Searing Blood is massively underrated
Modern forum
Posted on June 30, 2014, 9 p.m. by DX5
Why isn't Searing Blood in every single Modern RDW/Burn Deck? I have a playset of it and I love it. Most RDW or Burn Decks I see on here don't have Searing Blood at all. It's like Chandra's Fury except way better. It's so good. It also reads "When that creatures dies this turn". That means if you have to Lightning Bolt the creature to finish it off, your opponent still takes the three damage.
There must be a reason everyone is ignoring this card. Why is that?
There's a few reasons it isn't run more. Don't get me wrong, it's good, but it also has a casting cost of RR and has to have a creature to target. The card ends up being blank vs some decks. Burn can't really afford to draw blanks or they fizzle fast.
June 30, 2014 9:05 p.m.
Conqueror_of_Thrones says... #4
I absolutely love Searing Blood , one of my favorite burn cards in my burn deck. It's great when you can chain it with Satyr Firedancer to do damage to another creature, that you can hit again with another Searing Blood or other burn card
June 30, 2014 9:05 p.m.
Because Searing Blaze is a tiny bit better?
Nothing against running both.
June 30, 2014 9:07 p.m.
Okay I get how the RR casting cost can make it a dead card in a multicolored deck, and I can see how if you're playing against a creature light deck it could also end up being a dead card.
June 30, 2014 9:07 p.m.
The reason I personally don't like Searing Blaze as much is because it's not good without Landfall and in a Red Deck you probably won't have many lands or at least I don't.
It's still a great card too though, but most of the time when I ran it and wanted to use it I never had a land on the field.
June 30, 2014 9:11 p.m.
Because burn decks typically use 1 mana red spells that do 3 damage. There is little room for a 2 mana spell that only sometimes does damage. Too conditional.
June 30, 2014 9:13 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #9
It is not underrated, it's a fantastic situational Standard Boros Burn card, bu it's not for Modern or Legacy. Why? Searing Blood doesn't always go straight to the dome. Searing Blaze is the card you want to play that does the same thing better in Modern.
June 30, 2014 9:23 p.m.
JakeHarlow says... #11
It has a lot of value, but Searing Blood outperforms it in the format because it's not a dead draw as often and combos easily with fetches.
So basically, what errbody has already stated.
June 30, 2014 9:54 p.m.
FalkensteinAZ says... #12
Maybe your meta isn't so crafty, but aside from being a blank against some decks, there are several ways to avoid the damage, including the opponent bolting his own creature in response. That's bad for burn. Searing Blood is a great sideboard card, and probably a bad maindeck choice in most metas.
June 30, 2014 11:03 p.m.
Searing Blood and Searing Blaze are both too good to ignore. You absolutely run at least one playset of them in the main. Getting to kill an important creature and still be on the burn plan is worth a small risk to hitting a creatureless deck, but running all 8 is too much and is too soft to you not being able to burn your opponent out since they lack creatures to target.
The reason you run Searing Blaze is that it's 3 damage to the creature, and more importantly it can't get fizzled like Searing Blood . Burn isn't running a ton of creatures so it's reasonable that your opponent will have dead removal spells in hand. Path to Exile their own creature targeting by Searing Blood is a pretty decent exchange for a dead card, ramp and land and counter a burn spell. Searing Blaze on the other hand will still resolve since it continues to have a valid target, the player. Spells will continue to resolve unless all the targets are removed.
June 30, 2014 11:36 p.m.
It is good, but Blaze is better as everyone else has said.
You can get landfall very reliably with fetch-lands and even use stuff like Grim Lavamancer to maximize their use.
Of course, in creature-heavy metas, it wouldn't be uncommon to just see both.
July 1, 2014 3:20 a.m.
SwiftDeath says... #15
It isn't underrated at all. It was played in the sideboard of burn Legacy that won Las Vegas and came in 9th place in Portland in the SCG Opens. I saw those games and both searing blaze and searing blood were paramount to the decks success especially against Delver and Elves, which saw high play in Vegas.
July 1, 2014 3:26 a.m.
Another factor is that Modern's creatures almost always have 3 toughness to be considered playable due to Lightning Bolt . If it doesn't have 3 toughness, it better do something really good, like Snapcaster Mage , Dark Confidant , or Voice of Resurgence .
Searing Blood isn't going to hit a good chunk of what's being played in the format. Restoration Angel ? Wild Nacatl ? Kird Ape ? Knight of the Reliquary ? Wurmcoil Engine ? Arcbound Ravager ? There's just way too many cards Searing Blood is blank against for it to justify a slot in the mainboard.
That being said, it's an excellent sideboard card, in my opinion.
July 1, 2014 5:30 a.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #17
@sylvannos Wild Nacatl and Kird Ape aren't played very much, but you've made your point.
I think that Searing Blood is better off as a sideboard card against Birthing Pod and Affinity (just hope they don't have an Arcbound Ravager out), killing mana dorks and even possibly Steel Overseer s. I wouldn't maindeck it unless you expect a lot of Pod.
July 1, 2014 7:51 a.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #18
I'm ninja'd by a lot of comments and agree with many. I run two Searing Blaze in my RDW as it requires a legal creature target to cast. Searing Blood is also conditional in that it requires a creature to target. Both are two-for-one and have pros and cons.
One could sideboard it for more creature heavy decks. I'm considering using Forked Bolt mainboard due to a few Affinity decks in my meta. Searing Blaze had proven to be awesome this far.
DX5 says... #2
Whoops. By Chandra's Fury I mean Chandra's Outrage
June 30, 2014 9:01 p.m.