General How Much Burn is Too Much Burn

[Eric Chan]

I got a comment last night that there was a disproportionately high amount of burn in my cube. I'd always been under the impression that I wasn't running enough burn, so that feeedback came as a surprise.

I figure I'd put the question to you guys: How much burn do you run? This is where I'm currently at:



So 13 in 368, or roughly 3.5% of the cube.

For this thread, let's keep it simple and define burn as "instant or sorcery that can deal damage to a creature and/or player". So Shock - yes; Flame Slash - no; Devil's Play - yes; Anger of the Gods - no; Earthquake - yes; Mizzium Mortars - no.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Pfft you and your instants.
I don't really see the need to single out flame slash to not count: Burn is usually aimed at creatures, so I find this folds into the discussion of "How much removal is too much?" which kinda depends on what your threat base is like

 

[Tyrole]

I agree with Chris that, baring a special burn archetype, this would fall under a larger removal discussion. That said, if this is the bulk of your removal in red, it's a similar percentage to what I run in my cube.

 

[Jonas]

How's that clashing working out for you?

On the topic at hand, I agree witj the previous posters.

 

[Eric Chan]

Yep, let me clarify - I'm not talking about red removal, only burn. The comment from my player was that it's too easy to assemble the burn deck, where you can sit behind a couple of creatures, and then just count to twenty by pointing burn at their dome.

For example, the burn in the deck I built yesterday was used more than two-thirds of the time on players.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Yep, let me clarify - I'm not talking about red removal, only burn. The comment from my player was that it's too easy to assemble the burn deck, where you can sit behind a couple of creatures, and then just count to twenty by pointing burn at their dome.

For example, the burn in the deck I built yesterday was used more than two-thirds of the time on players.

Sitting and pointing spells at someone seems like a slow way to do 20 points (Endless Grizzly Bears beats endless lightning strikes in killing potential) which will end up with you probably losing to the opposing creature deck getting ahead of you on board.
In the control matchup on the other hand, they typically have ways to fight back with counterspells or lifelinking creatures.

I'm not really sure. Maybe this has more to do with the damage per card? having a game stall out with both players at 13 is much more likely to go the way of the red player if (as I'm noticing above) most of the cards can deal 4 and you might have brimstone volley. Lucas has commented my cube has a large number of 2cc 3 point burn: technically more efficient than a kicked burst lightning but in a board stall that efficiency matters less than the total number on the cards in your hand.

Maybe? I dunno.
Maybe you need more stallbreakers elsewhere DISTORTION STRIKE!

 

[Eric Chan]

It's typically not a pure burn strategy a la constructed, but something of a hybrid burn deck. Just like you're probably not going to build a pure zoo, draw-go control, or Kiki-Pod combo deck in cube - unless you're Dougggg - you're probably not going to be assembling a deck of all Lava Spikes, either. A deck like this effectively burned people out from decently high life totals, though - it even had the Chandra's Phoenix, to boot!

I noticed you're still dodging the question, though. HOW MANY BURN SPELLS DO YOU RUN

 

[MCMcEmcee]

~18/450 not counting stuff like Ajani V, Chandra, etc

 

[Chris Taylor]

Fine




18/450 ~= 4% (cube isn't exactly 450 right now)

So yeah, similar numbers. all smaller sizes though.
and yeah, ignite disorder is custom, but it's not far off.

Wait also these:

 

[anotak]

i never really sat down and counted

12/360 in me and my friend's custom

Kiki-Pod combo deck in cube - unless you're Dougggg

dude this is still so messed up that that happened

 

[Eric Chan]

SOME OF THOSE ARE NOT BURN

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

12/360 or 3.3%
14/360 if we are count burning vengeance

So your 3.5% seems reasonable to me.

Your burn suite also looks pretty tame: no red X spells to kill someone from nowhere. It sounds more like the player is having a hard time adjusting to the existance of the archetype.

 

[Chris Taylor]

SOME OF THOSE ARE NOT BURN

Molten rain is a little loose but everything there deals damage to players man.
Ral's most common mode over here is mostly stagger-bolt, so I've put him in the same way staggershock is. and vortex is like staggershock with endless rebound

 

[Eric Chan]

Sulfuric Vortex...? That's less burn than Lava Axe, unless you've buffed that one to hit creatures, too.

Maybe my initial wording was unclear, but I meant spells that have the capability to hit either creatures or players. By that nitpicky standard, Flame Slash is just removal, and Boros Charm is also excluded. I'm wondering how many versatile burn spells people typically run.

I don't think I actually run any Lava Axe-type cards. I'm trying to get away from the Ball Lightning + Bolt you style of decks, and more towards the aggressive RDW rush decks.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Sulfuric Vortex...? That's less burn than Lava Axe, unless you've buffed that one to hit creatures, too.

Maybe my initial wording was unclear, but I meant spells that have the capability to hit either creatures or players. By that nitpicky standard, Flame Slash is just removal, and Boros Charm is also excluded. I'm wondering how many versatile burn spells people typically run.

I don't think I actually run any Lava Axe-type cards. I'm trying to get away from the Ball Lightning + Bolt you style of decks, and more towards the aggressive RDW rush decks.

I did understand you, but I still feel it's important to mention vortex and boros charm considering they do contribute to the wins you describe. Not an effect I want a million of (I cut hellspark/keldon marauders for this reason) but it does contribute.

Alright, so adding zarek, subtracting molten rain and vortex, and ignoring boros charm, we get 17/450 ~= 3.7%. Pretty similar all told.

 

[Jonas]

It's typically not a pure burn strategy a la constructed, but something of a hybrid burn deck. Just like you're probably not going to build a pure zoo, draw-go control, or Kiki-Pod combo deck in cube - unless you're Dougggg - you're probably not going to be assembling a deck of all Lava Spikes, either. A deck like this effectively burned people out from decently high life totals, though - it even had the Chandra's Phoenix, to boot!

I noticed you're still dodging the question, though. HOW MANY BURN SPELLS DO YOU RUN

None in the bug cube, 9 in the mirage cube.

 

[Chris Taylor]

None in the bug cube, 9 in the mirage cube.

Sizes bro

 

[Diakonov]

Eric, I think the amount of burn you have up there is entirely reasonable.

I once had this complaint from my play group as well, but it was mainly because burn spells can sometimes make red feel uninteresting since they're all very similar, straightforward and well-rounded spells. Burn spells are one of the cards where it's easiest to say, "oh well, don't know what to take here, take random burn spell." In game I think they interesting spells, though.

Here's what I run. Maybe I do run too much, but red is always tough for me to design in cube.



So about 17/450 = 4%

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Chiming in here (this is counting everything that can deal direct damage to creatures and players from my current cube, not the weird Waddell experiment I am going to do shortly):



So 23/360 or 6.4%!
If you discount the creatures, other than Grim Lavamancer, the planeswalkers, the goblin bombardment, and the Meteorite it's 16/360 or 4.4%. I never had the complaint that there was too much burn though.

 

[Jonas]

Sizes bro

Apparently 11 out of 360. So 3.05%?

 

[Jason Waddell]

(not the weird Waddell experiment I am going to do shortly):

Which experiment is this?

 

[Jason Waddell]

For my money, burn is super interactive and is a huge key to the crowd favorites UR Tempo deck and UWR Control, both of which (the former more than the latter) have been known to finish off games with a lob to the face.

They're also high demand and are inherently decision dense, and it's not like people are regularly throwing together "burn" decks. I cast my vote for "not a problem".

 

[Jason Waddell]

Also, Onderzeeboot, is this card not terrible?



Or is this part of some esoteric Tinker package?

 

[Laz]

Also, Onderzeeboot, is this card not terrible?
Meteorite
Or is this part of some esoteric Tinker package?

If this thing dealt 3, it would sit firmly in my 'eh, maybe' pile...

I run like 9 pieces of 'spell you can aim at someone's face for damage' at 360 (so 2.5% assuming I did the maths right), but a lot of non-spell reach, which ranges from Jinxed Idol, through Gore-clan Rampager to Deathrite Shaman (and the single dimensioned red analogue, Grim Lavamancer). I mean, burning people out from 10 does happen (I lie, it is more like 7-9, but hyperbole.) but those first 10 points are almost never dealt by spells.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Which experiment is this?

The three-color cube. I expect things to shift around quite significantly.

Also, Onderzeeboot, is this card not terrible?



Or is this part of some esoteric Tinker package?

It's been a pretty satisfying replacement for Gilded Lotus. Once you get to 5 mana it doesn't really matter all that much if you jump up 1 mana or 3 mana as the most expensive spells often cost 7, and if you can afford to play a 5-drop mana rock you probably play a deck that can make that land drop, and the 2 damage is surprisingly relevant. It's mostly played in green ramp decks (t1 Elf > t2 ramp > t3 Meteorite > t4 brick wall) and control decks (Grixis for example) where it gets you one step closer to, say, a Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker while offing a small threat.