Standard Land destruction choice

Deck Help forum

Posted on Dec. 11, 2013, 8:32 p.m. by CW

Satyr Hedonist vs Young Pyromancer

I Counter Your Land...Wait What? is the deck and this is the choice I need some opinions on, the Satyr Hedonist gives me the 3 R I need for a Mizzium Mortars overload, plus at turn 3 I can use a Bramblecrush or Demolish , hell even a Frenzied Tilling , but with the Young Pyromancer I get something to swing with every time I take out a land, thoughts?

I also need 5 sideboard cards, preferably something to deal with Desecration Demon .

Slayne says... #2

I'd go with the Young Pyromancer . His ability is more permanent. With the Satyr it's a one time use only. Plus, the Young Pyromancer tokens can stall the demon pretty well in game one.

As for Desecration Demon , Plummet takes care of him quite well.

December 11, 2013 9:02 p.m.

CW says... #3

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've been looking at the deck and with 21 cards that are +4 mana costs I need the satyrs mana ramp.

I am going to SB 4x Plummet though thanks.

December 12, 2013 2:07 p.m.

Slayne says... #4

Why don'y you run Voyaging Satyr instead of the Satyr Hedonist ?

December 12, 2013 5:55 p.m.

CW says... #5

Cause the Voyaging Satyr only gives me 1 extra mana, while the Satyr Hedonist gives me 2, even if it dies.

December 12, 2013 5:58 p.m.

Slayne says... #6

Hmm. I see where you are coming from. Looks like a good deck. Hope it works out for ya!

December 12, 2013 6:02 p.m.

beakedbard says... #7

Its an odd choice really if you're going with land destruction you want to be destroying as soon as possible and t3 land destruction really messes with people especially if you go first. So for that reason I'd say Satyr Hedonist where as it may not be as permanent you want to be destroying as soon as possible then you get your t4 and play another one and try to keep them at 3 mana. Also Young Pyromancer is an instant target for removal where as Satyr Hedonist doesn't seem like much of a threat to most people.

December 12, 2013 6:06 p.m.

This discussion has been closed