MTG Salvation

This is a card that I've always been very middle of the road on but a lot of players near me consider it one of the best red cards. To me it seems like a card that when it's good it's great, but it can be so awful sometimes. What are people's thoughts on the card?

The double red was a problem and the landfall requirement was a problem. It was a really easy cut.

It's a beast of a card in mono-red aggressive-midrange builds, but we play too many 2-color aggro decks and hard aggro builds with ~15 lands, and both drawbacks proved consistently prohibitive.

Quote from eidolon »

Replacing a colorless for a R in the mana cost of Mind Rot in exchange for 3 damage to the face was enough to turn a mediocre limited card into a Constructed and long time Cube staple, so I really can not understand why Searing Blaze as an upgrade to the commonly played Searing Spear doesn't even remotely get an adequate respect from the cube community.

In the instance of Blightning, there are several key differences. First off, there's no double-mana requirement. So in a BR deck, it's just as easy to cast as Mind Rot, so you might as well be playing Blightning instead. Whereas with Blaze vs Spear, that's not the case. Second of all, the card costs 3 mana. There's a big difference between a 1BR cost and a RR cost. Lastly, one is removal, and the other isn't. Removal spells often have very specific timing windows that they need to be cast in on order to be good. I know I'll be able to play Searing Spear on T2 to clear a path for my Carnophage or Isamaru. I get no such consistency from Searing Blaze. And with Blightning, the timing window for that effect is much broader. If I wait until T5 to cast it, it's no big deal. I still clip two cards and hit them for three. When evaluating a removal spell, that doesn't apply. I need to be able to cast it when I have a target I need to get rid of. So, it's basically comparing apples to oranges. Plus, in an aggro deck, if I get stalled out on lands, it doesn't impact Blightning at all. But it cripples the value of Searing Blaze. So ya, there's a huge difference between a 1R spell and a RR spell when you're talking about a card that needs to be played in the right timing window to be good.

If my opponent drops a Confidant on the second turn, I want to kill it now, not a turn later when I draw my second red mana source, because by then my opponent has already gotten a card back from the Confidant and possibly attacked me for two. Same if they drop a 1/2 Tarmogoyf or cast Rancor on a Savannah Lions. Cube is full of kill-on-sight creatures that demand removal right away. So I think the idea that removal is somehow not accountable for the same quality of castability as creatures is going to lose ground as the curve keeps getting pushed down by more and more powerful early-game dudes.

Searing Blaze is a removal spell that also functions as a burn spell at the same time. Unlike other removal (burn) spells that make you choose between the creature and the face, Searing Blaze (and its progeny, Searing Blood) allow you to do both. This is a boon for the red-primary (non splashed) aggressive decks, and there aren't many cards that I would take over it if I am drafting a red attacking deck. The other thing SB allows you to do is to remove a blocker but maintain the damage tempo as well, which is invaluable.

I am always surprised to hear how people don't like this card, but as always YMMV. As a fine purveyor of Boros aggro in my Cube, I can honestly state that the number of times I've not been able to cast Searing Blaze when I want to for 3+3 is VERY low. Single digits, easily.

Much like other cards I've been known to champion (Upheaval chief among them), Searing Blaze is a card for which I will always go to bat.

-AA

It's not a matter of disliking it. It's simply how it's performed. The number of times the RR cost or the landfall requirement damaged the value of the spell in game was too high for my liking. I was constantly unable to cast the card in the right window or cast it when I needed it because of one of those two things. I prefer the 1R spells that are more consistent, easier to cast, and are truly instants.

Like I said above, in a mono-red aggressive-midrange deck, it's pretty much the nuts. But in other decks, I prefer the Incinerate variants by a huge margin.

I like Searing Blaze for the heavy red decks. I like Antknee's description of it being a "boon" for such decks, and I quite like seeding my draft with a handful of cards that can be excellent late draft picks for specific decks: I don't want all my red burn to be so splashable that anyone can play it.

The double red is a limiting factor, though I'm cool with that. It's been relatively rare for the landfall to be a big issue. When it is played it is usually 6 damage for a single card an two mana. For me that's worth the narrower application.

As I said, your milage seems to have varied. I have had very different experiences with the card, and wanted to share them. The word 'like' is meant in a much broader sense than you are using it; beyond 'this card is neat', and into 'enjoy my experiences with the card'. You haven't had those, so you don't run it. Reasonable. I've learned not to fault people for their experiences not working out like mine; I just think the drawbacks are overstated by many and I haven't had anything close to the experience shared by those who don't 'like' it

Viva la Resistance! Or something...

-AA

P.S. I'd rather have Searing Blaze in all my red decks that are at least half red over any of the Incinerate variants.

P.P.S. I'm trying to think of other cards I'm willing to defend endlessly...Reckless Waif might be another one.

In my experience, Searing Blaze has been pretty reliable. Situations where you really want to cast Blaze, but don't have a landfall trigger happen very rarely. The main effect of the landfall ability is that Blaze only really works on your own turn. The double red is more of a problem, but it is justified, since you get both the creature burn and the player burn, whereas cards like Searing Spear make you chose. And double red is certainly not so bad as to say that you need to be "mono-red aggressive-midrange". It goes into any RX aggro deck. Calling Blaze a mono-red card is hyperbole and I don't even know where the midrange part is coming from.

I would certainly cube Incinerate over it, but before I ran all three of its variants (Incinerate itself, Searing Spear and Lightning Strike), I would run Blaze. It is a more interesting card, mixes things up a bit and the fact that it does not fit into all the decks running red means that the RX aggro drafter would be the only one who is really interested in picking up the card.

Btw, I noticed before that this is a card where the community is very split on. Seems that this didn't change.

Quote from Antknee42

P.P.S. I'm trying to think of other cards I'm willing to defend endlessly...Reckless Waif might be another one.

This is another card I can't wait to replace. I have other playable options instead of Blaze, but sadly, this isn't the case for Waif. I need another Pup variant to get rid of it once and for all.

Quote from Star Slayer

I would certainly cube Incinerate over it, but before I ran all three of its variants (Incinerate itself, Searing Spear and Lightning Strike), I would run Blaze. It is a more interesting card, mixes things up a bit and the fact that it does not fit into all the decks running red means that the RX aggro drafter would be the only one who is really interested in picking up the card.

I agree with this, and run SB over Lightning strike for the three reasons Star Slayer gives.

I think that red aggro has enough dedicated tools, and that I play a lot of other red decks that want burn they can use too.

Think this card is insane. Very surprised that some people don't like that card

It's interesting, I get heavy red (maybe splashing one color) drafted in my cube a fair bit (on average 1 a draft? Sometimes 0 , sometimes 2), so having a few cards that are semi-exclusive to a none-rare archetype that are extremely powerful for that archetype seems fine to me.

I could see if you had a lot of drafters in your pod that like to draft agro , so red is often fought after, thus making mono red much less likely... Then this card loses a lot of value.

I could see if you had a lot of drafters in your pod that like to draft agro , so red is often fought after, thus making mono red much less likely... Then this card loses a lot of value.

I'm glad you pointed this out. I think this has more to do with our experience than the quality of the card itself. Red is often stretched thin across multiple decks (1-2 aggro players wanting it + red decks in the other theaters).

I'm a gigantic fan of this card, and cards of its ilk (we need a nickname for cards that tack face damage onto desirable effects). When deployed properly, it furthers your game plan on two fronts for mearly two mana.

As for whether or not the card's upside of "best burn spell ever" is worth the downside of occasionally being Lava Dartish, only you and your cube can decide that one. i highly recommend testing it heavily, and I recommend pairing it with similar cards (like Smash to Smithereens) as they tend to have a multiplier effect.

Cards earn their nicknames from the first or most iconic incarnation. Glorious Anthem, Blaze/Fireball, Savannah Lions, Grizzly Bears.
So I suggest calling this type of card a Lunge

True, but it lacks the pop, it's a bit clunky to roll off the tongue, and it creates confusion due to Lightning being commonly used on other iconic cards

I've been mulling over Searing Blaze as well. I'm not sure if it's an easy cut. But the downside is definitely the mana symbols. I see landfall as a skill tester though. Of course, another consideration is that it's a "sorcery" lol

Frankly, I do not like Lightning Strike and its variants. I prefer to find something else. But maybe coz it's insulting to Lightning Bolt. lol

I think "barbed burn" could be a good nickname for burn spells that damage both a creature and a player (usually its controller). At least it is better than "those Lunge-like cards" or something like that. Lunge looks too much like lung, while barbed burn sounds as mean as those effects are.

Love this card. It feels extremely rewarding to maximize its value with the landfall and is often a complete blowout when it does happen from my group's experiences. My 360 unpowered doesn't even contain fetches and we still highly value Searing Blaze.

I'm also not very fond of the Incinerate clones. They are definitely more consistent and splashable but they are also fairly standard and boring. I'm fine with Searing Blaze fitting in less decks because it is a much more interesting and satisfying effect when it does get playtime.

Quote from Star Slayer

I think "barbed burn" could be a good nickname for burn spells that damage both a creature and a player (usually its controller). At least it is better than "those Lunge-like cards" or something like that. Lunge looks too much like lung, while barbed burn sounds as mean as those effects are.

Barbed is okay, though it sounds like you can split the burn, plus, some of the cards aren't really burn in their main mode (Smash to Smithereens and Molten Rain, for example). I was thinking "Cracker Jack" cards, because you get a decent thing plus a bonus prize.

Quote from wtwlf123 »

It's not a matter of disliking it. It's simply how it's performed. The number of times the RR cost or the landfall requirement damaged the value of the spell in game was too high for my liking. I was constantly unable to cast the card in the right window or cast it when I needed it because of one of those two things. I prefer the 1R spells that are more consistent, easier to cast, and are truly instants.

Like I said above, in a mono-red aggressive-midrange deck, it's pretty much the nuts. But in other decks, I prefer the Incinerate variants by a huge margin.

How come this card is back in your cube? Did you reconsider it, or have better testing over time?

My cube is bigger, and I'm still playing every Incinerate clone over it. When we get more incinerates, I can play them. But until then, it's the next available 2cc burn spell.