No. Reveler and tarigar. They just dont fit the build of burn. We are streamline. Reveler and tasigar arent good enough. Tasigar has a slight better chance than reveler bc of 1 black 4/5 that blocks tarm but honestly, we wont be using its ability. Imo, we should win by the time he does anything. 5 spells delved plus 1 when he comes into play bc he doesnt do anything when he comes in, and 1-2 the turn after. Even if we play hom turn 3, he attacks turn 4, we should have it by turn 5 or 6 without him and by then they are blocking him or pathing him
No. Reveler and tarigar. They just dont fit the build of burn. We are streamline. Reveler and tasigar arent good enough. Tasigar has a slight better chance than reveler bc of 1 black 4/5 that blocks tarm but honestly, we wont be using its ability. Imo, we should win by the time he does anything. 5 spells delved plus 1 when he comes into play bc he doesnt do anything when he comes in, and 1-2 the turn after. Even if we play hom turn 3, he attacks turn 4, we should have it by turn 5 or 6 without him and by then they are blocking him or pathing him
First off, we don't live in an ideal world. And 100% of games won't be over by turn 4 no matter how streamlined the deck is...especially against certain matchups. That's why people run Lavamancer, so they have something to do if the game goes long.
Secondly, you say you'd rather Tasigur over Reveler(with no real explanation)...and then all your reasoning points to Reveler being better. You said Tasigur doesn't do anything the turn he comes in, Reveler does, and it's usually enough to win you the game on the spot. You said Tasigur can just get pathed and then he accomplished nothing, which again is points to Reveler for the same reason. He has impact on entering play, not just being a body. And of course, the fact that Reveler doesn't disrupt your plan where Tasigur does. You mention playing him on turn 3 so he can have impact turn4. That means you took a very sub-optimal turn3 to play him instead of burning. Reveler is only going to dropped when your hand is empty and you have no other plays anyways. So you aren't making a sub-optimal play to try and squeeze value out of him, you're just getting more gas when you otherwise would have run out.
But reveler is slower than tasigar. So if im saying tasigar is too slow, then why qould reveler be any better? Sure its a body and nets you 3 cards, but by the time youve put him out there, you should have alrdy won. Thats my point. Neither of them seem worth it to me bc neither are fast enough and neither will get to 20 faster. I dont run lavaman either for the same reason. Just doesnt do it for me. Dies everytime and doesnt do anything when it hits the field. The way i look at it is we win by turn 5 or 6 latest or we arent winning. 9 times out of 10 thats the case and in that 10th case, neither would have made a difference bc they are too slow. Thats my opinion. We are all allowed to have them
Just for clarity, this is a primary reason why many people like myself are not a fan of Nacatl and why it's such a controversial card. Because it doesn't have haste. As for Lavamancer, that falls in the same camp as Eidolon, where despite being a creature, they aren't really a "creature." They aren't meant to attack. They're meant to simply exist. And because of that holding it to same standard as creatures like GG or MS whose only purpose is to swing is a bit disingenuous.
I'm not saying necessarily that I agree with the assertion that haste is a necessity, but it's a false comparison to cite those two.
People can argue that Nacatl is bad all they want, but empirical evidence suggests that the reasons they hold for this assertion are not as valid as they believe. The fact is that despite having no effect when ETB, and no haste, Wild Nacatl is a card that is successful in this strategy. This suggests that Haste and ETB are not strictly necessary on all the cards in the deck if the card has enough upside. This is empirically demonstrated and not up for discussion - just look at all the successful decklists using Nacatl.
As for grim lavamancer, he is not in eidolon's category since it has no ETB effect. Eidolon has a pseudo ETB where grim lavamancer has none. Grim lavamancer is a card because we will produce enough resources for him that his upside of staying in play is strong enough when running 1 or 2 copies.
We can conclude pretty easily from Lavamancer and Nacatl that the deck has some room for non-etb, non-haste threats. Argue until your blue in the face on this topic if you want, but I'm just going to keep pointing to those decklists that are successful using them - which is sufficient to prove the point.
As for the topic, that's why I think Reveler is better positioned for the deck than Tasigur. Because Tasigur only has one real purpose, and that's to turn sideways, which it can't do without haste. So the turn it comes down it's not having any impact. But Reveler drawing you more gas puts it in the same boat as Lavamancer and Eidolon where it offers more than just attacking.
Tasigur's ability is pretty close to a lightning bolt if you hit 4 mana, so to say he has only one purpose is missing the point. If the activation never happened, I'd be using Hooting Mandrills (or simply cut the card). The truth is that while tasigur's ability isn't commonly used, if the game goes long I'm always happy to see him.
Right now I'm finding tasigur's ability gets used more often than Bedlam Reveler is cast in games, so I'm leaning towards Tasigur being better. 8 cmc can be a bit tricky in the deck since we have 32-38 non-instant/sorcery cards. I think the question deserves more investigation, and am still uncertain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
But reveler is slower than tasigar. So if im saying tasigar is too slow, then why qould reveler be any better?
But that's the point, Reveler is faster, not slower. They'll usually drop on the same turn, but one you get value out of immediately and the other you need to wait a turn.
Just for clarity, this is a primary reason why many people like myself are not a fan of Nacatl and why it's such a controversial card. Because it doesn't have haste. As for Lavamancer, that falls in the same camp as Eidolon, where despite being a creature, they aren't really a "creature." They aren't meant to attack. They're meant to simply exist. And because of that holding it to same standard as creatures like GG or MS whose only purpose is to swing is a bit disingenuous.
I'm not saying necessarily that I agree with the assertion that haste is a necessity, but it's a false comparison to cite those two.
People can argue that Nacatl is bad all they want, but empirical evidence suggests that the reasons they hold for this assertion are not as valid as they believe. The fact is that despite having no effect when ETB, and no haste, Wild Nacatl is a card that is successful in this strategy. This suggests that Haste and ETB are not strictly necessary on all the cards in the deck if the card has enough upside. This is empirically demonstrated and not up for discussion - just look at all the successful decklists using Nacatl.
"Empirically" you'll see more success coming from non-nacatl lists than from nacatl ones. The fact that a deck CAN win with it does not make it the correct strategy. And on a larger note arguing that "here's the numbers, that's it" defeats the entire purpose of these forums. One could make the same argument about anything. "We have last GP results, these are obviously perfect, no need to debate or discuss."
As for grim lavamancer, he is not in eidolon's category since it has no ETB effect. Eidolon has a pseudo ETB where grim lavamancer has none. Grim lavamancer is a card because we will produce enough resources for him that his upside of staying in play is strong enough when running 1 or 2 copies.
Now you're just ignoring what was actually said. I said "not all creatures need to attack"...lavamancer and eidolon are alike this way. To change the topic to something else is needlessly reductive and misses the entire point of the conversation.
We can conclude pretty easily from Lavamancer and Nacatl that the deck has some room for non-etb, non-haste threats. Argue until your blue in the face on this topic if you want, but I'm just going to keep pointing to those decklists that are successful using them - which is sufficient to prove the point.
And I can cite burn lists that have won GPs that ran no more than 1 copy of a single card. A deck winning doesn't automatically make it optimal. And again, if you're just gonna say "this guy did this, so we HAVE to do exactly what they did" then why are you even posting on these forums. Just copy a decklist blindly.
I think we can agree that burn has room for some cards that are "meant to simply exist" - which is a fancy way of saying that they lack an ETB effect and/or haste.Tasigur is one of those cards. Simply by existing he earns value and is a threat. Same as Lavamancer. The difference is the resources required to generate value from them, their cost and efficacy.
I really don't see the point in continuing to condemn Wild Nacatl. There is more than ample evidence to suggest that the card is an option for Naya burn. I think one important qualifier here is that we acknowledge that as the metagame shifts, whatever an optimal build might be shifts with it. While Nacatl might be good in one metagame, maxing searing blaze maindeck might be correct in another. Trying to parse exactly what is best at any moment is valuable, but in the long run many more cards are options which may not fit in the present "Best 75". Whether Nacatl is the best-in-slot presently in location xyz is besides the point - he is proven to be a workhorse when the environment is right.
I think we can agree that burn has room for some cards that are "meant to simply exist" - which is a fancy way of saying that they lack an ETB effect and/or haste.Tasigur is one of those cards. Simply by existing he earns value and is a threat. Same as Lavamancer. The difference is the resources required to generate value from them, their cost and efficacy.
I really don't see the point in continuing to condemn Wild Nacatl. There is more than ample evidence to suggest that the card is an option for Naya burn. I think one important qualifier here is that we acknowledge that as the metagame shifts, whatever an optimal build might be shifts with it. While Nacatl might be good in one metagame, maxing searing blaze maindeck might be correct in another. Trying to parse exactly what is best at any moment is valuable, but in the long run many more cards are options which may not fit in the present "Best 75". Whether Nacatl is the best-in-slot presently in location xyz is besides the point - he is proven to be a workhorse when the environment is right.
Nobody is condemning Wild Nacatl, I think everyone agrees the card is a valid option for burn, your opponent in this discussion is merely trying to make the point that it's not automatically the best option just because there are high-finishing lists that use it.
With any deck, but especially with Burn, you have to base your decisions on all of the variables, not just one or some. Tournament results are valid, but are only a single variable amongst many. Blindly trusting in them and playing the exact list that "did well last time" is potentially setting yourself up for failure. You seem to be making roughly the same point so I don't understand why you're placing such special importance on Wild Nacatl.
I think we can agree that burn has room for some cards that are "meant to simply exist" - which is a fancy way of saying that they lack an ETB effect and/or haste.Tasigur is one of those cards. Simply by existing he earns value and is a threat. Same as Lavamancer. The difference is the resources required to generate value from them, their cost and efficacy.
I really don't see the point in continuing to condemn Wild Nacatl. There is more than ample evidence to suggest that the card is an option for Naya burn. I think one important qualifier here is that we acknowledge that as the metagame shifts, whatever an optimal build might be shifts with it. While Nacatl might be good in one metagame, maxing searing blaze maindeck might be correct in another. Trying to parse exactly what is best at any moment is valuable, but in the long run many more cards are options which may not fit in the present "Best 75". Whether Nacatl is the best-in-slot presently in location xyz is besides the point - he is proven to be a workhorse when the environment is right.
Nobody is condemning Wild Nacatl, I think everyone agrees the card is a valid option for burn, your opponent in this discussion is merely trying to make the point that it's not automatically the best option just because there are high-finishing lists that use it.
With any deck, but especially with Burn, you have to base your decisions on all of the variables, not just one or some. Tournament results are valid, but are only a single variable amongst many. Blindly trusting in them and playing the exact list that "did well last time" is potentially setting yourself up for failure. You seem to be making roughly the same point so I don't understand why you're placing such special importance on Wild Nacatl.
I disagree, many users will try to convince you that it's not playable, and should never even be considered as an option (I had to argue that it was better than a freaking Shock!)
While I usually like Nacatl, I don't think it's very good in the current meta, however I keep feeling the need to defend it whenever it's called unplayable (which is about every 40 post I think?)
Nobody is condemning Wild Nacatl, I think everyone agrees the card is a valid option for burn, your opponent in this discussion is merely trying to make the point that it's not automatically the best option just because there are high-finishing lists that use it.
That's what I was saying. I apologize if I was not making the point clearly enough.
Regarding Bedlam Revelerif you have already 6 instant/sorceries in your GY, why your opponent is still alive?
Along with counter/lifegain/discard, there's also instances where we want to bolt a bird or other creature. I'm sure I can't be the only one who sees a deck meant to grind, game1 goes long, and thinks they want a sideboard card that would do work later on. I'm not saying Reveler IS that card, this all started with me saying I was planning on trying it as a 1-of sideboard to see how it does. The results I've seen from others so far is sparse and contradictory. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad. I'll probably revert to having another Lavamancer or 2 in SB for those matchups, but I thought Reveler was worth testing.
People who think your opponent should always be dead by Turn 4 or 5 need to play more games and consider how you're playing. If you're dumping your hand every turn you're not playing Burn right. Approaching Turn 3, unless you're going to get far ahead on the board, you better be holding up mana for Atarka's Command and/or Skullcrack to negate their Kitchen Finks or Lightning Helix.
I've been trying Bedlam Reveler in jund burn a bit. Jund burn has a lower curve and therefore gets more cards to the yard a bit faster. Jund Burn also doesn't have Wild Nacatl which also increases the value of Bedlam Reveler since you'll be running more instants and sorceries.
That being the preface, the card seems to be 1-2 mana too expensive to be great. So far it has been ok, but not great. It often just takes a turn or two too long to get down to 2-3 mana to cast. I'm going to keep trying it, but so far the 8 cmc has been a bit too slow - which is frustrating because of how close it is to being great.
You have to limit other creatures for it to be useful. Honestly, in my experience, it is best as a Sideboard 1 of vs discard or counter magic. If you wanted to run it main board, I would try a version with the only creatures being Eidolon of the Great Revel as a four of, and then 3 Bedlam Reveler, dedicate the rest to Instants and Sorceries. I think Mardu is better suited for this application with Boros Charm and Lightning Helix
And 4 guides.
I strongly disagree. In testing, I can't tell you how many times I wished that the Monastery Swiftspear I had in my yard was an Instant or Sorcery. You really want to be able to cast him t4 or t5 for either 1RR or RR. 1 guide in the yard, or even on the battlefield, instead of an instant or sorcery could be the difference in him costing 4 and 3, and in turn whether or not yu could cast him.
I've been trying Bedlam Reveler in jund burn a bit. Jund burn has a lower curve and therefore gets more cards to the yard a bit faster. Jund Burn also doesn't have Wild Nacatl which also increases the value of Bedlam Reveler since you'll be running more instants and sorceries.
That being the preface, the card seems to be 1-2 mana too expensive to be great. So far it has been ok, but not great. It often just takes a turn or two too long to get down to 2-3 mana to cast. I'm going to keep trying it, but so far the 8 cmc has been a bit too slow - which is frustrating because of how close it is to being great.
You have to limit other creatures for it to be useful. Honestly, in my experience, it is best as a Sideboard 1 of vs discard or counter magic. If you wanted to run it main board, I would try a version with the only creatures being Eidolon of the Great Revel as a four of, and then 3 Bedlam Reveler, dedicate the rest to Instants and Sorceries. I think Mardu is better suited for this application with Boros Charm and Lightning Helix
And 4 guides.
I strongly disagree. In testing, I can't tell you how many times I wished that the Monastery Swiftspear I had in my yard was an Instant or Sorcery. You really want to be able to cast him t4 or t5 for either 1RR or RR. 1 guide in the yard, or even on the battlefield, instead of an instant or sorcery could be the difference in him costing 4 and 3, and in turn whether or not yu could cast him.
What you really want to do in order to maximize your likelihood of winning the game is to maximize your early damage and you do that through creatures. The best games I have are ones when an early Guide sticks. Creatures that deal recurring damage are the key to the game and that's especially true in the mirror.
However, if you're trying to cast a Bedlam Reveler, obviously you want to load up on things that make it cheaper. Thing is, I have little interest in loading up on inferior Burn spells by cutting Swiftspear or Guide.
I think people are arguing about different things here.
I think Nacatl is a valid option, but it is tied to Atarka's command. While you can play AC without cat, you can't play cat without AC. AC is meant for a more creature dense build of burn which I do not particularly like considering most decks have better creatures post turn 1 or 2. But that is just a personal preference.
(*)I think Reveler is better in a list like mardu or jund burn which is running 14+ spike effects. It is much easier in those lists to get the 5 or 6 instants or sorc in the grave for an early reveler. I also don't think reveler belongs in the same list as AC or lavamancer.
I play jund and mardu burn and i wouldnt run reveler in either. Nor in burn period. The game is over before needing to cast him. And if we are running him as a 1 of, then why are we running him at all? Its a similar idea to us arguing about why we would run a 1 of thunderous wrath. Its pointless at that point. Hes just to slow and not worth it when the game should already or almost be over by the time we cast him. If we do our job correctly and the way modern drains everybodys life totals (fetches, shocks, bob's, thoughtseizes etc), we should have the game over by the time reveler matters. And if they are holding back those or letting their lands come in tapped, fine... ill burn you out before you do your thing.
I've been trying Bedlam Reveler in jund burn a bit. Jund burn has a lower curve and therefore gets more cards to the yard a bit faster. Jund Burn also doesn't have Wild Nacatl which also increases the value of Bedlam Reveler since you'll be running more instants and sorceries.
That being the preface, the card seems to be 1-2 mana too expensive to be great. So far it has been ok, but not great. It often just takes a turn or two too long to get down to 2-3 mana to cast. I'm going to keep trying it, but so far the 8 cmc has been a bit too slow - which is frustrating because of how close it is to being great.
You have to limit other creatures for it to be useful. Honestly, in my experience, it is best as a Sideboard 1 of vs discard or counter magic. If you wanted to run it main board, I would try a version with the only creatures being Eidolon of the Great Revel as a four of, and then 3 Bedlam Reveler, dedicate the rest to Instants and Sorceries. I think Mardu is better suited for this application with Boros Charm and Lightning Helix
And 4 guides.
I strongly disagree. In testing, I can't tell you how many times I wished that the Monastery Swiftspear I had in my yard was an Instant or Sorcery. You really want to be able to cast him t4 or t5 for either 1RR or RR. 1 guide in the yard, or even on the battlefield, instead of an instant or sorcery could be the difference in him costing 4 and 3, and in turn whether or not yu could cast him.
What you really want to do in order to maximize your likelihood of winning the game is to maximize your early damage and you do that through creatures. The best games I have are ones when an early Guide sticks. Creatures that deal recurring damage are the key to the game and that's especially true in the mirror.
However, if you're trying to cast a Bedlam Reveler, obviously you want to load up on things that make it cheaper. Thing is, I have little interest in loading up on inferior Burn spells by cutting Swiftspear or Guide.
That's true, but he was talking about continuing to try Reveler. As such, I was giving him best case scenario for Reveler to run effectively. In a meta heavy with discard and counter spells, it could be viable. It pulled me out of a few games vs Jeskai, Jund, and Junk.
I play jund and mardu burn and i wouldnt run reveler in either. Nor in burn period. The game is over before needing to cast him. And if we are running him as a 1 of, then why are we running him at all? Its a similar idea to us arguing about why we would run a 1 of thunderous wrath. Its pointless at that point. Hes just to slow and not worth it when the game should already or almost be over by the time we cast him. If we do our job correctly and the way modern drains everybodys life totals (fetches, shocks, bob's, thoughtseizes etc), we should have the game over by the time reveler matters. And if they are holding back those or letting their lands come in tapped, fine... ill burn you out before you do your thing.
This is somewhat my final thoughts about him, as far as main board goes. However, I've found that he is actually good vs discard/counter magic. As a 1 or 2 of - 1 in my case, for now - in the Sideboard, I think he's quite valuable. Being able to draw 3 cards, and have a 3/4 prowess body, for 2-3 mana on t4-5 with your opponent at 5-6 and a couple of burn spells in the yard that where either forced out of your hand, or countered, is phenomenal.
I keep going back and forth about burn. If I am not using nacatlss. Would mardu be best. I will miss destructive reverlly but between smash and wear//tear. Also has anyone ever played mardu with like 1 Gurmag or tasigur.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First off, we don't live in an ideal world. And 100% of games won't be over by turn 4 no matter how streamlined the deck is...especially against certain matchups. That's why people run Lavamancer, so they have something to do if the game goes long.
Secondly, you say you'd rather Tasigur over Reveler(with no real explanation)...and then all your reasoning points to Reveler being better. You said Tasigur doesn't do anything the turn he comes in, Reveler does, and it's usually enough to win you the game on the spot. You said Tasigur can just get pathed and then he accomplished nothing, which again is points to Reveler for the same reason. He has impact on entering play, not just being a body. And of course, the fact that Reveler doesn't disrupt your plan where Tasigur does. You mention playing him on turn 3 so he can have impact turn4. That means you took a very sub-optimal turn3 to play him instead of burning. Reveler is only going to dropped when your hand is empty and you have no other plays anyways. So you aren't making a sub-optimal play to try and squeeze value out of him, you're just getting more gas when you otherwise would have run out.
As for grim lavamancer, he is not in eidolon's category since it has no ETB effect. Eidolon has a pseudo ETB where grim lavamancer has none. Grim lavamancer is a card because we will produce enough resources for him that his upside of staying in play is strong enough when running 1 or 2 copies.
We can conclude pretty easily from Lavamancer and Nacatl that the deck has some room for non-etb, non-haste threats. Argue until your blue in the face on this topic if you want, but I'm just going to keep pointing to those decklists that are successful using them - which is sufficient to prove the point.
Tasigur's ability is pretty close to a lightning bolt if you hit 4 mana, so to say he has only one purpose is missing the point. If the activation never happened, I'd be using Hooting Mandrills (or simply cut the card). The truth is that while tasigur's ability isn't commonly used, if the game goes long I'm always happy to see him.
Right now I'm finding tasigur's ability gets used more often than Bedlam Reveler is cast in games, so I'm leaning towards Tasigur being better. 8 cmc can be a bit tricky in the deck since we have 32-38 non-instant/sorcery cards. I think the question deserves more investigation, and am still uncertain.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
But that's the point, Reveler is faster, not slower. They'll usually drop on the same turn, but one you get value out of immediately and the other you need to wait a turn.
"Empirically" you'll see more success coming from non-nacatl lists than from nacatl ones. The fact that a deck CAN win with it does not make it the correct strategy. And on a larger note arguing that "here's the numbers, that's it" defeats the entire purpose of these forums. One could make the same argument about anything. "We have last GP results, these are obviously perfect, no need to debate or discuss."
Now you're just ignoring what was actually said. I said "not all creatures need to attack"...lavamancer and eidolon are alike this way. To change the topic to something else is needlessly reductive and misses the entire point of the conversation.
And I can cite burn lists that have won GPs that ran no more than 1 copy of a single card. A deck winning doesn't automatically make it optimal. And again, if you're just gonna say "this guy did this, so we HAVE to do exactly what they did" then why are you even posting on these forums. Just copy a decklist blindly.
I really don't see the point in continuing to condemn Wild Nacatl. There is more than ample evidence to suggest that the card is an option for Naya burn. I think one important qualifier here is that we acknowledge that as the metagame shifts, whatever an optimal build might be shifts with it. While Nacatl might be good in one metagame, maxing searing blaze maindeck might be correct in another. Trying to parse exactly what is best at any moment is valuable, but in the long run many more cards are options which may not fit in the present "Best 75". Whether Nacatl is the best-in-slot presently in location xyz is besides the point - he is proven to be a workhorse when the environment is right.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Nobody is condemning Wild Nacatl, I think everyone agrees the card is a valid option for burn, your opponent in this discussion is merely trying to make the point that it's not automatically the best option just because there are high-finishing lists that use it.
With any deck, but especially with Burn, you have to base your decisions on all of the variables, not just one or some. Tournament results are valid, but are only a single variable amongst many. Blindly trusting in them and playing the exact list that "did well last time" is potentially setting yourself up for failure. You seem to be making roughly the same point so I don't understand why you're placing such special importance on Wild Nacatl.
I disagree, many users will try to convince you that it's not playable, and should never even be considered as an option (I had to argue that it was better than a freaking Shock!)
While I usually like Nacatl, I don't think it's very good in the current meta, however I keep feeling the need to defend it whenever it's called unplayable (which is about every 40 post I think?)
Because of discard/counter/lifegain spells
Also you might have 5 inst/sorc and 3 lands
or 4 inst/sorc and 4 land
etc
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
That's what I was saying. I apologize if I was not making the point clearly enough.
Along with counter/lifegain/discard, there's also instances where we want to bolt a bird or other creature. I'm sure I can't be the only one who sees a deck meant to grind, game1 goes long, and thinks they want a sideboard card that would do work later on. I'm not saying Reveler IS that card, this all started with me saying I was planning on trying it as a 1-of sideboard to see how it does. The results I've seen from others so far is sparse and contradictory. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad. I'll probably revert to having another Lavamancer or 2 in SB for those matchups, but I thought Reveler was worth testing.
I strongly disagree. In testing, I can't tell you how many times I wished that the Monastery Swiftspear I had in my yard was an Instant or Sorcery. You really want to be able to cast him t4 or t5 for either 1RR or RR. 1 guide in the yard, or even on the battlefield, instead of an instant or sorcery could be the difference in him costing 4 and 3, and in turn whether or not yu could cast him.
What you really want to do in order to maximize your likelihood of winning the game is to maximize your early damage and you do that through creatures. The best games I have are ones when an early Guide sticks. Creatures that deal recurring damage are the key to the game and that's especially true in the mirror.
However, if you're trying to cast a Bedlam Reveler, obviously you want to load up on things that make it cheaper. Thing is, I have little interest in loading up on inferior Burn spells by cutting Swiftspear or Guide.
My thoughts on the subject anyway.
That's true, but he was talking about continuing to try Reveler. As such, I was giving him best case scenario for Reveler to run effectively. In a meta heavy with discard and counter spells, it could be viable. It pulled me out of a few games vs Jeskai, Jund, and Junk.
This is somewhat my final thoughts about him, as far as main board goes. However, I've found that he is actually good vs discard/counter magic. As a 1 or 2 of - 1 in my case, for now - in the Sideboard, I think he's quite valuable. Being able to draw 3 cards, and have a 3/4 prowess body, for 2-3 mana on t4-5 with your opponent at 5-6 and a couple of burn spells in the yard that where either forced out of your hand, or countered, is phenomenal.
The Nacatl list looks like the normal list, nothing out of the ordinary
The Naya list has a unusual sideboard
I'm assuming he really hates affinity?
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Yay~
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Also only 3 Rift Bolt main.
I don't love the list, but I went 4-5 and didn't make day 2, so I cant really argue