Assuming that castability isn't an issue and that Lightning Bolt and Burst Lightning are already in use, which card do you prefer? Flame Slash is cheaper and better at offing Wall of Omens and Putrid Leech, but Searing Blaze deals a not so inconsequential amount of damage to the opponent's head, and with saclands has the viability to be cast whenever.
Is your choice usually one over the other? Or is it close? If so, what factors into one making the maindeck and the other sitting out?
It depends on the deck really. If your talking about RDW, then searing blaze wins no question. You really dont want to be playing a card that doesnt hit to the dome in RDW.
Also, at the TCG player 5k last weekend this situation happened...I was playing UW, he was playing Naya.
I was at 6 life and he had a manabarbs out, I had a wall of omens and knight of white orchid and he had two wild nacatls and a stirring wildwood he could attack with next turn. I was forced to take 5 dmg and cast baneslayer. I ended up winning that game on baneslayers back, and after the game he said wow I really shouldnt of replaced my bolts with flame slash as he showed me the card he had when i was at 1 life. Just a thought, but I like the versatility of going to the dome/planeswalker killing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTG Rules Advisor
Quote from thundyr »
Jacerator is an aggro deck - it just wins by attacking the library, it doesn't really control the board other than to play a few Fogs
It depends on the deck really. If your talking about RDW, then searing blaze wins no question. You really dont want to be playing a card that doesnt hit to the dome in RDW.
Also, at the TCG player 5k last weekend this situation happened...I was playing UW, he was playing Naya.
I was at 6 life and he had a manabarbs out, I had a wall of omens and knight of white orchid and he had two wild nacatls and a stirring wildwood he could attack with next turn. I was forced to take 5 dmg and cast baneslayer. I ended up winning that game on baneslayers back, and after the game he said wow I really shouldnt of replaced my bolts with flame slash as he showed me the card he had when i was at 1 life. Just a thought, but I like the versatility of going to the dome/planeswalker killing.
I don't think his mistake was running Flame Slash, which I really like, it was running Flame Slashs over Lightning Bolt. Although I can see the appeal of Flame Slash when your up against Wall of Omens.
I don't know, guess I would have had to be there to understand his decision.
I don't think his mistake was running Flame Slash, which I really like, it was running Flame Slashs over Lightning Bolt. Although I can see the appeal of Flame Slash when your up against Wall of Omens.
I don't know, guess I would have had to be there to understand his decision.
Honestly, I think the biggest mistake was leaving flameslash in against me (I think he had it MD, i cant imagine he sided it in against me.) Sure it kills wall of omens and knight of the white orchid, but they have usaully already done their job when they flame slash it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTG Rules Advisor
Quote from thundyr »
Jacerator is an aggro deck - it just wins by attacking the library, it doesn't really control the board other than to play a few Fogs
Here's the problem with Flame Slash. If you're playing either, you're a deck that wants to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible.
Flame Slash vs Wall of Omens:
Goblin Guide + Flame Slash = Dead Wall + 2 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Flame Slash = Dead Wall + 3 damage
Searing Blaze vs Wall of Omens:
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Wall + 3 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Wall + 5 damage
Flame Slash vs Putrid Leech:
Goblin Guide + Flame Slash = Dead Leech + 2 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Flame Slash = Dead Leech + 3 damage
Searing Blaze vs Putrid Leech:
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze(LF) = Dead Leech (no pump) + 5 damage
or
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze(LF) = Dead Leech (pump) + 5 damage + Dead Guide (with risk for complete blowout if you have R open to kill Leech)
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Leech (no pump) + 6 damage
or
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Leech (pump) + 5 damage
The only real upside to Flame Slash is against Rhox War Monk. The problem with that is that decks packing RMW are probably going to blow you out regardless with other things like Baneslayer and/or Kor Firewalker, etc... that Flame Slash still doesn't handle. In that case, it's generally better to try and run B for sideboard cards like Deathmark and Vendetta.
tl;dr Flame Slash doesn't do as much damage as Searing Blaze.
The people that play legacy / vintage always amuse me. They want their formats to be represented more. They want more tournaments. But when anyone suggests allowing more people access to the formats by reprinting cards, the same people start screaming about the reprint policy.
Most of the time I will have full sets of the first 3 in the deck though (assuming RxDW and not some bad R control deck)
while that is true, flame slash is better at getting rid of threats. Granted, I have only a little experience with RDW, I think it mostly depends on the deck that the cards are meant for.
The people that play legacy / vintage always amuse me. They want their formats to be represented more. They want more tournaments. But when anyone suggests allowing more people access to the formats by reprinting cards, the same people start screaming about the reprint policy.
while that is true, flame slash is better at getting rid of threats. Granted, I have only a little experience with RDW, I think it mostly depends on the deck that the cards are meant for.
What threat does Flame Slash deal with that Searing Blaze doesn't deal with as well or better. For that matter, why are there "threats" against RDW? RDW is 90% of the time the aggro deck. There are no threats to an aggro deck, only roadblocks.
Besides Mythic creatures (RWM specifically), I don't see anything that FS is better against. In that case, one burn spell is not going to make the difference. Especially when Flame Slash doesn't deal with Soveriegns, BSA and Conscripted creatures.
Here's the problem with Flame Slash. If you're playing either, you're a deck that wants to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible.
Flame Slash vs Wall of Omens:
Goblin Guide + Flame Slash = Dead Wall + 2 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Flame Slash = Dead Wall + 3 damage
Searing Blaze vs Wall of Omens:
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Wall + 3 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Wall + 5 damage
Flame Slash vs Putrid Leech:
Goblin Guide + Flame Slash = Dead Leech + 2 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Flame Slash = Dead Leech + 3 damage
Searing Blaze vs Putrid Leech:
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze(LF) = Dead Leech (no pump) + 5 damage
or
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze(LF) = Dead Leech (pump) + 5 damage + Dead Guide (with risk for complete blowout if you have R open to kill Leech)
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Leech (no pump) + 6 damage
or
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Leech (pump) + 5 damage
The only real upside to Flame Slash is against Rhox War Monk. The problem with that is that decks packing RMW are probably going to blow you out regardless with other things like Baneslayer and/or Kor Firewalker, etc... that Flame Slash still doesn't handle. In that case, it's generally better to try and run B for sideboard cards like Deathmark and Vendetta.
tl;dr Flame Slash doesn't do as much damage as Searing Blaze.
This equation depends on the creature attacking so I think your thought process might be a bit flawed.
Kiln Fiend + Flame Slash = 4 damage. More like 10 if you bolt or burst face.
I think that Flame Slash is probably better on the play while Blaze is probably better on the draw.
What threat does Flame Slash deal with that Searing Blaze doesn't deal with as well or better. For that matter, why are there "threats" against RDW? RDW is 90% of the time the aggro deck. There are no threats to an aggro deck, only roadblocks.
Besides Mythic creatures (RWM specifically), I don't see anything that FS is better against. In that case, one burn spell is not going to make the difference. Especially when Flame Slash doesn't deal with Soveriegns, BSA and Conscripted creatures.
Well I was trying to say that Flame Slash deals with threats better than Burst lightning but I guess I wasn't that clear. But yes, anything that has lifelink really hurts RDW. But yes, flame slash is better against creatures with 3 or 4 toughness. While it doesn't hit players, it allows you to use your flame slashes to hit creatures so you can use your lightning bolts to hit creatures.
The people that play legacy / vintage always amuse me. They want their formats to be represented more. They want more tournaments. But when anyone suggests allowing more people access to the formats by reprinting cards, the same people start screaming about the reprint policy.
Flame Slash costs less which means you have the option to Bolt the opponent or their creature at the end of their turn. That is the advantage of running Flame Slash.
Well I was trying to say that Flame Slash deals with threats better than Burst lightning but I guess I wasn't that clear. But yes, anything that has lifelink really hurts RDW. But yes, flame slash is better against creatures with 3 or 4 toughness. While it doesn't hit players, it allows you to use your flame slashes to hit creatures so you can use your lightning bolts to hit creatures.
That makes more sense. I think a lot of it depends on if you're running Kiln-Field or not. The other issue is that Flame Slash + Searing Blaze can leave you with cards stuck in your hand. Especially against UWr that doesn't run many creatures at all.
That makes more sense. I think a lot of it depends on if you're running Kiln-Field or not. The other issue is that Flame Slash + Searing Blaze can leave you with cards stuck in your hand. Especially against UWr that doesn't run many creatures at all.
yes that is true. I really haven't tested against the "new" UWr, but id assume that slash and blaze could be taken out for ruinblasters, manabarbs, and other random sideboard stuff like unstable footing. I think putting dragonmaster's outcast in the side against this matchup might help, but i haven't tested it yet.
But like you are saying, it really DOES depend on the deck said cards are going into.
The people that play legacy / vintage always amuse me. They want their formats to be represented more. They want more tournaments. But when anyone suggests allowing more people access to the formats by reprinting cards, the same people start screaming about the reprint policy.
Here's the problem with Flame Slash. If you're playing either, you're a deck that wants to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible.
Flame Slash vs Wall of Omens:
Goblin Guide + Flame Slash = Dead Wall + 2 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Flame Slash = Dead Wall + 3 damage
Searing Blaze vs Wall of Omens:
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Wall + 3 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Wall + 5 damage
Flame Slash vs Putrid Leech:
Goblin Guide + Flame Slash = Dead Leech + 2 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Flame Slash = Dead Leech + 3 damage
Searing Blaze vs Putrid Leech:
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze(LF) = Dead Leech (no pump) + 5 damage
or
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze(LF) = Dead Leech (pump) + 5 damage + Dead Guide (with risk for complete blowout if you have R open to kill Leech)
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Leech (no pump) + 6 damage
or
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Leech (pump) + 5 damage
The only real upside to Flame Slash is against Rhox War Monk. The problem with that is that decks packing RMW are probably going to blow you out regardless with other things like Baneslayer and/or Kor Firewalker, etc... that Flame Slash still doesn't handle. In that case, it's generally better to try and run B for sideboard cards like Deathmark and Vendetta.
tl;dr Flame Slash doesn't do as much damage as Searing Blaze.
Searing Blaze will outperform Flame Slash in every scenario where the objective is to push extra damage through against blocking creatures. Flame Slash will outperform Searing Blaze in every instance where you need to defend yourself from being attacked by a 4 toughness creature.
the only time the second scenario would come up is in some kind of control deck that didn't have access to White or Black (which both offer superior removal). there aren't too many decks like that in standard right now so the situation that favors Flame Slash is irrelevant. therefore it is a bad card in the current metagame.
objectively speaking though its ok. the efficiency level is high enough to be considered for things that might need dedicated creature removal.
Flame Slash costs less which means you have the option to Bolt the opponent or their creature at the end of their turn. That is the advantage of running Flame Slash.
Except that Flame Slash is a sorcery. Personally I run Searing Blaze over slash, I prefer it as a combat trick with the added bonus of boosting my Kiln Fiend and dealing damage straight to the dome.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at my name...what did you expect?
Thank you WOTC for introducing the Modern format, a format where all the whiners can enjoy a level playing field and where they can play with none of the best cards of all time!
I like a lot both cards, they have different uses. I love flame slash , it's cheap removal for my slow decks. Destroy a creature with toughness of 4 or less for R ?, unconditional ?, cheap, simple and to the point. searing blaze is equally awesome, but in aggressive decks, killing guys and hitting my oponent in the face ?, nice, and it landfalls almost always so it's practically a pair of lighting bolts glued together.
Different cards with different uses people, nothing to see here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Caranthir »
Yawgmoth, the ruler of Phyrexia, Lord of the Wastes, Father of Machines, is DEAD. He's passed on. He is no more! He has ceased to be! He is expired and gone to meet his maker! He is a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! He kicked the bucket, He has shuffled off his (apparently)mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!
Searing blaze better imho. in total paying 2 for 6 granted there is a landfall. 4 for 1 isnt too bad if you are trying to play a more controlling red variant I would suppose.
Almost every single example listed above assumes you will have a handy dandy fetch-land available every time you want to cast searing blaze. Further, they totally ignore the mana savings of flame slash, being 1 mana less.
Specifically, all of the hellspark elemental examples are particularly absurd. You are really going to wait until turn 4 PLUS a landfall trigger to cast your hellspark elemental, so you have mana to cast searing blaze?
The 1 mana does make a difference. If you can spare a mana, instead of dropping a mountain drop a teetering peaks and get 2 extra damage "for free" while casting a flame slash, when you wouldn't have enough mana to cast a searing blaze.
That said, I am not convinced flame slash is some amazing card. I am merely saying that it's being compared unfairly in this thread, it's not *that* bad. I'll reserve further judgment until after I have a chance to test it on MTGO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is your choice usually one over the other? Or is it close? If so, what factors into one making the maindeck and the other sitting out?
Also, at the TCG player 5k last weekend this situation happened...I was playing UW, he was playing Naya.
I was at 6 life and he had a manabarbs out, I had a wall of omens and knight of white orchid and he had two wild nacatls and a stirring wildwood he could attack with next turn. I was forced to take 5 dmg and cast baneslayer. I ended up winning that game on baneslayers back, and after the game he said wow I really shouldnt of replaced my bolts with flame slash as he showed me the card he had when i was at 1 life. Just a thought, but I like the versatility of going to the dome/planeswalker killing.
I don't think his mistake was running Flame Slash, which I really like, it was running Flame Slashs over Lightning Bolt. Although I can see the appeal of Flame Slash when your up against Wall of Omens.
I don't know, guess I would have had to be there to understand his decision.
Honestly, I think the biggest mistake was leaving flameslash in against me (I think he had it MD, i cant imagine he sided it in against me.) Sure it kills wall of omens and knight of the white orchid, but they have usaully already done their job when they flame slash it.
I love Earthquake for similar reasons, and this is often a cheaper way to get a similar effect.
Searing Blaze is far supeior to Flame Slash, imo.
Flame Slash vs Wall of Omens:
Goblin Guide + Flame Slash = Dead Wall + 2 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Flame Slash = Dead Wall + 3 damage
Searing Blaze vs Wall of Omens:
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Wall + 3 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Wall + 5 damage
Flame Slash vs Putrid Leech:
Goblin Guide + Flame Slash = Dead Leech + 2 damage
Hellspark Elemental + Flame Slash = Dead Leech + 3 damage
Searing Blaze vs Putrid Leech:
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze(LF) = Dead Leech (no pump) + 5 damage
or
Goblin Guide + Searing Blaze(LF) = Dead Leech (pump) + 5 damage + Dead Guide (with risk for complete blowout if you have R open to kill Leech)
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Leech (no pump) + 6 damage
or
Hellspark Elemental + Searing Blaze (LF) = Dead Leech (pump) + 5 damage
The only real upside to Flame Slash is against Rhox War Monk. The problem with that is that decks packing RMW are probably going to blow you out regardless with other things like Baneslayer and/or Kor Firewalker, etc... that Flame Slash still doesn't handle. In that case, it's generally better to try and run B for sideboard cards like Deathmark and Vendetta.
tl;dr Flame Slash doesn't do as much damage as Searing Blaze.
Flame Slash is conditional, while Burst Lightning is not.
Lightning Bolt > Burst Lightning > Searing Blaze >>>>>>> Flame Slash
Most of the time I will have full sets of the first 3 in the deck though (assuming RxDW and not some bad R control deck)
while that is true, flame slash is better at getting rid of threats. Granted, I have only a little experience with RDW, I think it mostly depends on the deck that the cards are meant for.
What threat does Flame Slash deal with that Searing Blaze doesn't deal with as well or better. For that matter, why are there "threats" against RDW? RDW is 90% of the time the aggro deck. There are no threats to an aggro deck, only roadblocks.
Besides Mythic creatures (RWM specifically), I don't see anything that FS is better against. In that case, one burn spell is not going to make the difference. Especially when Flame Slash doesn't deal with Soveriegns, BSA and Conscripted creatures.
Kiln Fiend + Flame Slash = 4 damage. More like 10 if you bolt or burst face.
I think that Flame Slash is probably better on the play while Blaze is probably better on the draw.
Well I was trying to say that Flame Slash deals with threats better than Burst lightning but I guess I wasn't that clear. But yes, anything that has lifelink really hurts RDW. But yes, flame slash is better against creatures with 3 or 4 toughness. While it doesn't hit players, it allows you to use your flame slashes to hit creatures so you can use your lightning bolts to hit creatures.
BUG Dredge BUG]
WUBRG Storm WUBRG
UBR FaerieStalker UBR
EDH
Sygg, River Cutthroat (1vs1)
Maga, Traitor to Mortals (multiplayer)
That makes more sense. I think a lot of it depends on if you're running Kiln-Field or not. The other issue is that Flame Slash + Searing Blaze can leave you with cards stuck in your hand. Especially against UWr that doesn't run many creatures at all.
yes that is true. I really haven't tested against the "new" UWr, but id assume that slash and blaze could be taken out for ruinblasters, manabarbs, and other random sideboard stuff like unstable footing. I think putting dragonmaster's outcast in the side against this matchup might help, but i haven't tested it yet.
But like you are saying, it really DOES depend on the deck said cards are going into.
Now there's some math I can work with!
Searing Blaze will outperform Flame Slash in every scenario where the objective is to push extra damage through against blocking creatures. Flame Slash will outperform Searing Blaze in every instance where you need to defend yourself from being attacked by a 4 toughness creature.
the only time the second scenario would come up is in some kind of control deck that didn't have access to White or Black (which both offer superior removal). there aren't too many decks like that in standard right now so the situation that favors Flame Slash is irrelevant. therefore it is a bad card in the current metagame.
objectively speaking though its ok. the efficiency level is high enough to be considered for things that might need dedicated creature removal.
Except that Flame Slash is a sorcery. Personally I run Searing Blaze over slash, I prefer it as a combat trick with the added bonus of boosting my Kiln Fiend and dealing damage straight to the dome.
Thank you WOTC for introducing the Modern format, a format where all the whiners can enjoy a level playing field and where they can play with none of the best cards of all time!
*DCI Rules Advisor*
Like anime? My AnimeList Profile: zero_99
You can find me on MODO ID: 07Ghost
Different cards with different uses people, nothing to see here.
Specifically, all of the hellspark elemental examples are particularly absurd. You are really going to wait until turn 4 PLUS a landfall trigger to cast your hellspark elemental, so you have mana to cast searing blaze?
The 1 mana does make a difference. If you can spare a mana, instead of dropping a mountain drop a teetering peaks and get 2 extra damage "for free" while casting a flame slash, when you wouldn't have enough mana to cast a searing blaze.
That said, I am not convinced flame slash is some amazing card. I am merely saying that it's being compared unfairly in this thread, it's not *that* bad. I'll reserve further judgment until after I have a chance to test it on MTGO.