Dies to Removal

Same. I play rarely enough that due to cost and learning, I try to stick to one deck. For example, I know Z is moving away from burn due to the meta but I'm going to stick it out because it's what I know.

Raise the alarm?

Green eats you up but it's a neat surprise against the red, blue, or black decks.

Here's my videos from last night. I finally got my wish and played 3 mono U and looks like I was rusty from some of the sequencing I did. I'm sticking traditional because, well, it's me. I went ahead and dropped one mortar for a stoke, mostly for BW and MBC and dropped the two hushwing for 2 glare for UW and GW. I experimented with Pillar against U a couple times and concluded that was a really dumb move except for the guy who kept hitting Hall of Triumph. Bident of Thassa was really painful and I don't think I won a game where it stuck.
I sorted the playlist so that it plays from 1st game down to 4th automatically. Is that better, worse, or just doesn't matter?

Match 1 vs U Devotion. I should have dug more aggressively for chains or disenchant. Keeping a stoke was a really bad move when I had other 4 damage burn already wear was right after it to kill the bident I needed dead.

Match 2 vs U Devotion. Here, I think I show how I use Flamespeaker versus any of the "big" creature decks. In this case, it showcases how to get rid of your land pockets. Which isn't sexy but it mattered a lot.

Match 3 vs MBC. I
haven't decided yet whether I want to board in two mortar or 1 mortar/1 stoke. Pulling out the phoenix to go to 3 wasn't a good choice. People keep asking how you play the control role post board. This is how.

• Don't waste any spells. Don't burn to the face until you have a phoenix to buy back or a pyromancer to make a token. Without charm or crack, you're not driving to lethal any time soon.

• Use the correct removal. I let a lifebane zombie beat on me as long as I could because I really, really didn't want to use a chain on it when I could use any other removal or Chandra. As it was, I had to do it anyway due to land flood but them's the ropes. Drawing a pillar that turn that baited the demon he was holding helped.

• Bait them into discarding, either with pack rat or by killing phoenixes. Shock/jet are amazing for this. You want to gas them out as
  quickly as possible so that you have freedom to act more aggressively. Not a great option pre sideboard.

• Don't draw 13 lands.

• Be comfortable with the match going 40 minutes.

Match 4 vs U Devotion. Here, I show you how to never play against U devotion and how Flamespeaker can make you incredibly greedy to dig. If I had played smarter and not thrown away my exiles just to have mana open for the free card draw, I would have had it easily. Also, my last turn play turned a win into a loss. Oops. Back to needing to slow down.

And finally, I found out Cockatrice hosts recent replays so [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-BVY_rK10g]I pulled up the BW game that was recently in my mind and then played one against Dredge (I know, it doesn't count).[/
url]

Got my wish, 3 mono blue and one mono black after I cut hushwing. I did manage to lose a game with flamespeaker because I chained too often instead of using other removal because I got greedy for card draw. Oops. Also, a really, really, really massive misplay on the last turn where I thought I needed to burn him out when what I needed to do was control the board that turn and finish him with the phoenixes in my hand. I'll post it first so you can see.

And by beating, I mean I win every game he doesn't die that turn if I don't punt like a moron*. Which so far has been every BW game I've drawn it.

I hear all these complaints about the card but I feel like I should evaluate it based on the number of wins/losses it gives me. Is that madness?

*Annoys me I have to add that disclaimer after that dumb play during SCG open. I count it as a win in the "is flamespeaker good against BW" category.

It's a beating vs BW. Always has been.

I know you all keep asking why I'm on flamespeaker still. Looking at the most recent meta update, the ones I don't want to use it against are MBC and Jund monsters or walkers.

So that leaves...

BW, U Dev, Rx, GW, UWx. 75% of the meta seems pretty good for a sideboard card (for my playstyle). Or, it would be good if I ever got to play more than 25% of the meta. NOT THAT I'M ANGRY ABOUT THAT OR ANYTHING!!1

How come you get to have all the fun and I'm all mono black and GBx all damn day?

while I admit I got many many byes - I'll much rather face B Devo and BG over BW (I'll rather play UW then BW T_T).

Heh, and I'd rather face BW. The flamespeaker vs blood baron epic battle after we'd both gassed out was awesome. I should have recorded it but I forget to record my cockatrice games like a dope. It sounds like everyone is having issues with the UW match instead you. It's
still the one match I get little practice with outside of one night and a little solitaire. Woo.

How come you get to have all the fun and I'm all mono black and GBx all damn day?

How are you playing the control role? I've got 3 matches recorded where I'm doing it.

Hushwing still shits all over mono blue and green devotion since it turns off around 12 cards after they sideboard with little hope of removing it. Against mono blue, I'm ok just considering it a global enchantment while I faceroll through the rest of the match. The problem is that neither are a serious part of any metagame at this point for it to matter.

It's ok as skullcrack 5-6 against black but I'm personally taking the control route and not using it. I'm currently undefeated with that strategy so I'm sticking with it. It stops sin collector, lifebane, and obzedat from BW and its interaction with lifebane ranges from "meh, you can't look at my hand" to "I got zom-boned". I'd rather go flamespeaker here since they are a lot more prone to durdle than mono black. Also, pillar is hilarious here.

Glare seems pretty solid with all this GW and creature from UW talk I keep hearing. And I guess it
hits reckoner if that's ever an issue.

Based on that, looks like it's time to pull out hushwing. It's still great against blue but probably not necessary (and I never play against it), medicore and really too slow against any of the BTE/denizen or BTE/Fanatic decks where I don't need help, and meh vs BW with a downside of possibly being stripped by LBZ.

Probably time to put a couple trouble back in the sideboard as extra assistance vs UW and Jund Walkers (which doesn't need it). Or glare, I suppose, since it's hitting a lot of the matchups right now.

Yeah SB is sweet against them.

@Elricity
After seeing the game where you decided to ignore Chandra, I agree you can ignore Chandra when you're plan is to send everything at the face, while you can't ignore Xenagos because he kills you too fast. But if my plan is to keep him off anything relevant while applying beats then I want to kill Chandra to keep him from drawing into gas. I think that both plans are viable and which one is applied is dictated by your draw.

Fully agreed. It depends entirely on the contents of your hand. I watched one of MDU's games where he was forced to grind through a Xenagos, Chandra, and Vraska because of the the two chains in his hand.

Searing blood is actually really pretty good against walkers. About the only deck where you want to both stall and race at the same time. Or it removes two permanents at the same time which is really really good.

I don't think you need it though with a traditional sideboard.

I don't like cutting shock in this matchup any more than I do vs UW. [mana]R[/mana]: Counter target phoenix removal is way too powerful when you already know all your other burn is going upstairs.

My exact board plan was -4 chain/yp for 3 mortar, 2 chandra, 2 banish, and 1 pillar. Should have been a second pillar and 2 mortar in hindsight because he was on reaper and I'm sure Ichikawa's brings in some number of Mistcutter.

If you run Trouble, you should put it in here. You can use that to cut either removal, going full hostile, or cut the phoenixes and fully next level them so almost all of their cards does durdly nothing goodness, allowing you to ignore Chandra even easier.

For reference, here's the game I played. This is why I feel you can ignore Chandra but not Xenagos.

That sounds about right although I think I prefer mortars over chain if you're trying to deal with courser because it has a better upside with overload and can't be counterspelled with charm/decay/Vraska.

I like to be in a position where I can ignore any planeswalker other than Xenagos and yes, this is the one deck where I definitely want to point as much upward as possible. I particularly want to ignore enemy Chandra's.

Magma spray and ooze are the most scary from the sideboard.

I was a bit concerned about bringing in Chandra myself due to the haste effects and dreadbore that they have but you might be right. I tried running as little permanents as possible.

Purp, I'm honestly confused why you're trying to pick a fight with me.

Anyway, about rabblemaster, how is that win more? On an empty board, it's got a better clock than Xenagos.

LP, I've had some test games where Flamespeaker has been decent but the card is terribly swingy. It does require a playstyle which I've noticed doesn't generally synch with a lot of the DTR posters.

Flamespeaker is no where near being the answer to Flochs UW list.

What exactly is the cause of your obsession with giving non sequiturs? You're arguing with me on a point I didn't make.

Although I believe I disagree with you anyway since his deck is so low on win conditions.

My answer to fiendslayer vs control is still flamespeaker. The downside is it's also answered by last breath or celestial flare but it's also not potentially a dead card that also doesn't turn planar cleansing into a blowout. Although I can see doing both if they are on paladins and you're trying to out control the control matchup. Worth looking at but I think I would have to know for certain they are on Paladin before I did it.

Rabblemaster is interesting. You can't guarantee a token like you can with YP unless your opponent is tapped out (which matters a lot vs MBC) but he's a superior topdeck. It also interacts a lot better against Jace.

I'm aware this is coming from the guy playing Flamespeaker against creature decks but circle of flame only improves the matches you already have on a lock.

I paid for their premium for 3 months and then dropped it.

Thanks Z, answers my question.

That much is obvious, I'm just curious if they're forced to or they drunkly fire off a post just because.

For example, and I respect if you don't want to answer this, it appears CFB's writers write more about what they're comfortable about or they're straight up that they're doing stream of conciousness. I don't know if that's CFB editors not forcing them to write what they don't know or forcing them to know about what they write, both, or neither.

If that makes sense.

It seems so systemic that I feel it has to be a management issue with some of these sites. Thinking about these things is kind of a hobby of mine.

And clearly I'm making assumptions about a process I know nothing about.

I'm just convinced people are required by their editor to write about decks they don't like and/or understand so you get the equivalent of writing someone's phone number on a bar's bathroom wall.

if you're referring to the Donald Smith poster, yea that's me.

You're doing God's work.

I'm still confused why "I have a ton of removal and 8-10 win conditions" is hard to see as a control deck as opposed to "I have a ton of (more expensive) removal and a few win conditions".

Gerry Thompson just wrote an article on "Burning Control." At first he said "The issue with Burn is that its clock is relatively slow. When paired against an opponent playing a fast creature deck, Burn will probably find that it's much slower." and I was getting a little excited. Then he immediately followed up with "When that's the case, it has to use its valuable spells on creatures rather than the player just to not lose, but then Burn has a difficult time actually winning." and then I lost all hope.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/29062_.html

I saw that someone in the comments did his best to tell them
why this was dumb. If it was one of you, good job for trying.

If you're smart and don't mono lava spikes, the aggro matchup are super favorable. You can still lose, but youre basically playing the best control deck possible vs then.

Nah man, haven't you heard, if you use all your spells killing their creatures, like, you're guaranteed to lose that game because burn has no other win conditions. Maybe if it ran elixir and card draw, it could be awesome like UW control.

All the cool kids lava spike all their cards, all the time. Don't you want to be one of the cool kids? Maybe even one of the Kool Kidz?

You want to save YP until it can make a token if at all possible. Phoenix is a late game finisher versus these decks. You should only play it early if you must or if their board is of no serious threat at the moment.

You have 16+ terminates and swords to plowshares for the first 2-3 turns and then it's generally curtains for them. It's only an issue if you end up with a hand with very few of them, which can happen and you just have to do the best you can.

Game 2/3 just gets worse for them and they have to hope on peak eruptions.

And finally, I channeled MrMDU on my last game of the night. Kept a one land hand with temple of malice, 3 lightning strikes, magma jet, chained to the rocks and boros charm. Found myself thinking in an Australian accent "land! land! land! got there..." as I drew a mounting for my first draw.

THanks for report mate! Keep it up

I tried it on a mull to 6 and then didn't see a land in my next 5 draw steps. Which oddly means the mulligan was the correct call? Shrug.

On a related tangent, has anyone had any success with Hushwing? If green already got hated out, then that just leaves blue or BW for my playstyle I want to use it which probably isn't worth the space since I never play either deck online. That said, if someone's used it as extra skullcracks against black, I'm curious there too.

Pillar has already killed a couple of Gary to zero out their devotion so I'm happy with the card being versatile in the control role for me.

Eh I finally got a chance to play flamespeaker against GW agro last night and it was a house. First strike puts every single one of our spells in kill range, the only thing that gets out of hand is unflinching courage, but they don't run the hexproof stuff so its not too hard to find an answer.

But seriously though, what is the chance that you draw 2 of your 25+ removal spells to make this happen by turn 4?

Ok, sure, it's 97.5% but do you really want to depend on those kind of odds to base your strategy around it?

Ok, I should calm down. This argument came up from DTR a lot when I first brought up the card so it's a pet peeve.

I can appreciate not wanting to use the creature because of play style, being bad against monsters, and difficult to use against control. Each person has to sideboard for their style of play.

However, Flamespeaker has first strike and trample. Couple with burn, it can attack or block through anything with 5 or less toughness and forces your opponent to commit blockers first. It runs the same principle as ash zealot. Even Polukranos or wurms are not a threat to Flamespeaker. They just aren't.

You cannot attack into one, nor profitably block one. It costs less mana as well.

You can't be serious.

I simply don't like Flamespeaker. It is nullified by ... Fleecemane Lion

Explain.

I've done a lot of playing vs the Naya version that was out a while back so here's my experience with walker decks in general plus the one whole match and theorycraft I played vs Jund last night.

Sideboarded magma spray from them makes the matchup quite a bit more difficult. You kind of want to keep your phoenixes because you know all your burn wants to go up if possible. Use shocks to counterspell spray if at all possible.

Young Pyromancer sucks lots of ass vs Chandra. Normally YP grinds out Jund but not when against that card advantage engine. Chandra is easier to ignore if she's not killing your cards. Chains are obviously inferior since they only hit one good creature and they pack so much enchantment removal. So, I recommend cutting one or the other for things like mortars and/or pillar or maybe just bring in more burn if you have Trouble on the play.

I disagree that you can ignore an early Xenagos.
Multiplicative damage is going to race you too fast unless your hand is all boros charms. You can ignore a single token for sure, but an unchecked Xenagos is a 4 turn clock at 20 life. It takes an impressive burn hand that can actually win turn 7.

Rakdos Returns punishes you for durdling. You can't afford to keep slow hands (like my 5 lander after getting upset mulling each game in the match).

My loss today was to Jund walkers but I can't do much about it when I draw no lands or all lands. When I was able to play magic, I just pointed everything at his face. The curve on the deck is a wee slow if you kill Xenagos.

Man why people gotta scoop before you can go off with Flamespeaker. Yea I know you're not gonna come back after I just +2'd you, but let me have a little fun please.

Now that you mention it, there are very few games that they let me bring them to 0 after a successful flamespeaker connect.

I can't really blame them.

Very good against creature decks with low removal like blue devotion.

Very unreliable against high removal decks which is a lot of the format.

And do you guys typically try to Burn out or ignore early Jaces? Does it depend on if you have a creature or not? Because even when I have Phoenix beats, I typically accept that it's a 1/2 and keep burning their face. I guess if I start burning out early Jaces, I could start bringing in Flamespeakers.

If you're able to go one drops successfully against control, you might be able to squeeze out ignoring Jace before he ultimates. However, if you get to the point where you realize you can't, you're now stuck spending multiple cards dealing with him when it could have generally been one. I play a slower game against control so I have to remove Jace. I also don't like him building up to the point where he has the option of using multiple -2 if he
removes my creatures. YMMV.

Seems a bit all over the place but I guess you'll figure out what sideboard cards you like with your playstyle.