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!Originally Posted by Marke
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
I always find it more pleasant to keep things simple, don't you?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.
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, payingfor 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.
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.
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.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!
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
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]
Last edited by Nihil Credo; 04-12-2012 at 10:15 AM.
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.
Do you know what assuming does? It makes an ass out of you and me.
Get it...? Ass, u, me?
... ffs I was trying to be funny...
It's good to see someone taking the same line of thinking.
Cheers,If Browbeat cost
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
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
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
To repeat myself:
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.
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.
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.
Laughing stock of legacy that just happens to be a dtb.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
funny... you agree and you can see that I am right you just don't understand the how's and why.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
