Are you a Quiet Speculation member?
If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.
So there I was, drafting Vintage Masters. You know, like everyone else. Watching the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth pick Tyrant's Choices go by. After seeing the card for the hundreth time, I figure I may as well read it. Then I read it again. Then I asked around to make sure it was, in fact, a one-sided Flame Rift.
Tyrant's Choice, indeed.
I then wondered why I hadn't heard more about the card. I suppose people just aren't that excited about Burn in general. Even though it did just win a Legacy Open.
"Brian Cambidge's Burn"
It's not surprising to see Eidolon of the Great Revel make the leap into Legacy. It was no coincidence that "Great" was worked into the card's name. Seriously, if you're not on board with this card yet, you are just kidding yourself at this point.
If you missed Adam Yurchick's article about gleaning value from Legacy and Vintage on MODO, then I strongly suggest the read. Eternal formats are super good E.V. right now, and that would be the primary reason I'm looking as closely as I am into a budget (see: non-Wasteland) Legacy option.
Looking at this list, it's rather apparent why there isn't more buzz about Tyrant's Choice. The obvious question is to reply with a different question.
"Why do you need black?"
The answer is roundabout, and perhaps slightly dubious, but I believe that it's worth exploring. The short list proceeds as follows:
- Bump in the Night helps lower your curve.
- While playing Badlands makes Price of Progress worse, Price is dead often enough for conservative players to want to relegate it to the sideboard anyway.
- Tyrant's Choice gets around Leyline of Sanctity and both Choice and Bump get around Circle of Protection: Red.
Are these arguments strong enough to actually add a color?
Honestly? Only if you're on board with point number two. Price of Progress easily has the second highest upside of any card in Cambidge's deck (with the highest being Eidolon--duh). It's a high risk, high reward gamble to maindeck it, and if that's the risk you want to take, then just forget about Badlands. If you'd rather sideboard PoP, then Bump in the Night and Tyrant's Choice are very likely the best replacements.
While concepting a Rakdos Burn deck, Deathrite Shaman crossed my mind. Before its banning in Modern, the Burn decks of that format all incorporated it, so I thought it was worth a shot. After testing it for a few games, it became apparent that, while it had the same ability to circumvent hate cards as Tyrant's Choice, it generally slowed the deck down--largely in that it was a terrible topdeck. Not to mention that using Swords to Plowshares on DRS is waaaaaaaaay better than using Path to Exile on it. For those reasons, it wasn't surprising that I was able to find Rakdos Burn decks from Daily Events that didn't bother with the eternal staple Elf.
duhaimination's 3-1 Rakdos Burn
I like shifting most (or all) of the PoP's to the board. I like the black spells, but I don't get not playing Eidolon of the Great Revel. Of course, there are a few other issues that I have with this list.
The Maindeck
Sulfuric Vortex
Make no mistake, this card is very good. I just don't like it in the maindeck. It helps prevent you from running out of gas and it's an awesome way to make sure that Batterskull and Griselbrand don't just cold you, but it's slow.
Generally, I believe that the goal of Burn is to win on turn four. Don't believe me? Then cut Fireblast. See my point? If we're winning on turn four, then Vortex is a 3 mana Shock or Flame Rift. One that's much easier to Daze.
I see the idea and I like the card. I'd just prefer it on my sideboard.
Grim Lavamancer
Again we see a good card that's pretty slow. Lavaman is another tool to prevent running out of gas, but like Vortex, it's very mana hungry on the games that end on turn four. I would never cut all of them from the maindeck, but with how bad it is in multiples, I wouldn't play more than two.
The Manabase
I get that there aren't that many black cards, but you need to cast most of your spells every game. 10 Mountains is just... wrong. This type of deck plays fetchlands both to gain marginal percentages by thinning the deck and to enable Searing Blaze.
Just play more fetchlands. It's practically a freeroll.
I also like having more Badlands because it turns out that Wasteland is still a thing, too. This obviously makes Price of Progress worse out of the board, but there aren't many decks that it excels against that are even damage races.
The Sideboard
Vexing Shusher
I'll just say it outright. I have no idea why this card is in the sideboard. To beat Counterbalance? That would be all well and good if the Counterbalance deck couldn't just Terminus or Swords to Plowshares your Grizzly Bear and embarrass you.
If you want to beat Counterbalance, play Pyroblast. It'll steal some games against High Tide too.
Relic of Progenitus
I have no idea if this is just generic graveyard hate or an answer to Tarmogoyf. In either instance, I'm not sold on it. I'll play without it until I play games where Relic of Progenitus specifically would have easily won me the game.
Ensnaring Bridge
The idea is that Sneak and Show can't kill you if you control Bridge, which means that you have to have it in hand when they cast Show and Tell and they need to not have brought in their Echoing Truth or whatever to beat your very well known sideboard card. Sometimes they'll even just put in Ashen Rider and mess you up.
I will concede that Bridge wins a non-zero number of games that Burn couldn't otherwise win. I just feel that it's more variance than it's worth against what is probably your worst matchup anyway.
Pithing Needle
An answer to Circle of Protecion: Red I guess? Sounds pretty situational. Might be worth the include, but not my style.
Mindbreak Trap
Eidolon of the Great revel is supposed to hose almost everybody that this card hoses. I don't especially think that those matchups are great, mind you, but I also know that they tend to include Duress and/or countermagic, so you may as well just stay on point so you don't just lose the games that you'd win by drawing a burn spell instead of disruptive element.
For decks like this I believe your sideboard cards have to be backbreaking or near-definitively answer major problems. Mindbreak Trap is an insurance policy that's vulnerable to the general gameplan of the decks that it beats.
The one matchup that it actually benefits substantially is Belcher, which is not for nothing. Mulling into Trap will often just cold Belcher, which inverts an otherwise unwinnable matchup. In my experience, Belcher is reasonably popular online, so I think I'll begrudgingly include Trap for now.
Putting it All Together
So here's what I'm working with:
Chinese Democracy
My logic about the maindeck construction is basically all covered above, though the sideboard is likely a little wonky. Let's talk about that.
Only one Smash?
Smash to Smithereens is very good when it's good, and very dead when it's dead. I find it hard to believe that you'll need this type of effect more than once in a game, and I also think that you really need the first one you cast to resolve.
It's tough to win most games when Batterskull connects even once, which inclines most players to want more Smashes, but I just don't think it's a luxury that you can afford in a non-Brainstorm deck. I'm not saying that more than one copy is wrong, I'm just erring on the side of caution.
Volcanic Fallout
I've lost to Elves! pretty handily in some two-mans. They're faster than you, and using actual removal on their guys sucks. Sometimes Volcanic Fallout is too slow, but sometimes it just crushes them. It's also handy against decks packed with Deathrite Shaman and Stoneforge Mystic. I've been happy with it.
So How Good is Burn?
I don't endorse Burn as a non-budget option. If you really like red cards, then you'll probably have fun playing it, but even the most well thought out Burn deck will tend to have less lines of play than many Legacy decks, and that can be upsetting at times.
The major reason I'm writing about Burn is that Legacy events on MTGO are currently offering dramatically better value than Modern, Standard and Block Constructed events. Burn is a fairly wallet friendly option (although cutting some of the fetchlands would be necessary for an especially budget version), and it's capable of winning its fair share of matches.
If you're looking for a budget way to get into Legacy Online, now is the time, and Burn could very well be the way.
Happy Bolting!
-Ryan Overturf
@RyanOverdrive on Twitter
I enjoyed the article and I definitely passed over Tyrant’s Choice without reading the fact that it can be a one sided flame rift (which for the longest time was a burn staple). However, I do feel that some of the sideboard options were incorrect.
1. Volcanic Fallout-while I realize that “cannot be countered” is a major factor in legacy, the decks that you really need to deal 2 damage to a bunch of creatures…don’t play counterspells. The 2 damage to each player does give it a bit more power, but 3 mana is not something you consistently hit on turn 3 with a legacy burn deck. I think Pyroclasm would be a better choice in this matter. The decks that can counter it don’t run swarms of creatures (except Merfolk..and against them 2x Lords make it worthless). If you need to kill a Stoneforge or Deathrite…you have tons of targeted burn spells you can throw at them.
2. Ensnaring Bridge- helped create the original “Burning Bridges” deck. It’s good against not just Sneak and show decks but any deck that wins with decent powered creatures. Burn decks empty their hands quick and with a bridge in play you’re happy to be in top deck mode.
3. Relic of Progenitus- Could likely be there for the Dredge matchup (as well as Reanimator). I will say you that by adding 7 black spells you do give yourself a shot against a turn 2 Iona (naming red) which normally you’d be cold to, but I can’t fault anyone for running the relic’s in the board.
4. Smash to Smithereens- in multiples makes sense because you don’t have brainstorm. You see a lot fewer of your sideboard cards, so having it as a 1 of means you have a slightly above 10% chance of having it in your opening hand and likely less than 20% chance of seeing it before turn 3 (obviously if not you kill the stoneforge) but you’re still at less than 30% before turn 5/6 when they just hard cast it. If you play several more copies you drastically increase the likelihood of seeing it in a timely manner.
Fallout was primarily included to battle elves, so the 2 damage was the reason for the include over the “can’t be countered” clause. I don’t like pure reactive cards in burn decks, but you’re absolutely right- 3 mana is a lot to ask. Pyroclasm has its downsides, but it could be right to play over Fallout.
On Ensnaring Bridge, well, as was said about Fallout… three is a lot. Delver decks with Daze and Spell Pierce are quite common, and as a Delver player I’m always so happy when my Burn opponent brings in Bridge. I’m not saying that the card is useless, but I personally disagree with the inclusion.
On Relic, wouldn’t Crypt just be better if reanimator is the problem? A fetchland on the play out of a reanimator opponent is just going to cold your relic. It’s definitely a fine include, but I don’t think that it’s the best option and it attacks a very, very small portion of the metagame.
I fully understand the reasoning for Smash, but there’s really just not a lot of decks that need to play into it. By playing multiples you’re banking on them having Stoneforge or Jitte, you not killing it and then just having Smash resolve. I don’t like sideboard options that constitute “planning to fail”.
All of your points are sound though, and I wouldn’t fault anybody for sideboarding the way that you advocate- hell, I’m at least 50% on board with the Pyroclasm switch- but I think it’s a stretch to say that my choices were “incorrect”.
O I definitely didn’t mean to imply your choices were incorrect. The beauty of the format is that the power level is sooo high that picking the right deck (and picking the right sideboard) is a major part of tournament success but deck choice and sideboard decisions should ideally be heavily influenced by the expected metagame.
I certainly respect your reasons behind sideboard decisions, though I would say that when burn sides in ensnaring bridge it should ideally be for matchups that either can’t beat it (when you can empty your hand on turn 3-4) it can be very good against Elves/Death and Taxes. I would likely not bring it in against Delver decks unless I though I could survive long enough to hit my 5th land drop (to cover bridge + spell pierce) which is likely not until turn 7-8. It’s also good against Merfolk, Goblins, and any deck that plays big creatures.
Crypt would definitely be better against Reanimator, however, the number of turn 1 kills is really low and drawing the extra card can be very critical for a deck that ideally wants to cast 7 spells and win.
I don’t disagree with your smash statement, but in that regard why play any at all then? My arguement is more that if a card is worth warranting in a sideboard at all (because it’s critical for a matchup or against a deck’s weakness) then playing it as a 1 of with no way to search is just betting on good luck (and ignoring statistical probability).
I’ve only really been losing the games to Elves where they just kill me on turn three, and merfolk and gobs just aren’t really decks anymore, though I agree that Bridge can excel in the proper meta.
I feel like Crypt should either win you the game or you shouldn’t bring it in, so that definitely colors my opinion on how to address graveyard hate in sideboards. Relic also helps against Goyf, and that’s not for nothing.
That’s a fair point on Smash. The second Searing Blood likely makes more sense than the first Smash.
Hi Ryan! I’ve been playing Legacy Burn for about four years, now. I like how you’ve analyzed the deck and every card choice in great detail [something most players don’t consider], and all of your conclusions are well-reasoned. However, there are a couple trains of thought I disagree with. I’ve top 16’d many of the SCG Legacy Opens I’ve played in with this deck. I’m not the type to play Legacy every weekend, but I still feel like I have enough experience in the field to weigh in.
First, I’ll go over numbers in my 75. Writing my decklist is very easy – I have 4 of every spell in the main deck, twelve fetchlands [also 4/4/4 but that’s less releveant :P], and eight Mountains. My sideboard is 4-4-4-3. One of the key concepts of Burn is that you need to be consistent. Drawing multiples of certain cards sucks [games where I draw three Fireblasts are particularly grim, for example] but the benefit of having the highest likelihood possible of drawing each card greatly outweighs the small percentage of games in which you draw multiples of less useful spells.
Next, here are my feelings on Grim Lavamancer. In short, they are amazing. You’ve already discussed one of the uses of Lavamancers, which is to prevent running out of gas. A better way to look at this is that he adds an extra point of damage to each of your spells for the cost of one mana a turn. This is an investment I’m always happy to make. Equally as important, though, is the fact that Grim Lavamancer can gun down opposing creatures while your spells do their jobs. In this way, Lavamancers are like improved Satyr Firedancers in many cases. It’s also nice having an easy out to an opposing Deathrite or Stoneforge without having to use a precious Bolt or hoping you draw Searing Blaze. Playing twelve fetchlands means Lavamancers are almost never out of gas, and drawing multiples means you just have backups in case the first one is killed.
Lastly, I want to explain that Vexing Shusher is hands-down my favorite card in my 75. It isn’t the strongest, certainly, but it gives blue players fits much more than Red Elemental Blasts. When playing against opposing decks with countermagic, the weakness of Burn is that it will always get its last or most potent spell[s] countered, meaning Burn has to draw into more spells to finish off the opponent. This is not the most reliable plan, since every land you draw is another turn for your opponent to find their threats, more countermagic, lifegain, etc. Pyroblast has uses that Shusher doesn’t sure, but Shusher foils ALL of your opponent’s countermagic and deals damage while it does! As for it being killed, I still have fifteen other creatures that all need to be killed, so it’s a gamble I’m willing to take. In my years of playing the deck, I’ve had nothing but overwhelmingly positive experiences playing Vexing Shusher.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, I didn’t intend for it to be such a text-wall.
Completely agree that not enough analysis goes into card selection- in Burn and in general.
Playing four, or at least three, of everything without any card filtering is definitely backed by sound logic. You know, statistics. I’ve mostly stuck to this rule for the maindeck, with the only 2 being Grim Lavamancer. The reason that I choose to run 2 is that by casting a lavaman, you are basically committing not to win until at least turn five. Many hands will have commit to these slower wins, but by trimming a lavaman I reduce the odds that I’m forced to commit to this plan. I also live strongly by Murphy’s Law, because I’m definitely the guy who would draw too many lavamancers too often.
As for Shusher, it’s evident that the upside is more important to you while the downside is more important to me. I’m glad that the card has served you well, but I’ve been happier with the benefits of REB in my, granted, limited experience. I likely spoke too strongly against the card in my article. He’s certainly not without utility.
Thanks for the comment. You certainly have no need to apologize. Thoughts are always welcome!
You could use Leyline of Sanctity instead, but you won’t have the ability to draw it after your opening seven. With the black splash you could also try Thoughtseize, but you need to be on the play for it to matter against Belcher and Legacy is riddled with redundancies and Brainstorms, so Thoughtseize is pretty poor in an otherwise uncontrolling deck.
With other types of counters you usually have to play to beat Empty the Warrens by countering a ritual of some sort, but Mindbreak Trap gets around Storm, so you just wait unti they cast Belcher or Empty.
I’m thinking the best thing to do is not worry about belcher at all and hope you don’t play against it.
This is definitely an option, and if the cards you play over it are excellent in the matchups that you want them in then I wouldn’t argue with this plan. Of course, Belcher is reasonably popular online, and a singular Mindbreak Trap can just cold them a significant percentage of the time. Any event when you don’t play against Belcher and you’ll feel silly, but you really just can’t beat that matchup without them.