[Deck] Burn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marke

jeez you keep making this stupid mistake.. It's not as simple as saying that since both halfs of the card are good on it's own that thus this card is good as well...
A card where the opponent can choose is not as good as some average in between the two halfs which you are sort of assuming. It's worse then the worst part of the card as a competent opponent will always choose the option that is worst for you..

Yes R for 4 to the dome is ALWAYS good (but not spectactular) in this type of deck. R for a 4/3 is however NOT, there are tons of situations for a burn deck where affecting the board is completely irrelevant and not being able to affect their life total is terrible. Those situations WILL come up often and make it much worse then it looks at first hand.

This card will VERY rarely do more then 4 damage, afterall if it would why would your opponent let it be a creature? The cases this does more then 4 damage are those where doing so will be irrelevant, ie your opponent was at really low life and let this resolve as a creature where it might do more then 4 but you would have won either way... The cases where this does 0 will happen quite frequently though because either you topdeck it too late (they let it be a creature and ignore it) or they simply have removal for it.

Simply put most times this will be 4 damage for R, let's say 70% of the time. Some times it will do more then 4 (maybe 2% of the time) but that will be irrelevant. The other times it will simply do 0 though because you're opponent can interact with it.. On average this will likely just be worse then lavaspike which might still be playable but barely so. The worst thing also is that this has more variance which is usually bad for a card. Doing 3 dmg all the time is better then 4 most times and occasionally 0 because, with the first card you always win when resolving 7 damage spells. With the latter you still win with 7 damage spells (rarely 6) but often you need 8 because you're devil didn't do it's damage, 1 extra card for burn is terrible because it the finishing spell is often the last spell in hand. Needing 1 extra card can easily equal to giving your opponent 2 extra turns..

---

Jeez you keep making the same stupid mistakes too, but I'm not surprised. Like I said, I fully expect someone to continue arguing meaninglessly about this card, and guess what - you're right on cue! :laugh:

I've already stated what you need to understand about Vexing Devil, and if you continue to fail to understand those simple points, then let's just agree to disagree.

-jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asthereal

Okay, since some here seem not to be able to think for themselves, let's simplify:

The new devil is either a really good Lava Spike, or a really good Goblin Guide.
Lava Spike is always good in Burn. Goblin Guide, however, is not, because it is an extremely bad topdeck. So:

If you play Guide and love it, you should also play this Devil. Period.
If you hate Goblin Guide, don't play this devil.

Stick to this and all will be lovely. :wink:

---

I always find it more pleasant to keep things simple, don't you? :smile:

I'm not so sure that Goblin Guide is the closest comparison, though, but I can't think of a more accurate one as of the moment.

It's worth noting, though, that Vexing Devil will be a Lava Spike when you would rather that it was a Goblin Guide, and vice versa. Either way, paying :r: for either one will still be a good bargain (which also applies to Goblin Guide, even though we run the risk of top-decking into it at the wrong time).

Kind Regards,
jares

@jares: The simple version was not for you. You do get the point. :wink:

Yes, it is always the opposite of the optimal for you. Still, when it is Lava Spike +1 it is always awesome, and when it is Goblin Guide without haste and letting your opponents draw cards, but with a substantial body, in the first three turns that is also awesome. Later in the game it starts to suck. But you know, if you want a proper mid/late game, play StoneBlade. That deck has an awesome mid/late game. :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jares

Jeez you keep making the same stupid mistakes too, but I'm not surprised. Like I said, I fully expect someone to continue arguing meaninglessly about this card, and guess what - you're right on cue! :laugh:

I've already stated what you need to understand about Vexing Devil, and if you continue to fail to understand those simple points, then let's just agree to disagree.

-jares

---

You keep referring to how a 4/3 for R is always a good bargain.. that point is just moot. The thing is that a 4/3 without haste or any way to get damage in reliably can just be very bad for a burn based deck... You're playing a card for minor benefit over other cards with a huge risk of doing nothing constructive for your deck.
This won't see any serious play in legacy after people realize how it sucks. Burn should not be playing cards that let your opponent interact so much with you because whenever burn is trading cards they are losing.. Burn is a tempo deck with no card advantage whatsoever thus you want to race and avoid interacting with them at any cost. Goblin guide does this well as it is easy to get in for 2 even if it does get removed, vexing devil however is actively making your opponents deck better against you.

[SNIP - Insults removed. Warning issued. ~NihilCredo]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tammit67

Your other creatures are easier to trade with, and most pilots will absolutely trade with a burn deck. When nearly everything is a one shot effect, letting them get more than that on any creature is ultimately fatal.

The card doesn't even change the way other decks interact with burn. Stoneblade still goes for batterskull while protecting it, maverick clogs up the board or plays jitte/ooze, and thresh hopes to spot removal/pierce long enough to land a threat and ride it.

You want a creature turn one, to maximize your damage. Unfortunately you do not get to make this be a creature turn one, and it instead domes them for 4. Half of you see R- deal 4 damage and that's it. But if you pass the turn to someone at 15-16 without a creature on the board, you really haven't done all that much and they don't feel pressured. You have not advanced your board presence.

Pressure is the reason why haste is insane, why goblin guide is insane. If you cannot keep them on the back foot, you will not win often with an aggressive deck. And letting your opponent decide what happens to devil ensures they are not pressured

---

Pressure isn't exactly relevant here. Burn would rather not have to play the creature in the first place, and they surely don't want a creature on turn 1, given that the only creatures the deck has run consistently that you can even drop on turn 1 is Goblin Guide.

Burn has never been about board presence and it's creature base is horrible.

I mean, why is Goblin Lackey a card? Why is Goblins a deck? Why is any tribal deck a deck? Elves isn't even that bad. The fact that goblin lackey is something people freak out about because there's a decent chance it'll actually hit them should be enough. It's a vanilla 1 mana 1/1, hell, I've been hit by a goblin lackey before because I had no turn 1 creature or creature kill to play while still keeping a solid hand (not in burn obviously). It won't always live, but the games that it does it'll be worth it.

On the play: (Realistic)
Best case scenario: It blows up for 4 and turn 2 you put them to 10.
Worst case scenario: They let it resolve and remove it on their main phase.
Average case scenario: They let it resolve and it hits them for 4 once before dying.

-- I'm also surprised though at the lack of consideration about how this card operates in multiples. Keldon Marauders in multiples suck because you'd need 3+ mana to do anything with it and another card.

But on turn 2, perhaps after a turn 1 goblin guide, how does your opponent handle 2 of them after removing the Guide? Again, on the play, they'd be tapped out. If they don't have a removal in-hand, can they afford to let both of them be creatures? Or do they take 8 to the head? Can they even risk that if they've, say, fetched for their first land? They'd be at 9 on your turn 3.

Or alternatively, how does your opponent handle 2 of them after not removing the guide?

The new devil is a matter of power level to mana cost ratio. It has too much potential to be dismissed in any form of burn/sligh. If Browbeat cost less than 3, it would probably be played in multiples because the effects of Browbeat are so powerful that your opponent is faced with two difficult choices. It becomes a matter of casting it in time for the deck's gameplan at that point (AKA: mana cost). Any creature with a high power level for 1 red is extremely potent for burn's gameplan regardless of the fact that, unlike most cards in a burn deck, doesn't make removal dead cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qweerios

If Browbeat cost less than 3, it would probably be played in multiples because the effects of Browbeat are so powerful that your opponent is faced with two difficult choices.

---

It's good to see someone taking the same line of thinking. :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jares

If Browbeat cost :r:, wouldn't you run it? :r::r: maybe?

I would like to point out that the sort of thinking that lead people to play Browbeat is the failure to realize that they spent :2::r: to play it - in other words, the card is overpriced for two possible effects that you can get out of it, especially in Burn's standards, and you won't be getting a bargain for whatever your opponents chose! This is obviously NOT the case for Vexing Devil, because, regardless of the situation, you're going to get a bargain for paying a measly :r: (and that's not even a very risky investment, ain't it?).

---

Cheers,
jares

What a pointless discussion.

What about playtesting about 100 Games with Vexing Devil in the Deck at different spots?

I startet that playtesting today but until i reach at least 10 Games vs any popular Deck i wont draw a conclusion about this card.
So stop discussing and start testing.

regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dmnd

What a pointless discussion.

What about playtesting about 100 Games with Vexing Devil in the Deck at different spots?

I startet that playtesting today but until i reach at least 10 Games vs any popular Deck i wont draw a conclusion about this card.
So stop discussing and start testing.

regards

---

I second the motion!

Like I said, I don't see the benefit of over-thinking Vexing Devil, as the design for it is really very simple. Testing it would be the best thing we can do to find out for ourselves, so that we would also be able to prove/disprove the points that we've been making.

I'm sure that we would all be interested in each other's testing results.

Kind Regards,
jares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marke

You keep referring to how a 4/3 for R is always a good bargain.. that point is just moot. The thing is that a 4/3 without haste or any way to get damage in reliably can just be very bad for a burn based deck... You're playing a card for minor benefit over other cards with a huge risk of doing nothing constructive for your deck.
This won't see any serious play in legacy after people realize how it sucks. Burn should not be playing cards that let your opponent interact so much with you because whenever burn is trading cards they are losing.. Burn is a tempo deck with no card advantage whatsoever thus you want to race and avoid interacting with them at any cost. Goblin guide does this well as it is easy to get in for 2 even if it does get removed, vexing devil however is actively making your opponents deck better against you.

[SNIP - Insults removed. Warning issued. ~NihilCredo]

---

To repeat myself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jares

I've already stated what you need to understand about Vexing Devil, and if you continue to fail to understand those simple points, then let's just agree to disagree.

-jares

---

Let us now move on to testing these cards for ourselves, as I'm sure that we'll all benefit from each other's results (even if the results might end up differently).

Regards,
jares

Everyone talking about how vexing Devil would be "blocked" late game could easily make that same argument for Marauders and Hellspark. Devil is clearly superior to both since:

A) Cheaper casting cost. 1CMC > 2CMC (4 CMC for the Hellspark). Having multiple Marauders or hellsparks early on can be very bad and slow us down. Having 2+ devils is going to kill them very quickly.
B) Doesn't die after 1-2 turns. If they don't opt for the burn and can't remove it, they are going to die!
C) Has a larger damage potential. Marauder has 2-5, Hellspark has 0-6, Devil has Either 4 or 0-12+. Consider that ALL of the creatures have variable damage, the devil is clearly above the other two.
D) 4 to the dome is amazing for burn for CMC1, while 1 for a 4/3 is also amazing. 2 mana for 5 damage is decent, but 2 for 2 is shit. 4 mana for 6 damage is kinda meh. If they have removal for it, they would have had removal for the Marauders or the Hellspark. If it's a swords, then Hellspark is even worse. Something to keep in mind is that they typically invest 1 mana for their removal. Investing 1 mana for the Devil is a lot less worse of a set back than 2.

If your argument for Devil is that "oh, it can get blocked/removed" then you must admit that the other two creatures are also bad in this way regardless of their haste/shock effect. Devil > Marauder/Hellspark because of the above advantages. If you won't or can't admit this, you're being disingenuous and are most likely trolling with buzzwords like "skill tester" and imposing your elitist attitude on others.

Take out Marauder and/or Hellspark and test the Devil. You can thank me later when you get those random god hands of 2-3 devils in your opening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

Everyone talking about how vexing Devil would be "blocked" late game could easily make that same argument for Marauders and Hellspark. Devil is clearly superior to both since:

A) Cheaper casting cost. 1CMC > 2CMC (4 CMC for the Hellspark). Having multiple Marauders or hellsparks early on can be very bad and slow us down. Having 2+ devils is going to kill them very quickly.
B) Doesn't die after 1-2 turns. If they don't opt for the burn and can't remove it, they are going to die!
C) Has a larger damage potential. Marauder has 2-5, Hellspark has 0-6, Devil has Either 4 or 0-12+. Consider that ALL of the creatures have variable damage, the devil is clearly above the other two.
D) 4 to the dome is amazing for burn for CMC1, while 1 for a 4/3 is also amazing. 2 mana for 5 damage is decent, but 2 for 2 is shit. 4 mana for 6 damage is kinda meh. If they have removal for it, they would have had removal for the Marauders or the Hellspark. If it's a swords, then Hellspark is even worse. Something to keep in mind is that they typically invest 1 mana for their removal. Investing 1 mana for the Devil is a lot less worse of a set back than 2.

If your argument for Devil is that "oh, it can get blocked/removed" then you must admit that the other two creatures are also bad in this way regardless of their haste/shock effect. Devil > Marauder/Hellspark because of the above advantages. If you won't or can't admit this, you're being disingenuous and are most likely trolling with buzzwords like "skill tester" and imposing your elitist attitude on others.

Take out Marauder and/or Hellspark and test the Devil. You can thank me later when you get those random god hands of 2-3 devils in your opening.

---

This is pretty much my conclusion. The argument that it's never what you want it to be when you need it to be what you want it to be is silly, as the alternatives wouldn't be either, except either side of this card is desired.

I guess that's kind of my point when you boil it down. I don't actually give a shit what they take when I play this card, because neither side is remotely beneficial for them and both sides are grossly beneficial for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

"skill tester" and imposing your elitist attitude on others.

---

This is the burn thread right? Elitist attitude regarding the laughing stock of legacy? Skill tester in one of the arguably easiest decks to play in legacy, heck, in magic?

On topic, my first impression from the new devil is that I like him. Of course, he suffers the same problems all punisher cards had/have, he allows your opponent to pick the worst option for you in every situation. With GG, Hellspark and Marauders they don't to choose if it doesn't come into play. If the game goes late, i.e., turn 4-5, and your opponent is at 4, you want to rip a Flame Rift, Price or Fireblast off the top, not this 4/3 that will never punch through for damage because it's turn 5, and the board is full Knights, Goyfs and whatever else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snap_Keep

This is the burn thread right? Elitist attitude regarding the laughing stock of legacy? Skill tester in one of the arguably easiest decks to play in legacy, heck, in magic?

On topic, my first impression from the new devil is that I like him. Of course, he suffers the same problems all punisher cards had/have, he allows your opponent to pick the worst option for you in every situation. With GG, Hellspark and Marauders they don't to choose if it doesn't come into play. If the game goes late, i.e., turn 4-5, and your opponent is at 4, you want to rip a Flame Rift, Price or Fireblast off the top, not this 4/3 that will never punch through for damage because it's turn 5, and the board is full Knights, Goyfs and whatever else.

---

Incorrect comparison, which makes this invalid. You can't blame swapping a mountain for a barbarian ring for not drawing Price of Progress when your opponent is at 4--you wouldn't have anyways.

That makes sense, right? Swapping Vexing Devil in for Keldon Marauders when your opponent is at 4 has no impact on your likelihood of drawing Price of Progress, Flame Rift, or Fireblast makes sense. So, logically, how is that comparison valid?

It doesn't matter what they pick, ever, because the card will always be better than Marauders. I'd keep hellspark over marauders simply because it has haste and you can make clutch plays later with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snap_Keep

This is the burn thread right? Elitist attitude regarding the laughing stock of legacy?

---

Laughing stock of legacy that just happens to be a dtb. :rolleyes:

I do agree though less talky more testy!

So far in my findings of proxy testing this guy against a few of my friends the other day he is super effective a applies pressure well for one mana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snap_Keep

This is the burn thread right? Elitist attitude regarding the laughing stock of legacy? Skill tester in one of the arguably easiest decks to play in legacy, heck, in magic?

On topic, my first impression from the new devil is that I like him. Of course, he suffers the same problems all punisher cards had/have, he allows your opponent to pick the worst option for you in every situation. With GG, Hellspark and Marauders they don't to choose if it doesn't come into play. If the game goes late, i.e., turn 4-5, and your opponent is at 4, you want to rip a Flame Rift, Price or Fireblast off the top, not this 4/3 that will never punch through for damage because it's turn 5, and the board is full Knights, Goyfs and whatever else.

---

Yeah, this is a pretty god awful comparison. You are assuming that we took out Flame Rift, Price of Progress and/or Fireblast for Vexing Devil, who would do such a thing?

The consensus across the forums, is that testing shows positive results using Vexing Devil. He is the 4 for 1 that Burn has been looking for, obviously he has his drawback, but it is expected. If it was simply a 4/3 for 1 it would be too powerful, and if it was simply 4 damage to the dome for 1, it would also be too powerful. The drawback that it has is (arguably) reasonable to see sanctioned play, end of story.

idgaf if Burn is a dtb on this website, it still is, and always has been, a joke. It's a scrub deck for people without legacy cards.

Why is it so wrong to suggest Devil won't do what you want when you want it? I'm suggesting that in not playing him at all there won't ever be situations where you need deal the final 4-6 points and you topdeck this guy. They'll let you drop the devil but since it's late game they have board presence and can just trade with him.

I think that testing will prove or disprove his effectiveness in burn, but for now I'm critical of it's consistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snap_Keep

idgaf if Burn is a dtb on this website, it still is, and always has been, a joke. It's a scrub deck for people without legacy cards.

Why is it so wrong to suggest Devil won't do what you want when you want it? I'm suggesting that in not playing him at all there won't ever be situations where you need deal the final 4-6 points and you topdeck this guy. They'll let you drop the devil but since it's late game they have board presence and can just trade with him.

I think that testing will prove or disprove his effectiveness in burn, but for now I'm critical of it's consistency.

---

But the point is, if you top-deck this guy when they're at 4-6, right, your only other alternative is top-decking a Keldon Marauder.

The question is, what is the best top deck, Keldon Marauder, or Vexing Devil?

That's the bottom line, that's quite literally and exclusively the only question one has to ask when considering the card. To you, what is the answer? Is Keldon Marauder's horribly mana inefficient damage and lack of permanence, yet consistent 2 damage, worth more than Vexing Devil's sheer power for it's casting cost?

I'd avoid hypotheticals unless you're being all-encompassing with the hypothetical (as in, examining a plethora of valid situations). I could outline hypotheticals that make the card look shitty too, it's not hard to make things up to do that. In a very specific side-case, Black Lotus is a terrible card.

I guess I'm a little confused at all the self-hating burn players in the burn thread telling burn it's the worst deck ever but defending to the death it's prior card choices though :confused:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snap_Keep

idgaf if Burn is a dtb on this website, it still is, and always has been, a joke. It's a scrub deck for people without legacy cards.

---

I really can't understand why you are even wasting the time out of your day to say anything in this thread if that is how you feel about the deck. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirbysdl

Your PoP example is an instance of confirmation bias. It's a very real and insidious thing, but it's possible to fight. You fight it by carefully considering not just the good times but also the bad times. You fight it by considering the average performance of a given card.

---

You either did not correctly understand my example, do not understand a confirmation bias, either way taking I term I used on page 113 and throwing it back at me only makes you look bad. The fact that in my example I cover how PoP can be anything between worthless to amazing shows I have no bias one way or the other. I play it knowing in G1 it could be anything from dead to game ending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirbysdl

If you're not evaluating cards based on their average performance, then it's immediately obvious why we don't see eye to eye on this issue. I'll just agree to disagree.

---

This is what happens when people who either don't know statistical analysis or only know it from a high school math class point of view. You can not average the 0 damage and 5 damage to say it will deal a mean average of 2.5 because it is a hit or a miss, a 1 or a 0, there are only 2 possible answers, there is no middle ground with damage. PoP, a creature, even Sulfuric Vortex you can do a statistical analysis of how much mean damage they will deal on/by turn X by setting variables such as number of turns, odds of non-basics based on the deck type opponent is playing, number and types of creatures played.

What people who argue against TWrath are really arguing against is the Mode of the card, the most common value. This number does matter and is adjusted planed for. If test it in Burn with an upper draw limit of 10 cards then the mode is going to be 0, but if you increase the upper draw limit you will reach a point where the mode goes from 0 to 5. That point is 17, when on the play. At 16 the mode is split because the likelihood of hitting vs missing are equal, but not averaged. You can increase the upper draw limit by playing Magma Jets (which I already play), run fetchlands (which I might reconsider), and getting more turns (which I already do since I don't often get run over by creatures on turn 4 or 5)

In short you and whoever the also wrong person you were quoting are using a mean average to argue against something that can only be correctly tested using a mode average. In the event you don't understand the difference between Mean, Mode, Median, and Range go look it up like you did confirmation bias however statistical concepts are not as easy to fake understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirbysdl

I agree completely with this. After seeing 11 cards off the top, the average T.Wrath will match a bolt in damage. Every card over 11 cards is just gravy. If you tend to see more than 11 cards beyond what you draw in your opener, T.Wrath is actually better than Lightning Bolt. Have at it!

---

funny... you agree and you can see that I am right you just don't understand the how's and why.