Revolt Whack 🟢⚪🔴 Much Abrew | Modern MTG Gameplay 

Kinda funny that Seth did not see the reason why, probably partly because he was salty and well, he is Seth :D

I wanted him to draw a land just so he would realise how dumb that statement is

Wouldn't be a Seth video without him doing or saying something stupid (one that still hurts me is when he played the curse deck and was sad he didn't have enough mana even though he had dark ritual in hand)

Yukyukyukyukyuk

I hope this comment gets more likes than the video

😐

You're very punny!

@@chapmanandchapmanproductio974 Jesus dude take your adhd meds and get off the crack

My thoughts exactly. Like Seth lol.

Yeah everyone forgets about reach

Lol, that's pretty much true.

Not sure he reads the cards. Imagine if the opponent knew about the Command (somehow lol) and conceded. Seth would spend the rest of the video being confused, ;P

Came here to say this. If opponent swings out, Atarka's to give reach to chump a murktide and bolt face, then you have lethal on board if they don't have anything.

The classic problem with people getting far too used to focusing on some of the aspects of a card, like when I play any deck with Legion Loyalist and my opponent forgets the "and can't be blocked my creature tokens" part of it's ability.

It is a fun one to say :)

That would be pretty busted lol.

Isn’t that literally just Tangled Florahedron?

@@Graatand Tangled Florahedron is not fetchable though, and also not a land when in creature mode

@@Samantho87 It's absolutely a land while in creature mode, you can clearly see Seth tap it for mana during the video

@@MrNesgamefreak oh we were talking about the Florahedron :)

Technically yes, but that's not how he's saying one turn clock. In the game, he did play it in response to the Charbelcher activation on the opponent's turn. He would get the rebound during his turn (his one turn clock), but not their next turn. The Blossoming Calm's effect would be gone when the opponent untaps the Charbelcher and he would lose to it.

Yeah, you do get hexproof for two turns, but the second casting comes on our upkeep, so if we cast it during our opponent's turn we'll have to cast it again turn our turn, which means we can die during our opponent's next turn if they are still around and still have Blecher.

@@joshuablack3163 While you (and Seth) are correct that Blossoming Calm wouldn't have protected Seth for another term like LightKira thinks, the reason you both give is incorrect. Blossoming Calm lasts until *your* next turn, not until the end of turn. So if Seth had rebounded and the opponent tried using Charbelcher as soon as it untapped on their turn, Seth would still be protected. But if the opponent was paying attention, he'd wait until the start of Seth's next turn when the effect wore off and use Charbelcher then to kill Seth before he can act. With that said - if his opponent had survived longer and Seth had the chance to rebound it would definitely have been worth giving it a shot in the hope that his opponent didn't read the card carefully and tried using Charbelcher again too soon.

@@masaufuku1735 The opponent probably misread (assumed) the card says until end of turn like I had. "Until your next turn" is better than I would have given it credit for. Thank you for pointing that out. Time to buy a couple copies of Blossoming calm.

@@joshuablack3163 Yeah, it seems like a decent sideboard card that can shut down some decks for a turn or two. Again though, in the case of Belcher it would only work for two turns *if* the opponent didn't read the card carefully and tried to activate a second time on their next turn instead of waiting until the the effect wears off at the start of your turn. Since it seems like a rarely used card currently with unusual wording, it might be reasonable to rely on the opponent misreading it - especially since there will be an entire turn (thanks to rebound) between when they originally read it and when it becomes relevant again. I would note that I don't actually play magic and haven't for like 6 years, I just enjoy watching Seth's videos - so it's hard for me to judge how often it would actually be a useful sideboard card.

Yeah, gatherer's rulings explicitly say that if you have no cards in hand the ability doesn't work

I was wondering too…?

I agree, especially because, as someone who's played some version of this deck for a while now, having good opening hands is KEY to doing well with this style of deck. I've won games with 5 card hands because they were exactly what I need ( because Abundance is so nice to be able to keep a 1 lander when your other cards are 2x Burningtree and a Whacker).

I try not to let math get in the way my complaining ;)

@@MTGGoldfish lol and that’s why we love you! But we also want to see you win, so just offering an observation that I’ve noticed for some time. Sorry if it came across the wrong way!

Play Pauper; it’s the shit. No murktide, monkey, Lurrus, et al

One issue is that goblin bushwacker requires 2 red when kicked while reckless bushwacker requires 1 red and one colorless. With reckless, he's able to chain burning tree into bushwacker with just two lands - with goblin he'd need three lands. And herbalist into bushwacker needs 4 lands rather than 3.

That makes a lot of sense but it just goes to show you how strong that stupid monkey is, it's a turn one threat they have to answer or it just spirals. Worst case it eats a removal spell which doesn't affect your turn two gameplan best case it lives and connects while having been pumped.

vexing devil has always been cool in whack, and a lot of people rag on ragavan (lol sorry) so I don't think that's an unpopular opinion exactly. I understand why some people feel that way, but I still think ragavan is better. it doesn't matter that you can't protect him and aren't trying to go long. obviously those factors make ragavan much stronger in the decks that really build around him, but the base value of the card is so high that even without synergy he's still worth playing. you can play ragavan if only for the same reason burn plays lurrus. in the unlikely event that the game goes long and your synergy plan fails, ragavan can totally turn the game around all by himself, and for just 1 mana. 8 whack relies so heavily on the whack plan. what happens when your opponent clears the board, or even just trades 1-for-1 with all your creatures? some of those games you win by default because your opponent took too many beats or shocked themselves too much. but sometimes your opponent is cautious or has lifegain and your only hope of winning is a value engine like ragavan. no other card in the deck can really make a comeback. the whole rest of the deck is either part of the go-wide aggro plan, or reach. and reach is obviously achieving a similar purpose to a value engine, but when there's lifegain in the metagame, a value engine can be preferable, especially when it's something like ragavan that can also represent a little bit of reach. lurrus is obviously a different animal since you're guaranteed to have it and it only costs you one sideboard slot, but ragavan has the added bonus of basically stealing like 5% of your games on the back of an unanswered turn 1 monkey. at worst he dies to a wrenn & six, but you can always board him out against jund (one of the reasons I would probably switch the sideboard up a bit, it feels like the deck would benefit from some more generically good cards in the board). vexing devil also makes your deck more vulnerable to decks with lifegain, and so many decks have lifegain right now due to urza's saga, lurrus, solitude, omnath, and more. finally, ragavan gives you treasures. for a deck with only 19 lands, of which only 6 are permanent mana sources, any bit of mana helps. if you're stuck on 1 land, ragavan can salvage a hopeless game. whereas even with vexing devil, you're unlikely to outrace an opponent if you're mana screwed. ragavan just does it all. I can understand why people want it banned, I totally disagree with the idea since modern seems very healthy to me, but I don't think they're remotely overrating or overestimating the card's power level or universal utility. personally I would play 8-rag if I could haha

@@ToxicallyMasculinelol lol you went way more in depth than I did but exactly my thoughts. At work so couldn't break it down like that 😂. I am one of those people who hate Ragavan. It did make me adjust and run way more removal than I normally do but I'm actually starting to think all the free nonsense needs to go more than Ragavan himself. I would like to be able to play in a world that doesn't have Ragavan in it though lol.

on the otherhand, if you have unspent mana from burning tree or extra lands or something, its able to be dashed in pretty easily to just grab an extra card or generate a treasure to help trigger revolt the next turn

@@ToxicallyMasculinelol what do you think about bauble in this deck? It could trigger revolt on turn 1 if needed makes the deck smaller and also allows you to surge a bushwhacker

I've played every version of whack under the sun, and the less goblin focused lists tend to be better on average, and you really don't need to run the most expensive non-land cards I ( don't run monke) or even go into Naya to splash for removal. The biggest strength in learning to play these decks is understanding when to go aggressive and what opening hands are actually good (ie. Abundance plus some number of the humans + a whacker).

It stops bushwacker, the revolt cards and burning tree. It basically shuts down everything Seth is trying to do.

Huh, I didn't catch it at the time, but you're right, Gallia should only draw if you have a card to discard. Pretty sure it's a bug.

Agreed, the monkey really needs to get cheaper.

I blame the Magic gods for not giving us a lands off the top in game three :)