So Wizards choose to give scry 1 to Cancel to make it Dissipate. However, when Wizards gives scry 1 to Searing Spear/Lightning Strike, it becomes Bolt of Keranos, being reduced to sorcery speed and is 1 mana more expensive. What gives? Is it too much to ask for a scry 1 added on to Lightning Strike?
So Wizards choose to give scry 1 to Cancel to make it Dissipate. However, when Wizards gives scry 1 to Searing Spear/Lightning Strike, it becomes Bolt of Keranos, being reduced to sorcery speed and is 1 mana more expensive. What gives? Is it too much to ask for a scry 1 added on to Lightning Strike?
Magma jet is 1R for shock and scry two. I think that Strike plus scry at instant speed would be a little to good.
Agreed; it has to balance with Magma Jet, which is in the same block. It could have been an Instant at the same cost, though. In a vacuum, I agree that it's powered down too much. Lightning Strike with Scry 1 would be powerful but just fine.
Agreed; it has to balance with Magma Jet, which is in the same block. It could have been an Instant at the same cost, though. In a vacuum, I agree that it's powered down too much. Lightning Strike with Scry 1 would be powerful but just fine.
Not every card is intended to be as powerful as it's able, and Bolt of Keranos was clearly designed to be a solid limited removal spell rather than a constructed player. While Searing Spear with scry 1 is a perfectly printable card, they probably wouldn't do that in the same block as Magma Jet, and it's more interesting giving players the choice between consistent 3 damage or 2 damage plus card selection.
I disagree with the idea that it is only limited playable.
Mono red goes for exact damage in both aggro and burn strategies,
having too much mana or too little mana,
or just not getting enough of the right cards breaks those strategies very easily
For those reasons, scry makes a huge difference as to whether those decks can churn out the required cards on curve
Scry enables that.
Why else would mono black devotion run up to 9 temples just to fix their draws
Because they cannot afford to miss their curve.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The red mage lives by the variance and dies by the variance. May the variance be with you, always.
I disagree with the idea that it is only limited playable.
Mono red goes for exact damage in both aggro and burn strategies,
having too much mana or too little mana,
or just not getting enough of the right cards breaks those strategies very easily
For those reasons, scry makes a huge difference as to whether those decks can churn out the required cards on curve
Scry enables that.
Why else would mono black devotion run up to 9 temples just to fix their draws
Because they cannot afford to miss their curve.
So if Bolt is playable, why doesn't anyone play it? Geez...
I think people are undervaluing scry in certain decklists.
You can't make these kinds of judgements without empirical data.
I am making a suggestion that people could test to see if it helps those decks or not.
The real question is, if scry isn't playable, why does mono black play twelve off color lands for it? Geez....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The red mage lives by the variance and dies by the variance. May the variance be with you, always.
I think people are undervaluing scry in certain decklists.
You can't make these kinds of judgements without empirical data.
I am making a suggestion that people could test to see if it helps those decks or not.
The real question is, if scry isn't playable, why does mono black play twelve off color lands for it? Geez....
You probably mean UW/x Control since that is the only deck that is able to run that many temples and they get the most advantage from them.
Mono-Black runs 3-4 temples at most.
I think people are undervaluing scry in certain decklists.
You can't make these kinds of judgements without empirical data.
I am making a suggestion that people could test to see if it helps those decks or not.
The real question is, if scry isn't playable, why does mono black play twelve off color lands for it? Geez....
Scry 1 doesn't magically make everything playable. Geez. It's nice with lands since you don't have to devote any slots for the effect or play otherwise weaker cards. And mono black certainly doesn't play twelve off-colour scry-lands.
Seriously, if Bolt of Keranos was a playable it would have seen play by now in Boros Burn. Bolt of Keranos isn't some kind of secret tech only you know about. It's just a bad burn spell.
Even if it were playable, what would you cut for it in a burn deck? RW Burn benefits by playing mostly at instant speed. Bolt of Keranos hurts a burn plan far more than it helps it, and having "Scry 1" on a burn spell that's definitively worse than every other spell in the deck isn't going to make up for that.
Maybe, but if you already have the mana to cast everything you need to cast, you essentially go a turn slower to burn someone to death when you topdeck those lands.
The difference you're suggesting is casting it at instant speed just in case there is a threat worth burning, but if you are simply waiting until the end of your opponents turn (just in case) then you are at fault.
Certainly there are situations where your opponent is untapped and representing Sphinx's Revelation, or you are holding a Fated Conflageration for that monsterous trigger, but that isn't always the case.
When you go strait to the dome, it doesn't always have to be instant speed, but it does have to be enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The red mage lives by the variance and dies by the variance. May the variance be with you, always.
Again, in term of adding it to a burn deck, it's far, far worse at actually being a burn spell than any other burn spell in the deck. And Burn doesn't need another source of damage to be able to finish off opponents. The only reason to even consider adding Bolt is the scry effect, which, as I stated, doesn't make up for the fact that it's not a good burn spell. Especially since, between magma jets and Temples, it already has access to plenty of scry without diluting the actual strength of the deck.
Bolt of Keranos can't recur a phoenix at the end of an opponent's turn, can't suddenly create a Pyromancer token in the middle of combat to screw up combat math, and requires you to tap most of your mana on your turn, giving your opponent breathing room to make that big play he maybe didn't want to make while you had mana open. Playing spells at sorcery speed doesn't inherently hurt the deck's plan, but adding spells that have to be played at sorcery speed absolutely does, and in the case of Bolt, there' pretty much zero return for doing so.
Of course, this is all talking about it specifically in the context of Burn decks, though even with other decks, the scry would have to add a substantial advantage to justify including over all the other available burn. It's just too inefficient.
When you have a land on top of your deck, have the extra mana with nothing else to do, don't need to use it as a trick, and not being able to play it a turn doesn't matter. If you're going to pick it apart, let's get it all on the table. Being sorcery speed is also a more notable deficit than I stress in that statement. If bolt of Keranos cost 1R, I could see your argument on the matter of efficiency and filtering. However, it doesn't. It costs 1RR. As we all know, lightning strike is incomparable to lightning bolt. Likewise, bolt of Keranos is incomparable to lighting strike and the scry 1 doesn't really act as much of a bandage for that. There are good sorcery burns but when we think of those, we tend to think of things like chain lightning, lava spike, and so forth. Efficiency is the name of the game and bolt of keranos is hardly efficient.
On the comparison between cancel and dissolve vs lighting strike and bolt of keranos, its an unfair comparison. Lightning strike is an ok burn. Cancel is a bad counterspell.
Bolt of Keranos is a mediocre card at best. Sorcery speed, double red, 3 mana, 3 damage. I don't think scry 1 makes this playable. There are more efficient burn spells to choose from.
If you are burning your opponent to death, and you almost have it but you need to draw another burn spell, and scry puts a land on the bottom of your deck, you have effectively time walked. In any RDW or pure burn deck it is good as a 1 of at least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The red mage lives by the variance and dies by the variance. May the variance be with you, always.
You could say the exact same thing about Spark Jolt. It doesn't change the fact that it's a horrible card.
Scrying dead cards away is good, yes. So there's pretty much one situation where the card is good. It still isn't worth diluting your deck for it, since it's usually going to be an incredibly awkward card in your hand.
The argument that it's better than lightning strike in that one scenario isn't relevant. There are dozens more situations where lightning strike is the better card, so your point that "it's better if..." actually works against you.
And, since you didn't answer last time, I'll ask again: which card would take out or not include in such a deck in order to fit in the Bolt?
I didn't say the card "is better than lightning strike." I said "It is better than lightning strike when you have a land on top of your deck"
And I say that because you essentially do nothing the following turn.
Please read everything completely before you pidgeonhole someone for an unpopular opinion.
Certainly is the better card in dozens of situations, but I am not suggesting replacing Lighting Strike with Bolt of Keranos either, I am suggesting that in very relevant scenarios that happen to almost every red mage in most games, drawing a land is disastrous.
I haven't made any* suggestions as of what to replace for Bolt of Keranos yet, I would assume the already good burn spells would be apart of the package.
Saying that a card is better if* situation is relevant when it happens in most games that utilize burn to win the match, if someone must respond to that with "Do you even magic?" I would have to deflect with "Do you even red?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The red mage lives by the variance and dies by the variance. May the variance be with you, always.
Bolt of Keranos is always going to be better than a lightning strike when you have a land on top of the deck.
I'm well aware that drawing land in the late stages of the game is disastrous. But that alone doesn't justify cramming in bad cards just so you can scry more. Plus, between magma jets and scrylands, some burn decks already play around 12 sources of scry. I realize the value of having that scry on a 3 damage spell, and I agree that I would probably like it in that situation. But for the rest of the game, it's going to be sitting awkwardly in your hand a lot of the time. And if you're in topdeck mode and the opponent isn't dead yet, the odds are often against you anyway, even if you do rip another burn spell. Not to mention that odds drawing Bolt of Keranos when you're out of cards, in a situation where the scry will be particularly useful, are already low. I just don't see how the card can be expected to pull its weight enough of the time for it to be worth including.
I did briefly try out the card when I was in the early stages of building my Burn deck a few weeks ago. It was just too clunky and messed up sequencing, and the scry effect didn't have enough of an impact often enough for it to be worth it. The downsides simply outweigh the benefits.
Magma jet is 1R for shock and scry two. I think that Strike plus scry at instant speed would be a little to good.
Dega midrange 1-0
FTFY.
Thanks. All those blue counterspells with one word verb names.
Youtube Channel
Mono red goes for exact damage in both aggro and burn strategies,
having too much mana or too little mana,
or just not getting enough of the right cards breaks those strategies very easily
For those reasons, scry makes a huge difference as to whether those decks can churn out the required cards on curve
Scry enables that.
Why else would mono black devotion run up to 9 temples just to fix their draws
Because they cannot afford to miss their curve.
So if Bolt is playable, why doesn't anyone play it? Geez...
Youtube Channel
You can't make these kinds of judgements without empirical data.
I am making a suggestion that people could test to see if it helps those decks or not.
The real question is, if scry isn't playable, why does mono black play twelve off color lands for it? Geez....
You probably mean UW/x Control since that is the only deck that is able to run that many temples and they get the most advantage from them.
Mono-Black runs 3-4 temples at most.
Scry 1 doesn't magically make everything playable. Geez. It's nice with lands since you don't have to devote any slots for the effect or play otherwise weaker cards. And mono black certainly doesn't play twelve off-colour scry-lands.
Seriously, if Bolt of Keranos was a playable it would have seen play by now in Boros Burn. Bolt of Keranos isn't some kind of secret tech only you know about. It's just a bad burn spell.
Youtube Channel
Even if it were playable, what would you cut for it in a burn deck? RW Burn benefits by playing mostly at instant speed. Bolt of Keranos hurts a burn plan far more than it helps it, and having "Scry 1" on a burn spell that's definitively worse than every other spell in the deck isn't going to make up for that.
The difference you're suggesting is casting it at instant speed just in case there is a threat worth burning, but if you are simply waiting until the end of your opponents turn (just in case) then you are at fault.
Certainly there are situations where your opponent is untapped and representing Sphinx's Revelation, or you are holding a Fated Conflageration for that monsterous trigger, but that isn't always the case.
When you go strait to the dome, it doesn't always have to be instant speed, but it does have to be enough.
Bolt of Keranos can't recur a phoenix at the end of an opponent's turn, can't suddenly create a Pyromancer token in the middle of combat to screw up combat math, and requires you to tap most of your mana on your turn, giving your opponent breathing room to make that big play he maybe didn't want to make while you had mana open. Playing spells at sorcery speed doesn't inherently hurt the deck's plan, but adding spells that have to be played at sorcery speed absolutely does, and in the case of Bolt, there' pretty much zero return for doing so.
Of course, this is all talking about it specifically in the context of Burn decks, though even with other decks, the scry would have to add a substantial advantage to justify including over all the other available burn. It's just too inefficient.
On the comparison between cancel and dissolve vs lighting strike and bolt of keranos, its an unfair comparison. Lightning strike is an ok burn. Cancel is a bad counterspell.
This is simply wrong. Do you even know how to magic?
Youtube Channel
I'm lost, just what do you mean? How is it better than Lightning Strike???
Fixed.
Scrying dead cards away is good, yes. So there's pretty much one situation where the card is good. It still isn't worth diluting your deck for it, since it's usually going to be an incredibly awkward card in your hand.
The argument that it's better than lightning strike in that one scenario isn't relevant. There are dozens more situations where lightning strike is the better card, so your point that "it's better if..." actually works against you.
And, since you didn't answer last time, I'll ask again: which card would take out or not include in such a deck in order to fit in the Bolt?
And I say that because you essentially do nothing the following turn.
Please read everything completely before you pidgeonhole someone for an unpopular opinion.
Certainly is the better card in dozens of situations, but I am not suggesting replacing Lighting Strike with Bolt of Keranos either, I am suggesting that in very relevant scenarios that happen to almost every red mage in most games, drawing a land is disastrous.
I haven't made any* suggestions as of what to replace for Bolt of Keranos yet, I would assume the already good burn spells would be apart of the package.
Saying that a card is better if* situation is relevant when it happens in most games that utilize burn to win the match, if someone must respond to that with "Do you even magic?" I would have to deflect with "Do you even red?"
This was in direct response to you saying this:
I'm well aware that drawing land in the late stages of the game is disastrous. But that alone doesn't justify cramming in bad cards just so you can scry more. Plus, between magma jets and scrylands, some burn decks already play around 12 sources of scry. I realize the value of having that scry on a 3 damage spell, and I agree that I would probably like it in that situation. But for the rest of the game, it's going to be sitting awkwardly in your hand a lot of the time. And if you're in topdeck mode and the opponent isn't dead yet, the odds are often against you anyway, even if you do rip another burn spell. Not to mention that odds drawing Bolt of Keranos when you're out of cards, in a situation where the scry will be particularly useful, are already low. I just don't see how the card can be expected to pull its weight enough of the time for it to be worth including.
I did briefly try out the card when I was in the early stages of building my Burn deck a few weeks ago. It was just too clunky and messed up sequencing, and the scry effect didn't have enough of an impact often enough for it to be worth it. The downsides simply outweigh the benefits.