(Bloodrush Bellow | Art by Wisnu Tan)

You’re in the throws of a Flesh and Blood game. You’ve been told time and time again that chasing four value wins games, so most choices seem easy. Then, you find yourself with the option to block three or use the card for the same three value on offense. Three is not four, so surely this choice isn’t that critical. You proceed to lose another close game of FAB. You brush it off, but then hours later… you have night terrors about that exact choice.

Does this sound like you? Maybe not to the extent of night terrors, but this was me two weekends ago at the Realm Rumble. Even with two and a half years of experience with FAB, break-even decisions remain a challenging puzzle for me to navigate because they demand breaking down the context of… everything. With some concrete examples from my Top 4 run at the Realm Rumble 20k, let’s walk through some game-determining scenarios that go beyond just making the best value oriented play.

The On-Rate Life

Brutes get a bad rap in FAB for being alarmingly on rate. Consider Rhinar, Reckless Rampage‘s signature move, Alpha Rampage, which is three cards for nine damage. That’s three value per card, the same you’d have gotten from their block value. This continues down the line with other popular picks like Pack Hunt and Mandible Claw. What this means for Brute is that you’re often making a choice that is neutral value by the numbers, but there’s varying value of using those points offensively versus defensively. A lot of midrange decks in run into this conundrum, like Guardian, Brute, and Warior.

That said, I am known for playing Levia, Shadowborn Abomination, the above-rate Brute. Levia has access to cards that have extra upside at the cost of blood debt, like Dread Screamer and Endless Maw. While the core strategy is to overwhelm your opponent with high value turn cycles, a Levia deck still runs cards like Boneyard Marauder and Mark of the Beast that, when played alone, consume your entire action point for that same three value per card. 

So if a card is locked at three value, how do you use it correctly? Here’s some starter points to lead you in the right direction, then we’ll build out the exact scenario I faced versus Brodie Spurlock in the Realm Rumble Top 4.

1. Do you favor a long game or short game? This is a quintessential question born from the ‘Who’s the beatdown’ way of analyzing your role in a card game. It can be matchup dependent or even be contingent on game state changes, but generally offense means shorter games and defense means longer games.
2. Does three damage let you present lethal? Presenting lethal is the goal, second to landing the lethal blow itself. When you present lethal, you take away agency from your opponent. Who cares about the rate if it’s eating a card from your opponent guaranteed? 
3. Does three block keep you above an important threshold? Your opponent is looking to push their own agenda. Protecting your life can save you from an incoming dominate for lethal or a cheesy finish with Reckless Swing or Flick Knives, or just generally keep you healthy so you can say “No blocks” to keep a more synergistic hand.

Notice that the correct choice for these break-even decisions comes into larger picture decision-making rather than turn cycles. If you just focus on the turn cycle value, it doesn’t matter what you do. But we know that’s ridiculous! When you dive in on these big picture factors, there’s a lot more to weigh, and it only gets more complicated with the nuances of each hero. Speaking of, let’s take a look at my Top 4 game against Brodie.

The Break-Even that Broke Me

Brodie Spurlock and I were playing in the Top 4 of the Realm Rumble 20k. Money, a PTI, a Gold Foil, and more were on the line. The matchup was Azalea, Ace in the Hole versus Levia, Shadowborn Abomination, a matchup I’ve played a lot online and thought I understood the game plan for. 

Brodie attacked me with an Endless Arrow with Dead Eye, Lace with Bloodrot, and two Premeditate. This was enough value for me to want to block completely, denying two extra damage, two Ponders for a better arsenal, and the Endless Arrow that would otherwise guarantee Brodie has an arrow next turn. I blocked with two cards, Carrion Husk, and Sink Below. In hand, I had a Hungering Slaughterbeast with a Boneyard Marauder in arsenal.

I wasn’t overly concerned with the block decision, but what stumped me was how I wanted to play my next turn. My normal game plan into aggressive decks is to shorten the game and outvalue them. One of the best ways you can do that is with a Boneyard Marauder in arsenal as you wait for a Bloodrush Bellow so you can pull off a three-card, 18-damage combo with Bloodrush Bellow off a blue, drawing into a blue, paying for two Mandible Claw, attacking with your Boneyard Marauder from arsenal, and then still keeping a card to re-arsenal. This play checks every box: it’s above rate, it’s a lot of damage, and it’s more efficient than most decks can handle.

So the first step of my game plan was complete: I had a Boneyard Marauder in arsenal… and yet I paused. With the Sink Below, I was facing a way to alter my game plan. Here were the options:

1. I could Sink the Hungering Slaughterbeast to try to find a blue. This would let me roll Scabskin Leathers and try to play an above-rate turn with Mandible Claw plus Boneyard Marauder, making my cards worth 4.5 value each. Dependent on some luck, but what crazy value!
2. I could Sink and end up with a red. This would force me to play Boneyard Marauder making my cards worth three value each. My deck was 21 blues and 21 reds, so this outcome was just as likely.
3. I could just keep the Hungering Slaughterbeast to guarantee that I attack with Mandible Claw for just three value. Sinking and drawing a yellow would do the same thing value-wise.

As you can see, there’s quite the ceiling with option 1, but Sinking at all might force into option 2 where the floor is just three value. I could also just keep the hand for the break-even decision of option 3, which also lets me stick to my overall game plan of Bloodrush Bellow plus Boneyard Marauder. 

The other factor to consider was I’d have one blood debt due to my Carrion Husk block. The Boneyard Marauder play would turn it off, but potentially give me up to three more blood debt to have to deal with next turn when I wouldn’t be forced to really contend with just one if I needed to block out again.

I sat on this choice for a while. 

The Outcome

I decided to be conservative and go with option 3. However, what I missed in this decision is that we both want to play a shorter game, and in a shorter game, I can’t just wait for Bloodrush Bellow forever – especially with Azalea, Ace in the Hole‘s forced disruption. Even if I Sink Below into a red, I would be throwing six damage, which is more than three damage even at the break-even value of three per card. 

In the end, this decision cost me more than just three damage, as I took one blood debt on the turn, and then got stuck with cards I couldn’t use that I could have arsenaled due to a dominated Red in the Ledger on the following turn. I can’t say it singlehandedly lost me the game, but it definitely threw more value than where the game ended (3-0). What had seemed like a break-even decision actually had major stipulations about needing to adapt my game plan for the matchup. I really wasn’t kidding, I’ve had a few night terrors about this! 

But it’s ok, we live and learn from our decisions, and now you’ve learned something too.

Further Reading:

The Genius of Flesh and Blood’s Pitch System

Make Every Flesh and Blood Game Count!

Flesh and Blood’s Living Legend System, and the Power of Storytelling

Ethan Van Sant

Ethan ‘Man Sant’ Van Sant is known for his commitment to Levia and his coverage of FaB events as Savage Feats. He has a light background with Yugioh and Pokemon, but Flesh and Blood is the first TCG that has fully consumed him… As willed by Blasmophet.