Talk:Burn Deck

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Burn Deck.
This page is for discussing how to improve the page. For general discussion and comments, use the general discussion forum. To ask about rulings or how cards work, use the ruling queries forum. To get help with building a Deck, use the Deck help forum. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Please try to Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

Talk Pages are only for the discussion on how to improve the article. Please post your questions on the Rulings Forum and general discussion on the Forum.

Article has been crippled

I don't really know who did it, I don't want to know who did it, but in my opinion, this article has been totally crippled (compare revision from 06.April 09). The burn deck is one of the most played archtypes, as it can be fast on the one hand (for experienced players), easy to play (for beginners, who usually stall and burn slow), or -which is why I'M playing burn- it is unbelievably mean towards the enemy, to win without even having to attack with monsters.

Still, burn decks are not considered cheap wins like f.e. a Ben Kei, Lightsworns etc.

This article, as it is now, has no expressiveness at all, why burn decks are played. The deck types seem random with their 5-6 cards, and surely must have been placed like that by someone, who has no idea at all, how a burn deck is played.

Where is the explanation? Which cards are generally played? I'm telling you: you can't make a decent burn deck just like that. Especially not if you try reading the deck builds as they are now

I would like to start a vote, whether or not this article should be changed back. Just post here

--Pythong 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Pythong

• I couldn't agree more. It's as if the article has been drained of expressiveness, and all the deck descriptions have been cut down to a few robotic lines! Deeper descriptions are really needed for each burn type in the article (in my opinion, those are better in the older version of the article compared to the new one), which tells about how the deck is played and mentions good combos and strategies to use (some listed burn types may already have an okay desciption, and I don't see a need for pointing those out at the moment).

• Else some changes were good too. F.e. adding more "recommended cards" sections to the different burn types and so. But one thing to mention. I WANT THE LIST OF ALL THOSE BURN AND STALL CARDS BACK. In my opinion it was a really useful list, where you easily could find good burn and stall cards to use in your deck. But instead of voting for or against reverting the article back to as how it was earlier(6th of April 2009?), I vote for: The article needs editing!, taking all the good stuff from the newly edited article into the good old Burn_Deck article as how we remember it. Of course reverting it back and then do the changes would be simplest.

Zheant 23:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This article gets more and more messed up, just look at the recommended cards under the Anti-heal section. It's completely wrong. --Zheant 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)'

just click solar flair dragons archetypes tab or search damages your oppnent for the list of burn cards. :)

P.A.C.M.A.N.

Somebody needs to make a P.A.C.M.A.N. section...

Consider Sizing up the article.

I like the idea for having all of the Burn Decks on one page, however I constantly get update messages for this page. My favorite (and only) Burn Deck that I use is an Anti-Cure. I do not like the idea of seeing 9 updates every day and then have to determine if anything was changed to the Anti-Cure section. I propose that each section have a brief summary of the deck and then a link to another page that contains the entire artical. Any opinions on this? --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 22:16, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Burn Decks and why this article sucks

honestly everything described in this article is the common man's burn deck and revolves around cards openly for burn thus this article fails, i use cards in a rather unorthodox way to burn people and because of it i have an infinite burn lop that's nearly unstoppable except to solemn judgment and its ilk. which you know is limited and i have freaking 3 of everything so im not worried, that and it just cuts down the time for my loop. which if anyone wants to know about they can email me at [email protected] just send the re burn loop?

If you think you have the best Burn Deck out there, then share it. If you think it is good but not the best, then share it. If you want to just complain or brag, SHUT UP. This is a wikia where multiple people work on pages. The article doesn't "fail" unless people refuse to fix problems. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 21:26, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Spliting this article

I agree with Geovanni, I say we split this article about burn deck into 16 different articles about each of those decks.

Reason: I thinks its unfair to group all these decks in to 1 type of deck.

What is a burn deck?

"Burn Decks are designed to "burn" the opponent's Life Points down to 0 with waves of cards that inflict Direct Damage or Effect Damage (instead of relying on Battle Damage, like an Aggro Deck)."

What is not a burn deck (excluding exodia, countdown, venomminaga)

Non-Burn decks are designed to reduce the opponent's life point down to 0 with waves of monsters that inflict battle damage though attacks (instead of relying on Effect damage, like an Burn Deck)

So most decks that arent burn decks fall under the catagory of control, aggro, beatdown, otk, etc.

Lets say "X-Saber","Agents", "Gravekeeper's", "Tengu Synchro", "Chaos", "Dark World" and "Six Samurai" are all aggro decks (control % beatdown)

Do we make an article about aggro deck and put all the decks mentioned above in that article?

No we have different article for each of those deck.

Koaki Meiru and Malefic are both beatdown deck, but neither is in the same article.

I think people need to think of burn decks in a different way; rather then being a type of deck with lots of varients, each of those varient should be a type of deck that falls under the same catagory (burn). And decks that are burn deck are not always just burn deck, they can have elements of other catagory, and so on. Ok, done with my rambling...

So are we gona split this article?Shafi5557 (talk • contribs) 12:52, October 29, 2011 (UTC)