Burn deck with stamina

Ingraved · Joined: 24 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

OK so here's what I got:
17 Mountain
2 Forgotten Cave
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Mindstorm Crown
4 Pyromancer's Swath
4 Pyroclasm
4 Fiery Temper
4 Ensnaring Bridge
4 Incinerate
3 Flame Jab
3 Browbeat
4 Rift Bolt
3 Steam Blast
SB: 3 Boil
SB: 3 Flaring Pain
SB: 3 Shatterstorm
SB: 3 Flashfires
SB: 3 Blood Moon

Swath makes for quick Crown draw
Flame jab for those pesky land draw late game
bridges for creatures I cant remove
it is a slow burn deck but it is consistant with wins.

any thoughts?

Please keep in mind I designed this deck to be a budget deck.

Engrishskill · Joined: 15 Jan 2007 Posts: 472

If you are trying to build a competitive deck, make a more traditional burn deck and tune it accordingly. Add bridges or whatever accordingly, but most of the dominant decks in the format can deal with a bridge.

Many of the spells you run are sub par too.

It takes six burn spells to kill an opponent generally and traditional burn decks don't need janky artifacts to draw more burn because almost ever spell is burn.

Either way; if you are just looking to have fun, do whatever you want. If you are looking to be competitive, you should probably consider testing traditional burn and figuring out its weaknesses in order to adjust the deck to be stronger, rather than weaker...which is the case with the list that you posted.

Run better spells, ditch the janky enchantments for more burn or whatever.

You should also keep in mind that Tarmo-Sligh is basically a stronger version of mono red burn.

Ingraved · Joined: 24 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

Thanks for the insight.

It is a cheap deck I built for casual fun play.

I am looking for suggestions to balance out the synergy a little. Here are some example questions.
1. Should I add/remove land?
2. Do I really need 4 bridges or swaths?
3. What kinda SB should a burn deck have?
4. What cheap burn should I add/replace?

If I wanted to play competitive in legacy, burn is not my style really.

I understand most of the players on this forum prefer to obliterate there opponent before they know what happened. This is understandable Wink

.

However, when I play casually I prefer to play lengthy games for a couple reasons. I find them more enjoyable, and also I am watching my opponent to figure out there play style so when I do face them in a tournament I know what they're thinking.

Engrishskill · Joined: 15 Jan 2007 Posts: 472

A competitive legacy burn deck might actually work out to be worth less money than the deck that you posted or maybe a little more...not by a lot though unless you are running fetchlands.

Ankh of mishra+burn is pretty good in legacy right now.

I personally play decks that win in the late game. Legacy games being really fast is a fallacy imho that people seem to buy into based on how crucial the first few turns of the game are. A match typically takes me around the full forty-five minutes and I go into time a lot.

NahHolmes · Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 652

Burn used to be a great metagame deck until the day someone put Tarmogoyf in a deck with Counterbalance. Now you have a terrible matchup vs. the best and most popular deck type in the format.