1st) EVERY SINGLE TIME you draw it after your 1st turn it will do 5 damage unless countered, stifled, or in other manner prevented. Damage is not dealt in averages. If it was PoP might not be played by anyone. We all remember the times we did 6 or 8 damage with a PoP and that's why we run it and we tend to discard the times it was a dead card. Every card in the deck has the potential of being a dead card depending on the game state.Originally Posted by kirbysdl
2nd) That all but meaningless average is also based on only seeing about 6 cards from the top of your deck each game. I tend to see more. My deck and play style allow me to live beyond the turn 5 brick wall of out of gas top decking death almost all of you face. Most of my wins are on turns 4 or 5 but I can play beyond. That makes TWrath much more useful.
Conditional spell are worse than the worse possible effect of a single side of the spell (this is basic logic btw, not even going to argue it).This, in a nut shell.
The card is either strictly better than Lava Spike or it's strictly better than Wild Nacatl.
No, you know what, you're right. It's terrible.
Thus this is always worse than:
R
Deal 4 to the dome
It has to be seen how often it is worse than that. If it's rarely, very rarely worse, then this is a good card. But i suspect there more than a few share of occasions where this is worse, meaning this is about as good as lava spike, maybe slightly worse, maybe slightly better. Nothing to write home about. It's decent, nothing more.
EDIT: can't believe people are seriously arguing in favor of that miracle burn spell. If math can't convince you the card is terrible, well then, be entitled to your opinion, but don't argue for it. The card is bad period. And PoP is run because ALL the DTB run a tons of nonbasic. It's not conditional, it's meta dependant. Those are two completely different things.
I'll take note of that the next time I play a spell. Every creature dies, every spell gets countered, every top deck is a land.
Gotcha.
You're missing the point. The point is THEY make the decisions. They won't give you a guy if they can't deal with a guy. They won't take four damage if they're at four life. You're just being purposely dense for the fuck of it. If you think it's a good card, great, play four of them. But then don't come on here in a month & talk about how you're some pioneer when you cut it.I'll take note of that the next time I play a spell. Every creature dies, every spell gets countered, every top deck is a land.
Gotcha.
And pretty sure in Legacy it's just always going to be a guy.
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.
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.
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!
Most people blindly suggest new cards for decks. True contributors also suggest what to remove. It's not about what's good, but rather what's better than the current selections.
@kirby, of course if you have guide and devil in hand you'll play the guide first.. it's a no brainer...
Devil will practically always be sacced... thus the guide must be played first. There is a very small chance they let devil live and you can succesfully use it to bait removal so guide can do enough damage to make up for the fact you're playing it a turn later...
@iamfrightenedtoo
a 4/3 for R is very often a bad play.. especially in legacy.
Turn before they combo it's dead... If they have huge board presence it's dead.. If they have spare removal it's dead...
@roguebuild
yes risk has to be weighed vs the potential reward but thunderous wrath is NO WAY close to being worth that. You'll only 'see' a very small portion of cards after the opening draw with RDW even if you play stuff to increase that like magma jet... Besides even if you draw you're forced to play it during your draw phase which is awful... Draw it turn 2.. you can't play a two drop anymore.. You can't avoid spell pierce or counters with it.. You can't wait to respond to stuff etc. It's just a terrible card for burn and it's even unlikely to be good enough in U/R..
@basara
don't be so stupid and act as if maverick will always swords their own guys against us... If you play this and they're still holding swords it's very likely they will just use it on this. Some people here argue that cards that are bad or played a certain way against burn will still be used the same way, of course people simply adapt if they see the devil...
Thunderous wrath and vexing devil are both skilltesters...
Subpar cards that look good at first hand because they are really efficient when they 'work'. They simply won't often enough to make them worth it, but as usual in spoiler season people immediately have their new pet cards and defend them without giving it proper thought. Devil is crap in legacy, go test it and you'll find out soon enough..
I guess I just don't..really understand how you can argue that.
At it worst, right, it's a 1 mana for 4/3 that dies before it deals damage (It's worst is not 1 mana for 4 damage because it's now better than lava spike). That is objectively the worst scenario, the other two scenarios result in it dealing more damage per mana than any other card in the deck in the shortest amount of time.
So when people say, "Well goblin guide is better because it can swing through an empty field for damage when you draw it." Except this is comparing a creature in it's most ideal conditions to a creature under it's worst conditions.
Let's examine the worst conditions of goblin guide:
The opponent has a mishra's factory.
It's not turn 1.
The opponent removes it in response to it's trigger, they draw a land and you deal no damage.
At it's worst, Goblin Guide accelerates your opponent into more business, and they don't even lose a card for killing it. Again, at it's worst, it's certainly happened to me, it's certainly happened to everyone, it happens.
You know what's really great though? More than one Goblin Guide, in fact, pre-vexing devil I would say 1-2 guides that aren't dealt with early are almost objectively the strongest openings for burn. A guide that deals 4-6 damage has done enough to win the game, 2 of them in that category -have- won the game.
So let's say you Vexing Devil and they have no removal, so they eat the 4 to the face (because if they don't have the removal in hand there's no way they're letting this thing sit on the field unless they're ballsy). So turn 2 you drop a Goblin Guide and swing, they didn't have the removal for Vexing Devil and the likelihood they top decked one is low, they might brainstorm for it but who knows, hell, let's say they remove Goblin Guide.
And then you drop another Devil second main phase. They've already eaten 4 for 1 mana once, can they really afford to do that again at this point? If they've fetched it would put them to 11 which is within kill-range when you untap. If they got hit by the guide IE: they have no removal, they actually kind of have to let it resolve and hope to find more removal.
So here's what I'm an advocate of: I'm an advocate of getting rid of bad creatures like Keldon Marauder and Hellspark Elemental, for cheaper creatures with greater effects, allowing me to make the most of my mana. And that's pretty much the bottom line.
What you're failing to realize is that Magic is a reactive and situational game and you're giving your opponent all the decisions on if the card is relevant in a given situation or not. Unless they misplay, it will never be. THAT is what you are missing. It's not as straight-forward as "it's either a 4/3 for a R or 4 damage for a R!" That's not what this card is. The card is "the opponent chooses the lesser of two evils & I just used resources to allow them to do so."
This card is bad in all formats but it's a scrub card that will be over-hyped & overvalued upon release. So get rid of the ones you get while they're up in price to trade for the stuff you need from all the players around you that are bad. (NOTE: This is why Star City has them for $10 pre-sale, by the way).
Last edited by P.S.; 04-11-2012 at 09:00 PM. Reason: I was way too confrontational
I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm looking almost exclusively at the first 3-4 turns of the game.
If they don't give you a guy, he's better than lava spike, which is..almost as ideal and wonderful as it can get. Why would you not want to pay 1 mana to deal 4 damage to someone in burn? If they do give you a guy and deal with it, that's ok, because they would have dealt with whatever other creature you just played as well.
Is that too far fetched of an idea? Like, that doesn't seem outlandish or crazy to me, that when you replace one creature with another creature, when someone deals with that creature, they would have dealt with the other creature too, so it's not a big deal. Except this one costs one instead of two, doubles as the strongest burn in the deck for it's casting cost, and if it does resolve and the opponent doesn't deal with it they're surely dead.
Keldon Marauders isn't a must-answer card, it's going to go away in a turn, you can chump it and move on. Hellspark Elemental can be removed as well, and the most common form of removal exiles it so you can't even play it again--I mean you might as well run Incinerate in this spot if you feel that 2 mana for 3 damage is actually worth it, no?
hellspark elemental and keldon marauders are more susceptible than the devil , because they cost 2 and are outclassed easily by the most played creatures in legacy KOR,and GOYF , i believe keldon marauders is the worst card in the deck , most of the time is just 2 damage for 2 , opponents can interact with him easily , also he is a bad top deck , devil is also a bad top deck but at least he cost 1... thats the reason the devil is superior, he is undercosted...
I will be happy every time my opponents plays Swords to plowshares in my devil , they cant gain life later on , i didnt lose tempo and is a 1 for 1 trade , yes the devil dies to a bolt but every creature of the deck does , i can see my creature base as Grim lavamancer,Gobling guide and devil , keldon and hellspark give our opponents more ways to interact , and are easily outclassed by goyf. and kor
I don't think it's far-fetched. In Legacy this card very much will be a R for a 4/3 dude. No one is paying 4-life to make you sac this guy in Legacy. Because they will instantly have you on Burn.dec if you play him & they know that their life is the resource in the match-up.
But Legacy is also a format where cards like Tarmogoyf and Wild Nacatl are arguably not good anymore, being replaced by cards like Nimble Mongoose, Delver of Secrets & Scavenging Ooze (of course 'Goyf is still crazy popular). Outside of Combo, all the decks in Legacy play dudes right now & thus every deck can deal with dudes, especially early dudes...because that's all Legacy is. Granted their early dudes will get Swords & Jitte's and yours will just stay a vanilla 4/3 that doesn't do anything. But hopefully you can burn them out before that happens.
I wish this guy was just a 4/3 for R because he would be so gross.
Would you keep Keldon Marauders and Hellspark Elemental over this card? In particular, I feel like Keldon Marauder is the weaker of the two, and I would rather see this card over him.
I'm just stating that conditional spells are, by their nature, worse than the worst of the two effects they can have. I'm not talking about non-conditional spells here. Do you understand this?
I'll try to be the more clear possible. Consider this example:
R
Your opponent choose 1- deal 1 damage to all creatures you don't control or 2 damage to all creatures you don't control
Now. What's this card? It's a R spell that deal 1 damage. Always. However, there ARE fringe situations, for example, Goblin Maniac or plague spitter when you're at 1 where the card is in fact worse than a R spell that deal 1 damage to all creatures you don't control.
Why is this? Because you suppose that you always choose the worst scenario possible. Taken this premise as true, any conditional spell can NEVER be better than any of its possible effects. In fact, any "punisher" spell is as good as its worst effect in the moment you play the spell.
As such, logically speaking, this is never better than a R: deal 4 spell. As its best, it's a R:deal 4. As its worse, it does nothing.
Now, take Goblin Guide. Goblin guide doesn't deal 4 at best. It deal 20. While those occasions are rare, the occasions where you can swing for 3 or 4 turn without blocks or removal because the opponent is building its board aren't rare.
This card is more comparable to Keldon Marauders, in the sense that it has a cap of the damage it can do. It deal 1 less total damage and cost 1 less, but it also is more prone to deal 0 compared to Marauders 2 (when they are removed or blocked by a monster).
Personally i think the card will see play and it will replace hellspark. But don't think the card is that better than Marauders because probably it isn't.
I actually wouldn't play Keldon Mauraders or Hellspark Elemental (or Figure of Destiny, for that matter). I think they're all bad & pretty much go against what you're trying to do with Burn. I honestly think the deck would be better off with something like Urza's Bauble or Mishra's Bauble than those sub par guys but those are certainly not amazing cards either. They just give you more graveyard fodder for Lavamancer and make it like you're playing a 56-card deck (which isn't really relevant since the games don't last very long).
But to answer you question directly, I think Hellspark Elemental is definitely better than this guy & Keldon Marauders will be a less dead card more often than this guy. But for playtesting purposes, if I were you, I would play him over the Marauder.
This seems to contradict PS's point of view that the card will almost always be a creature. In this scenario, it's best case would be that it could swing 5 times for 20 damage and kill the opponent. Your opinion would be that no one would ever let it be a creature or they would only let it be a creature and then immediately kill it (but goblin guide is more reliable because it has haste?).
I'm really not a fan of this argument, it's not being very well defined: Guide will only live longer than this card and only deal more damage than this card in the event that you are on the play and it is the first turn. At that point the Guide will always deal 2 damage. But if your opponent can kill it, they will, so I still don't see this as being that big of a deal (and the guide trigger may dig through land to business).
Well, if you're on the play & you go Mountain, Guide, 2 you. Your opponent is at 18 (regardless of if the trigger gets them a land or not) and you still have a guy. If you're on the play and you go Mountain, Devil you either have them at 16 and no guy or they have a turn to deal with it before you do any damage.
I don't know, I think it's a weird analysis. If there was a home for this guy, I think Burn is it. But in a vacuum from a power-level point-of-view, on a scale of 1-to-10, this card is like a 3 or a 4.
But in Legacy, I'm pretty confident that your opponent will always give you the 4/3 guy. I think it depends on the match-up though and if you're on the play or the draw. Like, against ANT, they might take the four because it will swing twice before they can "go off" which is 8 damage instead of four. But I think most decks, I.E. Maverick, Delver & various Blade decks will just let you have a 4/3 guy that they can deal with.
Thanks, P.S. that's the first reasonable situation I've heard of where taking 4 is the right play. I think we're all in agreement that in most situations though, it becomes a creature.
Most people blindly suggest new cards for decks. True contributors also suggest what to remove. It's not about what's good, but rather what's better than the current selections.
I would be very interested to see and play test your version of burn. Could you post it for us please?
Demon is like a 1cc damage sorcery. Not bad eh?
so everyone will play a 3/3 for 1R which often only deals 2 damage. You will also play a 1/1 for R, which lets you pump it. You will also play a 3/1 for 1R that dies at the end of the turn because you can play it again from the yard...... and also almost exclusively gets Path'd..... but you wont play a 4/3 for R?
got it.... its clear now.....
Your arguing a creature that is a 4/3 for R mana is a bad card, but you play Marauders? If two damage was so crucial, just play Shock, and end this discussion.
This thread is out of control, its flooded with people who clearly do not play Burn... I say the same thing in the Pox forum, play-testing and tournament play are two very different things.
Sorry, but its true. If the 4/3 for R will just get killed off before it attacks, then all creatures in Legacy will get killed before they can attack.
And whoever made the comment about Vexing Devil being killed before the opponent combos, is flat out dumb [sorry the comment is dumb, not the poster. poor choice of words]. Because EVERY creature deck can lose to Combo.... A donkey could have made that argument.
Last edited by iamfrightenedtoo; 04-11-2012 at 11:56 PM. Reason: unintentional insult
The best bang since the big one!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
