Printable View
I see what you're saying, and the STP argument is obvious, but it actually assumes alot.
1. Your opponent has to be playing it
2. Your opponent has to draw it
3. Your opponent has to have mana to play it
4. You're playing into it
It's my opinion, that if you simply try to pick your spots well with Reckless Charge, you'll end up ahead in the long run. Getting an extra attack step in is amazing.
Maybe it has been discussed already, but I couldn't find entries to "mirror" in the search.
What is SB plan to mirror match? I mean, in a Zoo-heavy meta, what's best SB options.
Jitte, and STP pretty much. You could bring in gravehate if you're that scared of Goyf, but it seems bad. Board out like PoP, but keep fat beaters like Knight and Thoctar in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gui_Brasil
I side in 3 EE and my second Jitte for 2 Kird Apes and 2 Chain Lightnings. Chain really blows in the mirror match since they can kill your guys too, and Kird ape doesn't trade with anything, so it's not really useful. For people who don't play EE on their sideboard, I'm going to assume you have STP on your board so you bring that in. It's not really worth it to bring in graveyard hate since you have your own goyfs and you want to minimize dead cards at all costs.
Edit//I've had some requests for my current list/board. It hasn't really changed since my top4 Vestal list, so here's that;
3rd Place - Harry Matten Gillen
4 Wild Nacatl
2 Kird Ape
3 Figure of Destiny
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Qasali Pridemage
2 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lightning Helix
2 Chain Lightning
4 Path to Exile
2 Sylvan Library
1 Umezawa's Jitte
3 Plateau
3 Taiga
1 Savannah
3 Arid Mesa
3 Windswept Heath
3 Wooded Foothills
2 Horizon Canopy
1 Plains
1 Forest
1 mountain
sb
3 Engineered Explosives
1 Umezawa's Jitte
3 Gaddock Teeg
3 Tormod's Crypt
3 Price of Progress
2 Krosan Grip
This is the basic list I almost always work from.
I still don't understand why people aren't embracing steppe lynx it is infinity better than kird ape early game. Although it is a bad top deck late game, kird ape really isn't much better.
Steppe Lynx is good only when you get a flooded draw, he sucks when you draw a good amount of gas (spells).Quote:
Originally Posted by tappedoutcontroldeck
Kird Ape is almost always 2/3 and if he isn't you should not have kept that hand.
Edit: oh and Kird ape can occasionally block while Lynx cant even block a Lackey and survive (unless you're leaving it + fetchland back...)
Searing Blaze :r::r:
Instant
Searing Blaze deals 1 damage to target player and 1 damage to target creature that player controls.
Landfall - If you had a land enter the battlefield under your control this turn, Searing Blaze deals 3 damage to that player and 3 damage to that creature instead.
Has anyone tried this yet? Since people are moving towards running Steppe Lynx and building their lists to accomodate it, it seems like the Landfall wouldn't be hard to get. Kill your blocker and deal three to you seems incredibly strong. This has to be better than Lightning Helix, at the very least.
This is false. Steppe Lynx needs two fetchlands to deal 8 damage, for a 1 mana investment. If you're getting in there for that much damage with a one drop, its done the job already. Three lands isn't land flood. If anything, this a benefit to running Steppe Lynx. It makes land heavy draws less painful, and Fetchlands better in general.Quote:
Steppe Lynx is good only when you get a flooded draw
Okay? So what. This deck has a stellar Goblins matchup, and tons of other1cc removal to kill Lackey. Be reminded that Zoo is almost always the beatdown deck. I would gladly trade Kird Ape's abilities on defense for Steppe Lynx's abilities on offense.Quote:
Kird ape can occasionally block while Lynx cant even block a Lackey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
It looks pretty good but I see 2 problems:
- You can't cast it when your opponent offers no target, that is bad against quite a lot of decks.
- I also can imagine that if you have a draw with T1 Nacatl, T2 Pridemage , T3 Goyf and only 3 lands it either screw up your curve or you won't be able to cast for the full 3 damage.
Your opponent having no creatures is an excellent position for you to be in. Searing Blaze is bad in good situations and good in bad situations. That's a pretty strong reason to run a card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tao
Obviously you board it out against creatureless decks.
If you have that hand, you probably don't need Searing Blaze to win. Zoo runs 20-21 lands, it's not like you're not going to draw them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tao
In your above example, you could always hold that third land until next turn since you don't need it to play goyf.
Most importantly if that third land is a fetch you can just not crack it. Why would you crack it anyway?
I play the control role in a lot of matchups... Tempo Thresh, the mirror, Goblins, Merfolk, all these matchups are ones where you have inevitability.Quote:
Originally Posted by troopatroop
[QUOTE=Kuma;424477]Your opponent having no creatures is an excellent position for you to be in. Searing Blaze is bad in good situations and good in bad situations. That's a pretty strong reason to run a card.
I dont know about all that, The creatureless decks I run into are always nightmare match-ups :
Dream Halls - Storm combo (any kind almost) - Belcher - Enchantress (no targets besides Sigil tokens) - or 43/38 lands..
In all those match-ups Helix is far superior, I also would have to argue the mana base this card brings, My current zoo list is running 22 lands with 12 Fetchs , 8 Sources , and 2 Canopy.. and I still have trouble getting 2 red early in the game. This card is strong enough for extended, but even then, Punishing fire is more effecient..
Tendrils of Agony, Life from the Loam and Nimble Mongoose would like to have a word with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
Especially with the Lynx in the deck, I think it'll be much harder to get the Landfall online, if you want to play it instant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
Nevertheless this card really is interesting, just because the effect is THAT powerful. In my opinion the problem is, that it's powerful in MUs that are already in Zoos favour (read: against decks that run lots of creatures with < 3 toughness). It doesn't help the XX.Lands/Combo/Prison MU at all, on the contrary, you now play more dead cards preboard. And I think those are the MUs one should focus on improving.
I didn't say that creatureless decks were good matchups, I said that your opponent not having blockers is a good situation to be in. These are two very different concepts. Like I said earlier, obviously you side out Searing Blaze against those decks. It's worth taking a small hit against already bad matchups to improve your matchup against most of the rest of the decks in the format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gojjin
Lightning Helix is better in those matchups, but to say it's far superior is disingenuous. Lightning Helix isn't doing anything to make those matchups favorable. You're losing those matchups whether you run Lightning Helix or Searing Blaze.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gojjin
Are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gojjin
You're telling me it's no problem to get :r::w: early in the game, but that :r::r: is hard?
*pfft*
Zoo's mana base is based around mountains and fetching cards with the mountain type. If anything, :r::r: should be easier to get.
And Lightning Helix does what about these cards?Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
Virtually every other creature in the format would like to have a word with you.
What are you talking about? You could easily use it to clear out blockers for your Steppe Lynx while hitting your opponent for even more damage. Or you could play a land in your precombat main phase and trade your Kird Ape for their Tarmogoyf in combat while bolting them. It suffers a little during their turn, but this is a proactive card, not a reactive one. It's also card advantage neutral in many situations unlike the rest of the burn in Zoo.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
What does Lightning Helix do against any of those decks?Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
We're talking about a tiny hit to a few already poor matchups to improve nearly every other matchup we could face. If we were talking about taking a hit in matchups that are 50/50ish to improve a similar number of matchups that are 75/25, you'd have a case, but I don't think that's what is happening here.
Exactely what you would want any red spell to do in that MU: Speed up your clock. Should be good in an aggressive deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
Yeah, my point is that the Landfall pretty much depreciates it to sorcery speed, if you`ve a Lynx. Furthermore if you hold back lands in your hand in case you draw a Lynx and you draw this burn, you'll have to play that land and consequently weaken all Lynx you might draw in the future. Bottom line: although it might seem counter intuitional, Lynx and Blaze are antisynergie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
That is IF you have a land drop, making the deck even more unreliable.Some peolpe refuse to play Lynx, because he makes the deck less streamlined and the cat is way more powerful than a burn spell. If you play up to 8 Landfall cards, you'll lose games, just because you didn't draw your fourth land. Hell, I lost games because I didn't draw my fifth land with a Lynx on the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
So:
- Bad in already bad MUs
- Antisynergie with Lynx
- Makes the deck less reliable
- Usually a bad topdeck
I understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
My point is those matchups are awful and Lightning Helix does little to change that. If you were really concerned about making those matchups better game one, you'd maindeck Gaddock Teeg and/or Jotun Grunt.
I didn't know landfall and Steppe Lynx collectively stop you from playing a fully powered Searing Blaze in your combat phase. Good to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
No, they're not antisynergistic. Both cards benefit from landfall triggers, and are actually fantastic when drawn together. What happens if you never draw the Steppe Lynx you're holding back lands for? If you run Searing Blaze, there are more cards in your deck that can make those held back lands useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
I'm sorry, but the above situations are much more likely to happen than topdecking a Lynx and have it be slightly weaker because you played a Searing Blaze a turn or two turn before. The above situations are also likely to be much more beneficial than your worst case scenario is bad.
It's so hard to trigger Landfall in a deck with 21-22 lands, 12 of which are fetchlands.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
What little you lose in consistency, you more than make up for in raw power. Also, you need one landfall once to make a Searing Blaze effective. Lynx requires lots of landfall triggers to be fully effective.
I'm sure you can appreciate the difference.
I've also never advocated running Searing Blaze in Zoo lists that don't run Steppe Lynx.
So what? Most cards in Zoo are bad in it's worst matchups. That's why those decks are the worst matchups.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
Barely. And it makes it a lot more powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
Really? The topdeck defense? There should be some sort of Godwin's Law equivalent for if your argument about why a card is bad is based on it being a bad topdeck. We could have an equivalent law for people arguing for cards being good because they pitch to Force of Will.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch
The funny thing is it isn't that bad of a topdeck, especially if you're holding back lands like you suggest. It's no Tarmogoyf, but still...
THANK YOU. This one of the most annoying fallacy-like things ever and people keep mindlessly repeating it like it makes any kind of sense. I was thinking of starting a thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
That said, I don't see why this isn't a valid argument. Some cards are good when you topdeck them in the lategame, and other cards aren't. There's no reason why a card being bad in this situation shouldn't be a valid mark against it. Usually, cards which nonetheless end up being included counterbalance this by being very good in other situations. And that said, in this specific case, you can, as you said, just hold back some fetchlands.Quote:
Really? The topdeck defense? There should be some sort of Godwin's Law equivalent for if your argument about why a card is bad is based on it being a bad topdeck.
I should amend my statement to say "entirely" or "largely" based on the card in question being a bad topdeck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illissius
Yes, being a bad topdeck is a mark against a card, but a small one. I'm just tired of seeing people dismiss cards because they're bad topdecks. If being a bad topdeck was enough reason to dismiss a card, well, could you imagine Survival without Squee, Goblin Nabob or Cephalid Breakfast without Dragon Breath?
How is it much more likely to happen, that you draw multiple of your 8 Landfall cards in the deck at the same time, than in a row? My point is, that the lands you're holding back are a resource. No matter on which Landfall card you spend them on, they are spent and thus weaken the other Landfall cards you might draw afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
Even if you have Blaze and Lynx in hand and run out of lands, you might have to play the Blaze (because you have the Landfall right now), instead of spending the mana on a Goyf/Library... I think beeing dependent on Landfall limits your options.
It's not very hard to trigger Landfall, it's just hard to trigger it multiple turns in a row. Even with 21/22 lands. Especially if 12 of them are fetchlands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
True, but I'm not convinced, that the benefit in other MUs really is that heavy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
Yeah, same old reasoning =) And I see how that can be applied to CB (or any counter/discardspell, really). My point is, that Helix never is a bad topdeck (read: always does something), while the Blaze can easily be one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuma
Well, I'm going to test the Blaze intensely because the effect seems really powerful. Just don't see it working out, but I'll gladly eat my words! Whatever makes this deck more powerful is highly welcome.