So in all seriousness... is risk factor a card worth considering. Weve always said that browbeat wasnt good enough bc its nvr what you want it to be. So is jump-start that good that it makes this version playable? 3 mana for 4 damage is alrdy eh and drawing the cards would be nice when our hand is on e but is 6 mana 8 dmg or 6 mana draw 6 or 6 mana deal 4 draw 3 good enough when it would have just been a bolt itself? Or even 3 bolts for the price of only dealing 4. Im sure im late to this conversation so pls excuse my laziness of going back a few pages to find the discussion
Hi everybody, I’m curious to find out how people sideboard against Bant Spirits and the general strategy involved in winning this match up. I don’t have much experience at all against the deck.
It being a Collected Company deck makes me think Grafdigger’s Cage would be a good fit. In my limited experience playing this match up I felt that Searing Blood wasn’t as effective as I thought it would be but I could be wrong. Thoughts will be much appreciated.
In limited experience against spirits, that card is further reminder why searing blaze is a 4-of in the deck despite not being good in some matchups. CoCo is slow on turn 4, and you should be sniping mana dorks to keep it from coming down any sooner. I board in searing blood to help as additional options against hierarch, drogskol, and phantasmal image. That lets me keep blaze for the X/3's like spell queller. They can still use aether vial to overrun in the face of a cage as opposed to a devoted druid deck running company AND chord.
Still not impressed by risk factor. I think some people just don't like entering top deck mode and are most likely ignoring the math. Risk factor and experimental frenzy sacrifice the deck's biggest strength - efficiency and redundancy, for turns that feel more overpowered. I'll take math over feelings of "wow this is cool."
Eidolon is still good. Got me to a top 8 a couple of weeks ago, and helped me go 3-0 at a modern side event at eternal weekend.
I'm going to get around to a writeup about this one soon. I still need to finish the Control one, but I had a lot of stuff to do the last few weeks and haven't been able to find the time yet.
Okay...I need to break down why these punisher cards are bad.
If your opponent has "no good option," then basically anything else wins. If four damage is as bad as three cards, then your opponent is about to die. Those are the games burn is winning most of the time anyways. Risk Factor, Sword Point Diplomacy, Browbeat, etc are win-more cards. It feels powerful, but the reality is when there's "no good option," that card could have been replaced with anything else.
So the purpose of these cards is to help you come from behind. That's the point. If the game was close or you were ahead, traditional burn is in a great spot anyways. The only time that risk factor may help win a game is if the opponent is at 4 life or less, you have enough lands in play to play factor AND a bolt, and your opponent has a clock that will kill you in a turn or two. That's it. All other situations, it is at best the same as rift bolt.
Now let's talk about when risk factor is bad:
1. when you want to be hyper aggressive
2. when your opponent puts a fast clock on you
3. vs countermagic
4. land light hands
Decks have weaknesses. They all do. Burn's weakness is that it can sputter out if the opponent can disrupt you. Some decks lose to hate, some can't handle early pressure, some are inconsistent and lose to themselves, and some just have clear weaknesses due to how their strategy operates. The attempt to shore up burn's weakness only slows the deck down by raising its curve for a card that isn't really any good to play on curve. You are diluting its strength to try to cover a weakness, and the net result is negative. I played fifteen years ago with onslaught block. I played extended RDW. Everyone wanted browbeat to be a thing. Browbeat is not a thing.
Honestly? I'd prefer a red version of bump in the night for actual reach.
Okay...I need to break down why these punisher cards are bad.
If your opponent has "no good option," then basically anything else wins. If four damage is as bad as three cards, then your opponent is about to die. Those are the games burn is winning most of the time anyways. Risk Factor, Sword Point Diplomacy, Browbeat, etc are win-more cards. It feels powerful, but the reality is when there's "no good option," that card could have been replaced with anything else.
So the purpose of these cards is to help you come from behind. That's the point. If the game was close or you were ahead, traditional burn is in a great spot anyways. The only time that risk factor may help win a game is if the opponent is at 4 life or less, you have enough lands in play to play factor AND a bolt, and your opponent has a clock that will kill you in a turn or two. That's it. All other situations, it is at best the same as rift bolt.
Now let's talk about when risk factor is bad:
1. when you want to be hyper aggressive
2. when your opponent puts a fast clock on you
3. vs countermagic
4. land light hands
Decks have weaknesses. They all do. Burn's weakness is that it can sputter out if the opponent can disrupt you. Some decks lose to hate, some can't handle early pressure, some are inconsistent and lose to themselves, and some just have clear weaknesses due to how their strategy operates. The attempt to shore up burn's weakness only slows the deck down by raising its curve for a card that isn't really any good to play on curve. You are diluting its strength to try to cover a weakness, and the net result is negative. I played fifteen years ago with onslaught block. I played extended RDW. Everyone wanted browbeat to be a thing. Browbeat is not a thing.
Honestly? I'd prefer a red version of bump in the night for actual reach.
This is exactly how ive always felt but i see a lot about it and people mentioning it so i wasnt sure if i was missing something or if the jump start mechanic was rly that good to turn basically browbeat into a playable version. I am completely on the side of not running it but if i was wrong for any such reason bc of jump start, i was gonna at least figure out why im wrong.
Okay...I need to break down why these punisher cards are bad.
If your opponent has "no good option," then basically anything else wins. If four damage is as bad as three cards, then your opponent is about to die. Those are the games burn is winning most of the time anyways. Risk Factor, Sword Point Diplomacy, Browbeat, etc are win-more cards. It feels powerful, but the reality is when there's "no good option," that card could have been replaced with anything else.
So the purpose of these cards is to help you come from behind. That's the point. If the game was close or you were ahead, traditional burn is in a great spot anyways. The only time that risk factor may help win a game is if the opponent is at 4 life or less, you have enough lands in play to play factor AND a bolt, and your opponent has a clock that will kill you in a turn or two. That's it. All other situations, it is at best the same as rift bolt.
Now let's talk about when risk factor is bad:
1. when you want to be hyper aggressive
2. when your opponent puts a fast clock on you
3. vs countermagic
4. land light hands
Decks have weaknesses. They all do. Burn's weakness is that it can sputter out if the opponent can disrupt you. Some decks lose to hate, some can't handle early pressure, some are inconsistent and lose to themselves, and some just have clear weaknesses due to how their strategy operates. The attempt to shore up burn's weakness only slows the deck down by raising its curve for a card that isn't really any good to play on curve. You are diluting its strength to try to cover a weakness, and the net result is negative. I played fifteen years ago with onslaught block. I played extended RDW. Everyone wanted browbeat to be a thing. Browbeat is not a thing.
Honestly? I'd prefer a red version of bump in the night for actual reach.
Everything you said makes total sense, but have you played with risk factor in your deck yet?
Try by your own ! Risk factor is indeed a buff at Burn's strategy. It solves main problems of Burn at loosing alone, or create some recursive card advantage that can burn. It changes some counter strategies like discard or counter spells to be favoured now.
Thanks to Risk factor, we are weak to lifegain effects then faster decks than us.
Four copies however might be quite dangerous in Modern, where actually there are like two categories of decks : combo that want to goldfish you as early as turn two, then disruptive decks like humans\spirit. Risk factor's plan is weaker against the myriad of combo decks.
I think it is a first reason that we see any Burn soing changes. The second reason is because what to replace ? Burn's players are stubborn in general. There are 4 playset to replace: helix, skullcrack, eidolon or searing blaze.
Searing blaze finds almost every times a hit, especially in this current metagame (competitive) and has a huge impact so probably not.
Lightning helix may be situational due to the low damage per mana spend but because of the speed of the current meta, the tempo earned by this card matterq.
Skullcrack might be dispensable, not every decks plays lifegain effects in their 60s. However a lot of decks have now main deck some lifegain effects that needs to be countered, then it is still a Burn spell.
Eidolon is a house and a blasphem for anybody talking badly to that kind of "God of Burn". The fact is that most decks are no longer loosing to an Eidolon, then it becomes worst on the draw and later in game or at drawing it.
TL;DR : watch your metagame mainly to figure out what card to remove in favour of Risk factor, as well of itself if there are too many turn-two\three-kill decks.
@IHEARTCHANDRA I feel happy for all your report. Currently I am trying Experimental frenzy instead of your solo lavaboy because I like "Sax Guy" and Frenzy is busted and I want a fourth Factor's effect, but one copy is the most I can play.
I like Lavaboy but we play few creatures and it need one turn so it turns-on opposite removals. To me Lavamancer looks like Satyr firedancer which is so good against Human and Spirit. It is quite hard for me now to choose between Satyr and Searing blood
Can I advice you to add more basic mountains ? You have 17 white occurences when the normal rate is 14 due to the amount of white spells we use. Two facts: metagame is fast and every single damage taken matters, then a lot of people plays Path to exile or Field of ruin or Assassin's trophy or other cards that let you search for a basic. At playing Risk factor you should have constated that be able to hit your mana matters. I am currently also testing at 3 Foundry because I have 8 fetchlands then because I play the playset of Chained to the rocks in the sideboard plus Deflecting palm. I have still 5 mountains that I am happy to punish my opponent that opt for a play at thinking I have only 3 copies.
I will go to GP Liverpool next month, I just hope that I will be three for the main event, otherwise it would be again a week-end full of Modern side-events !
I am currently running one copy of Risk Factor in my deck. I think it's the perfect number of copies to run. Burn's biggest problem is losing momentum and flooding into lands. EVERY game I've lost usually comes down to whether or not I'm top decking more burn, or top decking lands. More often than not this happens when you just need one or two more spells to get in that last big of damage. One copy of risk factor sufficiently mitigates this problem:
If I start the game with my one Risk factor in my hand, it could be annoying, but it makes me feel okay if I start to flood out, cuz then I can just get it out of my hand as soon as I draw my third land - and if I'm casting it on turn 3, it's still 4 damage to the face, and becomes a late game threat in my graveyard.
If I don't start with Risk Factor in my hand, that's great! it just means that when it comes down to top deck mode and my fear of flooding out, there's at least a chance that the flooding will be rewarded by drawing into a Risk Factor that can be immediately cast. At that point in the game, our opponent is usually at a low enough life total that they might be forced to choose the Draw 3 mode - which essentially lets us win the game.
So one copy is the sweet spot for me - it's never a dead card in the deck, and if it stays dead in my hand, then I was probably losing the game anyway. I know Burn's sweet spot for lands in play is about 3, but I've always felt cramped with only 2 lands in play, and if I'm not screwed on one mana, or cramped on 2, then I'm usually flooding out. Risk Factor just makes any of the above mentioned situations feel just a bit better.
The only painful situation is if I keep a one-lander, and draw into Risk Factor when I need mana instead. This is an unfortunate situation, but that's why I only run one copy - to lessen my chances of drawing it when I want it least.
@raghouz awesome thanks for the suggestion! I will change my mana base.
Also, do you feel like skullcrack is a dead card nowadays? One thing that I can remember vividly was that skullcrack was always a dead card in my hand during the matches (maybe I was just playing it wrong, idk). Everytime I had it in my hand, I always wished that it was something else.
Maybe bump in the night? Or at this point I’m tryjng to be “too cute”? What are your thoughts?
With bump in the night, we can be more aggressive without worrying about losing gas, consistency, and pressure due to having risk factor’s in the deck.
Rain of gore-seems only really effective against soul sisters.which is an uncommon deck.
rakdos charm - So it basically only has two modes, artifact and graveyard.. artifact is redundant to wear//tear and exile grave seems super weak for the cost. I think there just isn't enough flexibility to justify it.
Hey guys, it's been a while. So I played Anger of the Gods in my sideboard...
Basically, I learned a lot from the two games I saw it, but I'm not sure what I learned.
Anger of the Gods started out as my budget Ensnaring Bridge. I wanted to punish Humans and Spirits (Anger of the Gods would be brought in against Dredge, but not Bridge) at my LGS, but I didn't want to get invested into Ensnaring Bridge just yet, as I was skeptical as to how good it would be. As such, every time I played the card, I asked myself, "would Ensnaring Bridge be a better card in this situation?". The answer was always "no, because I eventually saw Knight of Autumn that game. Every deck I would bring Ensnaring Bridge against would bring Knight of Autumn against me.
So I was very happy every time I played Anger of the Gods. It would kill about 3-4 creatures, and would thus buy me about that many turns. But as much as it put me in a winning position, I lost both of those games. The mistake I made was keeping bad hands (4 lands and stuff) thinking that Anger would take everything from there. I was wrong.
The question I am asking is: Is Anger of the Gods a bad card or was I the bad player (just in those games)?
R1 lost to Bant Spirits 2-1. Won G1 cause he was on land double noble open and didnt draw a land for 3 turns. G2, I was on a good 1 lander, but drew the second land two turns too late. Game 3 was close, but I fetched wrong (I fetched a mountain instead of sacred foundry) and that cost me the game.
R2 won vs Jund 2-1. Don't remember much, but in g2 he ate 4 with risk factor and the jumpstart to set up a topdeck burn spell to finish but drew a land.
R3 lost vs Counters Company 2-1. Lost G1 because I flooded. Game 2 Firedancer helped me stabilize the board and pulled me ahead. I prob should have mulled my g3 hand, but even with seeing 7 lands throughout that game, Firedancer kept the game somewhat competitive.
R4 lost vs Humans 2-1. Lost G1 cause I lost the die roll and drawing 2 eidolons vs a vial start feels bad. G2 was Saytr Firedancer's game. Dropped it on two and proceeded to murder his board and him. G3 was very close. Firedancer was able to kill a mantis rider before knight took care of him. Game was down to the wire, because he had two aurioks champions that game. Was able to path one immediately, but the second one stuck and was able to pull it out. There was a couple of periods when he was at 3, but I could not find the burn spell in time, just land. Also he blind meddling mage lightning helix and it was the card i drew at the second time he was on 3.
At this point I still played cause people in my car were still live, so I had some fun in the bottom tables
R5 Won vs Bant Spirits 2-1. G1 went Goblin Guide, Searing Blaze, Swiftspear+Searing Blaze. Yeah. G2 lost cause I mulled and kept a vantage, swiftspear, lbolt, lbolt, lavamancer, firedancer hand and never saw my second land while he went wanderer, thalia, captain, image, image. G3 opponent mulled to 5, and had a double vial and and was only able to vial in a wanderer.
R6 Won vs 5c Pelt Collector Zoo 2-1. On the draw for g1, he drops pelt collector on 1. Since my only interaction was 1 searing Blaze that game, i try to race. Well, when t2 is BTE Nacatl Vexing Devil, kind of hard to race. G2 I'm the aggressor with a double guide/bolt open. I did see a overgrown tomb and he trophy'd a guide. At that point, I figured 4 maybe 5 colors, maybe he plays tribal flames? I took a risk and brought in Firedancer in g3 and he did not see a removal spell for it until the last turn. I talked with him after the match cause his list looked sweet. Turns out he did run tribal flames as a finisher, but never saw it.
At that point, none of my car was live, so we went home.
Some things to take away.
I really like Satyr Firedancer vs creature matchups. Even in the matchups where I lost and brought it in, it put in a lot of work when I got to cast it. Even in the matchups where they have knight for an answer, id rather they kill it than gain 4 life if i've gotten value out of it already.
I'm mostly happy with my piloting that day. Aside from a few mistakes, I'm fine with the result
Does anyone else really enjoy playing against Elves? I played the local Thursday modern last night and went 4-0 without dropping a game (bg elves, mill, gw elves, gifts storm).
I think Elves is a fun matchup. We're quite favored, but you have to be calm and on your toes the whole time and be careful with removal so you're ready for heritage druid, elvish archdruid, and ezuri.
Storm is another fun matchup to me. Keep the pressure going, blast baral/electromancer, and things are usually going to be alright.
When I first started playing burn it was the start of 2018 and that was when Jund was the new hotness. Played against double Jund, Grixis control and Hollow One that day. That was my first 4-0. Also I've never lost a game do Grixis Shadow, let alone a match.
I've been seeing Satyr Firedancer pop up a couple times (not just in this forum, but the commentators on the SCG tour were talking about it as well). What does everyone else think of it?
Storm is the silliest race - it really highlights Burn as a combo deck. Both players are just racing to win with their combo - ours being cast 7 burn spells, theirs being resolve a Gifts Ungiven and go off. I've yet to lose against storm with Burn, we most definitely have the advantage here.
Elves is very fun to play against. Though we're still favored, it's still easy for elves to snowball out of control. I always feel confident when playing elves, but I have to keep track of my opponent's board state a lot to see what buffs they have available. Though I still feel favored, it's definitely a match that you win through some sequencing skills, rather that just straight advantage.
Satyr feels a little too cute? I'd rather just play searing blaze/blood to get the effective 2 for 1 deal instead of a 1/1 that dies to everything and might die before generating value. It is kind of a shame, I'd love to see more burn relevant cards, but until WOTC brings something new along the deck looks kind of stagnant. Stagnant may be a poor word, but the build has basically been set for a few years now ever since swiftspear.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It being a Collected Company deck makes me think Grafdigger’s Cage would be a good fit. In my limited experience playing this match up I felt that Searing Blood wasn’t as effective as I thought it would be but I could be wrong. Thoughts will be much appreciated.
Still not impressed by risk factor. I think some people just don't like entering top deck mode and are most likely ignoring the math. Risk factor and experimental frenzy sacrifice the deck's biggest strength - efficiency and redundancy, for turns that feel more overpowered. I'll take math over feelings of "wow this is cool."
Eidolon is still good. Got me to a top 8 a couple of weeks ago, and helped me go 3-0 at a modern side event at eternal weekend.
If your opponent has "no good option," then basically anything else wins. If four damage is as bad as three cards, then your opponent is about to die. Those are the games burn is winning most of the time anyways. Risk Factor, Sword Point Diplomacy, Browbeat, etc are win-more cards. It feels powerful, but the reality is when there's "no good option," that card could have been replaced with anything else.
So the purpose of these cards is to help you come from behind. That's the point. If the game was close or you were ahead, traditional burn is in a great spot anyways. The only time that risk factor may help win a game is if the opponent is at 4 life or less, you have enough lands in play to play factor AND a bolt, and your opponent has a clock that will kill you in a turn or two. That's it. All other situations, it is at best the same as rift bolt.
Now let's talk about when risk factor is bad:
1. when you want to be hyper aggressive
2. when your opponent puts a fast clock on you
3. vs countermagic
4. land light hands
Decks have weaknesses. They all do. Burn's weakness is that it can sputter out if the opponent can disrupt you. Some decks lose to hate, some can't handle early pressure, some are inconsistent and lose to themselves, and some just have clear weaknesses due to how their strategy operates. The attempt to shore up burn's weakness only slows the deck down by raising its curve for a card that isn't really any good to play on curve. You are diluting its strength to try to cover a weakness, and the net result is negative. I played fifteen years ago with onslaught block. I played extended RDW. Everyone wanted browbeat to be a thing. Browbeat is not a thing.
Honestly? I'd prefer a red version of bump in the night for actual reach.
This is exactly how ive always felt but i see a lot about it and people mentioning it so i wasnt sure if i was missing something or if the jump start mechanic was rly that good to turn basically browbeat into a playable version. I am completely on the side of not running it but if i was wrong for any such reason bc of jump start, i was gonna at least figure out why im wrong.
Everything you said makes total sense, but have you played with risk factor in your deck yet?
Which lands should I cut for more mountains?
If I start the game with my one Risk factor in my hand, it could be annoying, but it makes me feel okay if I start to flood out, cuz then I can just get it out of my hand as soon as I draw my third land - and if I'm casting it on turn 3, it's still 4 damage to the face, and becomes a late game threat in my graveyard.
If I don't start with Risk Factor in my hand, that's great! it just means that when it comes down to top deck mode and my fear of flooding out, there's at least a chance that the flooding will be rewarded by drawing into a Risk Factor that can be immediately cast. At that point in the game, our opponent is usually at a low enough life total that they might be forced to choose the Draw 3 mode - which essentially lets us win the game.
So one copy is the sweet spot for me - it's never a dead card in the deck, and if it stays dead in my hand, then I was probably losing the game anyway. I know Burn's sweet spot for lands in play is about 3, but I've always felt cramped with only 2 lands in play, and if I'm not screwed on one mana, or cramped on 2, then I'm usually flooding out. Risk Factor just makes any of the above mentioned situations feel just a bit better.
The only painful situation is if I keep a one-lander, and draw into Risk Factor when I need mana instead. This is an unfortunate situation, but that's why I only run one copy - to lessen my chances of drawing it when I want it least.
I've been happy with this set up so far.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
Also, do you feel like skullcrack is a dead card nowadays? One thing that I can remember vividly was that skullcrack was always a dead card in my hand during the matches (maybe I was just playing it wrong, idk). Everytime I had it in my hand, I always wished that it was something else.
Maybe bump in the night? Or at this point I’m tryjng to be “too cute”? What are your thoughts?
With bump in the night, we can be more aggressive without worrying about losing gas, consistency, and pressure due to having risk factor’s in the deck.
Just a thought, don’t roast me alive forum lol .
went to my lgs last night to play and one guy was suggesting satyr firedancer as a sideboard.
seems good for fish, humans, elves, etc
looking for extra input.
Mardu burn
Current sideboard.
keepers
3x deflecting palm
4x wear // tear
2x kor firewalker
2x path to exile
iffy
2x Rakdos charm
2x rain of gore
Rain of gore-seems only really effective against soul sisters.which is an uncommon deck.
rakdos charm - So it basically only has two modes, artifact and graveyard.. artifact is redundant to wear//tear and exile grave seems super weak for the cost. I think there just isn't enough flexibility to justify it.
how would you reorganize this sideboard?
maybe rest in peace?
and satyr firedancer?
Basically, I learned a lot from the two games I saw it, but I'm not sure what I learned.
Anger of the Gods started out as my budget Ensnaring Bridge. I wanted to punish Humans and Spirits (Anger of the Gods would be brought in against Dredge, but not Bridge) at my LGS, but I didn't want to get invested into Ensnaring Bridge just yet, as I was skeptical as to how good it would be. As such, every time I played the card, I asked myself, "would Ensnaring Bridge be a better card in this situation?". The answer was always "no, because I eventually saw Knight of Autumn that game. Every deck I would bring Ensnaring Bridge against would bring Knight of Autumn against me.
So I was very happy every time I played Anger of the Gods. It would kill about 3-4 creatures, and would thus buy me about that many turns. But as much as it put me in a winning position, I lost both of those games. The mistake I made was keeping bad hands (4 lands and stuff) thinking that Anger would take everything from there. I was wrong.
The question I am asking is: Is Anger of the Gods a bad card or was I the bad player (just in those games)?
My list:
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Monastery Swiftspear
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Helix
4 Searing Blaze
3 Skullcrack
4 Rift Bolt
3 Bloodstained Mire
4 Inspiring Vantage
3 Mountain
2 Sacred Foundry
1 Stomping Ground
4 Wooded Foothills
3 Satyr Firedancer
3 Path to Exile
3 Destructive Revelry
1 Searing Blood
1 Skullcrack
2 Risk Factor
2 Rest in Peace
R1 lost to Bant Spirits 2-1. Won G1 cause he was on land double noble open and didnt draw a land for 3 turns. G2, I was on a good 1 lander, but drew the second land two turns too late. Game 3 was close, but I fetched wrong (I fetched a mountain instead of sacred foundry) and that cost me the game.
R2 won vs Jund 2-1. Don't remember much, but in g2 he ate 4 with risk factor and the jumpstart to set up a topdeck burn spell to finish but drew a land.
R3 lost vs Counters Company 2-1. Lost G1 because I flooded. Game 2 Firedancer helped me stabilize the board and pulled me ahead. I prob should have mulled my g3 hand, but even with seeing 7 lands throughout that game, Firedancer kept the game somewhat competitive.
R4 lost vs Humans 2-1. Lost G1 cause I lost the die roll and drawing 2 eidolons vs a vial start feels bad. G2 was Saytr Firedancer's game. Dropped it on two and proceeded to murder his board and him. G3 was very close. Firedancer was able to kill a mantis rider before knight took care of him. Game was down to the wire, because he had two aurioks champions that game. Was able to path one immediately, but the second one stuck and was able to pull it out. There was a couple of periods when he was at 3, but I could not find the burn spell in time, just land. Also he blind meddling mage lightning helix and it was the card i drew at the second time he was on 3.
At this point I still played cause people in my car were still live, so I had some fun in the bottom tables
R5 Won vs Bant Spirits 2-1. G1 went Goblin Guide, Searing Blaze, Swiftspear+Searing Blaze. Yeah. G2 lost cause I mulled and kept a vantage, swiftspear, lbolt, lbolt, lavamancer, firedancer hand and never saw my second land while he went wanderer, thalia, captain, image, image. G3 opponent mulled to 5, and had a double vial and and was only able to vial in a wanderer.
R6 Won vs 5c Pelt Collector Zoo 2-1. On the draw for g1, he drops pelt collector on 1. Since my only interaction was 1 searing Blaze that game, i try to race. Well, when t2 is BTE Nacatl Vexing Devil, kind of hard to race. G2 I'm the aggressor with a double guide/bolt open. I did see a overgrown tomb and he trophy'd a guide. At that point, I figured 4 maybe 5 colors, maybe he plays tribal flames? I took a risk and brought in Firedancer in g3 and he did not see a removal spell for it until the last turn. I talked with him after the match cause his list looked sweet. Turns out he did run tribal flames as a finisher, but never saw it.
At that point, none of my car was live, so we went home.
Some things to take away.
I really like Satyr Firedancer vs creature matchups. Even in the matchups where I lost and brought it in, it put in a lot of work when I got to cast it. Even in the matchups where they have knight for an answer, id rather they kill it than gain 4 life if i've gotten value out of it already.
I'm mostly happy with my piloting that day. Aside from a few mistakes, I'm fine with the result
I think Elves is a fun matchup. We're quite favored, but you have to be calm and on your toes the whole time and be careful with removal so you're ready for heritage druid, elvish archdruid, and ezuri.
Storm is another fun matchup to me. Keep the pressure going, blast baral/electromancer, and things are usually going to be alright.
Tron
Storm
Elves
Infect
From a perspective of an entertaining matchup where anything can happen, I probably lean towards grixis shadow over those.
I've been seeing Satyr Firedancer pop up a couple times (not just in this forum, but the commentators on the SCG tour were talking about it as well). What does everyone else think of it?
Elves is very fun to play against. Though we're still favored, it's still easy for elves to snowball out of control. I always feel confident when playing elves, but I have to keep track of my opponent's board state a lot to see what buffs they have available. Though I still feel favored, it's definitely a match that you win through some sequencing skills, rather that just straight advantage.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG