Call me crazy but my play tests seem to indicate that Furnace Scamp is better than Grim Lavamancer in this matchup...???
-They are both 1cc.
-Scamp is better early game.
-Lavamancer is better mid-late game.
Kut and Twin are both combo based decks, meaning you'll more often have to race them to be effective.
During this matchup, you'll want them to be within burn range by turns 3-4 and lavamancer's damage effectiveness during these crucial early turns, seems to be... moderate or sub-par... at the most.
What would you rather have...?
T1: Mountain, Scamp1.
Opponent: Forest.
T2: Mountain, Scamp2, Scamp3, Attack for 1 damage.
Kut: Forest, Battlements.
T3: Mountain, Guide, Attack with Scamps 1-3, Kut blocks Scamp1 with battlements, Sack Scamps 2-3, Searing Blaze for 14 damage total.
Kut: Slagstorm, killing Guide.
...or...
T1: Arid Mesa sack into mountain, Grim Lavamancer (GL1).
Opponent: Forest.
T2: Arid Mesa sack into mountain, GL2, GL3, Attack for 1 damage.
Kut: Forest, Battlements.
T3: Scalding Tarn sac into mountain, Guide, Attack with GL 1-2, Kut blocks GL1 with battlements, Ping with GL3 for 2, Searing Blaze for 9 damage total.
Kut: Slagstorm, killing Guide, GL1, GL2 and GL3.
thoughts please...
Scamp or Lavamancer in a Kut and Twin filled meta... ??? ???
Yeah...I can't imagine playing combo decks without the explosive power of Furnace Scamp (no pun intended) and I can't imagine playing control without the virtual card advantage of Lavamancer. Run both, use a sideboard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire." - Jaya Ballard
so do you think a 2/2 split of both in MD and 2/2 in the SB would be better?
or 3/2 or 2/3 or 3/3 splits depending on your meta...?
I tried 4 of each in my latest build but found game 1 against valakut too circumstantial... I always wanted scamp in this matchup... so I was thinking 3 Scamp and 2 Lavamancers MD then 1 Scamp and 2 Lavamancers in our (already clogged up) sideboards...???
Call me crazy but my play tests seem to indicate that Furnace Scamp is better than Grim Lavamancer in this matchup...???
-They are both 1cc.
-Scamp is better early game.
-Lavamancer is better mid-late game.
Kut and Twin are both combo based decks, meaning you'll more often have to race them to be effective.
During this matchup, you'll want them to be within burn range by turns 3-4 and lavamancer's damage effectiveness during these crucial early turns, seems to be... moderate or sub-par... at the most.
What would you rather have...?
T1: Mountain, Scamp1.
Opponent: Forest.
T2: Mountain, Scamp2, Scamp3, Attack for 1 damage.
Kut: Forest, Battlements.
T3: Mountain, Guide, Attack with Scamps 1-3, Kut blocks Scamp1 with battlements, Sack Scamps 2-3, Searing Blaze for 14 damage total.
Kut: Slagstorm, killing Guide.
...or...
T1: Arid Mesa sack into mountain, Grim Lavamancer (GL1).
Opponent: Forest.
T2: Arid Mesa sack into mountain, GL2, GL3, Attack for 1 damage.
Kut: Forest, Battlements.
T3: Scalding Tarn sac into mountain, Guide, Attack with GL 1-2, Kut blocks GL1 with battlements, Ping with GL3 for 2, Searing Blaze for 9 damage total.
Kut: Slagstorm, killing Guide, GL1, GL2 and GL3.
thoughts please...
Scamp or Lavamancer in a Kut and Twin filled meta... ??? ???
Fyi, Slagstorm is 1RR, so he probably won't be casting it on T3 with two Forests, a Mountain, and an Overgrown Battlement. =p
That sounds like it'd be a great name for a sitcom. Anyway, I'll assume you meant Pyroclasm or Whipflare.
Anyway, the problem I have with people playing out turns is that they only describe whatever situation is in their favour. I could also make up an example in Lavamancer's favour, but the thing is that it's just not likely to happen.
Also if you're putting three Lavamancers on the board against a deck that you know has sweepers, you're doing it wrong anyway.
On-topic: I'm running a 2/2 split right now for testing and will probably keep my MB like that. Partly because I only have two Lavamancers at the moment but also because I don't know if they're necessarily a 4-of. Possibly a 3-of, but I'll see. I definitely don't think there's room for 4 of both between the MB and SB though.
Basically, if you want to open packs to get cards for Standard and Modern, the simpler approach is to just buy all the singles you need and then set some money on fire to make up the difference.
Run 4 Scamp, 4 Goblin Guide, 4 Grim Lavamancer and never look back. Maybe even add a couple SSE for more 1 drops. This gives us an incredibly aggressive start and lays the work for our turn 2, which can be burn+1 drop, or 2 drop since we have a lot of pressure already.
Valakut - agree, 'mancer is slow. It's still so good everywhere else that you want it tho'. And it's not even awful there.
Vs Twin, a single lavamancer makes all your burn live vs exarch or skite. Two lavamancers forces them to use removal before comboing. Three lavamancers before they've boarded in the pyroclasms nearly forces them to run you out of graveyard to win...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Slingin' cardboard out of Yokohama, Japan. (if you're local and play EDH or want to test competitive, drop me a line!)
Lavamancer is at WORST 2-3 damage against Valakut. At worst, you can play him, swing, and than pop stuff from your grave. Or if you double fetch to start you can easily get 4 points out of him. And if the game goes longer than 4-5 turns, he will easily get 4+ points, so I fail to see how he is too slow.
Fyi, Slagstorm is 1RR, so he probably won't be casting it on T3 with two Forests, a Mountain, and an Overgrown Battlement. =p
Anyway, the problem I have with people playing out turns is that they only describe whatever situation is in their favour. I could also make up an example in Lavamancer's favour, but the thing is that it's just not likely to happen.
Also if you're putting three Lavamancers on the board against a deck that you know has sweepers, you're doing it wrong anyway.
On-topic: I'm running a 2/2 split right now for testing and will probably keep my MB like that. Partly because I only have two Lavamancers at the moment but also because I don't know if they're necessarily a 4-of. Possibly a 3-of, but I'll see. I definitely don't think there's room for 4 of both between the MB and SB though.
oops, sorry I got should have made a T1 Mountain drop or a dual land instead.
Anyway, my example was just to point out that if you had no other choice and you had to play 3 copies of either mancer or scamp, then scamp would do better. But I do agree with you that 4 mancers might not be needed at the moment since I also sometimes find myself with a board full of mancers but a graveyard with 4 or less cards.
Run 4 Scamp, 4 Goblin Guide, 4 Grim Lavamancer and never look back. Maybe even add a couple SSE for more 1 drops. This gives us an incredibly aggressive start and lays the work for our turn 2, which can be burn+1 drop, or 2 drop since we have a lot of pressure already.
Sorry, what is SSE?
I honestly run the same 1 drop suit right now, but if find myself not wanting to draw a lavamancer vs. kut.
Vs Twin, a single lavamancer makes all your burn live vs exarch or skite. Two lavamancers forces them to use removal before comboing. Three lavamancers before they've boarded in the pyroclasms nearly forces them to run you out of graveyard to win...
I honestly never thought of things this way and I admit, lavamancer seems good G1... but post SB, I think I'll still be siding them out (or at least leaving 2 at the MD) for more aggressive cards.
Lavamancer is at WORST 2-3 damage against Valakut. At worst, you can play him, swing, and than pop stuff from your grave. Or if you double fetch to start you can easily get 4 points out of him. And if the game goes longer than 4-5 turns, he will easily get 4+ points, so I fail to see how he is too slow.
I don't think we can both swing and use the mancer's ability at the same time since it has an activation cost of RT. Also, I've found that when paired against valakut, its gets harder and harder for us to win if they're still out of burn range by >T4. I really do not like this matchup and I'm really considering adding Act of Aggression MD already...
oops, sorry I got should have made a T1 Mountain drop or a dual land instead.
Anyway, my example was just to point out that if you had no other choice and you had to play 3 copies of either mancer or scamp, then scamp would do better. But I do agree with you that 4 mancers might not be needed at the moment since I also sometimes find myself with a board full of mancers but a graveyard with 4 or less cards.
Sorry, what is SSE?
I honestly run the same 1 drop suit right now, but if find myself not wanting to draw a lavamancer vs. kut.
I honestly never thought of things this way and I admit, lavamancer seems good G1... but post SB, I think I'll still be siding them out (or at least leaving 2 at the MD) for more aggressive cards.
I don't think we can both swing and use the mancer's ability at the same time since it has an activation cost of RT. Also, I've found that when paired against valakut, its gets harder and harder for us to win if they're still out of burn range by >T4. I really do not like this matchup and I'm really considering adding Act of Aggression MD already...
SSE is SpikeShot Elder
Of course you can not swing and activate the Lavamancers ability, I'm no fool. But Valakut is not killing you in one turn, so you should have 3-4 turns to play around with a Lavamancer, be it swinging for a measly one or popping for two. At worst Lavamancer is a shock, unless you draw him the turn your about to die, or draw 2-3 of them.
The thing with Lavamancer is, it doesn't do ENOUGH damage, quickly enough. Furnace Scamp is 4 damage right off the bat, and Goblin Guide is usually good for at least that much, too. With an opening of Furnace Scamp into Goblin Guide and Teetering Peaks, they're 4-5 cards away from dying (creature attacks count, as do burn)
Lavamancer doesn't start you off that explosively, and while a consistent 2 damage per turn is great, you have to remember that against combo decks ... you don't have that many turns to kill them, unlike when you're playing against Control, where you're not in danger of losing the match on turn 4 and the Lavamancer damage helps you grind them out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire." - Jaya Ballard
SSE is SpikeShot Elder
Of course you can not swing and activate the Lavamancers ability, I'm no fool. But Valakut is not killing you in one turn, so you should have 3-4 turns to play around with a Lavamancer, be it swinging for a measly one or popping for two. At worst Lavamancer is a shock, unless you draw him the turn your about to die, or draw 2-3 of them.
Sorry, I guess I just misunderstood your post. But I guess you're right... lavamancer isn't totally useless in this matchup... but then the question is "is there anything better than him in the format?"
The thing with Lavamancer is, it doesn't do ENOUGH damage, quickly enough. Furnace Scamp is 4 damage right off the bat, and Goblin Guide is usually good for at least that much, too. With an opening of Furnace Scamp into Goblin Guide and Teetering Peaks, they're 4-5 cards away from dying (creature attacks count, as do burn)
Lavamancer doesn't start you off that explosively, and while a consistent 2 damage per turn is great, you have to remember that against combo decks ... you don't have that many turns to kill them, unlike when you're playing against Control, where you're not in danger of losing the match on turn 4 and the Lavamancer damage helps you grind them out.
Exactly, this is the same thing I've been experiencing lately and my meta is full of valakut decks... I'm currently running 4GG, 3 Scamp and 3 Lavamancers and see where it takes me.
but to add to the discussion on the valakut matchup, below are some cards that, I think, take up the same slot and their respective effecgitveness against tier1 decks today.
< Card - Good/Bad vs Valakut - Good/Bad vs. Twin > **
Goblin Guide-Good-Good
Furnace Scamp-Good-Good
Grim Lavamancer-Bad-Good (too slow and dies to mass removal)
Spikeshot Elder-Bad-Bad (ping damage is insignificant)
Goblin Bushwhacker-Good-Good (Agressive turn 2-4)
Plated Geopede-Good-Good (capable of dealing huge amounts of damage fast)
Kiln Fiend-Good-Good (capable of dealing huge amounts of damage fast)
Ember Hauler-Bad-Good (versitile but slow)
Kargad Dragonlord-Good-Bad (Hard to kill but mana intensive)
Chandra's Phoenix-Good-Good (evasion against walls)
Lightning Bolt-Good-Good
Burst Lightning-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Forked Bolt-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Arc Trail-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Searing Blaze-Good-Bad (Versatile but bad against spellskite)
Dismember-Good-Good (kills them all!)
Staggershock-Good-Bad (better than phoenix as a 3 drop since it does a sure 4 damage against valakut, against twin, its too slow)
Shrine of Burning Rage-Good-Bad (too slow, could be bad-bad)
Koth of the Hamer-Good-Bad (too slow, could be bad-bad)
**no Average answers, meaning the card should be either good, if its not, then its bad.
do you guys agree with the statements above? if not, kindly elaborate.
Thanks in advance!
Sorry, I guess I just misunderstood your post. But I guess you're right... lavamancer isn't totally useless in this matchup... but then the question is "is there anything better than him in the format?"
Exactly, this is the same thing I've been experiencing lately and my meta is full of valakut decks... I'm currently running 4GG, 3 Scamp and 3 Lavamancers and see where it takes me.
but to add to the discussion on the valakut matchup, below are some cards that, I think, take up the same slot and their respective effecgitveness against tier1 decks today.
< Card - Good/Bad vs Valakut - Good/Bad vs. Twin > **
Goblin Guide-Good-Good
Furnace Scamp-Good-Good
Grim Lavamancer-Bad-Good (too slow and dies to mass removal)
Spikeshot Elder-Bad-Bad (ping damage is insignificant)
Goblin Bushwhacker-Good-Good (Agressive turn 2-4)
Plated Geopede-Good-Good (capable of dealing huge amounts of damage fast)
Kiln Fiend-Good-Good (capable of dealing huge amounts of damage fast)
Ember Hauler-Bad-Good (versitile but slow)
Kargad Dragonlord-Good-Bad (Hard to kill but mana intensive)
Chandra's Phoenix-Good-Good (evasion against walls)
Lightning Bolt-Good-Good
Burst Lightning-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Forked Bolt-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Arc Trail-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Searing Blaze-Good-Bad (Versatile but bad against spellskite)
Dismember-Good-Good (kills them all!)
Staggershock-Good-Bad (better than phoenix as a 3 drop since it does a sure 4 damage against valakut, against twin, its too slow)
Shrine of Burning Rage-Good-Bad (too slow, could be bad-bad)
Koth of the Hamer-Good-Bad (too slow, could be bad-bad)
**no Average answers, meaning the card should be either good, if its not, then its bad.
do you guys agree with the statements above? if not, kindly elaborate.
Thanks in advance!
I think this post is just way offline.
You have to kill valakut somehow. Shrine is capable of dealing double digits.
Koth is huge in every mu
And plated geopede?! Man, that guy just sucks. Period.
You have to kill valakut somehow. Shrine is capable of dealing double digits.
Koth is huge in every mu
And plated geopede?! Man, that guy just sucks. Period.
I will respond to other stuff later.
That's why I said their both good against valakut (although shrine can be too slow sometimes)... against twin, however, they are both quite a-little-too-slow, and koth's 4cc can just cost you the game if he can already combo out T3-4 and hardcast Exarch during your turn, when you tap out to cast Koth.
First of all Koth is and will be for a long time ( now that bolt will be gone soon ) the best card we have. His 4/4 go through or kill both battlment or skite. and if he goes off its just game period. Shrine is also the nuts against valakut as it can kill a titan with 6 damage pretty quick ( although yes they got it on board but we still need to kill it ) and it can hit the face for crazzy amounts after just a few turns. as for the topic I would go for Lavamancer over scamp while there are fetches any day and i dont think its close. drawing a late scamp is much much worse then a lavamancer. with scamp it is more then useless, grim is actually usefull as long as he is on board for a turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-They are both 1cc.
-Scamp is better early game.
-Lavamancer is better mid-late game.
Kut and Twin are both combo based decks, meaning you'll more often have to race them to be effective.
During this matchup, you'll want them to be within burn range by turns 3-4 and lavamancer's damage effectiveness during these crucial early turns, seems to be... moderate or sub-par... at the most.
What would you rather have...?
T1: Mountain, Scamp1.
Opponent: Forest.
T2: Mountain, Scamp2, Scamp3, Attack for 1 damage.
Kut: Forest, Battlements.
T3: Mountain, Guide, Attack with Scamps 1-3, Kut blocks Scamp1 with battlements, Sack Scamps 2-3, Searing Blaze for 14 damage total.
Kut: Slagstorm, killing Guide.
...or...
T1: Arid Mesa sack into mountain, Grim Lavamancer (GL1).
Opponent: Forest.
T2: Arid Mesa sack into mountain, GL2, GL3, Attack for 1 damage.
Kut: Forest, Battlements.
T3: Scalding Tarn sac into mountain, Guide, Attack with GL 1-2, Kut blocks GL1 with battlements, Ping with GL3 for 2, Searing Blaze for 9 damage total.
Kut: Slagstorm, killing Guide, GL1, GL2 and GL3.
thoughts please...
Scamp or Lavamancer in a Kut and Twin filled meta... ??? ???
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire." - Jaya Ballard
Against combo, where Lavamancer is probably just a bit too slow, you can side them out for Threaten effects or whatever else needs to come in.
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire." - Jaya Ballard
or 3/2 or 2/3 or 3/3 splits depending on your meta...?
I tried 4 of each in my latest build but found game 1 against valakut too circumstantial... I always wanted scamp in this matchup... so I was thinking 3 Scamp and 2 Lavamancers MD then 1 Scamp and 2 Lavamancers in our (already clogged up) sideboards...???
Fyi, Slagstorm is 1RR, so he probably won't be casting it on T3 with two Forests, a Mountain, and an Overgrown Battlement. =p
That sounds like it'd be a great name for a sitcom. Anyway, I'll assume you meant Pyroclasm or Whipflare.
Anyway, the problem I have with people playing out turns is that they only describe whatever situation is in their favour. I could also make up an example in Lavamancer's favour, but the thing is that it's just not likely to happen.
Also if you're putting three Lavamancers on the board against a deck that you know has sweepers, you're doing it wrong anyway.
On-topic: I'm running a 2/2 split right now for testing and will probably keep my MB like that. Partly because I only have two Lavamancers at the moment but also because I don't know if they're necessarily a 4-of. Possibly a 3-of, but I'll see. I definitely don't think there's room for 4 of both between the MB and SB though.
Run 4 Scamp, 4 Goblin Guide, 4 Grim Lavamancer and never look back. Maybe even add a couple SSE for more 1 drops. This gives us an incredibly aggressive start and lays the work for our turn 2, which can be burn+1 drop, or 2 drop since we have a lot of pressure already.
Woops! Fixed
Vs Twin, a single lavamancer makes all your burn live vs exarch or skite. Two lavamancers forces them to use removal before comboing. Three lavamancers before they've boarded in the pyroclasms nearly forces them to run you out of graveyard to win...
oops, sorry I got should have made a T1 Mountain drop or a dual land instead.
Anyway, my example was just to point out that if you had no other choice and you had to play 3 copies of either mancer or scamp, then scamp would do better. But I do agree with you that 4 mancers might not be needed at the moment since I also sometimes find myself with a board full of mancers but a graveyard with 4 or less cards.
Sorry, what is SSE?
I honestly run the same 1 drop suit right now, but if find myself not wanting to draw a lavamancer vs. kut.
I honestly never thought of things this way and I admit, lavamancer seems good G1... but post SB, I think I'll still be siding them out (or at least leaving 2 at the MD) for more aggressive cards.
I don't think we can both swing and use the mancer's ability at the same time since it has an activation cost of RT. Also, I've found that when paired against valakut, its gets harder and harder for us to win if they're still out of burn range by >T4. I really do not like this matchup and I'm really considering adding Act of Aggression MD already...
SSE is SpikeShot Elder
Of course you can not swing and activate the Lavamancers ability, I'm no fool. But Valakut is not killing you in one turn, so you should have 3-4 turns to play around with a Lavamancer, be it swinging for a measly one or popping for two. At worst Lavamancer is a shock, unless you draw him the turn your about to die, or draw 2-3 of them.
Lavamancer doesn't start you off that explosively, and while a consistent 2 damage per turn is great, you have to remember that against combo decks ... you don't have that many turns to kill them, unlike when you're playing against Control, where you're not in danger of losing the match on turn 4 and the Lavamancer damage helps you grind them out.
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire." - Jaya Ballard
Sorry, I guess I just misunderstood your post. But I guess you're right... lavamancer isn't totally useless in this matchup... but then the question is "is there anything better than him in the format?"
Exactly, this is the same thing I've been experiencing lately and my meta is full of valakut decks... I'm currently running 4GG, 3 Scamp and 3 Lavamancers and see where it takes me.
but to add to the discussion on the valakut matchup, below are some cards that, I think, take up the same slot and their respective effecgitveness against tier1 decks today.
< Card - Good/Bad vs Valakut - Good/Bad vs. Twin > **
Goblin Guide-Good-Good
Furnace Scamp-Good-Good
Grim Lavamancer-Bad-Good (too slow and dies to mass removal)
Spikeshot Elder-Bad-Bad (ping damage is insignificant)
Goblin Bushwhacker-Good-Good (Agressive turn 2-4)
Plated Geopede-Good-Good (capable of dealing huge amounts of damage fast)
Kiln Fiend-Good-Good (capable of dealing huge amounts of damage fast)
Ember Hauler-Bad-Good (versitile but slow)
Kargad Dragonlord-Good-Bad (Hard to kill but mana intensive)
Chandra's Phoenix-Good-Good (evasion against walls)
Lightning Bolt-Good-Good
Burst Lightning-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Forked Bolt-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Arc Trail-Bad-Bad (2 damage is negligible with 4 toughness creatures)
Searing Blaze-Good-Bad (Versatile but bad against spellskite)
Dismember-Good-Good (kills them all!)
Staggershock-Good-Bad (better than phoenix as a 3 drop since it does a sure 4 damage against valakut, against twin, its too slow)
Shrine of Burning Rage-Good-Bad (too slow, could be bad-bad)
Koth of the Hamer-Good-Bad (too slow, could be bad-bad)
**no Average answers, meaning the card should be either good, if its not, then its bad.
do you guys agree with the statements above? if not, kindly elaborate.
Thanks in advance!
I think this post is just way offline.
You have to kill valakut somehow. Shrine is capable of dealing double digits.
Koth is huge in every mu
And plated geopede?! Man, that guy just sucks. Period.
I will respond to other stuff later.
By me from Hakai Studios.
blatlas on cockatrice. Test standard, legacy, or EDH!
That's why I said their both good against valakut (although shrine can be too slow sometimes)... against twin, however, they are both quite a-little-too-slow, and koth's 4cc can just cost you the game if he can already combo out T3-4 and hardcast Exarch during your turn, when you tap out to cast Koth.