and with burn, the basis of the deck can stay the same while changing how it feels by mixing some things up. As of now, Naya is the preferred burn color. But there are mardu and jeskai variants of the deck that can attack different weak points of the deck and change how the deck interacts slightly. Essentially, the core idea of burning stays put as you change colors, but changing colors sets the deck up for different situations all together, and does so very smoothly. Which could be a saving grace in a deck that appears very linear.
Even more, the meta for burn currently doesn't seem like it couldn't be better. Death's Shadow is running modern top 8 list right now, not because the deck is just powerful enough to make up 15% of top 8s, but because of the sheer number of players playing the deck right now. Everybody is playing it. And if you have the chance to play against it twice out of your 4 or 5 rounds at an FNM or larger tournament (adjust figures), is burn not one of the decks you'd want to be playing against a deck that does 10 damage to itself. Ever since twin left the scene, there's been no good control-yes twin was a combo deck but also a tempo/control deck-that has taken modern like the aggro decks have. And all the combo decks can be hosed by burn, especially after sideboarding. Fetches and shock lands are more prevalent than ever before, almost guaranteeing a free Lightning Bolt or Boros Charm . Really the only deck that has burns number right now is junk, and that build has fallen out of favor in recent months. It's a turn four deck, in a turn four meta which is doing nothing but helping burn.
As far as I've been able to identify, there anti-burn discussions are based off of 3 main points. The first being, an opponent of burn won't win off skill. Modern isn't fair, it's been well documented on how there's a ton of decks in modern that aren't fair. If you're going to play a fair deck in a unfair format, you shouldn't be a sore loser about it. And yes, I'm going to want to play a deck that gives me those free wins sometimes, positioning myself in a good spot; that's just common sense and good planning. Secondly; it takes no skill to play burn. I discussed this above, but pretty much, it's such a fragile deck that every spell matters. Lastly, the deck is too linear. The biggest weakness of the deck is that it is not very resilient. It likes to do one thing in one way. It can be altered a bit by changing a few points of the deck, however this can take away from the overall aggression of the deck burn is famed for. Changes that include the inclusion of Wild Nacatl, changing colors for Tasigur, the Golden Fang, or protecting against lifegain outside of Skullcrack and Atarka's Command with counters or Rain of Gore .
It's an ever changing deck that has evolved throughout the past 25 years, and will do so going forward by adding a card here and there, possibly even colors. But still today, I don't understand all the hate that surrounds the build. Maybe it's magic's biggest misunderstanding. Maybe it's time to put the burn shaming to rest. Maybe I'm just delusional.
What do you all think?
CaptainDolgrin says... #3
I absolutely agree. Players who hate burn are, in my opinion, just whining to whine. The deck has built this sort of stigma around it because it's typically the deck newer players use to get into the format. And yes, burn's floor is very low. Basically anyone CAN play it, but it's ceiling is a lot higher than people think.
I'm an strong supporter or this hyper-aggro strategy and I absolutely love what you've said here.
#StopDeckShaming
June 22, 2017 11:20 a.m.
InnerFlame says... #4
I thought it was just a local thing too, rothgar13, until Lee Shi Tian shamed it. I agree with the 80 to 85 percent of your decisions are already made. But it's that 10 to 15 percent that wins your games and makes you a good burn player. I also agree with what you said CaptainDolgrin. The ceiling is high and the floor low. Much to go along with what rothgar said. Anyone can play it, but there's decisions that you'll have to make that will push your results to a high percentage once you become a good pilot of the deck. Also, fan of the hashtag.
June 22, 2017 11:35 a.m.
Snapdisastermage says... #5
This is not coming from someone who hates burn. But I think alot of people simply hate decks that are hard to interact with. Lantern control? Tron? bloodmoon strategies? All hard to interact with. People hate these decks. I think burn falls into the non interactive category, Path your Redundant small/efficient creatures? Oh well. Supreme verdict? My deck is 70% spells. Fetchlands and thoughtseize? Doin my job for me. The core of it is that magic players simply want to interact. And burn is just not a very interactive strategy (which is fine). It's not OP, It's not Easy to play. But people play elaborate midrange/control and combo strategies just to sit down and have someone fling spells at them for 15 mins. But it needs to exist, You guys keep tron and other non interactive strategies in check and make sure people dont get too greedy with fetches and shocks.
June 22, 2017 12:50 p.m.
one of the problems i have seen with burn is that as an archetype, it is almost too easily shut down. Stuff like Thragtusk and Leyline of Sanctity are simply brutal against that one entire archetype (pure burn that is). Don't even mention the new Oketras Last Mercy (3 mana resets your life total)
That being said, burn is not a bad archetype. IMHO, its one of the more fragile ones, as it can straight up lose if the opponent starts with a certain card in hand, but it keep variety in the format.
June 22, 2017 1:23 p.m.
I'd say why people dislike playing against burn or other "fragile" strategies is that it forces you to play solitaire. There's no real excitement in a turn 0 scoop against Leyline, you know? In a sense, the same applies for combo and sometimes control, though there can still sometimes be some nice interaction with those decks. Against 'typical, acceptable' midrange decks, there's still a lot that can go wrong.
Not saying I agree with this necessarily. I'd think it's unreasonable to force your opponents to supress their groan, if they make one, on the first turn of the match, but they still shouldn't be as toxic as some people can be.
June 22, 2017 1:36 p.m.
I feel the urge to agree to the statement of you're delusional, but that's just cause I can and everybody else has pretty much taken all the noteworthy commentary.
June 22, 2017 1:46 p.m.
Burn takes a lot of flack for a number of reasons. Like previously stated, its one of the easier decks to play at the casual level and one a lot of newer players learn on. As you yourself said, its well positioned in a format of Death's Shadow and that leads to a lot of prevalence and fatigue towards the deck. There are more than a few games where there is very little thought involved, but there are also just as many games where your sequencing and casting mean everything. A low floor will always distract people from the high ceiling and the "bad" players are going to complain. Burn is indeed fragile, but its also a big check against some of the greedier decks. People hate on Affinity because of its checks on the format as a premier aggro deck. People have complained about well-established decks for ages and they're not going to stop, just take it with a grain of salt and move on to the winner's table...
tl;dr: People are obnoxious, their complaints are rude and only 80% untrue. Low floors tend to sway opinions regardless of ceilings
June 22, 2017 2:22 p.m.
Snapdisastermage says... #10
Alot of people don't realize burn is one of the decks that REALLY keeps tron in check
June 22, 2017 2:28 p.m.
InnerFlame says... #11
Entrei, Oketra's last mercy won't be played as mush as a lot of people are thinking. Timely Reinforcements is a much better option. Not only do you not want to really do it until around 5 life, but reinforcements is more survivable if you get Skullcracked or Atarka's Commanded. You can use timely reinforcements with value at any time and it's still devastating, plus it has the added vesatility of tokens. Therefore I don't see it being replaced and people won't run that much devotion against burn. As far as Leyline of Sanctity goes, they have just as much of a chance as you do to draw into Destructive Revelry and mise we'll play two turns to see if you draw it while establishing the mana, DarkLaw.
I see how the deck is linear, and that can be played around by stoping their options by drawing your options. Which, isn't that how magic is? So if you get mad about not drawing your answers, you're mad at your luck, which is a large part of magic. So I don't see the use in getting mad about the deck. I can see the it's not interactive and boring to play against part, I get that a lot actually. That's probably the best argument against playing it. The players calling it a non-deck are just what run through my head a lot.
June 22, 2017 5:24 p.m.
PickleNutz says... #12
I frequently play a burn deck, it's called the burning mechanism on my profile, it's super effective and budget friendly. It has outperformed decks that cost ten times it's total cost too. It takes tremendous skill to play one at a high level and I have never caught negative reactions. I have had people ask where I got the idea for the deck though. I think it's all based on how salty people are that have been burnt before haha.
June 22, 2017 5:55 p.m.
I mean, Leyline is usually best used with some discard or counters to back it up. There's technically equal chance that you draw your out, but you don't just win the game if you do: You won't mull to 5 to find a Destructive Revelry, but you might mull to 4 to find a Leyline.
Actually, though, that's not really important. The thing is, when you make it so that much of a deck's cards don't really do anything but others straight-up win the game, it doesn't promote making all these skilled choices that we like people to make. It's pretty much just mull till you find a discard heavy hand, or Surgical Extraction, or Timely Reinforcements, or Stony Silence, etc. That's not very fun because the game comes down to whether a single card sticks as opposed to whether the right combination of multiple cards do.
As for your typical haters of everything, there's no reasoning with them.
June 22, 2017 6:08 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #15
Part of the hate for burn likely comes out of the fact that burn is an uninteresting deck to lose to. I play grixis midrange, so when I lose to, say, a junk midrange deck, there were many interesting trade-offs, interactions, and moments of tense build-up about how the game is going to go, what could be in his hand, whether I can find my outs to his lingering souls team, and cause-and-effect analysis several layers deep. Losing such a game, for me, is very interesting and fun. Losing to burn will never hold that same feeling. Heck, even winning against burn will never be as enjoyable as losing to junk for me. But that's because I play magic for the strategic aspect. Burn undoubtedly takes skill to play competitively. But because many of my cards are situational at best against burn and I need to draw my good cards to win, it just isn't fun to play against.
I am not saying that burn doesn't take skill to play with or against. It most certainly takes skill from both sides of the table at high levels, but in grind fests my deck feels like a well-tuned machine playing right where it belongs. Playing against burn has simple interactions and my deck feels like old hard gum.
June 22, 2017 9:44 p.m.
The argument that burn takes no skill to play can be made for any other deck. Decks such as affinity or scapeshift take roughly the same amount of skill to play. (although they involve a bit more math) With regards to that however, it is in the same boat to lose against that control is. There's really no different way to lose to it, you will lose when your life total reaches zero.
Honestly, I'm just glad that there's an upgradeable budget deck for modern players. The format is dying as it is, and an $1000 price tag on a tier 2 deck isn't helping anything. It's also one of the few decks that exists only in modern. (legacy burn is a lie) If players want to play one of the best aggro decks in existence, they have to come to modern. Wizards is never going to print burn in standard, as they've shown with the printing of that 3 mana bolt. Burn is one of the only decks that's keeping a flow of fresh meat into the format we know and love.
June 22, 2017 10:49 p.m.
"The format is dying as it is"? "Legacy Burn is a lie"? What are you even on about, man? Granted, Legacy Burn isn't Tier 1 the way Modern Burn is, but it's very much a thing. Just ask Patrick Sullivan. And Modern is doing great right now - overtaking Standard in many places, according to several pieces published in ChannelFireball and elsewhere. Where are you getting these impressions from?
June 22, 2017 11:13 p.m.
I second everything rothgar13 just said.
Don't confuse the potential pocket wormhole of your local meta for the state of Magic worldwide.
Modern is the dominant format and the only one you don't have to convince yourself to tolerate.
June 22, 2017 11:21 p.m.
CaptainDolgrin says... #20
rothgar13 and TMBRLZ have got the idea. Modern really is the best format right now, and legacy burn is definitely a thing. Also what tier 2 decks are you playing?
June 23, 2017 2:19 a.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #21
I disagree with "Modern is the best format". I think Legacy firmly holds that title. There are problems with the Modern metagame, and Legacy is in an excellent spot right now.
My two cents on the subject is that people don't like Burn because it is the poster child for linear strategies. It doesn't really matter what people like or don't like to play against though, because Burn is great and you'd better be ready for it.
As for the note on high-level players shaming Burn, that's more a function of their testing and thought process when approaching a format. Burn is very rarely the best deck to play in a tournament, and resorting to it might be an indication that you (a professional-level player) could not find a stronger choice that allows you to leverage play skill and understanding of the format more.
June 23, 2017 2:32 a.m.
WizardOfTheNorthernCoast says... #22
BURN FR EVER MAN. F**k haters, let's throw Lightning Bolts at them and purify them with fire!
June 23, 2017 6:25 a.m.
InnerFlame says... #23
Oh wow U don't know where to start! Sorry guys, I didn't mean for the bread to get a little out of hand there. I'm going to have to agree with rothgar13 and TMBRLZ on the state of modern, KingTorg1. It's the healthiest format and drawing big interest. Wizards had to ban it from the pro tour and World Cup to draw attention back to standard. Which was a basic and expected move marketing wise, but it was drawn because of the interest in modern and lack there of in standard. Junk and Jund also aren't tier 2 decks. They just require a ton of skill to play so only very skilled players do well with them. Lastly, I'd say Affinity require a few more decisions than burn(may be a counter of my own to my original post).
GlistenerAgent, always a pleasure to have you comment on my threads. I think you hit the subject of the matter on the head. As far as modern goes, id still have to say modern is the healthiest format. Legacy might be more fun and healthy as well, but modern is in a very good spot. The only problem I've seen is that control is kind of absent and creature toolbox is on the rise. Death's shadow is popping up like acne on a pubescent teen, but that's only because of the sheer number of people playing the deck. A lot of people are missing twin now because it kept a lot of decks in check with it control, so I'd say that's the weakest point. But I'd still say it's the most healthy. Plus it's price tag allows a wider range of players in the meta.
June 23, 2017 4:26 p.m.
CaptainDolgrin says... #24
GlistenerAgent fair point, legacy is pretty great right now, but more people play Modern because it's easier to buy into.
Also, I think I can agree with what you said about pro players.
June 23, 2017 4:27 p.m.
There's certainly a healthy debate to be had over whether Modern or Legacy is the better format right now. They're both in a great place in terms of metagame. In terms of popularity and tournament presence, though, it's no contest - Modern rules the roost.
June 23, 2017 4:36 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #26
Definitely not saying Modern is bad by any means, it's in a pretty good spot. In Legacy, you can play any reasonable shell of Legacy cards (control, aggro, whatever), and do well with it. This is much less true in Modern. As mentioned above, control decks don't exist and Deaths Shadow is having the Wild Nacatl effect on midrange decks.
I don't think price point has much of an impact on format health. More people play Modern because of the cost, but that's as far as that goes in my opinion.
June 23, 2017 4:56 p.m. Edited.
Snapdisastermage says... #27
Wizards is still trying to abolish true control in even legacy though
June 23, 2017 4:58 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #28
Note that this is coming from a person who almost exclusively brews, builds, and plays the kind of decks that have horrible matchups against Burn:
Everything I would have said has already been well-stated several times over, but let me add another "don't let the haters get you down". Burn is a very important part of any Magic metagame and we'd all be worse off without it.
June 23, 2017 5:01 p.m.
How's that? Cause they FINALLY banned Top?
God forbid we do something to slow down the overwhelming tide of Miracles.
June 23, 2017 5:03 p.m.
Snapdisastermage says... #30
Not gonna argue. Wizards simply does not want Draw-go to be a serious archetype in any format
June 23, 2017 5:22 p.m.
It's understandable in legacy. If you look at the most used cards in Legacy right now on MTGTOP8, the first page is filled with nothing but lands, Lightning Bolt, Deathrite Shaman, and blue control cards...
June 23, 2017 5:57 p.m.
InnerFlame says... #32
The theory I meant was the more people on a format the more diverse it would be, GlistenerAgent; but, now that I think about the lack of control more of have to probably agree with you. It may very well be the healthiest.
June 23, 2017 10:30 p.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #33
I hate playing against burn online.
In real life not so much, it's a legit deck and it does take some decent knowledge to pilot correctly. I've won games I should have lost simply cause the burn pilot decide To play board control instead firing to the face.
It's a great deck to test your decks against but playing in a non competitive setting online when a person brings burn it's like out of all the mtg universe you brought this boring crap?
June 25, 2017 2:27 p.m.
InnerFlame says... #34
I just died reading that last part, APPLE01DOJ, haha.
rothgar13 says... #2
I'm sorry that you've run into salty players, but Burn catching flack is relatively uncommon in my experience. Decks like Lantern and Tron are the ones that attract the most hate. As for why those players were mad at you for playing Burn, it's because the deck is relatively straightforward to build and play, and has a high floor. However, playing the deck at a high level is pretty difficult. As a Burn pilot said on this Reddit thread "they say that 85-90% of burn's decisions are already made, and that the other 10-15% are some of the most difficult decisions in Magic".
June 22, 2017 11:16 a.m.