Treasure Cruise was played as ancestral recall. I didn't play burn then, but I understand how easy it was to have a gy filled up by turn 4 so that, if you hadn't won yet, you could draw 3 AND play a couple spells in the same turn. That comparison makes zero sense whatsoever.
I think firecraft is better in the vast majority of situations. Once you start saying "well this is good if your opponent is at X life, with Y threats in play and you have Z cards in hand," then you are cherrypicking situations to give the card its highest value possible. At least blaze you have full control by leaving out a fetchland or holding a land in case you draw blaze. It also overcomes a major problem that can come up with the deck in "do I aim bolt at this creature, or at my opponent?" It is probably the weakest card in the deck, but it fills a very specific niche that is needed often enough in the format.
I was pointing out that Searing Blaze isn't a 1 for 1 comparison in the manner you were treating it.
I didn't play Burn when TC was legal, but it turns out that Ancestral Recall is a good card, and this new card isn't even close. I'd play Ancestral Recall, no questions asked.
Opponent at 7 and firecraft in hand? You don't need a second one, you just need any of the cards that make up 50% of the deck. Can you point to a situation where having only lightning bolt in hand with opponent at 7 is better than this card?
Does a 3cmc draw 3 spell probably bail you out of a potentially lost game? Probably, but it does it at a deck building cost I'm not willing to pay. I'm not able to cut Firecraft from the deck to make room for this card because I don't play it. I'm forced to cut 1 or 2 mana spells for it, and I can think of situations where I have uncastable draw spells in hand and lose because of it. I'm not willing to go higher CMC on average for a card that does nothing, especially one that does whatever my opponent prefers. I'm also not willing to lose games that I can win now in order to win games that I consider lost now. Those that are lost are quite possibly due to my own misplays or poor sequencing, and I should fix those issues rather than go fishing for bad solutions to the problem.
The gist of it is that you aren't playing the game with the goal of getting your opponent to 7 with 1 card in hand, so you probably shouldn't be playing any cards to exploit reaching that situation. Sometimes you run out of gas and lose. Sometimes you hit exactly 3 lands and never run out of gas. That's Burn. To me, the answer to "what is your run out of gas" is "play in a manner that minimizes your chances of running out of gas".
On a less argumentative note, I went 3-1 Monday night in a modern 4-rounder. I beat infect rather easily, affinity with juuuuuust enough time, and tron while losing to mono blue turns. Yes, I said mono blue turns. One guy plays it all the time. Rather than ask just "how to beat turns" because I'll only play it once ever couple months max, I'd rather ask how keep/mull decisions and sideboarding change when you are dealing with a deck that will take damage to its own lands vs those that won't. Does it drastically change decision making?
You'll need a more aggressive opener for a deck without fetches and shocks, but it's not something I really think about when I'm playing. To me, an opener is playable or it isn't, and I generally don't go to 6 hoping that it's somehow better than my otherwise playable 7.
Against turns, creatures and specifically Eidolon should help a lot, so that you're gettinga lot if recurring damage in. They can't go off until they have 5 mana, and they aren't going to play Dictate until right before that. Of course, the effects that basically time walk you can beat you before that, though.
You both did expose your lack of playing during the time of T Cruise because it more times than not wasn’t a recall. You generally paid 2-3 mana.
I’m sorry but Elcon you should always play to your outs and this card gives you outs when top decking lands, so you are still missing the gist of it yourself. Keep in mind every time burn mulls we lose damage. It’s 2 spells on 1 card at a reasonable cost. If they take 8 I’m sure we win. If they take 4 and let us draw 3 we win (which I anticipate will be the most common scenario). If we draw 6 then we basically have a whole new hand.
“Play in a manner that minimizes your chance of running out of gas” this absolutely laughable, burn doesn’t play deck manipulation outside of Magma Jet and for some reason I don’t think you play that card so you can help it when top decking those extra lands.
If you want to continue the debate that is fine by me but I’m gonna be actually play testing to see how the card plays out instead of theory crafting so I apologize in advance for delayed responses.
As of note I currently am running a “stock list” and will be taking out 1 Boros Charm and 1 Lavamancer to put 2 in the main board. I will try to play a number of games against different decks and report back.
Let me just say that, with the printing of Assassin's Trophy, I believe that Burn is in a better place than it ever has been. Competivitely costed permanent removal is something Burn didn't know it's wanted forever. It makes me mad at myself I didn't think to run Anguished Unmaking in my board, and this is miles ahead of that. I think if people catch on to the card for us, we're poised to see the strongest version of Burn Modern has ever seen.
You both did expose your lack of playing during the time of T Cruise because it more times than not wasn’t a recall. You generally paid 2-3 mana.
I’m sorry but Elcon you should always play to your outs and this card gives you outs when top decking lands, so you are still missing the gist of it yourself. Keep in mind every time burn mulls we lose damage. It’s 2 spells on 1 card at a reasonable cost. If they take 8 I’m sure we win. If they take 4 and let us draw 3 we win (which I anticipate will be the most common scenario). If we draw 6 then we basically have a whole new hand.
“Play in a manner that minimizes your chance of running out of gas” this absolutely laughable, burn doesn’t play deck manipulation outside of Magma Jet and for some reason I don’t think you play that card so you can help it when top decking those extra lands.
If you want to continue the debate that is fine by me but I’m gonna be actually play testing to see how the card plays out instead of theory crafting so I apologize in advance for delayed responses.
As of note I currently am running a “stock list” and will be taking out 1 Boros Charm and 1 Lavamancer to put 2 in the main board. I will try to play a number of games against different decks and report back.
Including a Browbeat variant isn't what "playing to your outs" means. Playing to your outs is about in game decisions and making plays that will lead to a win if you draw your outs. "Playing to your outs" is choosing how to sequence cards in your hand such that you don't lose due to needing 2 white mana if you draw Helix or Charm next turn, or it means fetching a tapped Foundry at their EOT just in case you do draw a white spell and need more W mana next turn.
Playing a Browbeat variant is more like adding a card that might bail you out in situations you'd probably otherwise lose. Unfortunately, it buys you that while simultaneously costing you some games when all you needed was the burn spell you cut for it.
"Play in a manner that minimizes your chance of running out of gas" this absolutely laughable,
You misunderstood me here. I'm talking about play style. If you find yourself frequently running one Burn spell short in games, perhaps you should re-evaluate your sequencing and consider where you may have wasted a burn spell on a creature unnecessarily. Tightening up your play in that regard is "playing in a manner that minimizes your change of running out of gas" because you're not wasting any gas. I don't see how that is "laughable".
Let me just say that, with the printing of Assassin's Trophy, I believe that Burn is in a better place than it ever has been. Competivitely costed permanent removal is something Burn didn't know it's wanted forever. It makes me mad at myself I didn't think to run Anguished Unmaking in my board, and this is miles ahead of that. I think if people catch on to the card for us, we're poised to see the strongest version of Burn Modern has ever seen.
Are you thinking about RBg Burn? I really don't think Assassin's Trophy is something burn wants. Destructive Revelry gets rid of 2 permanent types AND brings us closer to our end goal. I play WR Burn and run Path to Exile for those situations where I need to get rid of a HUGE creature - it's 1 cmc and exiles the card - and even then I feel bad sacrificing a burn effect for removal. Trophy is a 2 mana spell that adds nothing to Burn's agenda.
Went to my very first tournament today in the town I just moved to. I got third place, going 3-1. Really pleased with my choices and performance despite it being my first time playing non casually and going into a blind meta.
Game 1: Bant (Won 2-1)
First game was great, goblin guide carried that match on his shoulders by getting in for 8. Second match was more even, but 2 Shalai's ended up taking way too much of my gas to get rid of and he ended up stabilizing with Courser of Kruphix lifegain. 3rd match he went to 17 on turn one for a Bird that got bolted in response, after that it was all downhill for him.
Game 2: Hardened Scales (Won 2-1)
First game was a mess, he went double Hardened Scales into a bunch of early game nonsense that I couldn't outrun. Destructive Revelry and Searing Blaze put in a ton of work the next two games, winning me the match.
Game 3: Some super janky homebrew affinity/ Fall of Thran control (Won 2-0)
First game he drops a Chalice of the Void for 1 right after my Goblin Guide, luckily for me I had drawn almost all 2 CMC spells so I ended up taking the game fairly easily. Didn't really give me a lot of info other than I saw he drew a Leyline of Sanctity at one point due to him playing with his hand very horizontal (lol), which was important info for game 2. Game 2 I drew a 5 lander and 2 Goblin Guides, I would almost never keep this but I knew he was gonna hard mulligan to get those leylines. And he did, going down to 5 with no lands for it. Both Goblin guides did almost 20 damage together that fight lol.
Game 4: UW Control (Lost 1-2)
I was actually feeling really good this match up, and game one was a standard burn rundown so I was feeling even better. Game 2 he would most likely bring in Lyra so I brought in Path and Deflecting. Didn't draw a single one of them the entire game lol, and his Lyra ended up stabilizing him at 4 life. Game 3 was just a sad stroke of luck. He blew up all my white sources and I was only drawing white cards... oh well, it happens.
Again, all in all I felt pretty good about it. Destructive Revelry and Goblin Guide were definitely the MVPs of the night. Rest in peace wasn't so hot, but that's super match up dependent so w/e. I'll post my decklist bellow for anyone curious. From what some of the guys there were saying, there is a lot of creature based combo decks, so I'm thinking my little burn deck should do pretty well in the future.
Modernnexus has an article detailing why burn should not just splash green for DRev. I read it, and really could not agree. I can think of one game in six months where an opening stomping ground drastically affected the game in a negative way, and that will happen with virtually any situation. By that logic, last weekend's pptq where I had to mull to six in each game of the quarterfinals means I should up the land count to 22. Then there was an anecdotal example where a naya burn player in the GP finals against bogles fetched for a mountain to keep a higher life total, then drew an uncastable DRev. Sorry, but there is no way I'm playing bogles post-board and not fetching DRev.
I did agree with one perspective, though. I'm considering a return to atarka's command over skullcrack. The ability to get in for extra damage in matchups without an expectation of life gain like grixis shadow, win creature combat situations against humans, etc is really appealing to me. If I were in a more aggressive meta, I'd consider nacatl too, but I see too much control and midrange.
Let me just say that, with the printing of Assassin's Trophy, I believe that Burn is in a better place than it ever has been. Competivitely costed permanent removal is something Burn didn't know it's wanted forever. It makes me mad at myself I didn't think to run Anguished Unmaking in my board, and this is miles ahead of that. I think if people catch on to the card for us, we're poised to see the strongest version of Burn Modern has ever seen.
Are you thinking about RBg Burn? I really don't think Assassin's Trophy is something burn wants. Destructive Revelry gets rid of 2 permanent types AND brings us closer to our end goal. I play WR Burn and run Path to Exile for those situations where I need to get rid of a HUGE creature - it's 1 cmc and exiles the card - and even then I feel bad sacrificing a burn effect for removal. Trophy is a 2 mana spell that adds nothing to Burn's agenda.
The reason I like it is because it saves sideboard slots. Gets rid of anything we need, no questions asked. Troubling permanents are one of Burn's biggest ways to lose. Leyline, Chalice on one, certain planeswalkers or creatures. I feel like burn needs hammers in the board, and this is the best hammer in the format. To answer your question, I am certainly going to be playing Rakdos burn with a green splash for Assassin's Trophy and Atarka's Command in the sideboard.
I think it's safe to say that everyone has many mixed feelings over Risk Factor. I will test it (and so will others I'm sure), and then we'll see if it worked well or not, because we're not going to settle this argument any other way. For now, I would rather discuss other things. I don't think it's as amazing as some people think, but I believe it may be able to replace Exquisite Firecraft, but we will see!
I am again toying with cards for Burn, back to Nocatl version then Nacatl ....there is a question that turlupine me : why Wild Nacatl is so strong on your eyes compared to Vexing devil ?
Don't answer me removals, I don't care for now. Just to compare those two cards while playing Atarka's command. Nacatl is a 3/3 with setups. Devil is a 4/3 or 4 damages face.
I have seen in Boros Burn the downside of devil at giving a choice to your opponent that may be bad for you especially when the game does long - not this new Risk factor that his choice is ALWAYS good for you, ndrl - however in "Nacatl Burn" version, Devil's given choices feel good. Take 4 for 1 mana, or attack with 5/4 + X creatures.
Then, you can troll me on removals and the future new meta full on green/white decks, control and black/green decks that may be wrong for that
Honestly, I don't know why (or if) Wild Nacatl is better than Vexing Devil, but I don't think either card is good right now, and I really like Inspiring Vantage, which is pretty close to unplayable in any list reliant on green cards, like the two you just mentioned. Most of the aggro matchups are pretty close, so we need all the percentage points we can get, which means having a smooth manabase. I am for a smooth RW list with a single Stomping Ground, but I will not go further than that, because I win most of my games against Humans, Spirits, Affinity, Elves, etc... and I would like to keep it that way.
PS: I did not mention Burn as a matchup I win a lot because you usually beat me when we meet at FNMs.
Vexing Devil is easily delt with. On the other hand, risk factor has some upsides against specific matchups were you could run out of gaz. I can see myself testing a copy or two for sideboard purposes maybe.
The real issue with devil is it is at most 4 dmg at worst 0 dmg. Nacatl is at most 3 xturns in play, at worst 0 dmg. they both involve the same risk but devil has a lower reward. Also, anything more than splashing for revelry is bad right now because a lot of meta is aggro. 40 percent of the meta is going to clog the board with dudes. When naya was at it's height the top decks were jund twin tron. the more you have to grind a game out the more that 2 life matters from a stomping grounds also the worse dudes become. nacatl is great but every aggro deck besides affinity has bigger dudes.
I do not know if things works really like Mike Flores said, but if it is possible to have Experimental frenzy on table then jump-start Risk factor while discarding a land from the top of our library... then guys, this is absolutely smoked. No more out of gas, just ablaze them ! A thing I have already seen as I am testing a lot online yet. Let the question of sideboard or main deck card.
Maybe I'm missing something, but you definitely cannot discard for Jump Start by milling 1 card from your library and Experimental Frenzy doesn't change that. EF doesn't make the top card of your library part of your hand. If you were to have Experimental Frenzy on the table, then your opponent will always let you draw 3 from Risk Factor because EF says "You can't play cards from your hand.". You can't play the cards until you pay 4 to destroy EF. You can always discard from your hand to Jump Start while EF is on the table, though, because discarding a card from your hand isn't "playing a card from your hand".
The real issue with devil is it is at most 4 dmg at worst 0 dmg. Nacatl is at most 3 xturns in play, at worst 0 dmg. they both involve the same risk but devil has a lower reward. Also, anything more than splashing for revelry is bad right now because a lot of meta is aggro. 40 percent of the meta is going to clog the board with dudes. When naya was at it's height the top decks were jund twin tron. the more you have to grind a game out the more that 2 life matters from a stomping grounds also the worse dudes become. nacatl is great but every aggro deck besides affinity has bigger dudes.
That doesn't really seem representative of Devil vs Cat. It's more appropriate to say that Devil is at most 4, at worst 0, and Nacatl is at most 3 times turns it gets through, at worst 0. As soon as it gets removed, or they have a bigger blocker, or you need to hold it back to block yourself, it stops contributing to Burn's came plan. There's a fair chance it hits on turn two for the play, which is 3. Turn three on the play, turn two on the draw, seems unlikely. If they choose to take 4 from Devil, that's great news for us because that's what we want them to do anyway.
If they choose to take four the nacatl would have been better. That indicates they have no removal and the cat would be better. Also devils can never be a blocker on games you have to grind out with lavamancer. In most cases vexing devil is worse unless they are exactly at four and don't have or can't topdeck a card. You lose any ability at all to be the control. This means you will have to be much more aggressive with mulligans.
I'm low on risk factor, but I am amazed at people trying to say a four mana enchantment could work in burn. Maybe one in the sideboard for either for very grindy matchups? I've been saying for a while that I have one flex spot in mine. I've also had enough games on two or three lands total that it makes virtually no sense. At this point, I think burn is such a known commodity that some content creators are just digging for chances at innovation.
At this point, I think burn is such a known commodity that some content creators are just digging for chances at innovation.
I'm certain that this happens. That's what was going on in that month long interval when they were all suggesting that Manamorphose should be in every deck that can make red mana, including Burn. I could put a tinfoil hat on and suggest that some of them do it because their sponsor wants to unload some inventory and they have a content creator create hype to accomplish that goal.
That 4 mana enchantment is not what we want. It is being suggested for long games like UW control, right? It's like people are pretending that the decks are guaranteed to be suddenly out of counter spells by turn 5 or 6 when you're casting it.
Treasure Cruise was played as ancestral recall. I didn't play burn then, but I understand how easy it was to have a gy filled up by turn 4 so that, if you hadn't won yet, you could draw 3 AND play a couple spells in the same turn. That comparison makes zero sense whatsoever.
I think firecraft is better in the vast majority of situations. Once you start saying "well this is good if your opponent is at X life, with Y threats in play and you have Z cards in hand," then you are cherrypicking situations to give the card its highest value possible. At least blaze you have full control by leaving out a fetchland or holding a land in case you draw blaze. It also overcomes a major problem that can come up with the deck in "do I aim bolt at this creature, or at my opponent?" It is probably the weakest card in the deck, but it fills a very specific niche that is needed often enough in the format.
I didn't play Burn when TC was legal, but it turns out that Ancestral Recall is a good card, and this new card isn't even close. I'd play Ancestral Recall, no questions asked.
Opponent at 7 and firecraft in hand? You don't need a second one, you just need any of the cards that make up 50% of the deck. Can you point to a situation where having only lightning bolt in hand with opponent at 7 is better than this card?
Does a 3cmc draw 3 spell probably bail you out of a potentially lost game? Probably, but it does it at a deck building cost I'm not willing to pay. I'm not able to cut Firecraft from the deck to make room for this card because I don't play it. I'm forced to cut 1 or 2 mana spells for it, and I can think of situations where I have uncastable draw spells in hand and lose because of it. I'm not willing to go higher CMC on average for a card that does nothing, especially one that does whatever my opponent prefers. I'm also not willing to lose games that I can win now in order to win games that I consider lost now. Those that are lost are quite possibly due to my own misplays or poor sequencing, and I should fix those issues rather than go fishing for bad solutions to the problem.
The gist of it is that you aren't playing the game with the goal of getting your opponent to 7 with 1 card in hand, so you probably shouldn't be playing any cards to exploit reaching that situation. Sometimes you run out of gas and lose. Sometimes you hit exactly 3 lands and never run out of gas. That's Burn. To me, the answer to "what is your run out of gas" is "play in a manner that minimizes your chances of running out of gas".
Against turns, creatures and specifically Eidolon should help a lot, so that you're gettinga lot if recurring damage in. They can't go off until they have 5 mana, and they aren't going to play Dictate until right before that. Of course, the effects that basically time walk you can beat you before that, though.
I’m sorry but Elcon you should always play to your outs and this card gives you outs when top decking lands, so you are still missing the gist of it yourself. Keep in mind every time burn mulls we lose damage. It’s 2 spells on 1 card at a reasonable cost. If they take 8 I’m sure we win. If they take 4 and let us draw 3 we win (which I anticipate will be the most common scenario). If we draw 6 then we basically have a whole new hand.
“Play in a manner that minimizes your chance of running out of gas” this absolutely laughable, burn doesn’t play deck manipulation outside of Magma Jet and for some reason I don’t think you play that card so you can help it when top decking those extra lands.
If you want to continue the debate that is fine by me but I’m gonna be actually play testing to see how the card plays out instead of theory crafting so I apologize in advance for delayed responses.
As of note I currently am running a “stock list” and will be taking out 1 Boros Charm and 1 Lavamancer to put 2 in the main board. I will try to play a number of games against different decks and report back.
Including a Browbeat variant isn't what "playing to your outs" means. Playing to your outs is about in game decisions and making plays that will lead to a win if you draw your outs. "Playing to your outs" is choosing how to sequence cards in your hand such that you don't lose due to needing 2 white mana if you draw Helix or Charm next turn, or it means fetching a tapped Foundry at their EOT just in case you do draw a white spell and need more W mana next turn.
Playing a Browbeat variant is more like adding a card that might bail you out in situations you'd probably otherwise lose. Unfortunately, it buys you that while simultaneously costing you some games when all you needed was the burn spell you cut for it.
You misunderstood me here. I'm talking about play style. If you find yourself frequently running one Burn spell short in games, perhaps you should re-evaluate your sequencing and consider where you may have wasted a burn spell on a creature unnecessarily. Tightening up your play in that regard is "playing in a manner that minimizes your change of running out of gas" because you're not wasting any gas. I don't see how that is "laughable".
Are you thinking about RBg Burn? I really don't think Assassin's Trophy is something burn wants. Destructive Revelry gets rid of 2 permanent types AND brings us closer to our end goal. I play WR Burn and run Path to Exile for those situations where I need to get rid of a HUGE creature - it's 1 cmc and exiles the card - and even then I feel bad sacrificing a burn effect for removal. Trophy is a 2 mana spell that adds nothing to Burn's agenda.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
Game 1: Bant (Won 2-1)
First game was great, goblin guide carried that match on his shoulders by getting in for 8. Second match was more even, but 2 Shalai's ended up taking way too much of my gas to get rid of and he ended up stabilizing with Courser of Kruphix lifegain. 3rd match he went to 17 on turn one for a Bird that got bolted in response, after that it was all downhill for him.
Game 2: Hardened Scales (Won 2-1)
First game was a mess, he went double Hardened Scales into a bunch of early game nonsense that I couldn't outrun. Destructive Revelry and Searing Blaze put in a ton of work the next two games, winning me the match.
Game 3: Some super janky homebrew affinity/ Fall of Thran control (Won 2-0)
First game he drops a Chalice of the Void for 1 right after my Goblin Guide, luckily for me I had drawn almost all 2 CMC spells so I ended up taking the game fairly easily. Didn't really give me a lot of info other than I saw he drew a Leyline of Sanctity at one point due to him playing with his hand very horizontal (lol), which was important info for game 2. Game 2 I drew a 5 lander and 2 Goblin Guides, I would almost never keep this but I knew he was gonna hard mulligan to get those leylines. And he did, going down to 5 with no lands for it. Both Goblin guides did almost 20 damage together that fight lol.
Game 4: UW Control (Lost 1-2)
I was actually feeling really good this match up, and game one was a standard burn rundown so I was feeling even better. Game 2 he would most likely bring in Lyra so I brought in Path and Deflecting. Didn't draw a single one of them the entire game lol, and his Lyra ended up stabilizing him at 4 life. Game 3 was just a sad stroke of luck. He blew up all my white sources and I was only drawing white cards... oh well, it happens.
Again, all in all I felt pretty good about it. Destructive Revelry and Goblin Guide were definitely the MVPs of the night. Rest in peace wasn't so hot, but that's super match up dependent so w/e. I'll post my decklist bellow for anyone curious. From what some of the guys there were saying, there is a lot of creature based combo decks, so I'm thinking my little burn deck should do pretty well in the future.
https://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/14-08-18-BlW-boros-burn/
I did agree with one perspective, though. I'm considering a return to atarka's command over skullcrack. The ability to get in for extra damage in matchups without an expectation of life gain like grixis shadow, win creature combat situations against humans, etc is really appealing to me. If I were in a more aggressive meta, I'd consider nacatl too, but I see too much control and midrange.
The reason I like it is because it saves sideboard slots. Gets rid of anything we need, no questions asked. Troubling permanents are one of Burn's biggest ways to lose. Leyline, Chalice on one, certain planeswalkers or creatures. I feel like burn needs hammers in the board, and this is the best hammer in the format. To answer your question, I am certainly going to be playing Rakdos burn with a green splash for Assassin's Trophy and Atarka's Command in the sideboard.
Honestly, I don't know why (or if) Wild Nacatl is better than Vexing Devil, but I don't think either card is good right now, and I really like Inspiring Vantage, which is pretty close to unplayable in any list reliant on green cards, like the two you just mentioned. Most of the aggro matchups are pretty close, so we need all the percentage points we can get, which means having a smooth manabase. I am for a smooth RW list with a single Stomping Ground, but I will not go further than that, because I win most of my games against Humans, Spirits, Affinity, Elves, etc... and I would like to keep it that way.
PS: I did not mention Burn as a matchup I win a lot because you usually beat me when we meet at FNMs.
Aggro: Naya Burn RWG
Combo: Scapeshift RG
Control: Jeskai Control UWR
Legacy
Control: Miracles UW
Aggro: Burn R
Maybe I'm missing something, but you definitely cannot discard for Jump Start by milling 1 card from your library and Experimental Frenzy doesn't change that. EF doesn't make the top card of your library part of your hand. If you were to have Experimental Frenzy on the table, then your opponent will always let you draw 3 from Risk Factor because EF says "You can't play cards from your hand.". You can't play the cards until you pay 4 to destroy EF. You can always discard from your hand to Jump Start while EF is on the table, though, because discarding a card from your hand isn't "playing a card from your hand".
That doesn't really seem representative of Devil vs Cat. It's more appropriate to say that Devil is at most 4, at worst 0, and Nacatl is at most 3 times turns it gets through, at worst 0. As soon as it gets removed, or they have a bigger blocker, or you need to hold it back to block yourself, it stops contributing to Burn's came plan. There's a fair chance it hits on turn two for the play, which is 3. Turn three on the play, turn two on the draw, seems unlikely. If they choose to take 4 from Devil, that's great news for us because that's what we want them to do anyway.
I'm certain that this happens. That's what was going on in that month long interval when they were all suggesting that Manamorphose should be in every deck that can make red mana, including Burn. I could put a tinfoil hat on and suggest that some of them do it because their sponsor wants to unload some inventory and they have a content creator create hype to accomplish that goal.
That 4 mana enchantment is not what we want. It is being suggested for long games like UW control, right? It's like people are pretending that the decks are guaranteed to be suddenly out of counter spells by turn 5 or 6 when you're casting it.